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

[Blindside]

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

Lamont

 

[hardheadjarhead]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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




Regards,


Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

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

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

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

upnorthkyosa

 

[Deuce]

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

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

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

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

 

[ginshun]

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

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

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

 

[michaeledward]

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

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

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

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

I am curious if you really believe that statement?

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

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

 

[michaeledward]

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

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

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

 

[Deuce]

I am curious if you really believe that statement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ginshun]

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

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

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

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


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

 

[hardheadjarhead]

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

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


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

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


Regards,


Steve

 

[Deuce]

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

Sorry man! I guess engineers think too much alike!

 

[michaeledward]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Let's review:

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

Maybe we should try developing Iraq.

 

[Blindside]

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

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

Lamont

 

[Deuce]

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


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

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

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

Let's review:

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

Maybe we should try developing Iraq.

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

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

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

 

[Cryozombie]

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

 

[michaeledward]

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

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


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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

 

[BrandiJo]

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

 

[OULobo]

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

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

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