Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Less than a year and a half of oil. That's it. We don't need it, it's a drop in the bucket. It won't accomplish anything but environmental destruction. It's best left there. You have absolutely no plan for what to do after that oil runs out other than to pump it out somewhere else until that runs dry. The United States has 11 years' worth of crude oil. That's it. What's your plan for after that oil runs out? Run around in circles? Wars to get others' oil? As I said, it's an emotional response by people grasping at straws hoping their wasteful lifestyles can continue affordably and not based on facts or sound planning.
Your description of it being a "frozen wasteland" and frozen 9 months of the year could describe about most of the Northern half of Alaska. Winter for all but a small part of the year. That doesn't make it worthless wasteland. Far from it. I'd say it's far more valuable than the city you're in or any city in the lower 48. It has supported life, including human life, for thousands of years, sustainably since it wasn't overburdened by high populations of people. You wish to destroy it for not even a year and a half of oil that might by some estimates drop the price of a barrel of oil 75 cents. 75 cents off a barrel. That's nothing. It works out to hardly anything off the price per gallon that people pay. You're being very inaccurate in your descriptions. ANWR and the rest of Northern Alaska supports a lot of life, both plant and animal life. If you lived there would you be supporting it as you do now? As I said, you only support it because it's about "me me me" and screw everyone and everything else.
The last time I checked, oh, that's right, you don't live here. It's hard to "destroy" frozen ground. You simply don't get it, at all.
I, am many others, resent your implications that our lifestyles are "wasteful". It's none of your go**amn business how other people live their lives.
You sound like a "progressive" who loves to tell other people how to live their lives. Guess what chief? That attitude doesn't fly up here. If I want to drive a SUV the size of a tank, I will. If I want to leave my lights on and keep the house at 74 degrees, I will. I won't have some lower-48 nonsense-spewer dictating to me how I live my life.
You might want to stay right there in Vermont. You're dead wrong on ANWR and your posts have intimated that you are a typical "progressive" meddler. The fact that you know nothing about the ANWR drill site and the fact that the oil can be extracted with little to no environmental impact proves that unequivocally.
Quote:
ANWR – the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – is 19 million acres. If you think of ANWR as a football field, the drilling area is smaller than a postcard. The experts at the U.S. Geological Survey say there could be 16 billion barrels of oil there – about the same as 30 years of imports from Saudi Arabia.
House and Senate negotiators met last Wednesday to discuss legislation that supporters of oil drilling in ANWR say holds the most promise for reducing foreign oil dependency.
"Environmaniacs" claim ANWR is a "crown jewel," referring to the beautiful Brooks Range mountains seen in all the anti-drilling photos, yet they're actually 50-100 miles from the coastal plain. The potentially oil-rich area is just flat, treeless tundra.
Winters on the ANWR coastal plain last for nine months – there is total darkness for 58 consecutive days and temperatures drop to 70 degrees below zero. Spit, and your saliva freezes before it hits the ground. But the nasty conditions mean drilling can be done with ice airstrips, roads and ice pad platforms.
When spring finally arrives, the ice pads would all melt, leaving no sign of the drill crews. The caribou would return, along with arctic fox, geese, shore birds and swarms of vicious mosquitoes ("large enough to slow dance with a turkey"). Incidentally, in the arctic, mosquitoes hatch in such multitudes they can actually turn the sky gray.
Opponents of drilling in ANWR say, "it's the nation's last true wilderness, a hallowed place, and a pristine environmental area." But last summer in a Washington Times article titled, "Hardly a Pretty Place: Use ANWR for Oil Exploration," Jonah Goldberg described it this way: "[i]f you wanted a picture to go with the word 'Godforsaken' in the dictionary, ANWR would do nicely."
Are you tired of allowing Middle East oil monopolies to hold America in a black gold stranglehold by making us pay $2, $3 and soon $4 for a gallon of gas? Me, too. That's why I'm in favor of Alaska drilling. If we're going to have to continue importing oil, I'd rather send my dollars to Alaska, instead of to the Middle East. How about you?
Satch, they are never going to get it, and that's the truth. I cannot even relate the number of times I have gone round and round about ANWR and the other areas, as naseum, and getting nowhere at all.
No one knows exactly the amount of recoverable reserves-that's the point of exploration in the first place. There are some educated estimates, but that is not the same thing as hard data. No one is mentioning the offshore leases here either, or NPR-A, etc etc. Which company is it that is looking south of the Brooks range? (Sorry can't recall, they were just in the news the other day)
There is a lot of recoverable oil, condensates, and gas in Alaska. It's a question of will to get to it. I am not a big fan of AGIA, but it's better than nothing, and we, here in Alaska, need energy too.
Funny you don't here much about the reserves on the Rocky Mountain shelf when the arguments start-most folks have no idea they even exist. Is it BP that had the ad on TV saying there was 60 years worth of energy for America here?
The last time I checked, oh, that's right, you don't live here. It's hard to "destroy" frozen ground. You simply don't get it, at all.
I, am many others, resent your implications that our lifestyles are "wasteful". It's none of your go**amn business how other people live their lives.
You sound like a "progressive" who loves to tell other people how to live their lives. Guess what chief? That attitude doesn't fly up here. If I want to drive a SUV the size of a tank, I will. If I want to leave my lights on and keep the house at 74 degrees, I will. I won't have some lower-48 nonsense-spewer dictating to me how I live my life.
You might want to stay right there in Vermont. You're dead wrong on ANWR and your posts have intimated that you are a typical "progressive" meddler. The fact that you know nothing about the ANWR drill site and the fact that the oil can be extracted with little to no environmental impact proves that unequivocally.
As the saying goes, the debate is won when the opponent resorts to ad hominum...you have no clue where I fall politically but it isn't "progressive" although it isn't "conservative" really either. I don't blindly follow a political ideology and instead prefer to look at issues individually and logically. You're argument isn't logical in the least.
Yeah you can destroy "frozen" ground. Permafrost can melt and lead to sinking (the reason I need to do certain simple things when I build my cabin, so I don't destroy my frozen land by melting it), tundra is fragile ground easily damaged for years. You say I don't live there, but you also admit you've never even seen what you're calling a wasteland. I know someone who has seen it, I know what science I've studied. You're simply flat out wrong. Also better go tell Heimo Korth it's a frozen wasteland up there that ain't worth preserving. LOL
Okay, so do whatever you want, drive an SUV, leave your lights on, heat your house to 90 degrees all winter with an oil furnace. Just quite whining it's too expensive for you to do so. That's what this is, you want to do that stuff cheaply. That ain't going to happen anymore. Oil prices are determined on international markets these days, and if you want it, you pay their price. You already admitted drilling in ANWR would do nothing to help oil prices. You know what the facts are but you don't want to admit it. Millions of Americans want to ignore reality and think there's some magical easy solution like drilling our own oil so they can have cheap gas again and continue living wastefully. Guess what? There isn't. The reality is we're nearing (or maybe already at--you really can't trust the figures the various foreign governments like the Saudis and Russians give out) peak oil. Demand is rising and supply is slowly but surely falling. As I already stated, what little crude oil the U.S. has will do nothing to solve the problem. So what's your solution for when the oil wells run dry (or rather, at a trickle as the case generally is)? What will you do then? You're not thinking into the future but simply wanting the present to be easier. Very short sighted. It's everyone's business when you want to destroy public property for silly reasons (silly because the facts show this won't do anything to solve the problem, and silly because you could instead of whining find solutions for yourself as others are doing, which may involve living less luxuriously than you prefer, but suck it up, you're entitled to nothing in this world, so drop the "me me me" attitude).
And, drilled with no impact? No credible scientist will say that's the case at all.
And I'm not staying in VT, too crowded and developed, my land is already purchased and the sale recorded, and I will be there likely in the Spring of 2009, building a homestead up that will enable me to not rely on oil. I'm putting my hands where my mouth is, and whether I fail or succeed, I will know I tried my utmost to not follow the other sheep to slaughter but rather tried to put my own life under my own control as much as possible.
And as for "meddling" I suggest you read the link I provided. We're talking about federal property that Alaskans voted to give up ALL rights to when they decided they wanted to be a state. everyone in the U.S. has a say in this and not everyone has swallowed the developers' propaganda (and that article you seemingly illegally cut and pasted is simply trashy propaganda lacking scientific facts designed to appeal to people emotionally who are beinbg hurt by oil prices).
I also see you declined to answer my question. If this was in your backyard, if you lived there, would you support it?
It never ceases to amaze me, every decade since the 1960s there is always some wacky leaf-licker claiming we have reached our peak oil production and how we only have 20 years of oil left on the planet. Yet here we are 40 years later continuing to find even more oil than ever before. One has to be brain-dead for three days to take anything they have to say as credible.
As the saying goes, the debate is won when the opponent resorts to ad hominum...you have no clue where I fall politically but it isn't "progressive" although it isn't "conservative" really either. I don't blindly follow a political ideology and instead prefer to look at issues individually and logically. You're argument isn't logical in the least.
Yeah you can destroy "frozen" ground. Permafrost can melt and lead to sinking (the reason I need to do certain simple things when I build my cabin, so I don't destroy my frozen land by melting it), tundra is fragile ground easily damaged for years. You say I don't live there, but you also admit you've never even seen what you're calling a wasteland. I know someone who has seen it, I know what science I've studied. You're simply flat out wrong. Also better go tell Heimo Korth it's a frozen wasteland up there that ain't worth preserving. LOL
Okay, so do whatever you want, drive an SUV, leave your lights on, heat your house to 90 degrees all winter with an oil furnace. Just quite whining it's too expensive for you to do so. That's what this is, you want to do that stuff cheaply. That ain't going to happen anymore. Oil prices are determined on international markets these days, and if you want it, you pay their price. You already admitted drilling in ANWR would do nothing to help oil prices. You know what the facts are but you don't want to admit it. Millions of Americans want to ignore reality and think there's some magical easy solution like drilling our own oil so they can have cheap gas again and continue living wastefully. Guess what? There isn't. The reality is we're nearing (or maybe already at--you really can't trust the figures the various foreign governments like the Saudis and Russians give out) peak oil. Demand is rising and supply is slowly but surely falling. As I already stated, what little crude oil the U.S. has will do nothing to solve the problem. So what's your solution for when the oil wells run dry (or rather, at a trickle as the case generally is)? What will you do then? You're not thinking into the future but simply wanting the present to be easier. Very short sighted. It's everyone's business when you want to destroy public property for silly reasons (silly because the facts show this won't do anything to solve the problem, and silly because you could instead of whining find solutions for yourself as others are doing, which may involve living less luxuriously than you prefer, but suck it up, you're entitled to nothing in this world, so drop the "me me me" attitude).
And, drilled with no impact? No credible scientist will say that's the case at all.
And I'm not staying in VT, too crowded and developed, my land is already purchased and the sale recorded, and I will be there likely in the Spring of 2009, building a homestead up that will enable me to not rely on oil. I'm putting my hands where my mouth is, and whether I fail or succeed, I will know I tried my utmost to not follow the other sheep to slaughter but rather tried to put my own life under my own control as much as possible.
And as for "meddling" I suggest you read the link I provided. We're talking about federal property that Alaskans voted to give up ALL rights to when they decided they wanted to be a state. everyone in the U.S. has a say in this and not everyone has swallowed the developers' propaganda (and that article you seemingly illegally cut and pasted is simply trashy propaganda lacking scientific facts designed to appeal to people emotionally who are beinbg hurt by oil prices).
I also see you declined to answer my question. If this was in your backyard, if you lived there, would you support it?
I am through discussing this with you. You obviously have chosen the ostrich method of looking at the issue. You are ignorant of the facts and your attitude will be laughed at in most areas up here.
Oh, btw, "peak oil" is a gigantic crock. I'm not going to waste my time citing the sources, you can do that on your own.
Quote:
In America, Congress alternates between calls for “energy independence” and refusals to allow drilling in what it considers environmentally sensitive areas in Alaska and offshore California and Florida.
There’s more, but you get the idea. There is a lot of oil out there to be found and produced, not even including the vast reserves in Canada’s tar sands. We might have reached the age of peak panic about oil supplies, but not of peak oil
It never ceases to amaze me, every decade since the 1960s there is always some wacky leaf-licker claiming we have reached our peak oil production and how we only have 20 years of oil left on the planet. Yet here we are 40 years later continuing to find even more oil than ever before. One has to be brain-dead for three days to take anything they have to say as credible.
Yeah, I'm done with that person. You can a lead a horse to water..... As I stated, he/she is going to be in for a rude shock when they start spouting that kind of claptrap up here.
...always some wacky leaf-licker claiming we have reached our peak oil production and how we only have 20 years of oil left on the planet. ..
Then why are we having this debate? If gasoline were still 75 cents a gallon would we be at each others throats like this? Does it matter if there is three years or thirty if oil companies can manipulate supply and/or withhold the more accurate estimates of reserves? Nope, not a bit. When the numbers on the local gas stations are three cents higher than yesterday even though the station manager bought that oil last week and isn't due to get more for another three days, guess what, you pay what's on the board no haggling allowed. FWIW I ride a bicycle, everywhere and use Mass Transit where possible. I can drive, however, and I have been known to rent the odd car and truck. Gas prices affect me to some degree but not to the extent of many here.
Then why are we having this debate? If gasoline were still 75 cents a gallon would we be at each others throats like this? Does it matter if there is three years or thirty if oil companies can manipulate supply and/or withhold the more accurate estimates of reserves? Nope, not a bit. When the numbers on the local gas stations are three cents higher than yesterday even though the station manager bought that oil last week and isn't due to get more for another three days, guess what, you pay what's on the board no haggling allowed. FWIW I ride a bicycle, everywhere and use Mass Transit where possible. I can drive, however, and I have been known to rent the odd car and truck. Gas prices affect me to some degree but not to the extent of many here.
H
Mass transit and a bicycle won't cut it up here. Lest you forget that there are only 600,00+ people in a state 2.5 times the size of Texas.
Mass transit and a bicycle won't cut it up here. Lest you forget that there are only 600,00+ people in a state 2.5 times the size of Texas.
Depends on where you are going and when. If you're just going around a town/village, you could do it without a car/truck. Longer distances are another matter obviously. You could use dog sleds in the more remote areas if you wanted to for things like hunting/trapping/etc., although dogs eat a lot. Horses and buggies in the summer, though they present feed issues too. Cutting back on long distance travel is also a good idea.
Keep up the ad hominum attacks...and I hope for your sake that picture isn't copyrighted, but I somehow suspect it is.
Peak oil isn't a "gigantic crock" but rather is accepted by scientists. Several nations' oil fields have in fact peaked. The United States, for one (this one can't be denied at all), Mexico's are declining, the Saudis seem to be at the point of declining, China's have, and there are others. Suffice it to say, eventually there won't be enough to meet all of the demand, particularly with demand growing in developing nations. You are the one ignorant of the facts and spouting opinion pieces as evidence for your beliefs. Like I said, grasping at straws and letting propagandists use your emotions to manipulate you, and you're willing to trash the world because you don't have cheap fuel and you ignorantly think the Northern half of your state is a barren wasteland. You admitted earlier in this thread the following:
Quote:
Sure, it would not significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil
You've already admitted to the uselessness in drilling in ANWR to lower the prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic Satch
I am through discussing this with you. You obviously have chosen the ostrich method of looking at the issue. You are ignorant of the facts and your attitude will be laughed at in most areas up here.
Oh, btw, "peak oil" is a gigantic crock. I'm not going to waste my time citing the sources, you can do that on your own.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
