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.
If we had enough oil left to make a difference I would agree with that. But the sad fact is we don't, our oil reserves have peaked and have been declining for years the more we pump out.
We do have enough - on shore and off shore
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
Unless you're a prophet and know there won't be any spills, you don't know that. A Valdez sized spill would be a disaster for Florida.
The Exxon Valdez spill WAS NOT an oil platform. I said, when was there a spill from a PLATFORM.
You know - I drive a lot - knowing full well that maybe, just maybe, I could get killed driving. Does that stop me? No
Nor should it stop us from protecting the National Security of the United States.
For 11 years. That's how much we have. Then the U.S. won't have any domestic crude supplies in any real amount to fall back on. Doesn't sound like wise planning to me.
Quote:
The Exxon Valdez spill WAS NOT an oil platform. I said, when was there a spill from a PLATFORM.
You know - I drive a lot - knowing full well that maybe, just maybe, I could get killed driving. Does that stop me? No
Nor should it stop us from protecting the National Security of the United States.
Didn't say it wasn't, but a spill of that size is quite possible with the drilling, and transporting of the oil from the drilling rigs. You have to weigh the risks and benefits in any situation. The benefits don't outweigh the risks in this situation. And as I stated earlier, what will you do after that 11 years, when we will need to import all of our oil?
But wouldn't mining that oil that can be processed into diesel help reduce industrial transportation costs (18-wheelers?), which would help reduce consumer costs?
Yes, it would. Heavy and very heavy oils produce lots of diesel oil and fuel oil (as well as asphalts, tars, naphthas, and paraffins).
But who will finance ANWR?
You have credit crunch in the US and liquidity is not very good. You want investors to sell their stocks in manufacturing to finance ANWR? That'll result in the loss of manufacturing jobs.
The best thing to do is switch back to rail. For the same amount of fuel for two trucks, a train can transport the same amount of cargo as 360 trucks.
Plus think of the cost savings to tax-payers for road/highway repair and maintenance.
Someone needs to tell the Teamster's Union to sit down and ****. Sure, many truck drivers will lose their jobs, but then they'll get new jobs working for the rail roads, or in manufacturing plants building rail engines and cars, or building rail lines or maintaining/repairing them, or working in the trans-shipment points and distribution centers.
Here's a prime opportunity to create more jobs, good paying jobs with benefits, especially in small towns and rural areas.
Also, when the first spill happens, and believe me it will happen, what will you say about the environmental destruction then?
Judging from the replies in this thread and the one in the Alaska forum: they don't care about the effects, they just want cheap fuel. One of them flat out said on the Alaska forum they don't care about the caribou, or ANWR's environment at all, just drill.
Didn't say it wasn't, but a spill of that size is quite possible with the drilling, and transporting of the oil from the drilling rigs. You have to weigh the risks and benefits in any situation. The benefits don't outweigh the risks in this situation. And as I stated earlier, what will you do after that 11 years, when we will need to import all of our oil?
So, you cannot show me where any new oil platforms would pose enviornmental damage - thank you.
And, you are aware (I hope) that over the course of the next decade will can further reduce our dependence on oil thourgh many different ways. And also, we are partnering with Canada and their oil program - that will provide us a supply for the next 100+ years from our FRIENDS to the North.
Judging from the replies in this thread and the one in the Alaska forum: they don't care about the effects, they just want cheap fuel. One of them flat out said on the Alaska forum they don't care about the caribou, or ANWR's environment at all, just drill.
As someone who has been to ANWR - yes, drill. There will not be any enviornmental harm
And, as someone who gets an annual check from the State of Alaska, I want my royalties to increase!
Yes, it would. Heavy and very heavy oils produce lots of diesel oil and fuel oil (as well as asphalts, tars, naphthas, and paraffins).
But who will finance ANWR?
Exxon, British Petroleum, and Conoco/Phillips have been waiting to develop ANWR since 1995. Financing is not an issue. As soon as Congress gives their approval, they will have a transit line built connecting it to the trans-Alaska pipeline some 90 miles away, and within five years begin production.
Nope, I was referring to you, but don't worry, you're not alone. Emotions do alter reasoning, and a lot of people are not thinking soundly on this energy issue. You think we can drill our way out of it but the fact is we can't. Don't you understand that our oil has peaked and has declined greatly? Peak oil.
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.
