|
|
steveo395 05-19-2008, 01:11 PM I'm pretty "pro-environment," but I have to wonder what harm would it do to drill in Alaska. Supposing we drilled in some remote forest and there was a spill, would it be that hard to clean up? I would think that a oil spill on land would be pretty contained.
I'm pretty sure that there are no forests where they want to drill. I think it is too far north for there to be any trees. I do know that drilling for oil has become a lot more environmentally friendly and that spills are very rare. Also, where they drill for oil will only take up 2000 acres out of ANWR's total area of 1.5 million acres, so it won't really have that big of an affect on the area.
Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. Thatıs less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.
Alaska Oil Anwar (http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/alaska-oil-anwar.html)
steveo395 05-19-2008, 01:16 PM After you sucked Alaska dry what's the game plan? If people referred to drilling ANWR as a short term solution I'd have less of a problem but people act like it's a viable solution which solves the fundamental problem. What happens 10-15 years from now? Drilling ANWR is a hack just like the gas tax relief being flaunted.
Who ever said this was a long term solution? This is something that will help us NOW, which is what we need. The future plan is some kind of alternative energy, but right now, none of them are economically feasible. Right now we need more oil and the only way to do that is to drill for more.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha 05-19-2008, 01:26 PM After you sucked Alaska dry what's the game plan? If people referred to drilling ANWR as a short term solution I'd have less of a problem but people act like it's a viable solution which solves the fundamental problem. What happens 10-15 years from now? Drilling ANWR is a hack just like the gas tax relief being flaunted.
I think it is pretty evident that our oil addiction is a big problem. I also believe that drilling in Alaska isn't a cure-all. However, I think it's an option we should pursue, given that will buy us time to find more permanent solutions.
saden1 05-19-2008, 02:54 PM I think it is pretty evident that our oil addiction is a big problem. I also believe that drilling in Alaska isn't a cure-all. However, I think it's an option we should pursue, given that will buy us time to find more permanent solutions.
Suppose ANWR is depleted, where is your emergency/strategic reserve going to come from?
Dogtag 05-19-2008, 03:26 PM Good luck safely towing a 30 foot long 10,000 lb trailer down the highway at the proper speed limit with anything but an SUV.
FRPLG 05-19-2008, 04:27 PM Suppose ANWR is depleted, where is your emergency/strategic reserve going to come from?
Good point. I guess we should forget drilling in ANWR because it will run it too.
steveo395 05-19-2008, 04:38 PM Suppose ANWR is depleted, where is your emergency/strategic reserve going to come from?
Drilling offshore in the Atlantic and the Pacific, the Bakken oil field in Montana and North Dakota, the 1.5 trillion barrels of oil shale under Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The technology to extract the oil from the shale has improved greatly, so we can get that oil if we really need it.
What do you suggest we do about our huge oil problem? I know that you probably want to find alternative energy sources, but we need a lot more time to develop them. This will buy us that time.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha 05-19-2008, 05:14 PM Suppose ANWR is depleted, where is your emergency/strategic reserve going to come from?
Did you mean to imply that ANWR is our current emergency/strategic reserve? If so, ANWR is pretty crappy strategic reserve. I'm no oilman, but I think it's safe to say that it would take months or even years to set up rigs and pipelines for us to start getting oil from ANWR. So, if you're concerned about having an emergency/strategic reserve, don't you think we should get moving on drilling in ANWR asap? Currently, ANWR isn't a resource we can rely on to effectively deal with crises.
saden1 05-19-2008, 05:16 PM Drilling offshore in the Atlantic and the Pacific, the Bakken oil field in Montana and North Dakota, the 1.5 trillion barrels of oil shale under Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The technology to extract the oil from the shale has improved greatly, so we can get that oil if we really need it.
Umm, why aren't the energy companies drilling these supposed bountiful locations in the Atlantic and Pacific? And why aren't they investing in drilling these oil shells? Maybe the government should be helping them out? Get real, if it's clean and viable you bet your ass it would be happening right now. Oil companies are happy where they are and could care less about the environment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7403989.stm).
What do you suggest we do about our huge oil problem? I know that you probably want to find alternative energy sources, but we need a lot more time to develop them. This will buy us that time.
Massive government funded, academia centered research into alternative fuel (water based solution in particular). Real investment in mass transit.
Daseal 05-19-2008, 08:49 PM Exactly, if we just get more oil, it won't solve any issues. We'll continue to put big oil in charge of finding alternative energy sources (Hell, they might have an engine that runs on water, but they would never tell us -- they're looking for energy they can charge a high premium for.). Go to MIT, give them a boat ton of money, and we'll have ideas within years.
|