• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

Should we drill for oil in Alaska?

Should we drill for oil in Alaska?

  • Is it helpful to drill for oil in Alaska

    Votes: 2 66.7%
  • Should we drill for oil in Alaska

    Votes: 1 33.3%

  • Total voters
    3
  • Poll closed .

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Should we drill for oil in Alaska? What is the significance in that? It will just tear up the environment.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is just an issue that has been blown out of proportion by politicians. It doesn't matter that much either way. The environmental damage will be minimal...but so will the supposed "energy independence" benefit from such drilling. Since the people of Alaska seem to be OK with it, I say go for it. It'll bring them a few jobs, and since they'd be more affected by the environmental damage than anyone else, I think their opinion should count for something.
 

earthworm

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5,728
Reaction score
904
Location
Goldsboro,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
This should be a non-debatable question, but for the environmental-wackos..( they have gone too far, blind to the reality of economics, even to national security)
The Alaskans must have a 100% vote in this matter, the tree huggers in Washington,DC do not matter.....
 
Last edited:

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I don't like the idea that my gov't drills for oil in some of the most beautiful places in the world. But if they want to do it, I guess they will anyways.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think I misinterpreted the question upon rereading the poll.

Absolutely. Unequivocally. Without question. Immediately, not not sooner.
 

Provocateur

New member
Joined
Dec 23, 2005
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
We most definitely should. I think the head of the Senate Energy Committee is from Alaska. I believe he is also the one spearheading this move to drill there
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
FinnMacCool said:
I don't like the idea that my gov't drills for oil in some of the most beautiful places in the world. But if they want to do it, I guess they will anyways.

What makes you think it's one of the most beautiful places in the world? Just because it's a national park doesn't make it beautiful...that's not to say it isn't, but I've never even seen a picture of it. From what I've heard it's basically just desert/tundra for miles in every direction.

Considering less than 5,000 people per year even go to it, far be it from me to tell Alaskans that they can't have those jobs in exchange for the beauty of a small portion of that land.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We can't drill in Alaska because it would be one of the most retarded things possible. If we do drill gas prices will only drop about a penny. Also Alaska is the last untouched frontier. Can't we just leave the enviroment alone for once!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/247130_anwr04.html

"On Wednesday, when the debate began, Cantwell sought to swing the extra votes by saying the refuge would not solve the nation's immediate energy crisis because it will be more than 10 years before the first drop of oil is produced.

Nor will it lower prices, she said, pointing to an Energy Department study that said adding oil from the refuge would lower the price of gasoline by 1 cent per gallon."
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
What makes you think it's one of the most beautiful places in the world? Just because it's a national park doesn't make it beautiful...that's not to say it isn't, but I've never even seen a picture of it. From what I've heard it's basically just desert/tundra for miles in every direction.

Considering less than 5,000 people per year even go to it, far be it from me to tell Alaskans that they can't have those jobs in exchange for the beauty of a small portion of that land.

I'm not familiar with the place. I was just making a general statement. Perhaps its true that the place is a huge desolate desert. I don't really know so I couldn't say.
 

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:
We can't drill in Alaska because it would be one of the most retarded things possible. If we do drill gas prices will only drop about a penny. Also Alaska is the last untouched frontier. Can't we just leave the enviroment alone for once!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/247130_anwr04.html

"On Wednesday, when the debate began, Cantwell sought to swing the extra votes by saying the refuge would not solve the nation's immediate energy crisis because it will be more than 10 years before the first drop of oil is produced.

Nor will it lower prices, she said, pointing to an Energy Department study that said adding oil from the refuge would lower the price of gasoline by 1 cent per gallon."

Whether it lowers your energy prices in the lower 48 or not is irrelevant to us Alaskans. I imagine we are specifically talking about ANWR. This is the thing...the tree huggers and ignorant saps who have bought into the scare tactics of conservationists dont realize that nothing lives in ANWR...the idea that it is a wildlife refuge is laughable...nothing lives there. Its miles of glacier and snow and tundra that maybe once every few years a bird might get lost and fly over or a herd of caribou might wander through. If ANWR were to be opened for drilling, they would simply wander around it in the miles and miles of more habitable space.

Further, there is oil literally seeping out of the rocks in this area. We KNOW there is oil there and it is there in abundance. The drilling techniques that would be used would leave almost no mark on the landscape. The oil pumped from that region isnt meant to ease an energy crisis, so just forget that idiocy now. It would be used to generate revenue of which 80 percent would go to defense, 5 percent to disaster relief, and the other 15 percent would remain here in Alaska to fund our much needed highway maintenance.

To not drill is the most retarded hippy-a$$ crap that is being promoted by the tree-hugging busy-body environmental lobbyists in washington.
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,254
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The whole wildlife thing isn't the part of the deal that bothers me....it's the fact that we wouldn't even see anything truly productive come out of the project for at least 10 years, and the fact that regardless of the "abundance", it's still not enough to even make a dent in our dependency on other countries. I truly think it needs to be kept "in case of emergency only". I think we need to be focusing our efforts more on alternative energy sources.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stace said:
The whole wildlife thing isn't the part of the deal that bothers me....it's the fact that we wouldn't even see anything truly productive come out of the project for at least 10 years, and the fact that regardless of the "abundance", it's still not enough to even make a dent in our dependency on other countries. I truly think it needs to be kept "in case of emergency only". I think we need to be focusing our efforts more on alternative energy sources.

I'm glad your point of view didn't prevail during the first Alaskan oil strike. We'd still be waiting for the construction to begin. If it takes "10 years" to get it, let's get on with it. Time's wasting.

What "alternative sources?" Nuclear? Wind power? Hydrogen?
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,254
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Missouri Mule said:
I'm glad your point of view didn't prevail during the first Alaskan oil strike. We'd still be waiting for the construction to begin. If it takes "10 years" to get it, let's get on with it. Time's wasting.

What "alternative sources?" Nuclear? Wind power? Hydrogen?

Well, I'm obviously not the only person with this POV, otherwise, we would have been drilling a long time ago, right?
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stace said:
Well, I'm obviously not the only person with this POV, otherwise, we would have been drilling a long time ago, right?

85% of the American people were opposed to entering WWII before Pearl Harbor. Were they correct?
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,254
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Not to mention, there ARE alternatives available:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/t/f/tfm121/oil_alternatives.htm

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/briefings/oil_alternatives0203.htm

It may take awhile to develop them all, but heck, we're going to run out of oil eventually anyway, therefore, something has to be developed as an alternative no matter which way you look at it.

Even making more hybrid vehicles available at affordable prices would be a better idea than this. Or if they'd actually raise gas mileage standards.....there are so many different things our government, and the auto industry especially, can do.

Why not save the ANWR oil until we really need it?
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,254
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Missouri Mule said:
85% of the American people were opposed to entering WWII before Pearl Harbor. Were they correct?

Going to war and drilling for oil are two vastly different things, scenarios you can't even compare to each other.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stace said:
Going to war and drilling for oil are two vastly different things, scenarios you can't even compare to each other.

The point is that a majority can be completely wrong as they are with drilling in ANWR, if indeed it is a majority. There is no rational reason NOT to drill in ANWR except for left-wing ideology. Nobody lives there. It is really a desolate wilderness and if we can get a sizeable amount of oil out of there to tide us over until we can perfect the other unnamed alternate sources we are exceedingly foolish not to do so. The alternative is that we can stop our oil based economy and go back to the horse and buggy age. Are the left willing to do this? Of course not. It is easier to trash the oil industry than provide a realistic alternative. At the current time there is nothing else.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Stace said:
The whole wildlife thing isn't the part of the deal that bothers me....it's the fact that we wouldn't even see anything truly productive come out of the project for at least 10 years, and the fact that regardless of the "abundance", it's still not enough to even make a dent in our dependency on other countries. I truly think it needs to be kept "in case of emergency only". I think we need to be focusing our efforts more on alternative energy sources.

Yes like I said 10 years but also our prices will go down only a penny.

By the way it's not true that wildlife won't be hurt. I was watching CNN the other day and they were talking about this, one of the main sites, not ANRW, of drilling is a caribou breeding ground
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stace said:
Not to mention, there ARE alternatives available:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/t/f/tfm121/oil_alternatives.htm

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/briefings/oil_alternatives0203.htm

It may take awhile to develop them all, but heck, we're going to run out of oil eventually anyway, therefore, something has to be developed as an alternative no matter which way you look at it.

Even making more hybrid vehicles available at affordable prices would be a better idea than this. Or if they'd actually raise gas mileage standards.....there are so many different things our government, and the auto industry especially, can do.

Why not save the ANWR oil until we really need it?

I've looked at those sources and can tell you that they won't cut it. We use nearly 21 million barrels of oil each and every day. Maybe 7 million are domestically produced. We have some wind power but that is but a tiny fraction of the necessary amount we need. Solar will help somewhat and should be looked at carefully but is far from a mature industry. Energy conservation should be done and I'm doing my part with both a hybrid and more insulation in my house, plus I keep the thermostat as cold as I can tolerate. We just pile the blankets up higher and higher.

The poor people are really going to be in a bind. They live in homes that are less energy efficient; drive old jalopies that get lousy gas mileage if they drive at all. The government can provide energy assistance but that isn't going to solve the problem.

We're in a mell of a hess. We depend entirely too much on private transportation. Our large cities don't have mass transportation. Cross country mass transportation such as trains is virtually non-existant.

What could make a big dent? You won't like the answer but it has always been there but the environmentalists kick up their heels and put everyone through the wringer to keep it from happening. It is nuclear. But we can't even decide where to store the waste.

I'd like to see the day when we can somehow break down the ocean's water into its components of hydrogen and oxygen. We would have an unlimited amount of energy and keep the oceans from rising further and flooding our beaches and homes. We could perhaps ship water into the hinterlands to water our crops since our underground reservoirs are rapidly being depleted.

All of this phony bulloney about ethanol and the like is sheer poppycock. How do we get to that energy source except by expending energy in the process?

Our most abundant energy source is coal. There is about 600 years supplies in the west. But it is not the ultimate answer unless we are willing to pay through the nose to convert it to usable energy sources.

Nuclear is the obvious answer. Did you know that the new U.S.S. Ronald Reagan is a nuclear aircraft carrier that only needs refueling every 20 years? Compare that to the ocean liner QE2 that is a "hybrid" diesel electric ship that consumes a gallon of diesel fuel every 50 feet of travel.

The left/conservations/tree huggers had better come in out of the rain and stop smoking that pot that fogs their minds. They are living in a dream world. Not drilling in ANWR is stupid, stupid, stupid.

And BTW, we are NOT going to run out of oil; at least not for hundreds of years.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How about Democrats back, the drilling in ANWAR, if energy efficiency bills are attached. Why don't we mandate that car producers start meeting fuel efficiency standards?

Or laws that mandate coal, gas, and oil fired gas power plants to adopt the latest technologies, that would increase enrgy efficiency, and power production, due to better combustion of fossil fuels.

Just an idea.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Australianlibertarian said:
How about Democrats back, the drilling in ANWAR, if energy efficiency bills are attached. Why don't we mandate that car producers start meeting fuel efficiency standards?

Or laws that mandate coal, gas, and oil fired gas power plants to adopt the latest technologies, that would increase enrgy efficiency, and power production, due to better combustion of fossil fuels.

Just an idea.

I certainly have no problems with those ideas, but we have a long term problem and unfortunately need immediate and intermediate term solutions. And that's where ANWR comes in. And what you propose will cost bucks, big, big, big bucks. And with that brings politics, politics, and more politics. That's always been the challenge.

If I were the president I would tell the American people to get up off our backsides and up onto our own two hind legs and get serious about this problem. Thus far that hasn't happened. If the next presidential election will begin to address this threat to our very national security, I will be a happy man.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Poking holes in ANWR...in a national park no one ever sees. Out of a popuation of about 250,000,000 people, there's what, a couple thousand that have actually seen this place? Not quite sure how making a desolate wasteland a park benefits Americans in the first place. Perhaps the first thing to do is write a bill re-defining ANWR as something else?

But US consumption of oil is 21 mbpd. ANWR allegedly contains 7 billion barrels of usable oil. That would work out to less than a years's worth of oil. And since it's not going to be processed and used in the US, but instead simply sold on the open market, OPEC and the rest of the thugs controlling world oil prices could continue to keep oil prices high by reducing their own output.

The net practical result of drilling that oil at this time is zip.

Why bother. Let the mosquitoes breed in peace.

Nuclear's a good option, one that needs to be fully exploited, if only to satisfy common sense. As for the disposal of nuclear waste, we have a facility available if the NIMBY's would shut the f up about what isn't in their field of competency. Then again, an even safer place than the moutain in Nevada (name?) is to drop those canisters into the abyssal plains of the mid pacific. But that really freaks the ignorant nutcases.

But back to the question:

The government should sell drilling rights to that oil to the highest bidder, expend not a single dime in developing the site, and tax the oil as appropriate. Since ANWR is federal property, there's no logical reason why Alaska should find yet another windfall.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Missouri Mule said:
If the next presidential election will begin to address this threat to our very national security, I will be a happy man.

They can't. The necessary thing to do is build and license THOUSANDS of new nuclear power plants, which would require ending the left's practice of stopping development via an infinite series of harassing lawsuits, and it would require re-writing liability laws to exempt plant operators from the legal sharks who'd sue the companies into bankruptcy for minor incidents.

Any move in the direction of increased nuclear power in this country will alienate the political left from that candidate. Since both the Democrats and the Republicans are leftist parties, neither will take that risk.

Ergo, nuclear power is not a viable option.

There is no other option with the potential of meeting current, let alone projected, energy demands, thus there is no future for the United States except decline and demise, until enough people grow up and give up on leftist politics.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Poking holes in ANWR...in a national park no one ever sees. Out of a popuation of about 250,000,000 people, there's what, a couple thousand that have actually seen this place? Not quite sure how making a desolate wasteland a park benefits Americans in the first place. Perhaps the first thing to do is write a bill re-defining ANWR as something else?

But US consumption of oil is 21 mbpd. ANWR allegedly contains 7 billion barrels of usable oil. That would work out to less than a years's worth of oil. And since it's not going to be processed and used in the US, but instead simply sold on the open market, OPEC and the rest of the thugs controlling world oil prices could continue to keep oil prices high by reducing their own output.

The net practical result of drilling that oil at this time is zip.

Why bother. Let the mosquitoes breed in peace.

Nuclear's a good option, one that needs to be fully exploited, if only to satisfy common sense. As for the disposal of nuclear waste, we have a facility available if the NIMBY's would shut the f up about what isn't in their field of competency. Then again, an even safer place than the moutain in Nevada (name?) is to drop those canisters into the abyssal plains of the mid pacific. But that really freaks the ignorant nutcases.

But back to the question:

The government should sell drilling rights to that oil to the highest bidder, expend not a single dime in developing the site, and tax the oil as appropriate. Since ANWR is federal property, there's no logical reason why Alaska should find yet another windfall.

"Allegedly" is the operative word. We don't know how much oil is in ANWR. My point is that we should be drilling everywhere until we find the holy grail of energy. Otherwise the economy is going to suffer needlessly. Nuclear is obviously the answer but the politics will condemn us to more political wrangling. Meanwhile let's see what is ANWR and settle the controversey once and for all. If the leftists are right they will have earned the right to crow about it. Under the worst possible scenario, we poke a few holes and cap them and come home. Under the best circumstances, we go a significant way toward easing our foreign dependence.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Missouri Mule said:
"Allegedly" is the operative word. We don't know how much oil is in ANWR. My point is that we should be drilling everywhere until we find the holy grail of energy. Otherwise the economy is going to suffer needlessly. Nuclear is obviously the answer but the politics will condemn us to more political wrangling. Meanwhile let's see what is ANWR and settle the controversey once and for all. If the leftists are right they will have earned the right to crow about it. Under the worst possible scenario, we poke a few holes and cap them and come home. Under the best circumstances, we go a significant way toward easing our foreign dependence.

I agree that nuclear is probably the best solution but if you idiots read what I said in my posts you would notice that studies have shown that proces will only drop a penny so wtf is the point?
 
Top Bottom