03-21-2005, 07:41 AM | #81 (permalink) | |
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
Quote:
|
|
03-21-2005, 09:02 AM | #82 (permalink) | ||
The Death Card
Location: EH!?!?
|
Quote:
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:
__________________
Feh. Last edited by Ace_O_Spades; 03-21-2005 at 09:26 AM.. |
||
03-21-2005, 09:12 AM | #83 (permalink) | |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot. |
|
03-21-2005, 09:18 AM | #84 (permalink) |
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.. |
03-21-2005, 09:26 AM | #85 (permalink) | |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot. |
|
03-21-2005, 09:29 AM | #86 (permalink) | |||
Loser
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||
03-21-2005, 10:23 AM | #87 (permalink) |
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) |
... 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, 12:25 PM | #89 (permalink) | ||
Rail Baron
Location: Tallyfla
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser |
||
03-23-2005, 12:36 PM | #90 (permalink) | |
Republican slayer
Location: WA
|
Quote:
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? |
|
03-23-2005, 12:50 PM | #91 (permalink) | |
Republican slayer
Location: WA
|
Quote:
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. |
|
03-23-2005, 06:56 PM | #92 (permalink) | |
Leave me alone!
Location: Alaska, USA
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old. |
|
03-23-2005, 07:39 PM | #93 (permalink) |
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.. |
03-23-2005, 08:59 PM | #94 (permalink) |
... 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) |
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) |
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. |
03-23-2005, 10:33 PM | #97 (permalink) | |
Leave me alone!
Location: Alaska, USA
|
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:
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.
__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old. |
|
03-23-2005, 10:48 PM | #98 (permalink) | ||
is awesome!
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
03-23-2005, 10:54 PM | #99 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Manx; 03-23-2005 at 10:57 PM.. |
|
03-23-2005, 11:08 PM | #100 (permalink) | |
Leave me alone!
Location: Alaska, USA
|
People will not take the oil situation seriously until forced. Thats just the way it is.
Quote:
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.
__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old. Last edited by Boo; 03-23-2005 at 11:21 PM.. |
|
03-24-2005, 07:08 AM | #102 (permalink) |
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. |
03-26-2005, 09:48 PM | #103 (permalink) | |
Insane
Location: bangor pa
|
fuck i would have to start a farm in mybackyard so i dont have to pay such high prices
__________________
Quote:
|
|
03-27-2005, 09:05 AM | #104 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Don't worry about it.
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Kurant; 03-27-2005 at 09:17 AM.. |
|
04-24-2005, 12:00 AM | #106 (permalink) | |
Loser
Location: Check your six.
|
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:
|
|
04-24-2005, 12:09 AM | #107 (permalink) | |
Loser
Location: Check your six.
|
Quote:
"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. |
|
04-24-2005, 03:01 AM | #108 (permalink) | |||||||||||||||
is awesome!
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Locobot; 04-24-2005 at 03:12 AM.. |
|||||||||||||||
04-24-2005, 04:32 PM | #109 (permalink) |
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, 02:23 PM | #110 (permalink) | |||||||||
Loser
Location: Check your six.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Oh, and comparing .01% of the ANWR to "clearcutting Yosemite" is exactly the kind of environmental extremism that works against your position. Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
|||||||||
04-30-2005, 02:51 PM | #111 (permalink) |
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.
|
05-01-2005, 12:44 PM | #112 (permalink) | |
Banned
Location: WA
|
Quote:
I say this Drill and find oil and gas |
|
05-03-2005, 10:11 AM | #114 (permalink) | |
Republican slayer
Location: WA
|
Quote:
|
|
05-03-2005, 03:51 PM | #115 (permalink) | |
Psycho
|
Quote:
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. |
|
05-05-2005, 10:02 AM | #116 (permalink) |
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. |
05-05-2005, 12:22 PM | #117 (permalink) | |
Republican slayer
Location: WA
|
Quote:
|
|
05-06-2005, 04:11 PM | #118 (permalink) |
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. |
05-16-2005, 09:42 PM | #119 (permalink) |
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 |
Tags |
anwr, drill |
|
|