Politics Oil Drilling in Alaska

AliasHombre said:
Extort the world is that OPEC would do and does.  All i care about is Americna being self-sufficient in producing its own oil, not the worlds oil.
All estimates of a time period for the use of all the projected oil in Alaska are based on the idea that every drop of oil used in the country came from that one site, which, aside from being impossible, would not happen.
[post="1298698"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


3.2 billion barrels worth has nothing to do with whether or not it was the only oil we used. I added the part about how it's less than 6 months of the oil we use to show people how little is actually there. I'm well aware that all of our oil won't come from Alaska.
 
Jamison said:
3.2 billion barrels worth has nothing to do with whether or not it was the only oil we used.  I added the part about how it's less than 6 months of the oil we use to show people how little is actually there.  I'm well aware that all of our oil won't come from Alaska.
[post="1298721"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
You still dont get it, it is impossible to extract that much oil fast enough to be used up, so, in conjunction with our other sources of oil, this will last for years
 
AliasHombre said:
You still dont get it, it is impossible to extract that much oil fast enough to be used up, so, in conjunction with our other sources of oil, this will last for years
[post="1299098"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


I do get it. But the point is that 3.2 barrels isn't a lot at all! And definitely not worth tearing up Alaskan wildlife for.
 
Jamison said:
I do get it.  But the point is that 3.2 barrels isn't a lot at all!  And definitely not worth tearing up Alaskan wildlife for.
[post="1299133"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
3.2 billion barrels is a large number, especially considering that we only have about 700 million in reserves, or enough for 6 weeks.

The land that we would be "tearing up" is bare. There is nothign there but a few caribou, who have already proven that they can flourish in a landscape with oil drilling happening on it.
 
AliasHombre said:
3.2 billion barrels is a large number, especially considering that we only have about 700 million in reserves, or enough for 6 weeks.

The land that we would be "tearing up"  is bare. There is nothign there but a few caribou, who have already proven that they can flourish in a landscape with oil drilling happening on it.
[post="1300029"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


It's not just "a few caribou".

Place: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Alaska)
Threat: Oil Drilling

Located in the northeast corner of Alaska, the 19 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of America's greatest wild natural treasures.

It is a remote and pristine wilderness, untouched by development. Nestled between the Brooks Mountain Range and the shores of the Beaufort Sea, the narrow coastal plain of the refuge is truly the heart of biological activity in this untamed wilderness. The foothills, braided rivers and tundra of the coastal plain is home to a diversity of wildlife unlike any other place in the United States.

The shores along the Beaufort sea is one of the most important on-shore denning areas for polar bears in the United States. Musk-oxen, reintroduced in the wake of over hunting, have made a comeback on the coastal palin and rely on its resources year-round. Grizzly bear and wolves roam the open tundra and Dall sheep thrive in the foothills of the mountains. More than 130 species of birds rely on the coastal plain for breeding, nesting and migratory stopovers on trips from the Baja peninsula, the Chesapeake Bay as well as every state in the lower 48.

The coastal plain is also the calving grounds of the 130,000 member Porcupine River caribou herd. Each spring, these caribou migrate over 400 miles to reach the coastal plain where they give birth to their young and feed on the abundant plant life. These animals sustain the Gwich'in Indians of interior Alaska and Canada whose traditional life is inextricably linked with the caribou which provide food clothing and medicine. The Gwich'in call the coastal plain "the sacred place where life begins."

But the Arctic Refuge is in peril, targeted by the Bush Administration and the oil industry for full-scale oil development. During the 2000 campaign, President Bush pledged to open the open the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling and Administration has since made Arctic drilling the centerpiece of the Bush-Cheney energy plan. Using rising oil prices and the war with Iraq as justification, Bush has touted Arctic drilling as the answer to our nation's energy security and national security needs.

But opening the Arctic Refuge to drilling is not the answer to our country's energy needs. No one knows how much oil may lie beneath the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge, but Government experts have determined that the mean estimate of economically recoverable oil is 3.2 billion barrel--less than the US consumes in just six months.

Even the oil industry says it would take ten years to bring that oil to market. Moreover, when America sits on less than 3 percent of the world's oil reserves and yet consumes more than 25 percent of the world's oil, we cannot drill our way out of the problem. As long as we are dependent on oil, we will be dependent on foreign oil.

“Allowing drilling in the Arctic Refuge will guarantee destruction of this national treasure,” says Sara Callaghan-Chapell with the Sierra Club in Alaska.

One look at Prudhoe Bay, 60 miles to the west of the Refuge, where oil conglomerates have irreparably damaged the fragile tundra and its wildlife, proves that oil and wildlife don't mix. Drilling for oil and gas there would require 280 miles of roads, hundreds of miles of pipelines, 50 million cubic yards of gravel scoured from nearby ponds and rivers, and massive production facilities.

“The coastal plain of the Arctic refuge is the only remaining stretch of the Arctic coastline not open to oil and gas leasing. We cannot sacrifice such a unique landscape,” says Chapell.

There is a better way. We don't have to plunder our last remaining wildlands to meet our country's energy needs. America can pursue simple steps to cut our dependence on oil -- whether foreign or domestic. Our nation needs a comprehensive energy policy based on conservation, alternative energy sources, and improved efficiency standards -- such as making our cars go farther on a gallon of gas. Such a strategy will decrease our dependence on oil, reduce pollution, and spare national treasures like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for future generations to enjoy.

Taken from The Sierra Club. I also found this website interesting: Hexagon Astrology (Matthew David Savinar)

And I still think it's a bad idea. This is only going to be a temporary solution. I don't think anyone can argue the fact that someday, probably in all of our lifetimes, we're going to see oil, disappear pretty much.

It seems that we should be focusing on renewable energy sources to be prepared for it whenever it does happen.
 
I agree that oil will "dissapear" in the sense that all will be left is oil shale, which is too expensive to obtain.

That article is obviously biased, it makes it sound like the entire 19 million acres will be raped and pillaged by the evil human beings.
 
We have to start preserving our environment and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. In order to achieve that we've got to start looking for other means of transportation. Increased use of public transport and increased funding into new versions of automobile engines could be very profitable for the nation in the long run.
 
I think that we are slowly but surely switching over to more hybrid engines, but the big innovation, fuel cells, are not cheap enough or even ready if i remember.

As for public transportation, its not part of our culture. People crave their independance in this nation, they don't want to take the bus when they can drive. Furthermore, how do people who commute dozens of miles to work everyday take the bus? It just isn't feasable.
 
Public transport does become a problem at some point simply because of the large expanse of land that this nation encompasses. However, my idea would be to promote Public Transport heavily within the cities and for commuters traveling to a major city. If we can increase rail lines and buses heading to major cities I think people would greatly appreciate having to spend less on gas.
 
One problem is the huge number of people within the cities would make the system so massive it might become unmanageable.

In cities today, lots of people don't even own cars in the first place as well. Also, in detroit, you don't want to touch public transportation, save mabye the people mover.
 
AliasHombre said:
I agree that oil will "dissapear" in the sense that all will be left is oil shale, which is too expensive to obtain.

That article is obviously biased, it makes it sound like the entire 19 million acres will be raped and pillaged by the evil human beings.
[post="1300374"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


Of course it will be a little biased...it is by the Sierra club...as I stated.

But it was taking facts you can get from any wildlife website about that area of land. There aren't just 'caribou' there. There are many different species of wildlife, and we mustn't forget the miles and miles of roads that will have to be built either.
 
The article made it sound like the wildlife would be exterminated as soon as oil drilling started. For an enviromental group, they seem to underestimate animals ability to adapt, hell, its not even to adapt, its to move. All the land looks the same anyways.


May i add, any drilling here is subject to exponentially higher enviromental starnards than any drilling in the middle east
 
AliasHombre said:
The article made it sound like the wildlife would be exterminated as soon as oil drilling started.  For an enviromental group, they seem to underestimate animals ability to adapt, hell, its not even to adapt, its to move.  All the land looks the same anyways.
May i add, any drilling here is subject to exponentially higher enviromental starnards than any drilling in the middle east
[post="1300453"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


Hahaha...don't even get me started on the "environmental standards" of the US.


And do you just expect these animals to pick up and move? All of a sudden trucks and people are going to be bombarding their habitat. There is no doubt that it's going to cause environmental damage. And I still don't see a great reason as to why we need to do it in the first place.
 
AliasHombre said:
The standards here are way higher then they are overseas...
[post="1306401"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


I don't understand what your point is.


Just because they are 'way higher' doesn't mean they're up to par, by any means.
 
Jamison said:
I don't understand what your point is.
Just because they are 'way higher' doesn't mean they're up to par, by any means.
[post="1306438"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
You are opposed to drilling where the standards are the highest in the world.
 
AliasHombre said:
You are opposed to drilling where the standards are the highest in the world.
[post="1307528"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


What's your point?

I'm opposed to it not only for the environmental issues (and let me tell you, in the middle east we don't have the wildlife that is found in this area of Alaska), but because I think it's stupid. It's expensive and will by no means solve our oil problems.

I feel that this is a waste of time, money, and energy...which could all be better spent in so many other areas.
 
Jamison said:
Of course it will be a little biased...it is by the Sierra club...as I stated.

But it was taking facts you can get from any wildlife website about that area of land.  There aren't just 'caribou' there.  There are many different species of wildlife, and we mustn't forget the miles and miles of roads that will have to be built either.
[post="1300435"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I've got a job interview with the Sierra Club next week... :whistle:
 
My uncle is a bigwig for Conoco oil (well, now ConocoPhillips)...which is the 3rd largest integrated energy company in the US and 5th largest oil refiner in the world.

They were offered the ANWR job and refused.

Why?

It wasn't worth the time or money because there isn't enough oil there!

So, if an oil company isn't going to drill because there isn't enough oil there, than isn't that saying something?
 
Back
Top