• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Drilling in ANWR not a good idea

john831

New member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Hotlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=229&slb=SU&locID=rosw82806&srchtp=basic&c=2&ste=17&tbst=ts_basic&tab=1&txb=%2522Environmental+Policy%2522&docNum=X3010319213&fail=0&bConts=79
According to this article, if we raised average fuel economy in the US by 3 mpg, then in 10 years we would save more oil then would ever be produced from ANWR. We have the technology to increase average fuel economy by 15 mpg; it seems to me that, based on these statistics, it would be a much better idea to focus on conservation than drilling since it seems so much more effective.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
john831 said:
http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=229&slb=SU&locID=rosw82806&srchtp=basic&c=2&ste=17&tbst=ts_basic&tab=1&txb=%2522Environmental+Policy%2522&docNum=X3010319213&fail=0&bConts=79
According to this article, if we raised average fuel economy in the US by 3 mpg, then in 10 years we would save more oil then would ever be produced from ANWR. We have the technology to increase average fuel economy by 15 mpg; it seems to me that, based on these statistics, it would be a much better idea to focus on conservation than drilling since it seems so much more effective.
Yes, but their would be a pile of money to go into the project to get that 3 more mpg. And we would still be dependent of foreign oil?
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ANWAR wouldn't last long anyway, given our current consumption rates. I don't think it's anything to get excited over either way.

Here's an idea: require all the people demanding that Americans drive in little lightweight gas sipping deathtraps buy them and use them. That should save us from global warming, anyway, since there won't be so many people spewing hot air.

Back to the topic. How does one propose to increase average fuel economy by 10%? We talking radical advances in engine performance? Using aluminum and composite materials instead of steel to reduce weight?

Everything's a trade off. And usually the trade is against what it costs to make it.
 

john831

New member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Hotlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The government could give car companies tax breaks if their average mileage is above a certain amount, tax everyone below that level to hell, slap a tax on gasoline in order to promote less gas usage, stop subsidizing corporations whose cars do not meet a certain mileage level, etc, as incentive for the average mileage to raise. This does not seem like it would cost that much; between reductions in subsidizing, taxes on gas and some cars, tax breaks for some cars, and money put into research and development, it seems like it would just about break even.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
john831 said:
http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=229&slb=SU&locID=rosw82806&srchtp=basic&c=2&ste=17&tbst=ts_basic&tab=1&txb=%2522Environmental+Policy%2522&docNum=X3010319213&fail=0&bConts=79
According to this article, if we raised average fuel economy in the US by 3 mpg, then in 10 years we would save more oil then would ever be produced from ANWR. We have the technology to increase average fuel economy by 15 mpg; it seems to me that, based on these statistics, it would be a much better idea to focus on conservation than drilling since it seems so much more effective.
Even simple maintences can get you the same 3 mpg.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yeah ANWR is stupid since we won't get any oil from it for 10 years and when we do get it, it'll only lower gas prices by a penny per gallon according to recent studies. Plus Alaska is the last untouched frontier so do we really have to go drilling there?
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Che said:
Yeah ANWR is stupid since we won't get any oil from it for 10 years and when we do get it, it'll only lower gas prices by a penny per gallon according to recent studies. Plus Alaska is the last untouched frontier so do we really have to go drilling there?
And considering it will last, at the max., two years worth of US oil consumption...seems we should concentrate on something else....
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Will ANWR significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil? No. Will ANWR be an environmental catastrophe if we drill there? No. It's simply not an important issue.

If the people of Alaska are in favor of it, far be it from me to tell them otherwise. I'm never going to ANWR, and from everything I've heard it's already a barren wasteland.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Kandahar said:
Will ANWR significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil? No. Will ANWR be an environmental catastrophe if we drill there? No. It's simply not an important issue.

If the people of Alaska are in favor of it, far be it from me to tell them otherwise. I'm never going to ANWR, and from everything I've heard it's already a barren wasteland.
This is a good statement except fot it being a barren wasteland. It is actually a breeding ground for Caribou.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Che said:
This is a good statement except fot it being a barren wasteland. It is actually a breeding ground for Caribou.
Could I see a source for that please? I live in Alaska and let me tell everyone this...ANWR is not a wildlife refuge at all. It is a big barren tundra that every few years a herd of caribou might pass through while taking the scenic route. Kandahar is correct...it really is a non-issue except for the millions it will bring in to Alaska.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have heard a couple times it would only last a few years... Whats the estimated oil in ANWR? And whats our yearly barrel consumption?
 
Last edited:

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Calm2Chaos said:
I have heard a couple times it would only last a few years... Whats the estimated oil in ANWR? And whats our yearly barrel consumption?
From my understanding, you are right about it only lasting a few years...but to Alaskans, the potential revenue and addition to our permanent fund dividends is well worth it. This whole thing wasnt even an issue until a bunch of hippy greenpeace ultra liberal tree hugging soy sucking *** wipes filmed 4 birds on the tundra and made out like there is a thriving migratory population where there isnt one. Fu.ck hippies from the lower 48 telling Alaskans what to do with our own land.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
jallman said:
From my understanding, you are right about it only lasting a few years...but to Alaskans, the potential revenue and addition to our permanent fund dividends is well worth it. This whole thing wasnt even an issue until a bunch of hippy greenpeace ultra liberal tree hugging soy sucking *** wipes filmed 4 birds on the tundra and made out like there is a thriving migratory population where there isnt one. Fu.ck hippies from the lower 48 telling Alaskans what to do with our own land.

I agree with ya ... we should be drilling in ANWR and increase drillingin the gulf...
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
jallman said:
From my understanding, you are right about it only lasting a few years...but to Alaskans, the potential revenue and addition to our permanent fund dividends is well worth it. This whole thing wasnt even an issue until a bunch of hippy greenpeace ultra liberal tree hugging soy sucking *** wipes filmed 4 birds on the tundra and made out like there is a thriving migratory population where there isnt one. Fu.ck hippies from the lower 48 telling Alaskans what to do with our own land.

Umm....it's a federal wildlife refuge, so it falls under the "this land is your land, this land is our land, but mostly it's our land" umbrella of federal takeover...
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
jallman said:
From my understanding, you are right about it only lasting a few years...but to Alaskans, the potential revenue and addition to our permanent fund dividends is well worth it. This whole thing wasnt even an issue until a bunch of hippy greenpeace ultra liberal tree hugging soy sucking *** wipes filmed 4 birds on the tundra and made out like there is a thriving migratory population where there isnt one. Fu.ck hippies from the lower 48 telling Alaskans what to do with our own land.
fine destroy your own land if you want to, but keep in mind that cost of building an financing an oil drill in ANWR may cost more than actually getting the oil. Besides, there won't be as many jobs as the anti-enviromental **** the earth cons pretend there will be.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Umm....it's a federal wildlife refuge, so it falls under the "this land is your land, this land is our land, but mostly it's our land" umbrella of federal takeover...
Umm...its not like federal lands dont get redesignated at will. This one is especially stupid because its being called a wildlife refuge and there is no friggin wildlife.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Che said:
fine destroy your own land if you want to, but keep in mind that cost of building an financing an oil drill in ANWR may cost more than actually getting the oil. Besides, there won't be as many jobs as the anti-enviromental **** the earth cons pretend there will be.

And you know this how? Lets get pumping in the gulf also... toss up an oil rig evry other mile if there something down there to pump
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Che said:
fine destroy your own land if you want to, but keep in mind that cost of building an financing an oil drill in ANWR may cost more than actually getting the oil. Besides, there won't be as many jobs as the anti-enviromental **** the earth cons pretend there will be.
see...thats hippy crap. The techniques used for drilling now are not as invasive as they used to be. The estimate for jobs from ANWR is in the 1000's. to a place like alaska with a total state population of around 500,000 that is a lot. Combined revenues would be in the billions. Learn a thing or two before you start opining about how we should use our land.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
jallman said:
Umm...its not like federal lands dont get redesignated at will. This one is especially stupid because its being called a wildlife refuge and there is no friggin wildlife.
Hey, I think that if there's oil there, and someone is willing to put up his own money to get it, let'em. I was just pointing out that the feds had already grabbed that land from Alaska, is all.

But do note that I said the drillers should use their own money. I don't feel like paying taxes to pay for oil that I'll then have to pay full market price to have the use of. That seems like a damned stupid thing to do. Not a dime of federal or state money should go into those projects.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Hey, I think that if there's oil there, and someone is willing to put up his own money to get it, let'em. I was just pointing out that the feds had already grabbed that land from Alaska, is all.

But do note that I said the drillers should use their own money. I don't feel like paying taxes to pay for oil that I'll then have to pay full market price to have the use of. That seems like a damned stupid thing to do. Not a dime of federal or state money should go into those projects.
Again, I respectfully disagree. The state of Alaska would be well served by offering money to assist with development. By offering subsidies and tax benefits to companies willing to develop the land, the returns will repay any such state money 10 fold. The benefits are just too great for us to not support this.
 

john831

New member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Hotlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Opposing views
The Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, which represents 229 Native Alaskan tribes, officially opposes any development in ANWR.[8] In March, 2005, Luci Beach, [9] the executive director of the steering committee for the Native Alaskan and Canadian Gwich'in tribe [10] (a member of the AI-TC), during a trip to Washington DC, while speaking for a unified group of 55 Alaskan and Canadian indigenous peoples, said that drilling in ANWR is "a human rights issue and it's a basic Aboriginal human rights issue."[11] She went on to say, "Sixty to 70 per cent of our diet comes from the land and caribou is one of the primary animals that we depend on for sustenance." The Gwich'in tribe adamantly believes that drilling in ANWR would have serious negative effects on the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd that they partially rely on for food. [12]

The Kaktovik Inupiat, and 5,000 to 7,000 Gwich'in peoples feel their lifestyle would be disrupted or destroyed by drilling. The Inupiat from Point Hope, Alaska recently passed resolutions [13] recognizing that drilling in ANWR would establish a precedent to allow resource exploitation in other wilderness areas, marine refuges and sanctuaries nationwide. The Inupiat, Gwitch'in, and other tribes are calling for sustainable energy practices and policies. The Tanana Chiefs Conference representing 42 Alaska Native villages from 37 tribes oppose drilling, as do at least 90 Native American tribes. The National Congress of American Indians representing 250 tribes and the Native American Rights Fund as well as some Canadian tribes and International Tribal Organizations also oppose drilling in the 1002 area.

Most residents of the United States [14] and Canada [15] are also opposed to drilling in the wildlife refuge according to polls.

However, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), which was formed as part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and owns 92,000 acres of subsurface mineral rights in ANWR is in favor of drilling. Lobbyists with ASRC do not represent all Alaska Natives nor do they represent any Alaska tribes, they represent only the ASRC.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that because of its compact size, the 1002 area has a "greater degree of ecological diversity than any other similar sized area of Alaska's north slope." The USFWS also states, "Those who campaigned to establish the Arctic Refuge recognized its wild qualities and the significance of these spatial relationships. Here lies an unusually diverse assemblage of large animals and smaller, less-appreciated life forms, tied to their physical environments and to each other by natural, undisturbed ecological and evolutionary processes."[16] It is because of this great diversity, and fear of its harm or outright destruction, that many environmental groups argue against drilling for oil in the 1002 area.
The opposition isn't just hippies who want to hug all the trees... drilling in anwr would disrupt the lifestyle of lots of native tribes according to this article. People always use the argument that all the Alaskans are for drilling because it would create jobs; they don't consider these people who would oppose drilling into their analysis. Compare the jobs created, which jallman claims to be in the thousands, to the 5000-7000 people whose lifestyles would be disrupted or destroyed by anwr drilling and it doesn't make so much sense anymore. We've already ravaged all the natives who were in the US before us, we might as well learn from our mistakes and respect the natives in Alaska. The US Fish and Wildlife Service even recognizes that the region has a great degree of ecological diversity, and the US government has never been known to exaggerate in favor of the environment. Jallman, lets try and keep this a civil debate rather than name calling.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
jallman said:
Again, I respectfully disagree. The state of Alaska would be well served by offering money to assist with development. By offering subsidies and tax benefits to companies willing to develop the land, the returns will repay any such state money 10 fold. The benefits are just too great for us to not support this.
If there's a thousand percent return on investment from getting that oil, the oil companies should be able to sell shares that much easier. It's how truly free markets work.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
john831 said:
The opposition isn't just hippies who want to hug all the trees... drilling in anwr would disrupt the lifestyle of lots of native tribes according to this article. People always use the argument that all the Alaskans are for drilling because it would create jobs; they don't consider these people who would oppose drilling into their analysis. Compare the jobs created, which jallman claims to be in the thousands, to the 5000-7000 people whose lifestyles would be disrupted or destroyed by anwr drilling and it doesn't make so much sense anymore. We've already ravaged all the natives who were in the US before us, we might as well learn from our mistakes and respect the natives in Alaska. The US Fish and Wildlife Service even recognizes that the region has a great degree of ecological diversity, and the US government has never been known to exaggerate in favor of the environment. Jallman, lets try and keep this a civil debate rather than name calling.
Question:

Do the natives own the land to be drilled?

If they do, why are we having this discussion about oil drilling on their land if they don't want it to happen?

If they don't, why should they get special consideration?
 
Top Bottom