alphieb
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,982
- Reaction score
- 31
- Location
- Vincennes IN
- Gender
- Female
- 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.
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."
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.
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?
Stace said:Well, I'm obviously not the only person with this POV, otherwise, we would have been drilling a long time ago, right?
Missouri Mule said:85% of the American people were opposed to entering WWII before Pearl Harbor. Were they correct?
Stace said:Going to war and drilling for oil are two vastly different things, scenarios you can't even compare to each other.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?