Drilling in Alaska
- Thread starter kogle
- Start date
molamola
Member
Out of the 365 Million acres of the State of Alaska, the 19.5 million acres of ANWR, 1.5 million acres set aside specifically for oil exploration doesn't sound too bad. If the residents of Alaska are for it (which many of them are), I'm for it. Better to explore for oil than to build 1.5 million acres of homes, strip malls, and garbage dumps. Not to mention that, in my opinion, the greatest threat to the wildlife of Alaska is the tourists that camp out in the wilderness and leave their junk behind. That 1.5 million acres of land is capable of producing 2 million barrels of oil every day for 30 years or more. That's at least 30 years worth of jobs created, 30 years of money being pumped into our economy every day, and billions of barrels of oil that aren't coming from corrupt nations. Not such a bad deal in my opinion.:yes:
ophiura
Active Member
I am tempted to stay "how stupid has our government been to gamble so much of our national interest on unstable sketchy governments for so long." They've been half hearted in anything - backing alternative energy (esp nuclear, IMO) or other petroleum reserves in the US.
But ANWAR isn't a new debate...and it was won by those opposed to drilling for a few decades now. Now it is changing...will it bring down oil prices tomorrow? No. But it is an important step, IMO.
It isn't the government that made this decision - it happened during the elections, when anti-drilling congressmen were voted out and replaced by pro-drilling people. That is the way it works. Representatives of the people...if you think the people are stupid, so be it. But apparently people are either not all that concerned about it, or want some sort of additional domestic exploration which has been sidetracked for years.
Is it OK to ruin the environment of other countries and use that oil, but not OK here? I would say drilling in this country would result in higher standards in oil production - or a more emphatic push toward alternative energies - than in other areas of the planet where we can be blissfully unaware. You can bet there will be a lot of eyes on drilling outfits in Alaska.
It is naive to say there will be no impact, but there has to be a give and take. With the technologies available with directional drilling (no longer straight down but many different horizontal wells can be sunk from a single location), 3D seismic acquisition making sinking the well far more accurate than ever and other technologies...drilling now is a lot better than drilling 2 decades ago. We need to make some reasonable allowances, IMO.
I would rather they drill where we can keep an eye on what is going on...because at this time we need to drill somewhere and it is all one planet.
JMO
But ANWAR isn't a new debate...and it was won by those opposed to drilling for a few decades now. Now it is changing...will it bring down oil prices tomorrow? No. But it is an important step, IMO.
It isn't the government that made this decision - it happened during the elections, when anti-drilling congressmen were voted out and replaced by pro-drilling people. That is the way it works. Representatives of the people...if you think the people are stupid, so be it. But apparently people are either not all that concerned about it, or want some sort of additional domestic exploration which has been sidetracked for years.
Is it OK to ruin the environment of other countries and use that oil, but not OK here? I would say drilling in this country would result in higher standards in oil production - or a more emphatic push toward alternative energies - than in other areas of the planet where we can be blissfully unaware. You can bet there will be a lot of eyes on drilling outfits in Alaska.
It is naive to say there will be no impact, but there has to be a give and take. With the technologies available with directional drilling (no longer straight down but many different horizontal wells can be sunk from a single location), 3D seismic acquisition making sinking the well far more accurate than ever and other technologies...drilling now is a lot better than drilling 2 decades ago. We need to make some reasonable allowances, IMO.
I would rather they drill where we can keep an eye on what is going on...because at this time we need to drill somewhere and it is all one planet.
JMO
bergamer
Active Member
if you are against drilling, it is probably bc you saw the video footage rom greenpeace and other groups about what anwr looks like...... the problem is that the video was not of anwr.
If you see the footage of where the oil is located, it's not so pretty, In fact it was empty lifeless land.
If you see the footage of where the oil is located, it's not so pretty, In fact it was empty lifeless land.
kogle
Member
Just for the record, I'm not for drilling anywhere. I feel that we are smart enough to come up with something better than fossil fuels for our energy needs. As long as we can take the easy way out by drilling in new places or burning coal we won't be commited as a nation to finding better ways to support our energy needs. I'm just saying it's time to actively look for something better.:happyfish
ophiura
Active Member
I would say the time to actively look was a few decades ago. Not that it is a bad idea now, but the reality is we have a dire need for oil. Opponents of drilling say "but ANWAR oil won't even be out there for another 5+ years" yeah, but how long will it really take to develop, test, convert and impliment alternative energy on a national/international scale? A long time. Even hybrid cars still need to get their charge from a power plant (probably coal burning).
Wind power has not been widely accepted (even the Kennedy's don't want to look at them); hydroelectric has downfalls (damming rivers); hydrogen fuel cells I think are still some ways off....natural gas is still a drilling thing...nuclear was (unfortunately) botched by the government decades ago (even the French did better than us, LOL). At this time, we don't have many viable options that would be available within the same time frame as ANWAR or other source oil (and we are also, on that front, now able to go back to old reservoirs and improve reclamation of petroleum)....and then there is the new scientific debate over whether oil is actually derived from organic sources or whether it is actually inorganic (meaning sustainable) and we should focus on cleaner oil technologies for using it.
Lots of ways to go, and I am all for viable (not fad) alternative energy sources and new technologies...but this is the here and now and what we need now is oil.
Wind power has not been widely accepted (even the Kennedy's don't want to look at them); hydroelectric has downfalls (damming rivers); hydrogen fuel cells I think are still some ways off....natural gas is still a drilling thing...nuclear was (unfortunately) botched by the government decades ago (even the French did better than us, LOL). At this time, we don't have many viable options that would be available within the same time frame as ANWAR or other source oil (and we are also, on that front, now able to go back to old reservoirs and improve reclamation of petroleum)....and then there is the new scientific debate over whether oil is actually derived from organic sources or whether it is actually inorganic (meaning sustainable) and we should focus on cleaner oil technologies for using it.
Lots of ways to go, and I am all for viable (not fad) alternative energy sources and new technologies...but this is the here and now and what we need now is oil.
aquaman
Member
Originally posted by KOgle
Just for the record, I'm not for drilling anywhere. I feel that we are smart enough to come up with something better than fossil fuels for our energy needs. As long as we can take the easy way out by drilling in new places or burning coal we won't be commited as a nation to finding better ways to support our energy needs. I'm just saying it's time to actively look for something better.:happyfish
We have alternative such as the electric car, they hybrid car, not to mention solar and wind power. The problem with each of these is the technology is not yet there, may be in our life time but not yet. The fact of the matter is once we need alternative fuel (not when you or anyone else say, but we can no longer get oil) then these other things will be better developed. Necessity is the mother of invention not a bunch of people wining about that they do not like the idea of drilling for oil. So long as we can get the oil we will and we will not be dependant on another fuel source.
BTW not trying to bash you.
liontamer
Member
Look at our damn planet. U think resources are endless/ The wilderness may be awesome and all, but if we wanna continue with our quality of life, certain things are gonna have to end. We dont have an endless supply of everything on this planet. Oil is a product with a limit...and someday we can and will deplete that supply. Just take a look at the road one day. Sit for ten minutes and count cars. And then try to figure how much oil and gasoline those cars will consume in their lifespan. THEN..take a trip to the highway and SEE if you can count all of those cars. Then figure out those gasoline deals. Were sitting on a planet that is slowly being drained, and if there is oil in alaska, and we need it, then wat is the problem with taking it? Its not being used for anything else...What would you rahter do> Drive your car, ar take a walk in the alaskan wilderness?
(remember, things like this can be patched up eventually)
(remember, things like this can be patched up eventually)
kogle
Member
I'm going to pay $2.30 after work tonight. Hey, not to start a tree hugging war but as long as we're talking about renewable resources and needs, I need some more coral and LR for my tank so I think I might just change my spring break plans to include a trip to Figi so I can get some fresh stuff. I was thinking of taking some stuff right off of the reef. What the hell it's renewable right? I mean come on, it will grow back in what 10 or so years??? I can't believe all of you guys. Well most of you anyhow...
It's thinking like you guys have mentioned that will keep us going down the same path we're already on. Anyhow, I'm done arguing about it.
nm reef
Active Member
I don't normally get into these conversations...I seldom voice my views on the ---- of our planet....politics....or religion.
In this case I'll simply ask each of you to search for....and read up on a concept called "peak oil"....in my mind the notion of what will happen as we complete our quest to consume natural resources is frightening. If sanity is not soon restored the human race will soon destroy itself the same way Christianity and progress destroyed the Native Americans.We humans often times consider ourselves as rulers of our resources...somehow superior to all other forms of live(that don't have a "god" to explain their madness)... and somehow entitled to take what we need despite the consequences....instead I believe we "should" be guardians and stewards of our earth....its sad to think that possibly in the life time of our childrens children the world as we know it may cease.....bottom line is many people suspect that without oil the world will face famine...economic collapse...war beyond belief...death in the millions....and we seem to be racing to that point like a fast train headed over a cliff!
"Peak oil" is something we should seriously begin to consider....because we may have long ago reached the "peak" and already be plumeting down the other side!!:thinking:
worthy of consideration...like a slap in the face!
In this case I'll simply ask each of you to search for....and read up on a concept called "peak oil"....in my mind the notion of what will happen as we complete our quest to consume natural resources is frightening. If sanity is not soon restored the human race will soon destroy itself the same way Christianity and progress destroyed the Native Americans.We humans often times consider ourselves as rulers of our resources...somehow superior to all other forms of live(that don't have a "god" to explain their madness)... and somehow entitled to take what we need despite the consequences....instead I believe we "should" be guardians and stewards of our earth....its sad to think that possibly in the life time of our childrens children the world as we know it may cease.....bottom line is many people suspect that without oil the world will face famine...economic collapse...war beyond belief...death in the millions....and we seem to be racing to that point like a fast train headed over a cliff!
"Peak oil" is something we should seriously begin to consider....because we may have long ago reached the "peak" and already be plumeting down the other side!!:thinking:
worthy of consideration...like a slap in the face!
moraym
Active Member
Sadly if you honestly believe that website, then there's nothing you can do anyways, so you may as well stop stressing over it. He says no alternatives will work, so we may as well drill for some oil and make the world last a few extra months.
Seriously, that website has been brought up several times, in several circles, and in the end it is one website of about a thousand different theories. It has no more merit than most theory-driven websites. The fact that this guy's list of media appearances is so short and undignified show that not too many people, whether popular or expert, are taking his ideas too seriously.
And I'd advise people not to put too much faith in something so laced with political drive. Reading through, I've noticed he updated it in 2005, complete with plenty of dripping comentary about the Iraq war, President Bush, and his policies. Seems the website is a way to push his book, which he sells with "readers letters" instead of actual scientific or known reviews. Further decreasing credibility is that this book is only sold in one place, his website, so the website has to be over-the-top to drive sales.
Eh, why bother discussing, it's just another one of those website with a bunch of statistics and theories that are perfect for a book. Why are they perfect for a book? Because they are sensational and cannot be proven nor discredited. Making it more perfect is that he provides no reccomendations save 'there's nothing we can do about it', making his book further useless. But what else have I come to expect from an intellectual with three degrees from the state of California who doesn't own a car.
NM, I respect your view on the website, so I reviewed it for quite a while, easily more than an hour over my first couple cups of the black stuff. But I just can't go down that rabbit hole..."swallow the pill Neo and..."
To his credit, the read is both interesting and thought-provoking. But I wouldn't base much belief on a website pushing a book and speaking promotions. Nor do you need to dig too deep to see the sensationalism and dripping political commentary. Honestly, if I needed that, I'd flip quickly between Fox News and CNN.
It is, as I put in bold above, sensational and unproven, and that makes it intriguing to some, dismissed by others, and overall probably quite an interesting book. But to me, that doesn't make it more factual than several alternative views in the press. (kinda like the global warming issue or the DSB here, both sides have experts, both sides of states. Either way humans need to change:yes: ).
Seriously, that website has been brought up several times, in several circles, and in the end it is one website of about a thousand different theories. It has no more merit than most theory-driven websites. The fact that this guy's list of media appearances is so short and undignified show that not too many people, whether popular or expert, are taking his ideas too seriously.
And I'd advise people not to put too much faith in something so laced with political drive. Reading through, I've noticed he updated it in 2005, complete with plenty of dripping comentary about the Iraq war, President Bush, and his policies. Seems the website is a way to push his book, which he sells with "readers letters" instead of actual scientific or known reviews. Further decreasing credibility is that this book is only sold in one place, his website, so the website has to be over-the-top to drive sales.
Eh, why bother discussing, it's just another one of those website with a bunch of statistics and theories that are perfect for a book. Why are they perfect for a book? Because they are sensational and cannot be proven nor discredited. Making it more perfect is that he provides no reccomendations save 'there's nothing we can do about it', making his book further useless. But what else have I come to expect from an intellectual with three degrees from the state of California who doesn't own a car.
NM, I respect your view on the website, so I reviewed it for quite a while, easily more than an hour over my first couple cups of the black stuff. But I just can't go down that rabbit hole..."swallow the pill Neo and..."
To his credit, the read is both interesting and thought-provoking. But I wouldn't base much belief on a website pushing a book and speaking promotions. Nor do you need to dig too deep to see the sensationalism and dripping political commentary. Honestly, if I needed that, I'd flip quickly between Fox News and CNN.
It is, as I put in bold above, sensational and unproven, and that makes it intriguing to some, dismissed by others, and overall probably quite an interesting book. But to me, that doesn't make it more factual than several alternative views in the press. (kinda like the global warming issue or the DSB here, both sides have experts, both sides of states. Either way humans need to change:yes: ).
moraym
Active Member
I am an Eagle scout, avid fisher, hiker, skiier, and basically anything outdoors. I believe in the stewardship of the Earth, but I also believe in taking some things too far. There is a fine line between stewardship of the Earth, and fanaticism/activism. Greenpeace and tree huggers go too far sometimes, taking care of the planet doesn't mean you have to have zero impact. There is a happy medium between utilizing the planet and its resources, and raping the planet as you say, which we're probably doing the latter. But being in business and economics, I also know there's a cost-benefit ratio that is rarely taken into account by conservationists, and the benefit of drilling in Alaska at the current time outweigh the costs to the environment (if done according to the current plan of limited acreage with new low-impact drilling techniques, directional drills, etc.).
And again, if Mr. Peak Oil's book is correct, there's absolutely nothing we can do about it now anyways, so lift another green beer and have a good weekend!
And again, if Mr. Peak Oil's book is correct, there's absolutely nothing we can do about it now anyways, so lift another green beer and have a good weekend!
aquaman
Member
NM reef
Just wanted to let you know I will weigh in on this later. My first response was to just dismiss the page you posted, but I can see you believe it. I want to take some time and study what they are saying, look for the fact and the fiction in it. Then give answers sighting my fact as best I can. I want to do this tomorrow or later tonight when I can give a better argument and state my side. One more thing you might want to drop the whole Christians destroyed the Native Americans way of life, not only is it very offensive it is dead wrong.
BTW I am not upset, I like political debate.
Just wanted to let you know I will weigh in on this later. My first response was to just dismiss the page you posted, but I can see you believe it. I want to take some time and study what they are saying, look for the fact and the fiction in it. Then give answers sighting my fact as best I can. I want to do this tomorrow or later tonight when I can give a better argument and state my side. One more thing you might want to drop the whole Christians destroyed the Native Americans way of life, not only is it very offensive it is dead wrong.
BTW I am not upset, I like political debate.
ophiura
Active Member
Originally posted by KOgle
I need some more coral and LR for my tank so I think I might just change my spring break plans to include a trip to Figi so I can get some fresh stuff. I was thinking of taking some stuff right off of the reef. What the hell it's renewable right? I mean come on, it will grow back in what 10 or so years??? I can't believe all of you guys. Well most of you anyhow...
:notsure:
I don't think anyone, except proponents of abiotic oil formation (meaning not organic or fossils), would argue that oil is renewable? So I'm confused with this comparison. Nor do I think that oil drilling, by definition, is a irresponsible behavior....is it worse than damming a river for "clean" hydro-electric? Or littering the hillside with wind generators that can impact bird populations and cause other issues (especially noise)? Not to mention that neither of these is anywhere near as efficient or suitable for wide scale use as oil?
The question is if you have a harmful practice, such as collecting coral and LR (or oil), is it going to be "cleaner" if people who use it watch its collection, or if it is thousands of miles away, out of sight, and out of mind? In the case of LR and corals and fish, I assure you, it is out of sight, out of mind. And in the case of oil drilling in other countries, it is the same.
But if our reefs, say in the Florida Keys, were harvested for LR, well...there would be and are severe restrictions. And the implimentation of better practices, such as aquacultured rock placed and taken from restricted areas. Such is the case, IMO, of oil production in the US versus somewhere where it is out of site, and out of mind.
The eyes of the media and people will lead, IMO, to better practices (though there are already many in place). There are many practices in place, for example, in marine surveying for oil in relation to marine mammals. Trained observers must be on board, their sole job being to watch for marine mammals and make modifications to surveying as needed in accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act. I am sure similar restrictions will be in place in Alaska.
I'm all for viable alternative energies, though interestingly enough many environmentalists place restrictions on the most viable of them as well. But the here and now is oil.