Senate Approves Oil Drilling in ANWR

[7starmantis]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Drill.

 

[sgtmac_46]

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]

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...



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

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]

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]

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

7sm

 

[7starmantis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.