Drilling in the Artic

[Jimsween]

I thought this would be a refreshing change from all the war topics.

Recently a bill that would allow drilling for oil in Alaska was shut down. If this bill was allowed it would have greatly reduced America's dependancy on foriegn oil but it would have also greatly affected the environment in Alaska.

What do you think about It?

[bumcheekcity]

i dont live in the US, so the pipeline isnt what im posting about, but thinking of the war, do you think you could have kept it off oil?

[Jimsween]

Well it IS possible to talk about oil without talking about the war.

[NEMESiSZ]

We already get a lot of oil from alaska, but it isn't practical to transport it from there to the east coast, which is why the majority of it is sold to Japan (cause of pearl harbor).

I totally support drilling there though, if there's a resource, we have to take it.

[Commander-K25]

At 3/28/03 06:44 PM, jimsween wrote: ...it would have also greatly affected the environment in Alaska.

That is an opinion.

[Jimsween]

So was the first thing I said.

[NEMESiSZ]

The environment doesn't matter, seriously, do you care what happens to frozen wasteland?

[Jimsween]

I wasnt exactly giving a nuetral stand point on it.

[karasz]

At 3/28/03 07:10 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: The environment doesn't matter, seriously, do you care what happens to frozen wasteland?

you're kidding me... the environment is important, but thats not why im glad the bill was defeated...

what if we do an intelligent thing and convert to like FUSION power or SOLAR power, then we wont have to worry about oil and the mid-east will turn into a poor 3rd world region and then the ANTI-US sentiment will only grow since we along with the west are doing nothing to fix the country... then before you know it the mid-east becomes ARABIA and they are pissed... ah, the future

[Jimsween]

At 3/28/03 07:38 PM, karasz wrote:

what if we do an intelligent thing and convert to like FUSION power or SOLAR power, then we wont have to worry about oil and the mid-east will turn into a poor 3rd world region and then the ANTI-US sentiment will only grow since we along with the west are doing nothing to fix the country... then before you know it the mid-east becomes ARABIA and they are pissed... ah, the future

Fusion power hasnt been perfected, the most we ever got back was 86%. Solar power is a pipe dream, You would need miles of solar panels to equal the output of one coal pwer plant.

[karasz]

At 3/28/03 07:44 PM, jimsween wrote: Fusion power hasnt been perfected, the most we ever got back was 86%. Solar power is a pipe dream, You would need miles of solar panels to equal the output of one coal pwer plant.

well the fusion power problem will get better within 15 years... but until then the damn mid-east will be of importance to the US...

we can always use nuclear power... and dont even start getting freaked out that nuclear power is unsafe, cuz chernoybl happened cuz the scientist were doing testing at really bad times to see how far the plant could be pushed, and the tests were unathorized...

and 3-mile island nothing happened so HA...

and driving a car causes more death than nuclear power plants...

[NEMESiSZ]

At 3/28/03 07:38 PM, karasz wrote:

:: you're kidding me... the environment is important, but thats not why im glad the bill was defeated...

what if we do an intelligent thing and convert to like FUSION power or SOLAR power, then we wont have to worry about oil and the mid-east will turn into a poor 3rd world region and then the ANTI-US sentiment will only grow since we along with the west are doing nothing to fix the country... then before you know it the mid-east becomes ARABIA and they are pissed... ah, the future

Ah, an idiot, I see. The Mideast IS a poor third world region, with a limited rich ruling class. If their money is gone, they become even more unstable, which is a big no-no. Even if this weren't the case, I fail to see what that has to do with the environment at all?

Fusion power at non-hazardous temperatures is a pipe-dream, which is why you never hear anything about cold fusion anymore. Solar power is impractical and expensive.

Nevertheless, once again, this has nothing to do with the environment. Basically what you said was "I'm glad we're not destroying the frozen wasteland, so we can find other ways to waste money on energy, and possibly destabalize an already hostile region."

Your insight is amazing...really...

[karasz]

At 3/28/03 08:06 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:

At 3/28/03 07:38 PM, karasz wrote:

you're kidding me... the environment is important, but thats not why im glad the bill was defeated...

what if we do an intelligent thing and convert to like FUSION power or SOLAR power, then we wont have to worry about oil and the mid-east will turn into a poor 3rd world region and then the ANTI-US sentiment will only grow since we along with the west are doing nothing to fix the country... then before you know it the mid-east becomes ARABIA and they are pissed... ah, the future

Ah, an idiot, I see. The Mideast IS a poor third world region, with a limited rich ruling class. If their money is gone, they become even more unstable, which is a big no-no. Even if this weren't the case, I fail to see what that has to do with the environment at all?

HEY, im not an idiot... well the ruling classes money comes from oil and when oil is refined and used it hurts the environment, SO thats how it deals with the environment...

also if there is no RICH rulling class, then it would seem to be supreme time for a democracy to be instilled, while everyone is of the same class..

Fusion power at non-hazardous temperatures is a pipe-dream, which is why you never hear anything about cold fusion anymore. Solar power is impractical and expensive.

so is the missle defense but why should we give up just because its a pipe-dream, impractical and expensive?

Nevertheless, once again, this has nothing to do with the environment. Basically what you said was "I'm glad we're not destroying the frozen wasteland, so we can find other ways to waste money on energy, and possibly destabalize an already hostile region."

well its better than 'FUCK our grandkids, i want my gas-guzzling car to fuck the planet over, WHILE im supporting terrorism, and its way more than buying weed, thats for damn sure...'

[NEMESiSZ]

You've yet to say anything logical defending the alaskan wasteland, so I'll just assume you have nothing, as usual.

[karasz]

At 3/28/03 08:37 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: You've yet to say anything logical defending the alaskan wasteland, so I'll just assume you have nothing, as usual.

what do u mean as usual???

although its not really helping my case since i dont care about the animals there, but what good would it do for us? there is not enough oil there to last for more than 6 months, so care to explain how that is going to help the US?

[House-Of-Leaves]

Actually, believe it or not, I used to campaign against the drilling for oil. If I was smart, I would have saved all the freakin' paperwork. As it is, I'll try to remember what I can.

The 'wasteland' isn't a wasteland. It's home to animals and -people- that couldn't live there anymore.

It would take over a decade to get that oil into the market.

AND. There's only enough oil there to last for 6 months, at the current consumption rate.

If you'd like sources for that, I can find it. But I'm multitasking and not up for siting this and that and the next thing unless someone like NemesisZ decides to call me an idiot.

[karasz]

WOO-HOO i win...

HA whose the idiot now??? (probably still me for one reason or the other...)

[NEMESiSZ]

At 3/28/03 08:40 PM, karasz wrote:
what do u mean as usual???

You almost never make any sense, that's what I mean.

At 3/28/03 08:40 PM, karasz wrote: although its not really helping my case since i dont care about the animals there, but what good would it do for us? there is not enough oil there to last for more than 6 months, so care to explain how that is going to help the US?

Where did you read that? The peta newsletter? We have no way of knowing how much oil is there, but there have been estimates, both large and small. It helps the US because it increases the global supply of Oil, as well as giving the US another trade advantage.

I'll take GDP over a few seals any day.

[karasz]

At 3/28/03 08:45 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:

At 3/28/03 08:40 PM, karasz wrote:
what do u mean as usual???

You almost never make any sense, that's what I mean.

really??? i thought i was quite the well-versed arguer... well that fucks up my day...

At 3/28/03 08:40 PM, karasz wrote: although its not really helping my case since i dont care about the animals there, but what good would it do for us? there is not enough oil there to last for more than 6 months, so care to explain how that is going to help the US?

Where did you read that? The peta newsletter? We have no way of knowing how much oil is there, but there have been estimates, both large and small. It helps the US because it increases the global supply of Oil, as well as giving the US another trade advantage.

um, house of leaves just said that there is only 6 months of oil there, and he works against the drilling, the other number i heard was 25 years but whatever

I'll take GDP over a few seals any day.

the US GDP is larger than anyother nations GDP, what is this little bit going to do?

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 3/28/03 08:45 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Where did you read that? The peta newsletter? We have no way of knowing how much oil is there, but there have been estimates, both large and small. It helps the US because it increases the global supply of Oil, as well as giving the US another trade advantage.

I'll take GDP over a few seals any day.

I know that wasn't to me. But you know what? I'm going to find that information for you. I need to cook for my family first, but then I will show you EXACTLY why the probability there is only 6 months worth of oil at the current consumption, and taking into consideration the trend in GROWING consumption.

The only fact I remember for sure, and won't have to back -myself- up on, is that Americans use almost 20 million barrels of oil per DAY.

There's something like...(god damn you for trying my brain *lol*) 6 billion barrels recoverable. There's a small percentage (like 5+%) that 15 billion (don't quote me) barrels might be recovered from ANWR.

It wouldn't be recovered for over a decade, and would peak...gah. I think in 20 years. If it had actually passed, that is.

With estimations that oil demand will increase like...30 something % in the next 15-20 years, I think it's safe to say oil from ANWR wouldn't last long.

So gimme a freakin' bit, and I'll give you your goddam facts! *lmao* Sorry. But it's been a while since I've had to pull that stuff outta my brain. Taxed me, it did.

[NEMESiSZ]

At 3/28/03 08:52 PM, karasz wrote:
really??? i thought i was quite the well-versed arguer... well that fucks up my day...

Seriously, you really aren't.

At 3/28/03 08:52 PM, karasz wrote:

um, house of leaves just said that there is only 6 months of oil there, and he works against the drilling, the other number i heard was 25 years but whatever

House of leaves isn't the authority on oil drilling, it's very easy to make up facts these days.

The truth is, no one knows how much oil there is, but if there's enough to break even, it justifies whatever environmental issues it causes.

At 3/28/03 08:52 PM, karasz wrote: the US GDP is larger than anyother nations GDP, what is this little bit going to do?

That's not true, you're thinking of GNP, which is not used very much anymore.

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 3/28/03 08:52 PM, karasz wrote:
um, house of leaves just said that there is only 6 months of oil there, and he works against the drilling.

First...I'm a SHE.

A girl. Hah.

Second...please dont' make me your last resort for information. There's always a chance I'm mistaken, tho with this, I'm almost positive. Which is why I'm going to get the research done later. If not for HERE, than just to refresh my memory.

I USED to campaign against it. I don't work for the same organization anymore.

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 3/28/03 09:01 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: House of leaves isn't the authority on oil drilling, it's very easy to make up facts these days.

Hah, thank you. :) We just said the same thing.

I'll be happy to supply facts. Later.

[karasz]

At 3/28/03 09:03 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:

At 3/28/03 08:52 PM, karasz wrote:
um, house of leaves just said that there is only 6 months of oil there, and he works against the drilling.

First...I'm a SHE.

A girl. Hah.

you're lying... women dont know things

by the way im jsut kidding...

well this is definitely a pretty sucky day for me... what exactly is it that makes my arguements pointless...

[mysecondstar]

At 3/28/03 09:07 PM, karasz wrote: you're lying... women dont know things

HAHAHAHA! that quote made my day! i scared my dog laughing out loud. but anywho, from what i've heard and read in the news was that there is really no telling how much oil there may or may not be. i remember this being a major agenda on the president's mind about two years ago. odd that it comes up again now.

[karasz]

well glad someone enjoyed that...

[TheEvilOne]

I'm all for developing new sources of energy, but they're still a little ways off, and we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil NOW. What better way than to increase domestic oil production?

And the Democrats whine whenever a bill is proposed to drill in ANWR, but the fact of the matter is that only a small portion of the reserve would be set aside for drilling, and wouldn't have that much environmental impact at all.

[karasz]

At 3/28/03 10:32 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: And the Democrats whine whenever a bill is proposed to drill in ANWR, but the fact of the matter is that only a small portion of the reserve would be set aside for drilling, and wouldn't have that much environmental impact at all.

until there is a spill AND BANG... then we have a big problem...

but if its such a small portion then how would it get the oil, since we have no way off knowing HOW MUCH oil is there, then how do we know where areound it is????

[Disguy-youknow]

Here is my two cents on the issue. In every conflict like this, we must balance environmental concerns with economic concerns. We can't always put the environment in front of the economy; similarly, we can't always put the economy in front of the environment. Hense it must be looked at by a case by case basis, looking at both the environment and economic potential.

ENVIRONMENT:
The drilling was set in a wildlife perserve.
An oilwell severly damages soil fertility of the surrounding soil, and hence the perserve would be runined.

ECONOMIC POTENTIAL
I was going to cite the fact fact that it would take ten years to get oil and it would only last 6 months, but somebody already stole my fire.
The quality of the Alaskan soil makes drilling difficult and expensive
Transporting the oil to the main land would also be costly as not oil pipelines are close to the area

In this case, I feel the harm done to the environment outwieghs the potential economic gain.

[Disguy-youknow]

Sorry for the double post. Anyways, I remember the 6 month statistic comes from a Newsweek article a while back.