Drilling for Oil in ANWR

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Insane3D
I do love the fact that the warm water coming out of it.

They're supposed to be cooling that water back to the original river temp! :Q

At least that's what my environmental law class taught me!

Yeah... too warm would upset the fishies and other creatures who live in the water.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Insane3D
I do love the fact that the warm water coming out of it.

They're supposed to be cooling that water back to the original river temp! :Q

At least that's what my environmental law class taught me!

Dunno...maybe because it's released right back into the bay, and not a river? You used to be able to paddle right up to the plant and catch 'em like mad, but since 9/11, they have signs up establishing a "security zone" that you are not supposed to enter...

 

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Insane3D
I do love the fact that the warm water coming out of it.

They're supposed to be cooling that water back to the original river temp! :Q

At least that's what my environmental law class taught me!

Dunno...maybe because it's released right back into the bay, and not a river? You used to be able to paddle right up to the plant and catch 'em like mad, but since 9/11, they have signs up establishing a "security zone" that you are not supposed to enter...

Interesting. I'm sure it's all legal, but I hate to think of what that warm water is doing to the bay's ecosystem.

Out of curiosity, how warm is the water coming out of the plant?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: SilentButDeadly
First of all I don't know to much about this except for what I have discussed with other people. I am just trying to find out what all is going on, and if they may start drilling for oil in Alaska... If so, is there anything I could do to get on the jump in being one of the first in getting a job in Alaska. From what I have heard it will pay pretty good money. (Btw, my dad is the one interested in doing this.)


Also who supports drilling in Alaska, and who doesn't? This is just for my curiousity. I support it because it will supposedly open up over 700,000 jobs in Alaska, and with the economy the way it is right now it could only be a good thing... It is only 1.5 million acres of Northern Alaska that would be considered for exploration, and IF oil is discovered, less then 2000 acres will be affected in production (Which is less then 1% of Alaska). More then 75% of Alaskans support the exploration and production in ANWR.


The man thing I am looking in all of this though, is if there is a sign-up or waiting list or something like that for the jobs in Alaska. I would appreciate the help that anyone could give me for this.

A couple things.

I'm an Alaskan. Been up here all my life. I've also done brief contract work in Prudhoe on several occasions, staying up to a week at a time. Not much to do up there but they have awesome food.

Pretty much everyone in Alaska wants ANWR open. (75-80% or so depending on the poll)

Almost all your stats are correct. ANWR is about the size of North Carolina and the acreage proposed for development is roughly the equivilant of building a fair sized international airport.

Last time I checked it passed the senate (as an ammendment to a supplemental spending appropriation I think) and is being argued about in the house. (Opposite of last time when it sailed through the house and got killed in the senate) We'll see. Got my fingers crossed with all the rest of us.

700,000 jobs? Don't think so. There aren't 700,000 people in Alaska. Using Prudhoe Bay as a model you might be looking at 2000 permenant jobs tops once production is up and running and they are pretty tough to get. It's more about WHO you know than what you know. It helps to be in tight with the unions. (IBEW, Teamsters, Laborers, etc.) Living outside Alaska is a big disadvantage. We have local preference hiring up here. If it's a choice between two qualified people the Alaskan will win.

Good luck.

I thought ANWR passed everything including signed by Bush?

It will take about 10 yrs before we see the first barrel of oil from there at least.

 

[Ornery]

• • The whole ecosystem would be in flux...

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Ornery

• • The whole ecosystem would be in flux...

Another completely useless post by "I know better than everyone else" Ornery...

 

Originally posted by: Ornery

• • The whole ecosystem would be in flux...

Wow, you got me there. I am no longer an environmentalist because of Ornery's shocking persuasive powers.

:roll:

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Insane3D
I do love the fact that the warm water coming out of it.

They're supposed to be cooling that water back to the original river temp! :Q

At least that's what my environmental law class taught me!

Dunno...maybe because it's released right back into the bay, and not a river? You used to be able to paddle right up to the plant and catch 'em like mad, but since 9/11, they have signs up establishing a "security zone" that you are not supposed to enter...

Interesting. I'm sure it's all legal, but I hate to think of what that warm water is doing to the bay's ecosystem.

Out of curiosity, how warm is the water coming out of the plant?

It's just slightly warmer than the water in the bay now. The thing is, I don't think it puts out nearly enough water to change the ecosystem of the bay. The ocean water up here stays quite cold through the year, and it's still pretty cool now. I know the water at the edge of the security zone is not noticeably warmer... IIRC, the Seabrook plant, while one of the most advanced plants in the country with one of the highest power generating capacities, only delivers power to Seabrook and a few surrounding coastal towns...

 

[Ornery]

• • Who knows better than everyone else, what's best for Alaska?

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Ornery

• • Who knows better than everyone else, what's best for Alaska?

Yet another "only the people who agree with me are right" post by Ornery...

Ornery's way or the highway....don't let those facts get int the way...just post FUD...

Republican = ALWAYS GOOD

Democrat = ALWAYS BAD

Right Ornery?

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I really wish they would. The biggest weakness of the US is their dependancy on foreign oil. Other countries might not be so quick to thumb their nose at us if they couldn't rely on us to buy their oil. Let 'em eat their sand and drink their oil...

But the amount of oil there will make essentially no difference.. It's equal to a miniscule amount of ONE YEAR of US consumption. The fact is the US will never be energy independent, much less an exporter, so long as fossil fuels are used.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Ornery

• • Who knows better than everyone else, what's best for Alaska?

The ANWR is a national resource, not just an Alaskan resource, so what Alaskans want to do with the ANWR doesn't count for any more or any less than what folks in Massachusetts or Arizona want to do with the ANWR.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I really wish they would. The biggest weakness of the US is their dependancy on foreign oil. Other countries might not be so quick to thumb their nose at us if they couldn't rely on us to buy their oil. Let 'em eat their sand and drink their oil...

But the amount of oil there will make essentially no difference.. It's equal to a miniscule amount of ONE YEAR of US consumption. The fact is the US will never be energy independent, much less an exporter, so long as fossil fuels are used.

Yep...but that won't stop the politicians, who know best for us as long as they are republican (thanks Ornery), from pointing to it as a "success" in aleviating our dependance on foreign oil...

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Yep...but that won't stop the politicians, who know best for us as long as they are republican (thanks Ornery), from pointing to it as a "success" in aleviating our dependance on foreign oil...

That's the old adage, Money talks.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Yep...but that won't stop the politicians, who know best for us as long as they are republican (thanks Ornery), from pointing to it as a "success" in aleviating our dependance on foreign oil...

That's the old adage, Money talks.

Sad isn't it? The fact that it would be much more valuable to us as a emergency supply if something happened to the oil supply we import doesn't seem important...

IMO, it's much more valuable as a reserve than it would be as just another drop of oil in the bucket, so to speak, of what we use...

Of course, the republicans disagree with me, so I'm quite obviously wrong...

 

[Ornery]

Nuclear power would make a lot more sense...

Gee, and who has been fighting that energy source all along? :roll:

Well, they may finally get their head out of their ass on that issue, too!

 

[Insane3D]

LMAO Ornery....

Don't worry, just as long as you have gas for your land yacht right? Damned those damn enviromentalists eh?

Same old FUD from the same poster...

 

[Insomniak]

I see no problem with "wrecking" (altering) the planet's current ecological state for our personal gain. I don't think it's even outside natural occurence (nature changes catastrophically all the time).


Thus, I have no sympathy for the environmental movement. Humans as a species are just another force of ecological change.


As an aside, I visited Alaska for two weeks a couple years back an absolutely loved the state. Everything about it was awesome - I think people were smarter there because if you do stupid things, the state will kill you. -60F is not forgiving. Most of the folks I ran in to were old-guard Republicans, meaning they had more in common with present day Libertarians (leave me alone and let me care for myself) than the GOP.



I could definitely see myself retiring up there.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
I see no problem with "wrecking" (altering) the planet's current ecological state for our personal gain. I don't think it's even outside natural occurence (nature changes catastrophically all the time).


Thus, I have no sympathy for the environmental movement. Humans as a species are just another force of ecological change.

That's an ideological view, not a pragmatic one. You can argue that anything is unnatural or natural, but the reality is that there is destructive behavior as well as non destructive behavior. It may be natural for your kids to get in fights and lose digits and eyes, but are you going to let that happen?
What is it about man's destructive side that makes it more a natural occurrence than mans conservative side?

Personal gain is that that. It's not necessarily beneficial to most people, and environmental destruction especially is detrimental to humanity in the long run, agriculturally, economically, medically, and socially. Just look at the the trouble the fishing industry is facing because of its resistance to regulation.

I think most people don't understand the value of biodiversity either. Look at it this way. If it weren't for the great biodiversity before the earth's 4 mass extinctions, advanced life would have never survived. If it weren't for the biodiversity before the last ice age, we sure as hell would not be here. If things continue to worsen, when the climate continues warming or starts cooling, which could happen relatively soon, our civilization and its accomplishments may very well be destroyed. Too abstract for you? Consider the fact that 25% of prescription drugs are derived from wild plants.

 

[SilentButDeadly]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: SilentButDeadly
First of all I don't know to much about this except for what I have discussed with other people. I am just trying to find out what all is going on, and if they may start drilling for oil in Alaska... If so, is there anything I could do to get on the jump in being one of the first in getting a job in Alaska. From what I have heard it will pay pretty good money. (Btw, my dad is the one interested in doing this.)


Also who supports drilling in Alaska, and who doesn't? This is just for my curiousity. I support it because it will supposedly open up over 700,000 jobs in Alaska, and with the economy the way it is right now it could only be a good thing... It is only 1.5 million acres of Northern Alaska that would be considered for exploration, and IF oil is discovered, less then 2000 acres will be affected in production (Which is less then 1% of Alaska). More then 75% of Alaskans support the exploration and production in ANWR.


The man thing I am looking in all of this though, is if there is a sign-up or waiting list or something like that for the jobs in Alaska. I would appreciate the help that anyone could give me for this.

A couple things.

I'm an Alaskan. Been up here all my life. I've also done brief contract work in Prudhoe on several occasions, staying up to a week at a time. Not much to do up there but they have awesome food.

Pretty much everyone in Alaska wants ANWR open. (75-80% or so depending on the poll)

Almost all your stats are correct. ANWR is about the size of North Carolina and the acreage proposed for development is roughly the equivilant of building a fair sized international airport.

Last time I checked it passed the senate (as an ammendment to a supplemental spending appropriation I think) and is being argued about in the house. (Opposite of last time when it sailed through the house and got killed in the senate) We'll see. Got my fingers crossed with all the rest of us.

700,000 jobs? Don't think so. There aren't 700,000 people in Alaska. Using Prudhoe Bay as a model you might be looking at 2000 permenant jobs tops once production is up and running and they are pretty tough to get. It's more about WHO you know than what you know. It helps to be in tight with the unions. (IBEW, Teamsters, Laborers, etc.) Living outside Alaska is a big disadvantage. We have local preference hiring up here. If it's a choice between two qualified people the Alaskan will win.

Good luck.

Well you pretty much answered my main question there. Thanks. I knew jobs would probably be limited. The jobs will be "easily" available to Alaskans for obvious reasons, and I agree, I think that these jobs will be hard to get.

I meant to say it could basically open up 250,000-700,000 jobs spread out over the U.S. This does include manufacturing, service, trade, construction, and anything else that might be needed in this field. Thing is, these jobs won't be just in Alaska (Know way they would be able to do that), but spread out across the states.

At src.senate.gov they are a little more specific in saying that it will create 135,000 jobs in construction and 128,000 in the manufacturing field.

 

[bonkers325]

they call it a Wildlife RESERVE for a reason. and besides, drilling in Alaska is only a short term solution - what do we do when oil runs out?

 

[Patt]

If you've been in the area of the ANWR, and I have, and experienced the power and beauty of the caribou herd(s), you can't imagine them not being there. To be amonst the flow of hundreds of thousands of bodies in migration, so see life on that scale ... how could you do anything to disrupt that.

We really need to get off the oil dependence (I am too ) and find a viable alternative, or there won't be much of anything left.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Patt
If you've been in the area of the ANWR, and I have, and experienced the power and beauty of the caribou herd(s), you can't imagine them not being there. To be amonst the flow of hundreds of thousands of bodies in migration, so see life on that scale ... how could you do anything to disrupt that.

We really need to get off the oil dependence (I am too ) and find a viable alternative, or there won't be much of anything left.

When were you there? How long did you stay? Which part were you in, the coast where they want to drill or inland against the mountains where the caribou are?

 

[B00ne]

According to DoI there are technically recoverable (whatever that makes economically recoverable) 10 bill barrels of oil .

So that is about 1year and 4 month of US oil consumption.

The question should be: is such a drop in the bucket worth the environmental cost? If the answer is is yes then by all means go for it. However it will not reduce US dependency on foreign oil (for long).

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: B00ne
According to DoI there are technically recoverable (whatever that makes economically recoverable) 10 bill barrels of oil .

So that is about 1year and 4 month of US oil consumption.

The question should be: is such a drop in the bucket worth the environmental cost? If the answer is is yes then by all means go for it. However it will not reduce US dependency on foreign oil (for long).

Yeah... if ANWR were the only source being used. So what?

At full production ANWR would be pumping 1.4 million barrels a day. Right now we import about 2.4 million barrels from the Persian Gulf. Reducing our dependance on ME oil by 60% is a bad thing? I don't think so.

Edit: Linkage

Petroleum Imports/Exports
The United States averaged total net oil (crude and products) imports of an estimated 11.8 million bbl/d during January-October 2004, representing around 58% of total U.S. oil demand. Crude oil imports from Persian Gulf sources averaged 2.4 million bbl/d during that period. Overall, the top suppliers of crude oil to the United States during January-October 2004 were Canada (1.6 million bbl/d), Mexico (1.6 million bbl/d), Saudi Arabia (1.5 million bbl/d), Venezuela (1.3 million bbl/d), and Nigeria (1.1 million bbl/d).