U.S. OKs Expanded Oil Drilling in Alaska

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

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

but it is false figure, as production will span decades as it would be impossible to get all the oil out at once 😀

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

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

but it is false figure, as production will span decades as it would be impossible to get all the oil out at once 😀

True enough, but as such it just shows how insignificant that Oil Field really is.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

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

but it is false figure, as production will span decades as it would be impossible to get all the oil out at once 😀

True enough, but as such it just shows how insignificant that Oil Field really is.

I didn't know $825 Billion worth of oil is insignificant.

 

[chrisms]

Its fscking Alaska. Most people who are against this have never been or will never go to Alaska, much less the area in question, so I don't see what the problem is.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

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

but it is false figure, as production will span decades as it would be impossible to get all the oil out at once 😀

True enough, but as such it just shows how insignificant that Oil Field really is.

By your defination all oil fields are insignificant then.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Should be pumping the damn money into wind farms and cleaner technologies. Yeah, it's gonna sting cost-wise, but the possibilities hold so much more in store.

 

[feelingshorter]

im not surprised, america is a gluttony

 

[Loomen]

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Should be pumping the damn money into wind farms and cleaner technologies. Yeah, it's gonna sting cost-wise, but the possibilities hold so much more in store.

Your damn right. And these days, alternative sources like wind are MORE market competative than natural gas, oil, etc. We just don't have any leadership with any vision.
Bush gave millions of dollars for researching hydrogen power to the COAL AND OIL industry! What a jackass! Hydrogen power is supposed to make us LESS dependant on fossil fuels, not more so.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Loomen

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Should be pumping the damn money into wind farms and cleaner technologies. Yeah, it's gonna sting cost-wise, but the possibilities hold so much more in store.

Your damn right. And these days, alternative sources like wind are MORE market competative than natural gas, oil, etc. We just don't have any leadership with any vision.
Bush gave millions of dollars for researching hydrogen power to the COAL AND OIL industry! What a jackass! Hydrogen power is supposed to make us LESS dependant on fossil fuels, not more so.

Actually had the energy bill been passed, there would have been grants for wind power(which keep it competitive), there would have be tax rebates for hybrid cars, their would have been research money for hydrogen fuel, and clean coal. The energy bill would have given pork to all.

 

[Loomen]

Your damn right. And these days, alternative sources like wind are MORE market competative than natural gas, oil, etc. We just don't have any leadership with any vision.
Bush gave millions of dollars for researching hydrogen power to the COAL AND OIL industry! What a jackass! Hydrogen power is supposed to make us LESS dependant on fossil fuels, not more so.

[/quote]



Actually had the energy bill been passed, there would have been grants for wind power(which keep it competitive), there would have be tax rebates for hybrid cars, their would have been research money for hydrogen fuel, and clean coal. The energy bill would have given pork to all.[/quote]

Believe me, grants do not keep wind power competative. A Megawatt of electricity from a wind turbine is cheaper than ANY OTHER ENERGY SOURCE! Where I live (colorado) turbines can easily be hooked into the grid, other places may not have that luxury and cost savings, but wind is still competative by itself.

 

[imported_jzimo]

I was under the impression that there was more then 2 billion barrles located in this refuge and oil companies know exactly where it is and have been trying to drill there for 20 plus years. The reason President Bush wants to drill there is to reduce the U.S. dependence on foreign countries for oil. It will take 10 years if drilling started know for the oil to make it into the market. So, the drilling is for the long term and who knows what the world would be like then...

 

[HomerJS]

Notice how the people who want drilling in Alaska had it stopped off the coast of Flordia.

But it's safe, right??

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: jzimo
I was under the impression that there was more then 2 billion barrles located in this refuge and oil companies know exactly where it is and have been trying to drill there for 20 plus years. The reason President Bush wants to drill there is to reduce the U.S. dependence on foreign countries for oil. It will take 10 years if drilling started know for the oil to make it into the market. So, the drilling is for the long term and who knows what the world would be like then...

The idea that this will impact our dependence on foreign oil is crazy. The oil we get from destroying the environment there will be insignificant compared to what we import from abroad.

Investing the money used to drill in Alaska into increasing car fuel economy would reduce our dependence much more than any small amount of oil we find in Alaska!

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

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

but it is false figure, as production will span decades as it would be impossible to get all the oil out at once 😀

True enough, but as such it just shows how insignificant that Oil Field really is.

By your defination all oil fields are insignificant then.

Then think of it this way. This one is especially insignificant because we would be losing a valuable wildlife sanctuary.

Originally posted by: Loomen

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Should be pumping the damn money into wind farms and cleaner technologies. Yeah, it's gonna sting cost-wise, but the possibilities hold so much more in store.

Your damn right. And these days, alternative sources like wind are MORE market competative than natural gas, oil, etc. We just don't have any leadership with any vision.
Bush gave millions of dollars for researching hydrogen power to the COAL AND OIL industry! What a jackass! Hydrogen power is supposed to make us LESS dependant on fossil fuels, not more so.

Wind farms themselves cause environmental damage, by having a massive effect on wind patterns in the area.

Every single fuel source (alternative and the usual) damages the environment in some way. But, we need to find some that are less damaging than others. Hydrogen power is one of these things.

It's really not the source of the energy that we should be worrying about. We need to worry about demand. If fuel efficiency could even be increased a little, we could reduce dependence on foreign oil, and reduce our need for damaging energy sources.

 

[Baked]

You know this is gonna happen sooner or later. There's no stopping Bush and friends' greed.

Originally posted by: raildogg
Everyone must sign this Petition to stop the drilling for oil in Alaska

Those never work, there's absolutely no point in signing petition like these when so much money is involved. Bush and buddies' money to be precise.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

It's really not the source of the energy that we should be worrying about. We need to worry about demand. If fuel efficiency could even be increased a little, we could reduce dependence on foreign oil, and reduce our need for damaging energy sources.

But think of the POOR STARVING OIL COMPANIES!!!! They'd have to sink some of their fleet of corporate yachts (and/or file for bankruptcy) if we actually were to think of (GASP) energy conservation! Do you want THAT on your conscience?!?

Why do you hate America?!?!? 😉

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

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

but it is false figure, as production will span decades as it would be impossible to get all the oil out at once 😀

True enough, but as such it just shows how insignificant that Oil Field really is.

I didn't know $825 Billion worth of oil is insignificant.

825 billion? I'd look over your math. The ANWR has about 9 billion barrels in proved + probable reserves. At cost, which is ~15 dollars for that region, 9 billion x 15 = 135 billion dollars spread out over ~40 years from when it comes online.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

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

but it is false figure, as production will span decades as it would be impossible to get all the oil out at once 😀

True enough, but as such it just shows how insignificant that Oil Field really is.

By your defination all oil fields are insignificant then.

Ghawar isn't 😛

The insignificance argument is a terrible one to speak out against drilling, but it is a good one to show just how important oil is. 99% of the world's fields would be insiginificant if we looked at how much consumption it would provide.

Off the top of my head, the only fields that wouldn't insignificant using this criteria would be:

Prudhoe Bay
West Texas
Ghawar
Cantarell
Burgan
Samatlor
North Sea
Some Iranian fields (can't remember for the life of me)
MAYBE Kirkuk

Those are the elephants of the world. A LOT of production comes from small 1 billion, 500mb, 100mb fields and some even less than that.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Be wary of any intative that calls on hydrogen. Hydrogen is not an energy source. It is an energy carrier. To obtain hydrogen, we break methane into H2 and CO/CO2. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than a gallon of pure hydrogen.

Hydrogen will make us more dependant on fossil fuels, not less. And you should also realize that electrolysis of water can only be used in freshwater, as saltwater produces caustic and deadly chemicals. One would need to desalinate the water before electrolysing it. Ultimately, it will be produce with fossil fuels (90%+ of electricity is produced by fossil fuels, primarily gas and coal).

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: raildogg

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.

I would recommend people to not buy SUV's. They are a huge pile of !@$#. 8 gallons?

good thing Ford cancelled the Excursion. Now only if other companies can cancel their humogous SUV's that nake our enemies stronger. Every SUV you buy, the enemies of America get stronger. Remember that.

Uhh, thats one of the most ludacris statements I've ever heard.

Just had to comment, but maybe you listen to too much Ludacris it's ludicrous? ^_~

 

[conjur]

Welcome to Doomsday
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17852


James Watt must have a big ol' sh!t-eatin' grin on his face right now.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Be wary of any intative that calls on hydrogen. Hydrogen is not an energy source. It is an energy carrier. To obtain hydrogen, we break methane into H2 and CO/CO2. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than a gallon of pure hydrogen.

Hydrogen will make us more dependant on fossil fuels, not less. And you should also realize that electrolysis of water can only be used in freshwater, as saltwater produces caustic and deadly chemicals. One would need to desalinate the water before electrolysing it. Ultimately, it will be produce with fossil fuels (90%+ of electricity is produced by fossil fuels, primarily gas and coal).

While most electricity is generated via fossil fuels, the number is closer to 70% than 90%. We get a solid 20% from nuclear power alone.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Be wary of any intative that calls on hydrogen. Hydrogen is not an energy source. It is an energy carrier. To obtain hydrogen, we break methane into H2 and CO/CO2. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than a gallon of pure hydrogen.

Hydrogen will make us more dependant on fossil fuels, not less. And you should also realize that electrolysis of water can only be used in freshwater, as saltwater produces caustic and deadly chemicals. One would need to desalinate the water before electrolysing it. Ultimately, it will be produce with fossil fuels (90%+ of electricity is produced by fossil fuels, primarily gas and coal).

While most electricity is generated via fossil fuels, the number is closer to 70% than 90%. We get a solid 20% from nuclear power alone.

word

 

[piasabird]

So dont buy an SUV!!!

A Jeep is a lot more fun.

They want to sell larger cars because they can make more money doing it. Some of the SUV's like the Explorer cost almost as much as a Hummer. May as well buy the real thing. If gas prices keep going up they will all be crying at the pump.