U.S. OKs Expanded Oil Drilling in Alaska

[genghislegacy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Beowulf
Sure having more efficient cars would be nice but whats wrong with an SUV especially if you can afford to buy gas with no problem.

Because you have to invade other countries and rape the environment to support their drinking habits.

WELL SAID!

 

[genghislegacy]

money is everything... for bush

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: genghislegacy
money is everything... for bush

so all this "oil" money goes into the pocket of Bush? hmmmmm

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: genghislegacy
money is everything... for bush

so all this "oil" money goes into the pocket of Bush? hmmmmm

No, his large corporate donors at Exxon-Mobile, Chevron and, last and foremost, HALIBURTON!

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: genghislegacy
money is everything... for bush

so all this "oil" money goes into the pocket of Bush? hmmmmm

No, his large corporate donors at Exxon-Mobile, Chevron and, last and foremost, HALIBURTON!

And where do you go to get your gas? Exxon, Mobile, Chevron, Texaco. And which corporation does completion for those wells? Halliburton. I use their product every single day of my life. Their product is critical for me to get to my job, go to the grocery store, go out on dates, etc. The fact is, we all use their product on a daily basis. It is a critical factor for our Western civilization standard-of-living which I will not give up.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: genghislegacy
money is everything... for bush

so all this "oil" money goes into the pocket of Bush? hmmmmm

No, his large corporate donors at Exxon-Mobile, Chevron and, last and foremost, HALIBURTON!

And where do you go to get your gas? Exxon, Mobile, Chevron, Texaco. And which corporation does completion for those wells? Halliburton. I use their product every single day of my life. Their product is critical for me to get to my job, go to the grocery store, go out on dates, etc. The fact is, we all use their product on a daily basis. It is a critical factor for our Western civilization standard-of-living which I will not give up.

I'll give you one thing...at least your consistant. Just curious, does the government get paid anything for the oil that is pumped out of Alaska? Who owns the oil? I would hope that it's not just GIVEN to select companies (or any company for that matter) for pure 100% profit.

2nd - Where does the bulk of Alaskian oil go? Is the pipeline saturated? I've read/heard that most goes to Japan. If that's true, all it does is a: Profit the corporations that pump it or b: Profit the corporations that pump it AND gives money to the US Government (for the oil).

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: genghislegacy
money is everything... for bush

so all this "oil" money goes into the pocket of Bush? hmmmmm

No, his large corporate donors at Exxon-Mobile, Chevron and, last and foremost, HALIBURTON!

And where do you go to get your gas? Exxon, Mobile, Chevron, Texaco. And which corporation does completion for those wells? Halliburton. I use their product every single day of my life. Their product is critical for me to get to my job, go to the grocery store, go out on dates, etc. The fact is, we all use their product on a daily basis. It is a critical factor for our Western civilization standard-of-living which I will not give up.

I'll give you one thing...at least your consistant. Just curious, does the government get paid anything for the oil that is pumped out of Alaska? Who owns the oil? I would hope that it's not just GIVEN to select companies (or any company for that matter) for pure 100% profit.

2nd - Where does the bulk of Alaskian oil go? Is the pipeline saturated? I've read/heard that most goes to Japan. If that's true, all it does is a: Profit the corporations that pump it or b: Profit the corporations that pump it AND gives money to the US Government (for the oil).

I don't know what the government receives, though it surely gets paid for the land leases. However, I do know that Alaskan citizens receive a rather healthy dividend from oil every single year.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: genghislegacy
money is everything... for bush

so all this "oil" money goes into the pocket of Bush? hmmmmm

No, his large corporate donors at Exxon-Mobile, Chevron and, last and foremost, HALIBURTON!

And where do you go to get your gas? Exxon, Mobile, Chevron, Texaco. And which corporation does completion for those wells? Halliburton. I use their product every single day of my life. Their product is critical for me to get to my job, go to the grocery store, go out on dates, etc. The fact is, we all use their product on a daily basis. It is a critical factor for our Western civilization standard-of-living which I will not give up.

I'll give you one thing...at least your consistant. Just curious, does the government get paid anything for the oil that is pumped out of Alaska? Who owns the oil? I would hope that it's not just GIVEN to select companies (or any company for that matter) for pure 100% profit.

2nd - Where does the bulk of Alaskian oil go? Is the pipeline saturated? I've read/heard that most goes to Japan. If that's true, all it does is a: Profit the corporations that pump it or b: Profit the corporations that pump it AND gives money to the US Government (for the oil).

1. the goverment of alaska receives royalties on the oil there. Royalty checks are dispersed the population of alaska every year.

2. There is pipeline from alaska, so some it makes it down to the lower 48. Some of it is sold outside the country. Not sure what percent goes where however.

 

[Engineer]

2. There is pipeline from alaska, so some it makes it down to the lower 48. Some of it is sold outside the country. Not sure what percent goes where however.

So I can assume that the pipeline is not saturated at the moment (flowing 24/7)?

Does Alaska own the land or the federal government? (Just curious why Alaska residents get ther perks of the oil. I don't think they pay state taxes, IIRC)

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

2. There is pipeline from alaska, so some it makes it down to the lower 48. Some of it is sold outside the country. Not sure what percent goes where however.

So I can assume that the pipeline is not saturated at the moment (flowing 24/7)?

Does Alaska own the land or the federal government? (Just curious why Alaska residents get ther perks of the oil. I don't think they pay state taxes, IIRC)

I would not make assumptions on the how full the pipeline is.


Most of alaska is owned by the alaska goverment.

 

[charrison]

linkage

# Maximum daily throughput ? 2.136 million bbl., avg.
(With 11 pump stations operating). Rates exceeding 1,440,000 bbl./day assume drag reduction agent (DRA) injection.
# Maximum daily throughput ? 2000 (with 7 pump stations operating) ? .99 million bbl., avg. Rates exceeding 1,000,000 bbl./day assume DRA injection

Depening on how you calculate it, it is somewhere between 50% and 100% utilization.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

# Maximum daily throughput ? 2.136 million bbl., avg.
(With 11 pump stations operating). Rates exceeding 1,440,000 bbl./day assume drag reduction agent (DRA) injection.
# Maximum daily throughput ? 2000 (with 7 pump stations operating) ? .99 million bbl., avg. Rates exceeding 1,000,000 bbl./day assume DRA injection

Depening on how you calculate it, it is somewhere between 50% and 100% utilization.

Thank you. So extra oil could be pumped into the line (if available).

 

[Terumo]

Spoken like a true left wing environut.


of that 19million acres only about 2000 acres would be needed to do the developement. Care so show me what damage has been done to alaska with current oil developement.

...Testing the waters...

Well, I'm a Traditional Conservative which means I'm more right than the Neo-Cons, but I don't support destroying the Arctic for a petty couple billion gallons of oil (and destroying is right, since road ruts in the arctic alone can last for hundreds of years, decay and erosion is slowed to a crawl there. So an oil spill or a species disturbance can have devastating effects. Facts known long before there were modern environmentalists) -- it does nothing to stem the oil glut and our dependence on foreign oil.

We need an independent fuel source that can be produced within our borders and controled by no one else. It's the only way OPEC and any other foreign interest can control us. 1973 wasn't a funny time in US history, ya know?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Spoken like a true left wing environut.


of that 19million acres only about 2000 acres would be needed to do the developement. Care so show me what damage has been done to alaska with current oil developement.

...Testing the waters...

Well, I'm a Traditional Conservative which means I'm more right than the Neo-Cons, but I don't support destroying the Arctic for a petty couple billion gallons of oil (and destroying is right, since road ruts in the arctic alone can last for hundreds of years, decay and erosion is slowed to a crawl there. So an oil spill or a species disturbance can have devastating effects. Facts known long before there were modern environmentalists) -- it does nothing to stem the oil glut and our dependence on foreign oil.

We need an independent fuel source that can be produced within our borders and controled by no one else. It's the only way OPEC and any other foreign interest can control us. 1973 wasn't a funny time in US history, ya know?

Just so you know, they travel on a thing called ice roads and they can only do that part of the year. Drilling techonolgy is much cleaner than it was 30 years ago and requires a much smaller footprint. Very little lives in ANWR(think frozen desert).

I agree, we could do far more to become energy dependant.

 

[Terumo]

I know plenty about the arctic being a researcher on certain historical topics. Soil compression would occur anytime of the year, and in the arctic it really can lead to a 3 foot quadmire of the worst kind. And the 3ft ruts can literally last hundreds of years. We're talking about an environment where a tree on the border of the tree line takes over hundred years to grow an inch. Unlike the coastal waters, an oil spill on land on top of permafrost is a nasty affair to clean up. How will they dig through cement hard permafrost when it's -50F? Those in the hamlets in the arctic make estimates on death rates and pre-dig graves in advance of the first snow. How will man trudge up to the range and suck up thousands of gallons of slushed oil? They won't be able too, which means it sits there until the first thaw, which can be months away. Meanwhile all the wildlife in the area could've been affected.

Drilling in ANWAR isn't the way to curb our dependence on foreign oil. It's not even a bandage. US consumes so much oil that we're the largest user and waste more than any country. If we actually mean what we say (deeds not just words) ANWAR wouldn't even be a topic.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Terumo
I know plenty about the arctic being a researcher on certain historical topics. Soil compression would occur anytime of the year, and in the arctic it really can lead to a 3 foot quadmire of the worst kind. And the 3ft ruts can literally last hundreds of years. We're talking about an environment where a tree on the border of the tree line takes over hundred years to grow an inch. Unlike the coastal waters, an oil spill on land on top of permafrost is a nasty affair to clean up. How will they dig through cement hard permafrost when it's -50F? Those in the hamlets in the arctic make estimates on death rates and pre-dig graves in advance of the first snow. How will man trudge up to the range and suck up thousands of gallons of slushed oil? They won't be able too, which means it sits there until the first thaw, which can be months away. Meanwhile all the wildlife in the area could've been affected.

Drilling in ANWAR isn't the way to curb our dependence on foreign oil. It's not even a bandage. US consumes so much oil that we're the largest user and waste more than any country. If we actually mean what we say (deeds not just words) ANWAR wouldn't even be a topic.

Next time why dont you study some geology and how oil fields are currently developed in alaska now. You seem pretty clueless on the subject.

 

[Terumo]

About as clueless of you of arctic habitat. 😉

I spent 20 years as an researcher on anthropology of the area, Charrison. Believe you need to hit the books for a few years yourself. 😉

Oh, while you're at being a rock head (pun intended), tell us about the aquifiers among the tundra. While you're scratching your butt doing a 5 star Homer impression, I wonder if you can cite any reference to surface water seepage, and it's extent.

We can start here, and then move up to organics (my speciality is forensic anthropology). 😀

10,000 posts mean nothing, Charrison when you encounter someone who knows this subject well. 😉

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Terumo
About as clueless of you of arctic habitat. 😉

I spent 20 years as an researcher on anthropology of the area, Charrison. Believe you need to hit the books for a few years yourself. 😉

Oh, while you're at being a rock head (pun intended), tell us about the aquifiers among the tundra. While you're scratching your butt doing a 5 star Homer impression, I wonder if you can cite any reference to surface water seepage, and it's extent.

We can start here, and then move up to organics (my speciality is forensic anthropology). 😀

10,000 posts mean nothing, Charrison when you encounter someone who knows this subject well. 😉

Well you seem clueless as the how oil is currently being extracted there now.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: charrison

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.

Proof that the land will be destroyed.

crickets....

All it takes is one significant oil spill. Good luck with that. I just hope I don't have to come back here and tell you "I told you so."

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: charrison

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.

Proof that the land will be destroyed.

crickets....

All it takes is one significant oil spill. Good luck with that. I just hope I don't have to come back here and tell you "I told you so."

And with that being the standard, I am guessing you dont want any oil developement dont anywhere?

 

[Terumo]

Apparently you don't "get it."

Arctic habitat isn't like your backyard (unless you live around, say Beechey Point). A single accident in that environment can last for CENTURIES. The environment doesn't recover in a timeframe like in your temperate zone backyard. Remember the analogy of the tree (more of a shrub than a tree) takes about 100 years to grow one inch?? An oil spill or the ruts that heavy trucks will bring (tundra roads are all gravel due to permafrost melts, which will buckle tar and concrete), will last for centuries. Any vegetation destroyed will take decades to centuries to regrow.

BTW, do you think humans are going to monitor remote wells in a whiteout? And how are folks from temperate zones going to handle 4 months of no sunlight? Even the Inuit go insane during those months, and that's their home. You're going to tell us that the mess at Prudhoe Bay won't be repeated? Like how many women (especially airline stewardess) who are abused and even attacked by oil riggers?

You have no clue about the arctic life, let alone the history of drilling and living in the most godforsaken barrenlands on Earth. People go mad up there. Hypotherma makes mistakes that much more prone. And destroying the environment with one spill isn't worth the drilling -- at least with our current technology.

Do yourself a favor and read some history on Prudhoe Bay. You'll learn why the "rah rah" speeches are but hot air to the sad history of arctic drilling.

And it'll be more informational than reading books on oil exploration/refining.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Terumo
Apparently you don't "get it."

Arctic habitat isn't like your backyard (unless you live around, say Beechey Point). A single accident in that environment can last for CENTURIES. The environment doesn't recover in a timeframe like in your temperate zone backyard. Remember the analogy of the tree (more of a shrub than a tree) takes about 100 years to grow one inch?? An oil spill or the ruts that heavy trucks will bring (tundra roads are all gravel due to permafrost melts, which will buckle tar and concrete), will last for centuries. Any vegetation destroyed will take decades to centuries to regrow.

BTW, do you think humans are going to monitor remote wells in a whiteout? And how are folks from temperate zones going to handle 4 months of no sunlight? Even the Inuit go insane during those months, and that's their home. You're going to tell us that the mess at Prudhoe Bay won't be repeated? Like how many women (especially airline stewardess) who are abused and even attacked by oil riggers?

You have no clue about the arctic life, let alone the history of drilling and living in the most godforsaken barrenlands on Earth. People go mad up there. Hypotherma makes mistakes that much more prone. And destroying the environment with one spill isn't worth the drilling -- at least with our current technology.

Do yourself a favor and read some history on Prudhoe Bay. You'll learn why the "rah rah" speeches are but hot air to the sad history of arctic drilling.

And it'll be more informational than reading books on oil exploration/refining.

\You still dont get it do you? Oil fields are being developed there now, without destroying the artic wilderness. I dont claim to be accident or error free, but it is greatly improved since we started development there.

 

[Train]

http://resourcescommittee.hous...6incentives_access.htm

As we continue our work on a national energy policy in the 109th Congress, the successful Gulf policies should serve as a model for other domestic projects, especially ANWR. ANWR, for example, would yield roughly 1.5 million barrels per day to the U.S. market. Couple that with the Interior Department?s estimates for future Gulf production and we could replace the amount of oil we import from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iraq combined.?

And wildlife are not affected, new oilfield technology has an incredibly small footprint. ANWR is a complete frozen tundra for half the year anyways.

CARIBOU IN THE REGION

Over four decades of development on the North Slope have shown that caribou can co-exist with development. The Central Arctic Herd, which calves in the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil fields, has increased from 3,000 animals to more than 23,400 animals. Facilities in the Coastal Plain area would be designed to protect this important species and their habitat.

BIRDS IN THE REFUGE

During the brief arctic summer, the North Slope is home to millions of birds. Many come to nest and raise their young. Others come to molt or simply to pass through on migration. A few species are present year-round. Late May and early June bring long days, warmer temperatures, and flocks of migrating birds. Some of these stay in ANWR, while others continue to destinations elsewhere in Alaska and Canada.

OTHER WILDLIFE

Wildlife other than caribou, such as bears, wolves, and moose, use the Coastal Plain area infrequently and would be unaffected by development. Populations of these animals and others that live on the Coastal Plain such as muskoxen, are healthy and increasing despite three decades of development at Prudhoe Bay. Oil and gas development on the Coastal Plain would be temporary, and the long term ability of the habitat to support wildlife would not be affected.

WEATHER AND CLIMATE CONDITIONS

The Coastal Plain of ANWR is an arctic desert with approximately 10 inches of precipitation annually .The Coastal Plain area demonstrates a striking contrast between summer and winter. During the summer months temperatures are relatively cool (40" F) and daylight is continuous for 75 days. During the winter months temperatures drop well below O" F and darkness lasts for 56 days. Permafrost (permanently frozen ground) exists throughout the Coastal Plain area to an approximate depth of 2,000 feet deep. The permafrost creates an excellent environment for insects which plague the caribou throughout the year. (See Caribou for more info on insects.) Nearly continuous winds reshape the Coastal Plain winter landscape with blowing snow filling in valleys and swells, resulting in the appearance of a vast, white wasteland.

 

[Terumo]

A Department of the Interior report. So everything is now peachy. NOT!

Here buy it, download it and read to understand the real impact (not some press release)....
http://www.knowledgereports.co...in/hazel-cgi/hazel.cgi

<Dang, and I'm a conservationist and I don't even believe man should be there>

 

[HomerJS]

When drilling was propsed off the coast of Florida the "other Bush" and the residents had a collective bird. All these big mouths who want more drilling get quiet when the rig is near their house.