Do you support drilling for oil in the 1002 area of ANWR?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hildebrand
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, I do not support it. We don’t know how much is there, but estimates have been at less than Prudhoe Bay. There is a significatant amount of land that would have to be used up with new pipeline etc. I don’t buy the whole “area less than New York” because it is based on what is in contact with the ground, not the total area needed/affected. This area has a significant amount of wildlife that could be affected. And, I’d love to visit it someday and still have it pristine.

John
 
Yes we should drill carefully in that area. However we need to seriously work on alternative options for fuel. I think we need to develop an automobile that will run on corn oil and then Illinois and Iowa would become the wealthy area of the world! I think we need to place more money into development.
 
I’m 100% against it.

If America is the land of innovation and creativity, why not focus our energies on coming up with alternative fuel sources… or how about we stop buying gas guzzling SUV’s? What a waste of resources! And we have only ourselves to blame.
 
steph,

Full sized vans (the kind large Catholic families need) use about the same amount of gas as an suv…what say you?
 
I support it 100%.

Also, I support the building of more refineries so that more oil can be processed faster.

Also, I wish that the entire country would use the same formulation of gasoline.

Also, I support tax incentives to companies, individuals, to develop alternative sources of fuel so that we are not dependent of oil (obviously this is a long-term project).

cheers
 
I find it amazing that unions have been in lock-step with the democrats (oh, right, I forgot, it’s about the green–almighty dollar, that is) in opposing energy self-dependancy

Drilling in ANWR will provide a lot of union jobs!!

Drilling will only go on on a frozen tundra during the winter months, in an area not much larger than a standard airport, in a wildlife reserve the size of Southa Carolina. Drilling will sease apparently by springtime, just as the caribou arrive. Any questions??
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
steph,

Full sized vans (the kind large Catholic families need) use about the same amount of gas as an suv…what say you?
Click to expand...
I say, you do the best with what you have… there are definitely families who need large vehicles to haul their little ones around in. HOWEVER, this is not the norm! I am originally from a community where there are usually 2 kids. These families of 4 may have 3 cars and 2 SUV’s between them. This is totally wasteful.

Moms of big families have all my support- more power to them! But really, when people drive these monstrous vehicles that they will never ever need by any stretch of the imagination, and insodoing consume far too much gas driving up prices and forcing the gov’t to take drastic measures- drilling for oil in nature reserves!- I can only think of what poor stewards they are being. It’s disgusting.
 
40.png
jlw:
I find it amazing that unions have been in lock-step with the democrats (oh, right, I forgot, it’s about the green–almighty dollar, that is) in opposing energy self-dependancy

Drilling in ANWR will provide a lot of union jobs!!

Drilling will only go on on a frozen tundra during the winter months, in an area not much larger than a standard airport, in a wildlife reserve the size of Southa Carolina. Drilling will sease apparently by springtime, just as the caribou arrive. Any questions??
Click to expand...
Uhm sure. The pipeline will have no affect on anything?. An airport size drilling operation will pump out a million gallons a day? And I guess I don’t believe that when push comes to shove that it will shut down in the spring. In fact if it is there, I would imagine that people would scream murder if gas prices shot up for whatever reason when there was no drilling being done, even if the amount coming out would have little effect on the prices; the amount that OPEC puts out doesn’t always modify the price. And does anyone really believe that there would be oil coming out in two years time? The article stated 2007 for money for the budget. They are going to drill by 2007 only working during the winter?

I just don’t buy it.

We will save a little money, but in the big picture we should focus on alternatives. The amount of oil we consume will not always be available at a good price, at some point we need to start the transition.

John
 
Steph,

I agree in general with what you said. We just need to be careful to not discourage people from having large families. All this talk about waste often leads people to think that having more than one kid is being wasteful. Catholics need to be encourage to have many children, to teach them the faith, and to encourage vocations…that will change the world and things like gasoline will become a secondary issue if we transform the world.
 
I see absolutely no major downside to this decision and a huge potential upside. The environmentalists are screeching about the impact on the environment (that looks about like a lunar landscape and is about as well populated). But they were screaming about the pipeline too. I rememeber when it was being built and there was all this handwringing about the animal populations…well animals have INCREASED in population. The pipeline was designed so that it will not impede their movement and it apparently gives off heat as the animals hang out around the pipeline. We had an office in Alaska for a number of years and everyone said the pipeline was one of the best things for the state, its economy, and its people. I had a lot of friends who worked on the pipeline to make money for college. It was a win win.

What is this preserve like 100MM acres? And they are going to drill on a tiny fraction of it? And we are worried about some impact on the Alaskan habitat?

Lisa N
 
40.png
quijote:
Also, I support the building of more refineries so that more oil can be processed faster.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should write to the oil companies with your suggestion. As a former refinery R&D guy myself, I wouldn’t touch it.

Building a new refinery is a huge investment - I would estimate about $800 million up front for a fairly basic medium-throughput refinery, which is a huge capital expenditure for any company to take on for something that really doesn’t make that much money even in the best of times. And the long-term market is uncertain, both in terms of crude supply and product slate (including the constantly shifting environmental regulations), which is not so helpful for a capital investment with an initial lifetime of 20 years or more.

Unless there’s a really specific niche for a refinery to fill, the oil companies generally see a better return investing their money in exploration & production or in chemicals. So they prefer to spend a little here, a little there to retrofit and upgrade existing refineries as needed. But I definitely got the feeling when I was in refining that the oil companies saw it as a necessary evil, which they would gladly get out of if they could.
 
40.png
yochumjy:
Uhm sure. The pipeline will have no affect on anything?. An airport size drilling operation will pump out a million gallons a day? And I guess I don’t believe that when push comes to shove that it will shut down in the spring. In fact if it is there, I would imagine that people would scream murder if gas prices shot up for whatever reason when there was no drilling being done, even if the amount coming out would have little effect on the prices; the amount that OPEC puts out doesn’t always modify the price. And does anyone really believe that there would be oil coming out in two years time? The article stated 2007 for money for the budget. They are going to drill by 2007 only working during the winter?

I just don’t buy it.

We will save a little money, but in the big picture we should focus on alternatives. The amount of oil we consume will not always be available at a good price, at some point we need to start the transition.

John
Click to expand...
Companies will transition when it is profitable to do so. It’s the way the world works. Alternative fuel markets will come, just not yet. I agree with you about the big picture, but it must be looked at with economic realities in mind.
 
Drilling in ANWAR involves 1.5 million out of 19 million acres of land on the coast of Alaska, adjacent to an area where drilling is currently in progress. There has been no adverse effect to the caribou or other indigenous wildlife.

We can’t have it both ways: We can’t stop our dependence on foreign oil and explore alternative means of deriving fuel unless we are actually allowed to explore alternative means of deriving fuel. Pointing fingers at the SUV owners is a red herring. That is but one of many causes of consumption. Most families own two cars and there are painfully few of us who are willing to haul our groceries on the bus like our mothers did. How many airline flights are there each day? How about those packages delivered by the brown truck? Which of us carpools or takes the bus? Probably not as many as there should be. We use fuel. Its a fact of modern life. Now we have to pay the piper and make the necessary tradeoffs to limit our dependence on foreign suppliers.

America has become very proficient at conservation and at carefully managing all our resources. We are smart enough to use ANWAR carefully while balancing the need for domestic oil with preservation of wildlife.
 
40.png
condan:
We can’t have it both ways: We can’t stop our dependence on foreign oil and explore alternative means of deriving fuel unless we are actually allowed to explore alternative means of deriving fuel.

.
Click to expand...
I think that’s the real point. The same people who do not want ANWAR drilling also do not want dependence on foreign oil. You can’t have it both ways.

Also excellent points regarding how much more fuel we use now than in the past. Ironically those devices that cut pollution, increase fuel consumption. I was just getting my license when they started putting the pollution control devices. My first car had a V8, was a large heavy Chevrolet SS with a four barrel carb. I drove everywhere at about 80 miles an hour (yeah stupid but that’s what teens do). My car AVERAGED 21mpg. I could drive forever on five bucks worth of gas. When my boyfriend bought a brand new car the same year, it had a smaller engine, had worse performance and got a whopping l3 mpg.

Again people want it both ways. We could have a lot better fuel efficiency with the same size cars if NOT for the pollution controls.

Lisa N (who remembers gas for 25cents a gallon)
 
Lisa N:
I think that’s the real point. The same people who do not want ANWAR drilling also do not want dependence on foreign oil. You can’t have it both ways.

Also excellent points regarding how much more fuel we use now than in the past. Ironically those devices that cut pollution, increase fuel consumption. I was just getting my license when they started putting the pollution control devices. My first car had a V8, was a large heavy Chevrolet SS with a four barrel carb. …Lisa N (who remembers gas for 25cents a gallon)
Click to expand...
Ah, those were the days!
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
steph,

Full sized vans (the kind large Catholic families need) use about the same amount of gas as an suv…what say you?
Click to expand...
I would say the issue is not miles per gallon, but miles per gallon per passenger. In which case the full-sized van for the large family comes out ahead of the pretty much any vehicle used to transport a single person around.

Moreso than complaining about the specific choice of vehicle, I think the long-term issue for surrounding gasoline usage is the current norm of lots of medium to long trips with just one person in the car. And I don’t think there’s any easy solution to that - it’s just a fact of life in America today, that is reinforced by many factors. I don’t see anything likely to change. Who’s going to be the first to give up their nice comfortable, affordable house in the suburbs to live in an older, smaller, more expensive house or apartment in the city so that they can reduce their consumption of gasoline by $1000/year? Not I, thank you. I think the reason our society has built out the way it has is because, quite frankly, it’s a desirable lifestyle for a lot of people. Increased consumption of gasoline is an expense that most people are willing to pay to live that lifestyle.

Longer term, I’m not sure what the answer is. I think there’s a lot of bogus science and misinformation surrounding fuel cells, “hydrogen economy”, bio-based fuels, and these are a lot less practical than people may think. I know it’s not real popular, but there may come a day when nuclear power is the most cost-effective way to generate energy, and personal transportation will involve vehicles that store energy that was initially generated at a nuclear plant in some mobile format (batteries, hydrogen, whatever).
 
But if we have a tract of land deemed a “Wildlife Refuge” by the government, shouldn’t its purpose be to offer refuge for a little bit of wildlife? “Wildlife Refuge” and “exploiting and irrevocably scarring for a finite amount of oil” don’t seem to go together. I think it is very short-sighted to potentially scar this pristine landscape so that - maybe - we’ll get to pay a penny less a gallon for a couple of years. Something like that is what ANWR would amount to - certainly no panacea for our energy needs. We don’t have much land anywhere that is pristine and virgin; the few places that we have, I think, we should do everything we can to protect. What if oil was found in Yosemite Valley? Who would want to drill there? What if it was a whole lot of oil? Hopefully people can recognize that limits to exploitation of the environment have to exist. The boundary of a National Wildlife Refuge would be a good example of such a limit, to my crazy mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top