Alaskan Oil Drillin'

[MolecularMan14]

well well,

There is a massive debate over the Alaskan Oil fields, and what affect our drilling would have there. I just wanted to open a discussion about it, and state my opinion, and more than that, my suggestions.

I am all for the environment. Without it, we wouldnt be here...yea that came out right I have seen the area where we would commense drilling, and it's not that pretty of an area. That, however, is not to justify our drilling. The fact is that the area is primarily permafrost, and that the damage we would cause there would not be aweful, but it would stay in whatever condition we leave it in for a long ass time. But one of the major concerns is the wildlife and its preservation. The thought is that the prospect of oil spilling all over the place would devastate the environment and all those who inhabit it. As aweful as this sounds, I feel that if bioremediation were put in place, it would not only save the environment, but also a truck load of money for anyone who would have to deal with it (Im not just saying this because Im doing research in bioremediation either...btw, bioremediation is genuinely perfect...)

Moreover, there is talk about how drilling up there would bring about a decrease in gas prices for the US...Full out bull$hit. OPEC would not see a drop of the oil, and thus, they would never decrease the default price of oil. Ultimately, since they set the standard, we would not see a penny less on the signs of gas stations. Not so great.

Another idea of the supporters is that it would create jobs in an environment with...seafood and scenery. This is actually understandable. I can support the need for jobs, especially in an economy like the US (especially Alaska).

All in all, while bioremediation would almost eliminate any permanent environmental damage, the thing that would really turn me off of this is the propaganda supporting the idea of lowered gas prices.

My research and development suggestions - bring bioremediation mainstream, and throw a big campaign for alternate fuel/energy.

My economical suggestion - invest in Oil...

[Pangloss]

Drill away. Where are you going to find a single place on the planet that's ecologically safer than the Alaskan tundra?

[-Demosthenes-]

I agree, although it may not lower prices, it would make the U.S. less dependent on other parts of the world for oil. Seward would want us to get some of that oil! I know there are some sort of animal that migrates around where the drilling would be, but that seems easily correctable. I don't see a drilling facility taking up enough space so it would block migration, and heck we make salmon jump up cement "ladders" to get passed dams!

[budullewraagh]

well the fact of the matter is that, for all intents and purposes, there is really nothing there

[Pangloss]

It actually might not help the US become less dependent on foreign oil. Due to the logistics of the situation, it can really only be sent to west coast refineries, which are already operating over capacity. Most likely it will be sold in the Asian markets -- China especially. But hey, it'll help with the trade deficit at least.

[budullewraagh]

we could get maybe enough to last a day. that's it.

[Mokele]

The only problem I could potentially see is one of legal precedent. If we open one national park to drilling, even if it's a icy wasteland, couldn't that be cited as legal precedent to open other, less barren parks to other forms of resource exploitation?

 

Mokele

[darth tater]

If we don't drill for oil, build refineries, construct nuclear power plants and search for alternate sources of power, how can we feel bad when Gasoline goes up to $4 pr. gallon?

 

Is that what we want?

 

Drilling in ANWR is just one of the necessary things that we need to do to survive.

 

It used to be the nimby principle (Not In My Back Yard).

 

Now it is the BANANA principle (Build Absolutely Nothing Absolutely Nowhere Atall)

 

The Caribou will get used to it.

[-Demosthenes-]

Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel' date=' according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.

[/quote']

I could find anyhting about the amount of oil, I guess there's plenty.

[Pangloss]

The only problem I could potentially see is one of legal precedent. If we open one national park to drilling, even if it's a icy wasteland, couldn't that be cited as legal precedent to open other, less barren parks to other forms of resource exploitation?

 

National parks are exploited all the time. Conservation, the principle that the parks were founded under, does not imply lack of use. It implies thoughtful allocation and exploitation of land rather than thoughtless, greed-oriented use. But it doesn't deny use. So long as the land and its ecosystem are preserved, it's fine.

 

Environmentalists see things differently, of course. But it is the function of special interest groups to only see one side of an issue. Our duty as citizens is to weigh relative merit.

[Auburngirl05]

The only thing that will truly reduce our dependency on foriegn oil in the long-term is to develop alternate energy sources, if we took the money and manpower that would be used to drill Alaska maybe we could make some innovations in coming up with an alternate fuel, it's something we'll have to do anyway at some point, we may as well do it sooner rather than later.

[darth tater]

Alternate energy sources require much in the way of R&D, which require investment capital.

 

At the present time, oil is cheap enough and the potential for profit great enough that not many people are willing to invest their hard earned capital in alternate fuel sources.

 

After oil gets to $100 a BBL., or once we truely start to run out of reserves, perhaps, but not now.

[Pangloss]

The search for alternative fuels may be getting a boost in the form of bacterially-produced hydrogen. (Producing hydrogen is one of the problems with fuel cell technology. If it can be made cheaply then it could serve as an alternate fuel. If not, if it costs as much to make the hydrogen as what you saved from not using oil, then it's not as alluring.)

 

I've started a science-oriented (non-political) discussion on it here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=158443#post158443

(with two links to stories that came out today about it)

[darth tater]

Looks promising doesn't it?

[Douglas]

I'm in favor of drilling, not because of the effect on oil prices, but to reduce our dependance on foreign oil, though for reasons of expedience it may be sold to far east markets, which can be reversed if necessary.

 

The thing I find ironic, is Americans don't seem to care if Saudi arabia, Venezuela, Russia and other oil rich countries ruin their environment, but they scream bloody murder if there's an infinitesimally small chance that an Alaskan elk may be killed.

[Auburngirl05]

The thing I find ironic' date=' is Americans don't seem to care if Saudi arabia, Venezuela, Russia and other oil rich countries ruin their environment, but they scream bloody murder if there's an infinitesimally small chance that an Alaskan elk may be killed.[/quote']

That's a really good point I hadn't though of before....also yet another reason to pursue alternate energy sources as soon as possible..in my opinion at least.

[-Demosthenes-]

That's a really good point I hadn't though of before....also yet another reason to pursue alternate energy sources as soon as possible..in my opinion at least.

Dude, avoid the circles. Look:

At the present time, oil is cheap enough and the potential for profit great enough that not many people are willing to invest their hard earned capital in alternate fuel sources.

Who's going to develop alternative energy sources when no one needs them yet?