Moratorium on deep water drilling lifted

[erynthered]

Panoply.

 

Excellent.

 

 

I had to look that up. You kill me, JA

[Dan]

Uh, drilling in shallower water or on land won't solve or at least lessen future oil spills? Face it, until alternative energy sources are discovered that are affordable we need to use oil. I'd rather have us producing it rather than Iran or Venezuela. I'd rather we did it and controlled it offshore here rather than Russia or China. There is nothing wrong with a responsible plan to make this country energy independant for not only economic reasons but security reasons.

 

I will say this, drilling for oil in a location like ANWR for example, definitely would lessen the risk of an environmental disaster that of what we are facing today. Agree?

In a word, no. An oil spill is a spill, not to mention the ecological damage of getting to and transporting out that oil. There's little debate, really, drilling in the ANWR will effectively disrupt that ecosystem to the point that it no longer resembles the current natural state. Now, granted, its a stretch of land that few people ever see and therefore you could argue the impact is less. However, that's a separate argument all together... do we want to protect the planet - all of the planet - or not? From what I've seen of the ANWR debate, it essentially comes down to one side that says screw it, no one lives there who cares about some moose and antelope; versus the other side, all animals are precious and we shouldn't do anything that will ever kill or in any way harm any living creature.

 

It's an interesting debate. But, one that will probably never be answered and becomes far more about politics and who's getting the money. My question is.. would drilling the ANWR actually solve anything or would it just give a few more gallons of oil for a couple of years to line a few pockets. I'm not sure of the exact amount of oil up there, does anyone know. But, as of today; I'd say drill the hell out of the gulf, we've already screwed that up. Why screw up another place?

 

I agree. We need oil. I'm not saying stop drilling. I'm just saying that if you drill, there will be ecological effects that are far reaching and potentially disasterous even to animals and ecosystems that most people may not really care about. And I agree, we need a responsible, alternative energy plan for a variety of reasons.

[3rdnlng]

In a word, no. An oil spill is a spill, not to mention the ecological damage of getting to and transporting out that oil. There's little debate, really, drilling in the ANWR will effectively disrupt that ecosystem to the point that it no longer resembles the current natural state. Now, granted, its a stretch of land that few people ever see and therefore you could argue the impact is less. However, that's a separate argument all together... do we want to protect the planet - all of the planet - or not? From what I've seen of the ANWR debate, it essentially comes down to one side that says screw it, no one lives there who cares about some moose and antelope; versus the other side, all animals are precious and we shouldn't do anything that will ever kill or in any way harm any living creature.

 

It's an interesting debate. But, one that will probably never be answered and becomes far more about politics and who's getting the money. My question is.. would drilling the ANWR actually solve anything or would it just give a few more gallons of oil for a couple of years to line a few pockets. I'm not sure of the exact amount of oil up there, does anyone know. But, as of today; I'd say drill the hell out of the gulf, we've already screwed that up. Why screw up another place?

 

I agree. We need oil. I'm not saying stop drilling. I'm just saying that if you drill, there will be ecological effects that are far reaching and potentially disasterous even to animals and ecosystems that most people may not really care about. And I agree, we need a responsible, alternative energy plan for a variety of reasons.

 

 

My contention is that it is not only safer in shallow water and ANWR, but in case of an accident the spill could be brought under control much quicker. If you really do care about the environment but agree that we need to still drill for new oil then how could you be against doing it where it will have the least negative affects?

[DC Tom]

My contention is that it is not only safer in shallow water and ANWR, but in case of an accident the spill could be brought under control much quicker.

 

I'd go along with that. Biggest problem with the Gulf spill has been that no one has any idea how to stop a leaking well at 5000 feet below sea level.

[DC Tom]

all animals are precious and we shouldn't do anything that will ever kill or in any way harm any living creature.

 

All? No. Just the tasty ones.

[Dan]

My contention is that it is not only safer in shallow water and ANWR, but in case of an accident the spill could be brought under control much quicker. If you really do care about the environment but agree that we need to still drill for new oil then how could you be against doing it where it will have the least negative affects?

Just because the spill could be brought under control quicker, that doesn't necessarily make it safer. That boat in Alaska only spilled 11million gallons, nothing compared to this little mess; but it pretty well screwed that area did it not. So, yes, in some respects the affects of the spill is lessened, but I wouldn't in any way say it's better or safer.

 

My original point was more that this current mess didn't happen because it was a deep water well. It happened because all companies involved were wreckless and threw caution to the wind for the sake of short-term profit. In addition, the regulatory agency, responsible for making sure these companies weren't wreckless was completely incompetent.

 

So, for me, any discussion regarding how to continue drilling for oil should start with those 2 points long before we discuss where to drill.

[Jim in Anchorage]

From what I've seen of the ANWR debate, it essentially comes down to one side that says screw it, no one lives there who cares about some moose and antelope; versus the other side, all animals are precious and we shouldn't do anything that will ever kill or in any way harm any living creature.

 

It's an interesting debate. But, one that will probably never be answered and becomes far more about politics and who's

 

 

Just because the spill could be brought under control quicker, that doesn't necessarily make it safer. That boat in Alaska only spilled 11million gallons, nothing compared to this little mess; but it pretty well screwed that area did it not. So, yes, in some respects the affects of the spill is lessened, but I wouldn't in any way say it's better or safer.

 

My original point was more that this current mess didn't happen because it was a deep water well. It happened because all companies involved were wreckless and threw caution to the wind for the sake of short-term profit. In addition, the regulatory agency, responsible for making sure these companies weren't wreckless was completely incompetent.

 

So, for me, any discussion regarding how to continue drilling for oil should start with those 2 points long before we discuss where to drill.

Typical ignorant anti ANWR statement. Don't try to say you want to protect the wildlife, and expect people to listen to you seriously when you don't even know what lives there. Antelope? Kill all the antelope in Alaska and throw them in my yard.I won't notice. Maybe a trivial point, but at lest get some fundamental facts straight before you enter a argument. It gives your opinion more weight.

 

That "boat" in Alaska lead to mandatory double hull tankers. It is very unlikely we will ever see such a accident again.

[3rdnlng]

Just because the spill could be brought under control quicker, that doesn't necessarily make it safer. That boat in Alaska only spilled 11million gallons, nothing compared to this little mess; but it pretty well screwed that area did it not. So, yes, in some respects the affects of the spill is lessened, but I wouldn't in any way say it's better or safer.

 

My original point was more that this current mess didn't happen because it was a deep water well. It happened because all companies involved were wreckless and threw caution to the wind for the sake of short-term profit. In addition, the regulatory agency, responsible for making sure these companies weren't wreckless was completely incompetent.

 

So, for me, any discussion regarding how to continue drilling for oil should start with those 2 points long before we discuss where to drill.

 

Hmmm, what is safer and much easier to control any leaks caused from accidents?

 

a.) 5000 feet under the ocean surface

 

b.) 500 feet under the ocean surface

 

c.) On frozen tundra

 

Place these in the right order starting out with the least safe

[Chef Jim]

All? No. Just the tasty ones.

 

But aren't the tasty ones the ones we should be killing?

[Dan]

Hmmm, what is safer and much easier to control any leaks caused from accidents?

 

a.) 5000 feet under the ocean surface

 

b.) 500 feet under the ocean surface

 

c.) On frozen tundra

 

Place these in the right order starting out with the least safe

Again, you're confusing safer and easier to control. You're also making the assumption that there's no or very little environmental damage if you spill oil on a frozen tundra. Again, just because its easy to control that doens't mean it's safer or would cause less harm to the environment.

 

If I may digress... some people like to "restore" degraded wetlands. Why? Because they're full of a monoculture of phragmites with limited bird and fish species. They do this in the name of species diversity, because a "restored" wetland has more species of birds and fish (plus it looks much nicer). However, in this degraded habitat there is a huge species diversity. It's just species no one cares about.. insects, spiders, different plants, birds, etc.

 

So, which is better a nice pristine looking wetland or an impacted wetland without pretty birds? It depends on your perspective. If you're truly after species diversity, it probably doesn't matter though.

 

What does that have to do with the price of oil in Alaska? Well, what's better destroying an artic tundra or destroying the gulf coast? It depends upon your perspective. But, there is an incredible natural ecosystem that would be destroyed by drilling the ANWR, with or without a spill. Just because some people perceive it as safer or less of an environmental impact, that doesn't make it true.

 

My point is let's not use this mess as a call for drilling in other areas OR for stopping all drilling. Because neither of those solve the problems we have. How do we drill safer and with less environmental impact? What safe guards do we put in place? Who actually monitors/regulates all this crap? How do you stop/clean up the eventual spill? How do we/Can we develop an alternative energy plan for the Nation that not only actually reduces our dependence on foreign oil, but oil all together?

[John Adams]

I had to look that up. You kill me, JA

 

Quick go take the SATs.

[Alaska Darin]

But, there is an incredible natural ecosystem that would be destroyed by drilling the ANWR, with or without a spill. Just because some people perceive it as safer or less of an environmental impact, that doesn't make it true.

Bull.

[3rdnlng]

Again, you're confusing safer and easier to control. You're also making the assumption that there's no or very little environmental damage if you spill oil on a frozen tundra. Again, just because its easy to control that doens't mean it's safer or would cause less harm to the environment.

 

If I may digress... some people like to "restore" degraded wetlands. Why? Because they're full of a monoculture of phragmites with limited bird and fish species. They do this in the name of species diversity, because a "restored" wetland has more species of birds and fish (plus it looks much nicer). However, in this degraded habitat there is a huge species diversity. It's just species no one cares about.. insects, spiders, different plants, birds, etc.

 

So, which is better a nice pristine looking wetland or an impacted wetland without pretty birds? It depends on your perspective. If you're truly after species diversity, it probably doesn't matter though.

 

What does that have to do with the price of oil in Alaska? Well, what's better destroying an artic tundra or destroying the gulf coast? It depends upon your perspective. But, there is an incredible natural ecosystem that would be destroyed by drilling the ANWR, with or without a spill. Just because some people perceive it as safer or less of an environmental impact, that doesn't make it true.

 

My point is let's not use this mess as a call for drilling in other areas OR for stopping all drilling. Because neither of those solve the problems we have. How do we drill safer and with less environmental impact? What safe guards do we put in place? Who actually monitors/regulates all this crap? How do you stop/clean up the eventual spill? How do we/Can we develop an alternative energy plan for the Nation that not only actually reduces our dependence on foreign oil, but oil all together?

 

I would guess that it is easier to inspect equipment if it is easier to get to thus making it safer. I would also guess that it is easier to control things if you can actually get to it.

[Dan]

Bull.

ok.

 

I would guess that it is easier to inspect equipment if it is easier to get to thus making it safer. I would also guess that it is easier to control things if you can actually get to it.

Provided, of course, any actually inspects.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Provided, of course, any actually inspects.

 

Here's a thought: How about anyone who wants to restrict drilling anywhere stops driving cars, using plastic bottles and taking medications? That way, their hands aren't dirtied by buying the product that destrys pristine environments...

 

I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

[Dan]

Here's a thought: How about anyone who wants to restrict drilling anywhere stops driving cars, using plastic bottles and taking medications? That way, their hands aren't dirtied by buying the product that destrys pristine environments...

 

I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

So you're suggesting that we just drill without restrictions, constraints, or concerns? Just let these companies have at it regardless of any consequences or liabilities?

 

Do you share similiar beliefs about every industry?

[erynthered]

Quick go take the SATs.

 

 

I'm just about 20 years older than you. Wasnt on the test, retard. Thanks for the new word, Sean.

 

...............if I took todays tests for SAT's I'd fail, badly. I can admit that, you? Did OK back in the day. Got a degree. ran my own business for about ten years. GMI grad also. Enjoy you Iphone nerd.

 

Though I'm sure you're smarter than me in every aspect of my life.

[Alaska Darin]

So you're suggesting that we just drill without restrictions, constraints, or concerns? Just let these companies have at it regardless of any consequences or liabilities?

 

Do you share similiar beliefs about every industry?

Nice !@#$ing leap. Why is everything an "all or nothing" prospect? Absolutely ridiculous.

 

Do you actually wonder why everyone is treating you like an idiot?

[3rdnlng]

Nice !@#$ing leap. Why is everything an "all or nothing" prospect? Absolutely ridiculous.

 

Do you actually wonder why everyone is treating you like an idiot?

 

I know the answer to that. I do get the feeling that he is well intentioned and could someday see the light. Conner and his dog though are another story.

[Dan]

Nice !@#$ing leap. Why is everything an "all or nothing" prospect? Absolutely ridiculous.

 

Do you actually wonder why everyone is treating you like an idiot?

Actually, I didn't realize I was being treated like an idiot. I guess ignorance really is bliss.

 

He suggested I "stop driving cars, using plastic bottles and taking medications". Now that's getting pretty ridiculous. Especially, when just a few posts north I clearly stated I'm not against drilling. I just think there are consequences that need to be considered regardless of where you drill. And driilling in some remote artic tundra such as the ANWR can have consequences which my be just as impactful as this mess in the Gulf, depending upon your viewpoint.

 

So, what huge leap did I make again? The post said "anyone who wants to restrict drilling anywhere". That's a pretty radical statement. It suggests that no one should restrict drilling anywhere. Which leads me to think he wants no restrictions. Hence, the question I asked.