# Senate Approves Oil Drilling in ANWR



## Makalakumu (Nov 8, 2005)

The U.S. Senate has approved oil drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge by a vote of 52-47.

For those who were unaware that it was being voted on, it was because it was slipped into a budget cutting bill of the type that would prevent filibuster.

Here's the story from the Star Tribune. Coleman kept his promise to vote against drilling there...

By a provision also passed by the senate(to the chagrin of oil companies), none of the ANWR oil can be exported.

The house still has to approve drilling, and that could prove tougher, but we are now 1 step closer.  

I wonder if this will pick up any media attention given all of the other issues that are swirling about.  Remember when I asked the kinds of things that would be passed by congress during this scandalous period...ie cutting food stamps...here's another one.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Brother John (Nov 8, 2005)

Sounds good to me.






Your Bro.
John


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 8, 2005)

*Sigh* Three more years....

I mean, drilling from a wildlife refuge?  How much more contradictory do you get?


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 8, 2005)

As long as its not -too- invasive and destructive (which they claim it should not be), then I have no problem with it. Helps stabalize our oil supply, which is always good. Honestly, I even like the fact that the oil must stay domestic. We have large enough needs, we will be able to handle it.



> I wonder if this will pick up any media attention given all of the other issues that are swirling about. Remember when I asked the kinds of things that would be passed by congress during this scandalous period...ie cutting food stamps...here's another one.



Securing your oil supply is a scandal? Really? Or is it the fact that money will be made by someone? Don't like lower oil prices? I can see the problem -IF- nature is totally destroyed, but otherwise, whats the issue? In order to live where you do, land was probably "destroyed" in the same fashion. Land was once all natural. You probably have wood in your house, use gas in your car, natural gas heating (perhaps) or electic (has to be produced somewhere). Willing to remove all modern technology and structure to have something more pristine? I'm not advocating destroying all nature, but realizing that at times we need to take advantage of the natural resources where they exist. If places that are pristine, take measures to preserve it as much as possible.

Based on previous posts, I think you don't like it simply because its being done under Bush's term 

MrH


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Nov 8, 2005)

odd feelings abound.

I'm incensed that drilling will be allowed in the Alaskan refuge; but, after years of clear-cutting national forests, mining and every other bit of environmental fraud and abuse, I'm not at all surprised.

On the other hand, not allowing the oil to be exported does suggest a lessening of reliance on OPEC, et al.

On the third hand, it may all be political hogwash.

_Shigata ga nai._


----------



## Brother John (Nov 8, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Based on previous posts, I think you don't like it simply because its being done under Bush's term
> 
> MrH


Mr. H
That seems to me to be a very insightful observation; and quite probably true.

Your Brother
John


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2005)

I think we have to look for oil where we can find it.

That someone designated it a wildlife refuge doesn't make it sacrosanct.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 8, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Based on previous posts, I think you don't like it simply because its being done under Bush's term


Actually, I would think it's abhorrent under ANY president.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 8, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Actually, I would think it's abhorrent under ANY president.


 
If thats your stance, thats fine... I think the issues should be argued based on the facts, not on "gee, the republicans like this, so lets be against it." Argue the point, not the politics. Educate yourself, and don't let the prevailing or loudest political voice be your only source of opinion.

As to the point in question, what do you pose as an alternative?

Here are some points I can offer... lets spend more time/money on alternative energies. Lets focus on hydrogen cars, nuclear fussion, look back into nuclear fission, solar. There are alot of options out there. However, until these new technologies are employed, we need a source of energy. We need to take advatage of those resources until we can wean ourselves off of them. We also need to be careful and ensure we pursue them actively, and not be complacent thinking "we have enough energy until X date". A few ways to do this would be to offer tax breaks/incintives for alternative energy research/companies and actually helping finance some of the projects. Personally, I'd love to see our dependance on foreign energy go WAY down... It stinks that energy policies are dependent on foreign politics and opinion.

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 8, 2005)

Mrhnau - I'm not a "Bush hatin' fool" and I've spent a little time reading about this over the years.  I will always be able to give you specific reasons why I don't like this or that policy.

This policy isn't going to do much but make some money for a small group of people and it will do "nothing' to cut our dependence of foriegn oil.  

After Katrina, American's cut consumption by 2% and just watch how fast our prices have dropped.  With that in mind, wouldn't a policy that advocates decreases in consumption make more sense?  Wouldn't a policy like that do MUCH more to cut our dependence on foriegn oil?  Wouldn't a policy like that ensure that just may have more oil on hand in the future when it becomes even more scarce?

Why does the Bush administration and the Republican leaderhship favor solutions that won't acheive the best results?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 8, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> > Based on previous posts, I think you don't like it simply because its being done under Bush's term
> 
> 
> MrHMr. H
> ...


Irrelevant to this specific topic.  Debate the merit of the idea.  Ad Hominem is illogical.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2005)

Looks like the House disagrees:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051110/ap_on_go_co/arctic_refuge_11

*House Drops Arctic Drilling From Bill*



> A solid phalanx of Republican moderates drove House GOP leaders to drop a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wilderness area to oil drilling as a sweeping budget bill headed toward a vote Thursday.


----------



## rutherford (Nov 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> For those who were unaware that it was being voted on, it was because it was slipped into a budget cutting bill of the type that would prevent filibuster.
> . . .
> I wonder if this will pick up any media attention given all of the other issues that are swirling about. Remember when I asked the kinds of things that would be passed by congress during this scandalous period...ie cutting food stamps...here's another one.
> 
> upnorthkyosa


 
As hotly contested as this issue has been and will probably remain, I am both amazed and unsurprised that it was buried in a larger bill and that the media hasn't brought it to the foreground.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention.


----------



## dubljay (Nov 10, 2005)

While I am not really fond of the idea of invading the Wildlife refuge for oil, I think perhaps there are some benifits.  First it could ease the strain on the economy that current gas prices are causing.   Second it may lessen our dependence on forign oil, which is a good thing.  By giving some economic breathing room with a domestic oil reserve perhaps there will be a chance to bring about more reliable and cost effective alternative energies.  One can still hope that the federal government will come around to the idea.  Logically speaking if the US corners the market for alternative energy technologies we will become more powerful than OPEC after oil reserves become too scarece to make drilling cost effective.

Again I'm not condoning this action, I think that it is in contradiction of the purpose of a wildliefe refuge (refuge meaning a place free from human interferance).  Even with minimal impact there will be effects felt by the ecosystem there for years after drilling has ceased. 

*sigh*  Sometimes the shortsightedness of the government really irratates me.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Mrhnau - I'm not a "Bush hatin' fool" and I've spent a little time reading about this over the years. I will always be able to give you specific reasons why I don't like this or that policy.


Then my statement regarding your opinion being based on Bush was incorrect, and for that I do apologize. 



> This policy isn't going to do much but make some money for a small group of people and it will do "nothing' to cut our dependence of foriegn oil.
> 
> After Katrina, American's cut consumption by 2% and just watch how fast our prices have dropped. With that in mind, wouldn't a policy that advocates decreases in consumption make more sense? Wouldn't a policy like that do MUCH more to cut our dependence on foriegn oil? Wouldn't a policy like that ensure that just may have more oil on hand in the future when it becomes even more scarce?


The policy would help our supply of oil. otherwise whats the point? it would make money for people. of course it would. we live in a capitalistic society. it would also create jobs. making money in some form is not evil. for a corperation to consider drilling, they need to potential for making back the money they invest.

cutting consumption is a great way to cut dependancy. however, thats not the only thing that affects prices. commodity sentiment affects things alot. Hurricanes, natural disasters, refinement capacity, OPEC supply, political relations with supply countries and investor paranoia all play parts. We also have to consider world wide consumption with India and China ramping up oil consumption. Its not simply "lets cut oil consumption 10%". Regarding cutting demand, see post #9. Until we get good alternatives of practical ways of cutting consumption, we still need oil. I prefer domestic dependance whenever possible.




> Why does the Bush administration and the Republican leaderhship favor solutions that won't acheive the best results?


 
What is best is what is being argued. The Bush administration is not simply sitting there thinking "how can we achieve the worst results". Its a battle of their experts vs someone elses experts. They believe they are correct. You have strong opinions, so do I. I think ANWR drilling would provide the best results for reasons I've stated, as long is caution is used for the environment. I thought the first paragraph of the latest dubljay was good regarding potential benefits.



> As hotly contested as this issue has been and will probably remain, I am both amazed and unsurprised that it was buried in a larger bill and that the media hasn't brought it to the foreground.


 
It was not "buried", hence it being brought up now. It was attached to a budget bill so it could not be filibustered. We can argue the merit of that if you want, but it seems a bit backhanded. Then again, I don't like the democrats throwing the threat of a filibuster towards anything they don't like. I don't recall Republicans doing that during the Clinton years (at least not with as much press paid). Regardless of it being "buried", its already been shot down by the house as Arni pointed out. Sort of a moot point now. I hope it comes back up in future legislation.



> Irrelevant to this specific topic. Debate the merit of the idea. Ad Hominem is illogical.


Not sure if you were referencing me since you double quoted, but if me, see post #9.



> *sigh* Sometimes the shortsightedness of the government really irratates me.


Based on the first paragraph of your post, I'm a bit confused. I assume your view of short sightedness deals only with the potential environmental impact and not your paragraph regarding potential benefits?


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This policy isn't going to do much but make some money for a small group of people and it will do "nothing' to cut our dependence of foriegn oil.


 I dont think it will do nothing, maybe not the final solution, but its a start. The estimated producable product from these "reserves" is pretty large.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> After Katrina, American's cut consumption by 2% and just watch how fast our prices have dropped. With that in mind, wouldn't a policy that advocates decreases in consumption make more sense? Wouldn't a policy like that do MUCH more to cut our dependence on foriegn oil? Wouldn't a policy like that ensure that just may have more oil on hand in the future when it becomes even more scarce?


 I completely agree with you here. However, I dont think one course of action or one solution will every really work. We need to address many issues from many different angles. Cutting consumption is good, of course the issue with it have allready been addressed, but we can't cut enough of something we use so heavily. Increasing our reserves while cutting consumption is a big step.


7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> The estimated producable product from these "reserves" is pretty large.


 
How large is 'pretty large'?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 10, 2005)

Well if its not a sizable ammount I guess the drilling will be short lived then...

http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/potent.html



> U.S. Geological Survey - 1980. In 1980, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Coastal Plain could contain up to 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
> 
> U.S. Department of Interior - 1987. After several years of surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys (in 1983-84 and 1984-85), the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), in its April, 1987 report on the oil and gas potential of the Coastal Plain, estimated that there are billions of barrels of oil to be discovered in the area. DOI estimates that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more).
> 
> U.S. Geological Survey - 1998. The most recent petroleum assessment prepared by the USGS in 1998 (OFR 98-34), increased the estimate for technically recoverable mean crude oil resources. (See Oil in the ANWR? It's Time to Find Out!)


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well if its not a sizable ammount I guess the drilling will be short lived then...


 
Drilling an oil well and pumping the oil isn't like emptying an empty cavern under the earth.  It takes a lot of work to get the oil out.  The oil is trapped in granular capillary spaces.  Whether its a small or large amount, they'll be there awhile.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2005)

Yeah, it's a big investment of time and effort. It'll be disruptive.

But until we have nuclear-powered cars to go with our nuclear-powered submarines, what else can one do?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 10, 2005)

http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/faces-caribou.pdf



> Recent surveys of the Central Arctic caribou herd near the Prudhoe Bay oil field shows the herd population at its highest level ever recorded in the past quarter century. The herd has grown more than sevenfold since Prudhoe Bay development began in the mid-1970s.





> New oil development technology will allow companies to tap underground producing reservoirs with a much smaller "footprint" on the surface. Development in ANWR will impact only 2,000 acres of the 19.6 million acre Refuge.



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



> 1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.
> 
> 2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are 4.2 billion dollars.
> 
> ...



Wilderness V Development


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 10, 2005)

29.4 Billion Barrels of Oil at the *top end* of the estimate.

How much oil does the United States consume in a year?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 10, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 29.4 Billion Barrels of Oil at the *top end* of the estimate.
> 
> How much oil does the United States consume in a year?


 
http://www.anwr.org/features/issues/wilderness-dev.htm



> Daschle's "six-months supply" is based on the low end of the range estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey of 5.7 billion barrels to a high of 16 billion barrels. Were the actual amount of oil in ANWR to be no more than 5.7 billion barrels, the most we could extract would be two million barrels per day because of the pipeline capacity. At that rate, the minimum estimated reserves would last 25 years.
> *The most probable quantity of ANWR oil is over 10 billion barrels, using today's extraction technology. Now we're talking about a 50-year supply, pumping at maximum capacity. *
> How can the Senate Majority Leader make such a misleading statement? *Environmental organizations have twisted logic to divide the total daily U.S. oil consumption by the minimum estimated ANWR reserves, and concluded the supply would last only six months, totally disregarding the reality that there is no way to extract and distribute a supply to equal the total U.S. demand from any single source.*


----------



## Tgace (Nov 10, 2005)

The only way the more extreme environmentalists will be happy is to eliminate oil consumption. Conservation still does nothing to alleviate dependence on foreign sources like "friendly" Venezuela and the Middle East. We need to conserve, we need to develop alternate energies AND we need to explore our own oil sources....


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 10, 2005)

Gee ... I hate to have to answer my own question ... 

It seems that the United States *consumes* 20 million barrels of oil per day.

OK ... let's do the math ...

29400 million Barrels of Oil in Alaska (Top Line Estimate).
Divided By​20 Million Barrels of Oil per day consumption (Current Consumption)
equals​1470 Days of Oil in Alaska.
​So, the best case scenario, is that what we may be able to get from the North Slopes could provide 4 years worth of oil at today's consupmtion rate. Regardless of how slowly it takes to extract the oil. We are trading a number of unknowns, for at best 4 years supply. 

I suppose, if we don't define those unknowns, what caribou herd, what are dolly varden, or intentionally downgrade the impact - such as 'only 2000 acres' will be disturbed. We will never know what is lost. 

Four Years.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 10, 2005)

Someone tell me...What's in Anwar again?  Don't use vague terms like "Wildlife refuge" either.  That's a dodge if I ever heard one.  Someone explain to me, in plain english, what's so special about Anwar (other than oil) and WHY is drilling oil going to make it "Not special".  If someone could do that, i'd be very greatful. :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Nov 10, 2005)

Saw that Steven Segal movie one too many times? What was that one with the "evil oil mogul" where Steve blows up the oil deck after becoming an Eskimo and becoming one with nature?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 10, 2005)

I'm wondering .... how much oil is there in, say Afghanistan and Iraq?

We have spent well over 300 Billion Dollars taking over that land. Gee, there ought to be at least a couple of years of oil there, right? 

Any one know, I mean, really, How much oil is there in Iraq?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 10, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'm wondering .... how much oil is there in, say Afghanistan and Iraq?
> 
> We have spent well over 300 Billion Dollars taking over that land. Gee, there ought to be at least a couple of years of oil there, right?
> 
> Any one know, I mean, really, How much oil is there in Iraq?


 
You tell me.  Wasn't your argument that this whole war was for oil?  Yet we aren't really getting that much.  So aren't you, in essence, now claiming that you were mistaken?  What's more, the fact that your suggesting we SHOULD be taking their oil is kind of weird.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 11, 2005)

The thing about ANWR is that it is such a beautiful, pristine, pretty, natural-looking place because it's a big piece of crap land that nobody ever goes to for any reason.  If it's warm enough that the land isn't frozen, then it improves to a swamp.  The caribou don't care about things like eyesores, either; they will simply walk around the pipes.  Not too disruptive.  

I will say this, however, I don't necessarily think we should do it unless we are aggressively pursuing fuel/energy alternatives, because I'd just as soon use up other countries' resources, even if it is expensive, and save ANWR as a kind of reserve in case we need it later.  If what Mike said is true, then four years' worth of oil doesn't seem like it's worth using up now because although fuel is expensive, I don't think it's a national emergency yet.  Unless there are many other untapped sources of oil in the US, of course, that I don't know about.  Keep in mind, though, that it wouldn't suddenly be our only source of oil.  Surely, we'll still import some, which will stretch out our supply for a while.  The other thing is the crack spread.  How much does it cost to refine the oil after it's been taken from this Ansel Adams picture?  It's still going to cost some money to refine it, so the total cost needs to be assessed before moving forward, I think.  Maybe it has, but I couldn't find any evidence of it via Google.

I think we need to look at this logically and strategically.  Some of the counter-arguments I've heard have been (except Mike, who used some facts) emotional..."Oh no, it's so pretty!  Oh the caribou!" and other such things.  Every picture I've seen of the area has been perfectly untouched and perfect.  Not even a footprint in the snow.  Know why?  Because nobody uses it for anything, menaing I've never been there, you've never been there, and nobody will ever be there unless they are working at an oil refinery.  We wouldn't even know it existed if not for environmental extremists, so I think we should let this one go and focus on real environmental hazards instead of protecting useless land because it looks like such a nice, jolly place for all the happy little animals.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You tell me. Wasn't your argument that this whole war was for oil? Yet we aren't really getting that much. So aren't you, in essence, now claiming that you were mistaken? What's more, the fact that your suggesting we SHOULD be taking their oil is kind of weird.


 
Don't confuse a question with a position.

And you prefer, pick a friendly country ... How much oil is there in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or United Arab Emerate?

Another interesting tid-bit .... How many oil wells are there in Texas? How many oil wells are there in Iraq? Why the disparity?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Someone tell me...What's in Anwar again? Don't use vague terms like "Wildlife refuge" either. That's a dodge if I ever heard one. Someone explain to me, in plain english, what's so special about Anwar (other than oil) and WHY is drilling oil going to make it "Not special". If someone could do that, i'd be very greatful. :asian:


 
Do you like going outside?  Do you hunt and fish?  Do you enjoy the peace and quiet and solitude of nature?  ANWR is a place with a particular government label.  Yet, that label does nothing to describe what lies in the hearts of outdoorsmen/(people).  When ANWR was designated as ANWR, our country made a committment to preserving land in its natural state.  Why?

Men like Sigurd Olson, put it best...



> In some men, the need of unbroken country, primitive conditions and intimate contact with the earth is a deeply rooted cancer gnawing forever at the illusion of contentment with things as they are. For months or years this hidden longing may go unnoticed and then, without warning, flare forth in an all consuming passion that will not bear denial. Perhaps it is the passing of a flock of wild geese in the spring, perhaps the sound of running water, or the smell of thawing earth that brings the transformation. Whatever it is, the need is more than can be borne with fortitude, and for the good of their families and friends, and their own particular restless souls, they head toward the last frontiers and escape.


 
What is ANWR?  I can only speak for myself.  It is a place that is good for my soul...and maybe yours.  And, I guess I can understand if you would rather put cheap gas in your gas tank.  Somehow some children were taught to sell the most precious for the cheapest.

:idunno: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2005)

Here is some more from Sigurd Olson on wilderness

http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/JMC/Olson/speeches/spiritual_need.htm

upnorthkyosa


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Do you like going outside? Do you hunt and fish? Do you enjoy the peace and quiet and solitude of nature? ANWR is a place with a particular government label. Yet, that label does nothing to describe what lies in the hearts of outdoorsmen/(people). When ANWR was designated as ANWR, our country made a committment to preserving land in its natural state. Why?
> 
> Men like Sigurd Olson, put it best...
> 
> ...


 
Its good for your soul? Have you been there? hunting there? Will taking up a small fraction of a piece of land you would never see defile the entirety of Alaska? Will the entire wildlife ecostructure of the beauty of Alaska be tainted, and fishermen/hunters not be able to go there anymore? There are instances like the Valdez, but they are far and in between. Even that disaster did not defile the entire coastline if I recall.

There is already alot of oil drilling in Alaska. Will continue to be. Designating some place off limits is ok I guess, but it won't be affected too much if we choose to drill there. Go look up the location of ANWR on the map. Here is a small map of the area. Here are some other maps. This is the most barren land in the US. Its too cold to go hunting under most circumstances. Is hunting/fishing even allowed? How often are rivers even thawed? I honestly don't know if its populated, anyone know? Would you rather drill in a populated area and displace people?

We are taught to sell our most precious for the cheapest? A small fraction of this land will be drilled. Would you rather teach them depcy on countries that sponsor/produce terrorists? I don't see it as "selling our most precious". I'd consider it using our resources, and trying to use them wisely w/out destroying what beauty we do have. If they do chose to drill, I hope its monitored closely. I don't want the land destroyed completely, but there is going to be some kind of impact. The same kind of impact -your- land had when you put down a house. Same kind of impact of the office you work at (assuming you do).



> It seems that the United States *consumes* 20 million barrels of oil per day.


 
I'm going to assume your math is correct, and we have a four year supply out in ANWR. The logic does not hold though. We will not stop drilling in other locations! we will not stop importing oil from other countries! Just because we start drilling in ANWR does not mean we stop looking for other sources too. So, how much oil supply do we have in our entire country w/out ANWR? Would we last for 20 years? Then ANWR would make it 24. Within the next 24 years we would have time to explore other resources and alternative energies. How much oil do we have w/ imports? how long can we last on those resources? 100 years? ANWR would make it 104. I honestly don't know the figures, anyone know? Those 4 years provide more breathing room for alternitive energy research. If its just 4, I'll take them. Its 4 more than we had.

As I stated before, we need to guard consumption, but also plan for the future. Lets see if we can get that 20M down to 15M in 10 years. I'd be all for that. Conservation would cut our dependancy.



> I will say this, however, I don't necessarily think we should do it unless we are aggressively pursuing fuel/energy alternatives, because I'd just as soon use up other countries' resources, even if it is expensive, and save ANWR as a kind of reserve in case we need it later. If what Mike said is true, then four years' worth of oil doesn't seem like it's worth using up now because although fuel is expensive, I don't think it's a national emergency yet. Unless there are many other untapped sources of oil in the US, of course, that I don't know about. Keep in mind, though, that it wouldn't suddenly be our only source of oil. Surely, we'll still import some, which will stretch out our supply for a while.


 
Well said. I pretty much repeated some of the things you said. One point I will add. If you want to consider this as a reserve, thats fine. However, you don't simply go and stick a pipe in the ground and out comes oil. It takes years to develop. You need more refinery capacity. It takes time. If we have an emergency and our oil supply is cut off, we are talking years before we can tap ANWR. If we plan on using it, the time for action would be now. Reserve or not, it would be wise. I don't want to wait for an emergency. Perhaps if we care to keep it as a reserve, maybe you can suggest setting up the structure, and running at low capacity until we need it? keep capacity in reserve for instances such as war or natural disaster? (think katrina/rita).

MrH


----------



## BrandiJo (Nov 11, 2005)

my bfs from alaska, and they all are really excited about it. He says it will give them more main road systems, more govnment funding, and it wont hurt anything, odds are the anaimals will be drawn to it for warmth and so they could have a safer winter season. i dont know where i personaly stand on it cus iv never really looked at it but his arugemnts do sound logical


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 11, 2005)

BrandiJo said:
			
		

> my bfs from alaska, and they all are really excited about it. He says it will give them more main road systems, more govnment funding, and it wont hurt anything, odds are the anaimals will be drawn to it for warmth and so they could have a safer winter season. i dont know where i personaly stand on it cus iv never really looked at it but his arugemnts do sound logical


 
I understand they get a check each year from oil receipts. I'm sure they might get a little bit more  What part of AK? I'd love to visit one day soon...

MrH


----------



## oldnewbie (Nov 11, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Gee ... I hate to have to answer my own question ...
> 
> It seems that the United States *consumes* 20 million barrels of oil per day.
> 
> ...



I've seem this type of math before.... the problem is we would not use ANWR for 100% of our consumption. ANWR would be a way to reduce our need of imported oil.

Using the above numbers of 20 Million/day = 7300 million /year
7300 million x 10% = 730 million less from imported oil.

29400 million / 730 million = 40.27 years we are less dependent.

That seems like a do-able situation. Less dependency means savings in the tank. 

What we really need to do is to build more/better refineries.....


----------



## arnisador (Nov 11, 2005)

I'm not surprised to hear that Alaskans see it as an economic boon.

If I understand, ANWR was created by an act of congress, right? (Or could it have been by presidential order?) Making it out now to be sacred ground is too much.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 11, 2005)

Folks, my math example is not presented to suggest that the entire consumption of the United States be transferred from foreign sources to ANWR - like turning off valve A and turning on valve B.

The math is presented to demonstrate one half of the 'what is it worth' equation. If we are not clear on what is to be gained, then we can not make an informed decision. 

I understand completely that it will take a decade to build the extraction and transportation capabilities from ANWR. It will further take decades to fully extract what carbon may be hidden in the ground. 

But, the best case scenario is that we are going to extract 4 years worth of fuel for our country.

Someone else has asked the other half of the 'What is it worth' Equation: what is there in ANWR that is worth preserving. 

If preserving rare habitat, and rare wildlife is not worth the 4 years of fuel, then support drilling. 

One other thing to consider, how difficult is it to extract oil from the ground in ANWR; especially when compared to how the oil comes out of the ground in other parts of the world.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Its good for your soul? Have you been there? hunting there? Will taking up a small fraction of a piece of land you would never see defile the entirety of Alaska? Will the entire wildlife ecostructure of the beauty of Alaska be tainted, and fishermen/hunters not be able to go there anymore? There are instances like the Valdez, but they are far and in between. Even that disaster did not defile the entire coastline if I recall.
> 
> There is already alot of oil drilling in Alaska. Will continue to be. Designating some place off limits is ok I guess, but it won't be affected too much if we choose to drill there. Go look up the location of ANWR on the map. Here is a small map of the area. Here are some other maps. This is the most barren land in the US. Its too cold to go hunting under most circumstances. Is hunting/fishing even allowed? How often are rivers even thawed? I honestly don't know if its populated, anyone know? Would you rather drill in a populated area and displace people?


 
Those maps are beautiful...

The kind of impact drilling and pumping would have is debateable.  Oil companies claim that they can do it without much impact.  Others disagree.  The impact of drilling is an issue, but that isn't necessarily what I'm talking about.  

In 1964, our country made a comittment to wilderness because of people like Bob Marshall and Sigurd Olson.  We, as a nation, said to the world that we valued this undeveloped land and that we to preserve it for future generations.  The Wilderness Act was a promise and I want my nation to stick to that promise.  



> We are taught to sell our most precious for the cheapest? A small fraction of this land will be drilled. Would you rather teach them depcy on countries that sponsor/produce terrorists? I don't see it as "selling our most precious". I'd consider it using our resources, and trying to use them wisely w/out destroying what beauty we do have. If they do chose to drill, I hope its monitored closely. I don't want the land destroyed completely, but there is going to be some kind of impact. The same kind of impact -your- land had when you put down a house. Same kind of impact of the office you work at (assuming you do).


 
The fact that a pile of money exists under ANWR shouldn't challenge these values IMO.  We have so many more effective options that could be used to reduce our dependence of foriegn oil.  Lets go there first, before we even consider going back on our word...before we violate that promise to our children.

Drilling in ANWR is not a wise use of resources.  Not when we waste as much as we do.  Not when we have to go back on our word in order to feed the machines that make us fat and lazy.  For me, drilling in ANWR has become a symbol of the gluttony and greed that I feel has taken over our nation.  If it does occur, I would have to mourn the loss of those values that I hold so dear.

It truly is selling the most precious for the cheapest and I want to believe that America is so much better then that...

upnorthkyosa

ps - the terrorist angle is nothing but nasty right wing propaganda.  It doesn't fool me and it doesn't scare me.  We could change some laws and easily stop buying oil from the "bad guys".  This is just another instance where "terror" is being used as a social hammer...

:bs: 

People need to learn how to call it like it is and quit feeding this beast.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Those maps are beautiful...
> 
> The kind of impact drilling and pumping would have is debateable. Oil companies claim that they can do it without much impact. Others disagree. The impact of drilling is an issue, but that isn't necessarily what I'm talking about.
> 
> In 1964, our country made a comittment to wilderness because of people like Bob Marshall and Sigurd Olson. We, as a nation, said to the world that we valued this undeveloped land and that we to preserve it for future generations. The Wilderness Act was a promise and I want my nation to stick to that promise.


 I completely understand your feelings here. I can see where drilling could be concieved as going back on our word, but I really dont think it is. There comes a point where in order to be responsible to our citizens and keep our economy going we must look at things we must do. I think drilling there is one of these things. Its not our first choice as we can see it being downed allready, but eventually we are going to need that area. We can most assuredly still protect that land with minimal impact and spend the next 100 years if necessary diminishing the "footprint". I think its not my favorite thing, but in todays world we can do what we need to do for our citizens and still protect our wildlife.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The fact that a pile of money exists under ANWR shouldn't challenge these values IMO. We have so many more effective options that could be used to reduce our dependence of foriegn oil. Lets go there first, before we even consider going back on our word...before we violate that promise to our children.
> 
> Drilling in ANWR is not a wise use of resources. Not when we waste as much as we do. Not when we have to go back on our word in order to feed the machines that make us fat and lazy. For me, drilling in ANWR has become a symbol of the gluttony and greed that I feel has taken over our nation. If it does occur, I would have to mourn the loss of those values that I hold so dear.


 I think your just looking at this all wrong. Looking at this as "a pile of money" lessens the value this would bring to those who truly need it. Lets not cheapen the lives of these workers, their families, the entire economy this product will help sustain. We can simplify it and talk about the senior citizen who has lost her family, most of her health, and is now loosing her freedom because she cannot afford the prices of energy based on her fixed income. Sure, that may be oversimplification, but we can't ignore its truth. 

We also can't label those who use these products as those that are fat and lazy, that is also ignoring the beneficial aspects of modern energy. Lets take the energy a trauma center uses to save the lifes of fallen police officers. Grant it, I'm appealing to the emotional cases, but the fact that oil reserves fuel "machines that make us fat and lazy" doesn't remomve the fact that these same oil reserves fuel the machines that make us productive and healthy. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It truly is selling the most precious for the cheapest and I want to believe that America is so much better then that...


 Keeping said "spoils" domestic is most deffinitely not selling our most precious for the cheapest. We would be using our most precious for our most precious...our citizens. Also, do you realize the energy needs of the "machines" that monitor and help keep wildlife reserves active and healthy?

I think we should stop and look at this from all angles. Yes, its interfearing with land we set aside, are there other options besides drilling? Yes. Should we rely on one option for the future of our country, children or world? Most assuredly, no.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2005)

Maybe down the line, if somehow things really got bad, I could see going back on our word and violating the values we set in motion with the Wilderness Act.  However, I see so many other options that won't even make it to the table because of the oil lobbies.  These guys don't want conservation...its bad for business.  However, conservation is very good for America and its great policy for our future.  Conservation leaves ANWR the way it is and it leaves the oil for a "real" rainy day.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 11, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Mr. H
> That seems to me to be a very insightful observation; and quite probably true.
> 
> Your Brother
> John


 
and to you...you probably like it because it IS done under Bush's watch.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 11, 2005)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> and to you...you probably like it because it IS done under Bush's watch.



I think the ad hominem attacks have been addressed and moved passed in this thread. Lets stick to arguing the "merit of the ideas".

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Maybe down the line, if somehow things really got bad, I could see going back on our word and violating the values we set in motion with the Wilderness Act. However, I see so many other options that won't even make it to the table because of the oil lobbies. These guys don't want conservation...its bad for business. However, conservation is very good for America and its great policy for our future. Conservation leaves ANWR the way it is and it leaves the oil for a "real" rainy day.


I truly dont see this as "going back on our word" and I honestly dont see how the wildlife issue is even pertinent. The impact this will have on the total area of ANWR is so minute its not even an issue. I really think there must be some better reason to not drill there as the need is present and the impact is vitually nonexistant. 

What other options are you seeing that wont even make it to the table? Also, dont be so quick to forsee what will or will not occur or be looked at. Conservation is a great help, but not a solution. It can help prolong the inevitable but it doesn't do anything to fix the problem. Again, lets look at several solutions that will not just prolong, but actually fix the issue. Conservation cannot completely fix the problem as we use this resource quite heavily. Creating alternate energy sources can be a solution, as can becoming less dependant on foreign oil. Keeping this oil domestic would do a great deal to help with that issue. It alone is not a solution either, but its a step in the right direction.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I truly dont see this as "going back on our word" and I honestly dont see how the wildlife issue is even pertinent. The impact this will have on the total area of ANWR is so minute its not even an issue. I really think there must be some better reason to not drill there as the need is present and the impact is vitually nonexistant.


 
Whether or not the impact of the operation will disturb the area is still a matter of open debate.  People on both sides have presented some good arguments.  I happen to feel that any long term operation is going to have a larger impact then planned.  People are sloppy and being clean is expensive...

The impact, however, isn't my greatest concern.  Precedent is something that has me more worried.  There are piles of money locked up in wilderness areas across this country.  If we open this area up to extract this resource, why not others?  And some of these other mineral deposits are pretty important things...ie uranium, high grade coal, natural gas etc.  I feel that in order to hedge this and stick to the ethics we developed with the wilderness act, we need to be consistant.



> What other options are you seeing that wont even make it to the table?


 
Here are three options that would help us conserve oil in the US.

1.  Lower speed limits.
2.  Raise CAFE standards.
3.  Subsidize public transit.

With these three things, we could conserve more oil in one year then we could EVER pump our of ANWR.  Conserving ten times as much is a _conservative_ estimate.



> Also, dont be so quick to forsee what will or will not occur or be looked at.


 
I don't have to forsee it.  All I have to look at is the current transportation and energy bill.  The Oil and Energy lobbies helped write both of them.



> Conservation is a great help, but not a solution. It can help prolong the inevitable but it doesn't do anything to fix the problem. Again, lets look at several solutions that will not just prolong, but actually fix the issue. Conservation cannot completely fix the problem as we use this resource quite heavily.


 
Actually, conservation, could solve our "problems" completely.  We could conserve our way out of foriegn oil dependence.  



> Creating alternate energy sources can be a solution, as can becoming less dependant on foreign oil. Keeping this oil domestic would do a great deal to help with that issue. It alone is not a solution either, but its a step in the right direction.


 
Conservation, Mass Transit, and Alternative Energies are all we really need in order to deal with this issue.  Drilling in ANWR won't fix anything because in a few years, we'll be back in the same boat...worse in fact.  The entire world is reaching a peak in global production and levels will fall permenantly once we pass that peak.  Drilling in ANWR not only prolongs the problem, it makes it worse.  It is a short sighted, greedy, and glutonous policy.  We don't need to do it.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Nov 11, 2005)

Drill.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 11, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Don't confuse a question with a position.
> 
> And you prefer, pick a friendly country ... How much oil is there in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or United Arab Emerate?
> 
> Another interesting tid-bit .... How many oil wells are there in Texas? How many oil wells are there in Iraq? Why the disparity?


 Silly argument.  I thought the whole POINT was to reduce our dependence on oil produced in the middle east.

As for disparities, the difference may have to do with the "NIMBY" attitude that restricts drilling and refining within the US.  Ask me some tough questions.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Do you like going outside? Do you hunt and fish? Do you enjoy the peace and quiet and solitude of nature? ANWR is a place with a particular government label. Yet, that label does nothing to describe what lies in the hearts of outdoorsmen/(people). When ANWR was designated as ANWR, our country made a committment to preserving land in its natural state. Why?
> 
> Men like Sigurd Olson, put it best...
> 
> ...


 You did everything but answer my simple question.  An appeal to emotion doesn't answer the question, it merely attempts to side-step it.  Try actually giving me an answer.

Anwar isn't supposed to be an answer, it's supposed to be a stop-gap.  

I'll make it simple

1. "What's in Anwar that is special an unique (don't revert to "it's a magical place full of wonder" arguments), what, specifically, is there?

2. "How will drilling oil destroy that?"

Thank you.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2005)

Simple is good.  Here is simple.  Our country made a comittment.  We gave our word.  Is that important to you?  Or would you sell that too?


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 11, 2005)

Emotional hogwash. Our country made a committment to its citizens as well, is that important to you? Or would you ignore that?

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 11, 2005)

Facts supporting the exploration of ANWR...

1). Only 8% of ANWR would be opened to exploration. If oil is found, less than 2000 acres would be needed, thats less than .5% of ANWR. If we even went so far as to say that 2000 acres would be completely destroyed (which it wouldn't by far) thats one half of one percent of ANWR....a small price to pay for our citizens, no?

2)Revenue to the state and federal treasury. Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are 4.2 billion dollars. 

3) Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

Thats simply 3 reasons to open this small piece of ANWR up for exploration. Is everyone aware that the area of ANWR to even be considered for exploration of oil is 8%. That leaves 92% completely closed. (anwr.org)

7sm


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Simple is good. Here is simple. Our country made a comittment. We gave our word. Is that important to you? Or would you sell that too?


 I am impressed by your shear refusal to answer the question asked and the lengths to which you will go to avoid answering two simple questions with a fact based answer.  :shrug:  Could it be that you don't have an answer that doesn't involve emotional tripe and vague innuendo?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 12, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Emotional hogwash. Our country made a committment to its citizens as well, is that important to you? Or would you ignore that?



Good point.

As to the 8% figure, though...I wouldn't trust the people who provided that figure as far as I can urinate at 0 Kelvin. Those numbers _always_ grow. I am actually in agreement with you on this point--only a small part would be affected, which is a reason to accept this compromise--but I would hate to wed myself to an oil company's (or government offcial's) figures.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I am impressed by your shear refusal to answer the question asked and the lengths to which you will go to avoid answering two simple questions with a fact based answer.  Could it be that you don't have an answer that doesn't involve emotional tripe and vague innuendo?


 
Seems that the Pot is calling the Kettle black with statements like this. 

<shrugg>


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 12, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Facts supporting the exploration of ANWR...
> 
> 1). Only 8% of ANWR would be opened to exploration. If oil is found, less than 2000 acres would be needed, thats less than .5% of ANWR. If we even went so far as to say that 2000 acres would be completely destroyed (which it wouldn't by far) thats one half of one percent of ANWR....a small price to pay for our citizens, no?
> 
> ...


 
Seven hundred thousand jobs *on *two thousand acres? Wow!

That just boggles the mind. Let's compare. I own one acre of land in Nashua, New Hampshire .... That means, I should be able to produce 350 jobs on this little plot of land. Hallalujah, unemployment and welfare will just go away. Such Productivity - Such Ingenuity. 

but, then again ... Someone once said.

_*If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is. *_


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Seems that the Pot is calling the Kettle black with statements like this.
> 
> <shrugg>


 The pot was asking for a response from the kettle that actually had some substance...not that i'd expect you to have one either.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Seven hundred thousand jobs *on *two thousand acres? Wow!
> 
> That just boggles the mind. Let's compare. I own one acre of land in Nashua, New Hampshire .... That means, I should be able to produce 350 jobs on this little plot of land. Hallalujah, unemployment and welfare will just go away. Such Productivity - Such Ingenuity.
> 
> ...


 Though I have no basis of support for his numbers, it seems your sarcasm is premature.  No one claimed that 250,000 jobs would all be placed on two thousand acres.  It is clear that thousands of ancillary and support jobs would be created by large scale oil production...everything from actually drilling, pipe laying, refining, to services associated with those jobs, including food services, laundry services, even bars and convenience stores.  The 250,000 jobs number doesn't sound that ludicrous at all if you're capable of actually thinking about the topic, instead of having a knee jerk reaction.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The pot was asking for a response from the kettle that actually had some substance...not that i'd expect you to have one either.


 
Seems I have some questions, up thread, that continue to be unaddressed.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Seems I have some questions, up thread, that continue to be unaddressed.


 Mine are far simpler, and yet the answers seem to have eluded certain posters.  Also, it bears some repeating, your questions were nothing substitutes for an answer to my questions.  I asked mine first.  Quid pro quo.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Mine are far simpler, and yet the answers seem to have eluded certain posters. Also, it bears some repeating, your questions were nothing substitutes for an answer to my questions. I asked mine first. Quid pro quo.


 
I hate to have to do this to you .... 

11-10-2005 4:29 PM - michaeledward
How large is 'pretty large'?

11-10-2005 5:38 PM - michaeledward
How much oil does the United States consume in a year? 

11-10-2005 8:38 PM - michaeledward
Gee ... I hate to have to answer my own question ...

11-10-2005 8:46 PM - sgtmac_46
someone tell me... What's in Anwar again?

11-10-2005 8:59 PM - michaeledard
how much oils is there in, say Afghanistan and Iraq? 

11-10-2005 11:02 PM - sgtmac_46
You tell me.​Your Honor, I could go on, but it would be too painful. I ask you to direct the witness to answer, as his prior answer is non-responsive.


P.S. Anyhow, thanks for spreading light.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I hate to have to do this to you ....
> 
> 11-10-2005 4:29 PM - michaeledward
> How large is 'pretty large'?
> ...


 Oh, I see, you want to pretend you were talking to me when you asked "How large is pretty large?" and "How much oil does the US produce in 1 year?"  The first sounds like a rhetorical question, and neither was directed toward me, as they were in responses to someone elses statements (7starmantis and Tgace respectively.)  They weren't directed to me, so it's not my role to answer them.

Nice spin, though.  I asked UpNorth a direct question, but, again, that would require you to pay attention.

Your Honor, I would request that you require the witness to stick to the facts as they actually occurred.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Emotional hogwash. Our country made a committment to its citizens as well, is that important to you? Or would you ignore that?
> 
> 7sm


 
Nope.  Just a difference in values.  I guess, when I say that I'm going to save something for my kids that important, I mean it.  And I'm not going to sell it for cheap gas.  But hey, each to his or her own.  I think its a cheap reason to break ones word especially when there are so many other options.  Its the slightest excuse.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I am impressed by your shear refusal to answer the question asked and the lengths to which you will go to avoid answering two simple questions with a fact based answer. :shrug: Could it be that you don't have an answer that doesn't involve emotional tripe and vague innuendo?


 
Since when did commitment, principle, and honor become "emotional tripe"?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Since when did commitment, principle, and honor become "emotional tripe"?


 When you started answering concrete, fact based questions with abstract "non-answers".  For example, if I ask you what is in Anwar that is going to be damaged by oil production and you say "Something wonderful" that's not really an answer.

What's more, "committment, principle and honor" have absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not to drill in Anwar.  It's a PURE appeal to emotion.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Facts supporting the exploration of ANWR...
> 
> 1). Only 8% of ANWR would be opened to exploration. If oil is found, less than 2000 acres would be needed, thats less than .5% of ANWR. If we even went so far as to say that 2000 acres would be completely destroyed (which it wouldn't by far) thats one half of one percent of ANWR....a small price to pay for our citizens, no?
> 
> ...


 
Those are all reasons to do this, but we just don't have to go there.  Our little problem of slightly more expensive gasoline isn't going to be affected very much by opening it and this solution, wouldn't last very long.

Lots of things are good for the economy.  Lots of things would pump tons of money into it.  The amount of money here is large, yet, when one compares it to our GDP, it isn't even a drop in the bucket.  Surely this pittance is not worth breaking our comittment to wilderness?

My biggest worry with this is precedent.  I feel that by opening ANWR, we are setting a precedent that says that opening wilderness for the slightest excuse is okay.  And it really is the slightest excuse btw.  We have piles of money under lots of protected land.  And some of these piles are far larger then the one under ANWR.  Yellowstone National Park, for instance, has a huge amount of natural gas under it.  Where does it stop?  I don't think it will.  

Any comittment requires sacrifice.  If every American shaved one mpg off their top driving speed, we'd conserve enough to save ANWR in a couple of years.  Slightest excuse indeed.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Those are all reasons to do this, but we just don't have to go there. Our little problem of slightly more expensive gasoline isn't going to be affected very much by opening it and this solution, wouldn't last very long.
> 
> Lots of things are good for the economy. Lots of things would pump tons of money into it. The amount of money here is large, yet, when one compares it to our GDP, it isn't even a drop in the bucket. Surely this pittance is not worth breaking our comittment to wilderness?
> 
> ...


 I think we're more than capable of taking things on a case by case basis.  The whole "precedent"/"Slippery Slope" line of thought is overdone, and I don't think is particularly applicable in this case.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> When you started answering concrete, fact based questions with abstract "non-answers". For example, if I ask you what is in Anwar that is going to be damaged by oil production and you say "Something wonderful" that's not really an answer.
> 
> What's more, "committment, principle and honor" have absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not to drill in Anwar. It's a PURE appeal to emotion.


 
You asked no such thing.  You asked, "What's in ANWR?" and "What is ANWR?"  Comittment, principle and honor have everything to do with the answer to those questions.  ANWR is something we valued.  Wilderness is something we valued.  Oh yeah, there is also a little oil in ANWR.  Look, you may think that cheaper gas is a good reason to violate our comittment, I don't.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You asked no such thing. You asked, "What's in ANWR?" and "What is ANWR?" Comittment, principle and honor have everything to do with the answer to those questions. ANWR is something we valued. Wilderness is something we valued. Oh yeah, there is also a little oil in ANWR. Look, you may think that cheaper gas is a good reason to violate our comittment, I don't.


 "Committment, principle and honor" are in Anwar?  Just exactly where would I start looking in Anwar for those things?  Rock and snow?  Again, appeal to emotion is a fallacy.

"This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy. "

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I think we're more than capable of taking things on a case by case basis. The whole "precedent"/"Slippery Slope" line of thought is overdone, and I don't think is particularly applicable in this case.


 
You should see some of the writings by people like James Watts and other "sagebrush rebels".  They want to take it on a case by case basis, too...in order to open them all up.  One of the guiding principles that drives their philosophy is that they believe that the government shouldn't be so bid that in controls this land.  They believe that they have every right to everything under the land.  And since the inception of the wilderness concept, they have fought it tooth and nail.  Will they stop with ANWR?  They say they will not.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You should see some of the writings by people like James Watts and other "sagebrush rebels". They want to take it on a case by case basis, too...in order to open them all up. One of the guiding principles that drives their philosophy is that they believe that the government shouldn't be so bid that in controls this land. They believe that they have every right to everything under the land. And since the inception of the wilderness concept, they have fought it tooth and nail. Will they stop with ANWR? They say they will not.


 "They" say a lot of things.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> "Committment, principle and honor" are in Anwar? Just exactly where would I start looking in Anwar for those things? Rock and snow? Again, appeal to emotion is a fallacy.
> 
> "This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy. "
> 
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html


 
It doesn't apply.  If I was saying drilling in ANWR is evil, then you'd have a case.  I'm not saying that.  The facts are this...we made a comittment to our children when we put aside this land.  We are breaking this comittment for a very slight excuse.  Things like comittments and laws are very real things.  So are values.  So why is it wrong to talk about those things when discussing drilling in ANWR?

I believe that when we tell our children something, we need to follow through.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It doesn't apply. If I was saying drilling in ANWR is evil, then you'd have a case. I'm not saying that. The facts are this...we made a comittment to our children when we put aside this land. We are breaking this comittment for a very slight excuse. Things like comittments and laws are very real things. So are values. So why is it wrong to talk about those things when discussing drilling in ANWR?
> 
> I believe that when we tell our children something, we need to follow through.


 No, what you are saying is your position is about "Committment, principle and honor".  The assumption being that the opposite view is, by proxy, unprincipled and dishonorable.  Again, it's a fallacious argument.

One quick question...when's the last time you took your children to Anwr?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> No, what you are saying is your position is about "Committment, principle and honor". The assumption being that the opposite view is, by proxy, unprincipled and dishonorable.


 
I've cast this argument as one of giving our word to our children and breaking that vow for the slightest excuse.  There is nothing fallacious about that, you just don't like it.  



> One quick question...when's the last time you took your children to Anwr?


 
I haven't yet.  They are too little.  However, we've been to other wilderness areas that are closer.  All wilderness areas linked together by our values.  I have a question now...

Have you ever brought your children to a wilderness area?  If so, why did you go?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Someone tell me...What's in Anwar again? Don't use vague terms like "Wildlife refuge" either. That's a dodge if I ever heard one. Someone explain to me, in plain english, what's so special about Anwar (other than oil) and WHY is drilling oil going to make it "Not special". If someone could do that, i'd be very greatful.


 
http://arctic.fws.gov/wildland.htm


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> http://arctic.fws.gov/wildland.htm


 
Thank you, michael, that answers part of the question.

Now for the second part...how is drilling on a small portion going to damage the other 19 Million plus acres.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I've cast this argument as one of giving our word to our children and breaking that vow for the slightest excuse. There is nothing fallacious about that, you just don't like it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
First of all, what vow did we make to our children to protect Anwr?  Second, i've already shown you where your argument was completely an appeal to emotion and fallacious, now you're just spinning.

As for the second questions, we're talking about Anwr, not the nebulous term "wilderness", and you avoided the question so I can assume you've never been to Anwr with your children...As I can assume most people haven't as there aren't even roads in to Anwr.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





So, again, you don't have a concrete reason not to drill in Anwr, just a few contrived appeals to emotion.  We'll note that for the record.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> First of all, what vow did we make to our children to protect Anwr? Second, i've already shown you where your argument was completely an appeal to emotion and fallacious, now you're just spinning.
> 
> As for the second questions, we're talking about Anwr, not the nebulous term "wilderness", and you avoided the question so I can assume you've never been to Anwr with your children...As I can assume most people haven't as there aren't even roads in to Anwr.
> 
> ...


 
First of all, when I tell my kids something, I mean it.  That IS a concrete thing.

Second of all, this is a moral values argument, sgtmac46.  Imagine that from a lefty.  The term "wilderness" is defined in the 1964 wilderness act.  It is not some nebulous bugbear that I'm cooking up.  This act and subsequent legislation was the vow that was made to our children.  This legistlation was passed as an expression of our values.

You haven't been able to show this argument as an appeal to emotion and you haven't even begun to address my point on values.  So I'll ask this question, is breaking our word to our children worth slightly cheaper gas in the tank?  The most likely scenario is that ANWR's oil will have no effect on the market, btw.  

This comittment requires a sacrifice...a tiny little sacrifice.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 12, 2005)

Its a gusher!!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> First of all, when I tell my kids something, I mean it. That IS a concrete thing.


 What you told your kids personally has no bearing on the discussion



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Second of all, this is a moral values argument, sgtmac46. Imagine that from a lefty. The term "wilderness" is defined in the 1964 wilderness act. It is not some nebulous bugbear that I'm cooking up. This act and subsequent legislation was the vow that was made to our children. This legistlation was passed as an expression of our values.


 What is nebulous is you discussing a topic of specifics, with vague generalizations.  Again, how is an unvisited wasteland a gift to our children?  Are they to get the warm fuzzies from the sheer knowledge that somewhere there is a wilderness they will never see?  Sorry, doesn't float.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You haven't been able to show this argument as an appeal to emotion and you haven't even begun to address my point on values. So I'll ask this question, is breaking our word to our children worth slightly cheaper gas in the tank? The most likely scenario is that ANWR's oil will have no effect on the market, btw.


  I haven't shown it...you have.  You've done everything but say that god told you it's the right thing to do.  Again, your entire argument is based on trying to make this an emotional appeal (It's a promise to our children...It's the "moral" thing). What does morality have one wit to do about whether to drill in a 19 Million acre wasteland?  It only does if you're embracing the cult of environmentalism as a religion.  Again, it's a fallacious argument.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This comittment requires a sacrifice...a tiny little sacrifice.


 
Again, i'm curious about what committment you are referring to.  You've already acknowledged you've never been to Anwr, aren't likely ever to go there.  You've shown no impact that drilling will have on Anwr, and you can't even tell what's really that important in Anwr.  You've fallen back on vague appeals to emotion.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2005)

1.  Read some Sigurd Olson.

2.  Visit any Wilderness area.

3.  Your usage of "wasteland" is a moral judgement.  I haven't been to ANWR but I've been to Alaska, I've been to the North Slope.

4.  Get back to me when you've done two out of the three above.

As far as your other questions, I've answered them again and again.  The bottom line is that if one takes the moral/ethical part of this argument away, there is no reason why we shouldn't drill in ANWR.  

I feel that the ethics of preservation and conservation are more important then the short term, miniscule, gain we'd get from drilling in an area we set aside for future generations because of its natural value.  People in this country need to be reminded that we set aside this land for a reason...and those reasons were good reasons.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 13, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1. Read some Sigurd Olson.


 Why, does he attempt to use fallacious appeals to emotion in place of a coherent argument too?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 2. Visit any Wilderness area.


  Why, are all wilderness areas the same? Why the vague generalizations?  Aren't we capable of discussing Anwr without getting in to hysterical over-generalizations about the "moral rightness" of "wilderness areas"?  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 3. Your usage of "wasteland" is a moral judgement. I haven't been to ANWR but I've been to Alaska, I've been to the North Slope.


  That's part of your problem...you have come to the fault conclusion that morality has anything to do with any of this.  The term "Wasteland" is not related in any way, shape or form to a moral judgement.  How does one "form" a moral judgement about a piece of land?  The very concept is ludicrous, and is what I take exception to in your entire characterization.  My only guess is that you've fallen victim to the "Environmentalism as Religion" mentality where environmental issues become pure religious dogma and cannot even be discussed rationally. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 4. Get back to me when you've done two out of the three above.


 Of course you haven't been to any of the 19 MILLION plus acres of Anwr and you likely never will.  That's the point.  You can't even tell me what's so important about keeping the entire 19 MILLION acres free from even small level oil exploration other than using vague appeals to emotions like "Honorable, commitment, etc".  Again, your argument appears to simply be more of the same hysterical environmentalist dogma that has become the modern substitute for religious fundamentalism.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As far as your other questions, I've answered them again and again. The bottom line is that if one takes the moral/ethical part of this argument away, there is no reason why we shouldn't drill in ANWR.


  You've answered nothing, period.  All you've attempted to do is created a fallacious "My side GOOD, your side BAAADDD" argument by using appeals to emotions.  You've simply characterized your (not rationally supported) position as being "Simply the right thing to do" with not one shred of evidence provided.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I feel that the ethics of preservation and conservation are more important then the short term, miniscule, gain we'd get from drilling in an area we set aside for future generations because of its natural value. People in this country need to be reminded that we set aside this land for a reason...and those reasons were good reasons.


At the risk of asking another unanswered question...What were the reasons this particular piece of 19 Million acres were set aside again?

(I predict i'll get something like 'because it was the right thing to do'.)


The saddest part of this whole thing, North, is that I sit on the fence of this issue.  I'm not dogmatically supportive of drilling in Anwr.  The problem I have is that you, or anyone else here, has not given me one good concrete reason not to drill.  I've heard lots of fallacious arguments, but nothing tangible.  I remain not only unconvinced, but i'm becoming increasinly convinced that your whole reason for opposing drilling is nothing but an example of knee jerk contrarianism toward anything proposed by anyone you dislike politically.  Please prove me wrong by providing me a reasonable argument against drilling that doesn't involve fallacious appeals to emotion that don't insult my intelligence.  

I would consider a more intelligent argument that it would disrupt the habitat of the "great northern wobbler elf", or some such assertion.  That could at least be debated.  I haven't heard that level of discourse.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 13, 2005)

What I would really like to see is a Manhattan type project on alternatives to fossil fuels. We went to the Moon on 1960's technology - certainly if we had the WILL we could find an alternative. Oil is just too darn expensive in both life and treasure. We wouldn't need 13 Aircraft carriers to keep places like the Persian Gulf open (lest you think this is wasted, imagine the suffering and loss of life an economic collapse caused by a major disruption in the oil supply would entail).

I have mixed feelins on ANWR. I believe that if we had made better energy decisions (under both Democratic and Republican Administrations and Congress's) over the past twenty or thirty years, it would not be necessary.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 13, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You've answered nothing, period.


 
Then drill away.  



> The saddest part of this whole thing, North, is that I sit on the fence of this issue. I'm not dogmatically supportive of drilling in Anwr. The problem I have is that you, or anyone else here, has not given me one good concrete reason not to drill. I've heard lots of fallacious arguments, but nothing tangible.


 
I've explained my values to you.  We don't share the same values, it seems.  I would not drill because I value wilderness as defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act.  I posted a couple of websites with some material that explained why setting areas aside as wilderness was important.

*



			I remain not only unconvinced, but i'm becoming increasinly convinced that your whole reason for opposing drilling is nothing but an example of knee jerk contrarianism toward anything proposed by anyone you dislike politically.  Please prove me wrong by providing me a reasonable argument against drilling that doesn't involve fallacious appeals to emotion that don't insult my intelligence.
		
Click to expand...

*

This is a pretty nasty thing to say and assume.  My values insult your intelligence...  

I really do care about this stuff.  Two years after I was born, the BWCA in MN was created.  The government used eminent domain to remove people from a million square miles in north eastern MN.  All signs of their habitation were carried off, burned, and erased.  The sacrifice that we made to create this "wilderness" area was huge.  Our country did this because of our committment to the concept of wilderness.  In my opinion, the whole concept of opening up a wilderness area after all we gave to preserve them trods on the sacrifice made to create them.  




> I would consider a more intelligent argument that it would disrupt the habitat of the "great northern wobbler elf", or some such assertion. That could at least be debated. I haven't heard that level of discourse.


 
Why can this be debated?  Is ecology something you value?  Why not just drill?  Screw "the great northern wobbler elf"!  Why is that animal so important that it has to disrupt human activity?  Why?

This is totally hypothetical.  However, the "why", in this case illustrates the values I've been talking about.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 13, 2005)

The Meaning of Wilderness


----------



## Brother John (Nov 13, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> "great northern wobbler elf.


 
Funny you should mention them...
it's open season on wobbler elves. But there is a bag limit of 3 per hunter.

Your Brother
John


----------



## lhommedieu (Nov 13, 2005)

Cf.  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007819

I disagree with Herrera's conclusion, by the way:  the oil to be gained from ANWR is negligible with respect to improving the American economy and making things easier on the average person filling their tank next summer.  Of course, some petroleum industry fat cats will be making a short-term killing in the meantime, and then show up in congress later to claim that they "couldn't help" the high price of gasoline, "couldn't help" the ecological damage they created, and "couldn't help" their huge profit margins.  In this respect, even tobacco industry executives lying to congress look marginally better than the Big Oil honchos we saw last week. 

With respect to a "wilderness ethic:" I have found that either you have it or you don't.  No amount of rational argument is going to convince someone who believes in the sanctity of oil for the sake of oil that it is "ethical" to conserve wilderness for the sake of preserving wilderness:  the two points of view are incommensurable.

The world would certainly be an interesting place if we weren't so dependent upon oil to maintain our economy.  Imagine what would happen if we found a clean, sustainable form of energy and were no longer dependent upon _foreign_ oil:  issues like ANWR would no longer be a problem, the Middle East as a geo-political issue would fade into history, terrorists would have to find another reason to hate us, etc.  It is said that environmentalism requires sacrifice; I would gladly sacrifice the above issues for the sake of a cleaner, wilder America at peace.

Best,

Steve Lamade


----------



## arnisador (Nov 13, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> What I would really like to see is a Manhattan type project on alternatives to fossil fuels.



This is a great idea. I believe it could be done. Of course, any "solution" woul dhave problems of its own...but we know that we're running out of oil, and that it brings with it various problems. A big research push by the govt.--not the oil industry--would be very helpful.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 13, 2005)

lhommedieu said:
			
		

> With respect to a "wilderness ethic:" I have found that either you have it or you don't. No amount of rational argument is going to convince someone who believes in the sanctity of oil for the sake of oil that it is "ethical" to conserve wilderness for the sake of preserving wilderness: the two points of view are incommensurable.


 
*



			The Worth of a Tree


The old pine stood near the shore of a wilderness lake. It was old even as pines go in this country, perhaps 300, even 350 years old. It was gnarled and twisted, showed punk knots further up and the scars of fire at the base, but the foliage was heavy and fine and the wind murmurred through its branches and the kinglets and chickadees found refuge there.

"No place for a tree like that in a growing forest," said the man. "Old trees like that are over ripe, and should be cut to make room for young stuff underneath. Even the seeds are not as good as they should be, and the decay inside--did you notice? It must be a veritable nest for fungus and beetles and borers of all kinds. This sort of tree is dangerous. It ought to come out. People don't get any more pleasure out of such a tree than a bunch of healthy saplings. 

"This is what we call improvement of shoreline timber," he added, and with his axe he cut a clean white chip to mark it for the logger's saw.

I tried to argue, but the words stuck in my throat. I tried to tell him that this tree was worth far more just as a landmark than as timber, even though the punk was eating out its heart and it was marked by fire and furnished a breeding place for fungus and grubs. I tried to say that trees centuries old had a value far greater than anyone could possibly estimate, but my arguments seemed empty and weak against the scientific viewpoint of my friend. I was merely old-fashioned and sentimental about these things and knew nothing about modern forestry practices.

I went away saddened by what I had heard, but knew that there were many others who felt as I, who valued a tree not by what it might bring on the market, or what its effect might be on surrounding growth, but rather by their feelings toward it and the associations they had made; that certain trees have an emotional value far in excess of any other consideration.

And knowing that I was not alone I was glad, because I knew that some day and soon, people who loved trees and understood them would make themselves heard, that someday a great shout would go across the land to save forever these ancient landmarks which through many generations have woven themselves into the life of a countryside and into the hearts of those who have known them.
		
Click to expand...

 
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/JMC/Olson/articles/columns/worth_of_a_tree.htm
*


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 13, 2005)

lhommedieu said:
			
		

> With respect to a "wilderness ethic:" I have found that either you have it or you don't. No amount of rational argument is going to convince someone who believes in the sanctity of oil for the sake of oil that it is "ethical" to conserve wilderness for the sake of preserving wilderness: the two points of view are incommensurable.



Yes, but this issue doesn't stand in between these two points of view. The hard factual truth is that even if this drilling is allowed, they find oil and actually start the drilling, it will use less than .5% of ANWR which after drilling will return to its previous state. So it doesn't violate either point of view. Also, I am a major supporter of wildlife and wilderness with my time and even personal money. I am also in favor of drilling at ANWR. The two points of view can coesixt becasue the facts are that the two wont contradict each other, not in this instance.

We would be much better off with alternate fuels, but until then we must do something. The only things being offered by those who oppose drilling in ANWR are impossible short-term "fixes". We must use oil and we must have energy....we can change that, but not tomorrow. So now people are offering things like:


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If every American shaved one mpg off their top driving speed, we'd conserve enough to save ANWR in a couple of years.


 This is an unatainable assumed "fix" that would only slow down the enevitable. The true solution is becoming less dependant on foreign oil and finding true alternative fuels. Its not possible to get every american to shave 1 mph(I'm assuming you meant mph) off their top driving speed. And its not even proven that it would really help much, especially when the top driving speed is probably more like 85mph than 70mph. We can see the ineffectiveness of this proposed "fix" by looking at the legal speed limits and watching the inerstates for 2 or 3 minnutes. 

The only reason still being listed in this thread is an ambiguous promise to children. First, we shouldn't need to bring children into this discussion to gather support for our point. Any promise made about wilderness land is made to everyone, not just "our children". This is a cry for emotional support of one's point. The truth and facts are:

1) We set aside these lands for future generations. 
2) These lands need to be preserved
3) We have a responsibility to our present and future citizens to protect these lands
4) We have a responsibility to our present and future citizens to provide efficient affordable energy
5) We can preserve our wilderness lands and drill for oil
6) We can preserve ANWR and drill for oil in ANWR
7) We must be addressing alternative fuels

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 13, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> The hard factual truth is that even if this drilling is allowed, they find oil and actually start the drilling, it will use less than .5% of ANWR which after drilling will return to its previous state.


 
This claim is false. It's a nice talking point, but it is not true and your continued use of it displays an agenda.

You claimed that 2000 acres worth of development was going to create hundreds of thousand of jobs .... someone argued that, 'well, gee, not all of the jobs will be *on *those 200 acres'. 

To which my response is : "Duh!". 

To actually think about the claim, would, hopefully, cause some to think about how much resource is required to create a quarter of a million (or three quarters of a million) jobs - and gee, that's a pretty big variable on the number of jobs .... I wonder why the amount of space required is so damn accurate. Accurate to the number of acres or within a half a percent of the size of ANWR.

Here's something to think about.

During the development process (which hopefully never arrives), Ships containing construction materials will need to dock in the area of development. They can only do this during the summer months because the water ways are not clear any other time of year. How big are those ships going to be? How big will the pier need to be? How big will the staging area need to be? 

And, of course, because this takes place in summer, the tundra will not be frozen, which means moving the heavy equipment into place will require the construction of permanent roads (Which will be unnecessary in winter months when the ground is frozen solid). Where, and how long do you think those road are going to be? 

Humpty Dumpty folks .... Humpty Dumpty.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This claim is false. It's a nice talking point, but it is not true and your continued use of it displays an agenda.


 You keep saying this. Prove it as false, dont just keep shouting its false.
What agenda is that exactly?



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> You claimed that 2000 acres worth of development was going to create hundreds of thousand of jobs .... someone argued that, 'well, gee, not all of the jobs will be *on *those 200 acres'.
> 
> To which my response is : "Duh!".
> 
> Humpty Dumpty folks .... Humpty Dumpty.


 Whats your point? I've lost you somewhere in your exact explination of shipping and road building. Argue the point. You say its false, provide some kind of proof or resource that shows it as false, dont just say, "C'mon, think about it, it can't be true". 

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 13, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Whats your point? I've lost you somewhere in your exact explination of shipping and road building. Argue the point. You say its false, provide some kind of proof or resource that shows it as false, dont just say, "C'mon, think about it, it can't be true".


 
My point is to other who may read this thread. I have no delusions about changing your opinion.

My point is that people engage their brains and think about the claims. If people think that 2000 acres of development can produce 750,000 jobs, then why do we not have similar productivity numbers throughout the world. Hell, if it was that easy to create good high paying jobs, why are there so many people in the Middle willing to blow themselves up? Why aren't they laughing all the way to the bank.

I don't like to use the phrase, "It's clear that ... " - because usually, the argued point is only clear if you already believe it (It's clear that God Created the Universe). So, instead of claiming 'It's clear that these numbers are made up talking points', I am asking people to actually think about the claim.

One thing is certain, however. Once development moves forward in ANWR, or anywhere else, it can not be undone. (Ok, maybe that should read, it can not easily be undone).  

Do you think the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker is a usual occurance? An extinct animal found after 50 years. Well, if it is the porcupine Caribou, I'm thinking a bit more difficult to find. 

Humpty Dumpty .... all the kings horses and all the kings men really just don't give a ****.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> My point is that people engage their brains and think about the claims. If people think that 2000 acres of development can produce 750,000 jobs, then why do we not have similar productivity numbers throughout the world. Hell, if it was that easy to create good high paying jobs, why are there so many people in the Middle willing to blow themselves up? Why aren't they laughing all the way to the bank.
> 
> I don't like to use the phrase, "It's clear that ... " - because usually, the argued point is only clear if you already believe it (It's clear that God Created the Universe). So, instead of claiming 'It's clear that these numbers are made up talking points', I am asking people to actually think about the claim.


 This is nothing more than sidestepping valid questions and data. Your appealing to people's uneducated suppositions of job production within the oil field and its relevant subsidiaries. Why not post some data that would prove your point, rather than "asking people to think about it". You trying to say that thinking about it will show it false, thats simply not true. Again, I ask for data to prove it false, not convoluted appeals to thought process. The truth you are trying to cover is that there will be jobs created, there will be energy created, there will be positive affects to this issue. 

Please, address the issues or dont, but lets not try to play games and cloud issues. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> One thing is certain, however. Once development moves forward in ANWR, or anywhere else, it can not be undone. (Ok, maybe that should read, it can not easily be undone).


 True, it wont be easily undone. Has the ease of doing something ever stood in our way? Going to the moon wasn't easy, should we have just past that over because it was going to be hard to do? I'm not one to run from tough things, I seem to think if its easy to obtain it may not be quite the worth we think it is. 

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 13, 2005)

Lets say that the oil companies are allowed to drill and the amount of land they need is much more then they said, the amount of jobs created is much less, the amount of oil is much less, and/or they pollute more then they said.  Who will hold them accountable?  Will anybody?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 13, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> This is nothing more than sidestepping valid questions and data. Your appealing to people's uneducated suppositions of job production within the oil field and its relevant subsidiaries. Why not post some data that would prove your point, rather than "asking people to think about it". You trying to say that thinking about it will show it false, thats simply not true. Again, I ask for data to prove it false, not convoluted appeals to thought process. The truth you are trying to cover is that there will be jobs created, there will be energy created, there will be positive affects to this issue.
> 
> Please, address the issues or dont, but lets not try to play games and cloud issues.
> 
> True, it wont be easily undone. Has the ease of doing something ever stood in our way? Going to the moon wasn't easy, should we have just past that over because it was going to be hard to do? I'm not one to run from tough things, I seem to think if its easy to obtain it may not be quite the worth we think it is.


 
I am not going to address *your* questions. Because I don't think they merit consideration. I am not going to attempt to counter foolish claims.  

750,000 jobs on 2000 acres. Good Grief. 375 jobs per acre.

Once people think about it, they can come to their own conclusions. If they think about, I don't care what conclusion they come to. 

As for going to the moon .... do you think that there is an overarching desire on *anybody's* part to undo that? Yes, we have littered the moon a bit, as well as several other planets (not to mention low-earth orbit). But I don't hear anyone calling to undo the trip to the moon. 

Things we can't undo that we should (or at least think about):

Nuclear power - what do we do with the waste?
Dams - andronomous fish stocks have been destroyed
Genetic Modification of food - can't be contained.
The ecosystem in ANWR is tens of thousands of years old, or older. It has reached a delicate balance. But, hey, it's four years worth of carbons. Eco-system, eh, not so much.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 13, 2005)

Here is something that I would like to discuss...is our "problem" with oil so bad that we need to break into land we set aside as wilderness?  I don't think it is.  According to the DOE, after Katrina and Rita, Americans cut their consumption of oil by about 2% because of high gas prices.  Consequently, we've seen huge reductions in the price of gasoline and sharp increases in our reserves.  Why can't we conserve more in order to leave our wilderness areas alone?


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am not going to address *your* questions. Because I don't think they merit consideration. I am not going to attempt to counter foolish claims.


 Well at least you admitt your not going to answer questions. I guess the thread is pretty much done now then.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> 750,000 jobs on 2000 acres. Good Grief. 375 jobs per acre.
> 
> Once people think about it, they can come to their own conclusions. If they think about, I don't care what conclusion they come to.


 Oh, your whole point in posting here is simply to get people to think on their own. Wow, thats very noble of you 
Of course, in fact you should read my post, I never said the jobs would be contained on the actual land. The fact is if you can only argue the drilling of oil in ANWR by saying the number of jobs to be created is false....maybe you should sit this one out. 

7sm


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 14, 2005)

Congress has made this a dead issue for the time being.  Guess we'll take up this debate at a later date.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Of course, in fact you should read my post, I never said the jobs would be contained on the actual land. The fact is if you can only argue the drilling of oil in ANWR by saying the number of jobs to be created is false....maybe you should sit this one out.


 
... and if you read my post, you will see that I did mention productivity. So, I understand that your claims do not represent jobs located on the two thousand acres. However, I think the a comparison of other fields of productivity would prove you claim false.

Did you see the walmart movie? It showed some of the Chinese factories used by walmart .... now those facilities might genereate 375 jobes per acre ... maybe. Good High quality, high paying jobs .... 18 cents an hour. Of course, it is sweat shop quarters.

Oh and  "The Fact is", I could argue other arguments, but why bother? This one claim is so outrageous, that by focusing on it, perhaps people will see it is unrealistic. And if this claim is unrealistic, perhaps other claims that included with it, are similarly unrealistic.

375 jobs per acre! ... Such productivity could employ the entire population of the planet in less geographic area than the State of Maine (19.75 million acres).


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> ... and if you read my post, you will see that I did mention productivity. So, I understand that your claims do not represent jobs located on the two thousand acres. However, I think the a comparison of other fields of productivity would prove you claim false.
> 
> Did you see the walmart movie? It showed some of the Chinese factories used by walmart .... now those facilities might genereate 375 jobes per acre ... maybe. Good High quality, high paying jobs .... 18 cents an hour. Of course, it is sweat shop quarters.
> 
> ...


 <Fallacious argument warning above>

Again, Michael says he understands, then makes the claim that you could "employ" the entire population of the planet in an area the size of man.  It's obvious he missed the boat.

Even by the estimate bandied about by opponents of Anwr drilling, 65,000 jobs would be created at least.  Again, this is the number backed by opponents of Anwr drilling.  So lets take the low estimate of 65,000 jobs........That's hardly insignificant.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 14, 2005)

Yeah, sometimes people lock onto something they feel is a great point and wont let it go even when its been shown false. 

Your right, its really a dead issue now though, we'll see how it goes in the future.

7sm


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 375 jobs per acre! ... Such productivity could employ the entire population of the planet in less geographic area than the State of Maine (19.75 million acres).


 
I suggest we try that. Then we can have lots of nature preserves for our children

Seriously, go back and read some of the previous posts. From my understanding, noone believes the jobs will be strictly located on the 2000 acres. comparison to "sweat shops" is nothing but fear tactics. An illogical approach with shabby math that noone believes. Regardless, lets look at your math and conclusions.

375 jobs per acre is not that bad, and not located only in sweat shops as you suggest. I worked for a while in a tower in Charlotte, NC for a while. Since buildings are not simply two dimensional (which an acre is), and in fact may be more than one story, its quite easy to have many jobs on a few acres. That tower covered perhaps 3 acres and employed well over 1k people. This was a small tower too. I sure did not feel like I was working in a sweat shop.

Also, you must consider the temporal nature of these jobs. There will be jobs for construction, then jobs for infrastructure creation, then jobs for actual production. These people will not be on the site at the same time more than likely. Is it so unreasonable that over a period of 10 years (just a guess at start-up time) that 375 people will work on each acre? I don't  think so. Lets look at another angle. If the pumps will operate 24 hours a day, people will be working shifts.  If you have three shifts of 8 hours (lots of places do this), you get alot more people per acre on average. Does this equate to sweat shops?

Regardless, its not argued that 375/acre is a reasonable number. There will be jobs located all along the way as has been argued: harbor creation, pipe-line creation, logistics handled off-site, refinery construction/running (I'm assuming that won't happen on-site), recruiting jobs, support jobs, transportation (you don't drive your cars up there more than likely), ect, ect.

Get off of this point. Its a rather ridiculous one. If you want to argue that less jobs will be created, thats fine. Do so if you wish. Present facts. Tell us why less jobs will be created. But making an emotional appeal that 375 people will be crammed per acre is ridiculous. noone is arguing this point.



> Oh and "The Fact is", I could argue other arguments, but why bother?


 
Because we would love to have a decent counter point that does not involve poets and/or emotional appeal. I'd love to hear a nice logical arguement for not drilling.

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2005)

Considering the future of oil supply on a global scale, it makes a lot of sense to put off this debate for 20 or 25 years.  Supplies in the future WILL be much tighter then they are now.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Considering the future of oil supply on a global scale, it makes a lot of sense to put off this debate for 20 or 25 years. Supplies in the future WILL be much tighter then they are now.


 
Part of me agrees with this statement. Another part of me is concerned about India and China coming online. What I -don't- want to happen is oil jumping to $100 or so a barrel and we have not started even groundbreaking at ANWR. It takes time to set up operations and get things rolling. We don't need it -now-, but it would not hurt to help ease supply concerns for the future, and to have it as a backup so to speak. The more self-sufficient we are, the better.

I'm sure more oil will be found around the world. I also seriously hope that alternative energies are explored and invested in ALOT in the near future... I think lessening our demand for oil is critical. I don't think we will ever get completely off of it, but we can do alot in the future to help...

MrH


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 14, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Get off of this point. Its a rather ridiculous one. If you want to argue that less jobs will be created, thats fine. Do so if you wish. Present facts. Tell us why less jobs will be created. But making an emotional appeal that 375 people will be crammed per acre is ridiculous. noone is arguing this point.


 
I agree ... It is a ridiculous claim. 

While there may be a problem with associating *all* arguments from this source are similarly ridiculous ... why the hell not?

Of course, maybe the people putting together this number are counting all the jobs for people who pump gas in New Jersey and Oregon. Good high-quality gas-pumping jobs. 

Who knows? 

As ridiculous as this argument is,if it is a foundation argument for why we should exploit this resource, then all arguments for exploiting this resource should similarly be questioned.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Part of me agrees with this statement. Another part of me is concerned about India and China coming online. What I -don't- want to happen is oil jumping to $100 or so a barrel and we have not started even groundbreaking at ANWR. It takes time to set up operations and get things rolling. We don't need it -now-, but it would not hurt to help ease supply concerns for the future, and to have it as a backup so to speak. The more self-sufficient we are, the better.
> 
> I'm sure more oil will be found around the world. I also seriously hope that alternative energies are explored and invested in ALOT in the near future... I think lessening our demand for oil is critical. I don't think we will ever get completely off of it, but we can do alot in the future to help...
> 
> MrH


 
In 15 years, $100 a barrel will seem like a dream.  The world is rapidly approaching a global production peak and global supplies will fall afterwards...forever.  Oil is important for many other things besides energy.  If we have a little tucked away here or there for a long time, that's probably a good thing.  Meahwhile, we need to push for alternative energy.  Drilling in ANWR is a short term solution to a long term problem.  The best long term solutions, IMO, are conservation and alternative energy.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I agree ... It is a ridiculous claim.
> 
> While there may be a problem with associating all arguments from this source are similarly ridiculous ... why the hell not?
> 
> ...



I have no valid points to argue, so I'll harp on one the whole thread is saying is moot.

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In 15 years, $100 a barrel will seem like a dream. The world is rapidly approaching a global production peak and global supplies will fall afterwards...forever. Oil is important for many other things besides energy. If we have a little tucked away here or there for a long time, that's probably a good thing. Meahwhile, we need to push for alternative energy. Drilling in ANWR is a short term solution to a long term problem. The best long term solutions, IMO, are conservation and alternative energy.


I agree, but this is also why I favor drilling in ANWR. Until alternative energy sources are oporational on a large scale, we must do what is neccessary to provide for our citizens and allow us to become less dependent on foreign oil.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2005)

How much will ANWR really reduce our dependence on foreign oil?  By all accounts, not much.  The bottom line is that no amount of drilling anywhere is really going to help cut our dependence.  The entire US has been explored on foot and mapped by satalite.  We will not find any more oil anywhere.  Thus, our only real solutions are conservation and alternative energy.  The world isn't going to end tommorrow in regards to oil prices.  We have plenty of time to develop good plans.  I don't think we have reached a crisis in which we need to break into wildlife refuges and other wilderness areas for our carbon glut.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 14, 2005)

By all accounts it will help. Especially keeping it all domestic. True, our solutions do rest in finding alternative fuels. Conservation is a moot point, how would you go about gettin the populous of the US to agree and actually act on a conservation plan? Its true, the "world isn't ending tomorrow" but we need to address our future now, not when it begins to be a problem. I dont think we have reached a crisis yet either, but we are in the making for one. Waiting until the crisis is upon us is irresponisble, we must begin now to do what is needed, this includes drilling for domestic oil while handling feasable conservation and addressing alternative fuels. 

If these are all done (which they can be) at the same time, we have a much better chance for smooth going rather than placing all our hope in one solution.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Conservation is a moot point, how would you go about gettin the populous of the US to agree and actually act on a conservation plan?


 
1.  Lower speed limits.  Enforce them.
2.  Raise CAFE standards.
3.  Subsidize fuel efficient vehicles.
4.  Spend massive amounts of money on public transit.  

Conservation is NOT a moot point.  These four things are four among many many more things that we can do to conserve energy.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 14, 2005)

Realistically...conservation is a tough sell in the U.S. Raising gas prices is the only way to get it going, I think.

All these ideas are only for cars...what about, e.g., heating of houses? Natural gas is a somewhat different beast, but not all houses are using it...


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1. Lower speed limits. Enforce them.
> 2. Raise CAFE standards.
> 3. Subsidize fuel efficient vehicles.
> 4. Spend massive amounts of money on public transit.


 
1) speed limits are low enough. enforcement is not cheap. there are enough cops out there handing out speeding tickets, we don't need more. I'd rather them do other things if we get more cops.
2) carbon and freon emission standards? I'm guessing on that. Explain that point?
3) I agree with that. Question would be how much do we subsidize and at what level. research? production?
4) That might work for europe, but its not worked efficiently in the US. There are regions in which is has, but overall its not a viable option. We are too accustomed to our vehicles. Engrained in the culture. Telling me to take a bus is not going to change my affection for my car. Personally I use a bus for school, but I still have to drive to the bus  As a nation, we are very spread out. People don't live closely to work (at least here). You can't get a dense enough public transportation system w/out taxing the heck out of people who work (but isn't increased taxation kind of the point?)

MrH


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 14, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Realistically...conservation is a tough sell in the U.S. Raising gas prices is the only way to get it going, I think.


 
Didn't Gore say something like that?  

MrH


----------



## arnisador (Nov 14, 2005)

The man invented the Internet...he must be very smart!


----------



## Marginal (Nov 14, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> 4) That might work for europe, but its not worked efficiently in the US. There are regions in which is has, but overall its not a viable option. We are too accustomed to our vehicles. Engrained in the culture.


 
It is interesting to note that we used to have a considerable mass transit structure in the US. Then the automotive lobby had its way. Trains, trollies etc were dismantled in favor of building highways. Our culture is highly mutable. Just need a solid special interest group to effect the change.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 14, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> It is interesting to note that we used to have a considerable mass transit structure in the US. Then the automotive lobby had its way. Trains, trollies etc were dismantled in favor of building highways. Our culture is highly mutable. Just need a solid special interest group to effect the change.


 
Trollies/subways were only in specific areas, never truly wide-spread. Trains used to be alot more common, I'll give you that... Where my parents live they are getting a light rail system in the next 5 years. Regardless, they will have to drive 20 minutes to use it. The train won't deliver them directly to work, so they will either need a cab, taxi or bus. In the amount of time it takes to drive, park, possibly wait on train (God forbid you oversleep, they only run twice in the morning), wait on cab/bus to get you to work... so, for him, does it work out best? He drives about an hour to work each day. For him, it would be pointless. Now, of course, this is antecdotal, but there are alot of people like him. Some people will benefit from public transit I suppose, but I have never seen people take to it strongly, at least in this part of the country. Only parts I've seen it work well is in large cities (NY, SF, NO to a lesser degree). Then again, I'm not the most traveled person around.

Regardless of where I live, I won't be giving up my car anytime soon, unless its absolutely impossible to have one (no place to put it, absolutely bankrupt, ect).

Still, public transportation -does- exist. Are you using it to the fullest? If not, got your hybrid/electric yet?

btw, I hate the term "special interest". thats not too important of a point LOL

MrH


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 14, 2005)

I'm all for conservation, but it will make about as much a dent as drilling in ANWR will. So whats the solution? All of the above. I've said it several times, you can not place you faith and hope in one avenue for a solution. Its not responsible to our citizens or our children. 

As to mass transit...ever driven through west Texas? In certain large cities, Dallas, Houston, Austin, this might help a bit (and is currently) but a mass national conservation effort by lowering speed limits and such is just niave and wouldn't result in a "drop in the bucket" to what other means done together could accomplish. Not to mention the actual increase it would take to perform such "conservation methods" and to police them.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Nov 14, 2005)

We drove from San Antonio to El Paso once. It was amazingly barren. The emptiness and vastness of it made a lasting impression.

Mass transit? Good idea. High-speed trains between big cities and convenient intra-city transit are great ideas. But right now, people pay for their own gas. Who's going to tax them enought to build these things? The short-run difficulties prevent the long-term solutions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm all for conservation, but it will make about as much a dent as drilling in ANWR will.


 
This is absolutely false.  The US uses 20,000,000 barrels of oil per day.  The USGS estimates with 95% accuracy that 5.7 billion barrells of oil are recoverable in ANWR.

Lets do the math.

In one year, this equates to 20,000,000 barrels /day x 365.25 days / year = 7,305,000,000 barrells per year.  The maximum estimated of production of the ANWR oil fields could rise to 5,000,000 barrels / year.  For the sake of simplicity, I'll skip the differential and just use that figure.  5,000,000 bpy / 7,305,000,000 bpy = *.068 % of US total need*.  In a perfect world, we would see our gas prices drop only that much.  If the prices were $2.50 per gallon, *we would see a monetary reduction of about 0.017 of a cent*.  In other words, you would see absolutly no change in price.

However, if we shaved 10 mph of our top end by changing the national speed limit, going back to 60 mph, we would see up to a $0.42 change in the price per gallon.  *This simple conservation move would give us almost 250 times the amount of oil per year then exists in all of ANWR*.



> I've said it several times, you can not place you faith and hope in one avenue for a solution. Its not responsible to our citizens or our children.


 
It's not faith and hope.  It's numbers.  Breaking our committment to wilderness in order to drill in ANWR when other solutions that are HUGELY more productive exist is not responsible.  DRILLING IN ANWR WILL NOT CHANGE A THING FOR THE AVERAGE AMERICAN.  (see above)



> As to mass transit...ever driven through west Texas? In certain large cities, Dallas, Houston, Austin, this might help a bit (and is currently)


 
50% of Americans live in the suburbs around major cities.  Mass Transit would save a HUGE amount of energy.  Think about it.  If half the people in this country suddenly only had to drive their personal vehicles half the amount of time...that is not a drop in the bucket folks.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 14, 2005)

How much of an effect would there be from changing the speed limit on the actual speed people drive? How expensive is it to enforce that?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Who's going to tax them enought to build these things?


 
I've seen some mass transit plans that call for a gas tax.  This tax would serve a few purposes, cut demand, increase supply and fund the projects.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 14, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> How much of an effect would there be from changing the speed limit on the actual speed people drive? How expensive is it to enforce that?


 
Plus how many billions will we be spending to create more infrastructure.

Plan on making SUV's illegal too? Taking away more freedom of the individual?

MrH


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I've seen some mass transit plans that call for a gas tax. This tax would serve a few purposes, cut demand, increase supply and fund the projects.


 
Thats right... we need more taxes. Those 50% of the people in the city should take the $ from the rest of the poor saps that don't live in the city and still require their cars. Tax the heck out of them.

The answer to all questions... raise taxes 

Already have vehicle tax, ~50 cents tax on gas (depends on where you are), luxury tax on nicer cars and in some instances fees for parking. Thats enough.

MrH


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> how would you go about gettin the populous of the US to agree and actually act on a conservation plan?


 
A Three Dollar a Gallon Tax.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2005)

Lowering Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards would have a huge conservation effect.



> Raising CAFE standards by 5% annually until 2012 and by 3% per year thereafter could save 1.5 million barrels of oil per day (MBD) by 2010, 4.7 MBD by 2020, and 67 billion barrels of oil over the next 40 years. This is 1020 times greater than the potential oil supply from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> How much of an effect would there be from changing the speed limit on the actual speed people drive? How expensive is it to enforce that?


 
Carter gave us the 55mph national limit in the 70s in response to the oil shocks.  So we already know that it works.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> A Three Dollar a Gallon Tax.


 
do you actually understand what that would do to the economy?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 14, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> do you actually understand what that would do to the economy?


 
Yes. Reduce the amount of petroleum consumed.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> A Three Dollar a Gallon Tax.


 
The tobacco approach! The idea is sound, except that there are poor people who must drive to work. It's a chicken-and-egg problem: Raise the cost to get money for public transit, but until that public transit is in place people must still pay that high cost. If there were a way to make it progressive, it'd be a good idea.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I've seen some mass transit plans that call for a gas tax. This tax would serve a few purposes, cut demand, increase supply and fund the projects.


 
It makes sense. Of course, gas is already taxed at a pretty high rate, and as I mentioned above, the regressiveness of it is a concern.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yes. Reduce the amount of petroleum consumed.


 
Might be a correct answer, but lets take a realistic look at the end result.

you absolutely wreck certain industries. Lets name a few:

Automotive: people will stop buying cars if they can't afford to drive them
transportation: willing to pay $1000 to fly to your next state? willing to pay twice as much for your vegitables or other food that is not produced next door? you require transportation to get it there.
Mailing: want to pay twice as much to send a letter? It takes gas and vehicles to deliver things.
Personal transportation: Willing to pay $100 to go visit your grandmother?

Everything trickles down.. if you don't fall in one of these industries, you have to interact with them at some point. if you provide a service, you need to be at the location of the service. if you provice a product, you have to deliver your product. there is a reason certain businesses such as airlines are going out of business. This was with $3 gas for a while. Wait until you add on another $2.50. You might save some gas, but you ruin our economy.

Cost of living goes up. If there are countries w/out this insane gas tax, they become more competetive. As a result, we have a harder time competing on the global market.

Many people have to drive to work. Increasing taxes on gas taxes anyone who has to drive to work. Many people can't live based on a bus schedule, so you want to tax those poor saps that can't coordinate effectively w/ a bus/train. Teachers, police, emergency services, government officials (gasp!)... they all have to go to work.

Again, everything is trickle down... even if you use buses (which become more expensive to operate too don't forget), you get it from other areas previously mentioned, such as food, other products, ect. that in essense is an incredible tax on everyone.

Bad answer. Try again.

MrH


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 14, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The tobacco approach! The idea is sound, except that there are poor people who must drive to work. It's a chicken-and-egg problem: Raise the cost to get money for public transit, but until that public transit is in place people must still pay that high cost. If there were a way to make it progressive, it'd be a good idea.


 
Great point!

Know what this would be? this would be a tax on the poor. Those stinky rich people could afford it.  

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2005)

The money from a gas tax isn't removed from the economy.  It's reinvested.  This would create jobs.  Also, I wouldn't go as high as three dollars.  MN looked at raising the gas tax to pay for a light rail system.  The raise would have five cents.  This isn't so bad.  On a national level, would could look into cutting military expendetures to pay for mass transit.  And I think one could justify it because mass transit would definitely contribute to making us safer because it would cut our dependence on foriegn oil.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 14, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Might be a correct answer, but lets take a realistic look at the end result.
> 
> you absolutely wreck certain industries. Lets name a few:
> 
> ...


 
Actually, it is a correct answer. 

I work in the *collision repair* industry (Insurance Claims handling and Body Shop Repair). Having fewer cars on the road would have a direct impact on the profitability of my current employer. 

Argument 1 - People will buy fewer cars. 

Yeah, So? Is the automobile so sacrosanct that we have to buy a new one every 5 years? A $24,000.00 item with planned obsolesence. How *stupid* are we? And while approximately 80% of automobiles get recycled, they are still a drag on the economy, in many many ways. 

Argument 2 - Food will be more expensive.

Yeah, so? I really don't think our fuel prices should subsidize Archer Daniels Midland. I would like to give my local producers an opportunity to compete, and earn a living. Do I really need to be able to buy Strawberies all year long?  Do you know how the strawberies you purchased at the market last week were harvested, anyhow? You probably don't want to know. 

What was the precentage of family farms in the country 100 years ago? Today? 

Argument 3 - Postage

Email. 

Argument 4 - People have to drive to work

Sprawl. Local communities have 2 acre minimum building lots. McMansions. Having people drive *shorter distances* to work ain't that bad of an idea. 


So, I understand that you are not in favor of taxing everyone. Got it. 

We can use tax cuts to encourage the super wealthy to create jobs .... but we can't use tax increase to encourage people to conserve fuel.  Hmmm.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 14, 2005)

You people are from another planet...the planet Communtaxitron. Taxes to create jobs...yeah more government/patronage/pork jobs.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The money from a gas tax isn't removed from the economy. It's reinvested.


 
What taxes would this be false of? Money spent on defense, or research, is invested. Money spent on welfare is then spent on food etc. in the community. I suppose it's more direct in this case, but even still, one hopes that ll of our taxes are being "invested" in some way that benefits us.

A 5 cent per gallon tax increase is livable, I think. What would it get us?


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Actually, it is a correct answer.
> 
> I work in the *collision repair* industry (Insurance Claims handling and Body Shop Repair). Having fewer cars on the road would have a direct impact on the profitability of my current employer.


 
good for you 


> Argument 1 - People will buy fewer cars.
> 
> Yeah, So? Is the automobile so sacrosanct that we have to buy a new one every 5 years? A $24,000.00 item with planned obsolesence. How *stupid* are we? And while approximately 80% of automobiles get recycled, they are still a drag on the economy, in many many ways.


not everyone buys one every 5 years. mine is 8 and I'm driving it into the ground LOL. regardless, its the *freedom* to me thats important. If I want to, I have that right. The more *logical *arguement would be that it would encourage people to buy more hybrids/alt fuel cars, but you forgot to mention that.



> Argument 2 - Food will be more expensive.
> 
> Yeah, so? I really don't think our fuel prices should subsidize Archer Daniels Midland. I would like to give my local producers an opportunity to compete, and earn a living. Do I really need to be able to buy Strawberies all year long? Do you know how the strawberies you purchased at the market last week were harvested, anyhow? You probably don't want to know.
> 
> What was the precentage of family farms in the country 100 years ago? Today?


I don't live off of strawberries. All food will be increased in price. Everything. This gets back to transportation. They also need fuel for tractors to produce/harvest. This cost more money.


> Argument 3 - Postage
> 
> Email.


tell that to buy.com. how do you suggest getting things from the store to your house? you can't email them. If you want it shipped, it cost fuel. Otherwise, you better buy a house in walking distance of Walmart or some other evil store owned by the evil rich.

Email is great, but it just don't work when you need something physical.


> Argument 4 - People have to drive to work
> 
> Sprawl. Local communities have 2 acre minimum building lots. McMansions. Having people drive *shorter distances* to work ain't that bad of an idea.


 
Yes, but allowing the people the freedom to live where they want it key too. I'd love to live out in the country. I miss it alot. When I get the $, I'm on the way back. I don't like living next to a zillion people. I like my space. So, because of my tastes, I should be taxed more? I should try to limit my options of homes?


> So, I understand that you are not in favor of taxing everyone. Got it.
> 
> We can use tax cuts to encourage the super wealthy to create jobs .... but we can't use tax increase to encourage people to conserve fuel. Hmmm.


 
there has been (not sure if current) tax breaks for alt energy cars. I'd be in favor of that. Instead of emphasizing the negative (higher taxes) lets try working with a positive (lower taxes for cooperating). thats what we do with other things, such as mortgage deductions. Your arguement would have an increased tax on people who -don't- own a house.. seem a bit odd. I'd prefer positive reinforcement. Isn't that what we are doing in our schools now? Give tax breaks to companies who employ alt energies or cut emissions. If its a significant tax break, I bet companies will jump in line. Make it affordable. Good for the economy and the environment.

MrH


----------



## arnisador (Nov 14, 2005)

It's not just a matter of where people _want_ to live. Some people must live in a low cost-of-living area. But there can only be so many jobs there--others will be in industrial areas. Transportation is needed.

This is good for business--not just for individuals.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 14, 2005)

I suppose it is nice to see some conservatives arguing against a regressive tax ... such as a fuel tax. Almost could be seen as an argument in favor of a progressive tax, almost. 

Yes.... transportation is an issue. If you follow it through, we would find that higher transportation costs would lead to lower actual transportation. More people would buy more things that were grown or built locally. Local markets and local suppliers would benefit. I don't think that is a negative.

Many things would become closer together ... now that is scary to some, but the cocooning of our society, I think, has not been a positive influence. 

The domino of higher fuel prices would be that appropriate cost housing would be available where it needed to be. If you don't like living close to other people, you would certainly have the freedom to pay higher transporation costs. But, walking to the grocery store didn't kill any of our grandparents.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2005)

7,305,000,000 barrels per year.  42 gallons per barrel.  306,810,000,000 gallons per year.  5 cent per gallon national gas tax.  $15,340,500,000 dollars.  We could build a mass transit system to the moon with that much money...well maybe not to the moon, but at least in every major city in the US.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 14, 2005)

I seriously can't believe what I'm hearing. "I want it my way, screw all those who disagree! Oh, and make them pay $3 tax on gas to get to work." 

I hear, in the same breath, a proposal for $3 tax on gas and then somehow trying to say small local farmers would benefit. I dont know where you guys live, but living in an agricultural area, I know many small produce farmers and such that would be out of business with the proposals your posting. 

It seems some are so enamored with refusing the drilling of ANWR that they ignore the consequences of their proposed actions. Its not plausible to get all americans to take off 1 mph of theri top driving speed, simply not feasable. Yet this seems to be the best counter offer to drilling in ANWR? 

Take notice of those against drilling in ANWR and their proposed solutions....higher taxes. Each and every one. These proposed outrageous taxes alienate and hurt the common workers of america. I've heard much ado about promises and commitments to our children, what about commitment to our children and current citizens to keep life affordable? One person's fellings of what they would rather do without is not what we should force on all of our "free" citizens of America. 

We must find solutions that benefit us all, not just the super rich, or those willing to do without everyday needs.

7sm


----------



## Marginal (Nov 14, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Trollies/subways were only in specific areas, never truly wide-spread. Trains used to be alot more common, I'll give you that... Where my parents live they are getting a light rail system in the next 5 years.


 
Yes, and anecdotes aside, it does beg a serious question. Would mass transit be more attractive if it was better developed? Europe's rail systems work because they've been actively developed for years and years. 

We've got... Amtrack. 



> Still, public transportation -does- exist. Are you using it to the fullest? If not, got your hybrid/electric yet?


 
I usually walk or take the bus. 



> btw, I hate the term "special interest". thats not too important of a point LOL


 
Doesn't really matter. It wasn't the god fearin' heartland that demanded all those interstates. 'twas Ford etc.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I seriously can't believe what I'm hearing. "I want it my way, screw all those who disagree! Oh, and make them pay $3 tax on gas to get to work."
> 
> I hear, in the same breath, a proposal for $3 tax on gas and then somehow trying to say small local farmers would benefit. I dont know where you guys live, but living in an agricultural area, I know many small produce farmers and such that would be out of business with the proposals your posting.
> 
> ...


 
It's called a *discussion*. 

Someone asked what it would take to get Americans to conserve. There are ramifications to the actions taken to promote conservation.

Now, if you look closely, you will not see that I proposed this as a solution. I am strictly discussing what would it take to conserve and what would the ramifications be.

The taxes I am discussing (I did not propose them), would have an impact on all Americans. *THAT'S THE POINT.* It would change behavior. Yes, it would hurt for a little while. Yes, some things would have to change. Off the top of my head, here's somethings that I think would change.

Traffic Jams - gone
Car Pooling - increased
Hummer Dealerships - gone
Victory Gardens - in *your* backyard


By the way, I certainly am in the top quintile of income, just barely, but I hardly consider myself 'super-rich'. And to hear you call for solutions that benefit all, and not just the super rich, is interesting. You almost sound like a Demoncrat.

Oh, one last thought ... if you know *many* small produce farmers, count your blessings. Because small produce farmers are disappearing as fast as Amazon Rain forests. Don't worry, even without any taxes, they will all be gone in 20 years.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The taxes I am discussing (I did not propose them), would have an impact on all Americans. *THAT'S THE POINT.* It would change behavior. Yes, it would hurt for a little while. Yes, some things would have to change. Off the top of my head, here's somethings that I think would change.
> 
> Traffic Jams - gone
> Car Pooling - increased
> ...


 Actually, your the one that posted the idea of a $3 tax on gas, so in this thread you did "propose" it. However, semantics aside, tax isn't a tool to control people with. You speak so willingly of "fear-mongering" and the current administrations "hype to create fear in order to keep the populous submisive". Yet you are so willing to accept a monsterous tax hike to make people do what you want done. :idunno: 
Mr. Kettle, it seems you are quite black - Mr. Pot. 

Taxes aren't something you use to control people or punish people. Thats dictatory at its very heart. Freedom must still be nurtured. Your offering alternatives to drilling in ANWR that not only complicate the problem but create myriads of other problems. Your willing to crush those whom you dont agree with in order to reach the "solution" you want. You offer no chance for small business people, small farmers (oh, they are allready dying, we dont need to worry about them, i.e. small business kevorkianism), those who do not make as much money as you, those who prefer to have the freedom to drive where they want, what they want, when they want. Your willing to crush freedoms to reach your goal of not drilling on .5% of ANWR. Thats asinine!

Your list of "Gone Things" is only a pipe dream. Your ignoring those who cannot carpool, or cannot ride public transportation. You dont try to "out rich" people to get them to do what you want. Thats a tactic taught well by Donalnd Trump, but not one we need to use in dealing with our own citizens.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> By the way, I certainly am in the top quintile of income, just barely, but I hardly consider myself 'super-rich'. And to hear you call for solutions that benefit all, and not just the super rich, is interesting. You almost sound like a Demoncrat.


 What you consider yourself is moot. I'm glad your proud of the money you make, but your willingness to throw it around to control people is disturbing. I dont really believe in labeling people or large groups. I consider myself neither republican or democrat...I attempt to look at each issue and support the best solution. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Oh, one last thought ... if you know *many* small produce farmers, count your blessings. Because small produce farmers are disappearing as fast as Amazon Rain forests. Don't worry, even without any taxes, they will all be gone in 20 years.


So taxing the hell out of them is ok since they are allready on the way out? Dont forget, cars and hummers aren't the only machines that need fuel, their tractor equipment also uses that $3 tax gas. As does all emergency and police vehicles...military vehicles....mass transit vehicles....etc

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> It seems some are so enamored with refusing the drilling of ANWR that they ignore the consequences of their proposed actions.


 
Drilling in ANWR will have a .*017 cent* reduction in the price of gas.  Drilling in ANWR will only give us *.068%* of our total oil usage.  Based on these numbers, I can say that its just not worth drilling in a parcel of land we designated as wilderness.



> Its not plausible to get all americans to take off 1 mph of theri top driving speed, simply not feasable. Yet this seems to be the best counter offer to drilling in ANWR?


 
In response to the oil shocks of the 70's the national speed limit was reduced on all roads to 55 mpg.  This cut a huge chunk from the demand of US oil and helped our country get through those times.  We don't need to cut 15 mpg from our top end.  We only need to cut 1 mpg from our top end to save *25 times* the amount of oil that exists in ANWR.  

If we cut back our national speed limit to 65 mpg, statistically, enough people would slow down in order to hit that one mpg reduction in speed.



> Take notice of those against drilling in ANWR and their proposed solutions....higher taxes. Each and every one. These proposed outrageous taxes alienate and hurt the common workers of america. I've heard much ado about promises and commitments to our children, what about commitment to our children and current citizens to keep life affordable?


 
A cut in the national speed limit equals a tax? 

As far as *MASS TRANSIT* is concerned, how can you say that 5 cents a gallon is a great burden?  Especially when gas prices hit almost four bucks a gallon in some places.  Now they are much lower...the national average is $2.15.  We could reduce this five cent gas tax by one penny each year as we were building it and by the time we got down to one cent per year, we'd have enough money to maintain the entire national system.  

One penny.  

One penny to reduce our dependence on foriegn oil.  One penny to make us safer in the world.  One penny to improve America.  One penny to demonstrate that we care about wilderness.  

One penny is not that big of a sacrifice for all of that IMO...



> We must find solutions that benefit us all, not just the super rich, or those willing to do without everyday needs.


 
I agree, that is why drilling in ANWR is not a solution for America.  It's good for the oil companies, though...


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> ... tax isn't a tool to control people with....
> 
> ...Taxes aren't something you use to control people or punish people....
> 
> ...I attempt to look at each issue and support the best solution.


 
OK ... look at the issue. 

What *is* the function of taxation? 

What is the result of taxation?


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> OK ... look at the issue.
> 
> What *is* the function of taxation?
> 
> What is the result of taxation?


 
Lets look deeper. What is the function of government? I think this is at the root of the issue.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 15, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Lets look deeper. What is the function of government? I think this is at the root of the issue.


 
*One of* the functions of government is to create and enforce rules by which the members of a community will function.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> *One of* the functions of government is to create and enforce rules by which the members of a community will function.


 Rules which are bypartisen and beneficial to all, not rules that squelch freedom and target certain groups of people. Thats not American or constitutional. Wether its been done or not in the past is a moot point, it shouldn't be done. Raising tax on gas to $3 per gallon in order to make hummers and traffic jams go away and make everyone act in accordance with your wishes is simply not what tax or gevernment is for.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Nov 15, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Lets look deeper. What is the function of government? I think this is at the root of the issue.


 
Yes, we have dueling philosophies here of what the govt. should or should not be responsible for providing.

Meanwhile, I noticed that today's USA Today has a big graphic on the front page showing that Soc. Sec. costs are going to bankrupt us all anyway.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Raising tax on gas to $3 per gallon in order to make hummers and traffic jams go away and make everyone act in accordance with your wishes is simply not what tax or gevernment is for.


 
Well, it's a sort of 'sin tax' that would pay for the costs associated with automotives. Is it OK to do this with tobacco, or alcohol?


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 15, 2005)

It seems people are only seeing this as lowering gas prices. Thats not the only reason to drill in ANWR. While we on that fact however, lets take a look at the facts. The truth is there is no way to tell the true amount of oil or natural gas in ANWR without drilling. Right now we import about 60% of our oil at a price of around 50 billion plus. We must reduce that dependance. Now, DOI estimated that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more). That amount of daily oil would do much for our dependance on foreign oil. 

In 1996 the North Slope oil fields produced about 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, or approximately 25 percent of the U.S. domestic production. However, Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for over half of North Slope production, began its decline in 1988, and no new fields have yet been discovered with the potential to compensate for that decline. (anwr.org) See the issue isn't a static dependance on foreign oil, but that we are sliding further and further into dependence. We *must* reverse that trend.

More data on ANWR:
Although little oil and gas exploration has taken place in ANWR, the Coastal Plain is believed to have economically recoverable oil resources. The Coastal Plain lies between two known major discovery areas. About 65 miles to the west of the Coastal Plain, the Prudhoe Bay, Lisburne, Endicott, Milne Point, and Kuparuk oil fields are currently in production. Approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil a day are produced from these fields, representing 25% of our domestic production. To the east of the Coastal Plain, major discoveries have been made in Canada, near the Mackenzie River Delta and in the Beaufort Sea.(anwr.org)

So the issue is dynamic in its problems and its soutions. ANWR is a big step in turning that trend around. No one wants to use wildlife land, but we must do what is necessary to sustain our economy and the lifes of our citizens. ANWR may very well not contain enough oil to make much change, but we wont know that until exploratory drilling is done. If it doesn't contain enough to make a big dent we move on and return the small bit of land we used to wildlife. Its a decision we must make, not one we like, but one we must be responsible about. Conservation is great, but it is not the final answer. 

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 15, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Is it OK to do this with tobacco, or alcohol?



Now thats an entirely different thread. Short answer...no.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> The truth is there is no way to tell the true amount of oil or natural gas in ANWR without drilling.


 
That is false.  Oil and natural gas leave a particular magnetic signature on the surface of the earth.  Satalites can read this signature and estimate the EXACT volume of the oil in the ground.  

Recovering that oil is a different story.  In any oil field, it is impossible to get all of the oil out because of the granular cappilary action of the trapping medium.  Different minerals and grains can speed up or slow down the process and can hold on to varying amounts of oil.  

The USGS has taken drill core samples of ANWR and from this, coupled with satalite data, we know to a degree of 95% accuracy, how much recoverable oil is in ANWR.  

Exploratory drilling is a thing of the past.  Our geopetroleum models are way more efficient.



> Right now we import about 60% of our oil at a price of around 50 billion plus. We must reduce that dependance. Now, DOI estimated that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more). That amount of daily oil would do much for our dependance on foreign oil.


 
No it wouldn't.  We use 7,305,000,000 barrels per year.  All of ANWR's recoverable oil would give us .068% of that figure.  Drilling ANWR would do almost nothing to reduce our dependence of foriegn oil.



> In 1996 the North Slope oil fields produced about 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, or approximately 25 percent of the U.S. domestic production. However, Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for over half of North Slope production, began its decline in 1988, and no new fields have yet been discovered with the potential to compensate for that decline. (anwr.org) See the issue isn't a static dependance on foreign oil, but that we are sliding further and further into dependence. We *must* reverse that trend.


 
That is absolutely impossible.  See the work of M. King Hubbert.  The US peaked as an oil producing nation in 1971.  Our production has declined ever since.  This is due to the nature of oil fields and the granular cappilary action above.  We will never EVER reach a point where our production could even possibly meet demand no matter how much we drill or how good our technology becomes.  Our country is perhaps the most closely scrutinized country in the world when it comes to oil exploration.  We know exactly where it all is...and it ain't ever going to be enough.



> So the issue is dynamic in its problems and its soutions. ANWR is a big step in turning that trend around.


 
Not according to the actual numbers.



> No one wants to use wildlife land, but we must do what is necessary to sustain our economy and the lifes of our citizens.


 
We don't need to use the refuge at all.  This point has been made three times already.  One mph saves 25 times the amount of oil than exists in all of ANWR.



> ANWR may very well not contain enough oil to make much change, but we wont know that until exploratory drilling is done.


 
See above.



> If it doesn't contain enough to make a big dent we move on and return the small bit of land we used to wildlife. Its a decision we must make, not one we like, but one we must be responsible about.


 
If we decide to drill, the operation will be there for more then 40 years.  That is how long the field will produce...0.068% of our countries yearly demand.  Its not worth breaking into a wildlife refuge.



> Conservation is great, but it is not the final answer.


 
I think that it should be apparent by now that conservation is the only real answer that will make a difference in the short term and in the long term.  The numbers are staggeringly in favor of it.  The only real way to cut our dependence of foreign oil is to cut our demand of all oil.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> That is false. Oil and natural gas leave a particular magnetic signature on the surface of the earth. Satalites can read this signature and estimate the EXACT volume of the oil in the ground.
> 
> Recovering that oil is a different story. In any oil field, it is impossible to get all of the oil out because of the granular cappilary action of the trapping medium. Different minerals and grains can speed up or slow down the process and can hold on to varying amounts of oil.
> 
> The USGS has taken drill core samples of ANWR and from this, coupled with satalite data, we know to a degree of 95% accuracy, how much recoverable oil is in ANWR.


 So is it 95% or EXACT? IS it determined by geopetroleum models, and satellites or drill core samples? Thats my point, the data is scetchy at best with many contradictions. We can use many different available methods to find oil deposits but it is not possible to exactly measure the amount of oil or gas present without drilling. Im not saying we cant measure an estimated amount, but exact is simply not possible. There may be anywhere from over 4 billion to almost 30 billion recoverable barrels in this one area of ANWR with many other possible locations identified.plenty of reason to open these areas for exploration and drilling.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> No it wouldn't. We use 7,305,000,000 barrels per year. All of ANWR's recoverable oil would give us .068% of that figure. Drilling ANWR would do almost nothing to reduce our dependence of foriegn oil.


 Your stats are off. Your number is saying we recover less than 500 million barrels, that is lower than anyones lowest estimate of what is there. In fact it could be as high as 10 billion, way more than your posted percentages. If we add in other possible locations in the area that number could increase exponentially. The real statistic is what will it yield on a daily basis and for how long. That is what will cut dependence on foreign oil. Its not a static one time cache of oil. If it could yield just the amount that Prudhoe Bay did, that would be 25% of our daily production! Thats a huge step away from dependence on foreign oil. HUGE. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> That is absolutely impossible. See the work of M. King Hubbert. The US peaked as an oil producing nation in 1971. Our production has declined ever since. This is due to the nature of oil fields and the granular cappilary action above. We will never EVER reach a point where our production could even possibly meet demand no matter how much we drill or how good our technology becomes. Our country is perhaps the most closely scrutinized country in the world when it comes to oil exploration. We know exactly where it all is...and it ain't ever going to be enough.


 Im not sure your point here. I said our production is declining. All I said was that drilling in ANWR would help lower our dependence on foreign oil while we address other possible solutions. You cant simply plug your ears and ignore the positive affects of ANWRs oil reserve. Its there, it will help, and we need it. Will it solve the problem, no of course not, Ive said that this whole thread. However ,no one solution will solve this problem completely, not even trying to convince all of America to drive 1 mph slower every time they drive. You have to look at the implications and effects of proposed solutions. Look at what lowering the speed limit would do to other areas besides conservation of oil. Then look and see if its feasible. Its a small piece of what other things done together could do. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> We don't need to use the refuge at all. This point has been made three times already. One mph saves 25 times the amount of oil than exists in all of ANWR.


 Thats yet to be proven especially with true numbers from ANWR. Sources on the amount of oil conserved with how many people would cut 1 mph off their driving would be amazing to seeyet impossible.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think that it should be apparent by now that conservation is the only real answer that will make a difference in the short term and in the long term. The numbers are staggeringly in favor of it. The only real way to cut our dependence of foreign oil is to cut our demand of all oil.


 I think it should be apparent by now that you are proposing impossible solutions to simply take the heat off of drilling in ANWR. Its simply not plausible to police making everyone drive 1 mph slower.we dont even allow tickets to be written from that amount of speed because of the error level. At least we have been looking at many alternatives and are willing to accept many with drilling at ANWR. You seem so against drilling because of moral reasons that you ignore negative affects of your proposed solutions.

   7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Its simply not plausible to police making everyone drive 1 mph slower.we dont even allow tickets to be written from that amount of speed because of the error level.


 
I am wondering if any of the Law Enforcement Officials on this board would care to address this "don't even allow" comment?


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am wondering if any of the Law Enforcement Officials on this board would care to address this "don't even allow" comment?


 

Whens the last time you got a ticket for going 56 in a 55?

MrH


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Rules which are bypartisen and beneficial to all, not rules that squelch freedom and target certain groups of people. Thats not American or constitutional. Wether its been done or not in the past is a moot point, it shouldn't be done. Raising tax on gas to $3 per gallon in order to make hummers and traffic jams go away and make everyone act in accordance with your wishes is simply not what tax or gevernment is for.
> 
> 7sm


 
Why is this answer something other than rantings "I want, I want, I want"?

Please explain how a tax squelches freedom? 

Please explain how a fuel tax targets certain groups of people? 

The Constitution says that Congress has the authority to levy taxes, how are taxes unconstitutional?


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why is this answer something other than rantings "I want, I want, I want"?


huh? isn't that kind of what both sides are doing?



> Please explain how a tax squelches freedom?
> 
> Please explain how a fuel tax targets certain groups of people?


both can be answered together. fuel targets many groups. you pay more for gas, so people who have to drive to work must pay more. you start targeting country people and favor city dwellers. you target people who buy products that must be delivered, since things cost more to deliver. if you have a job that involves road travel, you pay more. same with flight. You guys seem in favor of public transportation, which is another limit of freedom (at least in my opinion). You are confined to when the government thinks you should work. If work is running late, what do you do? if you are 2 minutes late for your bus, what do you do? you are constrained more than a car would provide.

does it directly squelch freedom? no, but indirectly by trying to push the public through certain pathways it favors (city living, not driving, public transportation, ect).



> The Constitution says that Congress has the authority to levy taxes, how are taxes unconstitutional?


before ww2 I understand we had no standing federal tax except during times of war. We can do alot more with alot less if the government were efficient and we were allowed to keep more of our earning.

I think the silliest tax is social security. when it was installed, perhaps it was needed, but today? Taxes like this are almost impossible to get rid of though... 

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 15, 2005)

I would like to point out before I start that I have a degree in geology.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> So is it 95% or EXACT? IS it determined by geopetroleum models, and satellites or drill core samples? That&#8217;s my point, the data is scetchy at best with many contradictions.


 
There are no contradictions and you have absolutely no idea what kind of data anyone is looking at.  95% accuracy refers to the amount of recoverable oil.  This is always dicey because alot more can go wrong then can go right.  Usually, the amount of recoverable oil is much less because of Murphy's Law.



> We can use many different available methods to find oil deposits but it is not possible to exactly measure the amount of oil or gas present without drilling.


 
This is absolutely positively false.  Our petroleum exploration models are very hi tech and are extremely accurate.  We've got the world mapped by satalite.  Exploration is looking for recoverable oil. 



> I&#8217;m not saying we can&#8217;t measure an estimated amount, but exact is simply not possible.


 
Oil deposits are detectable from space because they change certain geomagnetic signatures.  If the signals are strong, they indicate oil deposits of a certain depth.  The volume of a deposit can be calculated exactly by taking many readings.



> There may be anywhere from over 4 billion to almost 30 billion recoverable barrels in this one area of ANWR with many other possible locations identified&#8230;.plenty of reason to open these areas for exploration and drilling.


 
It was estimated with 95% accuracy that 10.6 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from ANWR.  This is a good bet.  The thing that you don't understand is that this oil will not all come out in one year.  It will come out very slowly.  Perhaps a million barrels per day.  Maybe 500 million barrels per year.  We use 7,305,000,000 billion barrels per year.  You need to understand the time scale involved.



> Your stats are off.


 
Your understanding of my stats is off.  You have to understand the time scales involved.  In physics we call this messing up our units.

*



The real statistic is what will it yield on a daily basis and for how long.

Click to expand...

* 
This is absolutely correct and my statistics take this time scale into account.  Pay attention to the units of time.



> That is what will cut dependence on foreign oil. Its not a static one time cache of oil. If it could yield just the amount that Prudhoe Bay did, that would be 25% of our daily production! That&#8217;s a huge step away from dependence on foreign oil. HUGE.


 
There is a reason ANWR was designated as a wilderness area and Prudhoe Bay wasn't.  We already knew that there was more oil in the Prudhoe Bay fields.  We know how much oil is in ANWR down to the barrel, we don't know exactly how much we can get out, but 95% is a darn good guess.  I'd take that bet any day.



> I&#8217;m not sure your point here. I said our production is declining.


 
And then you said that we could halt that by drilling...which is false.



> All I said was that drilling in ANWR would help lower our dependence on foreign oil while we address other possible solutions.


 
It will take years to get ANWR up and running and by that time our demand could rise making the amount of oil that ANWR could produce even more insignificant.  The .068% of our yearly need is only going to get less and less.  We need to cut our demand, bottom line.



> You can&#8217;t simply plug your ears and ignore the positive affects of ANWR&#8217;s oil reserve.


 
I'm not plugging my ears, I'm looking at the numbers and looking at this realistically.  Drilling in ANWR won't even put a dent in our yearly need.  We will see no reduction in gasoline prices and the world market for oil will totally absorb every drop without so much as a burp.



> Its there, it will help, and we need it.


 
This is the only factually true statement you've said in the last few posts.  A little oil is there.  It will help...a little.  And we do need oil.  The question is whether or not drilling in a wildlife refuge is worth it.  According to the numbers, its not.



> That&#8217;s yet to be proven especially with true numbers from ANWR. Sources on the amount of oil conserved with how many people would cut 1 mph off their driving would be amazing to see&#8230;yet impossible.


 
We already know this works.  The national speed limit used to be 55.  We changed this in response to the oil shocks of the 70s.  



> I think it should be apparent by now that you are proposing impossible solutions to simply take the heat off of drilling in ANWR. Its simply not plausible to police making everyone drive 1 mph slower&#8230;.we don&#8217;t even allow tickets to be written from that amount of speed because of the error level.


 
If one lowered the speed limit by five mph, statistically, enough drivers would slow down that hitting the one mph goal is entirely possible.  



> At least we have been looking at many alternatives and are willing to accept many with drilling at ANWR. You seem so against drilling because of moral reasons that you ignore negative affects of your proposed solutions.


 
What possible negative effects could there be if we lowered the nationals speed limit by 5 mph.  Oh yeah, we'd put some EMTs out of work because they'd have to respond to fewer crashes...


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 15, 2005)

This is the USGS's own table on the matter.  Check it out, its very informative.  Pay close attention to the rise in cost as ANWR is produced.  Pay close attention where points on the y axis correspond to points on the x.







F - 95 is an estimate with 95% accuracy.

F - 05 is an estimate with 05% accuracy.

This graphs beautifully illustrates M. King Hubbert's principle of Peak Oil, btw.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I would like to point out before I start that I have a degree in geology.


 Um...congradulations, I think?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There are no contradictions and you have absolutely no idea what kind of data anyone is looking at. 95% accuracy refers to the amount of recoverable oil. This is always dicey because alot more can go wrong then can go right. Usually, the amount of recoverable oil is much less because of Murphy's Law.


 First of all, lets lay the attitude down and discuss rationally. Attacking my understanding of data is ad hominem and irrelevent to the discussion. 95% is still not an exact number, sorry its the simple truth. Also, please post the sources for your numbenrs of 95% accuracy at 10.6 billion barrels. Thats exactly what we are talking about, recoverable oil and gas. We agree here, there is no exact measure of recoverable oil in ANWR.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is absolutely positively false. Our petroleum exploration models are very hi tech and are extremely accurate. We've got the world mapped by satalite. Exploration is looking for recoverable oil.


 Your trying to pass off "very hi tech and extremely accurate" as "exact measurments". Those are not the same thing, no one has made verifiable claims of exactly the amount of oil or gas in ANWR or the amount we can recover, at best everything so far is educated estimates. Are they precise, yes, but exact...sorry, no. Regardless, the exactness of satelites ot measure oil is not the issue or topic here, drilling in ANWR is, and through your best efforts we all still agree that there is a large amount of oil in ANWR and it would help to drill it.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It was estimated with 95% accuracy that 10.6 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from ANWR. This is a good bet. The thing that you don't understand is that this oil will not all come out in one year. It will come out very slowly. Perhaps a million barrels per day. Maybe 500 million barrels per year. We use 7,305,000,000 billion barrels per year. You need to understand the time scale involved.


 That was exactly my point. If it yielded just 1.5 million barrels a day, that would be approximately 25% of our domestic production. Your saying that wouldn't help if kept all domestic? Thats absurd...you have allready said it would help so what the point in this arguement now? Is it based on not wanting to break our commitment to our children? If so, say so, dont try to convolute fuzzy math to try and downplay the benefit of drilling ANWR. Remember, every little bit of domsestic production kept domestic will help. This is the exact reason I've been saying over and over and over that we must address many different options at the same time! You have offered one solution...not responsible to put all our "eggs in one basket".



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It will take years to get ANWR up and running and by that time our demand could rise making the amount of oil that ANWR could produce even more insignificant. The .068% of our yearly need is only going to get less and less. We need to cut our demand, bottom line.


 Again, the reason for my saying (many times) we must use several approaches to this problem. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What possible negative effects could there be if we lowered the nationals speed limit by 5 mph. Oh yeah, we'd put some EMTs out of work because they'd have to respond to fewer crashes...


 Well, lets look at the possibility of the positive effects you claim...

*Report No. FHWA-RD-92-084                                      October 1992
*
U.S. Department of Transportation      Research, Development, and Technology
Federal Highway Administration         Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
                                       6300 Georgetown Pike

 The objectives of this research was to determine the effects of raising and lowering posted speed limits on driver behavior and accidents for non-limited access rural and urban highways. Speed and accident data were collected in 22 States at 100 sites before and after speed limits were altered. Before and after data were also collected simultaneously at comparison sites where speed limits were not changed to control for the time trends. Repeated measurements were made at 14 sites to examine short - and long-term effects of speed limit changes. 
The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered. Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents. 

                                       McLean, Virginia 22101-2296

Not a valid option....lets try again, eh?

7sm


----------



## Marginal (Nov 16, 2005)

Well now that we've established posting any speed limit is futile because everyone drives whatever speed they feel like anyway...


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 16, 2005)

My sources for my numbers is the 1998 USGS report on ANWR.  Please check that graph.  Also, please note what happens to the price of that oil once it begins to be extracted.  I will still say, based on the numbers, that the amount of oil in ANWR is absolutely insignificant based on our yearly need.  Fuzzy math...nope, its just division.

Sounds like the speed limit issue is an enforcement problem.  Are you going to argue aren't doing their jobs?  Are you going to argue against hiring more cops?  Go for it...

All we need to do is lower the speed limit enough so that statistically, we drop the overall speed  1 mph and we save 25 times the amount.  Hell, if we drop the limit and we lower it by .5 mph we save 12.5 times.  If we statistically drop it .2 mph we save 5 times.  This goal, IMO, is not out of reach.  

My comittment to wilderness, in the case of ANWR, costs me .017 cents.  My god, what a sacrifice.  Can you imagine if everyone were so lax with their comittments as to break them for the slightest...and I really do mean and have shown it is the slightest!...inconvenience.  What kind of people have American's become when we are so greedy that we would break any comittment for .017 cent change in our gas prices.  Much less one to wilderness and our children.

Because that is all the effect that either you or I will ever "see" from ANWR.  There never was enough oil in that region to make a difference.  That is why we set the land aside in the first place.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

I love seeing innovations such as this. With solutions like this in place, the oil we have will last longer! As 7SM has pointed out, its a multi-prong approach. We need to attack the problem from many angles. This is one possible way I just read about  This would help ANWR oil last much longer.

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 16, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I love seeing innovations such as this. With solutions like this in place, the oil we have will last longer! As 7SM has pointed out, its a multi-prong approach. We need to attack the problem from many angles. This is one possible way I just read about  This would help ANWR oil last much longer.
> 
> MrH


 
Couldn't innovations like this be used to preserve wilderness areas?  Just because there is a little oil there, doesn't mean we need to drill.  Also, why couldn't we invest in these kinds of technology so that we can minimize our need for carbon based energy?  Like I said, earlier, oil is used for lots of different things.  Plastics, for one.  Why not wait wait 25 or 30 years to debate this...saving it for a day when we not going to burn up everything we pump.  At least if we do that, we can recycle what we make of it.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Couldn't innovations like this be used to preserve wilderness areas? Just because there is a little oil there, doesn't mean we need to drill. Also, why couldn't we invest in these kinds of technology so that we can minimize our need for carbon based energy? Like I said, earlier, oil is used for lots of different things. Plastics, for one. Why not wait wait 25 or 30 years to debate this...saving it for a day when we not going to burn up everything we pump. At least if we do that, we can recycle what we make of it.


 
I'm all for alt-energies, I'd love to see them employed as soon as possible. What me and 7sm have been discussing is that ANWR represents a resource. We are not going to run out of our need for oil. Until we can get a fleet out with hydrogen/fuel cells, we will still need oil. Until we can minimize our demands, we still need a secure supply. ANWR is such a secure supply. its one part of the energy equation. There are many parts, and all parts should be considered. I'd not be a fan of being dependant of Venezuala, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran if we can at least offset part of their input by exploring ANWR.

It would be nice to wait 25 years, but in 25 years, you will still bring up the same arguements, still wanting that frozen waste land preserved. Sure, we can wait, but in the mean time we have dependancies on countries I'd prefer to not be dependant on... God forbid we scale a major world war, or Saudi gets upset and stops the flow. God forbid some of the middle eastern reserves dry up and we are 4 years out from pumping our own resources.

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 16, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I'm all for alt-energies, I'd love to see them employed as soon as possible. What me and 7sm have been discussing is that ANWR represents a resource. We are not going to run out of our need for oil. Until we can get a fleet out with hydrogen/fuel cells, we will still need oil. Until we can minimize our demands, we still need a secure supply. ANWR is such a secure supply. its one part of the energy equation. There are many parts, and all parts should be considered. I'd not be a fan of being dependant of Venezuala, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran if we can at least offset part of their input by exploring ANWR.


 
It will take years to get the operation up and running.  During that time, we could take conservation measures that save exponentially more oil.  Heck, if the president got on the TV and told American's once a week to conserve, in one year, we'd save more oil then we would get from ANWR.  

ANWR's oil will have a negligable impact on the global market.  It won't reduce our dependence on foriegn oil by even a tenth of a percent.  The global market will gulp it down without even a burp and we'll see absolutely no change in the market value.  

The only real reason to drill there is becauses its there...and that same argument could be made in regards to a great many other areas that were set aside as wilderness preserves.  And THAT is the agenda behind this push to drill in ANWR.  All the other reasons, if you look at the numbers, are nothing but a smokescreen.  



> It would be nice to wait 25 years, but in 25 years, you will still bring up the same arguements, still wanting that frozen waste land preserved.


 
Possibly.  Times change though.  Maybe new technology would be invented that would make oil based products obsolete.  If not, then very low impact drilling may be an option.  Right now, the need isn't there and the benefits of doing this are hardly even measurable.  



> Sure, we can wait, but in the mean time we have dependancies on countries I'd prefer to not be dependant on... God forbid we scale a major world war, or Saudi gets upset and stops the flow. God forbid some of the middle eastern reserves dry up and we are 4 years out from pumping our own resources.


 
Drilling in ANWR will not prevent a war over oil.  The oil in ANWR isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the reserves in Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Iran.  If a war occurs, it will be because we did not take the steps that were needed to conserve and to convert to other sources of energy fast enough.  

Check a the book "Resource Wars" by Michael Klaar.  In the next forty years, someone will fight over the worlds remaining oil.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 16, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Check a the book "Resource Wars" by Michael Klaar. In the next forty years, someone will fight over the worlds remaining oil.


 
Yeah, I saw that. Its called Mad Max hehehe

seriously though, it might be less than 40 years.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 16, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It will take years to get the operation up and running. During that time, we could take conservation measures that save exponentially more oil. Heck, if the president got on the TV and told American's once a week to conserve, in one year, we'd save more oil then we would get from ANWR.


 Ok, first I'm all for conservation measures even during the time we are drilling in ANWR. This will act to even increase the affect ANWR's oil would have on our dependence. Your looking at dynamic data in a static way, things do change, and conserving is a major role as is drilling more domestic oil.

You seriously going to tell me now that after the amount of "bush hating" we have seen on this single thread alone (not to mention the many others) you seriously think the President telling everyone to conserve once a week is going to have any impact on individuals actions at all? C'mon, we can't have both sides of the coin here. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Possibly. Times change though. Maybe new technology would be invented that would make oil based products obsolete. If not, then very low impact drilling may be an option. Right now, the need isn't there and the benefits of doing this are hardly even measurable.


 I'm not comfortable resting the future of our so beloved children on hopes and maybes. We cannot put off till tomorow what we need today. Lets bite the bullet, get this domestic oil production up (ANWR alone could increase it by 25%), apply conservation methods and address alternate fuel sources. That course of action would have much more affect on our future than hoping for better technology, hoping for something to make oil obsolete, or trying to make everyone in America drive 1 mph slower everywhere they drive. If we do what needs to be done today, tomorrow will be much easier to handle.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 16, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Yeah, I saw that. Its called Mad Max hehehe
> 
> seriously though, it might be less than 40 years.


 
Yeah, like right now.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 16, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> (ANWR alone could increase it by 25%)


 
This is probably not going to happen.  Look at the graph I posted above.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 16, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> You seriously going to tell me now that after the amount of "bush hating" we have seen on this single thread alone


 
Man, you sure love this argument. 

When ever someone suggests 'conserving' something, you argue:  'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.

upnorthkyoso is arguing GEOLOGY. 

I have been arguing taxation to modify behavior.

'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.

Anyone who suggests a policy in conflict with what the president wants, there goes the 7starmantis rallying cry

'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.

Doesn't matter that it was a Republican Congressman that removed ANWR drilling from a budget bill? (Why the hell was it attached to a budget bill anyhow?).

'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.

Doesn't matter that it is the most popular Republican Senator decrying United States santioned Torture.

'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'. 


Sycophant!


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is probably not going to happen.  Look at the graph I posted above.


"Probably" isn't enough in my opinion. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Man, you sure love this argument.
> 
> When ever someone suggests 'conserving' something, you argue: 'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.


 Come back to reality, I didn't say Upnorth hated bush, I said with the amount of "Bush hating" what he proposed was unlikely. You really should read posts more carefully before running off on a tangent that makes you look foolish. 
Second, I'm not the one using that arguement at all in any of these threads I'm involved in...again, read posts a litle more carefully before jumping to conclusions.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> "Probably" isn't enough in my opinion.


 
Well, 95% probably is good enough for most people...including the senators and congressmen who took the provision out of the budget bill authorizing the drilling.  

Here is another aspect of geology that argues against drilling.  Production of oil out of a field follows a bell curve.  

Stage One.  The first half of the oil removed is relatively easy.  Oil is less dense the the surrounding rock and there is some pressure that will drive the oil out of the well for a while.  This is what we call a gusher.  After a short while, cappilary pressure equalizes the density difference and no oil comes out.  About 10 % of the oil comes out like this.  Then it must be pumped.  

Stage Two.  Pumping is a bad word to describe what is done.  Pushing is a better term, because water is forced down into the oil field.  Immiscability of the oil and the gradual filling of the granular spaces with water forces a little more oil out of the ground.  Up to 50% may be removed with this method.

Stage Three.  High explosives are lowered into old shafts and detonated in order to stir the remaining oil.  Huge amounts of water are pumped into the trap in order to force out the oil.  Up to 10 to 15% of the oil can be removed this way.  

Stage one represents the first part of the bell curve.  Production rises smoothly for a time.  Stage two represents a gradual slowing down of production until it rises to a peak in production that represents the 50% percentile.  After the 50% percentile has been reached, oil becomes increasingly hard to get out of the ground and the expense of the operation rises exponentially.  It is absolutely impossible to get all of the oil out of the trap and any mistake made in stage two or three will ensure that even less oil is recoverable from the trap.  Mistakes in stage two are easy to make because drill cores don't reveal the entire sediment structure of the trap.  If too much water is pumped into the trap, this can compress the medium and actually trap the oil.  In stage three, if too much explosives are used, the same thing can occur.  Petroleum geologists call this overproduction.

What does all of this mean in regards to the amount of oil we'll get out of ANWR?

Simple.  We will get one year of maximum production that may make a tiny dent in the amount of oil we produce domestically.  In the years leading up to the peak and the years after the peak, there will be exponentially less oil coming out of the traps...in other words not enough to make a difference.  Of course, none of this really will make a difference anyway because the total amount of oil our country uses is so incredibly huge.  

In 1971, the entire US peaked as an oil producing state.  Production across our country will continue to fall until it becomes too expensive to produce oil domestically (yet our demand continues to rise exponentially).  Because of the geology above, we will never ever be able to drill ourselves out of this debt.  There are no deposits of oil in the US that will make any difference in the short term or the long term. If we invest in it, it is lost money....which explains why oil companies are so loath to spend any new money at all in the US (there hasn't been a new refinery in 30 years) and why they want the government to front the money for ANWR.  Therefore, our only real option when it comes to reducing our dependence on foriegn oil is to cut demand.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 17, 2005)

MOD NOTE:

Please refrain from personal comments.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Senior Mod-


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 17, 2005)

The facts are here, we just have to look at them.

This thread is really just becoming a "Yes it is" vs "No its not" argument. Its been shown in this thread that:

1) We are way too dependent on foreign oil
2) There is oil in ANWR that will make a difference (could be 25% of domestic production)
3) We need to produce more oil domestically for now
4) We need to address conservation methods
5) We need to address alternative fuels
6) Opening of ANWR for oil and gas exploration would help our dependance issue
7) No one solution is going to fix the problem, we must hit it from many angles.

7sm


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 17, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> The facts are here, we just have to look at them.
> 
> This thread is really just becoming a "Yes it is" vs "No its not" argument. Its been shown in this thread that:
> 
> ...


 
Well stated. Concise and to the point.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Man, you sure love this argument.
> 
> When ever someone suggests 'conserving' something, you argue: 'You Hate Bush - You Hate Bush'.
> 
> ...


 Too much coffee? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> The facts are here, we just have to look at them.
> 
> This thread is really just becoming a "Yes it is" vs "No its not" argument. Its been shown in this thread that:
> 
> ...


 Good suggestions.  There isn't a reasonable observer of this issue that doesn't understand that the US needs to extricate itself from the need for foreign oil.  That alternative fuel sources are a necessary, but not immediate, answer to dependence is also clear.   We need a stop gap solution until we can do the necessary research to end our need to burn fossil fuels at all.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 17, 2005)

Well said, I think this thread has been very productive.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2005)

I'd have to agree.  Thanks everyone.

:asian:


----------



## arnisador (Nov 18, 2005)

Yes, it's interesting to see the varying opinions, and many facts were brought to light--many of which I hadn't known beforehand.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 19, 2005)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_go_co/congress_rdp



> House lawmakers opened the way for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as one of their last acts of an all-night session Monday bringing their legislative year to a close.



Maybe its not dead yet! Looks like it was attached to a defense bill though...



> The ANWR provision was attached to a major defense bill, forcing many opponents of oil and gas exploration in the barren northern Alaska range to vote for it. The bill, passed 308-106, also included money for hurricane relief and bird flu preventive measures.



thoughts?

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_go_co/congress_rdp
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The Oil Lobby is working hard to ram it through before the 2006 election cycle.  That amendment won't have a chance then.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 19, 2005)

Hopefully, the few brave Congressmen who said three weeks ago that Drilling in ANWR should be considered on its own, will continue to voice that concern.

I haven't heard Donald Rumsfeld saying our troops in Iraq need to have the ANWR opened to exploration. Why is this on a defense bill?


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 19, 2005)

Its how politics is done....might as well get used to it.

7sm


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 19, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why is this on a defense bill?


May as well ask why Bird Flu and Katrina money is on the bill. I second 7sm.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 19, 2005)

So, because it can not gain acceptance on its own ... 

We support putting on a bill that funds the military, during a time of war. 

I dare those people who wish to vote against this to try and do it now. The Republican (Oil) Party will attack you with that vote next November, and pat ourselves on our backs for our cleverness.

Boy, you citizens sure are stupid if you let us put this crap over on you, time and time again. Ha Ha Ha.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 19, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, because it can not gain acceptance on its own ...
> 
> We support putting on a bill that funds the military, during a time of war.
> 
> ...



Its been done in the past by both sides. It will be done again in the future by both sides. Lets hear you crying when the Dems do it for some piece of legistlature you like. I imagine you are not upset about Katrina funding, or probably not over bird flu funding.

Either way, this is one of the reasons I'm a big fan of line-item veto. However, in this case, its irrelevent.

edit: Its impractical to have legislation for every possible funding opportunity. For some key pieces of funding though, it might be nice to have seperate spending bills...


----------



## arnisador (Dec 19, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Its how politics is done....might as well get used to it.


 
I have to agree. It's distasteful in many ways, yet it's also a tool for politicians to get their projects through...and some of those projects are good ones.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 19, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I have to agree. It's distasteful in many ways, yet it's also a tool for politicians to get their projects through...and some of those projects are good ones.



How about an admendment to limit floaters? Perhaps a percentage of the total bill? Say 25% of the major emphasis of the bill? Maybe each seperate add-on can max out at 1% of the total bill?

Weeding out some of the waste happens when the two houses debate the contents of the bill, but having greater power for each house to remove certain items might be beneficial.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 19, 2005)

While this vote occured in the House, it certainly has Senator Stevens fingerprints all over it. 

Senator Stevens had promised to resign from the Senate if the two Bridges to Nowhere were taken out of the highway bill. 

Senator Stevens Flip-Flopped on that. Damn!

Anyhow, as Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, and on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, anyone who is against this vote will no doubt find funding problems in their state in the future. 

My good Congressman, Charles Bass, a Republican, voted against this Defense Bill because of the ANWR provision.

Cheers for Charlie Bass.

artyon: 

Can't tell you how much it bothers me to do that ... but credit where credit is due.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 19, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> While this vote occured in the House, it certainly has Senator Stevens fingerprints all over it.
> 
> Senator Stevens had promised to resign from the Senate if the two Bridges to Nowhere were taken out of the highway bill.
> 
> Senator Stevens Flip-Flopped on that. Damn!


 
Did he? Last I heard, mention of the bridges themselves had been quietly dropped while the funds were not.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 20, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Did he? Last I heard, mention of the bridges themselves had been quietly dropped while the funds were not.


 
Well, that sounds like a flip flop to me .... but, I only have the experience of what Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Laura Ingraham told me was a flip-flop during the last election cycle. 

Let's see.


Senator Coburn wanted to block $453 Million Dollars for two "Bridges to Nowhere".
Senator Stevens said ... "If the Senate decides to discriminate against our state ... I will resign from this body."
The earmarks for the Bridges has disappeared.
If that isn't a 'flip-flop', perhaps, Rush Limbaugh, and Laura Ingraham will have to explain to me why it is not. Because it sure looks like one to me.

Although you are correct, the funding has remained in the national bill, and is now controlled by the Alaskan Governor .... so, what might we see there ... 

Senator Murkowski (R-AK), happens to own land on one of the 'Nowhere' Islands.
Governor Murkowski (R-AK), now has the decision on how the $453 million dollars will be used.
Isn't it odd, that the Senator and Governor share the same last name? Well, it could be because the Governor is the Senators' Father.
Anyone wanna bet on whether there is a bridge to Gravina Island ten years from now?
Legislative slight-of-hand, folks. Legislative slight-of-hand.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 20, 2005)

Wow...just wow.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 20, 2005)

My understanding is that the mention of the bridges went away and an equivalent amount of cash was given to Alaska for 'unspecified purposes' (like, say, a bridge or two).


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 22, 2005)

Well, it seems the Senate did not pass a provision to approve drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

Who knew ? 

Raise a glass to Senator Frist - He voted against it, although, his vote was a defensive tactic, that keeps open a possibility of repeating a roll call on this issue.

(of course, if he were to do that, it would make him a flip-flopper)


----------



## arnisador (Dec 22, 2005)

So...is it over? It sounds like good news for caribou-lovers.


----------



## Blindside (Dec 22, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> So...is it over? It sounds like good news for caribou-lovers.


 
It won't be over until its drilled, this just delays it for a bit longer.

Lamont


----------



## arnisador (Dec 22, 2005)

Blindside said:
			
		

> It won't be over until its drilled, this just delays it for a bit longer.


 
I think you're probably right. Trying to stop drilling for oil is like trying to stop the new year from coming.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 22, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I think you're probably right. Trying to stop drilling for oil is like trying to stop the new year from coming.


 
How much money does each and every Alaskan citizen get each year for letting the oil companies plunder the North Slope? 

I heard the payments went down this year. So somebody needs to do something quick. 

If we can't call it welfare, can we call it a bribe?


----------



## Blindside (Dec 22, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> How much money does each and every Alaskan citizen get each year for letting the oil companies plunder the North Slope?
> 
> I heard the payments went down this year. So somebody needs to do something quick.
> 
> If we can't call it welfare, can we call it a bribe?


 
The payment went down because of the stock market, you do know how the Alaska Permanent Fund works don't you?  

In the interests of full disclosure I was a recipient of this fund for 5 years.

Lamont


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 22, 2005)

Blindside said:
			
		

> The payment went down because of the stock market, you do know how the Alaska Permanent Fund works don't you?
> 
> In the interests of full disclosure I was a recipient of this fund for 5 years.
> 
> Lamont


 
Not really ... I just know a check goes out every year. Sounds kinda silly to me.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 22, 2005)

The "get paid to live" amount is usually around $1000, give-or-take.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 22, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The "get paid to live" amount is usually around $1000, give-or-take.



wish I got paid to live. I'm good at that 

Everything is more expensive up there though... I imagine it kind of offsets. I guess they don't have property tax?


----------



## Blindside (Dec 22, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> wish I got paid to live. I'm good at that
> 
> Everything is more expensive up there though... I imagine it kind of offsets. I guess they don't have property tax?


 
There is definately a property tax (I pay it) but there is no state sales or income tax, which might explain why the state is run on a deficit almost every year.  

Lamont


----------



## arnisador (Dec 23, 2005)

Blindside said:
			
		

> There is definately a property tax (I pay it) but there is no state sales or income tax, which might explain why the state is run on a deficit almost every year.


 
But they make it up on volume?

It _is_ more expensive there, and they do need enticements to bring people in. (Is the gender ratio still off?) But running a continual deficit is a bad idea. Is that after the payout to the Legislature of earnings from the Permanent Fund, or do you mean that the fund covers what would otherwise be a deficit?


----------



## Blindside (Dec 23, 2005)

I'm no expert on the Alaska budget problem, but it goes something like this.

Relatively high tax rate on corporations.
The lowest tax burden in the US for residents, property tax rate is about middle-average for US if I recall correctly.

The Alaska Permanent Funds principle is untouchable, you can't use it for anything except as an investment, it is there to provide dividends to Alaska residents.  There are some proposals that would alter this structure and give a percentage of the dividend to the State to use as a revenue generator, but this is just a proposal right now.

The states deficient has been covered for the past several years by a huge settlement the state had with various oil companies, but those monies are about to run out.  I believe it was the current governor who said they could make up future shortfalls by easing restrictions on energy developement.  

Lamont


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2005)

For those reading this thread, if you are like me, you have no idea what the Alaska permanent fund is, or why it is there. Except, Alaskans get a check for living there.


The state claimed ownership to the oil (and other minerals) in the public lands of the state.
The state allows oil companies to extract these minerals (oil).
The State takes a *13% cut* of the minerals (petroleum) extracted from the public lands.
The oil companies market the State's 13% cut, and deposits the money in the Alaska permanent fund.
So, when Senator Stevens is arguing to open up ANWR for mineral right exploration ... He gets 13% of what ever is extracted from there, without doing a thing. Sweet!

Of course, this now begs the question, if ANWR is a *NATIONAL *place, why doesn't the entire population benefit from the 13% commission?

And gee, I suppose back in the early 70's there were a ton of legal proceedings to determine if the state actually owned the minerals located geographically in Alaska. Hmmm.


----------



## Blindside (Dec 23, 2005)

I think you are off on your percentage, I think it is 25%, and yes, the state does own the subsurface mineral rights in Alaska.  

This becomes a split estate issue which is happening all over the west with one landowner own surface rights and another owning mineral rights. 

Lamont


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 23, 2005)

_So, when Senator Stevens is arguing to open up ANWR for mineral right exploration ... He gets 13% of what ever is extracted from there, without doing a thing. Sweet!_

Law of supply and demand...if more is taken out then the supply goes up, the price goes down, he doesn't.  He gets a dividend on his 13% sold, but it get s sold for less so at some point there is a breakeven point.  Of course, if everyone in the state gets a cut, who am I to complain with the fact that he gets a cut too.  If I, living here in DC, get cheaper gas and he, living therre in Alaska, gets a take, I don't really care because I got something out of the deal, also.

_ Of course, this now begs the question, if ANWR is a *NATIONAL *place, why doesn't the entire population benefit from the 13% commission?_

*shrug* ask New Mexico.  New Mexico gets a take from the same sorta deal.  Only difference is that the money goes to the treasury of the state, not in payouts to individuals, so it does't get talked about a lot.  Many states have such natural resources, and I'm sure most of those states have deals with the companies that have the means and motivation to extract those reasons.  Otherwise, why aren't you getting a cut off all that Texas oil?  Texans I suppose get their cut in not having to pay state icome tax

Or are you going to say that only rich Republicans cane up with this idea and only rich Republicans have benefited?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _So, when Senator Stevens is arguing to open up ANWR for mineral right exploration ... He gets 13% of what ever is extracted from there, without doing a thing. Sweet!_
> 
> Law of supply and demand...if more is taken out then the supply goes up, the price goes down, he doesn't. He gets a dividend on his 13% sold, but it get s sold for less so at some point there is a breakeven point. Of course, if everyone in the state gets a cut, who am I to complain with the fact that he gets a cut too. If I, living here in DC, get cheaper gas and he, living therre in Alaska, gets a take, I don't really care because I got something out of the deal, also.
> 
> ...


 
You speak as if there are significant enough quantities in Alaska to have an effect on World Market. This belief is false, and has been shown to be false on this board many, many times. Supply changes from ANWR are insignificant.

A state deal for mineral rights is one thing - and I'm not sure I am in favor of it, even if it is sound ... but ANWR is a National Resource, not a state resource. Why should the benefits only go to Alaskans?


----------



## Blindside (Dec 23, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> A state deal for mineral rights is one thing - and I'm not sure I am in favor of it, even if it is sound ... but ANWR is a National Resource, not a state resource. Why should the benefits only go to Alaskans?


 
Because the State owns the mineral rights.

Unfortunately it is that simple.

Lamont


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2005)

Which begs several questions: 

*Should* the state hold the mineral rights?
Why?
Why weren't those rights annexed by the federal government when the land was set aside as a Wildlife Refuge?
Should they have been?


----------



## Blindside (Dec 23, 2005)

I don't have any answers to your questions, you'll have to look up the initial designations of the sites, and whatever has come since.  A good starting point would be caveats in ANILCA (Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act) which guided the selection and management of federal lands in AK.  ANILCA makes federal land management in AK different than anywhere else. 

Split estate issues are fairly common in the lower 48 refuges, including at the refuge that I work at, where USFWS (refuges) controls the surface rights and the BLM controls the mineral rights.  

Lamont


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 12, 2006)

The United States Department of Interior has approved today increased exploratory drilling on the Alaskan North Slope. This is an area adjacent to the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. Approximately 400,000 acres of land previously off-limits due to possible negative wildlife impact has been opened. 

The Department of Interior estimates approximately 2 Billion barrels of oil recoverable in this area, as well as 3.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

If these estimates are accurate, this area would be able to provide just over three months worth of oil for the United States. 

The Bureau of Land Management said "We recognize . . . the energy needs of this nation. "So, hopefully, this will alleviate some of the pressure."

100 days worth of oil ... I guess that is 'some' of the pressure.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 12, 2006)

There is a reason why the BLM's nickname is the Bureau of Livestock and Mining.

Lamont


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 12, 2006)

... and another small part of the earth dies ...


----------



## Marginal (Jan 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 100 days worth of oil ... I guess that is 'some' of the pressure.


Don't forget the boundless contribution of Colorado's pending return to oil shale exploration too.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 10, 2006)

More than a quarter of a million gallons of oil were spilled over a two acre area of Alaska this past week, from a break in a 34" pipeline. Apparently, a quarter inch hole, caused by internal corrosion, opened in the pipeline. This has shut down approximately 10% of the production from Northern Alaska.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 100 days worth of oil ... I guess that is 'some' of the pressure.


Thats disengenuous posting. 100 days of oil? That is if we completely shut off all relience on every other avenue of oil. Are we seriously talking about drilling in ANWR to become 100% supported by its yields? Those stats show the exact reason why statistics are so shotty...you can make them say anything you want if you just twist around things enough. That statement doesn't include the whole story and is thus faulty. 

It is a shame about the spill, a sad part of the problem I guess. If we are going to intrude on nature we should at least be responible enough to take care of things to keep this from happening. Still I dont think this tragedy is something that proves we shouldn't be drilling for oil. 

7sm


----------



## elder999 (Mar 12, 2006)

This has been discussed to death, especially by me! 
here


and here


Where I pretty much summed it up thusly:




			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> 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
> 
> ...


 
Drilling in ANWR is northing more than more corporate cronyism at work for Bush and Cheneys oil buddies, pure and simple


----------



## qizmoduis (Mar 13, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> This has been discussed to death, especially by me!
> here
> 
> 
> ...



Corporate welfare and rank cronyism (among other things) is the hallmark of Bush's reign.  History will remember him as the absolute worst president to be elected to office (assuming it's unlikely to get someone actually WORSE than Bush elected.)  Unfortunately, it will fall to us and our children to clean up his and the conservative movement's messes.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 13, 2006)

Wow...just wow.

So before Bush was president, what exactly was the reasoning behind opening ANWR for drilling? I dont mind shots at the president, but this goes way beyond him, so to sum it up and stop it at him is ridiculous.

7sm


----------



## elder999 (Mar 13, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Wow...just wow.
> 
> So before Bush was president, what exactly was the reasoning behind opening ANWR for drilling? I dont mind shots at the president, but this goes way beyond him, so to sum it up and stop it at him is ridiculous.
> 
> 7sm


 

Chevron or Exxon drilled a test well back in the 70's(?) and the "results" were pretty much kept secret, and the well capped. Summing it up and stopping it at him *is* ridiculous.

It goes back to the corporations that have Bush and Cheney in their pockets.


----------

