smartalek Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Opinions Please.I have been a tree hugger so long my arms have grafted bark on them. In the Chronicle this morning was and article on drilling once again in Alaska. The article stated that estimates of the oil reserves ran into the billions of gallons. If that is so, then perhaps we should drill in the protected areas, IF Congress would mandate that all of the oil produced stays in America to run our industries and provide for our energy needs. For every barrel produced we would begin to scale back the purchase of imported oil. The ultimate goal would be to get out of the middle east oil quagmire. Of course running concurrent would be the development of alternative enery sources to be in place once Alaska dries up. Perhaps this is simplistic but why drill for oil if we are going to broker it and then perhaps buy it back though another source. But until then I am still hugging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 People need to get a real picture of the ANWAR in the area that is being requested to drill. This area in the best weather conditions is a barren wasteland. Litterally very little life. The proposed facilty would cover less than 200 acres and would have to meet stringent environmental guidelines like the Alaskan Pipeline.The residents of Alaska want this facililty. The exkimo tribes on the north slope areas really want it too. Along with ANWAR, drilly needs to be allowed up and downt the West Coast where large oil reserves exist. Also, all around Florida is rich in oil that has been prevent from being drilled.The US has some much oil for it's own use, we could really become much less dependent on foreign sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncertaintraveler Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 People need to get a real picture of the ANWAR in the area that is being requested to drill. This area in the best weather conditions is a barren wasteland. Litterally very little life. The proposed facilty would cover less than 200 acres and would have to meet stringent environmental guidelines like the Alaskan Pipeline.The residents of Alaska want this facililty. The exkimo tribes on the north slope areas really want it too.In the interest of full disclosure, I think we should drill in ANWR.That being said, KJB isn't being totally honest with the facts. ANWR isn't a barren wasteland, and considering the vast array of wildlife that call the area home, I wouldn't call it a place of "very little life." Additionally, the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline may have meet strigent environmental guidelines, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the pipeline's operators don't violate such guidelines on routine basis. By extension, even the best oil and gas drillers and operators have environmental spills in conditions much less harsh than that found in the northern reaches of Alaska, and I think it is myopic to believe mud wastes, leaks, and chemical spills won't occur in ANWR. Furthermore, there is a reason why the residents of Alaska want drilling to occur: they get a check at the end of each year based on their proportionate share of Alaskan oil royalties attributable to the government. If drilling ANWR is allowed, they are almost guaranteed larger checks in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gto250us Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 I say we burn all the Saudi oil while it is still cheap. Save the meager amount of ANWAR oil for when we are the only ones left with oil. Remember, nothing is proven at ANWAR, now it is all guess work. One well was drilled and the operator has not been talking about it, nor are they clamoring to open up ANWAR. That sort of tells you what the result was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowbrow Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 My masters project was a Petrologic study of the area and I could never find reason for most of the claims about anwr. I mean I'm sure there are some decent gas plays and even some oil but my models determined no great amount of either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 So even if we ween ourselves off the middle east's oil supply, what do we do about the other 2/3rds we're still importing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 People need to get a real picture of the ANWAR in the area that is being requested to drill. This area in the best weather conditions is a barren wasteland. Litterally very little life. The proposed facilty would cover less than 200 acres and would have to meet stringent environmental guidelines like the Alaskan Pipeline.The residents of Alaska want this facililty. The exkimo tribes on the north slope areas really want it too. Along with ANWAR, drilly needs to be allowed up and downt the West Coast where large oil reserves exist. Also, all around Florida is rich in oil that has been prevent from being drilled.The US has some much oil for it's own use, we could really become much less dependent on foreign sources.kjb: As usual your "facts" are not facts at all. THE Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the habitat for caribou, polar bears, muskoxen, arctic foxes, wolverines, grizzlies and millions of migratory birds.The approximately 7000 people of the Gwich'in Nation do not want any drilling.So you see, there is alot of life there. Keep that in mind the next time you say the "exkimo" want "drilly".And for christ's sake, get a dictionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Ok,I guess you guys didn't read my post.I'm not stupid to believe not wildlife in in ANWR, but the area of ANWR where drilling is planned doesn't have much wild life. The impact would be minimal.These species: caribou, polar bears, muskoxen, arctic foxes, wolverines, grizzlies and millions of migratory birds populate the southern and easter portions of the reserve. The driling would be on the far north side. Actually, right next to current oil operations and an airport that his currently built. ANWR is going find with those facilities.Tell the Alaskan voter that they don't want the drilling. They'll tell you something completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 I know I'm treading water here as far as my understanding of how the oil business works, but...From what I've been able to gather, drilling is only part of the equation, refining is the other part.Americans don't like the prospect of drilling in ANWR, because of its' pristine nature, and they don't like building more refineries in their backyards. But, the simple fact is that our demand for these products in America is not waning in the least, our demand is outstripping supply rapidly. Americans have vast reserves of coal, but don't like the mining aspects or the perceived dirtiness. America has an ability to produce more nuclear energy, but no one wants that facility anywhere near where they live.Americans can have more wind power, but they don't necessarily like the asthetics of thousands of wind turbines on a wind farm. It's a classic conundrum, we're not backing off on our demand for the products, we're not conserving on any real basis, but we don't like the prospect of building any facilities to take care of our needs in America. We're being wooed by Saudi Arabia to let them do our refining for us, but do we really want to give over control of that vital aspect to a third world country we don't like or trust? Do we acknowledge that we're energy pigs and say to hell with the environment, we want our gas and oil and we don't care what we have to tear up here in America to get it, or do we as a nation, start to make some serious cut-backs in our energy demands in order to preserve the environment and ultimately ourselves? I kinda think we already know what the answer has been to that question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowbrow Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 I think our primary goal should be to maintain better relations with our number one supplier of petroleum, Canada. Alberta alone could sustain us for quite awhile with the barrel at todays prices and higher. Just don't get into the mindset that we are going to be able to reduce the price of fuel. OPEC is looking at $100/barrel by years end and I have to agree.I'm all for conservative exploratory drilling in ANWR, but I'm not for "opening" it up. Give me some data to build better models. Shoot more siesmic, etc.I'm loving the renewed interest in alternative fuels and conservation. Build more of those wind farms... I grew up in southern California and I tend to like them. They remind me of my childhood roadtrips. (in our 8/mpg buick) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Yeah,I think we can impose similar restriction on ANWR like the ones put on the Alaskan Pipeline.Also with the technology to do angular drilling, the drills can set up shop on a small parcel, and drill all across ANWAR without touching it. The reason for putting some of the facility on the reserve is endow all the oil from that to the US. Look, know is for taking over the entire reserve. The oil companies have their own team of scientist (that take a lot of pride in there work) that work in conjuction with universities and other labs just make sure environmental impact is minimal. It's required alread by federal law to produce environmental impact studies.Outside of some blind hatred of the oild company or anyone with ® after their name, there aren't many reason's to not want this. Most of the people opposing this are on a bandwagon wearing glasses so thick they can't see reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 THE Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the habitat for caribou, polar bears, muskoxen, arctic foxes, wolverines, grizzlies and millions of migratory birds.Remind me again what the caribou is doing for me at the pump? To hell with that reserve. I say strip it & drill it - my car needs gas! I'll keep this opinion until someone can convince me how preserving the habitat of these animals will make my life better. FYI: Did you all know that the maximum post lengh is 102400 characters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 I'm not stupid to believe not wildlife in in ANWR, but the area of ANWR where drilling is planned doesn't have much wild life. The impact would be minimal.These species: caribou, polar bears, muskoxen, arctic foxes, wolverines, grizzlies and millions of migratory birds populate the southern and easter portions of the reserve. The driling would be on the far north side. Actually, right next to current oil operations and an airport that his currently built. ANWR is going find with those facilities.Tell the Alaskan voter that they don't want the drilling. They'll tell you something completely different.Wrong again. You didn't do your research. Again.Ask the Gwich'in Nation if they want drilling on their ancestoral lands where they have lived off the land and caribou for centuries. How 'bout you and jeebus just stepping aside because I need to bulldoze your homes, suck what little-if any oil might be there then pave it over.Oh? Where will you go? Who cares. You don't matter.In the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Wrong again. You didn't do your research. Again. Ask the Gwich'in Nation if they want drilling on their ancestoral lands where they have lived off the land and caribou for centuries. How 'bout you and jeebus just stepping aside because I need to bulldoze your homes, suck what little-if any oil might be there then pave it over. Oh? Where will you go? Who cares. You don't matter. In the least. Fine by me. I've seen what the government pays for land, and I'll take that fat check anyday. I'm sure some poor village eskimo wouldn't mind either. And please don't try to paint these people as if they are all like that indian in the commercial from the 80's that cries when someone litters - puh-lease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeightsGuy Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 I think we should leave it alone for now. It's not like it's going to help with the current price of oil as it would be a decade before the first drop goes into anyone's gas tank. Let the market balance itself out by itself like it is currently doing. The price of oil is edging downward because we as a nation have been using less over the past few months.It's funny, 51% of Americans call themselves conservatives, but those same conservatives are the first to get in line asking the government to fix the price of oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gto250us Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Remind me again what the caribou is doing for me at the pump? To hell with that reserve. I say strip it & drill it - my car needs gas! I'll keep this opinion until someone can convince me how preserving the habitat of these animals will make my life better. FYI: Did you all know that the maximum post lengh is 102400 characters?I don't know about you but my life would be better if you were driven to extinction. Well, perhaps I would settle for eliminating your habitat so that you would just slowly die out.Bottom line is there could never be enough oil in ANWAR for it to make your life better. So why ruin it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Why not?It not just ANWR. There are bunch of wildlife areas that were used as cattle ranches in the west that Clinton took from these people to become a governement wildlife refuge. The reason? The environmental lobby knew there were oil reserves that made Saudi Arabia look like a couple of drops and ANWR look a little smaller.Why lock up this land when it was currently being used as a cattle ranch. The citizens in UTAH and parts of Wyoming were quite pissed about this. The weren't allowed to even go the photo op of Clinton signing their land away.Don't forget about Canada. They have oil reserves they are dying to have Amercian oil companies develop and pump down to the US since Canada will never need it all. They would make a nice profit from all this oil.Also, nmainguy I don't know which few Eskimos of this tribe you are talking about, but most of them have added their names to a state petition for support of the drilling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 The below paragraphs are from the website: ANWR.orgResidents of ANWR SupportThe residents of Kaktovik, the only people living on the Coastal Plain of ANWR, support oil and gas development in their 'back yard'. Alaska's indigenous people have benefited greatly from North Slope production. In addition to providing a tax base for the local government, oil development has provided jobs, funding for water and sewer systems and schools. Native and village corporations with oil field-related subsidiaries are working on the North Slope, and the local government has a voice in permitting and environmental regulation.Organizations representing the residents of the Coastal Plain and surrounding area such as the City of Kaktovic, Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, North Slope Borough, Arctic Slope Regional Corp., Doyon Regional Corporation and Alaskan Federation of Natives have all endorsed development based on their experience with Prudhoe Bay. This webstie is an extensive resource on ANWR from the people who look after it in Alaska.Also check this about the G'wich Nation:Natives (pdf file) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 ..my life would be better if you were driven to extinction. I'm curious.. how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncertaintraveler Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Fine by me. I've seen what the government pays for land, and I'll take that fat check anyday. I'm sure some poor village eskimo wouldn't mind either.Fat check? What fat check? Despite its claims to the contrary, the government hardly pays fair value for what it takes. At best, you'd get 1/2 of your property's fair market value....It's funny, 51% of Americans call themselves conservatives, but those same conservatives are the first to get in line asking the government to fix the price of oil.As an aside, about 4 years ago, I went to a "nonpartisan" convention once in Amarillo and ended up sitting next to the Randall/Potter County republican committee chair. He was complaining about the low oil prices and wondered why the government didn't have a floor (and a ceiling, for that matter) on the price of oil. I replied, hey, its the free market...I thought you guys loved that economic system. He looked at me as if I was Pol Pot....Don't forget about Canada. They have oil reserves they are dying to have Amercian oil companies develop and pump down to the US since Canada will never need it all. They would make a nice profit from all this oil.Ummm...exactly where are these oil reserves? And what kind of reserves are they? Are you referring to the tar sands in Alberta, which, even at $60 a barrel oil, are marginally profitable? In any event, the future of the hydrocarbon age isn't oil production, but rather gas production. I'm not sure Canada has anywhere near the amount of gas that we have in the States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 The below paragraphs are from the website: ANWR.orgResidents of ANWR Support The residents of Kaktovik, the only people living on the Coastal Plain of ANWR, support oil and gas development in their 'back yard'. Alaska's indigenous people have benefited greatly from North Slope production. In addition to providing a tax base for the local government, oil development has provided jobs, funding for water and sewer systems and schools. Native and village corporations with oil field-related subsidiaries are working on the North Slope, and the local government has a voice in permitting and environmental regulation. Organizations representing the residents of the Coastal Plain and surrounding area such as the City of Kaktovic, Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, North Slope Borough, Arctic Slope Regional Corp., Doyon Regional Corporation and Alaskan Federation of Natives have all endorsed development based on their experience with Prudhoe Bay. This webstie is an extensive resource on ANWR from the people who look after it in Alaska. Also check this about the G'wich Nation: Natives (pdf file) Typical anti-intellectual radical right wing spin devoid of factual information. That web page Natives (pdf file) was authored by the Inuit people. Once again, the G'wich Nation depends on the land and the caribou for their substanance. And once again you skew the facts to suit your own propaganda. Did you have something to do with the Cheney/Bush lies that got us into the war in Iraq? 2000 dead Americans want to know. P.S. I just got back from seeing Good Night and Good Luck. It was great, kjb-all about Joe McCarthy. Right up your alley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Typical anti-intellectual radical right wing spin devoid of factual information. That web page Natives (pdf file) was authored by the Inuit people. Once again, the G'wich Nation depends on the land and the caribou for their substanance.And once again you skew the facts to suit your own propaganda. Did you have something to do with the Cheney/Bush lies that got us into the war in Iraq? 2000 dead Americans want to know. P.S. I just got back from seeing Good Night and Good Luck. It was great, kjb-all about Joe McCarthy. Right up your alley. You know, if you going to spew crap: Typical anti-intellectual radical right wing spin devoid of factual information. ..at least back it up - otherwise you look just as stupid as.......Anyway - here's are two articles to backup your statements about the G'wich people. Consider these a "freebie": "G'wich Nation Love Themselves Some Caribou" and "Screw You - Save Our Caribou!" Ease up on the name calling and start focusing on fact pointing - otherwise your (good) opinions will just keep getting thrown in the discard-bin with all the other left-wing wacko's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I don't like the promises being made about this thing. In regards to our gas crisis, its not going to change anything ever. Ten to fifteen years from now when it is up and running, its probably all going to last a day because oil is either tapped out or too unstable to drill. Its false reassurance that everything can stay exactly the same as it is now, even though the world's demand for oil is changing rapidly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 You know, if you going to spew crap: ..at least back it up - otherwise you look just as stupid as.......Anyway - here's are two articles to backup your statements about the G'wich people. Consider these a "freebie": "G'wich Nation Love Themselves Some Caribou" and "Screw You - Save Our Caribou!" Ease up on the name calling and start focusing on fact pointing - otherwise your (good) opinions will just keep getting thrown in the discard-bin with all the other left-wing wacko's. Hmmm...name calling...does that include you and your reference to "left-wing wacko's"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Hmmm...name calling...does that include you and your reference to "left-wing wacko's"?Sure, why not? I think the difference is that I make generalizations of certain groups, as where you just call other posters names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Will you join us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Chronicle story about wind farms along Texas Gulf CoastFrom the article:"This could be the Spindletop of this century," said General Land Office Commissioner Jerry Patterson, making a comparison to the legendary oil strike that launched Texas' energy boom a century ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 the offshore idea doesn't seem to bad - yet...and something wind-related is needed... on a similar note, i was driving in oklahoma a couple weeks ago, and the ones off the highway looked a little sci-fi (but interesting!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Just as long as they don't kill endagered migratory birds like in California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gto250us Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Why not?It not just ANWR. There are bunch of wildlife areas that were used as cattle ranches in the west that Clinton took from these people to become a governement wildlife refuge. The reason? The environmental lobby knew there were oil reserves that made Saudi Arabia look like a couple of drops and ANWR look a little smaller.Why lock up this land when it was currently being used as a cattle ranch. The citizens in UTAH and parts of Wyoming were quite pissed about this. The weren't allowed to even go the photo op of Clinton signing their land away.Don't forget about Canada. They have oil reserves they are dying to have Amercian oil companies develop and pump down to the US since Canada will never need it all. They would make a nice profit from all this oil.Also, nmainguy I don't know which few Eskimos of this tribe you are talking about, but most of them have added their names to a state petition for support of the drilling.Just what areas are you refering to that will make Saudi look like a couple of drops?Also you need to learn alittle bit about federal ownership of western lands. One stipulation that the territories agreed to upon statehood was that they would relinquish ownership of the lands, apart from what was already in private hands and school lands. Thus, Clinton did not sign their land away. That was done 100 years ago. The Federal govt. decides what to do with it not the states.Private industry is doing just fine in Utah and Wyoming in finding new reserves under the current program and they did just fine under Clinton.If you know where the reserves are out west that would make Saudi look poor, you could make yourself rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.