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

[rmcrobertson]

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

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

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

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


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

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

 

[ginshun]

For Robert:

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

And to Upnorthkyoso:

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

For Robert:

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

And to Upnorthkyosa:

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

Okay, check this out...

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

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

10000000 C / 909100 g = 11 C/g

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

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

420 C / 230 g = 1.8 C/g

*Polishes Nerd Badge*

upnorthkyosa

 

[Tgace]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

*black helicopters hovering overhead*

*upnorthkyosa dissappears...*

 

[rmcrobertson]

Or, of course, we could grow up.

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

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

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

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

 

[shesulsa]

Hell, George Carlin gets it.

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

 

[ginshun]

Or, of course, we could grow up.

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

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

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

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

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

Very respectable.

2 questions:

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

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ginshun]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[michaeledward]

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

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

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

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

Choices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WTF!!!!

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

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

upnorthkyosa

 

[Flatlander]

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

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

 

[elder999]

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

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

upnorthkyosa

...we're all made of sunlight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

...we're all made of sunlight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ginshun]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TonyM.]

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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

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

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