I just wanted some perspective on this issue: http://www.msnbc.com/news/739403.asp#vote The Senate just defeated the proposal to open up parts of Alaska for oil drilling---on the one hand, I empathize with environmental concerns regarding wildlife around the area, but this quote Drilling proponent Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, assailed “the defeatist attitude of the Democratic Party,” which he said had resigned itself to ever-increasing American dependence on imported oil. “We’ve closed all the coastlines of the United States to oil and gas exploration except for a little bit in Alaska ... (and) the federal lands, because of the demands of the Sierra Club and other radical environmental organizations, are almost closed to oil and gas leasing,” Stevens told the Senate Thursday. is surprising to me. If we opened up US lands to drilling, will we become less dependent on ME oil and thus remove ourselves from the various political entanglements arising from that region? Moreover, I thought the entire Gulf of Mexico, Perminan Basin in West Texas, parts of Colorado and California were open to oil and gas exploration and production companies? What are the issues surrounding this bill?
Truth be told, ANWAR doesn't represent much of a help to our overall dependance on foreign oil. An LA Times article recently pointed out that the oil companies have been mostly silent in this debate because they are content to search for oil in other locations. They feel like the cost of drilling in ANWAR would far outweigh the profit. Besides, if the politicians who supported drilling there were really mostly concerned with our dependence on oil in foreign lands, they would have: 1. Addressed this long before the Gulf War. 2. Increased the fuel efficiency standards on automobiles and heaters which, even by conservative standards, could decrease our need for oil by as much as two-thirds. 3. Put more than 6 percent annually into the budget for expoloration of alternate forms of energy. The farm lobby as well as a number of other groups have been pushing for reforms that would allow them funding to work on promising alternate energy options but they have been largely ignored for nearly 20 years. The point is that there are a MYRIAD of options available to us outside of ANWAR. What this has become is a symbolic battle of those who support the energy industry versus environmentalists. Problem is, even the energy industry doesn't care much about drilling there, so why all the fuss?
I've been told that we currently drill tons of oil in Alaska, but that there's no easy way to get it down to the mainland, so they just keep pumping it in circles until they find a cost-effective solution to that. I'm not sure where I heard this, but it's ridiculous if true (also doesn't make sense as that seems quite expensive for no reason).
Just looking, I wanted to address these: No. Most estimates suggest ANWAR wouldn't produce oil for 10 years and then would only produce enough oil to power the state of California for about six months. They are. The coastline he was most likely talking about was the California coastline and parts of New England that are off limits. However, most geophysicists think that the California coastline is far too unstable for drilling and New England presnents a host of problems due to factors like rocky bottoms of the ocean that make drilling very difficult. Mostly, this is about the unwillingness to alter fuel efficiency standards and hurt the bottom lines of energy companies. By the way, I have a relative who is one of the top geophysicists for a major oil and gas company and he told me recently that they could care less about ANWAR. He said it is much cheaper (he's the one that actually scouts their land for drilling) to go to lands in foreign countries and lease the drilling rights from them because they do it for less and are already willing to do it.
That is true, which is why they wouldn't be able to pump oil from that region for 10 years. The same relative I mentioned above said to me that he didn't know why we kept going back to Alaska for oil. It's too damn expensive.
funny how they're not pushing any alternative energy methods either.. hydrogen, solar, etc... why? because it would hurt and not benefit the oil industry... it's all about oil
Didn't anybody else think it was suspicious when that multi year study by scientist for the Department of the Interior showed that drilling would hurt the local Caribou and the environment, then days later a new study was released with favorable results? Bush keeps a tight leash on Gale A. Norton in my opinion. Anyways, my thoughts on the whole situation is that it's definately time that the govt, oil companies, and auto makers start looking to improve effeciency and develope an alternative energy source. I did a year long project for an environmental science class on alternative energy, and I felt from what I have read that Hydrogen is the way to go. I'm not a scientist or anything, but I do know Hydgrogen is very abundent, it's renewable, and as a fuel it burns cleanly. I know at this years big Detroit auto show, some hydrogen powered concept cars were displayed and I heard that maybe in 10 years we could have the infrastructure to switch to it. The only con, and it's a big one, is the transportation of it and it's on the expansive side compared to gasoline.
You are exactly 100% correct. ANWAR is a political ploy, as is the argument that we need to be "energy independent". Does anyone know how much of our oil is imported from Saudi Arabia? 8 freaking percent. That's all. Know how much of our oil comes from the Western Hemisphere? About 55%. Our newfound friends in Russia are now firmly entrenched as the world's #2 oil producer, Norway is 3rd, Mexico & Venezuela (if Chavez doesn't screw things up too bad) have been hotbeds of production over the last decade or so. The new frontier in oil exploration is the deep water Gulf of Mexico (home to one of the 3 largest oil/natural gas reserves in the world); the new technology we've developed, allowing us to drill for oil 5 miles below the surface, is truly amazing.
I found this http://www.theglobalist.com/nor/quiz/2000/03-31-00.shtml but I would still be interested in a link that gives more detail on our oil imports...if anyone knows where I can find this ?
Thanks for the info. So does this all boil down to the fact that the oil lobby is stronger than all their opposition?
"If drilling kills off the refuge's indigenous wildlife, that'll give us a nice head start on the next generation of fossil fuels." haha nice one "We might as well use that oil. If we don't, our children will." WTF greedy ho
well i just did an environmental impace study on drilling in anwr. now i can't really say that makes me any kind of authority on it considering all i used was web info and that **** is as biased (on both sides) as hell. basically, they think there might be 10 billion barrels of oil there (or the amount saudi arabia gives us for 30 years), but that's the high side. of course the democrats say there is like 1 billion barrels. with technology, oil companies would only cover about 2000 acres of land (ANWR is 19 million acres and 17.5 million is already set aside as wilderness, the drilling can only occur in the 1.5 million coastal area) and sometimes they can use ice roads and ice rigs that simply melt away. also, at prudhoe bay (our largest oil field) the caribou population has been climbing ever since drilling started there 30 years ago so it can't be said drilling would definitely harm wildlife. however, i'm not exactly sure if the 2000 acres can be held to and there's still no certainty that spills won't occur, although they haven't really at prudhoe. the local inupiat native americans are for drilling b/c this means big time money for them and jobs and infrastructure and the fact a lot of them live in poor conditions make them more apt to favor this. most alaskans also favor drilling, i would assume for the same reasons. the stuff about the oil not getting here for 10 years seems to be true. the trans-alaskan pipeline is the only transportation method for oil and it can only hold so much. never read about pumping it in circles. also, we import 58% of our oil and i don't think they said even the high estimates of oil in ANWR could bring the number under 50. basically, ANWR isn't a massive amount of oil in the grand scheme of things (but it isn't a drop in the bucket) but there is also no reason to say drilling will hurt the environment too bad (its pretty much just ice in the northeast corner of alaska). i went with they should allow the drilling, but not during the summer when the caribou and polar bears pass through, mate, etc. basically, if the oil companies can afford it, i don't see why we should not let them drill; however, its not the solution to any major oil problems and better efficiency, alternative sources, etc is still the long term way to go.
also, if efficiency and alternative sources don't help enough, how does mr. penguin just want us to just get by with less. just tell americans to not drive as much or to just do without in certain occasions? how exactly do we go about getting people to do that. like the other guy said, suv's till i die is pretty much our motto, how are you just gonna change that. with laws? maybe i just don't get it or maybe it's just 4:30 and i should be sleeping.
The key argument, however, being made by those who want drilling is that we need to reduce our reliance on foreign oil so we can protect ourselves in the long run. If that were really true, there should be an equal amount of reaseach put into new oil sources, reduction in dependance on oil/coal as a means of energy and an increase in fuel efficiency standards. As it stands, only a very small percentage of energy funding is directed towards alternate sources of fuel and the fuel efficiency standards are FAR below what is possible with current technology. In addition, it isn't just a question of the environment here. Consumer groups are screaming for new standards as well because it will mean better mpg ratings on automobiles. Imagine getting 60 or 70 mpg in your SUV, let alone an economy compact. The problem is that everyone is using the "we need to get it ourselves" as the argument, but they aren't doing everything necessary to make that a reality. Even if we continued our rate of consuption, we could wipe out our foreign dependance on oil AND preserve ANWAR if we combined oil and coal with increased fuel efficiency standards and alternate sources of energy, but we aren't so, there has to be some other reason for politicians wanting to drill in ANWAR, particularly given the fact that oil companies are reluctant to drill there.
I like the explanation that was on the Daily Show a couple of episodes back. Apparently, Bush watched the movie Goonies and he believes that there is buried treasure at ANWAR in an area he calls "Tierra de Fuego." As off the wall a joke as it was supposed to be, what other reason could there be for him wanting to drill there so bad?
