U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-06-2008, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,723 posts, read 4,987,400 times
Reputation: 3194
You can also limit or eliminate the potential for another fuel war and provide for national security equally well by ending our dependence on this resource.

Like you said, this is 2008 not 1958 -- we also have the technology available to replace oil as our main power source.

There is always more than one solution to every problem, and any short-term solution needs to work toward an integrated long-term solution.

The United States is on one of the most environmentally diverse and resource-rich continents on this planet. Aside from our gluttonous dependence (or shall I say "addiction") on foreign oil, we are more than equipped and able to be completely self-sustaining. The fact that we seem to intentionally decide not to do this is beyond logic. The problem isn't a lack of resources, it's our wasteful behaviors and "cheap at all costs" attitudes.

Could you entertain the possibility, just for a moment, that all those Democrat, Liberal, Left-leaning "idiots" and "leaf-lickers" who are precluding the exploitation and development of natural resources may actually be trying to keep us from repeating the mistakes we've made in the past in other locations? That they are not truly getting their kicks by barring the way in order to make our lives difficult or weaken our country, but are actually attempting to ensure that we don't make out lives more difficult and weaken our country further through a lack of hind and foresight? I'm not saying that all of them have a benevolent motive, but is it not possible that a good majority of them could? As George Santayana once said "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-06-2008, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Wasilla
1,331 posts, read 1,902,443 times
Reputation: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
You can also limit or eliminate the potential for another fuel war and provide for national security equally well by ending our dependence on this resource.

Like you said, this is 2008 not 1958 -- we also have the technology available to replace oil as our main power source.
No offense, but that those sort of statements remind me of Barack Obama. Long on wishes, short on reality. Your first paragraph is completely and utterly false. Tanks, trucks, APC's, warplanes.....don't run on anything but oil derivatives. It's one thing to say we need to end our dependence on oil, quite another when the technology simply doesn't exist to do so and probably won't for decades.

And no. I've followed politics for going on 30 years from now and the Democrats haven't changed a bit. They kowtow to the Left and the radical eco-nuts and the good of the country be damned. As a newly minted Alaskan, it is despicable that we have so many natural resources right in our backyard but can't use them because scumbags like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer are wiling to put reality and the facts aside to ensure that their campaign coffers are full come election time.

Please forgive me if I've sounded a bit belligerent but this issue pisses me off to no end. It's not directed at you personally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2008, 10:42 PM
 
559 posts, read 890,620 times
Reputation: 204
This reminds me of an email i got today...

Quote:
My Fellow Americans:

As you know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed. Since Congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is now complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My Press Secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinately. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraq war. The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell-holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.

THEN EVERY YEAR THERE AFTER IT’ll GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WON’T GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.

Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to re-direct this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth. Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China.

To Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Yo, boys. Work out a peace deal now. Just note that Camp David is closed. Maybe all of you can go to Russia for negotiations. They have some great palaces there. Big tables, too.

I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany, and Russia. Thanks for all you help comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bon Chance, mes amis.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about what ever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers, and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York!

A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on list 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might not want to try pissing us off for a change.

Mexico is on list 2. President Fox and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I'm going to put em? Yep, border security. So start doing something with your oil.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now. We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska — which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying "darn tootin."
Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America. It is time to elimate World Cup Soccer from America.

To the nations on list 1. A final thought. Thanks guy. We owe you and we won't forget.

To the nations on list 2. A final thought. Drop dead.

God Bless America Thank you and goodnight.

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading this in English, thank a soldier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2008, 11:32 PM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,538 posts, read 4,256,859 times
Reputation: 1789
Default Camera tricks, and other lies...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic Satch View Post
And here is a photo of the coastal plains in ANWR where they want to drill on a mere 1000-2000 acres out of a refuge the size of the South Carolina.

Doesn't it bother you at all to post such dishonest imagery, both via pictures and words? Your picture is not representative of what ANWR looks like. It is classic "trick photography" with a wide angle lense.

Here are three URL's for places with reliable information that you can learn from:
Arctic Refuge: Oil and Gas Issues
Arctic Refuge: Site Index
Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries - Home (http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/index.htm - broken link)
Here are very representative pictures that show the actual area that will be affected by development. The impact in no way would be restricted to only "1000-2000" acres. That's the taxible "footprint", not the area of impact.



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2008, 11:44 PM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,723 posts, read 4,987,400 times
Reputation: 3194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic Satch View Post
No offense, but that those sort of statements remind me of Barack Obama. Long on wishes, short on reality. Your first paragraph is completely and utterly false.
No offense taken, I don't support him and don't take such digs personally.

It is fastly becoming a reality, and would accelerate if adopted more widely. And that first paragraph is not false at all... when you end a reliance or desire for a resource, you end the need to go to war over it and you undermine the providers ability to wage war on you because you remove a major source of their income. They also lose their leverage over you by threatening to withold the resource.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic Satch View Post
Tanks, trucks, APC's, warplanes.....don't run on anything but oil derivatives. It's one thing to say we need to end our dependence on oil, quite another when the technology simply doesn't exist to do so and probably won't for decades.
Most military hardware is multi-fuel by design to eliminate single points of failure. The M1 Abrams tank are turbine driven, and other tanks and APC's will run on anything from JP5 jet fuel all the way to pure vegetable oil (not even processed into biodiesel). Trucks of all types are mostly multi-fuel as well... anything diesel can run on biodiesel (and pure vegetable oil in a pinch). Also many "civilian" trucks and tractors can and do run on electrics, especially hydrogen fuel cells (just not in THIS country). Aircraft could easily run on nuclear batteries, and that technology is currently in the approval testing stages. Any gasoline combustion engine can run alcohol... the only reason they don't now is that they have to replace the rubber fuel lines (a $5 change of material costs) and update the engine control unit computers (about 5 software parameter changes). The technology is there and it is proven to work, we just haven't adopted it yet (even though many have been available for decades). We spend more time and money protecting the foreign oil than investing in our technology advances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic Satch View Post
And no. I've followed politics for going on 30 years from now and the Democrats haven't changed a bit. They kowtow to the Left and the radical eco-nuts and the good of the country be damned. As a newly minted Alaskan, it is despicable that we have so many natural resources right in our backyard but can't use them because scumbags like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer are wiling to put reality and the facts aside to ensure that their campaign coffers are full come election time.

Please forgive me if I've sounded a bit belligerent but this issue pisses me off to no end. It's not directed at you personally.
I'm not taking it personally. I realize that we have completely different perspectives and priorities on these issues and I can live with that. I have a similar level of frustration with the Republican profit-mongers who have no compunction about raping the land and exploiting the people for short term gains... the good of the country be damned. I'm equally frustrated with the Democrats for their pie-in-the-sky alarmist blathering that makes normally intelligent people refute the efficacy of real solutions that are obviosuly available and working.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2008, 09:54 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
16,942 posts, read 10,746,777 times
Reputation: 6035
None of those ANWR photos are "representative" considering that they were all taken during the 3-week long Summer in August. During 49 of the 52 weeks of the year, the Coastal Plain of ANWR is a bleak, snow and ice covered windswept landscape with little life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2008, 10:35 AM
 
4,988 posts, read 5,312,569 times
Reputation: 3199
This discussion is taking on the all too familiar tone of all the others I’ve seen. The way I see it, these discussions usually don’t solve anything because it comes down to human nature and not wanting to cede a point to the “other side” rather than objectively examine the data. I think if we are ever going to actually solve the energy crisis, everyone will need to come to terms with reality:

Drilling for oil in ANWR or any of the other areas designated “environmentally sensitive” is not wanton destruction of the planet as one side would have us believe. Modern technologies exist that would allow oil extraction with minimal impact to wildlife and the environment. Prudhoe Bay is a good example, and that field was initially built with 70’s technology. Current drilling techniques would be even less invasive.

On the flip side, we have to be honest and acknowledge that opening ANWR will have some adverse impact. Regardless of the technology used, wildlife and the environment will be negatively affected to some degree or another.

The question comes down to weighing all of the available evidence and making a rational decision as to the risk/rewards of increased oil production vs the environmental impact. We need to decide how much environmental damage we are willing to tolerate in the context of what it will take to keep our society functioning and our country out of bankruptcy.

My biggest concern is that we don’t even have all of the evidence now, so how can we make an informed decision? We don’t know exactly how much oil we are talking about. Maybe there’s 50 billion barrels all concentrated in one small corner of ANWR near Prudhoe that could be reached thru slant drilling with minimal impact. OR, maybe we’re completely off base and there isn’t a single drop of oil to be found east of Prudhoe, in which case all of this hand wringing and name calling is moot.

I believe that we should at least take the first steps of some initial exploration to at least allow us to have an educated discussion of this issue. And yes, even that exploration will have some environmental impact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2008, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Wasilla
1,331 posts, read 1,902,443 times
Reputation: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
Doesn't it bother you at all to post such dishonest imagery, both via pictures and words? Your picture is not representative of what ANWR looks like. It is classic "trick photography" with a wide angle lense.

Here are three URL's for places with reliable information that you can learn from:
Arctic Refuge: Oil and Gas Issues
Arctic Refuge: Site Index
Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries - Home (http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/index.htm - broken link)
Here are very representative pictures that show the actual area that will be affected by development. The impact in no way would be restricted to only "1000-2000" acres. That's the taxible "footprint", not the area of impact.


Innumerable sources say that drilling in ANWR can be done easily and safely. Just a few exposing the myths about ANWR.

Arctic Power - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - Home
Drill ANWR: Realism Over Emotion
FOXNews.com - Myths About Drilling in ANWR - Opinion

I have a good friend who has lived in Alaska all his life and he says that there isn't one single reason why we shouldn't drill for our own oil. He has visited the exact area where they want to drill and finds it incomprehensible that we have waited so long. The tree-huggers have been lying through their teeth for years about the issue and it's time to let reality settle in.

Thanks btw Glitch, you beat me to the punch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2008, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,723 posts, read 4,987,400 times
Reputation: 3194
AK_Photographer... well stated! Reps to you!

More investigation and analysis needs to occur before any action is taken. To do anything else would be inefficient at best, and dangerously useless at worst. We need to determine 1) if we really need the oil in the first place or if this "crisis" is just a media and political frenzy; 2) where in "environmentally sensitive" area the oil is exactly; 3) whether that oil could be efficiently slant drilling; 4) exactly how many barrels we're expected to get vs. how many we think we'll need; 5) any environmental impacts of whichever drilling method is used; 6) whether the environmental impacts are great, temprorary or permanent; 7) if there are things we could do to mitigate those risks; and 8) if we have other technologies and energy sources available to reduce or eliminate the need to drill at all.

I'm not opposed to responsible testing efforts by non-partisan independents. The only thing that concerns me even having people test, is if they find something will the gov & corps immediately start drilling before the research is completed and the real need determined "just because it's there".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2008, 10:45 PM
 
Location: Wasilla
1,331 posts, read 1,902,443 times
Reputation: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
AK_Photographer... well stated! Reps to you!

More investigation and analysis needs to occur before any action is taken. To do anything else would be inefficient at best, and dangerously useless at worst. We need to determine 1) if we really need the oil in the first place or if this "crisis" is just a media and political frenzy; 2) where in "environmentally sensitive" area the oil is exactly; 3) whether that oil could be efficiently slant drilling; 4) exactly how many barrels we're expected to get vs. how many we think we'll need; 5) any environmental impacts of whichever drilling method is used; 6) whether the environmental impacts are great, temprorary or permanent; 7) if there are things we could do to mitigate those risks; and 8) if we have other technologies and energy sources available to reduce or eliminate the need to drill at all.

I'm not opposed to responsible testing efforts by non-partisan independents. The only thing that concerns me even having people test, is if they find something will the gov & corps immediately start drilling before the research is completed and the real need determined "just because it's there".
1) Gas is $4.46/gallon here in Wasilla and it's probably only going to get worse

2) Many homes in Fairbanks and other areas use heating oil. It will be nearly impossible for many family's to survive winters

3) This is no political or media "frenzy", it's reality.

4) The technology is available to drill on that mere 1000-2000 acres of frozen tundra right now. Enough screwing around, let's get it done.

For God's sake, true alternative sources, other than nuclear, are at this stage merely a fond wish. It will decades and billions to develop anything viable. We need oil now(obviously it will take a while to start pumping but waiting any longer is foolish). I am so sick of people kowtowing to these godda**ned tree-huggers that I want to puke. Open up the off-shore sites, get ANWR going, and begin serious development of the massive oil shale deposits in the Dakotas and Wyoming. Why are so many people so unbelievably dense when it comes to the common-sense objective of drastically reducing our dependence on foreign oil?

Do you get the impression that this frustrates the hell out of me? The higher these prices go, more and more people are going to demand that we go get our own supplies. And it can't happen a moment too soon. Then those idiot Democrats will really feel the heat.

Last edited by Classic Satch; 07-07-2008 at 11:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:13 AM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top