U.S. OKs Expanded Oil Drilling in Alaska

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Terumo

Banned
Jan 23, 2005
575
0
0
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
oil pipeline in the middle of kentucky ruptured today spilling contents into a nearby river.

this type of thing won't happen in alaska. the big oil companies promise. unless the ship captain is drunk...

Or a hunter goes mad and starts shooting the pipeline (which actually happened a year or so ago).
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
oil pipeline in the middle of kentucky ruptured today spilling contents into a nearby river.

this type of thing won't happen in alaska. the big oil companies promise. unless the ship captain is drunk...



are you giving up your car anytime soon?



well?
 

Terumo

Banned
Jan 23, 2005
575
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
and nobody noticed it for 6 months



Got a link to that?

Doesn't say anything about 6 months, but the date of the incident was October 4, 2001. Spilled over 280,000 gallons of crude, all because of a drunk with a gun.


http://archives.cnn.com/2001/U.../alaska.pipeline.leak/

It gets worse, years before that there was a deliberate sabotage (explosives) of the pipeline near Fairbanks.

There is no way to monitor the entire pipeline. Engineers could tell if there's a leak only after the pressure falls, and by then, God only knows how much oil can spill before a crew can get there to fix it. Crap, one bullet hole caused 120 gallons of crude to leak PER MINUTE.

How long does it take to get a hydraulic clamp to a destination in a middle of a whiteout? Let's do some math: 1 bullet hole damage causes 120 gallons to leak per minute x 60 minutes = 7200 gallons an hour. Considering this is Alaska, and the time it'll take for anyone to notice, give it at least 8hrs to get noticed and someone up there (in good weather). That equals = 57,600 gallons sprayed all over a virgin environment.

And look at the date of that article. Incident was on the 4th, and it was the 7th before it was plugged.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Terumo
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
and nobody noticed it for 6 months



Got a link to that?

Doesn't say anything about 6 months, but the date of the incident was October 4, 2001. Spilled over 280,000 gallons of crude, all because of a drunk with a gun.


http://archives.cnn.com/2001/U.../alaska.pipeline.leak/

It gets worse, years before that there was a deliberate sabotage (explosives) of the pipeline near Fairbanks.

There is no way to monitor the entire pipeline. Engineers could tell if there's a leak only after the pressure falls, and by then, God only knows how much oil can spill before a crew can get there to fix it. Crap, one bullet hole caused 120 gallons of crude to leak PER MINUTE.

How long does it take to get a hydraulic clamp to a destination in a middle of a whiteout? Let's do some math: 1 bullet hole damage causes 120 gallons to leak per minute x 60 minutes = 7200 gallons an hour. Considering this is Alaska, and the time it'll take for anyone to notice, give it at least 8hrs to get noticed and someone up there (in good weather). That equals = 57,600 gallons sprayed all over a virgin environment.

And look at the date of that article. Incident was on the 4th, and it was the 7th before it was plugged.



And looks like it was cleaned up quickly.
 

Terumo

Banned
Jan 23, 2005
575
0
0
280,000 gallons of oil leaked out of a hole caused by a bullet and 3 days later is not quickly.

I tell you what, get *1* gallon of oil and dump it on your front lawn. Let it sit for 3 days. Then try to clean it up. Then you'd get a real life idea how hard it'll be to clean up 280,000 gallons (in a temperate zone at that).

Change the oil in your car? How much soap and water and maybe pumice soap did you used to get it off your hands (maybe after even washing them with gasoline)? Imagine how much resources it'll take to clean up 280,000 gallons on GRAZING land.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Terumo
280,000 gallons of oil leaked out of a hole caused by a bullet and 3 days later is not quickly.

I tell you what, get *1* gallon of oil and dump it on your front lawn. Let it sit for 3 days. Then try to clean it up. Then you'd get a real life idea how hard it'll be to clean up 280,000 gallons (in a temperate zone at that).

Change the oil in your car? How much soap and water and maybe pumice soap did you used to get it off your hands (maybe after even washing them with gasoline)? Imagine how much resources it'll take to clean up 280,000 gallons on GRAZING land.


But it still got cleaned up.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Meh it will grow back. I'm not much of an envriomentalist. We could dump staight nuke waste in oceans and in 2 billion years no one would be the wiser.
 

Terumo

Banned
Jan 23, 2005
575
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Terumo
280,000 gallons of oil leaked out of a hole caused by a bullet and 3 days later is not quickly.

I tell you what, get *1* gallon of oil and dump it on your front lawn. Let it sit for 3 days. Then try to clean it up. Then you'd get a real life idea how hard it'll be to clean up 280,000 gallons (in a temperate zone at that).

Change the oil in your car? How much soap and water and maybe pumice soap did you used to get it off your hands (maybe after even washing them with gasoline)? Imagine how much resources it'll take to clean up 280,000 gallons on GRAZING land.


But it still got cleaned up.

Evidence (and not an article showing them cleaning it up, I mean evidence that the ground was truly cleaned up)?

 

Terumo

Banned
Jan 23, 2005
575
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Meh it will grow back. I'm not much of an envriomentalist. We could dump staight nuke waste in oceans and in 2 billion years no one would be the wiser.

Until that water is evaporated and goes up into the atmosphere and rains on your head. Then you might join ALF to get it cleaned up! lololol

As long as it's not in your backyard you'd careless. Once it seeps, flows, falls, or erupts near your doorstep it's WAR!!

Meh.....

 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Meh it will grow back. I'm not much of an envriomentalist. We could dump staight nuke waste in oceans and in 2 billion years no one would be the wiser.

are you kidding me?! we dump trash in the ocean, it washes up on the beach. we dump a little fertilizer in the ocean and an algal bloom sprouts up. that's like saying we can do anything we want because 2 billion years from now we will be long dead
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Update 3-16-2005

U.S. allowins Alaska to be destroyed, yeehaw.

Will have no effect on Oil & Gas prices, just wrecking Alaskan Wildlife :thumbsup:

3-16-2005 Senate Votes to Open Alaskan Oil Drilling

The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices

 

smc13

Senior member
Jan 5, 2005
606
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Update 3-16-2005

U.S. allowins Alaska to be destroyed, yeehaw.

Will have no effect on Oil & Gas prices, just wrecking Alaskan Wildlife :thumbsup:

3-16-2005 Senate Votes to Open Alaskan Oil Drilling

The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices


Where in the article does it say that it will have no impact on soaring oil prices? It obviously won't impact today's oil prices because it will take time to find oil, set up the rigs, and set up the pipelines. But, when they drill it will obviously reduces prices some what.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,682
40,035
136
I would support drilling there in times of more need or emergency. Today is not that time.


While I wouldn't be too happy about it, I feel the same.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: kage69
I would support drilling there in times of more need or emergency. Today is not that time.


While I wouldn't be too happy about it, I feel the same.

The Alaska oil will give us 6 months to a year's worth of oil. Tops.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Update 3-16-2005

U.S. allowins Alaska to be destroyed, yeehaw.

Will have no effect on Oil & Gas prices, just wrecking Alaskan Wildlife :thumbsup:

3-16-2005 Senate Votes to Open Alaskan Oil Drilling

The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices

Where in the article does it say that it will have no impact on soaring oil prices?

If you bothered to read the article that is a direct quote from said article

it would have no impact on soaring oil prices



 

smc13

Senior member
Jan 5, 2005
606
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Update 3-16-2005

U.S. allowins Alaska to be destroyed, yeehaw.

Will have no effect on Oil & Gas prices, just wrecking Alaskan Wildlife :thumbsup:

3-16-2005 Senate Votes to Open Alaskan Oil Drilling

The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices

Where in the article does it say that it will have no impact on soaring oil prices?

If you bothered to read the article that is a direct quote from said article

it would have no impact on soaring oil prices


I read the article I just missed your quote which is taken out of context:

" The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices and tight supplies. The first lease sales would not be issued until 2007, followed by development seven to 10 years later, Interior Secretary Gale Norton said."

What they are obviously saying is that it won't impact today's oil prices since it won't bring oil in till sometime around 2014-20017.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Update 3-16-2005

U.S. allowins Alaska to be destroyed, yeehaw.

Will have no effect on Oil & Gas prices, just wrecking Alaskan Wildlife :thumbsup:

3-16-2005 Senate Votes to Open Alaskan Oil Drilling

The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices



Hasn't been destroyed so far with drilling - and has been very good for the Alaskan economy. Keep in mind that we are talking about small areas of a very baren land.

I'd rather have AK sell oil when the price is high, then wait till it goes low.

The bad part of the deal is the Federal Gov. will screw AK out of its share. Contractually AK should get 90% (not sure if oil or profits, gross or net) of the oil - but somehow it gets whittled down to 50-50.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
I never supported drilling for oil in Alaska. The quantity of oil is not enough to justify destroying the land for many many animals who live there. This is where Bush is definately wrong. I have more to add, later.

It'll only affect 2000 acres out of 19 million acres. I don't see the problem. It's not worth it for 15 billion gallons of oil? Put that at $55 a barrell, thats $825 Billion worth of oil. How is that NOT worth it?
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: raildogg
I never supported drilling for oil in Alaska. The quantity of oil is not enough to justify destroying the land for many many animals who live there. This is where Bush is definately wrong. I have more to add, later.

It'll only affect 2000 acres out of 19 million acres. I don't see the problem. It's not worth it for 15 billion gallons of oil? Put that at $55 a barrell, thats $825 Billion worth of oil. How is that NOT worth it?

The drilling might only be in 2000 acres, but the effects of the drilling can spread over those 19 million acres. 6 months of oil for destroying a wildlife refuge seems pretty lame to me.

that said, bush is bowing to oil companies, and dems are trying to make this a political wedge issue.
 

smc13

Senior member
Jan 5, 2005
606
0
0
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: raildogg
I never supported drilling for oil in Alaska. The quantity of oil is not enough to justify destroying the land for many many animals who live there. This is where Bush is definately wrong. I have more to add, later.

It'll only affect 2000 acres out of 19 million acres. I don't see the problem. It's not worth it for 15 billion gallons of oil? Put that at $55 a barrell, thats $825 Billion worth of oil. How is that NOT worth it?

The drilling might only be in 2000 acres, but the effects of the drilling can spread over those 19 million acres. 6 months of oil for destroying a wildlife refuge seems pretty lame to me.

that said, bush is bowing to oil companies, and dems are trying to make this a political wedge issue.


Where do you get 6 months of oil? We use 15 billion gallons of oil in 6 months?
 

RobsTV

Platinum Member
Feb 11, 2000
2,520
0
0
Cool.
2000 acres is like a needle in a haystack.
It's about time the gov stopped catering to the select few, and served the masses they are there to represent.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,801
126
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: raildogg
I never supported drilling for oil in Alaska. The quantity of oil is not enough to justify destroying the land for many many animals who live there. This is where Bush is definately wrong. I have more to add, later.

It'll only affect 2000 acres out of 19 million acres. I don't see the problem. It's not worth it for 15 billion gallons of oil? Put that at $55 a barrell, thats $825 Billion worth of oil. How is that NOT worth it?

The drilling might only be in 2000 acres, but the effects of the drilling can spread over those 19 million acres. 6 months of oil for destroying a wildlife refuge seems pretty lame to me.

that said, bush is bowing to oil companies, and dems are trying to make this a political wedge issue.


Where do you get 6 months of oil? We use 15 billion gallons of oil in 6 months?

yes