Anwr

[mickeyd]

If we drill for oil, the money should go to shore up SS or Medicare. .

This is a joke, right?

 

[Independent]

Yes - If we don't tap our resources in the short term - how will we ever reduce reliance on Mid East. Who decided that we can't do anything until we find an area that can meet the entire need? Doesn't every little bit help?

In this case, this little bit could hurt. The problem is that we keep denying that we have a long term problem. Drilling in ANWR could be a political excuse to keep doing stupid things instead of facing the real issues.

 

[Arc]

In this case, this little bit could hurt. The problem is that we keep denying that we have a long term problem. Drilling in ANWR could be a political excuse to keep doing stupid things instead of facing the real issues.

Why would it hurt in this case?

 

[Bestwifeever]

I propose we use Flinstone cars. We cure obesity and oil dependency in one swipe. I know I know how will I fend off the noble peace prize offers. But for the good of mankind I deliver.

And think of the money we would save on shoes since bare feet work best for those cars--an added bonus!

Please never change your "Incoming" avatar, by the way--no matter how many times I see it, it makes me laugh.

 

[toofrugalformycat]

Alaska is a beautiful state with millions of unspoiled acres of natural beauty. Millions of lakes, hundreds of thousands of glaciers and mountains, both named and unnamed, are a thing of beauty to observe. In the attached map of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, only a bit over 3 square miles of land (tiny red box) is proposed for oil drilling.

The other side of the story - I've been told that the three square miles (if that is indeed the number) is not in one place - it is multiple drilling platforms connected by roads. Picture a spider web of roads covering a huge area, with lots of tiny tiny red boxes, instead of one tiny red box in one place. So the tiny red box is misleading.
If you've ever seen arctic tundra you know how fragile it is. The damage will be there for hundreds if not thousands of years.
And all this for maybe one year's worth of oil, minus the oil consumed to drill and deliver it, plus all the spills that go with drilling and shipping.

 

[Khan]

The other side of the story - I've been told that the three square miles (if that is indeed the number) is not in one place - it is multiple drilling platforms connected by roads. Picture a spider web of roads covering a huge area, with lots of tiny tiny red boxes, instead of one tiny red box in one place. So the tiny red box is misleading.
If you've ever seen arctic tundra you know how fragile it is. The damage will be there for hundreds if not thousands of years.
And all this for maybe one year's worth of oil, minus the oil consumed to drill and deliver it, plus all the spills that go with drilling and shipping.

If it takes .9 barrels of oil to extract and process 1.0 barrels, is it worth the effort?

 

[Insanity]

Why would it hurt in this case?

Sorry kids. We used the last of the ANWR reserve so we could continue to drive our SUVs. By the way, could you please call your state representative and tell him to vote YES on the heating oil subsidies for seniors bill?

'Nuff said?

 

[Razor]

If it takes .9 barrels of oil to extract and process 1.0 barrels, is it worth the effort?

Of course it is. Now if it took a barrel of ethanol to make a barrel of ethanol, it wouldn't work.

 

[Independent]

Why would it hurt in this case?

I thought I included my reasoning: "Drilling in ANWR could be a political excuse to keep doing stupid things instead of facing the real issues."

I could use more words: Our problem with oil is that we don't have the political will to deal with the facts. (1) Most of the easy-to-get oil is in countries with unfriendly and/or dysfunctional governments. That generates geopolitical costs (e.g. war in Iraq) that we don't include in the cost of oil. (2) Any replacement for oil is going to require more human labor than drilling a hole in the ground, and therefore will be more expensive.

Both voters and politicians don't want to face up to either of these. We've had 30 years to get ready for the current spike in oil prices. We've been expecting the free lunch, and somehow haven't found it.

I think that ANWR is just one more red herring that distracts us from the real issues.

 

[kaudrey]

Estimated retrievable oil in the ANWR: 6-16 billion barrels
Annual US consumption: 7 billion barrels

Is it worth it?

DD

----

I'm with DD, Khan, and Caroline on this one. Not enough oil to risk ruining one of the few untouched places left.

 

[Razor]

Estimated retrievable oil in the ANWR: 6-16 billion barrels
Annual US consumption: 7 billion barrels

Is it worth it?

DD

----

I'm with DD, Khan, and Caroline on this one. Not enough oil to risk ruining one of the few untouched places left.

Two years worth of oil. Better to keep it in reserve for a rainy day.

 

[Rustic23]

Was it worth it to drill in Texas? Was it worth it to drill in the Gulf? Was it worth it to drill in Alaska? Was it worth it to drill in Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana, California.....? How about the Middle East, South America, or Asia?

Do you know it is .9 barrels per barrel recovered? Or is this just troll fodder.

 

[Caroline]

Was it worth it to drill in Texas? Was it worth it to drill in the Gulf? Was it worth it to drill in Alaska? Was it worth it to drill in Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana, California.....? How about the Middle East, South America, or Asia?

I think this is comparing apples and oranges. Alaska -- heck no. Texas -- why the heck not? A lot depends on who / what you're destroying to get what you want.

 

[Rustic23]

Caroline,
You have no icompassion for the chiggers that gave their life so you could drive you behemoth?

 

[Khan]

Was it worth it to drill in Texas? Was it worth it to drill in the Gulf? Was it worth it to drill in Alaska? Was it worth it to drill in Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana, California.....? How about the Middle East, South America, or Asia?

Do you know it is .9 barrels per barrel recovered? Or is this just troll fodder.

".9 barrels per barrel recovered" is not the present or the immediate future. However, the amount of input required per unit of output keeps increasing. I was wondering at what point would it no longer be worth the effort.

 

[FreeBird]

I'm against drilling in ANWR, but not for the reasons you might expect. I want to keep it as a strategic reserve, a source for precious hydrocarbon resources fifty years from now when the Saudi wells run dry.

Nicely said. IMHO whether we get the oil now or save it for the future, the reason that you have stated is right on... the fact is that this oil WILL be taken at some point. Even if it takes 5, 50, or 200 years to get to it, national security will not be compromised.

My opinion is that we oughta go ahead and get it while we can take our time and seek it out with as much sensitivity for preserving the lands environmental value as is possible, instead of going for it "in a rush" when the country is being threatened externally and the world has a dwindling oil supply.

 

[Insanity]

My opinion is that we oughta go ahead and get it while we can take our time and seek it out with as much sensitivity for preserving the lands environmental value as is possible, instead of going for it "in a rush" when the country is being threatened externally and the world has a dwindling oil supply.

Perhaps I was unclear about what I meant by "strategic." My idea of "strategic" is "economically strategic," not "militarily strategic."

Fifty years from now there may be very little easily accessed crude oil left to drill up. Hydrocarbon feedstock is vital to the manufacture of many products, from pharmaceuticals to plastics to fertilizer. Having a handy crude oil resource might mean the difference between remaining a major world economic power or ceding that title to the Chinese and Russians, who have both manufacturing facilities and oil reserves of their own,

 

[FreeBird]

Perhaps I was unclear about what I meant by "strategic." My idea of "strategic" is "economically strategic," not "militarily strategic."

Fifty years from now there may be very little easily accessed crude oil left to drill up. Hydrocarbon feedstock is vital to the manufacture of many products, from pharmaceuticals to plastics to fertilizer. Having a handy crude oil resource might mean the difference between remaining a major world economic power or ceding that title to the Chinese and Russians, who have both manufacturing facilities and oil reserves of their own,

Well said again, but I will have to respectfully disagree on the "strategic" part. There's just too many radicals out there whose most strategic goal is to destroy the US economy and they don't care how many men, women, or children that they have to murder to achieve that goal. My vote therefore remains for the ANWR oil be set aside for F-18 Hornet fighter jets because nothing is more important than defending the homeland and the vibrant economy that is gonna allow me to retire early.

 

[Rustic23]

Read in the paper that the Air Force is developing a coal to jet fuel plant in Montana (I think) So while there may not be fuel for Navy F-18s there should be plenty for Air Force F-16s.

 

[Zoocat]

The other side of the story - I've been told that the three square miles (if that is indeed the number) is not in one place - it is multiple drilling platforms connected by roads. Picture a spider web of roads covering a huge area, with lots of tiny tiny red boxes, instead of one tiny red box in one place. So the tiny red box is misleading.
If you've ever seen arctic tundra you know how fragile it is. The damage will be there for hundreds if not thousands of years.
And all this for maybe one year's worth of oil, minus the oil consumed to drill and deliver it, plus all the spills that go with drilling and shipping.

Yes, this is what I understand as well.
My question is, have you (those who favor drilling) been to Alaska? to the interior? It's one of the last pristine wilderness areas in the USA. It is splendid, a place that takes your breath away. Here's a good article in the Smithsonian Smithsonian Magazine | Science & Nature | ANWR: The Great Divide

"An idyllic nursery for the nearly 40,000 caribou calves born here each year, the plain also happens to sit atop what is believed to be billions of barrels of untapped oil."

Many believe that drilling in the ANWR would disrupt the caribou migration. It would be a crime to drill for oil there, for the sake of a few billion barrels of oil.

 

[mickeyd]

It would be a crime to drill for oil there, for the sake of a few billion barrels of oil.

Have you driven a car before today? Have you had the opportunity to fork over $3 for one gallon of refined oil (gasoline)?

The Alaskan tundra can reproduce itself (nature has it's way) and ANWR will be able to support the caribou and other wildlife that demand it's structure. The USA can not provide crude oil in a cost effective way in the future w/o ANWR.

 

[virginia]

newguy888 "Lets drill thru a reindeers head for all I care. we bought alaska for energy ... Right??"

First time in two days I think that I laughed out loud. Thanks Newguy

 

[OAG]

I lived in Alaska for 45 months, much of that time the Alaska pipeline (yes there is one there already and it is working fine, no animal complaints that I know of) was being built. I traveled there when it was 50 degrees below 0, had a wind chill of about -75. Yes, it is nice and pretty, much of it never touched by humans, but it is not Heaven. I would guess 99.9% of Americans will never go there and those that do will never go off into the wilderness, just hang with the tourist routers. It is just wasted as far as being someplace to go and enjoy. Most of it is uninhabitable most of the year of not all of the time, has more than about 50 times the swamps that you find in Florida. Seems to have taken on a "Mom and Apple pie" connotation by many Americans. Like V says it was bought for Energy, lets go get it.

 

[FreeBird]

Althought not mentioned in my previous postings, I too have lived in Alaska over two years total with two 5-month seasons working with a family hunting & fishing outfitter, and the rest just trips set aside to explore that magnificent wilderness... with a 7 week solo paddling of the Yukon river 1,800 miles from the British Columbia headwaters, Yukon Territory, and across Alaska to the Bering Sea in 1984. No one can appreciate wildermess more than me IMHO.

With that said I am still very open to taping the oil from ANWR but I want I want it done using the best and most environmentally sensitive technology possible. I haven't researched the ANWR controversy since it was in the front burner several years ago but I do recall seeing a documentary presenting both sides and I was quite impressed with the the technology that would be used to tap that oil.

As I recall the rigs that would be used would only be stationed along the coastal portions of ANWR leaving the VAST-VAST-(I repeat) VAST majority of the "inland" portions of ANWR virtually untouched. The technology of these new rigs (unlike those being used on the North Slope) have the ability to "spider" out in all directions for what I believe was around 10 miles so that would be much less impact on those coastal areas than if it had been done back in the 1970's or 80's.

They did a good job of convincing me and I'm most definitely one of those people who need a certain amount of wilderness in my life just like food, water, and air. Then again, just about any U.S. oil tapping technology that has ever been used over the last 50 years would be light years better that that used by some of those rogue-like Middle East countries... heck, those guys literally rape the land over there and we American's just can't seem to wait to pay $4.00/gallon for it. Go figgure!?!