[maxelson]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by vega24:
Start drilling in Alaska, cut a good deal with Mexico for some of their oil, and institute a solid energy policy and remove Iraq from the picture. Damn I'm good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALRIGHT! THAT'S IT!!! NEW TOPIC. DRILLING IN ALASKA? You are JOKING, right? I agree with shaking our dependency on foreign oil, but drilling in Alaska is amazingly shortsighted. It will take AT LEAST 10 years for Americans to see ONE drop of that oil (by admission of the DoE in a study published last week- I'll poke around for the actual report- was broadcast on NPR last wednesday, read it in the Globe last thursday)- with the more accurate time period being 15 years, for a supply of oil that will last us THREE MONTHS?!? I would HOPE that by that time, there are MORE THAN a few of us driving around in electric cars. The whole notion is utterly absurd. We are willing to totally destroy an virtually untouched wilderness for what comes down to NOTHING. We need to start shifting OUR DEMAND, NOT the SUPPLY.
Sorry about the shouting, but this topic truly burns me. I cannot believe that Americans cannot see that this issue is PURELY political. It has nothing whatever to do OIL. LOOK at the numbers. It AIN'T hard to see.

[Scott_H]

No oil company would waste 10 years of work to get three months worth of oil. Your numbers sound like FUD.

[bobette]

The idea sounds absurd for 2001, but expect to witness many absurd actions in the next 25 years. The thought of it is really sad actually...

*sigh*

Hey, what about that spy scandal !?!?

[RAzaRazor]

3 Months Worth?

Gotta love fuzzy math. When a group is against something, they can always conjure up some numbers to "prove" their point.

There are Billions of barrels of oil available in the Area where they want to drill.

The environmental impact will be minimal. If they were talking about RAzing the whole area, that would be different. I don't think the 2 caribou that live in the area will be too upset about it. They will probably snuggle up to the warm equipment!

This can make a real difference to the US economy. Imagine the day when the US is not dependant on the whim of a foreign country for it's supply of Oil. And the day when we can tell OPEC to go F*&k themselves because they want to cut production to keep prices artifically high.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
3 Months Worth?

Gotta love fuzzy math. When a group is against something, they can always conjure up some numbers to "prove" their point.

There are Billions of barrels of oil available in the Area where they want to drill.

The environmental impact will be minimal. If they were talking about RAzing the whole area, that would be different. I don't think the 2 caribou that live in the area will be too upset about it. They will probably snuggle up to the warm equipment!

This can make a real difference to the US economy. Imagine the day when the US is not dependant on the whim of a foreign country for it's supply of Oil. And the day when we can tell OPEC to go F*&k themselves because they want to cut production to keep prices artifically high.

...and just how many BILLIONS of gallons of oil does the US go through weekly? Even if it were 10 million daily (I am fairly sure I am underestimating that number), well, that puts it at a 100 day supply for a billion barrels, which, as I recall (I hope I am not remembering this falsely) is the rough estimate of what is there.
And about the minimal environmental imapct: in what alternate reality are you living? Take the example of the Amazon (granted, the only equivalent here is that they are both wildernesses). Scientists agree that the BEST way to destroy or, at the very least, permenantly damage an ecosystem is to put a road through it. Roads bring traffic, air and noise polution. Heavy equipment brings all of these to a much higher degree. I am pretty sure that I don't need to describe what that little trinity will do.
WHAT have you got against finding alternative energy? Totally removing our dependence on petrolium products is a win, win, win situation. Please, thrill me with your acumen. Tell me why, in this age of information and technology, this is such an impossible thing? Do we really have to wait until it is too late? What the frig is going to wake humanity up?
Why am I so angry about this issue? Because it's personal. How DARE someone take away my air to turn a buck? Destroy the planet for cash. Well, that's just great.
During the '96 campaign, Bob Dole stood in front of a buch of Minnesota loggers and said, "Economy MUST come before Environment." WHAT KIND OF STATEMENT IS THAT? Get as much as you can now, my friends, because there sure as hell isn't going to anything to spend it on down the road.
You know, I'm not an extremist. I don't advocate putting spikes into trees, I don't support ecoterrorist tactics. But there HAS to ba a compromise. Killing one of the last great wildernesses to satisfy an "need" is NOT an answer.

[Scott_H]

The thought of it is really sad actually...

Why? We're having an open discussion here. Tell us why you think it's sad->

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by maxelson:
...and just how many BILLIONS of gallons of oil does the US go through weekly? Even if it were 10 million daily (I am fairly sure I am underestimating that number), well, that puts it at a 100 day supply for a billion barrels, which, as I recall (I hope I am not remembering this falsely) is the rough estimate of what is there.
And about the minimal environmental imapct: in what alternate reality are you living? Take the example of the Amazon (granted, the only equivalent here is that they are both wildernesses). Scientists agree that the BEST way to destroy or, at the very least, permenantly damage an ecosystem is to put a road through it. Roads bring traffic, air and noise polution. Heavy equipment brings all of these to a much higher degree. I am pretty sure that I don't need to describe what that little trinity will do.
WHAT have you got against finding alternative energy? Totally removing our dependence on petrolium products is a win, win, win situation. Please, thrill me with your acumen. Tell me why, in this age of information and technology, this is such an impossible thing? Do we really have to wait until it is too late? What the frig is going to wake humanity up?
Why am I so angry about this issue? Because it's personal. How DARE someone take away my air to turn a buck? Destroy the planet for cash. Well, that's just great.
During the '96 campaign, Bob Dole stood in front of a buch of Minnesota loggers and said, "Economy MUST come before Environment." WHAT KIND OF STATEMENT IS THAT? Get as much as you can now, my friends, because there sure as hell isn't going to anything to spend it on down the road.
You know, I'm not an extremist. I don't advocate putting spikes into trees, I don't support ecoterrorist tactics. But there HAS to ba a compromise. Killing one of the last great wildernesses to satisfy an "need" is NOT an answer.

[/B]

Ummm, Yeah.

First, that was BillionS, with an S, indicating a multiple amount.
Barrels and Gallons. There is a difference. A Barrel is a lot more than a gallon. (55 times more.)

Second, How dare you waste MY air, by wasting the time telling me (badly) how I am wrong. Wouldn't your time be better spent developing this grand new technology that will change our lives. Last time I checked, electricity is still generated by steam. That steam is generated by making water really hot. The water is made hot by burning coal, oil, or gas. (Nuclear is the exception. I love nuclear, but in general, people are sheep and afraid of it.)
I would love to have an electric car, but until I can get one that isn't powered from the local utilities, there is no point.
Give me a nice, nuclear powered Tahoe anyday!!

Third, Environmental Impact. Hmmm, have you ever heard of something called THE OCEAN??? They want to drill in coastal areas. Which means that they can use this cool new device call a "Ship". They will "Ship" the oil in "Tankers" to a different location. Also, only a few sites are needed. They can drill in any direction from one location

Fourth, the Alaskan supply is not intended to supply the needs of the US in entirety. We will still get oil from outside sources. The difference is that when a war breaks out in the gulf, and they cut down our supply dramatically, we will be able to make up the difference. Or when OPEC decides that $50 a barrel is really a fair price (to them), we will not be dependant on them. We can tell them that we will not buy (in large volumes) at that price, and they should consider their decision a little more carefully.



[This message has been edited by RAzaRazor (edited 02-21-2001).]

[This message has been edited by RAzaRazor (edited 02-21-2001).]

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
No oil company would waste 10 years of work to get three months worth of oil. Your numbers sound like FUD.

http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01...2/2001&PrgID=2
You'll need that RealPlayer crap to hear it. I am hoping this is the right broadcast- I can't test it because my proxy won't let the streams through.
Gimme a few minutes. I'll cough up the DoE report as well. I really have to keep this stuff more organized.

[shmerek]

I agree with everything you say maxelson. Alternative energy sources is something that reaaly needs to be researched but fat chance with a oil man as president.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
Ummm, Yeah.

First, that was BillionS, with an S, indicating a multiple amount.
Second, Barrels and Gallons. There is a difference. A Barrel is a lot more than a gallon. (55 times more.)

Second, How dare you waste MY air, by wasting the time telling me (badly) how I am wrong. Wouldn't your time be better spent developing this grand new technology that will change our lives. Last time I checked, electricity is still generated by steam. That steam is generated by making water really hot. The water is made hot by burning coal, oil, or gas. (Nuclear is the exception. I love nuclear, but in general, people are sheep and afraid of it.)
I would love to have an electric car, but until I can get one that isn't powered from the local utilities, there is no point.
Give me a nice, nuclear powered Tahoe anyday!!

Third, Environmental Impact. Hmmm, have you ever heard of something called THE OCEAN??? They want to drill in coastal areas. Which means that they can use this cool new device call a "Ship". They will "Ship" the oil in "Tankers" to a different location. Also, only a few sites are needed. They can drill in any direction from one location

Fourth, the Alaskan supply is not intended to supply the needs of the US in entirety. We will still get oil from outside sources. The difference is that when a war bears out in the gulf, and they cut us off dramatically, we will be able to make up the difference. Or when OPEC decides that $50 a barrel is really a fair price (to them), we will not be dependant on them. We can tell them that we will not buy (in large volumes) at that price, and they should consider their decision a little more carefully.



[This message has been edited by RAzaRazor (edited 02-21-2001).]

FIRST, right you are. Misspoke on the gallons thing. Meant Barrels. Apologies.
SECOND- hey, kid, you don't have to read if you don't want. Blame yourself on that one. The technology IS there (eg fuel cells) and... no. Hold off. I did not CLAIM to have the answers, did I. What I do claim is that we need to keep moving it along, so when, not IF, Charlie, WHEN we run out of the precious crude, we have an alternative.
Third. THIRD. Third. I cannot believe I am actually responding to this. I shouldn't have to. OH, YES, GREAT ONE, I HAVE HEARD OF THE OCEANS. The oil companies are doing a GREAT job of f---ing THAT up, too. I know I don't have to give a history lesson on that, but If you'd like...
FOURTH... you just negated your first argument about dependence. You are fooling yourself if you think that this oil will make up anything if OPEC cuts us off (which I do not find to be a likely event. They like money just as much as we do). The amount that is there is comparatively minute. It ain't going to make a dent in the prices.
Again: What have you got against reducing demand?

I wonder. If WE were the big oil producers, who would be complaining? Would WE be jacking the prices?

[RAzaRazor]

Hey, I don't have anything against reducing demand for petrolium products.
I don't particularly enjoy it when the air is so thick, I cannot see the mountains 2 miles away. When a viable replacement is available, I will be all for it. Fuel Cells are a good alternative, but they are too expensive to use right now. So we are left with the chicken and the egg problem.
They will be too expensive to use until they are mass produced, but they won't be mass produced until the cost comes down.

I am not saying that we should always depend on oil, what I am saying is that we should be capable of being mostly self sufficient until such a time as we don't need oil any longer. We can be delusional and imagine that some big thing is going to revolutionize our lives really soon, or we can face the reality of this life and realize that people are too set into their way, and that Oil companies have too much control to change anytime soon.
It would be foolish to imagine that the oil companies are not actively trying to hide new technoligies that have the potential to put them out of business.

[DBursey]

Razor, you missed an important source of electricity; hydroelectric, which is created by converting the kinetic energy of moving water into electricity via electromagnetic induction.

[DBursey]

I find it deplorable that our dependence on petroleum is such that we find it necessary to open a valuable ecological reserve such as the ANWR to oil exploration and development. The fundamental problem is the inability of the US to reduce oil imports. Despite three recessions since 1973 triggered by rising imported oil prices, oil imports have increased, driven by consumer demand and reduced domestic production. Oil imports now exceed 54% and continue to grow. Today, the US imports 10.5 million barrels a day, including 1.4 million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia. Prices have risen sharply because of increased demand (cold weather) and restricted supply (OPEC).

The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) consists of 19 million acres. Congress has put 8 million acres into formal wilderness status and designated 9.5 million acres as wildlife refuge. Those 17.5 million acres form a protected enclave, almost as large as South Carolina, which can never be developed. The US congress set aside the remaining 1.5 million acres of the coastal plain for potential exploration and development. In 1998, the U.S. Geologic Survey estimated that the Coastal Plain could have up to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That equals roughly 30 years of Saudi oil imports.

By any measure, oil drilling is still far from a green industry, but advances in computing and exploration methods, new techniques that allow dispersed underground targets to be reached from a single drilling site and different waste disposal practices have greatly reduced the environmental damage from a modern-day oil patch. Unlike oil produced in other countries, oil in Alaska is produced under the strictest environmental standards in the world; care is taken to minimize the impacts to tundra and wildlife. That said, we all know from experience that transporting oil, whether via ocean tanker or continental pipeline, is often an environmental disaster waiting to happen. As long as we are dependent on oil, these disasters will occur, whether in Alaska or in shipping lanes that straddle the oceans and surround our coastlines.

Everyone should acknowledge and assume responsibilty for lessening our dependence on fossil fuels.

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Razor, you missed an important source of electricity; hydroelectric, which is created by converting the kinetic energy of moving water into electricity via electromagnetic induction.

True, that is a clean source of energy, but not altogether reliable.
Part of the problem in California is that the Hydroelectric plants in the Pacific Northwest are running down the resivoirs. The entire region has not received enough rain in the past few years to keep the resivoirs up to normal levels. These plants can't sell California enough power, because they cannot make enough extra supply.

If anyone mentions Solar, I gonna go off! That is NOT a viable source of power for millions of homes and businesses.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
. So we are left with the chicken and the egg problem.
They will be too expensive to use until they are mass produced, but they won't be mass produced until the cost comes down.

I am not saying that we should always depend on oil, what I am saying is that we should be capable of being mostly self sufficient until such a time as we don't need oil any longer. We can be delusional and imagine that some big thing is going to revolutionize our lives really soon, or we can face the reality of this life and realize that people are too set into their way, and that Oil companies have too much control to change anytime soon.
It would be foolish to imagine that the oil companies are not actively trying to hide new technoligies that have the potential to put them out of business.

Right. That's where we agree. This is where I become a true misanthropist. Rember when Ears Perot was running on the "Town Hall" platform a bunch of years back? Nice idea. Never work because the average American cannot be counted on to vote for the good of the country- the majority are only interested in voting for the good of themselves. I desperately hope that I am not being hypocritical there (I don't think I am, but I reserve the right to issue an apology if I come to a different conclusion)
Same thing here. The electric cars are available and the cost is coming down. Right you are about how they get their electricity, but it would still be evolving people's minds, making progress and reducing the amount of petrolium products we use (I think we can agree that our cars are the biggest consumers) on a widespread level.
The point is evolution. People won't change unless they are forced to. I see the further drilling as a big ole enabler. Combine that with an environmental slam, where can we possibly win?
Last point (in my reply) about Environmental impact. An oil man is in complete control of the EPA. The person he appointed, based on her record, is willing to let corporate America police itself.
I'm scared. Hold me.

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by DBursey:

Everyone should acknowledge and assume responsibilty for lessening our dependence on fossil fuels.

Quite well Said. The demand for oil does need to be reduced. I just love seeing all the Expeditions and Excursions and V10 SuperDuty Trucks running around Utah with the Special Environmental License Plates. It's a damn joke. I got rid of my 18 MPH Sports car, and now drive a absolutly gutless Toyota that gets 35 MPH. I switched because I was tired of paying so much at the pump, so often. (Ok, I still have my Mercedes with the V-8, but that is for the weekends! The Toyota commutes everyday.)

My problems with Electric cars are: Lack of Range, They get their energy from the local power supply, and the styling. Why in gods name do Automotive engineers make all electric vehicles look S&^t? Even if they solved the first 2 problems, I still wouldn't be seen driving around in something that looks like it was designed by an un-artistic retarded child with glaucoma.

(Apologies to all the Retarded Children with Glaucoma out there!)

[RAzaRazor]

One More Thing...

If we could dramatically reduce our demand for oil, then we very well could be self sufficient! But Reality is still there, and it still sucks.
America will never give up it's demand for oil until there is no more oil to be had.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
One More Thing...

If we could dramatically reduce our demand for oil, then we very well could be self sufficient! But Reality is still there, and it still sucks.
America will never give up it's demand for oil until there is no more oil to be had.

Agreed. Once again, I am not allowed to diminish my misanthropy.

I too drive the car I do out of guilt (it is convenient that I also really like the car). I get 38MPG. With my second car, I had the choice of a 6 or 4 cylinder. I test drove the 6. I liked. I also felt so guilty about losing another 10MPG, that I decided that I just couldn't justify it. It also kills me to see how common and easy it is to buy an inspection sticker. In my former State, RI (aka The Most Corrupt State in the Union, aka The Little State that Could- and if you say it can't it'll send someone to break your legs), one can spend $50 bucks on a car that billows more blue smoke than a two stroke Mack truck and no cop will ever question how you managed to pass inspection. Once, I had to insist that the inspection station actually perform the emissions test. They just didn't feel like it.
And I also agree with you about the "Love Your Mother" bumpersticker bearing SUVs. I actually saw one on a Durango yesterday. So. What does that Durango get... about 11 miles on the highway?

[Scott_H]

Fact of the matter is that fossil fuels are hard to beat. Suck it out of the ground, boil it off, light a match and BOOM. Energy.

People are not going to move to alternate sources until they have a good reason ($$$$$$). When gas cost too much then people will reduce usage and look for some other way.

It's just the way it works.

[shmerek]

the way it works sucks.

[bobette]

Scott_H,

The thought of scarring another beautiful part of this world for our consumption needs is sad (thinking that only a few pipes'll be sticking out of the groung in order to pump gazillions of gallons of fuel is kinda naive). Just like the forests of Madagascar, the Amazonian rainforest, the oceans or even our own Quebec forests for pulp and paper for that matter. Hey, call me a peace signing old granola fart (well, don't, actually, LOL) but human need often equates taking away from Mother Nature. That's the sad part.

Oh, but I love the open discussion, man! That part makes me happy-happy-happy! *bangs his fist on the table, sending bottle caps and pretzels flying in the air*

[osiris]

whatever happen'd to 'new technology' energy resources - advanced fusion/fision/solar etc? We're still only thinking about dead dinosaur juice and remains? Now we have to destroy the remains of our wilderness areas too....

hmp.

GWB - small on brains, big on balls - a dangerous combination.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
Fact of the matter is that fossil fuels are hard to beat. Suck it out of the ground, boil it off, light a match and BOOM. Energy.

People are not going to move to alternate sources until they have a good reason ($$$$$$). When gas cost too much then people will reduce usage and look for some other way.

It's just the way it works.

Exactly is my point about the American public. How many good reasons do we need? There are already entirely too many good reasons.
Nope. Consume, consume, consume. Who cares about the long term effects. Instant gratification. By definition, the American mob is ADHD:
"I want it now. "
"What consequence? "
"I'm sorry. Was I supposed to learn something from that?"

[gorefan68]

Be realistic. We have enough oil for a long time. Don't worrya bout it. Drill for more. :|

- Ca$h

PS: I'm staying out of this topic or I might go crazy and destroy any democrat I see. I hate you all. You make america lazy and slow.

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by gorefan68:
Be realistic. We have enough oil for a long time. Don't worrya bout it. Drill for more. :|

- Ca$h

PS: I'm staying out of this topic or I might go crazy and destroy any democrat I see. I hate you all. You make america lazy and slow.

Ahh, what would MacNN be without good ole Ca$h? It would be a very boring place!

[maxelson]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:

Ahh, what would MacNN be without good ole Ca$h? It would be a very boring place!

Don't encourage him.
gorefan, I cannot wait for you to get some life experience under your belt. It'll be interesting to see how your views evolve over time. Perhaps you'll even get some of your OWN views instead of chewing on those you are directly exposed to. I started out pretty conservative, too. My folks are. There came a point when I developed my own views.
As for the fat and lazy comment, that's America as a whole. regardless of party affiliation.
It isn't all political, you know. I'm not even a Democrat.

[gwrjr33]

One factor that has recieved no attention here so far is the amount of natural gas in ANWR. I read that there is much more natural gas than there is oil. This is significant because natural gas is a green fuel. You still have to drill to get it but when you burn it you don't anything close to the enviromental impact you have with other sources of energy.

[NewsHound]

Environmentalism and party affiliation don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. New Hampshire's ultra-conservative, I'm-so-far-right-even-the-Republicans-are-leftist-bastards Senator, Bob Smith, is as opposed to dredging up the Alaskan wilderness as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace.

-NewsHound

[Hobbit_Boy]

How many of you have actually BEEN to the north slope of Alaska? I thought so. I have lived in Alaska for my entire life AND have traveled to the north slope where the oil drilling goes on. I will be the first to tell you all this: There is NOTHING THERE. There is a bunch of grass and some animals. No trees, nothing. Just grass.

My dad works for BP (one of the major oil producers in AK). I find it very frustrating to read all the mis-information that everyone here is spreading. The enviormental imapact of ANWAR would be non-existant. Less than .5% of the land would even be TOUCHED by humans. Directional drilling technology can alievate this.

Ice roads in the winter can deliver materials to the site without making roads, helicopters can be used to transport food/supplies and personel to the drilling camps.

Caribou population has increased where oil development has been allowed. Did you know that YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WALK ON THE TUNDRA WITHOUT A SPECIAL PERMIT. Thats right, you are not even allowed to walk on YOUR national park without a special enviromental permit.

The oil companies bend over backwards to meet enviromental standards. They actually built ramps OVER pipes on the north slope for caribou to walk over, but i saw caribou walking under the pipes just 5 feet away. The animals co-exist with the development like there is nothing going on, and with .5% being disturbed, I really doubt that its really anything to shout about.

Yes, there would only be enough oil for 3 months IF THE U.S. ONLY USED ANWAR'S RESERVES AND NOT ANY OUTSIDE OIL. As it is, we import a HUGE percantage of our oil. ANWAR could potentialy decrease our dependance on foreign oil (lower gas prices).

No matter what you tell the greenies, they never listen. They simply get to emotional over the issue. As long as ONE blade of grass is steped on, they consider it a travesty. *shakes head*. Pave it all, who the hell cares? None of YOU will ever see the place, besides there isnt anything there.

I WILL NOT respect anyone in Greenpeace untill they sail in a wooden boat, powered by hand, wearing wool sweaters and using all natrual products. They use this gas-guzzling boat, wear goretex (petrochemical product) and shout at the oil companies to stop drilling...well how would they like not having their ruber rafts and goretex jackets? They are so contradictory...greenies are generally hyper-emotional and irrational people that have NO logic.

[Scott_H]

Yes, there would only be enough oil for 3 months IF THE U.S. ONLY USED ANWAR'S RESERVES AND NOT ANY OUTSIDE OIL. As it is, we import a HUGE percantage of our oil. ANWAR could potentialy decrease our dependance on foreign oil (lower gas prices).

I had a feeling those numbers were FUD.

[gorefan68]

We have tons of oil. In TIME magazine, the 2000 issue, they said if we don't find ANYMORE oil, we'll have enough (based on our current consumption) for at least 200 more years. So chill the hell out.

BTW; I am NOT a conservative. I am a person that believes economy and life is best and most free and most beautiful with as little governmental interference as possible. happy?

Anyway.

_ Ca$h

[Hobbit_Boy]

Sorry if I sound frustrated. None of you live in Alaska and have to hear the ridiculous news stories and unbeliveble twisted facts that the greenies (tree huggers) use on the news every day. Its deplorable. They defy logic.

I love Alaska, its beautiful and pristine. Yet at the same time, there is so much of Alaska that is untouched. Do any of you realize how large Alaska really is? Alaska could touch both sides of the country if laid across the U.S. Were talking about an area the size of an airport.

To me that seems like a very acceptable compromise. The oil compaines realize in order to do business, they have to do it well. They have to exceed standards, and try their best to stay up here and contiune being up here.

I advocate alternatvie energy sources. Did you know BP is the largest solar power developer in the world? Thats right BP bought out several large solar comapnies to begin to diversify their company. They are looking beyond petro because they see a future in alternatvie energy sources. They are out there, we will eventually use them, but untill the cost comes down and the practicallity becomes a reality...it wont happen.

I took a tour of the north slope (Prudhoe Bay). In fact I got to climb up on the Trans-Alaskan pipeline (they didnt see me...) and ride it like a cowboy shouting, "Dividend Check YAHOO!!" Yes..we Alaskans get a 2000$ dividend check from the oil each year..*grin*. But I also got to see how carefull these people really are. They put mats under parked vehicles to proctect the ground from potential "fluid leakage" and all the buildings are built on stilts, without foundations. This lowers the impact on the land, and also helps in the winter (frost heaving).

My dad works in the Public Relations dept, so perhaps you can see why I am so biased. I see all the ludacris letters he recives, and I read the independant studdies on inviromental impact that he brings home.

I wish each and every one of you could travel up north and see the the tremendous job that the oil companies have done. It's almost like going to a colony on mars, the whole place is self-sufficient (practially)...

I asked alot of questions on my tour, and I was always told somthing like, "those are there because of enviromental standards, or because they were deemed a benifit to our inviromental policy"...They do so much more than they need to up there, and I think it is VERY ignorant for some of you to bash the development when you have never even see it, or have been really informed.

Living in Alaska I enjoy the outdoors and the enviroment. Maybe its because Ive never had smog, or elbow to elbow people (we have about 600,000 people in a state much larger than texas). Maybe im used to seeing mountains less than a mile away from my house, maybe Im used to seeing moose in my backyard, and maybe im used to stoping my car for a bear to cross the road. To me, this is every day life. I take these things for granted.

I can see why a person from a big city may want to "save the last great parie of alaska". Well, come to Alaska, just drive 40 minutes outside Anchorage...its more wild than almost anyplace in the contigious US. I live here, amongst the mountains and I think that untill the alternative power sources can be utilized, we have to make do with what we have. We will switch to solar and power cell technology. We are getting there. ANWAR will help lower gasoline prices, and who knows...there may not be anything there anway.

Alaska is my home, and the place of my birth. I have visited the area where the proposed drilling is to take place. A .5% development site (which would be practically non-evident after it was removed) is such a small price to pay for the potential payoff.

I would like to see a fossil-fuel world, but we are not ready for that yet. The rest of the world is farther behind than us, besides...oil is just decomposed organic material. Its a ssllloooowww but still renewable resource..just give it a few hundred million years.

If 10% of ANWAR was going to be disturbed, I might have more of a problem, but .5% is nothing. Like I have already said, enviromentalists will not be satisfied even if ONE blade of grass is crushed. And like I have already said, there is nothing there. I certainly would not want to take a "wildreness" vacation there. Hell, I can go hike up the mountain behind my house and camp in the valley behind it. I would not see another soul for weeks. And thats a 30 minute hike..Ask any long lived Alaskan, they are not as opposed to oil production as one would think. Thats because we are more informed and hear about it more than the general public.

Im hoping to get a job up there this summer, 11$ an hour 2 weeks on, 1 week off...7 days a week, 10 hours a day. (some serious overtime!!!) to help may for college. Its boring up there, but the money is good. 86% of all BP's employee's up here are Alaskans (were living here before they were hired). Thats pretty good.

I'll try to check in later and answer any questions about my tour, or Alaska...I think people need to be better informed about Alaska and ANWAR

[gorefan68]

I tried explaining the size of alaska vs the size of an oil pump and refinery to some of my democratic friends, but their brains shut off. OH WAIT! THEY DON"T ****ING HAVE THEM!

- Ca$h <-- agrees 100%

[Hobbit_Boy]

I know how you feel...

[pharmacopoeia]

Hobbit_Boy, you forgot the one thing there is more of in ANWR than oil:

mosquitos!

they're so thick even the caribou can't stand the place.

I wouldn't set foot up there even if I had a bloody permit. Snow and ice 9 months of the year and mosquitos so thick you can't breathe without a mask the other 3 months. Oh yeah, let's do all we can to preserve that hell hole. Just keep my dividend check coming oil boys...

------------------

[Archangel]

I lived in Alaska too for a number of years (I actually live just up the road from Hobbit_Boy). Dude, ANWR can be drilled, and the only thing that will noticeably change in the long run is lower gas prices. That's it. You people won't even know it's being drilled until you're told!
"Hey, did you know they drilled ANWR."
"What?! The bastards! I never even knew! When did they start? Maybe I can chain myself to the drill sites so they won't drill anymore!"
"They've been drilling for years."
"Oh."

And don't worry about the freakin' caribou. There are herds in Alaska that are too big. In fact, the Fish and Game up there is doing lots to promote hunting of these herds so that they all don't STARVE TO DEATH FROM LACK OF FOOD BECAUSE THERE'S TOO MANY OF THEM. The bag limit for each hunter is 8 caribou. That is a lot of meat. So, all this BS about endangering the caribou is nonsense. There will always be caribou in Alaska until some idiot makes a concerted effort to wipe them out (a la the buffalo).

------------------
"Elvis has left the building!"

[maxelson]

Originally posted by gorefan68:
We have tons of oil. In TIME magazine, the 2000 issue, they said if we don't find ANYMORE oil, we'll have enough (based on our current consumption) for at least 200 more years. So chill the hell out.

BTW; I am NOT a conservative. I am a person that believes economy and life is best and most free and most beautiful with as little governmental interference as possible. happy?

Anyway.

_ Ca$h

So. We have tons of oil. Why, then, do we need to drill for more?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Hobbit_Boy:
How many of you have actually BEEN to the north slope of Alaska? I thought so. I have lived in Alaska for my entire life AND have traveled to the north slope where the oil drilling goes on. I will be the first to tell you all this: There is NOTHING THERE. There is a bunch of grass and some animals. No trees, nothing. Just grass.

My dad works for BP (one of the major oil producers in AK). I find it very frustrating to read all the mis-information that everyone here is spreading. The enviormental imapact of ANWAR would be non-existant. Less than .5% of the land would even be TOUCHED by humans. Directional drilling technology can alievate this.

Ice roads in the winter can deliver materials to the site without making roads, helicopters can be used to transport food/supplies and personel to the drilling camps.

Caribou population has increased where oil development has been allowed. Did you know that YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WALK ON THE TUNDRA WITHOUT A SPECIAL PERMIT. Thats right, you are not even allowed to walk on YOUR national park without a special enviromental permit.

The oil companies bend over backwards to meet enviromental standards. They actually built ramps OVER pipes on the north slope for caribou to walk over, but i saw caribou walking under the pipes just 5 feet away. The animals co-exist with the development like there is nothing going on, and with .5% being disturbed, I really doubt that its really anything to shout about.

Yes, there would only be enough oil for 3 months IF THE U.S. ONLY USED ANWAR'S RESERVES AND NOT ANY OUTSIDE OIL. As it is, we import a HUGE percantage of our oil. ANWAR could potentialy decrease our dependance on foreign oil (lower gas prices).

No matter what you tell the greenies, they never listen. They simply get to emotional over the issue. As long as ONE blade of grass is steped on, they consider it a travesty. *shakes head*. Pave it all, who the hell cares? None of YOU will ever see the place, besides there isnt anything there.

I WILL NOT respect anyone in Greenpeace untill they sail in a wooden boat, powered by hand, wearing wool sweaters and using all natrual products. They use this gas-guzzling boat, wear goretex (petrochemical product) and shout at the oil companies to stop drilling...well how would they like not having their ruber rafts and goretex jackets? They are so contradictory...greenies are generally hyper-emotional and irrational people that have NO logic.

HOLD ON, there, Tundra Boy. I"VE BEEN there. You know, lot's of Cape Cod residents who sonlt their land (were forced to sell their land) to the Federal Government after the Cape Cod National Seashore was created had the same argument. These people gave up their land in the late '60s for a huge premium. They lived there for another 25-30 years mortgage and tax free. When Time came for the Feds to take the land back, Oh the hollaring that went on. "You didn't give me enough money! My land is worth triple what you gave me!" In the sixties, they gave these people triple what it was worth. "Ain't nothing here but sea grass and a few dead pilot whales!" Well, that doesn't mean that it isn't a valid ecosystem and interference won't harm it.
You live in Alaska. Good for you. Does this make you an expert on the environment of the area? No more so than me living in Massachusetts makes me an expert on Kennedys or the terns that nest on the CCNS.
Carabou are an EXTREMELY hearty species. What about the rest of them? It isn't so much the drilling, it's moving equipment in and out of there, the noise, the fact that once you open the floodgates, it's near impossible to close them again.
We have systematically destroyed most of our wilderness. So. What. That means we can keep on doing so?
And where are you getting YOUR numbers? Oil Companies? Environmental records of these companies are deplorable.
There isn't anything there. Isn't anything there, huh? Just nothing there that YOU will ever care about until it adversely effects YOU. When it's gone, it's GONE. Yup, Alaska's Huge. It'll take YEARS to strip it. Which is what they said about New Hampshire during the logging booms. It has taken the last hundred years to reforest the White Mountain National Forest. They still have not managed to close the floodgates.
I think it's lovely that the oil companies built ramps. I also think it's lovely that they dumped millions of gallons of oil into the sound.
Yes, this is an emotional issue for me. Fueled by a whole lot of facts. Facts that show we are on a destructive path from the greenhouse efffect. Facts that show our air quality sucks. Facts that show that we, as Americans are happiest when we are stripping out every natural resource we have to our own detriment.
Again, I ask: WHY is it SO bloody difficult to come up with energy sources that are financially viable and environmentally kind? It's not just MY life- It's yours and my kid's. You clearly WANT this land stripped. Why? There are alternatives. Why should this controversy even BE? Why is this so difficult? We continue doing what we're doing, we die. Do you deny that?
Next point: I agree with you about Environmental Extremists. Hypocrisy is everywhere. It's not limited to politicos. In fact, you are showing some as well. Clearly, this is an emotional issue for you as well. Would you change YOUR mind? Will you listen to MY arguments? Or will you shake your head and go "tsk, tsk".
As for the oil lasting three months IF WE USE ONLY THAT with no supplements. I am interested. Where does that come from?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Hobbit_Boy:


If 10% of ANWAR was going to be disturbed, I might have more of a problem, but .5% is nothing.

Sorry, too, if I sound frustrated. I understand the anger that some Alaskans must feel about someone like me. While it is true that the Environment is a prime issue for me, I say again that I am not an extremist. I realize that groups like Greenpeace and Sierra and NRDC have spin machines too. I look at as much of the info that I can, and I make a decision.
.5%, you are, I think, right, IS somewhat reasonable. Would be, anyway, if we could trust these companies to leave it at that. Based on history, I'd have to say that that is unlikely. So. What if they find no oil in that spot? Some geologist says, "well, I've gotten some favorable results a couple miles north". Do you think they will stop where they are?
You know, we get into the same mire with Apple and other companies we support. We are naive if we think for one second that the goal here is to "better the planet". I scowl at that. The goal is to make money. Prove me wrong. I'd truly love to let that sentiment flush. I, thus far, cannot.
I have no ulterior motive. I want to make sure my kids can go outside without gas masks. I want to make sure that the family home on coastal Massachusetts is still there in 50 years, not swallowed up by a greenhouse induced flood. I can handle some storm taking it. I cannot handle losing because of human negligence.
You know, these forums are for the exchange of ideas. A place for someone else to consider another's POV. I am glad to have yours. I may not agree, but I am a better person for knowing your side.
BTW, we have something in common. My dad worked PR in the Natural Gas industry. I even got to drive a Natural Gas prototype car. It was great. The only issues were structural- where to put the tank so it stays out of harms way. This car had the tanks in the trunk, surrounded by a stiff frame. Again, not practical. I hear they've made substantial inroads since then. I look forward to a lot more inroads.
What the hell does FUD mean?

[maxelson]

BTW, Hobbit_Boy- It's a stunningly beautiful state. I saw stuff there that truly blew me away. great people, too. I almost wish I'd never seen it. Maybe I wouldn't be so passionate about this issue.

[mitchell_pgh]

Go hug a tree!





[This message has been edited by mitchell_pgh (edited 02-22-2001).]

[mitchell_pgh]

opps, wrong photo...



[This message has been edited by mitchell_pgh (edited 02-22-2001).]

[maxelson]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Go hugh a tree!




[This message has been edited by mitchell_pgh (edited 02-22-2001).]

That would be HUG, genius.

[TimmyDee51]

I am 100% behind maxelson here. I read a report that stated the number of barrels of oil in the ANWAR and then figured how long that would last the US. Do you know the answer? Around 3 months. I'm not bullsh*tting you at all. And the worst part? The oil companies would sell most of that oil to the Pacific Rim -- translation: Japan, Thailand, etc. The United States would not see the majority of that oil.

The other problem with drilling in the ANWAR is not the total amount of land disturbed, but where that takes place. The deal is that the oil companies would create roads and pipelines that would fragment the existing habitat. I have done A LOT of research on habitat fragmentation and that has just as adverse or greater an effect on ecosystems as taking away over 10% of the total land.

Finally, what the hell are we going to do about global warming in the mean time? And if you try to refute me on the fact that humans cause global warming, try again. It has been documented time and again that we are the sole reason for this trend. If we don't fix the problem soon, Minnesota will have the climate of Texas in under a century. That means that most of us living now and our children will be living in a wasteland. You say that the excess CO2 will make the plants grow better? Think again. The rate of climate change will not allow plants to migrate to their suitable habitat and die, leaving us with nothing but weeds. I hate to sound like the prophet of doom, but I'm scared as hell about what is going to happen in the next 50 years.

[maxelson]

Thanks, TimmyDee. I refer back to the example of the Amazon. The trans Amazon highway will rift- IS rifting the whole ecosystem. In the name of what? PROGRESS. Ironic, no? It is that which will kill us. I don't think you're being a prophet of doom, just a realist.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by TimmyDee51:

Finally, what the hell are we going to do about global warming in the mean time? And if you try to refute me on the fact that humans cause global warming, try again. It has been documented time and again that we are the sole reason for this trend.

No it hasn't been. Hell, there's still some doubt about the existence of a trend. The climate models have had more than a few problems. But let us just for argument's sake agree that global warming is occuring. To say that we are the sole reason for it and it's not due to natural causes is just reckless. Climate change is nothing new. And far greater temperature changes have happened in the past with no input from humankind than what is supposed to be happening today.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
No it hasn't been. Hell, there's still some doubt about the existence of a trend. The climate models have had more than a few problems. But let us just for argument's sake agree that global warming is occuring. To say that we are the sole reason for it and it's not due to natural causes is just reckless. Climate change is nothing new. And far greater temperature changes have happened in the past with no input from humankind than what is supposed to be happening today.

OK, so, for argument's sake, let's take what you have to say as given. Is there any doubt about what causes global warming? No. CO2. Where does the majority of the CO2 come from? Us. Wolves don't burn fossil fuels. Cows fart, and they do contrubute, but not anywhere NEAR the extent to which we do. Simple logic. The systems WERE balanced, we screw them up. Why is wolf reintroduction such a difficult thing? Simple. Us. We have so screwed with the ecosystems that we have to manually try to tip the scales in order that we may avoid total disaster. Problem is, our "social consciousness" prevents us from maintaining the balances- eg our need for oil, space, protecting our livestock from predators, you get the idea. Economy and comfort come first.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by maxelson:

OK, so, for argument's sake, let's take what you have to say as given. Is there any doubt about what causes global warming? No. CO2.

Yes, of course there's doubt. As I wrote in my initial post: "Climate change is nothing new. And far greater temperature changes have happened in the past with no input from humankind than what is supposed to be happening today." So what caused the global warming then?

According to Science ("Greenhouse Forecasting Still Cloudy," 16 May 1997), climate experts are at least ten years away from proclaiming they've found a "human fingerprint" attributing global warming to human activity.

Regarding the problems with the computer models:

Most global warming predictions are based on general circulation models (GCMs), immensely complex computer simulations. Environmentalists tend to put a lot of faith in the predictive capacity of the computers. Others suggest that the model projections are hooey. Dr. Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology compares model output to predictions from a ouija board, and with some cause. According to the models, the earth should be significantly warmer than it is. - Jonathan Adler Competitive Enterprise Institute

There's also a problem with data collection.

Standing next to a collection of instruments - two thermometers, one anemometer, and rain and humidity gauges - Christy does a 360-degree turn. "We're surrounded by fields, but there's no natural forest cover here," he says, "so we'll get warmer daytime temperatures in the summer and cooler temperatures in the winter."

On a shelf back in Christy's office sits a box of state weather records dating from 1893. While many researchers consult the temperatures noted on the dog-eared pages, few have bothered to read the handwritten notes in the record. Christy's main concern is the records' consistency through time. The notes tell him that a station has moved 20 feet east, that a new observer was trained, that no one came to work on the weekend, that blacktop now surrounds the gauges. Such information creates anomalies that break up a homogeneous set of numbers.

If surface temperatures appear to be warming, Christy says, consider the context. "Creeping urbanization has a significant effect on the appearance of a warming Earth," he says. Cities are always warmer than the global average, particularly at night. Surface measurements are also unevenly distributed. There are more gauges in the northern hemisphere than the southern; we don't have reliable climate data for remote desert, ocean, and rain-forest areas. "This variance is the bane of our field," he says. - The Gospel According to John, DISCOVER Vol. 22 No. 2 (February 2001)

And then there is the law of unintended consequences:

Take the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It says that the planet may be heating up faster than previously predicted, but the cause of the acceleration, ironically, is cleaner air. Reducing smokestack emissions will rid the atmosphere of some greenhouse gases, the report says, thereby lowering global temperatures over the long term. But it will also clean out sulfate particles that block the sun and cool the planet, even as they pollute it. - The Gospel According to John, DISCOVER Vol. 22 No. 2 (February 2001)

------------------
XXIV/VII


[This message has been edited by gwrjr33 (edited 02-22-2001).]

[vega24]

Since I'm the reason this thread was started, I felt obligated to reply.

Oil companies have been drilling in Alaska for years and if they hadn't we would all be paying alot higher prices for not just all petroleum based products but also for everything else because of higher prices for diesel fuel, which is used for shipping everything to everywhere. One needs to realize that there is literally hundreds of millions, if not billions, of engines in the world and every single one of them are designed and built to run useing fossil fuel, not electricity or fuel cells. There are also hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people in this world that heat their homes useing some form of fossil fuel and even if you use electricity to heat your home that electricity came from a power plant burning fossil fuel. We all use or come in contact with something everyday that, directly or indirectly, has its roots in petroleum. In fact, the list of products that are made from petroleum or are made to burn it is staggering. Why the iBook that I am useing right now to type this has many different parts made from petroleum and it was shipped to me by vehicles and airplanes that even burn fossil fuel. The demand for pertoleum will never go down, atleast for a very long time.

Alternative energy sources are not a workable solution to the replacement of fossil fuels at this time. If all oil refining came to a stop years ago and we were all forced to find some other source of energy to meet all the demands that fossil fuels met, we would still be looking for it now. Truth is it will take more technology than we currently have to develop alternative sources of energy into a working solution. Everything that uses energy will have to be lighter and more energy efficent.

As a side note, I looked at going totally solar to power my home but the expsense of doing so is to high. A 8600 watt system cost around $14,000 and that is just enough to power everything except my 3 ton a/c unit, I would still have to let it remain connected to the main power grid. I would also have to replace my electric stove and water heater with a gas model. Now, that gas came out of the ground somewhere so I'm still not really doing the enviroment any good am I.

So, unless you're completely dead you will always excert a negative impact on the enviroment. It is a part of being alive. To believe otherwise would be fruitile.

[This message has been edited by vega24 (edited 02-22-2001).]

[TimmyDee51]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
Yes, of course there's doubt. As I wrote in my initial post: "Climate change is nothing new. And far greater temperature changes have happened in the past with no input from humankind than what is supposed to be happening today." So what caused the global warming then?

According to Science ("Greenhouse Forecasting Still Cloudy," 16 May 1997), climate experts are at least ten years away from proclaiming they've found a "human fingerprint" attributing global warming to human acti

That article is over three years old. You know as well as I that computers change A LOT in that time. Also, the UN Panel on International Climate Change released the results of an exaustive study a few weeks ago, stating that they are convinced that humans are responsible for the current trend in global warming. This isn't some radical environmental group or a bunch of rogue researchers, this a panel of THE most respected climatologists from around the world. Many nations use the rulings of this panel to determine their stance on global warming; too bad we can't.

Also, this trend is UNLIKE any previous trend in global climate change. Fluctuations have happened in the past but never at the rate this is occuring. We are looking at the same amount of warming that occured after the ice ages (5-8 C), but instead of that happening over 1,000 years, it will happen in 100. That is a conservative estimate of warming given by the UN. You don't even want to hear the high end estimate. And if you want proof of the immediacy of this, the global temperature has warmed 1 C in the past 50 years!

I'm sorry, but this isn't some pile I'm digging out of Forbes or Time Magazine. I have written papers on these topics, citing respected sources from refereed scientific journals. (If you don't know what "refereed" means in this context, ask me). And vega 24, I'm not saying "don't make any impact," I'm saying we should make less of one.

Finally, I'm completely frustrated with the attitude this nation has taken towards our environment. I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall. But this is important to me, that's why I am studying this. If you would like to get in touch with me and start a civilized dialog on this topic, email me at [email protected].