ANWR Drilling
TV ClubHouse: Archives: ANWR Drilling
Lancecrossfire | Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 01:08 pm     The not in my back yard syndrome is not aware where the energy supply is--it's about no one wanting the mess that goes with it in the same location as they are. There is a big chunk of Texas that is considered on one the most polluted and contaminated locations on the earth--all because of the oil industry (and added by other industries--but most of it is oil related). That is the trade off you have to be willing to give up for that oil in Alaska. Those living in places far away are much more likely to be in favor of it than they would be if they were sitting on top of that oil field and it was a wilderness site. If your issue is really having the energy source here at home, then renewable sources is the way to go. Solar, wind and nuclear. Of course folks shudder at the word nuclear power plant, which means they really aren't so interested in having the power locally. The French have had great success with nuclear power because they got over the politics of the waste. Nuclear power is more efficient than water, wind, oil, coal and solar. The fuel is long lasting, and can be recreated within a reactor. There is a power reactor within eye site of my work building--done properly it's very safe. And the waste--there is the technology to deal with it--but the politics stops it because of the "not in my back yard" syndrome. (if you are worried about a major melt down Cherobyl happened because 12 separate safety conditions were over ridden--if safety conditions are followed you don't get those results) Wind and solar are very clean, however are not cost affective for large populations. But in some cases would make excellent options. And waste is non-existent. Space needed for wind power is extensive in order to set up wind mills. Same for solar energy. You just have to be willing to give up lots of square limes for your energy. The issue of Bush being in the oil business. It's a fact. If the president (without regard to a name) was in a business he or she was promoting to be used in a location and way that was controversial, they would get called on it no matter what. It's not about bashing Bush--it's about conflict of interest no matter who does it--using power for your own gain while in such a public office. So it really is a question of priorities. If you want to use a resource that will be consumed in a relatively short amount of time as opposed to ones that won't, and if you are willing to crap up a good sized portion of land when you don't have to, I would ask what you are really looking to achieve. (the "you" in this post is in a generic tense, not anyone specific) |
Whit4you | Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 05:13 pm     I'm against it. That's the short version want the 30,000 word version? |
Crossfire | Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 07:43 pm     My opinion on matters like this and others that have been brought up in this thread, and a few others that also touched on these idea are summed up by reading what I consider an amazing article. The Doomslayer |
Squaredsc | Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 07:51 pm     yep gal, its amazing how bush keeps popping up. <clinton, clinton, clinton, clin.....ton> |
Sia | Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 09:24 pm     Someone up-thread mentioned that as the world's population increases we'll naturally consume more resources and be forced to encroach further into previously-untouched areas for fuels. Gee, I have an answer for that. What if we keep the population under control by allowing people to choose to be put to sleep as a means of Zero Population Growth? We could offer their survivors a cash benefit in exchange for the loved ones' deaths. It could be done very humanely, with a lovely service and music and videos of nature scenes from generations before, when the land was relatively unspoiled. Then, so we don't have to harm any more animals by turning their helpless little furry selves into meals for us cold, heartless, unfeeling humans, let's recycle the people we've put to death into edible wafers of food. We could color the wafers green and pretend that the source of the food was plant material. Say...we could call the food source Soylent Green!!! |
Kaili | Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 09:53 pm     Okay, yeah, I said the population goes up and consumption goes up with it....I don't wanna eat people crackers though!!!! I'm a vegetarian dammit! |
Crossfire | Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 10:16 pm     The last two messages, especially the one from Kaili that first mentioned the population issue would be prime numero uno targets to read the article I linked to. The missing link here is that as population goes up, so does consumption...but so does production. We haven't run out of anything yet, and it really does not look like we will either. That link again : The Doomslayer Another good read on the same topic from the other side of the fence created by someone who set out to blow the first one out of the water and ended up supporting it: The Skeptical Environmentalist. Measuring the Real State of the World. |
Bastable | Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 11:44 pm     I'm against it. If Reagan hadn't eliminated federal research in solar power, we wouldn't be asking this question now. Sadly, as long as our government is run by oilmen, we will always need oil. Never mind how far we lag behind Asia and Europe in alternative energies and alternative transportation. |
Sia | Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 12:58 pm     Kaili, I'm so glad you took my post in the light-hearted manner in which it was meant! I was trying to inject a note of humor by being totally absurd! Without following all the links to the other articles posted, my first assessment is that drilling for oil--on a limited basis, so as to disturb the ecosystem as little as possible--would be an acceptable plan, as it would help to decrease our dependence upon the Middle East for oil. I do wish we would more seriously persue wind, solar, water and other alternate power sources. I saw a three-wheeled electric car that is rated as a motorcycle callte "The Sparrow" on television last night that is said to be "ideal for city and freeway use," but I just don't think it would be SAFE at highway speeds, given that big, heavy cars and trucks would just total the poor little Sparrow in any accident in which it would be involved. This would, undoubtedly, result in highway fatalities. The electric car would be nice in places where full-size cars and trucks can't travel, though. |
Crossfire | Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 01:39 pm     The American lag in alternative energies by my calculation is nothing to get our panties in a knot over. Europe is slightly ahead largely on the contribution of two countries. Denmark which still derives 83% of its power from fossil fuels which is 13% higher than the US, and the other being luxembourg which you could run on a fresh set of 'D' cells if you wanted to. Asia is behind the US despite the claim that it is somehow ahead. % of total in alternative sources: US: 2.21% Europe: 5.28% Asia: 1.94% |
Sadiesmom | Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 02:28 pm     OK, just have to put just a little amusing information here. With all the government information being distributed, the amount that is being identified as the land being disturbed, does not include roads, counts the square footage as only including the actual connection to the ground. So if your have 100 feet of pipeline and it is being supported on footings every 10 feet that are about 1 square foot, that pipeline would be counted as 10 square feet of impact even if it is hovering inches abouve the ground and the drilling towers which can be quite huge will be on platforms so their square footage, again can be minimalized. So, according to a political conservative site, we will impact only 3 square miles, in effect it will actually be closer to a quarter of the area. In addition to what is looming over the ground, the drilling will be angled and cover a lot of the area under the ground. This can be compared to dropping a drop of plutonium on your lawn. It may only touch on the surface of of a square inch but a lot of the surrounding area both above and below ground and around the surface of the ground is poisoned. All for less oil than we ship from Alaska daily and sell to Japan. We could increase our oil if we just enforce the original requirement that any oil drilled out of Alaska is sold only in the US. A final thought. Who is going to patrol and protect this oil investment? In Alaska a drunk driving a truck decided it would be funny to shoot the pipeline and created a leak of a billion gallons of oilt that seemed to take forever for the oil companies to seal. Did quite a lot of damage to the area, too. |
Northstar | Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 05:15 pm     Well, I'm please to see some input on this topic. I have lots of thoughts on this, some contradicting each other. Here are only a few of my rambling rants. My guess is that following a couple placated environmental impact studies, it’s going to open. I'm all for eliminating our dependency on mid-east oil, then again who isn’t. In part, I think it would budge us from the proverbial pickle juice we're currently soaking in. However, the argument for moving away from mid-east oil by opening ANWR falls on my deaf ears. It was the argument used by former Sen. Murkowski when he tried to push the bill through Congress a couple years back. The fact is the reserves sitting in ANWR will put but a small dent in supporting our consumption, and will offer minimal impact on the mid-east situation. One may say it’s better than nothing and I agree. All I’m saying is the argument doesn’t hold much weight. They can do all the directional drilling they want, but if it's not there, it's not there. Should we go get it? I reluctantly say yes, and will explain my reason in a bit. I wholeheartedly support putting money into alternative energy production. I simply don’t understand the argument against supporting new technologies. If it's bolstering the economy we're worried about, new research and production of alternative means would do just that. Energy production costs a bundle up front no matter where it's derived from. Again, it’s back to that costly pickle juice that concerns me. Being I live in Alaska, I'm vitally aware how opening ANWR would boost our state's economy. And other state's for that matter: many folks working on the North Slope (where the oil is) live in other states and bring their paychecks home. Not to mention, Alaskans are huge supporters of tourism in Hawaii! But money is not the reason I lean toward wanting it opened. My only argument, and it's rather weak, is that this small amount of oil will never be recovered if it isn’t pulled now. Oil companies are presently stationed in northern Alaska and, the pipeline infrastructure is in place, and these factors will not always be the case. The facts are, the profit vs. cost margin is closing in for the oil companies, the current wells are capable of producing fewer barrels a day than a decade ago, and exploration costs are soaring. Once the companies pull out, the cost for going back to get ANWR oil would surpass the profits. In a nutshell; no profitable oil, no oil companies, no pipeline maintenance. That is why I say get it out now. And to the Doomslayer I say, grass may grow in New York sidewalks, but dinosaurs only die once. And about the man who shot a hole in the pipeline, after great difficulty finding an impartial jury, this idiot is spending time in the clink. All that said, my reluctance lies in what will become of this oil. It will never be enough. I find our society’s constant need for bigger, better, more than the Jones attitude terribly unbecoming. A hollow way of expressing importance. It’s not my oil, and I’m not the world’s parent, but I do see it as handing a self-absorbed child a box of candy and ask them to be responsible with it. |
Crossfire | Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 05:28 pm     Heh, dino's may only die once, but I certainly hope you are not going to blame that on people? I'd rather look at the bright side. Should something catastrophic happen again, I will be fully cheering on the great planet earth from wherever it is I rest to pull another great rabbit out of its hat, and repopulate the earth once again, just like it did in the past. |
Northstar | Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 07:54 pm     Hey...nope. I'd only blame dino's demise on people if they had smacked them with their 8 cylinder, 12 passenger SUVs on the paved road to suburbia. And that's not the case. I do believe there's room for improvement when it comes to utilizing the gifts little dino's left for us. And I don't need flow charts from an excitable professor or an award winning environmentalist to convince me of that. |
Crossfire | Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 07:57 pm     Yeah, that's certainly a fair point. No argument here. |
Calamity | Monday, December 30, 2002 - 03:01 pm     Northstar: Do resident Alaskans still receive checks from the state government for its oil revenue? That isn't meant to imply anything, I just wasn't aware if that program still exists. The info I've found about it has been contradictory. I oppose drilling in ANWR. Sadiesmom brought up an excellent point that it isn't just the proposed drill site that is going to be affected. Even with "clean", modern drilling practices, so much infrastructure will be needed that a huge part of the refuge will be impacted. And while some animals have adapted to the Prudhoe Bay drilling & pipeline, other species have been decimated so that case cannot be used to justify opening ANWR. It is estimated that it will take up to ten years of preparation before we will get any oil out of the proposed site. And the total reserve will probably only provide about six months worth of America's oil demand. Even if someone wishes to overlook the enviromental impact, does that really seem like a cost-efficient use of our resources? If the US wishes to maintain its preminence in the world, we had better improve our alternative and eco-friendly fuel technologies and public attitude. We may experience a temporary economic hit but in the long run, we will be better off - physically, morally and finanacially. |
Crossfire | Monday, December 30, 2002 - 03:39 pm     Lots of information at this website if anyone wants more info. There is no question that this is from the pro-drilling side of the debate, but its info none the less. http://www.anwr.org/ |
Cyn | Monday, December 30, 2002 - 05:57 pm     NO! NO! NO! to drilling and actually believe that any combustibles are not the answer. But, I know a bit or two about this subject due to some income work that I do, so here's my two cents: As a result of intensive exploration, the world's proven oil reserves climbed from about 660 billion barrels in 1980 to more than 1 trillion in 1990. Despite controversy, they have hovered over 1 trillion ever since. OPEC officials claim that the 11 member countries can provide for the world's energy needs for roughly the next 80 years. OPEC currently supplies about 40% of the world's oil and holds 60% of the oil available internationally. It will continue to supply most of the developed world. According to the US Department of Energy, OPEC oil production will nearly double to about 57 million barrels of oil per day by 2020. Oil prices are likely to remain generally around 22-26 US$ per barrel for at least the next five years. Oil production outside the OPEC nations has not yet peaked. By 2010, China, Russia, other former Soviet Union and Kazakhstan countries will be major suppliers - if political uncertainties in Russia and Kazakhstan do not block investment by Western oil. These new oil supplies coming on line will make it even harder to sustain prices at artificially high levels. Growing competition form other energy sources also will help to limit the price of oil. Solar, geothermal, wind and wave energy will ease power problems where these resources are most readily available, though they will supply only a small fraction of the world's energy in the foreseeable future. Worldwide wind-power generating capacity grew by 6,5000 megawatts in 2001 alone, the fastest rate of growth yet recorded and 50% more than the previous year. Photovoltaic solar energy production has been growing at a steady 25% per year since 1980. Natural gas burns cleanly, and there is enough of it available to supply the world's total energy demand for the next 200 year. Consumption of natural gas is growing by 3.3% annually, compared with 1.8% for oil. Nuclear plants will supply 16% of the energy in Russian and Eastern Europe by 2010. My fear with countries using nuclear power, however, is what can be done with the waste. But, absolutely NO! to drilling in Alaska. The idea that there is a backyard that isn't connected to yours is just silly in this day and age. The Internet has removed this stigma, No? |
Crossfire | Monday, December 30, 2002 - 06:10 pm     Interesting post. Most of what you said seems to agree with a lot of what I have come to know as well. Here is the one thing I don't understand about drilling up a wildlife reserve of all places.Canada despite all the hubbub about the middle east is the largest exporter of oil to the US.We have something like 1 trillion barrels of oil in the oilsands currently being developed out west. Why the heck not buy that before you go digging in a wildlife reserve? By the time that is required...it might not be required. Off topic, but I also think its too bad that nuclear energy has such a bad reputation, other than being pretty darn expensive (despite the fact that starving N. Korea seems to be able to afford it) it is also quite clean. |
Cyn | Monday, December 30, 2002 - 06:12 pm     money! |
Crossfire | Monday, December 30, 2002 - 06:18 pm     Not sure I can say anything now. I think you have left the room. Eitherway, certainly some good points made. |
Cyn | Monday, December 30, 2002 - 06:23 pm     i'm here Crossfire. What I was trying to say is that your second paragraph in 6:10 post is all because of money and who controls it. my BIG problem with nuclear power plants is in it generating a waste that could possibly be used for disgusting radioactive type of weapons. different pieces of medical equipment can also, thus the reason for such tight controls in disgarding it. |
Moondance | Monday, December 30, 2002 - 06:26 pm     Cyn  |
Crossfire | Monday, December 30, 2002 - 06:36 pm     OK, Canada controls it, but if it has to be anyone but yourselves, I can't personally think of anyone better you could pick to have such control. I guess what I am saying, is that since you are already getting so much from us, and this new potential well has so little oil relatively speaking, might as well grab some that is already being extracted as a better alternative to getting involved in a wildlife reserve. I certainly grant your points on the problems with nuclear energy, and I am not dismissing that, but I really don't think nuclear weapons on the balance do as much damage to the world as fossil fuels do. One is a potential problem, and the other is certain. I get the feeling that there will be things you don't want to get into for whatever reason, I hope I have not broached any of them. I was just pleased to see someone with apparent genuine knowledge unlike myself enter the discussion. |
Cyn | Monday, December 30, 2002 - 06:44 pm     Crossfire, please... all input into a conversation is just as valuable as the next. i should of never used the generic words money or control. it is a much more elusive word that i am looking for, but one that started to make my brain hurt when I thought about it. |
Crossfire | Monday, December 30, 2002 - 06:49 pm     Ok...well I guess there is not much more I can say about that then. If the word comes to mind, feel free to drop by. |
Northstar | Monday, December 30, 2002 - 07:10 pm     Calamity, yes we do still get checks. It's a somewhat confusing formula, but checks are based on invested dividends, and those amounts are dependent on the rise and fall of the stock market. I've lived in AK since '90 and I think my first check was around $350 (hey Crossfire, I need some stats here), and it's mostly gone up every year. Last year's was somewhere around $1500.00. Estimates for next year's amount will be somewhere near zero! I know for some people having that money is the difference between filling the fuel oil tank or chopping wood for the rest of the winter (honestly, I know them). However, every year crime rates sky rocket around the time the checks hit the banks; DUIs, domestic violence, child abuse, robberies, etc. It's sad really. |
Crossfire | Monday, December 30, 2002 - 07:30 pm     Hehehe, no problem. I live for numbers. If it is the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Program you are talking about. I think you can find dividend projections on page 16 of the linked pdf file.
Brief history and financial Outlook for fund growth and income in pdf format. Past dividends can be found on this page. |
Northstar | Monday, December 30, 2002 - 07:35 pm     You're a hoot. |
|