NationStates Jolt Archive

The ANWR contains the single largest store of petrol in the US. It is larger than Prudhoe Bay -- there is more petrol in Area 1002 than there is in all of Texas or California. A mean estimate puts the total amount of petrol there at 10 billion barrels -- enough to supply 5% of US energy requirements for 15 years. So why aren't we drilling there yet? Unfortunately, some people seem to think that protecting frozen wasteland is somehow good for the environment. In reality, drilling in a specific part of the ANWR will do extremely little to harm the environment while being extremely profitable to the US. It would create hunderds of thousands of jobs, boost the economy, and it would lessen our dependence on foreign oil. So what about the much trumped-up environmental effects? They're negligible. 99.99% of the ANWR would remain untouched -- only a tiny portion would be necessary. That tiny portion that is necessary contains very little animal life on it at all -- it is basically just a completely frozen, depressing landscape. So should we drill there (poll coming)?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/preface.html

We'd be better off spending the time and energy it would take to safely get that oil out of the ground--at least ten years--trying to find alternatives to fossil fuel consumption. We're near the tipping point on our environment, assuing we haven't passed it already, and drilling in ANWR only adds to the problem. The solution is clean renewables, not new drilling.

You can walk. It's not that far :)

No, it would be environmentally unwise. And yes, I hate oil.

I'd have no problem with drilling if it could be done with minimal environmental impact; however, we should also manage these resources carefully in order to use them to our advantage. For example, if ANWR is opened there should be a tax levied on the production that goes to alternative energy R&D and tax credits for hybrids, fuel efficient vehicles, household PV/wind and energy efficiency improvements; if oil companies want to produce it, they have to be willing to pay taxes that will help to reduce consumption of oil and production of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

"Sustainable energy development" is a good term for such a program. The money raised from fossil fuels will go towards making their replacements economical faster and conserving the remaining fossil fuels we still haven't consumed or discovered.

We'd be better off spending the time and energy it would take to safely get that oil out of the ground--at least ten years--trying to find alternatives to fossil fuel consumption. We're near the tipping point on our environment, assuing we haven't passed it already, and drilling in ANWR only adds to the problem. The solution is clean renewables, not new drilling.
I believe we actually could do both.

No, it would be environmentally unwise. And yes, I hate oil.

I have never been to ANWR, but I've been to Barrow, AK. It's similar. There's nothing there that can be harmed by an oil rig.

I have never been to ANWR, but I've been to Barrow, AK. It's similar. There's nothing there that can be harmed by an oil rig.
You've done major investigations into the soil there? I'm impressed.

We'd be better off spending the time and energy it would take to safely get that oil out of the ground--at least ten years--trying to find alternatives to fossil fuel consumption. We're near the tipping point on our environment, assuing we haven't passed it already, and drilling in ANWR only adds to the problem. The solution is clean renewables, not new drilling.

Exactly, we are Funding the rope to our own demise! We could just as easily switch to using more wind solar and hydrogen! Humans piss me off.

You've done major investigations into the soil there? I'm impressed.

I've tried to dig in it. It's frozen. It's also a giant wasteland that supports almost no life but mosquitos in the summer.

I've tried to dig in it. It's frozen. It's also a giant wasteland that supports almost no life but mosquitos in the summer.How deep did you get? And why do you think that supporting life is the only thing important about a stretch of land?

Drill and prep, but sit on the oil until it is needed, say, in the event of a national oil crisis, or a large war in the middle east.

I believe we actually could do both.
Could is the key term there, but I don't believe we will, and it's not a matter of lack of ability. It's a matter of political will. We won't start getting serious about switching over to renewables until oil is prohibitively expensive, or until we've fucked the atmosphere beyond repair, because that's our nature as human beings--we don't see it until we step in it--which is why I imagine there will eventually be drilling not only in the ANWR, but also in the Gulf of Mexico, right off the Florida coasts, which will harm our tourist industry.

But hey, short term profit over long term viability every time. I'm more than a little cynical about this, as you might have noticed.

I have never been to ANWR, but I've been to Barrow, AK. It's similar. There's nothing there that can be harmed by an oil rig.
Anything that is there would be harmed by an oil rig. No matter how safe or technically advanced oil rags are - there are always oil spills.

Anything that is there would be harmed by an oil rig. No matter how safe or technically advanced oil rags are - there are always oil spills.

So we're worried about some oil spilling on a bit of uninhabited,totally worthless frozen ground?

Here is the truth about ANWR drilling.

1). It may take as long as 10-15 YEARS before a single drop of oil from the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge reaches the oil market. That is not an estimate from an environmental group, but from a nonpartisan Congressional research report, which put the far end of its estimate past 2020.

2). The environmental effects are not, as you claim, negligible. In fact, they are devestating. The part of Alaska that will be being used is the Alaskan coastal plain. This is the part of the state where dozens of species spanning the biological spectrum from birds and butterflies to otters and various forms of the Alaskan elk, go to breed and feed every year. The brilliance of the Republican initiative is that none of these species will ever appear under the umbrella of the Endangered Species Act because they will go extinct in a single generation- the calculation of the construction effort is to make it impossible for any of these creatures to reproduce or to have their wildlife succeed. The damage to the Alaskan biosphere will be incalculable.

3). The total amount of oil that can be drawn from this supply is equivalent to about 4% of the amount being used- about 160,000 barrels per day is a generous estimate, again not coming from an environmental group, but from the nonpartisan Congressional research committe set up to investigate the merits of ANWR drilling.

4). There is no gaurantee that any of this oil will be used to alleviate American demand on overseas oil trading; the crude from Alaska will be traded on the international market just like all other oil in the world. Speeches about drilling for oil in ANWR to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil typically come from politicians who vote strongly against mandatory efficiency increases for vehicles, or research into green energy alternatives.

5). This is the area of Alaska where the highest number of tourism dollars per square mile go; it is the northern coast, it presents the clearest view of the Northern Lights, etc. The benefits to the state of Alaska in terms of jobs offered will NOT be the divine blessing that oil companies promise, rather, the construction will present an extreme impairment to Alaska's economy.



And that is the truth about ANWR. Make what judgments you desire.

AIM- ChrisRay6000

So we're worried about some oil spilling on a bit of uninhabited,totally worthless frozen ground?Pretty clueless about the workings of the permafrost, are we? Soil contamination is about as bad as it gets. Pray that the permafrost keeps the groundwater frozen so that it doesn't get contaminated. Or that the drilling won't cause landslides in the future due to the destabilization of the permafrost.

EDIT: Besides, what are you worried about? Paying more for gas? Get a grip. It's about time that there was demand for more fuel efficiency and reliable public transportation in America.

Could is the key term there, but I don't believe we will, and it's not a matter of lack of ability. It's a matter of political will. We won't start getting serious about switching over to renewables until oil is prohibitively expensive, or until we've fucked the atmosphere beyond repair, because that's our nature as human beings--we don't see it until we step in it--which is why I imagine there will eventually be drilling not only in the ANWR, but also in the Gulf of Mexico, right off the Florida coasts, which will harm our tourist industry.

But hey, short term profit over long term viability every time. I'm more than a little cynical about this, as you might have noticed.
Not only that. I advise to put big sings up on every oil rig reading "Big hurricanes, please hit here"

Pretty clueless about the workings of the permafrost, are we? Soil contamination is about as bad as it gets. Pray that the permafrost keeps the groundwater frozen so that it doesn't get contaminated. Or that the drilling won't cause landslides in the future due to the destabilization of the permafrost.

No, the only thing that would really be threatened by the permafrost melting and causing landslides would be the wells. And no one bothers with the ground water up there, because noone lives there.

No, the only thing that would really be threatened by the permafrost melting and causing landslides would be the wells. And no one bothers with the ground water up there, because noone lives there.There seems to be some life up there, even if it is animal. Ground water and soil contaminations are some of the biggest messes you can ever have to clean up, usually ending up in soil removal, and considering that the area there is frozen, that can get expensive.

BEHOLD!
Along the northern boundary of the refuge, barrier islands, coastal lagoons, salt marshes, and river deltas provide habitat for migratory waterbirds including sea ducks, geese, swans, and shorebirds. Fish such as dolly varden and arctic cisco are found in nearshore waters. Coastal lands and sea ice are used by caribou seeking relief from biting insects during summer, and by polar bears hunting seals and giving birth in snow dens during winter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANWR

So we're worried about some oil spilling on a bit of uninhabited,totally worthless frozen ground?
At least you should be. Unless you have a magical cure for oil-contaminated water...

Jesus F. Christ - are you really that willfully ignorant of your surrounding natural environment?

BEHOLD!

You're referring to the whole ANWR. However, 99.99% of it will remain untouched by oil drilling, so that's a moot point.

At least you should be. Unless you have a magical cure for oil-contaminated water...

Jesus F. Christ - are you really that willfully ignorant of your surrounding natural environment?

No, I'm just playing devil's advocate because I'm bored.

So let's let me get back to be Satan's attorney, alrighty?

Begoner21;11665264']You're referring to the whole ANWR. However, 99.99% of it will remain untouched by oil drilling, so that's a moot point.

Not if the oil rig, or the pipeline leaks. Which happens, ALOT.

and my point was, ANWR is not a frozen, uninhabitable wasteland. Hence the name Artic National Wildlife Reserve

I choose option three, as I hate the hobson's choice of either protecting our nation's economy, or protecting one of the few places on earth yet unspoilt by humanity.

Begoner21;11665264']You're referring to the whole ANWR. However, 99.99% of it will remain untouched by oil drilling, so that's a moot point.By the drilling, maybe. Not necessarily by the effects of that drilling.

Could is the key term there, but I don't believe we will, and it's not a matter of lack of ability. It's a matter of political will. We won't start getting serious about switching over to renewables until oil is prohibitively expensive, or until we've fucked the atmosphere beyond repair, because that's our nature as human beings--we don't see it until we step in it--which is why I imagine there will eventually be drilling not only in the ANWR, but also in the Gulf of Mexico, right off the Florida coasts, which will harm our tourist industry.

But hey, short term profit over long term viability every time. I'm more than a little cynical about this, as you might have noticed.

Ah yes, because YOUR superhuman power of ideological bias, cynicism, and amateur rumination on the topic places YOUR insight head and shoulders above that of the trained geologists, technicians, engineers, and executives who, being merely human, have devoted their lives to the field and still aren't worthy of anything but marginalizing and scornful. Give me a fucking break. :rolleyes:

No, I'm just playing devil's advocate because I'm bored.

So let's let me get back to be Satan's attorney, alrighty?
You're doing a heckuva job there! (I mean, really, it works... Tell Satan I said :upyours: ) :D

Begoner21;11665264']You're referring to the whole ANWR. However, 99.99% of it will remain untouched by oil drilling, so that's a moot point.

:headbang: :rolleyes: :headbang:

Remember that pipeline that has been leaking for months and months and has not been cleaned or kept up for ten+ years?

Those are the same "experts" in charge. If you honestly believe it would be any different somewhere else, I shall call you a fool.

Anything that is there would be harmed by an oil rig. No matter how safe or technically advanced oil rags are - there are always oil spills.

There's a risk of accidents in any industry; however, that doesn't mean we should stop developing it if it can be of benefit to us. It is entirely possible for environmental safety and energy production to go hand in hand; the number of spills relative to the amount of oil shipped is extremely small, and local regulations can greatly improve the safety of the region's environment.

Also, ANWR gives us the power to set a new precedent in energy production; we could use the taxes from the field to fund alternative energy, efficiency improvements, and tax credits for consumers to buy hybrids. A tax of 20% per barrel would yield nearly $48 billion in revenue; this is more than 4 times the DoE's entire funding for research or enough to give drivers an additional $330 tax credit towards energy improvements or hybrid vehicles.

There's a risk of accidents in any industry; however, that doesn't mean we should stop developing it if it can be of benefit to us. It is entirely possible for environmental safety and energy production to go hand in hand; the number of spills relative to the amount of oil shipped is extremely small, and local regulations can greatly improve the safety of the region's environment.

Also, ANWR gives us the power to set a new precedent in energy production; we could use the taxes from the field to fund alternative energy, efficiency improvements, and tax credits for consumers to buy hybrids. A tax of 20% per barrel would yield nearly $48 billion in revenue; this is more than 4 times the DoE's entire funding for research or enough to give drivers an additional $330 tax credit towards energy improvements or hybrid vehicles.

This is a good point, although congress should pass a resolution to hold the oil companies drilling in ANWR to live up to much higher safety standereds than normal, as its in a Wildlife preservation.

This is a good point, although congress should pass a resolution to hold the oil companies drilling in ANWR to live up to much higher safety standereds than normal, as its in a Wildlife preservation.

Absolutely. Oil companies should know that production in these places is a privelege, not a right; oil production comes second to protecting the environment when it involves ecologically sensitive or unique areas like ANWR.

Could is the key term there, but I don't believe we will, and it's not a matter of lack of ability. It's a matter of political will. We won't start getting serious about switching over to renewables until oil is prohibitively expensive, or until we've fucked the atmosphere beyond repair, because that's our nature as human beings--we don't see it until we step in it--which is why I imagine there will eventually be drilling not only in the ANWR, but also in the Gulf of Mexico, right off the Florida coasts, which will harm our tourist industry.

But hey, short term profit over long term viability every time. I'm more than a little cynical about this, as you might have noticed.

I dont think its about humanity at all...
Its far more simple to me. We dont really keep using oil because its better or even more convienent for us. All I see is a "Trust" composed of oil companies thats hindering the market and discouraging cheaper alternatives. ANWR is a wasteland, drilling is safer for ecosystems than ever before (Caribou herds grew after pipes were installed), and from my own research everyone from the majority of Alaskans to the local Native Alaskans wants it...but I dont. I'll be happy to see Oil dissolve as an energy source just to have the same competition in energy as there is in mobile technology. It may be the only reason I vote democrat in the next election.

Ah yes, because YOUR superhuman power of ideological bias, cynicism, and amateur rumination on the topic places YOUR insight head and shoulders above that of the trained geologists, technicians, engineers, and executives who, being merely human, have devoted their lives to the field and still aren't worthy of anything but marginalizing and scornful. Give me a fucking break. :rolleyes:

What bug got up your ass? I'm a student of human nature--it's why I'm a writer--and I've certainly not seen anything in human behavior to contradict my opinion on this matter. Now, if you've got some situation that contradicts me, please present it. I'd love to hear it--it would make me a bit less cynical on the matter.

Begoner21;11665039']The ANWR contains the single largest store of petrol in the US. It is larger than Prudhoe Bay -- there is more petrol in Area 1002 than there is in all of Texas or California. A mean estimate puts the total amount of petrol there at 10 billion barrels -- enough to supply 5% of US energy requirements for 15 years. So why aren't we drilling there yet? Unfortunately, some people seem to think that protecting frozen wasteland is somehow good for the environment. In reality, drilling in a specific part of the ANWR will do extremely little to harm the environment while being extremely profitable to the US. It would create hunderds of thousands of jobs, boost the economy, and it would lessen our dependence on foreign oil. So what about the much trumped-up environmental effects? They're negligible. 99.99% of the ANWR would remain untouched -- only a tiny portion would be necessary. That tiny portion that is necessary contains very little animal life on it at all -- it is basically just a completely frozen, depressing landscape. So should we drill there (poll coming)?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/preface.html
Actually, I was looking into this a few years ago and came to the inescapable conclusion that at the very most, the short term, extremely minimal environmental impact, would be a worst case scenario. (I.E. A virtually nonexistent factor on the whole!)

Absolutely. Oil companies should know that production in these places is a privelege, not a right; oil production comes second to protecting the environment when it involves ecologically sensitive or unique areas like ANWR.
LMAO, honestly! You'd trust OIL COMPANIES to care about the environment? That's new. *shakes head*

It won't happen. The safe drilling and transportation. The other stuff, I fear, will happen - at the expense of nature, as always.

Could is the key term there, but I don't believe we will, and it's not a matter of lack of ability. It's a matter of political will. We won't start getting serious about switching over to renewables until oil is prohibitively expensive, or until we've fucked the atmosphere beyond repair, because that's our nature as human beings--we don't see it until we step in it--which is why I imagine there will eventually be drilling not only in the ANWR, but also in the Gulf of Mexico, right off the Florida coasts, which will harm our tourist industry.

But hey, short term profit over long term viability every time. I'm more than a little cynical about this, as you might have noticed.
*ducks*
I've got an electric boat.

BEHOLD!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANWR

Just another view from the hallowed Wiki ...

Arguments describing harm to animals in the drilling area have been empircally proven wrong. Prior to development at Prudhoe Bay, environmentalists claimed that the drilling would inevitably lead to the extinction of the Caribou herd. Since the building of the drilling plant in 1968, the Caribou herd has increased in size from 3,000 to 32,000. [11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy#Supporting_views

LMAO, honestly! You'd trust OIL COMPANIES to care about the environment? That's new. *shakes head*

It won't happen. The safe drilling and transportation. The other stuff, I fear, will happen - at the expense of nature, as always.

That's why the government has to regulate their operations; just like the EPA creates emissions standards for cars, so too can the Federal government create environmental regulations for oil production. Also, the state of Alaska can create regulations, and the oil companies themselves may be subject to the laws of their country of origin (in the case of foreign producers like Shell and BP).

There's always going to be pollution; however, if we can minimize it through legislation and use the oil wealth to help reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, the savings will more than justify the short-term ecological damage.

No, we need less oil, not more. Also, I've heard most of this oil would go to the easiest buyer: China.

No, we need less oil, not more. Also, I've heard most of this oil would go to the easiest buyer: China.

Oil is fungible; it doesn't really matter where it comes from as long as the total supply equals the total demand. It's just as advantageous to the US for us to sell that oil to China as it is for us to use it for domestic consumption.

LMAO, honestly! You'd trust OIL COMPANIES to care about the environment? That's new. *shakes head*

True oil companies care about only one thing. Making Money. The world can fall apart as long as it doesn't happen in their lifetime for all they care.

That's why the government has to regulate their operations; just like the EPA creates emissions standards for cars, so too can the Federal government create environmental regulations for oil production. .
One big problem is that the Oil companies own the government.

Also, the state of Alaska can create regulations, and the oil companies themselves may be subject to the laws of their country of origin (in the case of foreign producers like Shell and BP)..
The same Alaska that elected Senator Stevens? Not likely.


There's always going to be pollution; however, if we can minimize it through legislation and use the oil wealth to help reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, the savings will more than justify the short-term ecological damage. The oil wealth will be going only one place. The Oil companies pockets, the lobbyists, and the political leaders who are bribed by them.

That's why the government has to regulate their operations; just like the EPA creates emissions standards for cars, so too can the Federal government create environmental regulations for oil production. Also, the state of Alaska can create regulations, and the oil companies themselves may be subject to the laws of their country of origin (in the case of foreign producers like Shell and BP).
And now you're trusting the Federal and State Government to do the job properly, being the watch-dog over the oil industry? Man, you ought to work as a stand up comedian!

There's always going to be pollution; however, if we can minimize it through legislation and use the oil wealth to help reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, the savings will more than justify the short-term ecological damage.
Oil spills are never short-term ecological damages, especially not in a wildlife reserve. It's not always about humans, you know. When it happens the oil spill/leak/disaster is there - trying to legislate it away is not going to work.
True oil companies care about only one thing. Making Money. The world can fall apart as long as it doesn't happen in their lifetime for all they care.
Oh so true!
The same Alaska that elected Senator Stevens? Not likely.
Aah - but you know how fond Teddy-boy is of tubes, right?!? Tubes, pipelines, same difference! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes)
The oil wealth will be going only one place. The Oil companies pockets, the lobbyists, and the political leaders who are bribed by them.
It's quite easy to see, ain't it?

drilling for more oil isn't going to solve our issue with rising gas prices...what would help is taking all the time and energy to get the oil out and use it to find new sources...as for me i ride my bike to school because it is only 6 miles away ^_^

True oil companies care about only one thing. Making Money. The world can fall apart as long as it doesn't happen in their lifetime for all they care.

They care about staying in business more than anything. Oil companies would gladly abandon oil if they found another sector that could produce the same volume of sales as oil does; they only sell oil because it is fairly cheap to produce (although the cost is rising), there is a huge and fairly inflexible (in the very short term) demand for oil, and the volume of oil sales far outweighs the reduced profit margins of producing it.


The oil wealth will be going only one place. The Oil companies pockets, the lobbyists, and the political leaders who are bribed by them.

Then consume less oil. The only way you stop oil money from flowing is if you use less of it.

And now you're trusting the Federal and State Government to do the job properly, being the watch-dog over the oil industry? Man, you ought to work as a stand up comedian!

They do a pretty decent job. US oil production is steady, the oil market delivers products on time and government taxation provides valuable revenue to the various levels of government. State governments are also quite independent compared to the Federal government; California and other West Coast states in particular

Oil spills are never short-term ecological damages, especially not in a wildlife reserve. It's not always about humans, you know. When it happens the oil spill/leak/disaster is there - trying to legislate it away is not going to work.

That's why you have to make sure the chance of an oil spill is reduced. You're not going to eliminate the risk, but you can reduce it to the point where it is worth producing oil; spills are terrible, but that's no reason to block all exploration, especially when the bulk of production rigs and other facilities will consume only a small part of the reserve. The other things, like the vehicles and maintenance crews will operate only part of the year, and the risk of a spill is very low throughout the production cycle.

Oil and gas production put a lot of money in to the Alaskan and greater US economies, and personally I see the benefits to the people of the area worth the risk.

I voted no. Not becuse it's environmentally unwise, but because it's fiscally unwise. 5% for fifteen years? Not worth it. The people who will see the majority of the profits from such a venture are already some of the richest men in the country. Which is why they want more.

That money and jobs would be better spent developing renewable resources.

They care about staying in business more than anything. Oil companies would gladly abandon oil if they found another sector that could produce the same volume of sales as oil does; they only sell oil because it is fairly cheap to produce (although the cost is rising), there is a huge and fairly inflexible (in the very short term) demand for oil, and the volume of oil sales far outweighs the reduced profit margins of producing it. But all the upcoming alternatives are things that could end up outside their control, I doubt they will allow them. Especially Hydrogen cells, since they are supposed to run on water. Unless they make specialized ones that have to have a 'certain' type of water that only THEY can sell, then they'll allow it.


Then consume less oil. The only way you stop oil money from flowing is if you use less of it. I don't drive. Therefore I'm doing my part! :D