Anwr

[mickeyd]

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. BTW, the Russians are considering drilling in the Arctic too. Somebody will get the oil that is there.

I have seen sections of the pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez and, after 30 years, it still seems to work pretty darn well.

We need oil in the USA a lot more than we need this small 2000 acre plot of tundra north of the Arctic circle IMHO. Take your pick, Mid-East oil or Alaska Oil?


http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf

[Razor]

I have nothing against drilling in ANWR, but it really is not going to make much of a difference in our dependance on foriegn oil. Demand is increasing too fast.

[mb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor I have nothing against drilling in ANWR, but it really is not going to make much of a difference in our dependance on foriegn oil. Demand is increasing too fast.

What Razor said. I generally fall on the environmental side of arguments but my feeling is that we can develop ANWR in an acceptable way.

BUT it is not the answer because it is not going to change our dependence on imported oil that much. If you look at a plot of US crude imports versus time it is a steady monotonic, almost linearly increasing function. Even Prudhoe Bay is only a small blip in the data.

IMHO we need to reduce oil consumption and if we don't start doing it now we will be forced to do it in a far more painful way in the future.

MB

[dumpster56]

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

[Razor]

Quote:

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

I think we bought if for the Gold.

[Arc]

Start the drilling already!!!

[hankster]

We bought it cheap to screw the Russians Seward wasn't such a sap after all. If we do drill the ANWR, I hope it's part of an overall package to develope alternatives to oil and end this foreign oil dependency that keeps us beholden to the unsavory characters of OPEC.

[Goonie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arc Start the drilling already!!!

Agreed!

[mickeyd]

Quote:

We bought it cheap to screw the Russians Seward wasn't such a sap after all.

Right you are. I believe that we paid the Ruskies $7,000,000 in 1866, which comes out to about two cents per acre. Seward should be on Mt. Rushmore for making that deal.

[Insanity]

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.

[ziggy29]

ANWR can be PART of an energy strategy. We need both current supply of oil AND development of alternatives. One party seems to want to drill our way out of the problem. The other wants to deny us all stopgaps until alternatives are widespread. Neither is practical, IMO -- politics as usual.

[DblDoc]

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

Is it worth it?

DD

[Khan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblDoc Estimated retrievable oil in the ANWR: 6-16 billion barrels Annual US consumption: 7 billion barrels Is it worth it? DD

And how much oil will be consumed retrieving the ANWR oil?

[Arc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblDoc Estimated retrievable oil in the ANWR: 6-16 billion barrels Annual US consumption: 7 billion barrels Is it worth it? DD

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?

[DougViages]

The real issue is: Who gets to control whether how we develop energy in North America. For example, I just watched a news report about an environmentalist who wants to block oil drilling permits off of Alaska's coast because polar bears MIGHT be threatened. I live next to Canada(Ontario), and the CBC says that polar bear populations have exploded, and the bears are an increasing problem. Our friends to the north don't believe that they are threatened at all.

The environmentalist go to great lengths to block nuclear plants (France gets 80% of electric power from nuclear). Nevada's Senators and environmentalists block use of the custom built nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada. Local NIMBY's block wind turbines, gee, they ruin the view. Big Agra and the Gov wink at each other and push ethanol, a real disaster for food prices, land use, and real energy independence.

All that said, what we really need is a market driven, common sense approach to energy. The Gov/politicians will NEVER do the "right things" for the vast majority of Americans. I really believe that at the core of some far out environmentalists views is a belief that there are about 5.5 billion too many humans for "Mother Earth", and that we are parasites. I see all this craziness, and I fear for a poorer and less free future.

[Rivrider]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insanity 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.

Something to think about. You might not be so insane after all.

I am not the worlds best typist or proofreader. Tend to leave out important words.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivrider You might be so insane after all.

[chinaco]

I am fine if we drill for oil in that location. I would not be ok with Big Oil milking huge profits from it. If we drill for oil, the money should go to shore up SS or Medicare. Plus, the company that pumps the oil should not be able to get more than a capped profit from it.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaco I am fine if we drill for oil in that location. I would not be ok with Big Oil milking huge profits from it. If we drill for oil, the money should go to shore up SS or Medicare. Plus, the company that pumps the oil should not be able to get more than a capped profit from it.

If Big Oil's profits are capped, does that mean the government should subsidize their investment if the price of oil suddenly and unexpectedly tanked to a level which isn't profitable for continued extraction?

I'm not really challenging here, just thinking aloud. It doesn't seem right to cap profits if the market goes crazy unless there is also some downside protection.

[Insanity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arc . . . If we don't tap our resources in the short term - how will we ever reduce reliance on Mid East. . . .

Er, drive cars that get as good a gas mileage as the cars they drive in Europe? Take public transit more often?

If we tap our resources in the short term and while failing to do these things that's exactly what those resources will be: short term resources.