No Alaska Oil

[Derek Zeanah]

I'm against it, because it's simply delaying the inevitable. What we need are a bunch of cheap nuclear reactors scattered across the US -- I'd even be OK with French style breeder reactors. Why use oil for heating when we can produce all the electrical energy we need?

 

[ReadyontheRight]

We would do ourselves much more benefit by requiring all new vehicles sold to get 5 more MPG within 5 years than by drilling for oil in Alaska. This requirement alone would net us far more oil than new drilling in Alaska would.

Dictated fuel economy standards kill people.

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/regulat/regmar98f.html
http://seclists.org/lists/politech/2002/Mar/0054.html

Some tidbits:

"CAFE-induced downsizing -- which has reduced the weight of the average car by about 500 pounds -- has increased car occupant fatalities by between 14 percent and 27 percent, according to a 1989 study from Harvard University and the Brookings Institution. "

"Paradoxically, a NHTSA report last year found that a 100 pound increase in passenger car weight would save 500 lives a year "

Even politicians can't change the laws of physics. To get your 5 more MPG, cars would have to be lighter and less safe.

I am against drilling for oil in Alaska, though not for environmental reasons.

I think we need to develop a real energy policy that will wean us off petroleum completely. Until we are off petroleum, though, it makes sense to me for us to use up other people's oil first. Save Alaskan oil for the time when all other supplies are exhausted. Alaska can be our ace in the hole, but only if we don't squander it when we don't have to.

Lone Gunman - I agree with you on most of this - let's use up non-US oil first.

But how or even WHY should the federal government be in charge of weaning us off anything? Let the market decide.

 

[Cosmoline]

Pass the problem on to your children?

As everyone on this board knows, "for the children" is an argument you should be VERY skeptical of.

 

[rick_reno]

And what is your plan when the finite amount of oil in Alaska is used up?

Pass the problem on to your children?

I don't think that is a good plan.

Not a good plan? How can it not be a good plan? It's the deficit solution and appears to be working for the spend happy Bush administration and the Republican Congress.

 

[Cosmoline]

Why is this ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS! Do I try to tell you people whether or not you can build a house or a new freeway?

 

[IndianaDean]

I did not say I don't favor finding alternate sources. I think they should be hyping the heck out of electric hybrid cars, rather than saying we may have hydrogen cars in 20 years. I am just not opposed to drilling for oil.

Here's something I saw on the Science Channel this summer that will stir the pot. Some scientists now say oil is a renewable source. It does not come from fossils. Apparently there are some old fields in Mexico that dried up in the 70s that are now producing oil again. Scientists now believe oil is a by product of methane gas as the gas is compressed beneath the plates of the earth. (that may not be exact, but it's as close as I can remember). A scientist said if oil was a fossil fuel, the raw oil from Alaska would have different chemical makeup than oil from the Middle East, and there was no difference between the two's makeup.
I asked a guy I know who worked in Kuwait on oil fields in the 70s, and he said "H*ll yes it's true. The Iraqis had some fields in the 70s that started producing oil again that had been dried up and no longer used."
I'm not a scientist, so I can't say. The Science Channel said the oil companies have not been public about this discovery, because they couldn't come up with convincing reasons with the public as to why they keep escalating the prices if it's a renewable source. Of course, the general public doesn't know about the costs of refinement, etc, but that's what the program stated.

 

[~z]

I generally just read on this board and keep my opinions to myself but...

No offense intended, but I believe leaving it to the children is the answer. It will take a set of fresh eyes to see around and through this. I'm aware the collective "we" have been looking into alternative energy sources for a number of years. However, this goes far from finding a new way to power your car. Petroleum is so ingraned in our daily lives it will be difficult to ever wien ourselves from it entirely. But why to we need to find a single fuel to completely replace oil? All the ALT NRG sources mentioned above have a way of helping, but it will take a new set of eyes to retool the mechanics of our daily lives. We need a gradual way to slip away from our dependance on oil. And it seems like ALT NRG is on the horizon, but we are all looking to find one single object to do everything oil does without modifying the machine.
~z

 

[Cosmoline]

No offense intended, but I believe leaving it to the children is the answer.

Fine, then DON'T BUY IT OR USE IT! But don't tell us we can't drill it or sell it.

 

[Fleet_of_Foot]

Why is this ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS! Do I try to tell you people whether or not you can build a house or a new freeway?

The answer is all in a name, my friend. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I'm in general agreement with state's rights, that what goes on in your state is none of my business. However, ANWR is a national park, which means it's "ours" just as much as it's "yours". Hence, the answer to your question. Or so I think.

Now, whether or not there should be federally protected lands in the first place is a whole other ball of wax.

You do make some good points on the hypocrisy of the environmental movement in general, but it's not a unique phenomenon, nor is it limited to just one strata of society.

+FoF

 

[~z]

Cosmo, I'm on your side here, DRILL DRILL DRILL. I cant see what it would hurt. From what Ive read, the wildlife will bennifit, the local economy will bennifit, the nation as a whole will bennifit. I'd gladly come up there and chuck up the first bit. And my hunting truck is an 81 Chevy Blazer, so I do buy it and use it ALOT, and I intend to continue.
~z

 

[petrel800]

Some intemprent thoughts for you . . .

Would someone explain to me why the enviromental movement has any credibility? It is a haven for comunists who were left with nothing to do after the Soviet Union collapsed.

As for drilling for oil in Alaska, this section of land was set aside many years ago for oil exploration, so lets go explore.

For those with the it won't make a difference / it will take twenty years to make a difference arguement, then we better get started now, so in twenty years when we have a problem, the faucet will be ready to turn on.

For the dreamers who still think that they will put a gallon of water in there car and drive forever on fusion technology, wake up and recognize that ain't going to happen or hold your breath until it happens. At least the holding your breath option will lower the demand for oil.

For those who believe that the enviromentalists are right that we should try hydro and wind power. Why is it that the same environmentalists are now fighting new sights for these forms of energy because they effect wildlife?

Energy is a tough subject, all of it occurs naturally, and it must be harvested. In the end, if the government would get out of the way, the market would take care of itself. You'd have wind where wind was the cheapest, nuclear where nuclear was the cheapest, and so on and so forth.

Also, developments usually come out of exploration and research. By preventing engineers and the folks in the know from exploring for oil and harvesting it, and preventing people from running nuclear power plants, we are stiffling our own ability to come up with newer, more efficient ways to produce, refine, and harvest energy.

Do you really think new developments in energy are going to come from a guy teaching at a University, or a guy who spends time working with the current forms of energy and looking at new ways to improve and enhance them?

 

[db_tanker]

woo hoo...finally a topic that I know a whole lot about!!!

I work for Baker Hughes here in Houston. For those familiar with the oil patch, you know we are one of the "big three"...Baker, Halliburton and Shlumberger.


I specifically work with the "formation evaluation" end of it...I work on tools that go take core samples and such..then the bug guys (microbiologists) look for specific "bugs" that indicate hydrocarbons in the formation. We have been sending more and more tools far far north of where we are...lots of jobs going in Casper, areas around Utah, etc etc.

We just got through sending several coring units and a team of techs to Alaska to work until the thaw hits. Okay...enough about that....this is where I am getting at....

Directional drilling...I can start drilling in my backyard, and then at a certain depth of my choosing, kick out a dog-leg and continue drilling for at least 25,000 feet...horizontally...we can even go ABOVE horizon with some drilling tools... Offshore derricks, semi-subs and drill ships can actually have 5 or more well-heads from their one position...all through directional drilling...where am I going with this is...the environmentalists...should be called mental. We go in with a footprint that is so small, as has been described by others on here...very little impact, and what impact there IS occurs at the initial stage. We can drill multiple bore-holes from one location.Our drilling crews are trained to be enviro-safe...we train for it...same time we do our safety training we do our EPA training. I actually think that there is someone or some group out there that would be terribly dissapointed if the ordinary person found out just how careful we really ARE...you might call us oil-field trash...but nowadays its just a nickname, not an epitath.

Ah well...just adding to the discussion....

D

 

[spacemanspiff]

As for drilling for oil in Alaska, this section of land was set aside many years ago for oil exploration, so lets go explore.

thats the thing though, its a known FACT that oil is up there, they know exactly where it is. no exploration is necessary anymore, least not on the small area they want to drill.

 

[Cosmoline]

However, ANWR is a national park,

NO IT IS NOT! It is a wildlife refuge, which is completely different. And since no wildlife is going to be injured by drilling holes in the ground during the deep freeze, there is no conflict between the purpose of a wildlife refuge and drilling. Indeed when Congress set ANWR up it was understood that future drilling would be allowed.

 

[jefnvk]

Now ask yourself, who does it really serve to open up ANWR to oil drilling?

What does it hurt?

What is leaving the oil sit in the ground going to accomplish? If it is there, use it up. It serves no purpose sitting there, at least we can get some use out of it if we drill it.

Is it hurting you by drilling it? If so, then you have a complaint.

The thing is, they want to drill on about 2000 acres, out of about 20 million acres. That is a small fraction of the place.

 

[Sindawe]

Indeed when Congress set ANWR up it was understood that future drilling would be allowed.

Cosmoline, would happen to have citations for that handy? Spare me the time of searching for it if you do. I've had reservation on drilling in ANWR since the stated reverses I've seen are not that large, and that it was set up AS a refuge. A place were humans rarely go and the wildlife is mostly free of our influence. The original charter stating that drilling is expected at some time would negate my latter point of opposition.

I agree we as a society should work to wean ourselves off of petrochemicals as an energy source. We do much more than run our cars and trucks with it. From my understanding, it is also the feedstock of our synthetics industry. Everything from the plastic in the keyboard I'm typing on, the Goretex in my boots to the Sudafed I took this morning and antibiotics I have to occasionally force down the cats derives from the black icky stuff in the ground. Not to mention the fertilizers to grow the veggies in my lunch.

Build the breeder reactors to power the trains and light the cities. Start putting solar shingles on the houses to capture the sunlight and feed it into the grid, or even just slow crack water to get the hydrogen to burn in our cars. Put up the windfarms where the wind blows most of the time, the birds will learn to avoid them.

 

[Hollowdweller]

QUOTE=Lone_Gunman]Why do you guys want to drill in Alaska? Just for cheaper oil? If so, your plan is very short sighted.

Oil will eventually run out, or become so costly that it will be cheaper to develop other fuels. We need to keep Alaska's oil in the ground, for now. Oil is still cheap compared to other commodities. It makes sense to use up our enemy's oil supply before we use our own.
[/QUOTE]

True very true. We do not have an oil shortage. We have a cheap oil shortage

I know of LOTS of oil wells that are capped off right now because they are not producing enough for the companies to hire people to take care of them. Back in the late 70's the area I went to college in BOOMED. Halliburton opened a big place oil and gas wells everywhere. Along came the mid 80's OPEC fell apart, the price dropped, and the companies shut down all the wells. Wasn't the environmentalists who shut it down. Was the companies who could get it cheaper from the mideast.

I see 2 things as far as ANWAR:

First why screw up anothe unspoiled peice of land when we have wells capped off in other places?

Second, what if we DID get into a big war and the supplies were cut off? Would we really want to risk being without in a pinch because we used up all of our reserves just so we could have it cheaper today?

ANWAR is all about giving the oil companies a big field to pump out of so they don't have to hire as many people to get it as they would if they'd uncap some of the wells they already drilled.

 

[Grey54956]

Some thoughts about oil...

We need to wean ourselves off oil. This is imperative. Higher CAFE standards do not kill anybody. This is a terrible misconception. The problem with the argument is that automakers have been going about it wrong: shaving weight off of vehicles. This can be done safely with more extensive use of aluminum and lightweight materials, or it can be done by using thinner steel components (which robs them of their strength). Guess which alternative our automakers use. Additionally, engine technology is improving at an incredible rate. Instead of making engines progressively smaller and lighter while holding power and torque output constant, our automakers continue to strive for ever larger, ever more powerful engines, regardless of fuel efficiency. Today, it is commonplace to have 250 horsepower in vehicles that ten years ago would have had 150hp. Marketting studies may show that people want more power, but they certainly don't need it.

In regards to the ANWR debate, who benefits from oil drilling? Certainly the people of Alaska will get their welfare check, which is probably nice for them. However, the real winners will be the US gov't who will receive licensing fees from Big Oil, and Big Oil that will harvest and sell the oil. The American people will not see a drop in price in gasoline prices.

 

[geoff40]

No, they want a foot in the door to the place. First it's 2000 acres ("surface" acres, nice catchy term) but then it's 2000 more, then more and more...and the Alaskans get their extra $1000 checks to buy their viewpoints. Mr. Senator gets some hidden kickbacks, which he hopes you'll never find out about. Or his family does. You Alaskans sold out long ago and your viewpoints are more than a little skewered and crooked. They'll only sell the oil on the world market anyway, and all of you know it. None of that oil will ever see the US domestic supply tanks. Just like the oil we "get" from Alaska now, the oil they told us we needed when we built the pipeline for you.
None of you "drill drill drill" people ever say much of anything about the future, planning for it in other words. Total madness how you go on about the evils of foreign nations, but are unwilling to put anything on the table that will allow us to break the chains we are bound to foreign countries by. It's always someone else's responsibility. Short term goals ought to be combined with long term ones too. The Bush energy policy calls for us to become about 1/3 more dependent on foreign oil in the next 20 years. Pretty piss poor idea, IMO.

 

[Silver Bullet]

What we need are a bunch of cheap nuclear reactors scattered across the US

I agree with this, provided we have a solution for waste disposal.

 

[Monkeyleg]

First off, Senator Stevens got an agreement years ago when those 19 million acres were set aside, and now some of his fellow senators are renegging on the deal.

Second, nobody is going to see it.

Third, the oil companies are going to pay for it, and they're going to hire locals to do the work (meaning: jobs).

Fourth, even if it just produces a million barrels a day, that's about the same amount that we import from the Saudi's. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to kowtow to the Saudi's?

Fifth, as db_tanker points out, the drilling technology is such that one small well can draw from miles and miles around.

Six, why wait? If it's going to take 20 years before the rigs would reach full production, doesn't it make sense to get going now?

 

[spacemanspiff]

No, they want a foot in the door to the place. First it's 2000 acres ("surface" acres, nice catchy term) but then it's 2000 more, then more and more...and the Alaskans get their extra $1000 checks to buy their viewpoints. Mr. Senator gets some hidden kickbacks, which he hopes you'll never find out about. Or his family does. You Alaskans sold out long ago and your viewpoints are more than a little skewered and crooked. They'll only sell the oil on the world market anyway, and all of you know it. None of that oil will ever see the US domestic supply tanks. Just like the oil we "get" from Alaska now, the oil they told us we needed when we built the pipeline for you.

are we happy with our legislators? of course not. but our opinions are certainly not bought by big oil companies. the only reason our viewpoints appear skewered to you is because we live up here, the environmental-lobbyists dont. they lie, and sell propoganda that whiny liberals down in the states (who would never visit alaska, much less ANWR) eat like hotcakes.

None of you "drill drill drill" people ever say much of anything about the future, planning for it in other words. Total madness how you go on about the evils of foreign nations, but are unwilling to put anything on the table that will allow us to break the chains we are bound to foreign countries by. It's always someone else's responsibility. Short term goals ought to be combined with long term ones too. The Bush energy policy calls for us to become about 1/3 more dependent on foreign oil in the next 20 years. Pretty piss poor idea, IMO.

contrary to your opinion, the fact of the matter is that opening ANWR will mean jobs for generations to come. jobs for alaskans, as well as nonresidents who wish to earn a living working on our north slope. aside from trying to prevent ANWR from opening, what have the whiny liberals done to plan for the future? dont blame us when there is virtually no action being done on your part.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I say drill ANWR, use the oil, and sell the excess to the rest of the world. The increased supply will force prices to drop, and world economies, including our own, will boom. Spread the prosperity. Make money, not war.

 

[Fleet_of_Foot]

NO IT IS NOT! It is a wildlife refuge, which is completely different. And since no wildlife is going to be injured by drilling holes in the ground during the deep freeze, there is no conflict between the purpose of a wildlife refuge and drilling. Indeed when Congress set ANWR up it was understood that future drilling would be allowed.

Okay, I stand corrected. I should have said "federally managed lands", which Congress controls, which therefore, we all have a say in. I selected a poor choice of words, indeed!

I don't disagree with most of what you said above, other than the part about there's "no conflict between the purpose of a wildlife refuge and drilling" and one other point listed below. Surely, you must be joshing us! I think that statement is a complete contradiction.

refuge [noun] 1 : shelter or protection from danger or distress 2 : a place that provides shelter or protection 3 : something to which one has recourse in difficulty

Secondly, I'm not sure about your statement that "when Congress set ANWR up it was understood that future drilling would be allowed". I don't see anything about drilling in the original Public Land Order 2214 that created the refuge, unless it's cloaked in legalese. From what I've gathered, drilling didn't become a possibility until the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. Anyone else have a take on this?

Getting back to the why I originally posted: all this running in circles does not change the inconvenient facts that the area will likely supply a pittance of oil reletive to our consumption, that it's federally managed (meaning we all have say in how it's used via our Congress critters), and that the motives for drilling have little to nothing to do with making our country more energy independent.

+FoF

 

[spacemanspiff]

remember that its the same camp saying 'its only a small amount of oil in ANWR', as the one that says 'guns that are carried concealed dont prevent any crime'.

both statements are based in faulty logic, and are completely wrong.