No Alaska Oil

[Cosmoline]

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.

If you will read my earlier posts, I pointed out that the equipment and most of the work is done on ICE ROADS during the WINTER. Do you know how much wildlife is wandering around ANWR during the winter?

THere is no scientific evidence that the drilling propsed in ANWR would have any negative impact on wildlife. None. There are emotional and baseless claims that the porcupine caribou are somehow going to refuse to mate because there are some holes in ANWR. Given the willingness of caribou to mate in VERY large numbers in parts of the state where there are roads, villages, planes, etc. I don't see how some largely unmanned wells and pipes are going to upset them. ANd there is no scientific evidence that it will.

The purpose of a wildlife refuge is as an area for wildlife to grow and thrive. Hunting is allowed in refuges, as is mineral extraction. So long as the wildlife numbers are healthy there is no conflict.

We WILL drill one day, no matter what. All Environmentalism, Inc. has done is postpone the day. We will win, because we are here. And thanks to their tactics most of us now hate and deeply mistrust the lower 48 enviro movement. I *KNOW* they lie like dogs about ANWR, so what else are they lying about?

 

[atomchaser]

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

Fast breeder reactors produce much less waste than current thermal reactors and most of the waste isotopes have relatively short half-lives. Lots of advanced designs are out there. I think we will waste the next 10-20 years on a lot "green" energy research and development only to come back to nuclear as the only viable alternative. I just hope we have not become an economic basket case by then.


Not sure about the economics of drilling on the North Slope, but the environmental concerns are a red herring. The place is miles and miles and miles of tundra with an ocassional fish camp. If you fly over it in a light plane you think it will never end and you keep an eye on the fuel gauge. I was there in August and saw very little wildlife save a few whales that had washed up on the beach.

 

[Chainsaw]

I would be willing to bet that most that are against the development of oil wells in Alaska use petroleum products on a daily basis. Could this be considered hypocrisy? Fact is I like oil and electricity.

Seems everbody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.........Chainsaw

 

[Silver Bullet]

Fast breeder reactors produce much less waste than current thermal reactors and most of the waste isotopes have relatively short half-lives. Lots of advanced designs are out there. I think we will waste the next 10-20 years on a lot "green" energy research and development only to come back to nuclear as the only viable alternative. I just hope we have not become an economic basket case by then.


Not sure about the economics of drilling on the North Slope, but the environmental concerns are a red herring. The place is miles and miles and miles of tundra with an ocassional fish camp. If you fly over it in a light plane you think it will never end and you keep an eye on the fuel gauge. I was there in August and saw very little wildlife save a few whales that had washed up on the beach.

Great post.

 

[Art Eatman]

From photos of ANWR and direct observation of the Aransas WR on the Texas Gulf Coast, the main difference between them seems to be temperature. The landform's the same, and the vegetation has similar appearance. More trees in the Aransas WR, of course, but away from the water...

In the Aransas WR, you can hunt whitetail, and see oil and gas wells. How about "peaceful coexistence"?

Pricing in the awl bidness is a case of the tail wagging the dog. A new production of a million bpd would mean a big price swing downward.

Sure, we need to do a bunch of alternative stuff. We're in the process already, in some areas. Unfortunately, the most efficient methodology insofar as electricity is concerned is subject to wild-er-"eyed" emotionalism: "No Nukes!" and all that nonsense. The problems with nukes are not of engineering and science or even geology. They're political and emotional.

And most of the rest of the problems come from ourownselves: "Consumeritis", sez me, not a "consumer economy". I'm not interested in laws against stupid spending, but I sure get tired of seeing it, and seeing the unintended consequences of it...

Art

 

[jefnvk]

I *KNOW* they lie like dogs about ANWR, so what else are they lying about?

Well, I posted a link in APS a few days ago. Seems they are trying to convince the lower 48 that the polar bears are endangered, so they can get them listed as endangered, and then use that to say that greenhouse emission are hurting the polar bears, forcing the gov't to cut down on emissions.

You know, I just come to the realization that the environmentalists must want us to live in the stone age. They won't let us drill for oil, they won't let us build nuclear plants, what do they expect to do?

 

[stevelyn]

I resent a bunch of Lower 48 pukes who have absolutely no stake in the matter, pretending they have the right to take away one of our choices of econonmic self-determination based on non-issues. :banghead:

One of the main reasons Alaska was even admitted to the Union was because of the economic self-determination that we have on tap in the form of natural resources.
Alaska has abundant natural resources in the form of fish/seafood, timber, oil, coal (huge deposits of ultra low sulphur) gold, copper, uranium and Deity knows what else.
In my mind not allowing us to drill in the useless, frozen, mosquito-infested swamp is a violation of the Statehood Compact, and if that's the case then maybe we should offer back our statehood and become a territory again and become a burden to Lower 48 taxpayers just like the good ol' days. But the Statehood Compact just like the Constitution......."it's just a goddamned peice of paper" without meaning..... right?
It damn certain that as things now stand, we're not much better off being a state if people who don't live here can tell us what to due with our resources.

For you folks that seem to think that we're going to run out of oil, I would invite you to read Jerome Corsi's new book: "Black Gold, Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and Oil Politics." Hopefully, it opens a few eyes.

I'm all for alternative fuel sources too. Not because I believe we're going to run out, but because I believe we should have more choices and should be allow to make that choice based on free-market economics. I would like for my choices to be more than just firing up a chainsaw and knocking down a few trees for the winter.

As for ANWR, it's over 20,000,000 acres. Try and wrap your mind around that. The areas under consideration for drilling is in the neighborhood of 2000 acres. We could cut Alaska in half and piss off Texas by making it the third largest state.
Anchorage is nearly 800 miles from where I live on the AK Peninsula. It's a two and a half hour flight on a twin turbo. We're talking about a very small area in the big scheme of things.

Edited to correct the acreage of the 1002 Area

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I resent a bunch of Lower 48 pukes who have absolutely no stake in the matter, pretending they have the right to take away one of our choices of econonmic self-determination based on non-issues

I thought the land they were talking about drilling on was federal land, not state land.

 

[stevelyn]

It is federal land. However the oil under it is ours and the Statehood Compact allows for oil and gas leasing. All we want Congress to do is honor the Statehood Compact.

 

[PCGS65]

I would be willing to bet that most that are against the development of oil wells in Alaska use petroleum products on a daily basis. Could this be considered hypocrisy? Fact is I like oil and electricity.

Seems everbody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.........Chainsaw

Chainsaw you sum it up pretty good!!

Cosmoline I posted this thread early this morning. Just read all 84 posts.
While reading I felt like posting many times. But after all is said and done you have posted about everything I wanted to. Thanks
It's too bad you live so far away. I'd like to buy you a beer.
Now lets get to drilling.

 

[richyoung]

The answer is all in a name, my friend. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. .......
Now, whether or not there should be federally protected lands in the first place is a whole other ball of wax.

+FoF

Quiz time boys & girls - what document spells out what the Federal government CAN and CANNOT do? Answer: the Constitution. Question: when and where does the Constitution say the Federal government can own or control land. Answer: "...such District
(not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and
the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United
States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of
Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

If you can show me any OTHER authority to keep and regulate land, ANYWHERE in the document, I'll eat it - remember it must be SPECIFIC:, other wise, "Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people."


That's right - ALL your wilderness areas, wildlife preserves, and other Fed land grabs - unconstitutional. You heard it here first.

 

[Thin Black Line]

geoff40, do you honestly think we get most of our oil from the Middle East?

Most comes from ourselves, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuala; NOT the ME.

Our share of ME imports has been increasing and will constitute our
majority share in the future since they hold the largest of the world's
reserves and the countries in this hemisphere have peaked or will
peak sooner than the ME.

What the vote against more North American drilling means is that our
military will be involved in further ME entanglements in the near future
as we protect a dwindling natural resource that is currently vital to
maintain our nation's standard of living, industry, critical infrastructure,
and national security. However, this is inevitable as we either become
more involved now or later. Waiting till later would leave the Russians,
Chinese, and Euros more entrenched in the region and harder for us to
get in. It would also make things more potentially violent.

But, what do we do about the long-term prospects for this situation? Oil
supplies will only get tighter in the future. We're going to have to change
our way of living or risk quite a shock when the tank eventually runs dry.

 

[IndianaDean]

I believe they're lying about alot of things. Environmentalists' real goal IMO is to gain power. They are just another form of socialists trying to take control of how things are run.
I just looked up Corsi's book on Amazon. It does contain more on the information I posted about oil being a renewable energy source, and not a fossil fuel.

 

[Master Blaster]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/5atab.html

 

[enfield]

Hopefully we'll have some Alaska oil soon.

 

[ravinraven]

Environmentalism has NOTHING to do with the environment!

ID id'ed it correctly.


"Environmentalists' real goal IMO is to gain power. They are just another form of socialists trying to take control of how things are run."

rr

 

[Silver Bullet]

This reminds me of the story written by a former environmental group member. He observed that certain, umm, recent immigrants were trashing the parks. They never cleaned up after themselves when they finished camping, just left a pig sty. (This data point was confirmed to me by a California schoolteacher I know who had made the same observation).

The member reported this to his group, which ostensibly was on a mission to conserve the parks. The group’s officers told him they weren’t interested, because since the immigrants were a minority it would be politically incorrect to try and do anything about it.

This is when I learned that some environmental groups are not about the environment, they’re about statist and socialist politics. The “environmentalism” tag is just a gimmick to get financial support, IMHO. YMMV.

 

[Art Eatman]

Stipulate we could replace every personal vehicle in the U.S. overnight with a new vehicle of 50+ mpg. That wouldn't help reduce the demand for oil.

Anybody got any notion about what's done with the OTHER HALF of a barrel of oil? (Half, roughly to transportation fuel; the other half to petrochemicals) We'd still be drilling/developing/using the same number of barrels of oil. Just using it in a different manner.

Oil/gas provides us with the plastic used in all these computer/information-transfer systems, among other things. Plastic for packaging; for pipe, for car parts, and on and on. Done Christmas shopping? Seen any plastic toys in the stores? And where do you think the material comes from that goes into synthetic gun stocks or Glocks?

Natural gas is the sole raw material for ethlene, from which we get more than 300 consumer products.

I don't believe Corsi's thesis, but even if he's right, the oil ain't gonna be in a cheap and easily-developed location. If it were, it would have already been found. As it is, we've certainly found all the cheap and easy stuff. What's left is hard to get to and has to be transported a helluva long way. A lot of that long way is through "Indian Territory". IOW, it ain't gonna be $20/bbl oil.

Back in the Carter era, the joke was, "Hear about the Polish energy policy?" "No; how's it work?" "About like ours."

Right now, the Enviros have us locked out of a helluva big supply of natural gas, as well as near-offshore oil. IMO, we should be tapping into that in order to control the price of oil and gas, while working our tails off to get alternative energy sources into use.

And, overall, have less government interference into daily life in the guise of energy regulations.

Art

 

[lbmii]

The answer is in the small town of Carthage Missouri. I am from the Carthage Missouri area and have several degrees in environmental biology. I know what I am talking about here.

There is an answer to the oil problem and it is called Thermal Depolymerization. Read this article:

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm

We need to get on this as soon as possible. Trash into gas. Many environmental groups are opposed for political reasons. They do not want an actual workable cure but focus on utopian dreams of a non-consumer socialist society.

 

[Art Eatman]

lbmii, stipulate you're absolutely correct: The "time" aspect is the major factor. A conventional refinery of a few hundred thousand bbl/day is a billion-dollar deal, and needs some three years to get on line. So, first overcome the political inertia and the psychological inertia surrounding the "Will it work? Prove it!" stuff. Then maybe figure on getting your system on line in a large enough magnitude to be useful...


I went wandering over tho the "Whiskey & Gunpowder" website, and ran across this little gem.
http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/Archives/20051222.html

If you want to play "What if...?" and not sleep well at night, this little article oughta serve the purpose...

Art

 

[lbmii]

Yes things would have to be done on a huge scale and all of this would take time.

The concept of Peak Oil is starting to get around. I bought Conoco Phillips stock last December and will hang on to it for a long time.

There is a strong effort to kill Thermal Depolymerization before it can become viable. I suspect it is a power/money play.

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/smallbusiness/articles/0,15114,1018747,00.html

 

[coylh]

So what will people argue about after we've burned up all the oil?

 

[jefnvk]

Whether or not solar panel's mess up migratoy birds, probably. Or whether or not eagles are killed in windmills.