billfan63 Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 What's funny is the majority of the time they show ANWR, it's actually Denali - which is a few hundred miles from the real location. ANWR is one of the most desolate places on this planet and spends more than 9 months a year frozen SOLID. It's also no surprise that when they actually show it, it's always on one of the 2 or 3 decent weather days per year that they have there. The laws of the state are such that no exploration can even BEGIN unless the ambient temp is -20F or COLDER. How many caribou you figure are out running around at that point? Answer: None. One more little factoid: The caribou population is HIGHER in Prudhoe Bay today than before exploration began (from 5K before drilling to over 27K now). Facts suck. 275366[/snapback] So when the temp gets above -20 the pads, runways, roads and pipelines are removed? I think the favorable weather had a little to do with the increase of the central artic herd in Prudhoe. What was the environmental impact on the drilling in Kenai since 1957? If we have by estimates 3% of the earths oil reserves and use 25% of the earths oil preserves what is to be gained by drilling? Are we going to be in position to not reley on OPEC?
Alaska Darin Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 So when the temp gets above -20 the pads, runways, roads and pipelines are removed? I think the favorable weather had a little to do with the increase of the central artic herd in Prudhoe. What was the environmental impact on the drilling in Kenai since 1957? If we have by estimates 3% of the earths oil reserves and use 25% of the earths oil preserves what is to be gained by drilling? Are we going to be in position to not reley on OPEC? 277271[/snapback] Yeah, let's compare the drilling/exploration technology and oversight from 50 years ago. VERY valid. I guess it's perfectly acceptable to drill elsewhere in the world and then transport it across the most diverse ecosystem on this planet, all the while ignoring the fact that despots and even more corrupt regimes who care even less about the environment will be in control. Think the hippy environmentalists have a big voice in the Middle East or the Soviet Union? As far as your "pads, runways, roads (roads? that's actually funny - when they're made of ICE) and pipelines" being removed, that shows how shallow your argument is. The area they will use in ANWR is about the same size an the airport here in Anchorage. The "reserve" (I have to laugh everytime they call one of the most desolate places on this planet a "reserve") is virtually the same size as SOUTH CAROLINA. I just love when people who couldn't pick out ANWR on a map if we cut Alaska in half espouse their ignorance so publically. Yeah, it's probably not gonna be alot of oil (not that anyone but the actual oil companies who did the tests know for sure) - but it's gonna be a BUTTLOAD of natural gas and will create a ton of jobs here and mean billions to our economy. Screw all you GD hypocritical NIMBY hippies.
Rubes Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 The only problem is tht the generation of hydrogen uses more oil/coal (in energy production for the plant) than making gasoline does. Making hydrogen currently uses more resources and produces more polution! 277245[/snapback] Actually, the most likely major source for hydrogen production (if it indeed becomes more mainstream) would be natural gas. But you are right that production of hydrogen, with current technology, is dependent on fossil fuels. The current thinking is that renewable energy sources, as a source for hydrogen, is still 30-50 years away.
IUBillsFan Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 Yeah, let's compare the drilling/exploration technology and oversight from 50 years ago. VERY valid. I guess it's perfectly acceptable to drill elsewhere in the world and then transport it across the most diverse ecosystem on this planet, all the while ignoring the fact that despots and even more corrupt regimes who care even less about the environment will be in control. Think the hippy environmentalists have a big voice in the Middle East or the Soviet Union? As far as your "pads, runways, roads (roads? that's actually funny - when they're made of ICE) and pipelines" being removed, that shows how shallow your argument is. The area they will use in ANWR is about the same size an the airport here in Anchorage. The "reserve" (I have to laugh everytime they call one of the most desolate places on this planet a "reserve") is virtually the same size as SOUTH CAROLINA. I just love when people who couldn't pick out ANWR on a map if we cut Alaska in half espouse their ignorance so publically. Yeah, it's probably not gonna be alot of oil (not that anyone but the actual oil companies who did the tests know for sure) - but it's gonna be a BUTTLOAD of natural gas and will create a ton of jobs here and mean billions to our economy. Screw all you GD hypocritical NIMBY hippies. 277372[/snapback] caribou Funny they never show pictures like this when talking about exploration...
KRC Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 caribou Funny they never show pictures like this when talking about exploration... 277995[/snapback] Obviously a Photoshop job. There is no way that nature can survive when the EEEEVIIIIILLLL oil conglomerates get their hands on that land. It's true. MoveOn.org and the DNC said so. They wouldn't lie to me, would they?
Alaska Darin Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 The damn things are thick as thieves in Prudhoe - they're everywhere. Compare that to similiar oil rich environments in the Soviet Union, where there are virtually no caribou. Why? The workers killed them all for FOOD. Alaska is the most expensive place on the planet to explore for oil and it's not because it's the most desolate.
SilverNRed Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 caribou Funny they never show pictures like this when talking about exploration... 277995[/snapback] I'm sure by "never" you mean they ALWAYS show pictures of caribou when the ANWR issue comes up. CNN.com had their caribou pictures online yesterday. The actual land to be developed is the size of an airport and part of a region the size of an entire state. And if we can safely build platforms in the Gulf of Mexico to drill for oil, I imagine we can safely drill for oil in ANWR. But any Petroleum engineer could tell you that.
SilverNRed Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 I'm sure by "never" you mean they ALWAYS show pictures of caribou when the ANWR issue comes up. CNN.com had their caribou pictures online yesterday. The actual land to be developed is the size of an airport and part of a region the size of an entire state. And if we can safely build platforms in the Gulf of Mexico to drill for oil, I imagine we can safely drill for oil in ANWR. But any Petroleum engineer could tell you that. 278055[/snapback] CNN.com....yesterday
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 So let me get this straight... The limp-wristed linguini-spined liberals are, in fact, liberals (at least some of them) because they support the transition from an oil-centric economy to one based on more environmentally-friendly energy sources, potentially slowing global warming while at the same time further diversifying our energy portfolio and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The Baker Institute for Foreign Policy sponsors (along with, interestingly, the support of some guy named Dr. Trash, the poor guy) an academic conference at Rice University which, principally, addresses the need for new technologies that can aid the development of cheaper, more efficient, and environmentally sound energy supplies, which would potentially slow global warming while at the same time reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I may be reading this incorrectly, but your interpretation of this is that the limp-wristed linguini-spined liberals should be shocked into embarassment that such a humiliating thing could possibly happen? Or, perhaps, could it be that some firm-wristed, titanium-spined anti-liberals are coming around to the idea that some limp-wristed linguini-spined liberal-supported causes are actually not so satanic after all? 277104[/snapback] My POINT was, if you had bothered to read the credits for funding of the study, such eeeeeeeevil organizations as Halliburton, Shell Oil and other luminaries of the oil biz actually PAID for this study. If we were to believe all the liberal pantywaists out there, Halliburton is at the root of ALL the world's evils. Yet here they are, sponsoring studies into oil alternatives. Oh, the juicy irony.
IDBillzFan Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 Every time CNN.com has a story on ANWR they show a big picture of a lake with caraboo (?) and beautiful mountains in the background - the implication being that all of it would be parking lot if we let the 'eeeeevil' oil companies in. Drilling stations are marvels of engineering. If we can safely build drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, we can do it in Alaska without destroying any wildlife. 275322[/snapback] Funny you should mention this as I just started noticing this the past two days. Every time Robin Meade discusses the topic, they show footage of all the wildlife in Alaska. Why aren't they showing footage of the pumps in California? On the other hand, it's hard to find fault with anything that is sandwiched directly between images of Robin Meade.
KD in CA Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 If we have by estimates 3% of the earths oil reserves and use 25% of the earths oil preserves what is to be gained by drilling? Um, we'll be gaining 3%.
VABills Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 Um, we'll be gaining 3%. 278190[/snapback] Which is 1/8th or 12.5% of our needs.
nobody Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 The numbers I've seen: ANWR - total about 10.8 billon barrels will take about 10 years before getting into market will be able to produce 1 million barrels per day US currently use 20 million barrels per day more then half comes from foreign sources
IUBillsFan Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 I'm sure by "never" you mean they ALWAYS show pictures of caribou when the ANWR issue comes up. CNN.com had their caribou pictures online yesterday. The actual land to be developed is the size of an airport and part of a region the size of an entire state. And if we can safely build platforms in the Gulf of Mexico to drill for oil, I imagine we can safely drill for oil in ANWR. But any Petroleum engineer could tell you that. 278055[/snapback] It is more the background...The CNN nice mountains...The one I linked some kind of refinary with tons of caribou, ie they can co-exist... Plus the CNN picture is Musk Ox
IDBillzFan Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 The numbers I've seen:ANWR - total about 10.8 billon barrels will take about 10 years before getting into market will be able to produce 1 million barrels per day US currently use 20 million barrels per day more then half comes from foreign sources 278244[/snapback] So since we can't fill the immediate need, we should just do nothing? Beware the simple adage: If you keep doing what you're doing, you're going to keep getting what you're getting. Every change requires a first step.
Rubes Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 My POINT was, if you had bothered to read the credits for funding of the study, such eeeeeeeevil organizations as Halliburton, Shell Oil and other luminaries of the oil biz actually PAID for this study. If we were to believe all the liberal pantywaists out there, Halliburton is at the root of ALL the world's evils. Yet here they are, sponsoring studies into oil alternatives. Oh, the juicy irony. 278062[/snapback] Ah Joe, you always keep things interesting. Well obviously I did read the credits (given the whole Dr. Trash thing) but that's okay if you want to assume otherwise, as this seems to be one of your strong points. I did read that oil companies made up a large portion, if not most, of the sponsors for this conference, as was the James Baker III Institute, not much of a liberal-backed organization itself. I'm not sure who I'm supposed to be paying attention to now, the limp-wristed linuigini-spined liberals or the liberal pantywaists, but it's entertaining enough so I'll just rely on you to keep me up to speed. And by the way, if you had read it yourself, you would know that this was not a study, it was the report from a two-day conference and discussion held at Rice University. The conference was sponsored by numerous oil companies. Some of the speakers did cite research that has been done. I didn't read and cross-reference all 131 pages, so I imagine some of that research has been done by these companies, but I don't know for sure. It's probably reasonable to assume that, but that's besides the point since you did already. As to the report, if it's irony you want to call it, then clearly irony is not one of your strong suits. You want irony? If we were to believe everything you say, then it's liberal ideals that are the root of all the world's evils. The fact that a conservative Republican-backed conglomerate like Halliburton is leading the push toward the very liberal concept of alternative, environmentally-conscious energy sources to reduce our dependence on oil (foreign oil in particular) should be irony enough in your own mind to rattle that conservative conscience of yours. As for me, I find little irony in it. The report you so graciously provided eloquently spells out enough of our energy situation to dissolve any of the irony you seem to find in this. The reality is that we are headed for some tough times if we continue to depend so heavily on oil as we currently do. In order to transform this country from one that is so concentratedly oil-centric to one that is more diversified absolutely requires the contribution of those companies currently heavily invested in our energy infrastructure. We need to head in that direction, and those companies that refuse to jump in and contribute will be left behind. Irony? Not really. These companies know that they need to be involved in the process in order to maintain their roles as leaders in the energy industry, and so they can continue to be financially successful in this changing marketplace. Rather than being stunned into submission by the irony of it all, I'm sure the limp-wristed, er, I mean, liberal pantywaists are more likely welcoming with smiles the idea that Big Oil is beginning to sound serious about concepts that have long existed in the realm of the liberals...and heretofore dismissed as such.
nobody Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 So since we can't fill the immediate need, we should just do nothing? Beware the simple adage: If you keep doing what you're doing, you're going to keep getting what you're getting. Every change requires a first step. 278528[/snapback] Boy, I must have missed where I added opinions to the numbers. But my opinion is we need to find an alternative to oil.
Alaska Darin Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 Boy, I must have missed where I added opinions to the numbers. But my opinion is we need to find an alternative to oil. 278623[/snapback] Mine too. But until we do...
erynthered Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 Mine too. But until we do... 278638[/snapback] Maybe I should get an address in Alaska. Could be worth it.
Alaska Darin Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 Maybe I should get an address in Alaska. Could be worth it. 278642[/snapback] The future of me selling my house may have moved back a couple of years. If this actually gets all the way through, speculation is that housing prices here (already high) may double. Yeah, baby!
Recommended Posts