Alaskan Oil Fields

[machacker2000]

For more information on what I'm about to say, try going here.

Ok, I'll start. Gas prices have been going up, right? Do you know why? Most people will say that the Arabian oil companies that we import from are raising their prices. That is partially correct. They are raising their prices, but they have a reason. And it is because they don't like what we are doing in the MidEast. So. They have a death grip on our economy and they are purposely trying to drain us of money. As a result of their raising oil prices, that means gas prices go up. Because gas prices go up, prices for goods hauled in by vehicles go up. I live in Tupelo, MS, where almost all of the food comes from outside. Well, that means food prices shoot up with the gas prices. Eggs are now $2.00 a dozen. That's ridiculous. A week ago they were $0.67 a dozen. Well, you ask, "How does Alaska come into all this?" Ok, I'll tell you. There is a huge oil deposit in Alaska capable of matching Saudi Arabia, and it belongs to US, the U.S., but guess why we can't mine it? "The enviornment may be endangered." Come on. Well, in the 1970's we ran a natural gas line through the huge Alaskan deposit, and realized that since we cleared up some gas, wildlife started flourishing there! But the legislation had already been passed that we couldn't do anything else up there because of the impact. Ok, the reindeer can move over about an acre, and we can be dependant on our own oil, and not be maliciously weakened economically by some guy wearing a turban! Don't get me wrong here, I know that we need to be responsible and not just completely decimate the Alaskan countryside. But what really craps my butt is that no one in Washington has enough backbone to say "the hell with it, we don't need the Arabs!" Thanks mostly to Bill Clinton, we have actually agreed with the Arabs and signed up for more imports! Remember that these are some of the same greaseballs who took American hostages, and he has the audacity to make a deal with them! This really craps my butt. I say, I can live without having the constant worry of, "Is Akhmad bin Jahli bin Jamaluddin bin Morrisannimuhhammedalliallah mad at us and is he going to raise the prices more?" And most of the people in Washington are rich enough that they don't have to worry about gas prices. To them, we're a bunch of whiners. Until they have to pay out of their own damn pockets and feel how much that the American economy is being weakened by the ragheads, I don't think that we are going to be able to use the solution right in front of us to solve the problem!

[liquidfire666]

We really should start drilling for oil up there but the problem is to do that it would destroy alot of wildlife and all the wildlife experts would freak out although i say screw the wildlife shure will kill some things but as long as we dont make them go extinct who cares

[NinjaPirateMaster]

I agree, and the gas price impacts everything else, like clothes and food.

[The-evil-bucket]

Great, wall of text, always what I look for in the politics forum. But really, the rising oil prices aren't just from greedy oil companies. There's also the fact that some major oil producers aren't producing oil, for one reason or another. Supply and demand.

[machacker2000]

At 1/4/08 05:56 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote: Great, wall of text, always what I look for in the politics forum. But really, the rising oil prices aren't just from greedy oil companies. There's also the fact that some major oil producers aren't producing oil, for one reason or another. Supply and demand.

True, true. But what I'm trying to say is that MOST of our oil is controlled by the Arabs, and they raise prices like hell.

[SEXY-FETUS]

The problem I see, playing devils advocate, is that we are very close to developement of cleaner renewable energy sources. If we start drilling alaska we loose the urgency for these technologies since we'll be swimming in cheap american controlled oil.
Also oil fields take time to set up, we're looking at 5 years before we see the first barrel roll out and 10-15 before we start pumping enough just to be self sufficient. Not to mention the years of work just to get the project started in the first place. So by the time we actually get what we need for today out of the ground technology will have progressed enough that our need for oil will have shrunk largely.

[Slizor]

I could point out about 5 different ways in which your view is incorrect, but I'll just focus on the one. The issue over US oil consumption should not be viewed as an issue over possible supplies, it should, rather, be viewed as an issue of reducing demand for oil. The US, through its foreign policy, has been able to keep up a level of consumption since the 60s/70s that was enabled by the inheritence of a very very large oil wealth. However, further continuation of this trend in consumption will threaten the economic and political security of the US. However much ANWR is drilled, or Alberta or Orinoco tar sands are converted, the issue will remain one of excessive consumption of oil, not - as the current debate is about - the source of oil.

My very very short answer here - the US has painted itself into a corner by failing to effectively tackle the issue of domestic oil consumption. Because of this, the continuation of oil supplies has become an issue of national security.

[Memorize]

They're not raising the prices because of "what we're doing in the middle east". They're using that as an excuse to raise their prices so they can have more wealth.

Ex. Hugo Chavez threatens a trade with the United States... The price of a barrel goes up $2.

[machacker2000]

At 1/5/08 04:10 AM, Memorize wrote: They're not raising the prices because of "what we're doing in the middle east". They're using that as an excuse to raise their prices so they can have more wealth.

Ex. Hugo Chavez threatens a trade with the United States... The price of a barrel goes up $2.

Yep. What we're doing in the mideast is a large factor, but they also are just greedy sometimes.

[machacker2000]

At 1/4/08 08:05 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: The problem I see, playing devils advocate, is that we are very close to developement of cleaner renewable energy sources. If we start drilling alaska we loose the urgency for these technologies since we'll be swimming in cheap american controlled oil.
Also oil fields take time to set up, we're looking at 5 years before we see the first barrel roll out and 10-15 before we start pumping enough just to be self sufficient. Not to mention the years of work just to get the project started in the first place. So by the time we actually get what we need for today out of the ground technology will have progressed enough that our need for oil will have shrunk largely.

It's a nice thought.. but no. Let's tackle the technology we have now 1 by 1, shall we?
Hybrids
Well, they're nice! They use a renewable source and also a gas motor. But notice that you still need a full tank of gasoline to use when you charge the battery or drive to get more ethanol.
Electric cars
Well, these aren't very useful. They don't pollute the road, but the factories that produce electricity burn oil.
Wind Power
The windmills are very expensive to repair, they are very large and noisy, so you won't be setting them in a city. So, they aren't going to be used much except in desolate areas like the windfarm in Hawaii.
Hydroelectric Power
This is pretty useful, but you need a pretty large water source to do it. And certain cities might have a problem with stopping up their biggest lake or river.. Not to mention that it is over-the-top expensive. And they still use gasoline motors and gasoline-driven repair vehicles, so it isn't a total end-all.
Solar Power
Alright, it's cool! Turns light into electricity, right? Well, to make those solar panels, they have to be made from processed glass and steel in a fossil-fuel burning factory, lots of expensive minerals have to be infused (i.e. gold) and to repair them, God knows how much it'll cost..

So.. how these technologies will evolve enough in 20 years to make us completely non-reliant on oil is beyond me. We'll certainly have to develop new ones, but right now, oil is what the whole country depends on.. And would it make sense to break away from oil too soon if the fields were ready for mining?

[SEXY-FETUS]

hydrogen
Ethenol
Larger capacity electric storage
Just plain efficient use of gasoline
And everything you mentioned that is improving becoming cheaper and more efficient every day.

[Madferit]

Hydrogen is the most practical but I'd like to see more development on nuclear. However, two nuclear cars crashing probably wouldn't be the best thing in the world.

Also, I've thought we should drill in Alaska FOREVER, fucking hippies think it might hurt the environment. Obviously they care more about polar bears than humans.

[Attactivist]

At 1/4/08 04:45 PM, liquidfire666 wrote: wildlife experts would freak out although i say screw the wildlife shure will kill some things but as long as we dont make them go extinct who cares

Wow, what an arrogant way at looking at life.

I'm sure that easy for you to say, you not the one who lives up their...

[Elfer]

At 1/5/08 11:23 PM, Madferit wrote: Hydrogen is the most practical but I'd like to see more development on nuclear. However, two nuclear cars crashing probably wouldn't be the best thing in the world.

You could fire a nuclear bomb into a nuclear power plant and still not get a nuclear explosion, as long as the bomb wasn't set to cause it.

However, the safety concerns and weight of shielding for a self-contained nuclear automobile wouldn't be worth it. It would make much more sense to have cars that run off of electricity (or some equivalent to electricity, like compressed air), and have that fuel supplied by a dedicated nuclear generating station.

[fli]

In the time it would take to make a drill for a EXPENDABLELY LIMITED resource--
we could create, enhance, and market UNLIMITED and RENEWABLE resources.

Here's the situation:
Drill Alasak-- fuck it up... get oil... run out of oil = no oil plus fucked up environment.

Switch over to renewable energy and you get to have cleaner place, plus-- energy that's cheaper than gas.

Dam... we're nearly finished with the first decade of this century, and we're still not honing up to renewable energy.

[Maxben]

I think you are making the mistake (poster above) that we all care. Some of us just want to be able to pay for gas AND university, or gas AND food/shelter. Not all of us can sit back and say "lets go Green, we can take a couple (10+ for a proper integration) of years of ridiculous high oil prices and reliance on countries that hate us." Though you (Americans) could potentially invest in our (Canadian) oil, we have a bunch.

Personally, I am in the privileged position of being able to invest in Green energy and not have to worry about food and shelter, but I care about others before myself in this instance.

Drill Alaska or go nuclear, those are your best choices.

[fli]

At 1/6/08 12:45 AM, Maxben wrote: I think you are making the mistake (poster above) that we all care. Some of us just want to be able to pay for gas AND university, or gas AND food/shelter. Not all of us can sit back and say "lets go Green, we can take a couple (10+ for a proper integration) of years of ridiculous high oil prices and reliance on countries that hate us." Though you (Americans) could potentially invest in our (Canadian) oil, we have a bunch.

Personally, I am in the privileged position of being able to invest in Green energy and not have to worry about food and shelter, but I care about others before myself in this instance.

Drill Alaska or go nuclear, those are your best choices.

The green I'm talking about is another kind--
Switch over to renewable energy resources, and you'll save money.

Even if you don't care about the environment--
Surely you care enough to switch to renewable resources if it becomes much more readily available because-- let's face it-- gas will never go down when it's going to become scarce.

You know what's the most horrific scene from I Am Legend?
Not the monsters-- that one shot where gas was over 6 bucks a gallon.

[Maxben]

At 1/6/08 01:13 AM, fli wrote: The green I'm talking about is another kind--
Switch over to renewable energy resources, and you'll save money.

Even if you don't care about the environment--
Surely you care enough to switch to renewable resources if it becomes much more readily available because-- let's face it-- gas will never go down when it's going to become scarce.

You know what's the most horrific scene from I Am Legend?
Not the monsters-- that one shot where gas was over 6 bucks a gallon.

What I am saying is we need to provide proper energy to the poor and middle class. The change to Green must come from the upper class. It is a necessary change, but the poor cannot wait for the infrastructure to be put in place. As such, this has a couple of important consequences. One, gas prices will fall as the rich, those who use the most gas, go Green, cheapening it for the masses. Two, the rich will create the infrastructure for the renewable energy sources. And three, we eventually turn Green in a proper and organized manner.

[TonyTostieno]

At 1/5/08 03:02 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: hydrogen

That'd be nice.

Ethenol

Last I checked that's more expensive then gasoline is.

Larger capacity electric storage

Notice that electricity is made mainly by fossil fuel using power plants.

Just plain efficient use of gasoline

We're doing the best we can mate, we try to get any more efficient and our cars are going to completely suck ass.

And everything you mentioned that is improving becoming cheaper and more efficient every day.

Not efficient enough to become independent of oil, though that would be absoloutely badass.

[machacker2000]

You know what's the most horrific scene from I Am Legend?
Not the monsters-- that one shot where gas was over 6 bucks a gallon.

That happened when the Coalition first attacked the Hussein Regime.

Listen, what you people are saying about that everyone will be driving electric cars by next week is a nice thought, but that is NOT going to happen! Do you realize 1: how expensive it is to maintain renewable resource-powered facilities? I don't care how many, quote, "advances" the liberals say that we're making, oil is still our best choice. Our economy is too dependent on oil to change overnight. And 2: How impractical all the renewable sources are? Hydrogen cars: still need a full tank of backup gas. Ethanol: needs gas to run off of as backup. Electric: Needs gas to run off of to charge the battery. Maybe if you invented a car that would run off your ignorant optimistic viewpoints, the entire energy crisis would be solved.

[machacker2000]

At 1/5/08 11:55 PM, fli wrote: In the time it would take to make a drill for a EXPENDABLELY LIMITED resource--
we could create, enhance, and market UNLIMITED and RENEWABLE resources.

Here's the situation:
Drill Alasak-- fuck it up... get oil... run out of oil = no oil plus fucked up environment.

Switch over to renewable energy and you get to have cleaner place, plus-- energy that's cheaper than gas.

Dam... we're nearly finished with the first decade of this century, and we're still not honing up to renewable energy.

You don't know what you're talking about at all. Drilling for oil in Alaska won't mess up the environment if we are responsible. The field in Alaska stretches almost all throughout the state.. this field could match Saudi Arabia. And haven't the Arabs dominated the oil industry since the 1960s? And, what much environment is there up there to destroy? I'm not trying to put down Alaskans, but really, in a state that big which has so much room, we can save more money than your geodesic dome-toilet paper reuse machines by drilling there.

[AdamRice]

Why would any oil company want to drill in ANWAR right now?
It would be significantly more profitable if they just held off on that particular field for the next twenty years when it's value will increase because of a net decrease in world oil reserves.

That would be a terrific way to take advantage of low supply and high demand to maximize profit.

Please remember, it is not of imminent concern to any oil refinery to lower gas prices at the pump. Even though prices are up, net US consumption has not gone down.

[Madferit]

At 1/6/08 01:13 AM, fli wrote: Not the monsters-- that one shot where gas was over 6 bucks a gallon.

Nope, I'm pretty sure monsters are a bit scarier.

[AngelaStar]

At 1/4/08 04:45 PM, liquidfire666 wrote: We really should start drilling for oil up there but the problem is to do that it would destroy alot of wildlife and all the wildlife experts would freak out although i say screw the wildlife shure will kill some things but as long as we dont make them go extinct who cares

Are you THAT stupid!? You would recommend destroying an entire environment for only 1 years worth of oil?

[K-RadPie]

At 1/6/08 04:45 PM, AngelaStar wrote: Are you THAT stupid!? You would recommend destroying an entire environment for only 1 years worth of oil?

A lot more that one year's worth, dumbass.

[AngelaStar]

At 1/6/08 04:48 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 1/6/08 04:45 PM, AngelaStar wrote: Are you THAT stupid!? You would recommend destroying an entire environment for only 1 years worth of oil?

A lot more that one year's worth, dumbass.

Read this moron -> http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arct ic.asp

Although drilling proponents often say there are 16 billion barrels of oil under the refuge's coastal plain, the U.S. Geological Service's estimate of the amount that could be recovered economically -- that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted and sold -- represents less than a year's U.S. supply.

[K-RadPie]

At 1/6/08 04:49 PM, AngelaStar wrote: Read this moron -> http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arct ic.asp

Although drilling proponents often say there are 16 billion barrels of oil under the refuge's coastal plain, the U.S. Geological Service's estimate of the amount that could be recovered economically -- that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted and sold -- represents less than a year's U.S. supply.

That's just one wildlife refuge, not the entirety of Alaska. There's more oil than just whatever's under there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/6/62/Anwrmap.jpg

[SEXY-FETUS]

At 1/6/08 02:02 AM, TonyTostieno wrote:

At 1/5/08 03:02 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: hydrogen

That'd be nice.

Ethenol

Last I checked that's more expensive then gasoline is.

Larger capacity electric storage

Notice that electricity is made mainly by fossil fuel using power plants.

Just plain efficient use of gasoline

We're doing the best we can mate, we try to get any more efficient and our cars are going to completely suck ass.

And everything you mentioned that is improving becoming cheaper and more efficient every day.

Not efficient enough to become independent of oil, though that would be absoloutely badass.

I think you got me wrong here. I'm just pointing out new technologies that are advancing. With that we'll most likely be off of oil in turn for something cleaner and cheaper by the time the alaskan oil fields start producing. Why would you spend 4 months and thousands of dollars fixing your 88 honda when your sure you'll have an 08 mustang in 3? If you know me I could care less if we go green, but fiscaly it doesn't make any sense. And if you're worried about driving a car that "sucks ass" then just take a look into electric racing where it is today. The cars have the ability to go faster and get to top speed quicker then most sports cars we have today and it's not too long till they surpass the ability of their gas counterparts. Not to mention easier repairs and a shit load less moving engine parts to break.

[fli]

At 1/6/08 02:17 PM, machacker2000 wrote: You don't know what you're talking about at all. Drilling for oil in Alaska won't mess up the environment if we are responsible. The field in Alaska stretches almost all throughout the state.. this field could match Saudi Arabia. And haven't the Arabs dominated the oil industry since the 1960s? And, what much environment is there up there to destroy? I'm not trying to put down Alaskans, but really, in a state that big which has so much room, we can save more money than your geodesic dome-toilet paper reuse machines by drilling there.

You're bringing machines that tears open the grounds... extracts more stuff...
Machines that consumes energy and pollute.

It's going to mess up the place, that is what we can be sure of.

In the end, it's simply not a good investment because the oil WILL end. It's not about "if"-- it's about "when."

So, we will have obsolete machines in the future, and
A place to clean up that will, ultimately, cost a lot of money.

Here's the thing with the environment: it's a domino's effect.
Just because you can't see the importance of an environment that's several thousands of miles away from you doesn't mean it won't effect you in one way or another, sooner or latter.

Ultimately, we cannot really save anymore money if we think about the technology, man power, and other stuff it takes to drill down there. And it's a really worthless investment because once it's gone... all job opportunities go with it.

Renewable technology, on the other hand, will guarantee jobs that will stay... energy that is cheaper because it eliminates the scarcity factor and will bring in competition (something that the oil industry both lacks, and look what it has gotten us in now.)... and also reduces the cost it takes to either maintain or clean an environment.

Ultimately, green is better for the economy... but more importantly, for the environment.

[ImaSmartass2]

Sure you could drill Alaska to bits, but what happens when we run out of gas? We have a huge shitty piece of land that's completly ruined. Plus prices will increase very fast.