ANWR: To drill or not to drill? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

flstf · 03-21-2005, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I also saw other articles contending that oil form ANWR would be destined for Asian countries.

Hard to tell who's right or accurate. I guess it is telling to look at the source too though. I've noted that the Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank (just an observation).

I don't understand all the details either. I thought I remember seeing a comgressperson on TV the other day say that the oil was destined for here so I did a few quick searches. I don't think that we should make a decision based on whether the oil gets exported or stays here. As oil prices rise exporting would help offset what we import and help the trade imbalance.

Ace_O_Spades · 03-21-2005, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

We should have done this long ago. However, us drilling in that Alaskan wasteland does not automatically equal a surplus in oil for fuel. We need to couple it with our refining capabilites, which are currently 10-20 years behind the times.

That Alaskan wasteland is home to animals who were there before we were.

Drilling a supply of oil which will have a questionable impact on the current fuel crisis, and in the process destroying habitat for all the furry creatures...

I really wonder what will happen when the global reserves of oil are all gone, then maybe we can start the slow and arduous process of actually preserving the beauty and liveability of our planet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Ah, yes, we know that there's such a shortage of tundra...

so just because something isn't endangered it isn't worth protecting?

KMA-628 · 03-21-2005, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades

Drilling a supply of oil which won't have any significant impact on the current fuel crisis at all, and in the process destroying habitat for all the furry creatures...

This is the second time that this has been asserted in this thread without anything to back it up.

Opinions are one thing, this is a major point of contention. One that cannot be taken seriously if it is merely uttered with no corraborating information whatsoever.

This is simple. We need oil. Like it or not, we need the stuff.

The next question is where do we get it from? Do we rely on other nations that can potentially use the stuff to hold us hostage (i.e. late 70's) or do we tap any source that might decrease our dependence on someone other than oursleves?

How much it decreases our dependence is moot (and questionable).

I would support a measure that means we get 100 barrels less of oil a day from another country (yes, I am exaggerating, but you know what I mean).

We all want to complain about outsourcing jobs, losing money to other countries, etc. But, when we have the chance to increase our self-sufficiency, we don't want to do it.

Ace_O_Spades · 03-21-2005, 09:18 AM

Sorry about no source... when something is quoted and quoted and cited and cited you just start to assume common knowledge

sorry for the confusion, i'll edit my post

KMA-628 · 03-21-2005, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Maybe build more nuclear plants. Perhaps the technology and safety has improved to the point where we should consider them.

This is something I would support.

The initial costs would be huge, but, in the long-run, the benefits would outweigh the initial costs.

As for safety/technology: Copy the Navy model. The Navy model has a perfect record and has had a perfect record for 50+ years (NOTE: This is based on information I was privy to while in the service))

France does it, based on our model. Iran was going to do it in the late 70's, based on our model. The model works, it is effective and it is very easy to control and contain. The only problem is that we would have to declassify some things in order to transfer all of the info from the military sector to the private sector.

The Russians used a different model (graphite was one of their major problems) and they paid dearly for it.

Manx · 03-21-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

This is simple. We need oil. Like it or not, we need the stuff.

Sure. But as long as we are so myopic about the future necessity of oil, we'll eventually end up in the same place we are right now, pre-drilling ANWR.

Quote:

How much it decreases our dependence is moot

Obviously that is incorrect.

Quote:

We all want to complain about outsourcing jobs, losing money to other countries, etc. But, when we have the chance to increase our self-sufficiency, we don't want to do it.

A chance to increase our self-sufficiency that is so short-sighted that it relies on questionable quantities of oil in Alaska as well as propogating the same mentality that oil is the only option is not good enough.

Until the administration makes a strong push for oil independence, I see no reason to view this push into Alaska as anything more than the administration helping out the oil industry lobby.

jorgelito · 03-21-2005, 10:23 AM

KMA, I agree we need to be self-sufficient, but aren't we just delaying the inevitable? We still need to find alternative source etc. Meanwhile, it wouldn't hurt to conserve a little wouldn't it? As a conservative myself, I already have good habits of conservation and not being wasteful. I think we all could. What's the harm? SOunds like a win-win to me.

I would also support the safe nuclear option too (although admittedly, I have a little bit of NIMBY syndrome).

Willravel · 03-21-2005, 10:51 AM

According to this biodeisel website, Biodieselers using waste oil feedstock say they can make biodiesel for 60 cents US per gallon or less. Most people use about 600 gallons of fuel a year (about 10 gallons a week) -- say US$360 a year. For those who don't know, biodiesel is an interesting alternative to dino-oil (the stuff we're killing people over). While you need to process it, it's as trouble free as diesel, won't corrode your engine like pure veggie oil, and needs no engine change. It's a combination of oil (fresh, virgin, uncooked), methanol (the main or only ingredient in barbecue fuel or fondue fuel, sold in supermarkets and chain stores as "stove fuel"), and (sold in supermarkets and hardware stores as a drain-cleaner, there's probably a can of it under the sink in most households).

Vegetable oils and animal fats are triglycerides, containing glycerine. The biodiesel process turns the oils into esters, separating out the glycerine. The glycerine sinks to the bottom and the biodiesel floats on top and can be syphoned off.

The process is called transesterification, which substitutes alcohol for the glycerine in a chemical reaction, using lye as a catalyst.

We use methanol to make methyl esters. We'd rather use ethanol because most methanol comes from fossil fuels (though it can also be made from biomass, such as wood), while ethanol is plant-based and you can distill it yourself, but the biodiesel process is more complicated with ethanol. (See Ethyl esters.)

Ethanol (or ethyl alcohol, grain alcohol -- EtOH, C2H5OH) also goes by various other well-known names, such as whisky, vodka, gin, and so on, but methanol is a deadly poison: first it blinds you, then it kills you, and it doesn't take very much of it. It takes a couple of hours, and if you can get treatment fast enough you might survive. (But don't be put off -- it's easy to do this safely. Safety is built-in to everything you'll read here.)

Methanol is also called methyl alcohol, wood alcohol, wood naphtha, wood spirits, methyl hydrate (or "stove fuel"), carbinol, colonial spirits, Columbian spirits, Manhattan spirits, methylol, methyl hydroxide, hydroxymethane, monohydroxymethane, pyroxylic spirit, or MeOH (CH3OH or CH4O) -- all the same thing. (But, confusingly, "methylcarbinol" or "methyl carbinol" is used for both methanol and ethanol.) In the US you can usually get it at race tracks.

Methylated spirits (denatured alcohol) doesn't work; isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) also doesn't work.

The lye catalyst can be either sodium hydroxide (caustic soda, NaOH) or potassium hydroxide (KOH), which is easier to use, and it can provide a potash fertilizer as a by-product. Sodium hydroxide is often easier to get and it's cheaper to use. If you use potassium hydroxide, the process is the same, but you need to use 1.4 times as much. (See More about lye.) You can get KOH from soapmakers' suppliers and from chemicals suppliers. Other chemicals, such as isopropyl alcohol (isopropanol) for titration, are available from chemicals suppliers.

You don't have to convert the engine to run it on biodiesel, but you do need to make some adjustments and check a few things.

Retard the injection timing by 2-3 degrees -- this overcomes the effect of biodiesel's higher cetane number. It also causes the fuel to burn cooler, thus reducing NOx emissions.

Petro-diesel leaves a lot of dirt in the tank and the fuel system. Biodiesel is a good solvent -- it tends to free the dirt and clean it out. Be sure to check the fuel filters regularly at first. Start off with a new fuel filter.

Check there are no natural rubber parts in the fuel system. If there are, replace them. Viton is best.

We might not have to drill anywhere (like Alaska) if we can start to shift the market to biodeisel, AS WE CAN ACTUALLY GROW VEGETABLES FOR FUEL. Any country able to grow produce should be able to start upping production, as the money from the oil industry shifts over to agriculture.

stevo · 03-23-2005, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Maybe build more nuclear plants. Perhaps the technology and safety has improved to the point where we should consider them.

A higher tax on gasoline will hurt those least able to pay, those who drive older cars and who cannot afford to live in close to the cities.

Here's an article I read in Forbes a few weeks back. It appears we are going to build more nuclear plants. A lot more.

Quote:

Atomic power is making a comeback, and you hear only muffled squawks from the usual opponents. Could that have something to do with the price of oil? Or maybe global warming? Sandra Lindberg and her husband, Samuel Galewsky, intended to start a ruckus. She, a theater professor at Illinois Wesleyan University, and he, a biology prof at Millikin University, entered the Vespasian Warner Public Library one night in April 2003 to discuss a proposal by Exelon Corp. to add a brand-new nuclear reactor to its existing plant in Clinton, Ill. Lindberg and her group, No New Nukes, drew inspiration from three decades of protests.

Like other towns where an outraged public defeated plans for new plants, Clinton, she hoped, would reject this one. No new reactors had been proposed in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island disaster. Outcry over the proposed repository for radioactive waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain showed that America wanted nothing to do with nuclear power. Or so she thought. By the time of the second meeting, in December, the town--once split 50-50 on the new reactor--now overwhelmingly supported the project.

Economics, not environmentalism, seemed to be swaying this rural community. With unemployment at 8%, Exelon, Dewitt County's largest employer, said that if the plant were built there would be 3,200 construction jobs, 600 new full-time positions to operate the plant and a big jump in the county's tax take.

By the time Galewsky finally rose to speak out against the plant, it was late and the room was almost empty--an outcome that could have been foretold. With backing from the industry's powerful lobby, the Nuclear Energy Institute, Exelon had spent weeks meeting with leaders and heading off the very concerns about health, safety and the environment that Lindberg hoped would galvanize the crowd against the plan.

Yes, nuclear power is back, after a quarter-century of suspended animation. The industry has avoided the kind of direct confrontation that might arouse the wrath of an American public that still doubts the safety of reactors and is spooked about terrorism.

Over the last five years fans of atomic power have quietly lined up the support of federal and municipal governments and have cozied up to General Electric and Westinghouse Electric (now part of the British BNFL Group) in service to an ambitious agenda: building perhaps 5 new reactors by 2015, a dozen by 2020 and 50 by midcentury. The U.S. nuclear construction industry was presumed dead. It is anything but. If oil prices stay high, if people worry about carbon dioxide causing global warming, if the Middle East stays violent, nuclear power stands a good chance of making a huge comeback in this country.

Six weeks before the last Clinton library meeting, Marilyn Kray, an Exelon vice president, had gathered 11 executives from the largest nuclear operators and reactor vendors at a private room in Olives, a tony Washington, D.C. restaurant three blocks from the White House. As the dominant player, with 17 of the nation's 103 commercial reactors, Exelon of Chicago took the lead in discussing the future of the industry. (The company recently launched a $27 billion bid to buy PSE&G, a deal that would give it 3 more nuclear reactors and customers in Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.)

Sitting next to Kray was Dan R. Keuter, her counterpart at Entergy, the number two operator. As diners nibbled their salads, the two led them through a 23-page report. Kray asked, Why not band together to help each other build new plants--and usher in a new dawn of nuclear power? Two meetings followed in conference rooms at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

The result was a consortium called NuStart Energy--comprising utilities with 30.5 million residential customers and $97 billion in annual revenues, as well as GE and Westinghouse. Its goal is to choose two of five sites by September, then go after the permits. By 2007 NuStart expects to see certification of GE's reactor design and to have its financing, at $1.5 billion per plant, in place--so a utility could put a plant out for bid the following year. On that schedule groundbreaking should be in 2010. Assuming construction goes well, the first new reactor could be hooked up to the grid five years later. By then there will be nothing stopping this consortium, and a dozen more plants may be starting to go up.

Fifteen years ago no one even considered building new reactors. There was still a bad hangover from the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979 and the Chernobyl explosion in 1986. The economics of the business stank. Far from being "too cheap to meter," as promoters predicted at the dawn of atomic power a half-century ago, nuclear energy was a lot more expensive than energy from coal and natural gas. Many small nuclear-power operators couldn't even turn a profit on their old reactors.

A big problem was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, known for being unpredictable and fatally slow. In 1997 it had 14 plants on its "watch list" and fined others for such trivial non-safety violations as recording maintenance records on the wrong form. Howard Bruschi, former chief technology officer at Westinghouse, recalls that a regulator asked him to provide additional specs on an exhaust fan for a men's locker room.

It's usually a mistake to attack the bureaucrats that run your life, but at a certain point the nuclear power industry decided it didn't have much to lose. The utilities complained to Senator Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and the industry's patron saint on Capitol Hill. In 1998 he faced down NRC chief Shirley Ann Jackson and gave her an ultimatum: Fix the agency or see its funding cut by $50 million a year. Jackson (now president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) concedes that shutting down so many plants was a mistake, but insists that reforms Domenici takes credit for spurring were already in the works for two years. She says the new set of risk-based regulations--which focus on safety, not men's room fans--"was my baby."

Whoever the parent, the child is now much more tractable. Over the last six years the NRC has renewed operating licenses for 30 old plants. In September it certified the new Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor--a larger version of an existing 600-megawatt reactor--in 30 months, down from an average seven years. Looser regulations suddenly gave utilities the green light to buy up underperforming plants.

In July 1999 Donald Hintz, then president of Entergy in New Orleans, spent $81 million for the Pilgrim reactor in Massachusetts. He got a 670-megawatt plant, $67 million worth of uranium fuel, a $471 million decommissioning fund and a five-year contract to sell power at 4 cents a kilowatt-hour. It was the first-ever outright sale of a nuclear reactor in the U.S. Corbin McNeill, chief executive of Peco, the forerunner of Exelon, followed close behind in December 1999, picking up Three Mile Island Unit 1 (the healthy sister of the infamous and dormant TMI Unit 2) with a British partner for $100 million--$23 million for the plant and $77 million for existing fuel.

The deals kicked off massive consolidation in the industry--at 27, there are now half as many nuclear operators as there were in 1990. As the utilities assembled bigger reactor fleets, they forged tighter relationships with vendor companies. The benefits cut both ways, improving efficiency and safety in existing plants and providing fresh ideas for a new generation of reactors. No question that Westinghouse and GE have reaped a windfall since they started providing services to the power giants.

Maintaining the plants, training workers and modifying designs and procedures now compose a $2 billion-a-year enterprise at Westinghouse, and more than $1 billion at GE. As for new construction, when the U.S. market lay in a deep freeze, both vendors stayed alive competing for business in places as far-flung as South Korea, Finland and South Africa (see box, p. 86). By tying vendors' pay to increased efficiency, utilities have vastly improved the efficiency of reactors. The Pilgrim plant was losing money and running at 76% capacity when Entergy bought it. From 2001-03 it averaged 91%.

The story is the same nationwide, where changes in regulations, operations and even monitoring software have allowed engineers to boost nuke output at the average plant by 4% since the 1970s. Better efficiency has led to fewer mistakes. While no nuclear plant is or ever will be fail-safe, the industry insists that America's current fleet of 103 plants is safer than ever--from accident and terrorism (see box, p. 92). Engineers have devised redundant sensors, any one of which probably would have prevented the Three Mile Island or Chernobyl disasters. Entergy's River Bend will soon install a $3 million computerized turbine control system built by GE to replace old analog technology. It offers faster and more detailed reports, allowing operators to move quickly and minimize human error--the cause of most calamities.

Westinghouse has built a robotic spider that crawls into a reactor's steam generators, where humans prefer not to go, to check for leaks. The next generation, the industry promises, will be even safer. NuStart's first new reactors will reflect all the improvements Westinghouse and GE have devised over the last 30 years. They will be smaller, simpler and cheaper to build, relying on gravity, rather than electricity, to cool reactors--or, in the unlikely event of a meltdown, to flood a reactor core. Designs still on the drawing board include a Westinghouse-backed pebble-bed reactor, where uranium fuel is encased in graphite pebbles the size of tennis balls; the graphite tempers the fission reactions the way control rods do but can withstand temperatures of up to 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, making meltdown nearly impossible.

The privately held General Atomics of San Diego is promoting a reactor that uses helium as a cooling agent, rather than water, and is built in an underground silo--a deterrent to terrorists. How to pay for a new generation of nukes, at $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion per plant? NuStart envisions a combination of private and public funding, along the lines of what the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific used to build the Transcontinental Railroad 135 years ago: government-backed loans to help float corporate bonds. (No one, pointedly, mentions the scandalous Crédit Mobilier, used by insiders to line their pockets with the rail subsidies.)

The industry has lots of friends in Washington, D.C. Last year utilities chipped in $42.6 million in lobbying and contributions to politicians, three-quarters of that to Republicans, reports the Center for Responsive Politics. The Bush White House is sympathetic to nukes. The Department of Energy in 2002 launched Nuclear Power 2010 to get a new reactor built by the end of the decade. It's more than a nudge: The plan also suggests a taxpayer-backed fund for engineering costs; the industry proposes direct or loan guarantees by the feds and electricity purchases by the government. Utilities have gotten federal subsidies even as the infamous Energy Bill has languished year after year.

With all the negative press on the proposed drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Congress has tacked on $35 million here, $29 million there to its annual spending bill to help the nuclear industry conduct site and permit work. When a marked-up energy bill makes the rounds early this year, it will likely suggest further study of options for fuel recycling and earmark $1.8 billion to get new reactors built pronto.

The bill does not yet give NuStart what it wants most of all: government guarantees of construction loans for new, untested reactor designs. Such backing would help lower the cost of borrowing. (Without the guarantee, the bonds would most likely be rated slightly lower than the utilities' other bonds.) But why stop there? The utilities also want two fat tax credits--one allowing them to deduct 20% of their spending on new reactors and a second to lop off 1.8 cents for every kilowatt-hour of power produced by the new plants. That's the same treatment Congress granted wind-turbine makers in 2003.

That last sticks mightily in some craws--particularly that of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Applied to the average 1,000-megawatt power plant, the credit would result in tax breaks of $150 million a year. That's too high a price for Michele Boyd, legislative director for antinukers at Public Citizen, the Nader-founded group. "They want cradle-to-grave subsidies in order to try to make nuclear power competitive," she complains. "Whatever the government needs to spend," counters Gary Taylor, head of nuclear operations at Entergy, "it's a small price to pay for weaning America off its addiction to foreign oil, reducing greenhouse gases and protecting our economy."

Here's one nut the nuclear industry can't crack: disposal. The nation's commercial reactors have accumulated 50,000 tons of highly toxic waste, mostly spent uranium fuel rods. When fresh, reactor fuel consists of enriched uranium 235, which is relatively harmless (the skin blocks alpha particles). But fission transforms a small quantity of uranium into extremely radioactive isotopes, including plutonium. Walk into a room with a used fuel assembly and the exposure would kill you in minutes.

Plants are running out of room for depleted uranium, yet the Energy Department, which is responsible for its permanent disposal, has nowhere to put it. The plan was to build a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Yet after the spending of $7 billion and 26 years on studying and designing the site, Yucca is mired in lawsuits. You can hardly blame Nevadans for rejecting a poisonous slag heap 90 miles from Las Vegas, and Senator Reid is fighting hard to block it. In November he managed to horse-trade with the White House to get an anti-Yuccan scientist appointed as an NRC commissioner, in exchange for a promised approval of 100 Bush appointees to judgeships and other openings. Still, with a solid Republican majority in Congress, betting is that Yucca's final approval could come before 2008, with doors opening in 2012 at the earliest.

A few billion dollars of federal government bribe money to the citizens of Nevada would ease the pain. Pending Yucca, there are ways to buy time. If there's room for it, spent fuel can safely sit in cooling ponds inside reactor buildings. Entergy's River Bend plant is turning to casks sitting on a concrete pad outside the reactor building. Virtually impervious to terrorism, shielded with 6 feet of radiation-blocking material, the 50-ton casks are so dense that even a direct hit by a jetliner would have as much chance of breaking containment as a raw egg would have of shattering a bowling ball. On foot, terrorists would have to get past armed guards and concertina wire, then commandeer the plant's custom-built crane to lift off the enormous 10-ton lid. They'd also need thick shielding while making a getaway to avoid dying of radiation poisoning. New reactors, while they promise to significantly reduce radioactive waste, will still generate more toxins. "Utilities are trying to pawn nuclear off as clean technology even though there's toxic waste," says Deborah Katz, executive director of the Citizens Awareness Network in Shelburne Falls, Mass.

Years ago the group helped shut down three reactors in Massachusetts and Connecticut. But these days protesters are just waking up. "This is going forward so quickly that a lot of questions will end up getting settled before people really know what's happening," says Brendan Hoffman, an energy organizer for Public Citizen. How to get their message across? Mass mailings, letters to the editor and conferences don't have the same impact anymore--not when the promise of jobs trumps the fear of disposal in places like Clinton, Ill. and Louisa County, Va., where a small consortium led by Dominion Resources wants to build a new reactor.

There may yet be an outbreak of mass demonstrations in Washington. But if the angry crowds fail to materialize, there is always the time-tested means of expressing opposition: through the courts. Public Citizen has teamed with other groups to file a trio of lawsuits in the NRC administrative court, challenging early site permits. The complaints argue that the plans failed to consider the plants' impact on striped bass populations--and gave little thought to the use of renewable energy sources. The case in Mississippi has been thrown out. Two others, in Illinois and Virginia, are pending. The protesters aren't gone, but they just aren't making the noise they used to.

http://www.forbes.com/business/forbe.../0131/084.html

Hardknock · 03-23-2005, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo

Looking forward to the PFD is one thing. Using it as a means of existance is totally irresponsible. Counting on it is another. Anyone that "spits" out babies just to get another check is so piss poor at math that they need to get a clue. I know I cannot feed, cloth and otherwise support a kid on $1500 a year (thats $125 a month) especially in Alaska. Yes, I understand that there are total morons that think its a good idea to make babies to increase their "PFD fortune". BTW, the PFD for 2004 (which could have been quoted earlier instead of the much higher HISTORIC value of 2002) was only $919.84. Raise a kid on that.

The best thing the oil revenues do for Alaskans is allow us to be state tax free (well for now anyway).

I understand that the oil in ANWR is not going to be enough to allow for North America to be free of its dependencies. I do believe that at least exploring and knowing what is is available may provide us oil in an emergency, such as a long term war, at least.

(more housekeeping)I agree that oil dependency cannot be solved by the oil in ANWR. If anyone is openly stating that it will, can, or should cover our complete needs then I have not read or heard about it. Lets try to keep this for what it is. A natural resource in an arctic area that with todays technology can be removed with minimal impact and risk. The big difference between drilling in Texas and drilling in Alaska is our roads melt in the summer and will disappear if we no longer need them.

I work with people in Prudhoe Bay and Valdez daily. Their purchase orders even have requirements on shipping containers and packing materials.

Lebell, do you really have any idea of the ecosystem up there in Prudhoe or are you just relying on shipping papers to determine that the oil companies are doing their job in protecting the environment?

Hardknock · 03-23-2005, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

This is the second time that this has been asserted in this thread without anything to back it up.

Opinions are one thing, this is a major point of contention. One that cannot be taken seriously if it is merely uttered with no corraborating information whatsoever.

This is simple. We need oil. Like it or not, we need the stuff.

The next question is where do we get it from? Do we rely on other nations that can potentially use the stuff to hold us hostage (i.e. late 70's) or do we tap any source that might decrease our dependence on someone other than oursleves?

How much it decreases our dependence is moot (and questionable).

I would support a measure that means we get 100 barrels less of oil a day from another country (yes, I am exaggerating, but you know what I mean).

We all want to complain about outsourcing jobs, losing money to other countries, etc. But, when we have the chance to increase our self-sufficiency, we don't want to do it.

Here's one of many soruces KMA. There's articles all over the web so do a little searching.

Article

We don't need any oil. NOTHING. We have the technology today to cut all use of the internal combustion engine. Why dont we do it? Money of course. The world economy would go to total shit if all oil dried up tommorow. And having an oil man in the white house doesn't help either. It doesn't surprise me that other Alaskans are for drilling, it will add a measly $200 or so to their PFD checks. That's what seems to be the most important thing to people thses days. Money. Never mind that this will only repay the oil lobbyists that paid Bush to get reelected.

I've been telling lower48'ers this all along. There isn't enough oil in Alaska to save us from the Saudis. Look at every estimate that has ever been given about ANWR. Show me an estimate that shows a more than six month supply of oil.

Boo · 03-23-2005, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

Here's one of many soruces KMA. There's articles all over the web so do a little searching.

Article

We don't need any oil. NOTHING. We have the technology today to cut all use of the internal combustion engine. Why dont we do it? Money of course. The world economy would go to total shit if all oil dried up tommorow. And having an oil man in the white house doesn't help either. It doesn't surprise me that other Alaskans are for drilling, it will add a measly $200 or so to their PFD checks. That's what seems to be the most important thing to people thses days. Money. Never mind that this will only repay the oil lobbyists that paid Bush to get reelected.

I've been telling lower48'ers this all along. There isn't enough oil in Alaska to save us from the Saudis. Look at every estimate that has ever been given about ANWR. Show me an estimate that shows a more than six month supply of oil.

I do not believe that the oil from ANWR will save up from the mid-eastern suppliers. I don't believe that anyone in this thread has utilized that as reasoning.

Actually it would probably add another $500+ per person to the PFD. Other effects could add up to a lot more money. Figure in occupational bonus', 401 K matching, and lessen the possibility of having a state tax. That (in my figures) could add up to over $5000 a year per wage earner per year. So if you want to call Alaskans greedy, so be it. Nothing "measly" about $5000 a year. What about the effect on industry in the lower 48. How many millions of dollars will come up on the barge? How many people from TX, OR, WA will fly up for the jobs and bring the money home to spend.

Before you knock someone making money from the resources in their state, look at the lower 48 and the reliance upon natural resources. Tell Arizona to stop mining, tell Colorado to stop exploring for natural gas, tell Mississippi to stop the offshore oil production, tell Florida to stop shrimping etc... etc.... . Animals live there too, lets be fair across the board.

IMO - It does not matter how much oil there is. Obviously there is enough for the oil companies to want to pursue it. Until testing is done we cannot make an informed decision. Estimates are just estimates.

FishKing · 03-23-2005, 07:39 PM

[QUOTE=Boo]
Actually it would probably add another $500+ per person to the PFD. Other effects could add up to a lot more money. Figure in occupational bonus', 401 K matching, and lessen the possibility of having a state tax. That (in my figures) could add up to over $5000 a year per wage earner per year. So if you want to call Alaskans greedy, so be it. Nothing "measly" about $5000 a year. What about the effect on industry in the lower 48. How many millions of dollars will come up on the barge? How many people from TX, OR, WA will fly up for the jobs and bring the money home to spend.

Look at Texas and the rest of the lower 48 who produce oil. You can buy land cheap but you do not own the mineral rights. The oil companies come on your land, set up shop and drill until MOMMA has all the jewelry she needs then they shut down operations leaving the owner with a mess...My in-laws live in Texas and hate that.

Sales taxes in Texas are how much? About 8-14 percent depends on what county and city taxes are added. We in Alaska enjoy a good life style and would like for the rest of the lower 48 to clean up their back yard before judging us.

Yes it is true we have no sales tax, and get a check from the PFD. Don’t be an Alaskan hater just because we have it better.

BOO, I am on your side 100% on this one....Thanks brother

Willravel · 03-23-2005, 08:59 PM

Oil is finite. Becuasse oil is finite, we need to eventually make plans to replace it. Oil production has been on a consistant rising trend. That means our finite oil is becoming more rare as each year passes. Eventually, we will hit peak oil production. This means there is no where to go but down as far as oil production on Earth, barring a mass extinction, and unnaturalally fast fossilization (we'll call that improbable enought to leave it from the discussion). Eventually, we cannot rely on oil as we do now.

There is a war about oil. People are being sent to secure nations that produce oil. People die in wars, including the war for oil.

There are three options with Peak Oil. The first option is to ignore it. The second option is to fight to the last drop (what we are doing so far). The third option is to find alternatives.

In other words, drilling in Alaska is a wonderful way to not deal with the problem. It is not an answer to prayers, but a bit more oil we spend now instead of getting later, or not getting at all. If we drill there and are able to extrace 100% of the oil, all that does is buy us a little time.

jorgelito · 03-23-2005, 10:03 PM

will, you are wasting your breath. I mention that "all the time" (about ten posts up or so and in other threads) but people consistently miss or ignore that perspective. I guess we'll all pay for that myopia somehow. I think KMA and someone else did suggest nuclear as an option they would support but that never got mentioned again either.

We need to stimulate debate for good energy policy - resources/renewable resources/alternative resources etc. It always seems to get lost in either partisan bickering or people just don't want to engage in it. *ponder*

Locobot · 03-23-2005, 10:31 PM

I agree with the Onion that if we follow the "oil as addiction" metaphor then ANWR is the point at which we pawn our wedding ring for a weekend in Vegas. The fact is that 95% of Alaska's Northern coast is already available for oil drilling. ANWR will not impact in any substancial way our unsustainable dependance on oil as fuel source.

Alaskans' support for drilling in ANWR has been bought with yearly checks from the government. Although I'd like to see what would happen if those checks were printed side-by-side with the profits oil executives are making off of the people's natural resources.

The argument that we need to drill in ANWR in order to sustain our more rugged gas-guzzling vehicles is as specious as Kurant's "I've killed animals there for years..." argument. Exceptions in our fuel-economy laws were made for utility vehicles, but since then we've seen them used primarily as passenger cars. To future generations our attachment to SUVs and other low-efficiency vehicles will seem as ludicrous as the ancient Maya cutting down their forests in order to re-plaster their buildings every year.

Boo · 03-23-2005, 10:33 PM

The thread is whether to drill in ANWR. I believe everyone knows that oil is limited in supply and needs to be replaced with a clean(er) alternative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

In other words, drilling in Alaska is a wonderful way to not deal with the problem. It is not an answer to prayers, but a bit more oil we spend now instead of getting later, or not getting at all. If we drill there and are able to extrace 100% of the oil, all that does is buy us a little time.

Drilling in Alaska has little to do with the oil problem. It will not provide a significant amount for sustained culture as we know it (based on the preliminary estimates). It will not provide an alternate energy source. It will provide jobs and industry in a time when America needs it. Alaska has no real manufacturing base. All the equipment and supplies are shipped in.

Time could be a very important factor. A couple of hard winters, a large scale war, or many other things can effect our ability to have adequate transportation and heat for our homes. Having at least explored our resources and having a closer estimate could be very important.

Locobot · 03-23-2005, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo

The thread is whether to drill in ANWR. I believe everyone knows that oil is limited in supply and needs to be replaced with a clean(er) alternative.

Everyone already knows this? If drilling in ANWR will do nothing to change this situation then why is it even being discussed? oh yeah...

Quote:

Drilling in Alaska has little to do with the oil problem. It will not provide a significant amount for sustained culture as we know it (based on the preliminary estimates). It will not provide an alternate energy source. It will provide jobs and industry in a time when America needs it. Alaska has no real manufacturing base. All the equipment and supplies are shipped in.

So by selling our natural resources to the more profitable Chinese and Japanese markets we can ensure that the lower 48 will have no real manufacturing base either. Wonderful solution.

Manx · 03-23-2005, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo

The thread is whether to drill in ANWR. I believe everyone knows that oil is limited in supply and needs to be replaced with a clean(er) alternative.

I don't believe everyone knows that, or if they do, they certainly aren't doing anything about it.

As for your Alaska-needs-jobs explanation: I don't care. Don't have a job in Alaska? Move to another state and get a job. I live in Boulder, Colorado and although there are many things I disapprove of that the City does, one of those things is not their Open Space initiatives, which significantly limit new construction and new zoning. This excellent plan reduces over-population and maintains near-pristine wilderness. If I don't like it, I can move to Denver.

Or how about this: Alaska receives massive federal tax breaks for alternative energy development research, attracting high-tech industry and the infrastructure to support it.

Boo · 03-23-2005, 11:08 PM

People will not take the oil situation seriously until forced. Thats just the way it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by manx

As for your Alaska-needs-jobs explanation: I don't care. Don't have a job in Alaska? Move to another state and get a job. I live in Boulder, Colorado and although there are many things I disapprove of that the City does, one of those things is not their Open Space initiatives, which significantly limit new construction and new zoning. This excellent plan reduces over-population and maintains near-pristine wilderness. If I don't like it, I can move to Denver.

Yes, I am employed thank you very much. I make more than the people I went to school with in Loveland. I visit family in Colorado and see the front range and NE corner. Boulder in the late 70's was a short drive for street racing and weed.

I left Loveland because the entire front range is saturated with people. All the "pristine wilderness" is populated or under hiking boot attack. My last trip to Red Feather Lakes was an experience in avoiding people instead of fishing and photography.

edited to add:

The company I work for gets 40 foot containers of goods from our depot in Denver every month. If ANWR were to open, it could add 3-5 containers per month. Talk about a nice trickle down effect.

Hardknock · 03-24-2005, 12:46 AM

So what business are you in exactly?

Manx · 03-24-2005, 07:08 AM

Boo -

If you think the Colorado front range is crowded, you haven't lived on the coast in California or the cities in the East.

If you think Alaska is nicely uncrowded, the quickest way to change that is to add money incentives for moving there.

Careful what you ask for - you might just get it.

pattycakes · 03-26-2005, 09:48 PM

fuck i would have to start a farm in mybackyard so i dont have to pay such high prices

Kurant · 03-27-2005, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo

Actually it would probably add another $500+ per person to the PFD. Other effects could add up to a lot more money. Figure in occupational bonus', 401 K matching, and lessen the possibility of having a state tax. That (in my figures) could add up to over $5000 a year per wage earner per year. So if you want to call Alaskans greedy, so be it. Nothing "measly" about $5000 a year. What about the effect on industry in the lower 48. How many millions of dollars will come up on the barge? How many people from TX, OR, WA will fly up for the jobs and bring the money home to spend.

Before you knock someone making money from the resources in their state, look at the lower 48 and the reliance upon natural resources. Tell Arizona to stop mining, tell Colorado to stop exploring for natural gas, tell Mississippi to stop the offshore oil production, tell Florida to stop shrimping etc... etc.... . Animals live there too, lets be fair across the board.

IMO - It does not matter how much oil there is. Obviously there is enough for the oil companies to want to pursue it. Until testing is done we cannot make an informed decision. Estimates are just estimates.

Boo, I'm an Alaskan also.

First off, simply because there will be a "large' Influx of oil, you must realize does not effect your PFD. The money given to you in a PFD is investments the fund makes. The fund is invested 100% into the market, and what you get every year is not oil revenue. It's revenue from the investments the fund makes. You can dig around the .gov sites about the PFD and find that information if you want to look for it. You may be already aware of it, I don't know.

An influx of oil might affect the market in a positive manner, however, the repercussions of a huge oil in-flux and then nothing, will have serious econmical issues down the road in Alaska. I.E, the late 70's when people were renting hallways because apartments were so insansly priced.

Secondly, you live in Alaska. Where you live, I don't know. I live in Anchorage, I have a good job, I pay my taxes, you pay your taxes. You and I both know there will be a state tax, or a sales tax. ANWR has no effect on this, simply because our wonderful politicians in this state are as greedy as the rest. They WILL take the PFD at some point, they will also mandate a state or sales tax. You know that, I know that.

ANWR will open, at some point. There is nothing any of us can do about it. I'm rather optimistic about the enviromental impact there. I hunt on the Brooks Range for Caribou, I worked for BP In the early 90's during the layoffs. I didn't work up on the slope, but I have been there. The heards still come, the polar bears still thrive. The heards in the brooks range, you simply can't imagine how HUGE they are. I'm more worried about long term econmical impact after the influx or oil is over.

I'm still for drilling in ANWR.

questone · 04-21-2005, 06:54 PM

That isn't the right way to go about it. The way cali is doing it is right. They are imposing extra taxes on these polluting, low mileage behemoths.

F-18_Driver · 04-24-2005, 12:00 AM

I sure notice a lot of missing information, like the following. First the history:

Under ANILCA, much of the Refuge was designated as wilderness area, but NOT the coastal plain of ANWR. Rather, the Act set the coastal plain area aside for future consideration of the development of its vast oil resources. Current legislation calls for responsible development on no more than 2000 acres of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain. That's 0.01% of ANWR's total acreage of 19.6 million. The remaining 99.9% would remain off limits to development.

Plus (I wish I'd written this myself):

http://www.perspectives.com/forums/forum4/32472.html

Quote:

- Less than 2000 of the estimated 19 MILLION acres will be affected. 17.5 Million will remain closed to any kind of development.

- Revenues to the federal treasury for the first 5 years are estimated at 4.2 Billion Dollars.

- Economic impact between 1977 and 2004 of the North Shore oil field added over 50 Billion to the nations economy.

- The coastal plain of ANWR is the nations best chance for a major discovery.

- North Slope production has declined from 2 Million Barrels a day to 943,000 per day.

- More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production.

- New job creation is estimated at between 250,000 to 735,000 jobs.

- ANWR production estimated at between 1 Million to 2 Million barrels a day.

- Saudi Arabia has not discovered a major oil field in 30 years.

- The world oil producers are running at near capacity.

- Demand will continue to grow from developing countries, especially China.

- NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON WILDLIFE - the Central Arctic Caribou Herd which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown form 3000 animals to over 32,000 since the north shore development.

- Arctic technology has advanced dramatically - If Prudhoe Bay were built today it would have a 64% smaller footprint.

Given the national security considerations, the high price of gas and the instability of our oil supplies how can the democratic party be against development of ANWR?

The only solution the democratic party has given is to tap the Strategic Oil Reserve, Dem Charles Schumer. Brilliant long term solution by the democrat from New York. This was meant to shield us from disruption in supply, not to temporarily lower the price of gas which is still far below the 1981 price, (after being adjusted for inflation).

Once again we have bold leadership from the democratic party. Just like Social Security their answer is simple, do nothing, there's no immediate crisis!

It would go a long way toward convincing me otherwise if I saw Teddy Kennedy ride a bike to work, too.

F-18_Driver · 04-24-2005, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

As for your Alaska-needs-jobs explanation: I don't care. Don't have a job in Alaska? Move to another state and get a job. I live in Boulder, Colorado and although there are many things I disapprove of that the City does, one of those things is not their Open Space initiatives, which significantly limit new construction and new zoning. This excellent plan reduces over-population and maintains near-pristine wilderness. If I don't like it, I can move to Denver.

You get more interesting all the time. In the past, you've said, "Whites face discrimination? I don't care."

"The rich are being shafted? I don't care."

Now you don't care about Alaskans.

However, I'm sure you'd have a hissy fit if a Republican "didn't care" about the homeless, or gay midgets, or whatever cause you're espousing these days.

What, someone is homeless in California? Why don't they just move to Arkansas?

The only thing I can't figure out is whether or not you know your stance is hypocritical.

Locobot · 04-24-2005, 03:01 AM

Quote:

- Less than 2000 of the estimated 19 MILLION acres will be affected. 17.5 Million will remain closed to any kind of development.

these quantities mean nothing. I'm much more interested in what this "stat" means by "affected." Does this count the roads in and out or the number of people working and living on this "affected" land. I'm reminded of the last election map with the red and blue counties so often bantered about by the right, as if our democracy was based on the control of unpopulated stretches of land. I understand Americans are poor with geography, but seriously.

Quote:

- Revenues to the federal treasury for the first 5 years are estimated at 4.2 Billion Dollars.

Surely this must be tax revenue as we all know that this oil will be sold to the more profitable Chinese market to help build their industry. Interesting to see conservatives tout federal tax revenues as a positive.

Quote:

- Economic impact between 1977 and 2004 of the North Shore oil field added over 50 Billion to the nations economy.

Since 95% of the northern coast of Alaska is already available for drilling we can expect the impact of drilling in ANWR to be paltry in comparison.

Quote:

- The coastal plain of ANWR is the nations best chance for a major discovery.

Oh I can just feel the roulette wheel spinning right to our number! By all accounts it's foolhardy to expect some miracle buried in the soil of ANWR.

Quote:

- North Slope production has declined from 2 Million Barrels a day to 943,000 per day.

No clue what "north slope" refers to. Shouldn't this serve as warning as to how limited our oil resources are? Not a call for more expansive drilling, but one for technological innovation.

Quote:

- More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production.

ANWR stands for Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Each American is entitled to their share of our national parks and reserves upon birth. This decision is not one to be made by Alaskans only.

Quote:

- New job creation is estimated at between 250,000 to 735,000 jobs.

Wow an additional 735,000 people introduced to the area with relatively no environmental impact? Think of all the jobs we could create by clearcutting Yosemite! Lets dam the grand canyon! "More jobs" has been the calling card for virtually every environmental travesty in our nations history.

Quote:

- ANWR production estimated at between 1 Million to 2 Million barrels a day.

If this oil were destined for American consumption, which it's not, it would do little to meet the need for 20 million barrels per day

Quote:

- Saudi Arabia has not discovered a major oil field in 30 years.

Classic misdirection, completely irrelevant. Saudi Arabia still has much much more oil under their soil than the U.S.

Quote:

- The world oil producers are running at near capacity.

ANWR will be drops in the bucket.

Quote:

- Demand will continue to grow from developing countries, especially China.

I'm not sure of the wisdom of selling our natural resources to build the economy of China. Chinese industry has left the U.S. in the dust over the past 15 years. What is the end result? Better start offering Mandarin in the high schools.

Quote:

- NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON WILDLIFE - the Central Arctic Caribou Herd which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown form 3000 animals to over 32,000 since the north shore development.

Bullshit-o-meter is off the charts on this one. Are we supposed to believe that oil prospecting has a positive impact on wildlife? Look at the wonders it's done for Prince William sound...

Quote:

- Arctic technology has advanced dramatically - If Prudhoe Bay were built today it would have a 64% smaller footprint.

Okay that's actually a good thing. What would the footprint be if it weren't built at all?

Quote:

Given the national security considerations, the high price of gas and the instability of our oil supplies how can the democratic party be against development of ANWR?

Conservation is not solely a partisan issue. How can many Americans be opposed to oil prospecting in ANWR? Perhaps because it will do nothing to aleve our oil supply woes, will not change the price we pay for gas, and is not worth tampering with our largest patch of undisturbed wilderness so fatass fucks can continue to have the convenience of taking the SUV out for another solo midnight run to Taco Bell. Please let me know what "national security considerations" are caused by the continued inactivity of oil prospectors in ANWR, I'm at a loss there.

Quote:

The only solution the democratic party has given is to tap the Strategic Oil Reserve, Dem Charles Schumer. Brilliant long term solution by the democrat from New York. This was meant to shield us from disruption in supply, not to temporarily lower the price of gas which is still far below the 1981 price, (after being adjusted for inflation).
Once again we have bold leadership from the democratic party. Just like Social Security their answer is simple, do nothing, there's no immediate crisis!

I agree that Schumer's plan is just as short-sighted as ANWR drilling.

MoonDog · 04-24-2005, 04:32 PM

OK, I've read (ie - skimmed) this thread and am ready to weigh in!

As far as drilling in ANWR, I would normally say go for it, but I am not convinced that drilling there does anything to solve the current crisis, which I think many of us would agree is the soaring price of gasoline. And my erstwhile senior Senator from NY, Charles Schumer, offering up the National Strategic Reserve is just foolish. That won't do a thing either.

What I think we need to do is get NEW REFINERIES online ASAP. How we do it...incentives offerend through Bush's energyu bill, free market, government intervention...I don't care, just get it done. More refineries would be able to take any increase in supply, like oil from ANWR, and increase the amount of gasoline available in the US.

Of course, we'd have to trust Big Oil to not ship that gas offshore for sale in other countries. I seem to remember some news stories last year that brought just such practices to light. I may be a republican, but I don't trust Big Oil any farther than I can launch a stream of urine.

Regardless, the real issue is our dependence on oil. Just think of what will happen when oil REALLY become scarce. What will happen to the price of plastics and other products that are petroleum-based? That makes me nervous...

My city is in the middle of of a big brou-ha-ha on whether to build a new coal-generation electric plant, because ours is close to 50 years old. While I support the proposal, I would have much rather seen us float the idea of a pebble-bed nuclear facility. It wouldn't have been enough to replace what our needs were, but as I understand it, they are modular, and new reactors may be added to accommodate need.

If were President, I would whole-heartedly support a big research push into renewable energy sources...say $80 billion? I would also support research into these new nuclear energy reactors, and try to redeuce the red tape to encourage their construction in the US. Hell, doesn't Europe get a lot of their energy from nuke plants?

Of course, once I instituted these programs, you would find me dead in the Rose Garden, the knife in my back covered in fingerprints of Light Sweet Crude.

F-18_Driver · 04-30-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

these quantities mean nothing. I'm much more interested in what this "stat" means by "affected." Does this count the roads in and out or the number of people working and living on this "affected" land. I'm reminded of the last election map with the red and blue counties so often bantered about by the right, as if our democracy was based on the control of unpopulated stretches of land. I understand Americans are poor with geography, but seriously.

Okay, I'll phrase it differently. We're talking about using .01% of the ANWR. The agreement signed by Jimmy Carter permitted the use of much more in return for doubling the size of it in 1977.

Quote:

Surely this must be tax revenue as we all know that this oil will be sold to the more profitable Chinese market to help build their industry. Interesting to see conservatives tout federal tax revenues as a positive.

It would be helpful if you would justify your assertion that we're going to sell this oil to China.

Quote:

Oh I can just feel the roulette wheel spinning right to our number! By all accounts it's foolhardy to expect some miracle buried in the soil of ANWR.

Wouldn't it be easier just to say you don't understand geological surveys?

Quote:

No clue what "north slope" refers to. Shouldn't this serve as warning as to how limited our oil resources are? Not a call for more expansive drilling, but one for technological innovation.

If you're not familiar with the North Slope and Prudhoe Bay, the depth of your knowledge on the subject is highly suspect, as well.

Quote:

ANWR stands for Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Each American is entitled to their share of our national parks and reserves upon birth. This decision is not one to be made by Alaskans only.

The point is that Alaskans have been able to observe the results of oil drilling in their state, and 75% of them don't think it's too bad. Therefore, the decision shouldn't be made solely by pasty New York "environmentalists," either.

Quote:

Wow an additional 735,000 people introduced to the area with relatively no environmental impact? Think of all the jobs we could create by clearcutting Yosemite! Lets dam the grand canyon! "More jobs" has been the calling card for virtually every environmental travesty in our nations history.

Easy to say, as long as it's not YOUR job. But it might be, considering the influence the supply of oil has on our economy.

Oh, and comparing .01% of the ANWR to "clearcutting Yosemite" is exactly the kind of environmental extremism that works against your position.

Quote:

If this oil were destined for American consumption, which it's not, it would do little to meet the need for 20 million barrels per day

NO matter how many times you say it, it's still not true.

Quote:

- NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON WILDLIFE - the Central Arctic Caribou Herd which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown form 3000 animals to over 32,000 since the north shore development.

Bullshit-o-meter is off the charts on this one. Are we supposed to believe that oil prospecting has a positive impact on wildlife? Look at the wonders it's done for Prince William sound...

It was posted in the (forlorn) hope that you would UNDERSTAND that the dire predictions of wildlife being wiped out were, as you would say, "off the bullshit-o-meter charts."

By the way, oil prospecting had nothing to do with the damage to Prince William Sound. Your reasoning is like blaming American Airlines for 9/11.

Quote:

Given the national security considerations, the high price of gas and the instability of our oil supplies how can the democratic party be against development of ANWR?

Conservation is not solely a partisan issue. How can many Americans be opposed to oil prospecting in ANWR? Perhaps because it will do nothing to aleve our oil supply woes, will not change the price we pay for gas, and is not worth tampering with our largest patch of undisturbed wilderness so fatass fucks can continue to have the convenience of taking the SUV out for another solo midnight run to Taco Bell. Please let me know what "national security considerations" are caused by the continued inactivity of oil prospectors in ANWR, I'm at a loss there.

Perhaps someone with more patience than I would like to jump in now. The national security implications are so basic that it's annoying to be asked for them.

alansmithee · 04-30-2005, 02:51 PM

I'm in favor of drilling in ANWR, but I think two things should be attached to allowing it, namely that companies that want to pump oil out of there be forced to build more refineries and that more funds are given toward developing alternate energy sources. One of the gas price problems is that there's a huge bottleneck at the point of actually refining oil. Our oil supply isn't as low as prices would indicate, but there's not enough refining capacity. And I've slowly been being convinced about the importance of getting off using oil as our primary energy source. I think that if we were able to find other energy sources, it would greatly help develop more self-sufficiency and put America less at the will of OPEC.

piesen · 05-01-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

FYI:

It's called the PFD check. Permanent Fund Divident
Look it up, you'll see some stupid shit.

2002's check to every Alaskan was $1540.76

It also varies from year to year and everything in Alaska costs more than the lower 48 about a 1000 more every year so stop being envious.

I say this Drill and find oil and gas

Locobot · 05-03-2005, 08:58 AM

Re: National Security-an extra one million barrels per day found (hypothetically in ANWR) will not eliminate the need for the U.S. to import oil from volatile nations in South America and the Mid-East.

Hardknock · 05-03-2005, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

This is the second time that this has been asserted in this thread without anything to back it up.

Opinions are one thing, this is a major point of contention. One that cannot be taken seriously if it is merely uttered with no corraborating information whatsoever.

This is simple. We need oil. Like it or not, we need the stuff.

We don't need shit. We have the technology RIGHT NOW to completely convert from oil and we also have the ability to completely sustain ourselves from foreign sources of energy. Whether it's solar, wind, hydrogen, the list goes on. It's because that oil hungry bastard in the white house won't do anything about it because big oil is his main contributor. Plain and simple.

scout · 05-03-2005, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

We don't need shit. We have the technology RIGHT NOW to completely convert from oil and we also have the ability to completely sustain ourselves from foreign sources of energy. Whether it's solar, wind, hydrogen, the list goes on. It's because that oil hungry bastard in the white house won't do anything about it because big oil is his main contributor. Plain and simple.

Your right the technology is there for the most part the only drawback being cost. And I really don't think it would matter if Bush was in the Whitehouse or not we would still be depending on oil and we will be for a long while to come, once again due to cost of alternative fuels.

On another note, anyone else feel we was being held hostage over the ANWR crap. Did anyone else notice the minute the bill went through Congress that oil began to come down even though it has little to no effect on the present oil market? Don't you think it's rather odd we never had any issues with refining until the pressure was on and the ANWR bill was about to come up for a vote? I may be paranoid but I think we all got screwed on this deal.

Locobot · 05-05-2005, 10:02 AM

Of course we're being screwed. We're allowing private entities to reap a major profit from our public national resources. Even the pittance Alaskans might receive in wages or hush money will pale in comparison to big oil's profits.

When it comes to renewable energy sources and environmental destruction concepts of cost and value quickly become irrelevent. How much will global warming "cost?" What is the value of clean air and water?

I honestly see no difference between the plan to prospect in ANWR and suggestions to tap our strategic oil reserve. Isn't the hypothetical oil in ANWR also a strategic reserve?

How many jobs could be created be connecting our cities with highspeed rail lines? With the high cost of renewable energy comes high paying jobs to engineer and maintain those energy sources. We're only stuck with foreign oil as long as we elect leaders who see no alternatives.

Hardknock · 05-05-2005, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

Of course we're being screwed. We're allowing private entities to reap a major profit from our public national resources. Even the pittance Alaskans might receive in wages or hush money will pale in comparison to big oil's profits.

When it comes to renewable energy sources and environmental destruction concepts of cost and value quickly become irrelevent. How much will global warming "cost?" What is the value of clean air and water?

I honestly see no difference between the plan to prospect in ANWR and suggestions to tap our strategic oil reserve. Isn't the hypothetical oil in ANWR also a strategic reserve?

How many jobs could be created be connecting our cities with highspeed rail lines? With the high cost of renewable energy comes high paying jobs to engineer and maintain those energy sources. We're only stuck with foreign oil as long as we elect leaders who see no alternatives.

You're exactly right. Being a lifelong Alaskan, that dividend every year does pretty much amount up to "hush" money. "As long as I get my dividend check and it's fat, then the gov't can do whatever the hell they want" they always say every October. I'm sorry to say but I think that the majority of Alaskans are either stupid or weak, maybe both. No one wants to do anything to take us off this Saudi oil spigot. When the oil really runs out however, we'll all be screwed. One reason being that China wil pass us in pretty much everything economical while we're on our knees begging for energy, and the other is that it'l be very easy for China to become number one becasue our economy will already be at a screeching halt.

MoonDog · 05-06-2005, 04:11 PM

Ummm, I would think that if oil output diminishes, the Chinese economy will be pretty hard hit as well. Of course, they may well have much more in the way of nuclear plants, and therefore be better situated to handle such a development.

If not, however, I would think that they would not be able to maintain their 9% annual growth.

Telluride · 05-16-2005, 09:42 PM

Drill it, but I would also like to see a law put into place requiring all non-emergency/military/law enforcement government automobiles be powered by alternative fuel sources.

moosenose · 05-19-2005, 10:01 AM

spread that f***er's legs WIDE. We need that oil. And who gives a crap about a few thousand acres of popsickle? It's not like it's a mangrove swamp or something....

03-21-2005, 09:18 AM	#84 (permalink)
Ace_O_Spades The Death Card Location: EH!?!?	Sorry about no source... when something is quoted and quoted and cited and cited you just start to assume common knowledge sorry for the confusion, i'll edit my post __________________ Feh. Last edited by Ace_O_Spades; 03-21-2005 at 09:25 AM..

03-23-2005, 07:39 PM	#93 (permalink)
FishKing Tilted	[QUOTE=Boo] Actually it would probably add another $500+ per person to the PFD. Other effects could add up to a lot more money. Figure in occupational bonus', 401 K matching, and lessen the possibility of having a state tax. That (in my figures) could add up to over $5000 a year per wage earner per year. So if you want to call Alaskans greedy, so be it. Nothing "measly" about $5000 a year. What about the effect on industry in the lower 48. How many millions of dollars will come up on the barge? How many people from TX, OR, WA will fly up for the jobs and bring the money home to spend. Look at Texas and the rest of the lower 48 who produce oil. You can buy land cheap but you do not own the mineral rights. The oil companies come on your land, set up shop and drill until MOMMA has all the jewelry she needs then they shut down operations leaving the owner with a mess...My in-laws live in Texas and hate that. Sales taxes in Texas are how much? About 8-14 percent depends on what county and city taxes are added. We in Alaska enjoy a good life style and would like for the rest of the lower 48 to clean up their back yard before judging us. Yes it is true we have no sales tax, and get a check from the PFD. Don’t be an Alaskan hater just because we have it better. BOO, I am on your side 100% on this one....Thanks brother Last edited by FishKing; 03-23-2005 at 07:42 PM..

05-16-2005, 09:42 PM	#119 (permalink)
Telluride Browncoat Location: California	Drill it, but I would also like to see a law put into place requiring all non-emergency/military/law enforcement government automobiles be powered by alternative fuel sources. __________________ "I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

03-21-2005, 10:23 AM	#87 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	KMA, I agree we need to be self-sufficient, but aren't we just delaying the inevitable? We still need to find alternative source etc. Meanwhile, it wouldn't hurt to conserve a little wouldn't it? As a conservative myself, I already have good habits of conservation and not being wasteful. I think we all could. What's the harm? SOunds like a win-win to me. I would also support the safe nuclear option too (although admittedly, I have a little bit of NIMBY syndrome).

03-21-2005, 10:51 AM	#88 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	According to this biodeisel website, Biodieselers using waste oil feedstock say they can make biodiesel for 60 cents US per gallon or less. Most people use about 600 gallons of fuel a year (about 10 gallons a week) -- say US$360 a year. For those who don't know, biodiesel is an interesting alternative to dino-oil (the stuff we're killing people over). While you need to process it, it's as trouble free as diesel, won't corrode your engine like pure veggie oil, and needs no engine change. It's a combination of oil (fresh, virgin, uncooked), methanol (the main or only ingredient in barbecue fuel or fondue fuel, sold in supermarkets and chain stores as "stove fuel"), and (sold in supermarkets and hardware stores as a drain-cleaner, there's probably a can of it under the sink in most households). Vegetable oils and animal fats are triglycerides, containing glycerine. The biodiesel process turns the oils into esters, separating out the glycerine. The glycerine sinks to the bottom and the biodiesel floats on top and can be syphoned off. The process is called transesterification, which substitutes alcohol for the glycerine in a chemical reaction, using lye as a catalyst. We use methanol to make methyl esters. We'd rather use ethanol because most methanol comes from fossil fuels (though it can also be made from biomass, such as wood), while ethanol is plant-based and you can distill it yourself, but the biodiesel process is more complicated with ethanol. (See Ethyl esters.) Ethanol (or ethyl alcohol, grain alcohol -- EtOH, C2H5OH) also goes by various other well-known names, such as whisky, vodka, gin, and so on, but methanol is a deadly poison: first it blinds you, then it kills you, and it doesn't take very much of it. It takes a couple of hours, and if you can get treatment fast enough you might survive. (But don't be put off -- it's easy to do this safely. Safety is built-in to everything you'll read here.) Methanol is also called methyl alcohol, wood alcohol, wood naphtha, wood spirits, methyl hydrate (or "stove fuel"), carbinol, colonial spirits, Columbian spirits, Manhattan spirits, methylol, methyl hydroxide, hydroxymethane, monohydroxymethane, pyroxylic spirit, or MeOH (CH3OH or CH4O) -- all the same thing. (But, confusingly, "methylcarbinol" or "methyl carbinol" is used for both methanol and ethanol.) In the US you can usually get it at race tracks. Methylated spirits (denatured alcohol) doesn't work; isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) also doesn't work. The lye catalyst can be either sodium hydroxide (caustic soda, NaOH) or potassium hydroxide (KOH), which is easier to use, and it can provide a potash fertilizer as a by-product. Sodium hydroxide is often easier to get and it's cheaper to use. If you use potassium hydroxide, the process is the same, but you need to use 1.4 times as much. (See More about lye.) You can get KOH from soapmakers' suppliers and from chemicals suppliers. Other chemicals, such as isopropyl alcohol (isopropanol) for titration, are available from chemicals suppliers. You don't have to convert the engine to run it on biodiesel, but you do need to make some adjustments and check a few things. Retard the injection timing by 2-3 degrees -- this overcomes the effect of biodiesel's higher cetane number. It also causes the fuel to burn cooler, thus reducing NOx emissions. Petro-diesel leaves a lot of dirt in the tank and the fuel system. Biodiesel is a good solvent -- it tends to free the dirt and clean it out. Be sure to check the fuel filters regularly at first. Start off with a new fuel filter. Check there are no natural rubber parts in the fuel system. If there are, replace them. Viton is best. We might not have to drill anywhere (like Alaska) if we can start to shift the market to biodeisel, AS WE CAN ACTUALLY GROW VEGETABLES FOR FUEL. Any country able to grow produce should be able to start upping production, as the money from the oil industry shifts over to agriculture.

03-23-2005, 08:59 PM	#94 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Oil is finite. Becuasse oil is finite, we need to eventually make plans to replace it. Oil production has been on a consistant rising trend. That means our finite oil is becoming more rare as each year passes. Eventually, we will hit peak oil production. This means there is no where to go but down as far as oil production on Earth, barring a mass extinction, and unnaturalally fast fossilization (we'll call that improbable enought to leave it from the discussion). Eventually, we cannot rely on oil as we do now. There is a war about oil. People are being sent to secure nations that produce oil. People die in wars, including the war for oil. There are three options with Peak Oil. The first option is to ignore it. The second option is to fight to the last drop (what we are doing so far). The third option is to find alternatives. In other words, drilling in Alaska is a wonderful way to not deal with the problem. It is not an answer to prayers, but a bit more oil we spend now instead of getting later, or not getting at all. If we drill there and are able to extrace 100% of the oil, all that does is buy us a little time.

03-23-2005, 10:03 PM	#95 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	will, you are wasting your breath. I mention that "all the time" (about ten posts up or so and in other threads) but people consistently miss or ignore that perspective. I guess we'll all pay for that myopia somehow. I think KMA and someone else did suggest nuclear as an option they would support but that never got mentioned again either. We need to stimulate debate for good energy policy - resources/renewable resources/alternative resources etc. It always seems to get lost in either partisan bickering or people just don't want to engage in it. ponder

03-23-2005, 10:31 PM	#96 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	I agree with the Onion that if we follow the "oil as addiction" metaphor then ANWR is the point at which we pawn our wedding ring for a weekend in Vegas. The fact is that 95% of Alaska's Northern coast is already available for oil drilling. ANWR will not impact in any substancial way our unsustainable dependance on oil as fuel source. Alaskans' support for drilling in ANWR has been bought with yearly checks from the government. Although I'd like to see what would happen if those checks were printed side-by-side with the profits oil executives are making off of the people's natural resources. The argument that we need to drill in ANWR in order to sustain our more rugged gas-guzzling vehicles is as specious as Kurant's "I've killed animals there for years..." argument. Exceptions in our fuel-economy laws were made for utility vehicles, but since then we've seen them used primarily as passenger cars. To future generations our attachment to SUVs and other low-efficiency vehicles will seem as ludicrous as the ancient Maya cutting down their forests in order to re-plaster their buildings every year.

03-24-2005, 12:46 AM	#101 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	So what business are you in exactly?

03-24-2005, 07:08 AM	#102 (permalink)
Manx Loser	Boo - If you think the Colorado front range is crowded, you haven't lived on the coast in California or the cities in the East. If you think Alaska is nicely uncrowded, the quickest way to change that is to add money incentives for moving there. Careful what you ask for - you might just get it.

04-21-2005, 06:54 PM	#105 (permalink)
questone Crazy	That isn't the right way to go about it. The way cali is doing it is right. They are imposing extra taxes on these polluting, low mileage behemoths.

04-24-2005, 04:32 PM	#109 (permalink)
MoonDog Psycho Location: Buffalo, New York	OK, I've read (ie - skimmed) this thread and am ready to weigh in! As far as drilling in ANWR, I would normally say go for it, but I am not convinced that drilling there does anything to solve the current crisis, which I think many of us would agree is the soaring price of gasoline. And my erstwhile senior Senator from NY, Charles Schumer, offering up the National Strategic Reserve is just foolish. That won't do a thing either. What I think we need to do is get NEW REFINERIES online ASAP. How we do it...incentives offerend through Bush's energyu bill, free market, government intervention...I don't care, just get it done. More refineries would be able to take any increase in supply, like oil from ANWR, and increase the amount of gasoline available in the US. Of course, we'd have to trust Big Oil to not ship that gas offshore for sale in other countries. I seem to remember some news stories last year that brought just such practices to light. I may be a republican, but I don't trust Big Oil any farther than I can launch a stream of urine. Regardless, the real issue is our dependence on oil. Just think of what will happen when oil REALLY become scarce. What will happen to the price of plastics and other products that are petroleum-based? That makes me nervous... My city is in the middle of of a big brou-ha-ha on whether to build a new coal-generation electric plant, because ours is close to 50 years old. While I support the proposal, I would have much rather seen us float the idea of a pebble-bed nuclear facility. It wouldn't have been enough to replace what our needs were, but as I understand it, they are modular, and new reactors may be added to accommodate need. If were President, I would whole-heartedly support a big research push into renewable energy sources...say $80 billion? I would also support research into these new nuclear energy reactors, and try to redeuce the red tape to encourage their construction in the US. Hell, doesn't Europe get a lot of their energy from nuke plants? Of course, once I instituted these programs, you would find me dead in the Rose Garden, the knife in my back covered in fingerprints of Light Sweet Crude.

04-30-2005, 02:51 PM	#111 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	I'm in favor of drilling in ANWR, but I think two things should be attached to allowing it, namely that companies that want to pump oil out of there be forced to build more refineries and that more funds are given toward developing alternate energy sources. One of the gas price problems is that there's a huge bottleneck at the point of actually refining oil. Our oil supply isn't as low as prices would indicate, but there's not enough refining capacity. And I've slowly been being convinced about the importance of getting off using oil as our primary energy source. I think that if we were able to find other energy sources, it would greatly help develop more self-sufficiency and put America less at the will of OPEC.

05-03-2005, 08:58 AM	#113 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Re: National Security-an extra one million barrels per day found (hypothetically in ANWR) will not eliminate the need for the U.S. to import oil from volatile nations in South America and the Mid-East.

05-05-2005, 10:02 AM	#116 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Of course we're being screwed. We're allowing private entities to reap a major profit from our public national resources. Even the pittance Alaskans might receive in wages or hush money will pale in comparison to big oil's profits. When it comes to renewable energy sources and environmental destruction concepts of cost and value quickly become irrelevent. How much will global warming "cost?" What is the value of clean air and water? I honestly see no difference between the plan to prospect in ANWR and suggestions to tap our strategic oil reserve. Isn't the hypothetical oil in ANWR also a strategic reserve? How many jobs could be created be connecting our cities with highspeed rail lines? With the high cost of renewable energy comes high paying jobs to engineer and maintain those energy sources. We're only stuck with foreign oil as long as we elect leaders who see no alternatives.

05-06-2005, 04:11 PM	#118 (permalink)
MoonDog Psycho Location: Buffalo, New York	Ummm, I would think that if oil output diminishes, the Chinese economy will be pretty hard hit as well. Of course, they may well have much more in the way of nuclear plants, and therefore be better situated to handle such a development. If not, however, I would think that they would not be able to maintain their 9% annual growth.

05-19-2005, 10:01 AM	#120 (permalink)
moosenose Banned	spread that f***er's legs WIDE. We need that oil. And who gives a crap about a few thousand acres of popsickle? It's not like it's a mangrove swamp or something....