DescentBB

It only took 5 years for Bush to get his way, looks like in a 51-49 budget vote to avoid a filibuster, the Arctic refuge has been so far passed for drilling. I'm sure you can guess where I stand on this. I think the tactics of saying this oil is for national security, or that we need to ease our foreign dependence is the scare formula and it worked for them so far. The USGS has said that this oil, if easily recoverable, would likely see the pump in about 10 years. All things considered, what was the supply supposed to be, roughly 6 months to a 1 year? What do you people think?

I like having national parks and places that are untouched. I can go to these places because past generations left them behind. They DIDN'T drill or do anything because some places need to be left alone. I really don't know how anyone could be for this kind of measure. Until we find a complete alternative source to energy other than oil, we will always, ALWAYS, be dependent on the Middle East for our source. We just happen to be the most industrial country with one of the smaller amounts of natural oil sources.

I'm actually with you, Zuruck. I don't see any reason to drag drilling equipment, no matter how "low-impact," into the middle of the ANWR in order to tap an oil reserve that won't even do any good in the long run. We need to discourage our dependence on fossil fuels, not increase it. We only have one home; **** this one up, and we don't have anywhere else to go.

We have the technology to get free energy--solar cells provide energy that is totally free for the taking; and wind farms also use the earth's natural energies for creating energy we can use.

The problems are:

A. solar cells are expensive and not very efficient--to get maximum voltage from them, they'd need to be in space, which poses problems for the transport of the energy--we'd need massive quantaties of fossil fuels to burn to get energy packages in to space, and more fossil fuels for the sattelites to jettison these energy packets back to earth. Earth-bound solar cells would require as much as an acre of ground (or more) to power a decent-sized city.

B. wind farms are also very inefficient and expensive, and dangerous to boot--if extremely high winds occur, the propellors can turn too fast and tear themselves out of their casings, or generate too much energy in a short time, destroying electrical circuits.

The main factor in these is money--we'll need to depend on fossil fuels while we're switching to a cheaper/more eco-friendly source of fuel, and do you think OPEC is going to kindly sit around and say "sure, go ahead and change fuels. We won't raise prices on you or impose tariffs or anything to keep our #1 oil customer from weaning itself off oil!" I sure don't--OPEC would do everything their twisted heads could think of to keep their #1 consumer from becoming self-sufficient in the energy department. It would be akin to the #1 customer of a company selling roses for $500 a pop saying "oh, I'm going to grow my own roses now--I don't need to pay this much for a rose." The results would be catastrophic for the company.

We can't switch to an alternate fuel source all at once--it would effectively cripple our government economically for years, as well as requiring a massive influx of workers equipped to operate solar cell/wind farm plants instead of gas stations. Switch to an alternate source, I agree--but try and find a way of doing it quietly, quickly, and with as few drawbacks as possible. We don't need Arab oil-producing companies screaming that we ruined their economies--which is exactly what would happen if we suddenly switched to an alternate energy source.

Interesting Stryker, but think of this. OPEC knows we have to depend on them now, but they also know that oil is going to disappear inevitably. Instead of squeezing every drop of oil out of this world, let's figure it out now. But of course, getting the Big 3 to increase the fuel efficiency of the vehicles would have a drastic effect, but this administration won't order that.

I love industry terms like "low impact", what the hell does that mean? It's the same as "acceptable levels" of contaminants. Those same chemicals werent' there before you put them there, and now you say it's acceptable for human health.

When Bush first tried opening up ANWR, it was just a basic measure that was immediately shot down. Then it was to ease oil prices, then it was for national security because of the Middle East, now it's oil prices again. How can oil that won't be good for 10 years ease prices now? Why don't they tell that on the radio addresses and tv shows? What bothers me more is that people will actually back something like this and call me a liberal enviro whacko. Did I get that label right Woodchip?

Zuruck wrote:...I like having national parks and places that are untouched....

Are you comparing the potential ANWR drilling site (which is less than one half of one percent of the 19 million acres of barren frozen tundra that makes up ANWR) to something like Yosemite?

Do you know anyone who vacationed there that isn't a Caribou?

But you're right, we shouldn't reduce by even a small amount the ratio of drilling that is done by the enviromentally concious third world nor should we lessen the cash flow to those radical islamikazi's that currently benefit from our importing of their product.

If the news says we have an oil shortage which is why prices are over $2 a gallon, and this is congress's way of saying "We can get more oil" therefore lowering prices...people are going to support it. It's BS, but that's what's going to happen.

Damn that ChimpyMcDarthVaderHitlerPoopooHeadFascistBabySealWhacker!!

We need alternative energy and now. Global warming in the next 20 years will cause both flooding and drought in China, this is a fact. We are talking billion's of people hungery and dehydrated.
Now I don't know about anyone else but if I has starving and dehydrated I would have no problem doing whatever I thought was nessary to resolve this issue. It's gonna be ugly if we dont accept and address this, and now.

Cuda68-2 wrote:Global warming in the next 20 years will cause both flooding and drought in China, this is a fact.

No, it's a shaky conclusion based on questionable science trumpeted by political factions of the environmental movement.

What we really need is less fearmongering and less jumping to conclusions, and more reasonable people willing to say "you know what? It might not be absolutely critical to reduce greenhouse gases right at this moment, but we need to be moving that way" without going to an extreme and unwarranted conclusion.

If it was a fact, I'd be right there with you. But it's not; it's just propaganda masquerading as knowledge in order to try to press the issue. That boy has been crying "wolf" for decades.

Lothar wrote:If it was a fact, I'd be right there with you. But it's not; it's just propaganda masquerading as knowledge in order to try to press the issue. That boy has been crying "wolf" for decades.

if there is anything i will admit to being lefty on it's the environment. how can you say the industrial revolution is crying wolf? all of america's wealth is basically centered on wasteful lifestyles and complete disregard for the earth... the word "want" has become the word "need". you can pitch the "we arn't as bad as _______ country" all day long. but i will think you are a clown.

you want me to really believe that we are gonna progress technology to the point where we can miraculously clean up all of our side effect. that's a lie. humans are walking sponges, they suck and suck and suck some more. then they spend more time explaining the fact that they are ★■◆●ing the world than actually admitting they are the cause.

the truth is no one in this god blessed society is giving up their waste of time ride, video game, or fat arse football game to save the earth. they are accumulating bull★■◆● to make their overly large living space look tight.

you don't want to change your lifestyle. it's really that simple...

Uh... what? I didn't say anything about the industrial revolution or miraculously cleaning up all pollution.

All I said was that "global warming will cause massive droughts and flooding in china" is not a "fact". It's an overreaction based on bad analysis.

I totally agree we need to deal with pollution. I just don't think we need to go overreacting and being unreasoanble. Every 5 years there's a new theory about how country X will face problem Y because of global warming in the extremely near future, based on a bogus "scientific study"... and we need to stop giving that any credibility.

We need to move to reduce oil use and greenhouse gas emissions. But we don't need to panic about it.

ps.

There are like 2 wind farms here in Oregon. They work great and helped keep power rates down.

They are mostly dangerous to birds, but even that they have found isn't that bad. They are spendy. Cheeper though than building another dam and a much lower impact.

Of course, wind farms aren't very practical in all places. The Gorge here on the Oregon / Washington border is perfect for them. BTW Lothar, Washington has a couple across from the Dalles. (just an FYI )

can't let this thread go without also mentioning one of my favourite up & comming cheap power techs: solar towers

Lothar wrote:
All I said was that "global warming will cause massive droughts and flooding in china" is not a "fact". It's an overreaction based on bad analysis.

Umm Lothar, you might want to try checking first:

"BANGKOK : As Thailand wrestles with one of its worst droughts in years, millions of people from China to Indonesia are also desperate for the rains to return."

http://tinyurl.com/6yqdd

As to Zurucks post. I'm all for it...unless the recovered oil winds up being shipped to foreign countries for a "better" price.

A few droughts do not global warming make. Plus, let's look at some of this "evidence for global warming."



Let's analyze this chart logically here.

First, look at the scale. the total range of variance is 1.4 degrees farenheit. Hardly earth-shaking, is it? While an increase like this would make quite a large difference after a while, it shows absolutely nothing when compared to a longer period of time.

Second, look at the time period. 120 years--it doesn't even allow for the fluctuations in earth's average temperature that always occur. A slightly warmer-than-normal summer or cooler-than-normal winter would skew the whole chart. Great, credibility++.

To analyze a better graph:


This shows the overall change in a more reasonable scale--a few degrees centigrade, which would definitely make a change in our climate. but what's this? This big lump in the middle? Since the scale is of 1500 years, it can't be caused by a single warm summer or winter. It's also a heck of a lot bigger than the little spike at our end of the chart--which is going down, not up.



I agree that we need to change to an alternate source of fuel. But let's wait until we've achieved a scientific level that allows us to make the transition seamless, quick, and inevitable. We can't go rushing into this half-dressed like we have done with so many other things--this is the future of our planet we're talking about; hasty actions and panic-tactics will get us nowhere. The earth has survived bigger catastrophies than greenhouse gases. Mount St. Helens, in its short eruption, put out almost as much methane as do we of the US in a whole year. I don't see anyone saying that we should pour concrete over Mount St. Helens!

woodchip wrote:

Lothar wrote:
All I said was that "global warming will cause massive droughts and flooding in china" is not a "fact". It's an overreaction based on bad analysis.

"BANGKOK : As Thailand wrestles with one of its worst droughts in years, millions of people from China to Indonesia are also desperate for the rains to return."

http://tinyurl.com/6yqdd

OMG! There's a drought in China! That means global warming will cause massive droughts and flooding in China over the next 20 years, and therefore, we have to panic!

Let me just re-emphasise: OVERREACTION.

Stryker, I'd caution against drawing any conclusions about global warming from either of your graphs. Neither timescale is long enough to make any claims about global warming.

There are climate graphs that go back ~900,000 years that show large temperature swings (they calculated temps based on radioisotopes in ice core samples or something like that . . . over my head). According to those data, we are indeed in the midst of a period of increasing average temperature. However, it looks like it fits with other temperature cycles over hundreds of thousands of years. reference

So, I haven't made up my mind who I believe in the global warming debate. If the data are correct, then we are definitely in a period of global warming, but global warming seems to happen periodically with or without our help. I've seen nothing convincing for the "humans are causing global warming" argument.

slightly off topic, but regarding wind farms: they're dangerous for Santa Claus

Considering that I don't believe that the earth is over 6,000 years old, I tend to not believe climate graphs with that scale.

Oh crap, not this again.

Global warming.
Save us, save us, oh anointed liberal! For we are far too weak and feeble to... blah blah.

Can't you guys give it a rest? Go Sierra Club!

lol@ fags

Dedman is right -- not this again. We're simply not going to go there, because it really doesn't matter how old the earth is.

What matters is:

1) there is reasonable evidence that some level of global warming going on, but it's not clear how significant the warming is or how fast it's expected to continue.

2) it's not known whether or not humans contribute significantly to it, or if it's almost all just random and/or cyclic variation

3) the chicken-little / boy-who-cried-wolf antics of those who say the world is in dire circumstances have gotten old, and really don't help matters

4) whether or not global warming, in particular, is a problem... reducing pollution and fossil fuel consumption is a noble goal. But we shouldn't panic because of those mentioned in point 3; we should be reasonable in the way we reduce pollution.

In particular, we should work toward alternative energy sources, and we should work to make them economically viable. We should also be willing to reduce our own consumption (which is also a good idea for economic reasons -- use less gas, use less electricity, and you save money.) But we shouldn't get all up in each others faces and yell about impending doom. That just causes problems.

Stryker wrote:Considering that I don't believe that the earth is over 6,000 years old, I tend to not believe climate graphs with that scale.

Oh.

In that case, nevermind

Will, you do only care about something if you intend to go there? Most people may never go there either, but that's not the point. Leave it alone, let there be some places that technology hasn't touched. Oh, and I love how you have followed the common GOP mantra, it's a very small footprint, the size of an airport in a place the size of South Carolina, which of course, this footprint is not in one area, and they will be connected with roads, pipelines, and other sorts of equipment.

Will, did you miss the part about 10 years before product hits the streets? And that's if it's easily recoverable. 10 years, and we get a 6 month - 1 year supply. You have never cried foul about the Saudi Arabian govt, even though they are the epitome of what your party is supposed to be hating.

I think Woodchip proved himself smarter today. Of course that oil is going to be shipped wherever the high prices are. The oil that comes out of the North Slope today is not guaranteed to be in America right now. It's wherever the oil companies feel they can make their money. Woodchip, why are you for it? Do you like national parks, etc?

Ahh....finally; someone actually didn't start saying "OMGOMGOMGACHRISTIANTHATACTUALLYBELIEVESGENESIS". Quite refreshing, actually. Thank you.

Will, you do only care about something if you intend to go there? Most people may never go there either, but that's not the point. Leave it alone, let there be some places that technology hasn't touched.

I'm just not that concerned about protecting a desolate, frozen, mud parking lot from a little industry and you made it out to be some pristine wonderland by refering to it as a natural park.

Will, did you miss the part about 10 years before product hits the streets?

Market prices are affected by future supply estimates. Did you miss the part about OPEC announcing it would step up production as soon as we announced we would step up drilling in ANWR? The benefit of drilling in ANWR begins before the first drop is refined.

You have never cried foul about the Saudi Arabian govt, even though they are the epitome of what your party is supposed to be hating.

It's not my party and besides, the Saudi Royals are just fine. Good little capitalists.
It's the 22.2 million dirt poor, ignorant, Islamikazi's that they rule that I cry foul over but unlike the looney-leftys I know that dethroning the Royals would only unleash the Islamikazi's on the world because they would replace the Royals with bin Ladden!

Woodchip, why are you for it? Do you like national parks, etc?

Again with the National Park non-sense! Have you seen a picture of the place?!? Do you think Alaskans working under american government standards are more likely to poison the planet with their drilling than Arabs are, or do you only care about the 'american' portion of the enviroment? Not in your backyard as it were.
Or is it just that "Big Oil" must be considered evil in every thing it does?

Again you are tre chic, tre dissent with you protest but lacking in logic.

If the price of oil stays up there for long then shale oil becomes profitable and we'll be sucking the oil out of a lot of places like ANWR.

HAsn't anyone heard about the icecaps? the northern ice cap over the last couple of years has been melting at alarming rates. Polar bears are starving and moving further south inland.

I don't have the source for this claim as I think I saw it a couple months ago on TV news. Might want to google it.

If you have some coastal property, ya might want to consider selling it in the next 20 years

Zuruck, having hiked in Big Sur and the Grand Canyon I would not like to see a bunch of well drilling equipment there. ANWR is not exactly the same as Will points out. Other than eskimoses, who else is going to visit the spot where the oil drilling is taking place?
Not exactly the spot I'd care to hike around in. How about you?

I would like to visit, but I have not. But that's not the point, so what if I don't? Do you care maybe a little bit about something else other than yourself? I've never been to Yellowstone but I wouldn't want it to be bulldozed over for some new suburbs of Jackson Hole. You don't think it's pretty? I'm sure it's not much in the winter, but not seeing a highway, buildings, homeless, Wal-Marts, and the sort is a sight for my eyes. Out of sight out of mind for you then huh woodchip? It's that simple?

i'm sure you will write me off. but don't you have a conscious?

when will it stop? when will you stop pickin' at everything to make your day easier? when will you start looking at yourself? you guys are talking about popping holes in a tundra. sure, that makes sense to you... but why do you need to pop holes? are you gonna look at yourself? never.

you fags will ruin the planet, for real, so your children can pay the price later. you love your babies so much you will waste their future on your convenience. who's the caulk sucker?

really.
you know in 50 years some old hack will be trying to find a " convenience " in your back yard. i can't believe you post your freakin' motor boats and super cars and not feel like a complete idiot while calling people "fags" for having some sense, an event horizon.

you guys are a serious study in "joy in repetition".

you fags.

*I've seen oil drilling in a third world country first hand.
*I've seen oil drilling in america first hand.
*I know from that experience that oil drilling in ANWR is going to be less harmful to the enviroment than drilling done in a third world country.

Until we don't need oil, we, as in we humans, are going to drill... be absolutely certain of it!
So the short term question is: Who do you want to do the drilling and who do you want to earn your oil dollars? bin Laddins butt buddies or Quinn the eskimo?

I'm not suggesting we don't also "look at ourselves" and seek answers to the long term question of energy but the arguments for not drilling a small piece of a frozen mud bog on the edge of nowhere have been really weak. So who's the caulk sucker now?

Sheesh.

So would you boys like to settle this like men;

would that be pistols or épées?

TheCops wrote:i'm sure you will write me off. but don't you have a conscious?

when will it stop? when will you stop pickin' at everything to make your day easier? when will you start looking at yourself? you guys are talking about popping holes in a tundra. sure, that makes sense to you... but why do you need to pop holes? are you gonna look at yourself? never.

you fags will ruin the planet, for real, so your children can pay the price later. you love your babies so much you will waste their future on your convenience. who's the caulk sucker?

really.
you know in 50 years some old hack will be trying to find a " convenience " in your back yard. i can't believe you post your freakin' motor boats and super cars and not feel like a complete idiot while calling people "fags" for having some sense, an event horizon.

you guys are a serious study in "joy in repetition".

you fags.

x2

TheCops wrote:are you gonna look at yourself? never.

Tell me... what kind of car do you drive? How much gas do you use per month?

Lothar wrote:

TheCops wrote:are you gonna look at yourself? never.

Tell me... what kind of car do you drive? How much gas do you use per month?

Better yet, does caulk master eat food? What is fertilizer made from? Or that cheap plastic guitar he plays with? Where does the material for Copseys clothes come from...is it cotton? How is the electricity generated that powers his cheap plastic guitar? Surrounded by oil, Copsey scrapes his ears out so he can wax poetic in sarcastic dementia, willing to saw off the branch he stands on to show us all he can fly...if only briefly.
Someone care to post pics of this soul inspiring place called ANWR?

See it here.

Meanwhile, check out the pic that was run in this MSNBC article. Deception at its finest.

Yep, that's probably the most realistic picture the media has used too! It's probably even taken in the actual wildlife reserve *but* not in the area the drilling is proposed. I've seen pictures presented by the enviro whacko's that were supposed to be ANWR that were later identified as National Geographic Magazine pictures of wildlife in the lower 48!

ANWR is a 19+ million acre reserve and the drilling is proposed in an area that is less than one half of one percent of the total area. Certainly there will be some impact but nothing like the naysayers would like Zuruck to keep believing.

Pebkac wrote:Deception at its finest.

Yes it is deception at it's finest. MSNBC and democratic leadership have lied about the nature of this area. Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman refered to this area as "Eden" and portrayed the right as idiots for wanting to endanger it.

C'mon guys, I am all for protecting environmentally important and delicate areas but this place is worthless other than its oil reserves. If it were Denali then I would be up there myself holding a protest sign. But ... it ain't no Denali ... it is a virtual wasteland. The only way the people that live there can make a living is to kill seals and whales or pump oil. They want to do the latter because it means a better life for them.

If you have some reason to want this stopped then use an argument with some validity. Don't lie about it and claim that its Eden when it is more like a nuclear wasteland. Try a valid point such as ... "You can save 6 times the oil capacity of this area in 10 years simply by repealing the SUV loophole". Then get off your @$$ and push legislation for doing just that.

Ferno wrote:

TheCops wrote:Bombastic Idealism (using the word "fag")

x2

that was full whim. but it must be inside me somewhere. ;-0

Lothar wrote:Tell me... what kind of car do you drive? How much gas do you use per month?

taxis and public transit and feet jj.with no cell phone (i live in a small world)..jj

so, for those of us that arenâ??t following the current thread that closely, could someone please summarize the lefty and righty position on this? help me out... 1 righty and 1 lefty please post (3 links each) that cemented your view over the 'controversy' in the alaska tundra drilling.

or not, i ain't your daddyâ?¦

I represent neither the left nor right although either side is free to agree with me.

I offer the common-freakin'-sense position and have already staked it out pretty damn clearly.
Here's a review of my non-partisan position.

FACT: In the next few decades oil will be pumped.
FACT: Unlike Arab oil sources, American oil sources are more enviro-friendly and provide profit for americans instead of islamikazi's.

QUESTION: Why shouldn't more oil come from America and less from Islamikazi-land?