# Should we drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?



## ginshun (Mar 18, 2005)

Apperently the senate thinks so.

 Personally, I don't have a problem with it.

 What do you guys think?


----------



## Bammx2 (Mar 18, 2005)

no


----------



## ginshun (Mar 18, 2005)

any special reason?


----------



## OUMoose (Mar 18, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> no


I agree.

Jabbing more holes in this rock we live on is a futile answer at best.  IMO, we should take that money we want to spend on drilling and dump it into alternative  fuel/energy R&D.  Granted, that's very idealistic thinking.

Also, drilling in a wildlife refuge seems a little counterproductive to the idea of a piece of land set aside for a given ecosystem to survive.  Will they allow hunting next?  How's about we start drilling in the great barrier reef?  To heck with trying to preserve any of this icky nature stuff.  Our kids can see the stuff in books and on TV, right?


----------



## The Kai (Mar 18, 2005)

No, can't we leave the small area of the planet set aside alone??   Oh there will always be a compelling reason oil, dams, hunting, lumber or just for the heck of it.  Maybe, SUV's should be discouraged and Hummer's just outlawed before we start complaining!


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 18, 2005)

According to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, Coastal Plain Resource Assessment - Report and Reccommendation to the Congress / Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement from April 1997*, there is a 19% chance that economically recoverable oil occurs in the "1002" area. In exchange for these odds, "potential major effects on wildlife from production are limited to the Porcupine Caribou herd and reintroduced muskoxen.  'Major biological effects' were defined as:  'widespread, long-term change in habitat availability ot quality which would likely modify natural abundance or distribution of species.'"

This would result in a potential for "3.2 billion barrels" of recoverable oil.

According to this data the US used 20 million barrels of oil /day in 2002.  That's 7.3 billion barrels per year.  

What's being discussed here is the destruction of preserved land to satisfy 5.25 months of US demand (according to 2002 figures).

Good trade?




* - http://library.fws.gov/Pubs7/ANWR_coastal_LEIS.pdf


----------



## Blindside (Mar 18, 2005)

I am a wildlife biologist for a national wildlife refuge, the same service (US Fish and Wildlife Service - Refuge System) that manages ANWR, so I am completely biased. 

I am against drilling in ANWR, I just think that some parts of this planet should be left wild, and extractive industries leave a far greater footprint on the landscape than the industries will tell you.

I highly recommend you take a look at this to get a feeling of the region that will get drilled.  These photos were taken last year.

Just to point out a couple of misconceptions....
National Wildlife Refuges are established to be primarily for wildlife, unlike the National Forests or Parks.  However most (something like 85%) are open to hunting.  We have priority public uses: hunting; fishing; environmental education; wildlife photography; wildlife observation; and evironmental education and interpretation. 

Lamont


----------



## thepanjr (Mar 18, 2005)

hell no that just bad


----------



## Deuce (Mar 18, 2005)

The fact of the matter is, we as humans have developed a strong dependancy on oil and gas resources. Major lifestyle adjustments or significant technological advancements must be developed before this changes. Unitl then, we need to harvest our natural resources. 

Oil/gas exploration and extraction has come a long way with it's technology and practices to prevent adverse environmental and wildlife impacts. The economical consideration is another issue to be looked at. With the approximate 10.4 billion barrels of oil extracted from this area, the need and cost associated with importation of oil will be decreased significantly. This will also result in many job oppurtunities for the American people.

It's a matter of environment vs. economics, and with the unlikely negative envionmental impacts, IMO economics should prevail.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 18, 2005)

Oh, absolutely we should. After all, it's completely stupid, pointless, and destructive, and it'll make Hizzoner's friends in the oil industry a ton of money without doing a thing to help our energy needs.

Into the bargain, the folks who brought us the safety record of the Exxon Valdiz can help screw up one of the last remaining wild places on Earth--I mean hell, we can always import another ecosystem from, say, Mars. And then, we can continue on our hell-bent, dick-waving process of turning the planet into one big mall.

Because to judge by our increasingly obese, stressed-out, and violence-prone society, this is working out real well for us all. Everybody's happier and happier every day.

Sorry, but I have no intention of being even moderately polite about this sort of greed and stupidity. This is precisely why over the next fifty years, we're going to get a real worm's-eye view of what it's meant to keep re-electing politicians as irresponsible as George Bush.


----------



## The Kai (Mar 18, 2005)

Hey, you know what since it's working out so great for use lets go to foriegn country and force your lifestyle and judgements down thier throats-of course, at gunpoint if neccassary.  Bonus if they are one of them there non christian countries.  Extra Bonus if they gots oil


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 18, 2005)

I lost the last election. Since then, I have purchased Exxon Mobil Stock ... why the hell not. Let's hear it for the destruction of the planet.

What I find especially ironic, is that the Honorable Senator Gregg, from my home state, highlights on his Senate web site (www.gregg.senate.gov) his environmental record, and how much he has done in the Upper Connecticut River Watershed. ... Then He goes and votes to rescind the Super Majority Requirement for this act. ... Jerk.

I almost filed as a candidate for Senate yesterday. But Gregg was part of the class of 2004 ... he's got that seat til 2010.

Just keep buying stock in the oil companies. That's where all the money is going. Play by their rules.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 18, 2005)

Dan already made the factual point I was going to make, so I will move on to another point:

 It chaps my pants that humans think economics is the key to our survival on this planet.  We need to think longer than the dollar stretches here.  Humans cannot live on this planet if we are the only living organism here.  We flourished as a species here because of the planet's state when we "took over".  Now we are destroying our own environment so that we can be happy and others can get rich.

 To rape a refuge in such a way for such a reason and for such short-term gain is morally unforgivable and, to use right-wing vernacular, evil.


----------



## OUMoose (Mar 18, 2005)

Blindside said:
			
		

> However most (something like 85%) are open to hunting.  We have priority public uses: hunting; fishing; environmental education; wildlife photography; wildlife observation; and evironmental education and interpretation.



My bad.  Thanks for the correction!


----------



## Bammx2 (Mar 18, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> any special reason?


I do apologise for not stating a reason...been a bad 48 hours and had the brain on other things.
BUT......
God Bless....everyone else has answered for me!:asian:

I have no respect for any agency of any type who refuses to leave well enough alone.
Personally, I have no need for all this oil.All it does is raise my taxes.
I don't drive or even own a car.I don't use it to heat my house...I don't NEED oil for anything.
Neither does anybody else for that matter. Need for your car? Go electric
Need it for your house,go solar.Put on a sweater in the winter time.
All of these big corperations are trying to make a monolopy on life so you have no choice...or so they would like to think.
Example.......
The Hemp plant, probably THE most versitile plant on the planet,clothes,paper,OIL for candles and lanterns,etc....
Why did it become illegal at the turn of the last century?
Because a gent by the name of Randolph Hurst (damn rich) owned lumber companies, and when he found out you could do more with 1 acre of hemp and and approxamately 4yrs growing time as compared to 40 acres of lumber and approxamately 7yrs growing time, he knew it would put the lumber industry out of buisiness and ALMOST put him in the poorhouse,he had a word with his good friend and fellow lumber industry man,President Theodore Roosevelt....low and behold, Hemp was illegal! and so was its cousin...marijuana because it had all the similar qualities...cept one
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





So in my opinion..screw the oil corperations!

Want more proof? go ask the amish if they will die with out oil!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 18, 2005)

1. Oh. So our only two options are: a) lay waste to our country so we can waste more energy; b) invade other countries, lay waste to their country, and take their oil so that we can waste more energy.

2. What makes me furious about this is that a four-year old knows better. All we have to do is apply very simple, basic rules about conservation. Nothing tricky, nothing expensive--but, I guess, arrogant narcissism is easier than giving little things like the world and our air supply and our national heritage the slightest thought.

If anything reveals what an irredeemable crowd of greedheads our current Admin really is...


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 18, 2005)

Did you say "Air Supply"?

*ahem*

*singing*

I'm all out of love, I'm so lost without you;
I know you were right, believing for so long.
I'm all out of love, what am I without you;
I can't be too late to say that I was so wrong.

:uhyeah:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 18, 2005)

Absolutely not.

Others have already stated more succinctly (and calmly) some of my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 18, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What makes me furious about this is that a four-year old knows better.


Do you suppose the President would read a book that said this ? 

Heck, maybe we should send some copies to Laura, and she can read it to George....



			
				Robert Fulghum said:
			
		

> All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain, but there in the sand pile at school.
> 
> These are the things I learned:
> 
> ...


----------



## raedyn (Mar 18, 2005)

What's the point of even calling something a wildlife refuge if the gov't will turn around and approve this sort of development?

But then again, this regime has previously proven that it's willing to say two completely contradictory things in the same breath and expect to be taken seriously. (see Bush's "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table," comment for example)

I hope this desicion will be reversed.
Having said that, I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 18, 2005)

I don't think the decision will be reversed, but I don't think the congress is going to be able to pass a budget this year.  I'm hoping the drastically different directions that the senate and house took on medicaid hangs the whole thing up indefinately.  The ANWR decision is attached to the budget proposal which couldn't be filibustered, and only requires a majority.  A direct law modifying the rules around ANWR would require a 60 votes and thats not going to happen anytime soon.

Lamont


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 18, 2005)

How far would the money set aside for ANWR drilling go towards building a new hydrogen infrastructure?  

Or, for that matter, doing R&D on overcoming the last hurdles on fuel cell technology?

How about putting it towards hot fusion research so we can stop the international squabbling going on right now?  

Maybe we could back Australia's research into solar hydrogen, using titanium oxide as a catalyst to crack water into oxygen and hydrogen via the energy of sunlight.  Australia has lots of sunlight and water.  So do we, come to think of it.  

What if we perfected photo-voltaic (solar cell) technology?  We've managed to increase its productivity slowly over the years.


All of these are achievable--but lacking the sense of urgency we need to develop any of these technologies.  Why?  We have this impression that we have bottomless wells of oil and vast bubbles of subterranean gas.  Optimists say we've plenty.  Others say we've passed the production halfway point and are on our way to a disasterous shortfall in this century...of course they said that in the seventies, I seem to recall.

Regardless, our oil is very incoveniently located under the land owned by despots--most of whom we support inspite of their repressive regimes.

Wouldn't it be fun...for all of us, liberal and conservative alike...if we could just turn to some fat Saudi king and say, "Keep your oil.  Bathe in it, if you like.  We've invented a better way....oh, and don't count on next year's shipment of F-16's and Abrams tanks."




Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2005)

Some of my favorite places in this world have been places where civilization has been absent.

These are places where one can take the fruit and eat it.  One can lay out on the sand naked and indolent for a while.  Rising only to take your favorite woman for a roll and then splash in the cold water feeling the mud between your toes.  Stand still and watch the clouds long enough to be stirred by another hunger that your skill can solve and the warmth of the fire at night can sear the juices into the meat.

I am unable to express the anger I feel for the people who would vote for this loss...I feel the loss deep in the generations of the future...

My how our souls have ripened a foul and bitter fruit in a land of endless work where no body can be happy with what they have when the jones' drive up in their damnable SUV's to show off their white teeth and their Bush/Cheney stickers and their little rubberized middle finger freedom ink stains that were made in china by kids younger then the ones in the backseat learning how to kill on their gameboys because we have to feed this machine the blood of little brown babies ground up into black juice dripping like blood from a wounded planet that could shrug its shoulders and hurl us away...so don't let this gays marry and hold tight to your guns and remember all they want to do is kill babies because we represent a people that respect the sactity of life.

Rant Done....breathing in and out...clenching and unclenching the fists.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Deuce (Mar 18, 2005)

http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm

First of all, less than 2000 acres of the 19 million acres will be affected by the drilling. You can refer to the map on the link I provided to see just how much of an area we're looking at. 

Secondly, now days the environmental impact of oil drilling is very little. The major waste products such as drilling waste and mud is easliy contained and transported to waste facilities for proper disposal. I've been to native praire land where drilling recently took place, and besides the presence of a well, you can't even tell. The longer freezing period would result in even less impact. 

It has also been shown from past artic drilling that wildlife and oilfield drilling can co-exist without any significant damage or disturbance to ecosystems. The idea of drilling up there sounds much worse than it actually is.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 18, 2005)

Well, we need to get oil from somewhere. Our society, like it or not is dependent on petrolium based products, and moreso that just the gas that runs our capitalist pig SUV's. Try going through a day without using plastic or rubber sometime.  Everybody seems to forget that we use oil for a hell of a lot more that unleaded. You guys really think it is better to depend on foriegn sources completley of at least trying to provide some for ourselves?

 My understanding of it is that the environmental damage would be very minimal. Something like 2000 acres of the 19 million in the preserve would be disrupted. And didn't people voice the same environmental concerns over the Prudhoe oil fileds, telling us how it would so disrupt the caribu, when in fact the number of caribu has been going up ever since they built it?

 I am not really passionate about this issue, but I can see pluses to drilling there. Minuses too, I will admit that, but I am not sure yet which outwieghs the other. I don't think that the environment will be tremendously affected for the worse, but I don't think the oil that we get will change things all that much either. Tough call to me.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 18, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm
> 
> First of all, less than 2000 acres of the 19 million acres will be affected by the drilling. You can refer to the map on the link I provided to see just how much of an area we're looking at.
> 
> ...


I am curious if you really believe that statement? 

I am curious if you understand that when 'they' say only 2000 acres will be affected, they are calculating that number based on the squarefootage of the parts of the pipeline that touches the ground. Much of the pipeline will be above the ground ... but it certainly will be there. 

Next, how do you suppose those pipeline materials are going to reach to and from the drilling location. If you guess tractor-trailer trucks, you got it right. Now what do tractor trailers need ... ROADS! Do you think that 2,000 acres includes all of the roads which will be required to develop those 2,000 acres?

Perhaps you are familiar with the phrase, "You can't unring a bell".


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2005)

Sure, we use oil for many other things, in fact, _we will never _ completely cut our reliance on oil based products.  Yet, we can reduce our demand.  We have the technology NOW to do so.  Drilling in the arctic the subsequent subsidy of it by our government is not only a waste of money, it is a blatent give away to the friends of the administration.  We don't need to drill in ANWR.  We don't need to kill hundreds of thousands of poor people.  We don't need to send our sons and daughters thousands of miles away for what amounts to stealing.  I say let the people who live there benefit from their own resources while we learn to benefit from ours.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 18, 2005)

Also, please remember the vote on Wednesday was not to actually support the development of ANWR. 

The distinguished gentlemen and gentlewomen of the Senate voted to remove the 60 vote requirement to move a bill forward. Now, a simple majority will be sufficient to pass legislation opening ANWR. 

Call your Senator now to give them a sense of your opinion. (Even you guys who are in favor of this).


----------



## Deuce (Mar 18, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am curious if you really believe that statement?
> 
> I am curious if you understand that when 'they' say only 2000 acres will be affected, they are calculating that number based on the squarefootage of the parts of the pipeline that touches the ground. Much of the pipeline will be above the ground ... but it certainly will be there.
> 
> ...


Of the 1.5 million acre area (8% of total region) considered for development, only 2000 acres will be affected. Even with above ground pipes, the area of activity is still contaned within 8% of the entire area. 

Considering the climate of the region, ice roads will be built for transport. The beauty of ice roads is that they leave no permanent damage to the underlying ground. I would imagine that most of the drilling would occur during the winter months to minimize environmental impacts, as is done in northern Alberta.

Believe it or not, oil can be extracted in an environmentally safe manner without the sky falling down.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 18, 2005)

> Next, how do you suppose those pipeline materials are going to reach to and from the drilling location. If you guess tractor-trailer trucks, you got it right. Now what do tractor trailers need ... ROADS! Do you think that 2,000 acres includes all of the roads which will be required to develop those 2,000 acres?


 I was wondering about this too, but from my current understanding, the plan is to do most if not all of the work there in the winter. This is supposedly actaully required, because in the summer the ice pack needed to reach the places that they have to go will break up. So, and agian this is just how I have heard on it so far, equipment and stuff are transported to the site in the winter, when the entire area is covered in ice. Summer comes and they can't do the work anymore because not the roads are gone do to the break up of the ice pack.

 I am sure that is an oversimplification, and I probably didn't explain it all that well (I am not sure I totally understand it myself), but that is the story with the roads.

 and as far as calling my congressman, I don't feel strongly enough either way to do that. If I call him about anything, it will be Lt. Pantano, speaking of which, I need to post on a different thread...


 edit:  why do I even bother? every time I want to post something, Duece beats me to the punch.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 18, 2005)

*These are places where one can take the fruit and eat it.  One can lay out on the sand naked and indolent for a while.  Rising only to take your favorite woman for a roll and then splash in the cold water feeling the mud between your toes.  *

Great idea, and I'd love to do it...but Catherine Zeta-Jones still won't return my calls.


Here's a thread on another energy resource...one that might not "pan out," he said, punnishly.  And what environmental impact it will have is uncertain.  It could have a negative one if methane escapes as a result of the harvesting process.

http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66925,00.html


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Deuce (Mar 18, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> edit: why do I even bother? every time I want to post something, Duece beats me to the punch.


Sorry man! I guess engineers think too much alike!


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 18, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> Of the 1.5 million acre area (8% of total region) considered for development, only 2000 acres will be affected. Even with above ground pipes, the area of activity is still contaned within 8% of the entire area.
> 
> Considering the climate of the region, ice roads will be built for transport. The beauty of ice roads is that they leave no permanent damage to the underlying ground. I would imagine that most of the drilling would occur during the winter months to minimize environmental impacts, as is done in northern Alberta.
> 
> Believe it or not, oil can be extracted in an environmentally safe manner without the sky falling down.


Is it 8% of ANWR that will be affected, or 2000 acres? Ice roads leave no permanent damage. Of course, cutting of migratory animals from their breeding grounds because of vehicle traffic doesn't count as 'permanent'. Will they continue to breed? Will they move elsewhere? Ahh ... nobody knows. But its' only 2000 acres. Or was it 8% of ANWR (1,500,000 acres). 


Sure, oil can be extracted in an environmentally safe manner, just not from ANWR.

We can wait 10 years, to spend 10 years developing ANWR to net out 6 months worth of fossil fuel. 

What is the estimate of available Oil in ANWR(estimated at 3.2 Billion barrels by Alaskan Bureau of Land Managment), compared to, let's say, Iraq (112 Billion Proven Reserves - possibly 100 Billion barrels more in unexplored territory).

Let's review:

Alaska - Possible 3,200,000,000 barrels of oil
Iraq - Proven 112,000,000,000 barrels of oil
Iraq - Possibly 100,000,000,000 more barrels of oil

Maybe we should try developing Iraq.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 18, 2005)

Take a peek at an old Fish and Wildlife Service page on possible impacts.  Look particularly at the effects of 3d Seismic drilling impacts.

http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm#section4

Lamont


----------



## Deuce (Mar 18, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Is it 8% of ANWR that will be affected, or 2000 acres? Ice roads leave no permanent damage. Of course, cutting of migratory animals from their breeding grounds because of vehicle traffic doesn't count as 'permanent'. Will they continue to breed? Will they move elsewhere? Ahh ... nobody knows. But its' only 2000 acres. Or was it 8% of ANWR (1,500,000 acres).
> 
> 
> Sure, oil can be extracted in an environmentally safe manner, just not from ANWR.
> ...


It's 8% or 1.5 million arces that will be considered for exploration. If oil is found, less than 2000 acres would be affected. As for the traffic routes disturbing wildlife paths, I'm not aware of the considerations taken, but you can bet that they've already thought of that a long time ago. All large projects (especially one such as this) take all wildlife migratory patterns, breeding grounds, etc. into consideration. Here in Canada it's the law, regardless if it's a wildlife preserve, refuge or whatever. Something of this nature needs approval from the environmental sector of governement. I'm not aware of the american policies and procedures, but in Canada everything imaginable is taken into consideration.

The amount of oil present there is debatable. 3.2 billion barrels may not be worth it, but up to 19 billion barrels may be present. No one will know until seismic exploration is done. 

I'm really not too concerned where the states get their oil from, I just think some people should realize that if oil is drilled there, it's not nearly as bad as they think.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 18, 2005)

But... wait... didnt we... just fight a war... so we could "steal an entrie country's oil"  ?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 18, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> All large projects (especially one such as this) take all wildlife migratory patterns, breeding grounds, etc. into consideration. Here in Canada it's the law, regardless if it's a wildlife preserve, refuge or whatever. Something of this nature needs approval from the environmental sector of governement. I'm not aware of the american policies and procedures, but in Canada everything imaginable is taken into consideration.


You might want to look into the Caribou herd (Elk herd?) catastrophe at the Lac Ternay damn ... Big project in Canada ... Mid 80's ... Somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000,000 caribou were negatively impacted by the damn and its changes to the environment. Uh, yeah ... by negatively impacted ... I mean killed. 


Oh, yeah ... and Canada opposes development of ANWR.

http://www.canadianembassy.org/environment/development-en.asp


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2005)

Who needs to drill for oil in ANWR when we can go to Iraqius


----------



## BrandiJo (Mar 18, 2005)

i dont think we should drill in teh ANWR, we should be able to either cut back on how much oil we need or find a different place to get it from, its a refuge for a reason and it should stay that way.


----------



## OULobo (Mar 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Sure, we use oil for many other things, in fact, _we will never _ completely cut our reliance on oil based products.  Yet, we can reduce our demand.  We have the technology NOW to do so.  Drilling in the arctic the subsequent subsidy of it by our government is not only a waste of money, it is a blatent give away to the friends of the administration.  We don't need to drill in ANWR.  We don't need to kill hundreds of thousands of poor people.  We don't need to send our sons and daughters thousands of miles away for what amounts to stealing.  I say let the people who live there benefit from their own resources while we learn to benefit from ours.



Yes, we can completely cut out our reliance on oil products. There are numerous and vast options to the usage of almost all oil products and many are already commercialized, albeit overshadowed and overcome by the oil cartels. I agree that this is an even greater reason why we should make a concerted effort to fight big oil business and withdraw our sponsorship of oil based business. 

As for the ANWAR situation, I have say that it is pretty sad to make a promise to ensure the integrity of an area and then just blatantly say that it is worth too much to let be protected. There is no honor in the word of the government, especially when the greedy see what they really want. Just looking at the opinions here, which are usually pretty wide spread, we can see that this isn't a popular move, but the money pulls the politician's strings, not the opinions of the people, sad as it truely is.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Mar 19, 2005)

No. We should not drill in ANWR.  

We should be investing in alternative energy research.   But, of course, that won't benefit Bush's friends in the oil biz.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 19, 2005)

I think one thing that needs to be remembered in this conversation is that currently most forms of alternative energy are much less efficient than oil and require a lot of energy to produce.  This subject comes up a lot on Slashdot a lot, every time a story on alternative energy comes up.  I don't know all the details but the general gist is that right now most or all forms of alternative energy take more energy to produce and many that look good at first actually require more oil to initiate and sustain the whole production pipeline

One other thought is that the oil businesses have a lot of money and they also have massive distribution systems for getting stuff around.  If a good, efficient form of alternative energy came along, the current oil companies would be in the best situation to take advantage of it and make money in the distribution process and develop it to be commercially viable.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 20, 2005)

I'm afraid that I'm still not going to be polite about the kind of irresponsible, lazy stupidity on the part of a gaggle of insatiable greedheads.

For those of you who seem to think it's just a NIFTY idea, some home study questions:

1. What's the actual history of ecological damage for these kinds of projects in Alaska? I'll give two hints: Exxon Valdez; Prince William Sound.

2. How much gas does this country waste every year? How much could we save with a 2 MPG average increase in cars? How much could we save if we got rid of SUVs?

3. When was the last time you got off your duff and got out someplace wild...you know, walking?

4. What are your plans for when we've trashed EVERYTHING? The polar caps are melting, we've whacked out the cod (and most other species) fishing in the Atlantic, we're burning down the rain forests, we've got dead zones appearing in the Gulf of Mexico, we've put holes in the ozone layer...what're your plans? Got kids?

Or is it just easier to stick your head in the sand and Not Think? or are you expecting Jesus to be back any day now, so who cares?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 20, 2005)

More questions...

1.  Exactly who will benefit from the oil profits?
2.  Exactly who is going to pay for the infrastructure?

I've got two answers.  One resembles a small tree and the other looks like you and me (as in the taxpayers).


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 20, 2005)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7574562/

  House approved it - now for the senate.


----------



## Marginal (Apr 20, 2005)

Still begs the question, what's the gain? A few months worth of oil dumped into the federal reserves won't amount to anything economically. 

I don't especially care either way, but it smacks of a meaningless gesture in terms of securing an independent oil supply. Even a much smaller gain like influencing OPEC pricing in the US' favor doesn't seem especially likely.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Apperently the senate thinks so.
> 
> Personally, I don't have a problem with it.
> 
> What do you guys think?


*No.*


----------



## OULobo (Apr 21, 2005)

I love how when people worry that they can't afford to drive their outrageously expensive and generally uneeded SUVs, they give the gov. carte blanche to destroy the very environments that we have already sworn to preserve. I mean it is in the name, "preserve".


----------



## OUMoose (Apr 22, 2005)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I love how when people worry that they can't afford to drive their outrageously expensive and generally uneeded SUVs, they give the gov. carte blanche to destroy the very environments that we have already sworn to preserve. I mean it is in the name, "preserve".


Yeah, and they also use that word in the fruit stuff you can spread on toast and eat, thereby "consuming" it.  *shrug*

It's sad that on a daily basis, I hear things coming from the government that just make me stop, shake my head in frustration, and go about my day.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I think one thing that needs to be remembered in this conversation is that currently most forms of alternative energy are much less efficient than oil and require a lot of energy to produce.  This subject comes up a lot on Slashdot a lot, every time a story on alternative energy comes up.  I don't know all the details but the general gist is that right now most or all forms of alternative energy take more energy to produce and many that look good at first actually require more oil to initiate and sustain the whole production pipeline
> 
> One other thought is that the oil businesses have a lot of money and they also have massive distribution systems for getting stuff around.  If a good, efficient form of alternative energy came along, the current oil companies would be in the best situation to take advantage of it and make money in the distribution process and develop it to be commercially viable.



Freep is absolutely correct.  

Oil is the _most efficient energy source that has ever been discovered by man_.  It is (has been) cheap and portable and concentrated.  Because of this and because of blatent corporatism in the last century, the infrastructure throughout our entire country *depends * on oil.

Oil is literally liquid sunshine.  The algea that was buried millions of years ago trapped sunlight via photosynthesis, turning it into carbon compounds.  These compounds were transformed into oil, a nonrenewable, finite resource that is solely responsible for the development of the western world.

Alternative energy, as it stands today, cannot even come close to providing our energy needs.  And it cannot solve the real energy problem in our country...waste.

The west will blow out the end of last century and the beginning of the next in a frenetic frenzied orgy of oil drilling that will end with the downfall of the west and the alteration of almost everything we do in life.  

In order to really understand the need (or will) to drill in ANWR, see this thread ...

upnorthkyosa

PS - as much as I cannot stand the idea of despoiling this pristine area, I'm afraid that it may be unavoidable.  I wish that we could invest more in alternative energy and avoid this, but it is too late.  We needed to start on this road thirty years ago when Hubbert was warning us of the coming problem.  If I were given the choice about drilling in ANWR, I would scream no at the top of my lungs...yet the whir of our SUVs screaming down our freeways taking single people to work to be independent and individual about wasting will eventually drown this out.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2005)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I love how when people worry that they can't afford to drive their outrageously expensive and generally uneeded SUVs, they give the gov. carte blanche to destroy the very environments that we have already sworn to preserve. I mean it is in the name, "preserve".



It's not just the cars we drive, its the food we eat.  For every calorie we consume, we use 10 calories of oil to grow.  We literally eat oil in this country.  This is the price we pay for industrial agriculture.


----------



## ginshun (Apr 22, 2005)

How much oil is 10 calories worth?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 22, 2005)

I agree with pretty much everything I've read here--makes you wonder, with so much agreement among different people, just why it is that the House yesterday passed an "energy," (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) bill that authorizes drilling.

Reasons have already been listed: greed, oil companies, garden-variety stupidity, that make sense to me. However, here's another coup[le of suggestions:

1. Apparently, sales of the Ford Explorer are off 25% or so...good riddance. But unfortunately this is one of the reasons GM is in trouble: we've built our whole economy around endless, endlessly-growing consumption, which makes perfect sense from the standpoint of capitalist economics and is in fact built into the deep logic of capitalism from the git-go. 

2. What this means is that most of the smart things to do--and in particular the environmentally-sound things to do--are fundamentally incompatible with the logic of our whole economy. It's the sort of thing Marx had in mind when he discussed the, "inherent contradictions," of capitalism. So, if enough people actually became self-reliant (as was suggested; as makes good sense)--our economy would go boom. I understand that some folks would argue that no, capital in its infinite wisdom will just come up with new markets....no, it won't. 

3. It also means that most of the human things to do--the things that in fact, from any kind of half-intelligent martial arts philosophical position are obvious--are going to be very hard to generally accomplish. We would be a far-happier society if we commuted less, consumed less, and all the rest--less stress, more health, personally happier, more connected to reality--but our society encourages the opposite. In fact, our society encourages a dangerous and in fact crazy disconnect ("alienation," and "abstraction," in marxist terms) from reality in all sorts of ways.

4. One of the consequences is a profound--oh, call it "aesthetic," disagreement. My side thinks that, "in wildness is the preservation of the world," wants a quiet day with a quiet sky, loathes the idea of driving into nature, despises digging everything up to build malls and stupid, cramped boxy houses and all the rest. The other side despises nature, says I want jobs and stuff I can buy, screw the turtles, why shouldn't I drive through Yellowstone and throw M&Ms out the window of my SUV with the house and the jet-ski in tow.

5. At the extremes, both sides suck. Problem with my side--it mostly depends on a loony consumer economy for its education, its privileges, and its smug attitude. It's privileged, baby-boomer environmentalism on the part of people who all too often fundamentally believe that the proles will end up doing the scut work for them. (Hell, half these people can't even change a tire when they get a flat in the parking lot at trader Joe's or Whole Earth Foods.) Problem with the other side--it's crazy because it is unsustainable, and even more crazy because IT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE PEOPLE HAPPY. It makes them greedy, discontent, unhealthy, emotionally isolated--and scared by what they see as the growing violence and madness in their growing, insane "cities."

6. We'll probably drill. Then, we'll leave others stuck with the consequences and the bills.  Creepily, almost every science fiction novel of the last thirty-forty years depends on the proposition that people got off Earth because they'd hopelessly screwed the place. Hope not--but have you seen the stuff on warming at the poles, particularly the Arctic? Literally, the seasons have been changed...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> How much oil is 10 calories worth?



A calorie is a measure of energy.  I didn't make that clear.  For every calorie of energy you obtain from the food you eat, it takes 10 calories of energy from *oil * to grow it.

We are eating oil.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Creepily, almost every science fiction novel of the last thirty-forty years depends on the proposition that people got off Earth because they'd hopelessly screwed the place. Hope not--but have you seen the stuff on warming at the poles, particularly the Arctic? Literally, the seasons have been changed...



The space program depends on fossil fuels.  As they climb in price and the energy crunch really hits, we ain't going anywhere...filth or not.  Hubris?  You bet, and karma.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 22, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It's not just the cars we drive, its the food we eat.  For every calorie we consume, we use 10 calories of oil to grow.  We literally eat oil in this country.  This is the price we pay for industrial agriculture.



Sure but comparing the amount used as vehicle fuel vs. the amount used in just about every other application, including chemical production, plastics, rubbers, ect. shows us that the majority of our lust for oil comes from the vehicles we drive.


----------



## Ray (Apr 22, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A calorie is a measure of energy. I didn't make that clear. For every calorie of energy you obtain from the food you eat, it takes 10 calories of energy from *oil *to grow it.


Are you saying that, with modern farming and machinery that use petroluem products, it takes more calories to grow the fruits/vegatables we eat than the energy we get from that food?

Does that include only plant sources of food or also animal?

Thanks


----------



## Whitebelt (Apr 22, 2005)

Answer to your question: No


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2005)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Sure but comparing the amount used as vehicle fuel vs. the amount used in just about every other application, including chemical production, plastics, rubbers, ect. shows us that the majority of our lust for oil comes from the vehicles we drive.



It is not just the vehicles that we drive ourselves, its the vehicles that drive our stuff around.  Most of the stuff in your local _supermarket _ comes from hundreds if not thousands of miles away.  In fact, it is considered a termination offense to buy a local head of lettuce at your average fast food chain!  ALL of this is waste, too!

The bottom line is that the average person in this country consume their own body weight in oil *everyday*.  It doesn't all go into our cars.  It is used in almost _everything _ that we do.

The implications of this are absolutely staggering...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Are you saying that, with modern farming and machinery that use petroluem products, it takes more calories to grow the fruits/vegatables we eat than the energy we get from that food?
> 
> Does that include only plant sources of food or also animal?
> 
> Thanks



It includes everything plant, animal and fertilzer.  It also includes the transportation it takes to get the food to your table.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 22, 2005)

I sometimes ask my English students why we drive cars so much, especially since we spend so much time just sitting in them waiting for the traffic to clear. They tell me that we drive to get to work, to stores, etc.

Then I ask why they have to have a job. They tell me that if they didn't, they wouldn't have the money to pay for things they need.

So I ask, "Well, what do you need?" And they answer that they need a place to live, food, a car....

And I ask them why we need to drive cars so much....


A lot of this stuff (sorry) comes out of something inherent in capitalism: the reproduction of the worker, and of the whole idea of capitalism. Fortunately, we've been able to stick workers for the bill to reproduce themselves, and the system that uses them. So people think that it's liberating to have a car--which they use almost exclusively to drive to work, or to do errands that directly relate to work, or to get their kids to school.

And why do kids have to go to school? Well, so they can get educated. Well, why do they need an education? geez, why are you asking? So they can get a good job. Well, why do you need a good job....


----------



## ginshun (Apr 22, 2005)

For Robert:

 What is your ultimate point?  Are you saying that modern society wouldn't need oil if it was not a capitalistic society?  Maybe you can point out a system that is in practice now that is working so much better?

 And to Upnorthkyoso:

 I realize that a calorie is a unit of energy (I am an engineer after all).  What I was actaully wondering is how much oil it actually takes to make 10 calories of energy?  Sorry if that wasn't clear.  And now that I think about it a little more, not that it really matters, but still, it is interesting.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 22, 2005)

I realize that that sort of response is what you've had drilled into your head your whole life, but I'm not saying a damn thing about what might be true if we were on some other planet.

What I'm saying is that in THIS dimension, on THIS planet, in THIS America, consumption is fundamental to our economy. There's nothing in the least heretical or even particularly marxist about that: fer crissake, look at any page of "The Wall Street Journal!"

As for, "a system that works better," well, pretty much all the Scandinavian countries work better than ours. They're healthier, better educated, happier, less crime-ridden, cleaner environment--absolutely they have their problems, no question but that they partly depend on us (plenty of guilt to go around, as I was saying previously), but their state-controlled and publicly planned economies and societies sure as hell do work better. 

It's not that we need oil. It's that we've built a system that makes stupid, profligate waste absolutely essential, and we've so thouroughly brainwashed people that they really, really believe they NEED an SUV, central air, extra cars, a jet ski, two motorcycles, a vacation home, Christmas lighting, a chain saw, and lots and lots and lots of worthless plastic objects like little gnomes that release scented chemicals into their bathroom just to survive, let alone to be happy. 

This is obviously insane, because a) we cannot possibly sustain this with our resources; b) it actually makes people sick, stressed and miserable. Oh, and c) in a pathetic and untenable effort to help pretend otherwise, we're gonna chew up more wilderness. 

If we wanna talk science fiction, remember that any halfway rational alien who took a good close look would bust a sphincter laughing.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> For Robert:
> 
> What is your ultimate point?  Are you saying that modern society wouldn't need oil if it was not a capitalistic society?  Maybe you can point out a system that is in practice now that is working so much better?
> 
> ...



Okay, check this out...

1 ton of oil equivalent = 10000000 kilocalories
                              = 41.868 gigajoules
                              = 40.047 x 106 BTU
                              = 42.244 GJ

2000 lbs / 2.2 lbs/kg = 909.1 kg
909.1 kg * 1000 g/kg = 909100 g

10000000 C / 909100 g = *11 C/g*

This is a huge amount of energy to mass ratio.  Now, lets compare that with a quaterpounder from Mcdonalds.  A quarterpounder has exactly 420 C...(go figure...much to the stoner's ironic delight)

.5 lbs / 2.2 lbs/kg = .23 kg
.11 kg * 1000 g/kg = 230 g

420 C / 230 g = *1.8 C/g*

*Polishes Nerd Badge*

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Apr 22, 2005)

Well, since weve reached "peak oil" and we have no alternatives to hydrocarbon energy and the world is going to collapse into famine, war and general destruction, we really have no choice but to find all the oil we can to delay that ugly end.....


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2005)

That certainly is the quick and easy and very short term solution.  That and pump up our military spending so we can start _advancing American interests abroad_.  Oh yeah, this happens to be the current administration's policy.  Imagine that.

A better, more long term, and stable solution that is not likely going to get your kids killed in an asian land war is to drastically cut our energy usage, develop alternative energy, and do away with these giant corporations in favor of local economies...

*black helicopters hovering overhead*

*upnorthkyosa dissappears...*


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 22, 2005)

Or, of course, we could grow up.

This might usefully begin with realizing that we're pissing away huge amound of energy on mindless crap like gnome-shaped lights behind the bushes, jet-skis and ATVs, and air conditioning to correct for the way we've paved over agricultural land and open space--and then, acting on that realization.

But if we did THAT, why, people might walk around more, get out of their damn cars and see the stars, meet their neighbors, and come to terms with themselves rather than shopping to avoid thinking.

C'mahn, guys--there are episodes of "The Simpsons," that explain this stuff perfectly well. Hell, George Carlin gets it.

So it's best that we don't, I imagine. Grow up, I mean.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Hell, George Carlin gets it.


 Yup yup yup.  "Why are we trying to save the earth? The earth's not going anywhere ........ _WE ARE_!"


----------



## ginshun (Apr 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Or, of course, we could grow up.
> 
> This might usefully begin with realizing that we're pissing away huge amound of energy on mindless crap like gnome-shaped lights behind the bushes, jet-skis and ATVs, and air conditioning to correct for the way we've paved over agricultural land and open space--and then, acting on that realization.
> 
> ...


 So I assume that you, as the example, don't use AC, don't drive a car, don't use a lawnmower or anything else that uses gasoline, grow all your own food (or at the very least buy only food organically grown / raised without using machinery and on land that was never cleared), use personally produced power for all the lights / appliences / heat in your home, and refuse to use anything at all made of plastic.

   Very respectable.

   2 questions:

   1. How much did all those solar panels on your roof cost?

   2. How far away from work do you live that you can walk or bike even in rain/snowstorms?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 25, 2005)

Please try and read what I actually wrote, rather than focusing on the mindless propaganda you've been fed.

What I wrote was that we have the resources and the power to supply what we need; we don't have enough of either to sustain our continued mindless extravagance.

I didn't actually drive till I was in my thirties, and always walked or used public transportation. Now, regrettably, I have to commute quite a distance to work; there's no public transportation, because rail lines got sabotaged several decades back. But I did consciously choose a good solid car that gets more than 30 MPG, and has a very good EPA rating for pollution even under California rules. I considered a diesel, but they're hard to get, and it's a tradeoff between better MPG and worse pollution with a diesel. 

Point is, I thought about it and did the best I could. Did you? How many people that you know do? Do you leave the lights on, crank up the AC (which no, I don't have at home--swamp cooler, get by fine), drive a huge truck you don't need, blow off recycling (my city has it), and all the rest of the Stupid Waste Parade?

Let me repeat: my point is that we have enough for a good, healthy lifestyle. At the moment, there's even enough to go around in this country--provided we'd cut the mindless waste and stupid toys.

You might consider just why it is that you find it so difficult to actually see a simple point that I've now made three times. For the fourth: our problems come from the fact that we're insanely wasteful and thoughtless, not from the fact that we have cars and lights and food at all. Personally, I think you keep missing that because of the endless stream of media-borne lies--most prominently the lie that buying a big-*** truck, and a jet-ski, and all the other worthless crap (and buying things in general, for that matter), is the same thing as freedom.

Me, I'd a lot rather have books and a canoe and a clean sky to sit under when it's hot than a jet-ski and a video game and the rest of the junk.

All we need to do (fifth time) is stop with the lunatic expenditures. We can still have electricity. I'm just not holding my breath--in part, because the BS has got so deep that folks can't even read the proposition clearly.


----------



## ginshun (Apr 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Please try and read what I actually wrote, rather than focusing on the mindless propaganda you've been fed.
> 
> What I wrote was that we have the resources and the power to supply what we need; we don't have enough of either to sustain our continued mindless extravagance.
> 
> ...


 Actaully, yes, I do think about this. I understand completely what you are saying, and it may surprise you that I don't have a giant truck and pull a jet ski or snowmobile around 24/7. I don't have AC in my house (a bit pointless in northern WI), and I don't own a jet ski or snowmobile, but I do own a canoe and snow shoes (and cross country skis). I do have a 4 wheel drive, but living here I am personally consider that a neccessity, or at the very least, a luxury that is justified since it involves the saftey of myself and my family. Who are you to tell me any different? Go ahead try convincing me that someone driving through a snowstorm in a Civic is just as safe as someone in a Jeep. So my vehical gets 20mpg and yours gets 30mpg. OMG! You are so much more environmentally conscious than I am!

 Obviously if everyone lived on what they need for neccessities only, the country would be using less oil that it currently does. I think it is great to educate people about it and try to do our best, but you can't make people change. Ultimately people have to decide for tehmselves, what they want, and what they need. Its also think its fairly hilareous for self - righteous snobs like yourself to look down on mindless propaganda influenced idiots like me, even though in reality our lifestyles (as far as energy/oil consumption go) are most likely almost exactly the same.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Me, I'd a lot rather have books and a canoe and a clean sky to sit under


Now, there is a religion I could get behind, provided the fly rod is not excluded.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 25, 2005)

All you have to do is explain. All you have to do is disagree and explain why. There simply isn't any need for the insults--and as convenient as you apparently find it to describe people who disagree with you as, "self - righteous snobs...{who} look down on mindless propaganda influenced idiots," sorry, not the case. And, I'm afraid--whatever your fantasies--good manners prevent me from responding in the same vein.

So--what would YOU say was the reason for your repeated mis-reading of my point, and your refusal to simply disagree and lay out the reason that you disagree? 

Or, if you prefer, do YOU really think that there's any point in this drilling? Would you like to explain why? Personally, I won't be responding again, but maybe you'd just like to set out your argument.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 25, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Obviously if everyone lived on what they need for neccessities only, the country would be using less oil that it currently does. I think it is great to educate people about it and try to do our best, but you can't make people change. Ultimately people have to decide for tehmselves, what they want, and what they need. Its also think its fairly hilareous for self - righteous snobs like yourself to look down on mindless propaganda influenced idiots like me, even though in reality our lifestyles (as far as energy/oil consumption go) are most likely almost exactly the same.



Our homes are separated by a little over 100 miles, so I am intimately aware of the choices we have.  I've been to Merrill and Wausau on hunting and canoeing trips down the river.  It's beautiful country.  Yet, the smell of waste is everywhere.  Literally.

The truth is that even in a small town, it's possible to do many things without having to burn any energy but the fat of your own body.  The problem is that it takes more time.  Who would have thought that life in a small town rockets at a fast, unsustainable, pace?

In a way, you are absolutely right.  I wouldn't call you a propaganda influenced idiot, though.   In fact, we have a lot in common...

Choices.  

The people's choice determines what will happen regarding waste, energy and oil.  Yet, what happens when those choices have been controlled?  What if you have only been offered choices that waste so damn much that they are considered idiotic by folks more civilized?  

Robert is absolutely right though.  For the last 100 years, our choices have been monitored and controlled in this supposed free market fantasy land we call America.  Oil and auto companies literally destroyed mass transit in this country while the government looked the other way.  So much for trust busting!  

Further, these corporatists convinced the politicians to give them billions in subsidies...called transportation funding.  Everytime the tax payer builds a road, that is a subsidy that makes driving a car cheaper for you.  Meanwhile, our rail system, which, by the way, is the most energy efficient way to transport goods and people long distances, has fallen into such decrepitude that Bulgarians would be ashamed of it.

What people fail to realize is that this kind of stuff is fascism.  Not in the racist sense of the word, but in the sense that private business and government power have merged to control the choices in our lives.  Sometimes the control is overt like it is with mass transit and sometimes it is more subtle.  The bottom line is that this notion that call "freedom" in the US isn't really free.  

I go to the organic coop in Duluth to get my families food.  In the store, I see all of the stuff I saw my grandparents (and parents) growing in their gardens, grown the same way they grew the stuff.  Then I check the labels and find out that the stuff has been shipped from 500 to 1000 miles away...

And then I look at the other "organic" stuff.  Bananas crack me up.  Sure, they are yummy, but they don't grow in WI or MN.  And it takes a lot of energy to get them here.  Apples, on the other hand, piss me off.  Some of the best apple orchards in WI are located in Bayfield.  That is only a little over an hour from the twin ports.  Instead, we get apples from...Washington?  

WTF!!!!

The food is just one example.  In our society, waste is the norm, FOR EVERYONE.  Whether you are liberal or conservative, you are part of the problem.  All these birkenstock wearing, granola cruching, knit cap wearing, bearded, hairy legged, hippies shopping at the co-op thinking they are "saving the Earth" are just as guilty as the SUV driver on his way to work.

It's sad and sick and disgusting and damned few people can see the crude oil on their own hands because they are too busy pointing at anothers hands...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Flatlander (Apr 25, 2005)

_*===========================================*_
_*Moderator Note.*_ 
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-*MT Moderator*-
====================================================


----------



## elder999 (Apr 26, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The food is just one example. In our society, waste is the norm, FOR EVERYONE. Whether you are liberal or conservative, you are part of the problem. All these birkenstock wearing, granola cruching, knit cap wearing, bearded, hairy legged, hippies shopping at the co-op thinking they are "saving the Earth" are just as guilty as the SUV driver on his way to work.
> 
> It's sad and sick and disgusting and damned few people can see the crude oil on their own hands because they are too busy pointing at anothers hands...
> 
> upnorthkyosa


...*we're all made of sunlight.* 

Sunlight is the source of almost all life on Earth. Many people I meet believe that plants are made up of the soil in which they grow-a very common mistake. A tree, for example, is mostly made up of carbon dioxide and water-trees are solidified air and sunlight. Animals cannot create tissues directly form sunlight, water and air, as plants do. Thus, human population has always been limited by the amount of readily available plant life, and the supply of animals that eat plants. 

When we discovered that we could domesticate animals that convert the sunlight captured by plants into animal flesh, which we could eat, and figured out that we could replace forests with farmland, we began to use herding and agriculture to convert the suns energy into food more efficiently. Our food supply grew, and the human population stared growing faster. 

Within a few thousand years of those discoveries, we also discovered that we could extract minerals from the earth, make tools, and become even _more_ efficient, and from 8000 B.C. to about the time of Christ, the human population of the world increased from about 5 million to 250 million people-and we were still only using about a years worth of sunlight per year, and our impact on the planet remained minimal. 

Then, we discovered a new source of sunlight which had been captured by plants: coal. Because our ancestors could now consume more energy per day than the daily amount of sunlight falling on the earth-we began to dip into the earths sunlight savings, as it were. 

Had our ancestors run out of coal, nature would have taken over and limited their population. Instead, our ancestors discovered another source of ancient sunlight: plant matter that had been trapped below ground millions of years ago, compressed and turned into what we called oil. 

The first oil well was tapped in Canada in 1858, and major production began in 1859, when oil was discovered in Pennsylvania. By using his ancient sunlight as a source of heat, and to power tractors and our ancestors dramatically increased their ability to produce food. It also turned out that we could use oil for far more than fuel. Oil is used to make synthetic fabrics (nylon, rayon, polyester, etc.), resins, plastics, and fertilizers. Because we could make clothes from oil, we needed less sheep-grazing and cotton-growing land, and could use it to produce even more food. 

It took just 14 years, from 1960 to 1974, for us to grow from 3 billion to *4 billion* humans worldwide. The human population hit 6 billion in 1999. By the fifth billion, in 1987, humans became the most numerous species on earth in terms of total biomass. We now consume more than 40 percent of the earths total net primary productivity. This means that every other species of plant and animal must now compete with each other for what little we have left them. 

Since the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania, weve consumed 742 billion barrels of oil. Currently, 
world oil reserves are optimistically estimated at 1,000 billion, though the reality may be that there are far less than 700 billion barrels still in the ground, and our consumption continues to go up.


It's worth noting that it's extremely unlikely that we'll be finding easily accessible new pools of oil. most of the earht has been digitally "X-rayed" using satellites, seismic datra, and computers in th eprocess of locating 41, 000 oil fields. 641, 000 exploratory wells have been drilled-like the one that Exxon/Chevron did in ANWR-and almost all fields that show any promise are well known and factored into the 1 trillion barrel estimate the oil industry uses for world reserves. 

Estimated barrels of oil, in billions, that are economically recoverable in the ANWR: 5.3

*5.3 billion narrels of oil.* Which will take 8-11 years to start extracting, and 

You can look at the US fish and Wildlife ANWR page, where I got that figure : here

And current U.S. oil consumpton is 20.44 million barrels/day. I got that figure from this D.O.E. webpage.

20, 440, 000 barrels/day *365 days/yr= *7,460,600,000* barrels of oil consumed annually by the U.S.

Looks to *me* like-even with the best "pie in the sky" estimates for ANWR of 11 billion barrels-it's only good for a little more than a year's worth of consumption, and probably isn't good for that much.

Too many people, not enough stuff....too many people, not enough stuff...*TOO MANY PEOPLE, NOT ENOUGH STUFF!*.:disgust: :cuss:


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 26, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> ...*we're all made of sunlight.*
> 
> Sunlight is the source of almost all life on Earth. Many people I meet believe that plants are made up of the soil in which they grow-a very common mistake. A tree, for example, is mostly made up of carbon dioxide and water-trees are solidified air and sunlight. Animals cannot create tissues directly form sunlight, water and air, as plants do. Thus, human population has always been limited by the amount of readily available plant life, and the supply of animals that eat plants.
> 
> ...



This is a most excellent post and the "liquid sunshine" metaphor is exactly how I teach it to my students.  It really gets across the point that oil is a finite resource and it REALLY hints at the problems that oil shortages would cause.  Drilling in ANWR will be a worthless act of desperation.  I would rather use my tax money to subsidize solutions to Hubbert's Peak...


----------



## ginshun (Apr 26, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Or, if you prefer, do YOU really think that there's any point in this drilling? Would you like to explain why? Personally, I won't be responding again, but maybe you'd just like to set out your argument.


 Maybe if you would read the rest of my posts in this thread, you would see what I already said about it.  Respond or not, I could care less.

 I will reapeat, just for your sake, I know actually reading and remembering a whole thread can be tough.

 Personally, I don't feel strong enough to argue either way on it.  I can see both pluses and minuses to drolling there, and I am not really sure which one outweighs the other.  Will it make us less dependent on foreign oil?  Maybe, maybe not, it depends on who you believe.  Will it destroy the artic environment?  From what I have seen, I don't think so.  Is it worth it to find out?  Maybe.

 I just wanted a discussion on it, but it seams rather impossible to you to have a conversation on anything remotely political without it all coming down to the evils of capitolism and our government.  In you opinion our government and capitolism in general are evil, OK, I get it, move on already. It gets old after a while.


----------



## TonyM. (Apr 26, 2005)

They should use nuclear powered steam drills made from whale bones.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 26, 2005)

1. Uh....our current government is pushing for this loopy drilling, on the grounds that a) we need the oil, b) it would be good for American businesses. Exactly who else would you like me to suggest is responsible, other than a) our current government; b) businesses?

2. I am not responsible for the monotony of capitalism. Our current economic system must endlessly expand in order to sustain itself. That's its logic. That is how capitalism works. Ask around. Also please note the repeated claims by business that much of the problem with the current economy is that consumers are not consuming enough. It's not my fault. I didn't DO this.

3. What, exactly, would you say is the track record of oil companies in the Arctic? What's their history of environmental damage? Hint: it's not good.


----------



## ginshun (Apr 26, 2005)

I thought you said you would not be responding.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 26, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Too many people, not enough stuff....too many people, not enough stuff...*TOO MANY PEOPLE, NOT ENOUGH STUFF!*.:disgust: :cuss:


 
So.. who's going to volunteer to leave so theres enough left for the rest of us??:shrug:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 26, 2005)

1. This is why it completely outrageous that thew Bush government, for ideological and political reasons that have nothing to do with what's best for the world, have chopped support for women's health clinics at home and around the world.

2. So I see that the, "hell, tear it up," folks don't have a defense of their position to offer. This is probably because there isn't one.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 26, 2005)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> They should use nuclear powered steam drills made from whale bones.


----------



## rmcpeek (Apr 26, 2005)

Absolutely! Start Drilling!!


----------



## elder999 (Apr 26, 2005)

Okaaaay....

Even the most optimistic estimates for ANWR put its oil at simply "not enough to make a difference," so the motive here isn't some economic or reliability relief. Well, there is an economic motive: the greed of our President's corporate cronies.  

As for whether or not drilling is safe for the environment: is it technically possible to drill for oil without polluting? *Yes.* Do I have any confidence in the oil industry's ability and willingness to do so? _A little._

Is there any reason to believe that they won't foul it up, based on their track record from the very inception of their industry to the present?
*No.*

Is the small amount of potential oil that is economically recoverable worth the risk of the potential (likely) environmental impact? *No.*

Is there any way anyone with even a modest amount of common sense could see otherwise......?


----------

