another ANWR attempt, this time it might work

[alphamale]

MAkes sense doesn't it? However that's not what happens. Apparently after "industrial sabatoge" events in the past energy companies do not hire local Alaskans. In particular they do not hire indiginous Alaskans.

Alaska gets tremendous royalties from the oil, and sends checks to all alaska residents every year, without their having to move a muscle. (Yaaaaaawn)

 

[Captain America]

This is bullshiit.

No argument from me. I think it's BS too. But that's what the oil barons told the Senators. I don't matter what we produce here. It will cost consumers the same as if we bought it from anywhere else in the world. Why? Because they can. That was their explaination. Most of the Senators approached the hearing defending the oil industry. "The last I checked, there was no crime, here in America, in a company making a profit." You could almost tell what Senators were in the oil industry's pockets just by their patronizing questioning.

But Senator Kohl grilled them pretty hard just using common sense.

 

[jfuh]

Alaska gets tremendous royalties from the oil, and sends checks to all alaska residents every year, without their having to move a muscle. (Yaaaaaawn)

Oh well then that just makes drilling in a wildlife refuge perfectly alright. Hell let's open up Olympic national park and Channel island national park while we're at it and get some abalone. Screw extinction or ruining the wilderness. Just take as much as you want.

 

[Kandahar]

Is that why all those people gathered at the airport in protest when GOP members went to "observe"?

It seems I have to say this at least once a week on this forum: The number of people protesting in front of TV cameras is NOT indicative of general public opinion. Public opinion polls are much better at determining that. And polls show that Alaskans overwhelmingly support the drilling.

 

[alphamale]

Oh well then that just makes drilling in a wildlife refuge perfectly alright. Hell let's open up Olympic national park and Channel island national park while we're at it and get some abalone. Screw extinction or ruining the wilderness. Just take as much as you want.

The oil drilling would take up about 0.02% of the ANWR reserve. Are you old enough to remember all the tree-hugger hysteria about how the alaska pipeline was going to cause disaster, screw up the migrating moose herds, etc etc? Never happened, but here we go again! :lol:

 

[Captain America]

Oh well then that just makes drilling in a wildlife refuge perfectly alright. Hell let's open up Olympic national park and Channel island national park while we're at it and get some abalone. Screw extinction or ruining the wilderness. Just take as much as you want.

hey man, I have been called a tree hugger by the best but I worked in the oil patch for over a decade in drilling, exploration, well completion and workover.

In the few weeks or months it takes to punch a hole and bring a well in, the jobsite (approx 5 to 10 acres) is a total wreck. But after the well is brought in and capped, the site is cleaned up in a matter of days under strict EPA guidelines. In a matter of months, if not weeks, the site is back to normal with a nicely painted well head in place. In the end, the area consumed is usually no bigger than a 20X20 foot patch of pretty green grass.

I would be the first to whine if I thought the ecological risk outweighed the benefit. I'm about as liberal as a conservative fella can be.:rofl

Trust me on this one. it's all good. Don't worry. Be happy.:2wave:

 

[Kandahar]

Oh well then that just makes drilling in a wildlife refuge perfectly alright.

It shouldn't have ever been made into a wildlife refuge in the first place. Have you ever seen pictures of it? It's not what I'd call picturesque. In fact, it's a barren wasteland.

Hell let's open up Olympic national park and Channel island national park while we're at it and get some abalone.

Except no one ever visits ANWR for the beauty, and for good reason.

Screw extinction or ruining the wilderness. Just take as much as you want.

Drilling techniques are not as environmentally harmful as they used to be. Some caribou would have to make a slight detour around the oil fields...I think that's an acceptable cost.

 

[RightinNYC]

ANWR will not affect gas prices.
It will take around a decade for the oitl to start flowing once the project gets a green light. Then it will supply about 4% of what the US uses each day.

It really only benefits folks who will make money off the drilling.
Ordinary Americans will get no benefit from it.

And you don't think that a displacement of 4% of oil prices is significant?

Mean estimate places ANWR's reserves at roughly 10 billion barrels of oil. At today's prices of 60 dollars a barrel, that's $600,000,000,000. That's a nice chunk of change.

And why does the fact that it will take nearly a decade to get the oil out keep coming up as a negative? It's a pretty poor way to think about the future. Increasing public school funding will help these kids go out and get jobs, but that will take a few decades to show fruit, so why bother? SS is going to start having a deficit in 2017, but why make any efforts to fix it until then? So Muslim extremists bombed the WTC in 1993, there is no evidence that they're going to do anything again soon, so why worry about it now?

10 years from now, oil will almost certainly be above $100 a barrel. That's over a Trillion dollars worth of oil in ANWR. Speaks for itself.

 

[jfuh]

It shouldn't have ever been made into a wildlife refuge in the first place. Have you ever seen pictures of it? It's not what I'd call picturesque. In fact, it's a barren wasteland.

Except no one ever visits ANWR for the beauty, and for good reason.

Drilling techniques are not as environmentally harmful as they used to be. Some caribou would have to make a slight detour around the oil fields...I think that's an acceptable cost.

Fact is, there's just not that much up there for all the trouble.
FAct is it is the oil companies that want to make this profit we don't get to see a single penny.
Fact is, there's more harm then good on this call.

 

[jfuh]

And you don't think that a displacement of 4% of oil prices is significant?

4% of $3/gal. a couple pennies at most. Damage to area? priceless.

Mean estimate places ANWR's reserves at roughly 10 billion barrels of oil. At today's prices of 60 dollars a barrel, that's $600,000,000,000. That's a nice chunk of change.

Nice chunk of change for who?

And why does the fact that it will take nearly a decade to get the oil out keep coming up as a negative? It's a pretty poor way to think about the future. Increasing public school funding will help these kids go out and get jobs, but that will take a few decades to show fruit, so why bother? SS is going to start having a deficit in 2017, but why make any efforts to fix it until then? So Muslim extremists bombed the WTC in 1993, there is no evidence that they're going to do anything again soon, so why worry about it now?

Simple, big oil and thier purchased congressman make it sound like effect will happen immediately.
Also the damage to the tundra is irreversable.
Next what about this state of the union address of alternatives? Sounds more and more like the typical lies of this administration.

10 years from now, oil will almost certainly be above $100 a barrel. That's over a Trillion dollars worth of oil in ANWR. Speaks for itself.

yep, and not a penny into my pocket.

 

[Kandahar]

Fact is, there's just not that much up there for all the trouble.

This wouldn't cause very much trouble at all, and the people who would be most affected by it overwhelmingly support the drilling.

FAct is it is the oil companies that want to make this profit we don't get to see a single penny.

The US government wouldn't be letting them drill there for free, nor would the oil pump itself...

Fact is, there's more harm then good on this call.

No, that's not a fact. That's a completely subjective opinion...and a baseless one at that.

 

[alphamale]

Wax outta everyone's ears? Good. Once again:

1. Oil which is required to be sold only in the U.S. WILL lower U.S. gas prices.

2. The environmental harm claims are totally without merit.

3. The oil will CERTAINLY reduce america's trade deficit by 1/3 trillion dollars.

 

[jfuh]

hey man, I have been called a tree hugger by the best but I worked in the oil patch for over a decade in drilling, exploration, well completion and workover.

In the few weeks or months it takes to punch a hole and bring a well in, the jobsite (approx 5 to 10 acres) is a total wreck. But after the well is brought in and capped, the site is cleaned up in a matter of days under strict EPA guidelines. In a matter of months, if not weeks, the site is back to normal with a nicely painted well head in place. In the end, the area consumed is usually no bigger than a 20X20 foot patch of pretty green grass.

I would be the first to whine if I thought the ecological risk outweighed the benefit. I'm about as liberal as a conservative fella can be.:rofl

Trust me on this one. it's all good. Don't worry. Be happy.:2wave:

I'm not going to argue for a single moment that techniques today are much better. However you also have to build supply routes and so on that are not just a 20x20 patch.
Next green grass does not grow in the arctic tundra.
And no, the cost does not out weigh the benefits. Just a couple days ago workers found an oil spill that went undetected for 5 days up in Alaska. How much are you willing to risk for such a spill in a wildlife refuge? The costs are not worth it.

 

[RightinNYC]

Fact is, there's just not that much up there for all the trouble.
FAct is it is the oil companies that want to make this profit we don't get to see a single penny.
Fact is, there's more harm then good on this call.

Uh, those are all opinions.

First off, 10 billion barrels is a SHITload of oil.

Secondly, the hundreds of thousands of people who will be employed there will probably enjoy it, as will the millions of people who will benefit from the economic growth, and the entire country which will benefit from lowering our trade deficit. Econ 101.

Thirdly, thats subjective.

 

[jfuh]

The US government wouldn't be letting them drill there for free, nor would the oil pump itself...

Like it is in saying to hell with collecting royalties? As long as the industry is profitable?

No, that's not a fact. That's a completely subjective opinion...and a baseless one at that.

No, Exxon Valdez is not a subjective opinion. Nor is the oilspill that happened just over this weekend also up in Alaska that went undetected for 5 days.

 

[RightinNYC]

4% of $3/gal. a couple pennies at most. Damage to area? priceless.

Nice chunk of change for who?

Simple, big oil and thier purchased congressman make it sound like effect will happen immediately.
Also the damage to the tundra is irreversable.
Next what about this state of the union address of alternatives? Sounds more and more like the typical lies of this administration.


yep, and not a penny into my pocket.

Couple questions

1) Do you understand how big Alaska is? Do you understand how big ANWR is? Do you understand how big the area of proposed drilling is?

2) Do you understand that if the US economy were to produce a T(with a t)rillion dollars worth of any product rather than purchasing it from overseas, it would have a significant impact on our country's economy? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people who would get employment for it.

3) Let's do a little imagination. Let's pretend that it were set up so that ANWR could be drilled, and all the billions and billions of profits were to go directly to something that you personally value in gov, be it Social Security, HUD, lower taxes, preschool for minority youths, Katrina rebuilding...etc. Whatever you like. So, if drilling in ANWR were to give all its profits to one of your pet projects, would it be worth it?

 

[jfuh]

Uh, those are all opinions.

First off, 10 billion barrels is a SHITload of oil.

US consumes currently 8billion barrels a year. 10 billion would last only a little over a year, and that's with current useage.

Secondly, the hundreds of thousands of people who will be employed there will probably enjoy it, as will the millions of people who will benefit from the economic growth, and the entire country which will benefit from lowering our trade deficit. Econ 101.

Hundreds of Thousands? Ever work on a rig? You don't need that many. Add the supply drivers, shipping crew at most a hundred +.
Economic growth, tell me how does a few big oil companies that benefit from drilling up there encourage economic growth? I don't see much growth as a result of Exxon's record profit last year.
10 billion barrels will lower the US trade deficit? Perhaps you should retake econ 101.

Thirdly, thats subjective.

Oil spills are not subjective.

 

[jfuh]

Couple questions

1) Do you understand how big Alaska is? Do you understand how big ANWR is? Do you understand how big the area of proposed drilling is?

Yep

2) Do you understand that if the US economy were to produce a T(with a t)rillion dollars worth of any product rather than purchasing it from overseas, it would have a significant impact on our country's economy? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people who would get employment for it.

So how many people were employed by Exxon's record profit of 36 billion last year? How much did that increase the dow jones? How much stimulation did it give to the economy? Can you answer those?

3) Let's do a little imagination. Let's pretend that it were set up so that ANWR could be drilled, and all the billions and billions of profits were to go directly to something that you personally value in gov, be it Social Security, HUD, lower taxes, preschool for minority youths, Katrina rebuilding...etc. Whatever you like. So, if drilling in ANWR were to give all its profits to one of your pet projects, would it be worth it?

Let's just start by paying off the national deficit, since most of taxes goes towards that anyway. Would I support ANWR? Honestly I'd be very iffy on that if all the money would go towards it because it's attractive. So I'm going to say maybe. Nevertheless I value the environment more then I do $$ and I'm still going to tilt towards no.

However, fact is it's not, and all that money is going to go into the pockets of Exxon mobil and other Rockefeller spinoffs, as well as those of a select congressional members.

 

[RightinNYC]

US consumes currently 8billion barrels a year. 10 billion would last only a little over a year, and that's with current useage.

SO???? WHY on earth do people keep bringing this number up as if it means something? It's over a YEAR worth of oil for the country. That's HUGE. trillion dollar huge.

Hundreds of Thousands? Ever work on a rig? You don't need that many. Add the supply drivers, shipping crew at most a hundred +.

A hundred plus? Are you freaking kidding me? The LOWEST estimates are in the TENS of THOUSANDS of jobs, while the higher estimates range upwards of 2.2 MILLION jobs.

http://energy.senate.gov/public/ind...ressRelease_id=621&Month=10&Year=2003&Party=0
http://www.anwr.org/docs/ANWR_jobs_brief.pdf
http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR111005.html

Economic growth, tell me how does a few big oil companies that benefit from drilling up there encourage economic growth? I don't see much growth as a result of Exxon's record profit last year.

You don't think that adding tens of thousands of jobs to the tax base (even aside from the obvious other benefits) will have a benefit to the economy? hahahahahhahahhaha.

10 billion barrels will lower the US trade deficit? Perhaps you should retake econ 101.

Are you for real? Trade deficit = $$$ of stuff we import - $$$ of stuff we export.

Now, if you lower the amount of stuff we import by a trillion dollars, that would lower the trade deficit. Hell, don't even need econ for that, that's basic algebra.

Oil spills are not subjective.

Show me that the oil spills caused a trillion dollars worth of damage and maybe we'll talk.

 

[alphamale]

Economic growth, tell me how does a few big oil companies that benefit from drilling up there encourage economic growth?

Page 16-20, econ 101 for you:

All the companies are publicly traded. If you think they are going to make such a killing, why don't you buy their stock? Then you can give your immense profits to moveon.org! :2razz:

 

[RightinNYC]

Look at this and tell me that it would "destroy the wilderness."

It's miniscule in size compared to the oil fields that are already there. The effect would be absolutely minimal.

It's funny, the majority of people who I've met who oppose this deal are people who don't really know anything about the wilderness. They're the ones who have spent their entire lives in a city/suburb and think of the wilderness as this great pristine landscape that is so precious and cannot be touched by man lest we all die.

In reality, most of the US is empty space. There's no reason not to drill.

 

[Kandahar]

Nevertheless I value the environment more then I do $$ and I'm still going to tilt towards no.

This statement is very revealing: How can you say you value the environment more than money, without stating HOW MUCH environmental damage would be caused or HOW MUCH money would be made? This is demagoguery, pure and simple.

It sounds to me like you're just opposed to drilling because you consider yourself an environmentalist, so you adopt the knee-jerk environmentalist view without considering the actual circumstances. There are some situations where we should indeed be more environmentally friendly; drilling in ANWR is not one of them.

 

[jfuh]

SO???? WHY on earth do people keep bringing this number up as if it means something? It's over a YEAR worth of oil for the country. That's HUGE. trillion dollar huge.

Simple, because most supporters imply that drilling up there is going to solve everything. So what happens after ANWR is Dry?

A hundred plus? Are you freaking kidding me? The LOWEST estimates are in the TENS of THOUSANDS of jobs, while the higher estimates range upwards of 2.2 MILLION jobs.

For drilling in ANWR alone? From the only credible source you gave:

In addition to shouting “JOBS!” as a reason to drill in the ANWR, it’s predictable that the GOP will point to the Alaska natural gas line as a big job-generator. Our advice: Be wary of any claim that drilling the Arctic Refuge will create more than 65,000 jobs; estimates higher than that have been roundly discredited. As for the natural gas pipeline, the Republicans are right. We should know -- the current project is a Democratic initiative that Sen. Jeff Bingaman proposed nearly three years ago.

ANWR: Drilling advocates frequently cite a 1990 study by Wharton Economic Forecasting Group that says 735,000 jobs would be created if full development were allowed in the refuge. Inaccurate analytical and modeling assumptions resulted in a biased analysis that dramatically overstates potential job creation. In late 2001, the Wharton Group admitted that flawed assumptions were used in the report.

While any new job in this tepid economy would be good, spoiling virgin wilderness in exchange for mostly desk jobs in Houston is hardly a fair trade – especially when better job-generating options like the gas pipeline and a Renewable Portfolio Standard are available.

Seems like even your own links have just supported my argument.
Additionally:

A 2001 economic analysis by the Tellus Institute compared job creation from investment in clean energy technologies to job creation from oil extraction in ANWR. The analysis concluded that over the same time frame, investment in energy efficient technologies and renewable energy would create 700,000 jobs by 2010 and 1.3 million by 2020.

Seems like much better money spent.

http://energy.senate.gov/public/ind...ressRelease_id=621&Month=10&Year=2003&Party=0

You don't think that adding tens of thousands of jobs to the tax base (even aside from the obvious other benefits) will have a benefit to the economy? hahahahahhahahhaha.

Not in this fashion no.

Are you for real? Trade deficit = $$$ of stuff we import - $$$ of stuff we export.

Yes that would be true if we actually EXPORTED OIL! Unfortunately nearly all that is produced in Anwr will be for domestic use. Not to mention it will not all come out in one year alone, but over a good decade then gone. It would be a trickle to what we get from Canada annually. Your argumet is debunked.

Now, if you lower the amount of stuff we import by a trillion dollars, that would lower the trade deficit. Hell, don't even need econ for that, that's basic algebra.

A trillion dollars over how long? Not a year.

Show me that the oil spills caused a trillion dollars worth of damage and maybe we'll talk.

Very well, let me answer by asking you this. How much does it cost to make Olympic NP from scratch? a trillion? zillion? answer is priceless. You just can not do it. Why are you willing to risk the destruction of wilderness only to use more money to rebuild it? Sounds more practical just to leave it alone in the first place.

 

[jfuh]

Look at this and tell me that it would "destroy the wilderness."

It's miniscule in size compared to the oil fields that are already there. The effect would be absolutely minimal.

It's funny, the majority of people who I've met who oppose this deal are people who don't really know anything about the wilderness. They're the ones who have spent their entire lives in a city/suburb and think of the wilderness as this great pristine landscape that is so precious and cannot be touched by man lest we all die.

In reality, most of the US is empty space. There's no reason not to drill.

How about in your back yard? Hell as long as you are paid why not right? Why not put a drill everywhere? There's plenty of empty space. Yeah screw the environment right? Who cares if a few wild animals have to "walk around". Make some money first then we'll figure out how to resolve any problems.
You're map seems to imply that only the small drill area is going to be affected.
Let's look at what happend with Exxon Valdez:
http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/quarterly/jas2001/feature_jas01.htm
Questions?

 

[jfuh]

This statement is very revealing: How can you say you value the environment more than money, without stating HOW MUCH environmental damage would be caused or HOW MUCH money would be made? This is demagoguery, pure and simple.

It sounds to me like you're just opposed to drilling because you consider yourself an environmentalist, so you adopt the knee-jerk environmentalist view without considering the actual circumstances. There are some situations where we should indeed be more environmentally friendly; drilling in ANWR is not one of them.

Same link here:http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/quarterly/jas2001/feature_jas01.htm
I consider this, and I look at ANWR a major wildlife refuge. Then I look at who it is that supports ANWR drilling and for what reasons. I do not see any substantial benefit to anyone except for investors and big oil.
I make no secret that I'm very much an environmentalist. But I'm not an eco terrorist tree hugger. I am very well aware of the need for cooperation and sound utilization. However ANWR is not the place for this.
Anwr went to congress 3 times in the past, each time it was struck down. Now it's tied to a budget and can not be "lined" out. How convenient. Just who is so eminent on support of Anwr? Wow wow, surprise surprise, look no further then pork spending senator of Alaska Stevenson, same guy that wants to build the $50 million dollar bridge to no where.

Now, how much can ANWR help anything? Just look at my 2nd post up from this one.