Senate Approves Oil Drilling in ANWR

[sgtmac_46]

... 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).

<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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

7sm

 

[7starmantis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Marginal]

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]

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]

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]

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.