Drilling in ANWR?

[Allison]

Could be, wabbit.

Republicans have added it into the budget to avoid a focused debate and possible filibuster. (The budget is not subject to filibuster.) Democrats have put forth a proposal to remove it from the budget.

Someone grab the popcorn.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7195164/

[Post]

My favorite part:

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who for more than two decades has been unable to persuade Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil companies, said he was optimistic this time.

Great, something that has been deadlocked for 20+ years, and he's perfectly fine with it just as long as he can get 50.1% of the vote. Hopefully, regardless of our biases here, we can agree that any decision that has been big enough to be a subject of controversy for 20+ years, shouldn't be sidestepped like this. The reason a filibuster needs more than just a majority to overcome is a failsafe, not just an annoyance. Christ, this is like trying to find a loophole in the President's veto. It's there for a purpose.

[MickeyFinn]

Whether they win it or not, I think this is an abuse of a technicality. I hate that.

[Rooster]

Oh please.

The Democrats are using the filibuster to REQUIRE a 60% majority to just get APPELLATE judges confirmed.

It's freaking rediculous. The damn Senator of Alaska is FOR it. He represents his STATE. The state's (iirc) citizenry are FOR it. It's been proven to have little environmental impact, in many cases HELPING wildlife.

It should pass without question - and I'll take 50.1% any day on this matter.

The Dems are insane on this: it's not enough to make a difference.
Well dumbshit - if we don't start somewhere, we'll never make a difference.
That'd be like saying "If I can't make $60,000 starting at McDonalds, I don't wanna work."

[MickeyFinn]

She Roo, the senator is a she. manly she, but a she. She!

[Post]

"It's been proven to have little environmental impact, in many cases HELPING wildlife."

Could I have a link to where it has helped wildlife? For that matter, where it was proven that this particular thing that hasn't been done yet will have very little environmental impact?

"It should pass without question - and I'll take 50.1% any day on this matter."

What matters that you personally agree with, that you would not be satisfied with only 50.1%?

"That'd be like saying "If I can't make $60,000 starting at McDonalds, I don't wanna work.""

No it's not. It's like saying, "If only 50.1% of the population voted for me, maybe I should look to see if my views are really a good representation of the people I represent."

Do you atleast agree that this is using a technicality to get around the normal rules that are put there for a reason?

[Swifty_Johnson]

Could I have a link to where it has helped wildlife? For that matter, where it was proven that this particular thing that hasn't been done yet will have very little environmental impact?

Watch Fox news sometimes, they did a story on ANWR. In other nearby areas where there is drilling the wildlife has increased, so one would assume the same thing will happen in ANWR.

Also, drilling in ANWR will be in a really small area, less then 10% of the ANWR will be disturbed to drill, that is hardly going to disrupt the ANWR.

The people of Alaska, esp in that area, support the drilling. They need the jobs and the income. So the question is, why are the people of New York and California telling the people of Alaska what they should be doing with their state? That isn't right.

Swifty

[Post]

"So the question is, why are the people of New York and California telling the people of Alaska what they should be doing with their state?"

Because it's a national reserve, and not a state one. The land was put aside to preserve the habitat of wildlife for the nation, not for that particular state. If the Grand Canyon wasn't bringing in enough money, Arizona cannot simply blast it to make room for condos, because it's set aside for more than just Arizona.

[Swifty_Johnson]

The land was put aside to preserve the habitat of wildlife for the nation, not for that particular state.

That's true, now how many of the people from the rest of the states go there and look at it? If it was a big tourist draw, then this wouldn't be an issue. Also, if the people really knew the truth, a majority of American would agree to drill there. There has been so much distortion of the issue by the left that many people think ANWR will be destroyed by the drilling, which if far from the truth.

So, why does the minority get to keep jobs and prosperity from the majority?

Swifty

[Murrie]

Personally I am for exploration, Ive heard everything from the amount of oil we could get from anwr would only be 6 months worth of oil use in the US, to it is holding enough oil to replace 30 years of Saudi Arabian Oil. It seems like it could very well be the largest pocket of oil in the US. I feel that it should probably be drilled but would like a more specific estimation of the extent of the oil under there.

As for the animals, they managed to build pipeline over 30 years ago that runs nearly a thousand miles that has had very little impact on the animals and the area that it runs through. I am just guessing here but I bet that with the advancements in technology over the past three decades we can easily work on a couple mile square area without impacting nature too much.

But it does seem fairly underhanded and I hope the budget doesnt pass with this in it, so my feelings on this are:






Bomb them!

[Post]

"That's true, now how many of the people from the rest of the states go there and look at it?"

I don't know. But whether or not something is a national preserve isn't relational to how good of a tourist trap it can be.

"So, why does the minority get to keep jobs and prosperity from the majority?"

That's not a fair statement. Even if I agreed that the left is "fooling" people, they're still getting atleast what they think they want. If I'm "fooled" into voting for someone, it's not as if my vote didn't count. If it could somehow be proven that 2% of the American people were "fooled" into voting for Bush, it's not like a majority didn't support him at the time of voting.

[Post]

"As for the animals, they managed to build pipeline over 30 years ago that runs nearly a thousand miles that has had very little impact on the animals and the area that it runs through."

I don't think the issue is where the oil is transported. The issue is where the oil is grabbed from.

[Murrie]

I think you misunderstood me Hepper, I am assuming that if 30 years ago a huge constuction project that built an 800 mile long pipe across all sorts of natural animal habitat without a great deal of long term impact on said animals; that with todays technology we could easily build a place where the "oil is grabbed from" with a similarly minimal impact.

[Post]

I don't know about that. I'm not talking about the oil coming above ground and screwing stuff up, I'm talking about the long-term effects of removing that much stuff from the ground.

[Murrie]

hmm, a supermassive sinkhole would probably suck ass, never thought of that problem. Are there known examples of something like this happening at existing wells?

[Boom]

Give me a break. If democrats where trying to use loopholes to get something done in congress you would be all over them.

The ends do not justify the means.

The question posed by this thread was NOT "is drilling in ANWR a good thing," the question is, "Are you ok with politicians playing dirty pool in congress." Apparently, some conservatives here are ok with republicans playing dirty pool, as long as they agree with their final objective. But we all know you would throw a conniption fit if dems did it.

As far as the side issue is concerned, whether or not ANWR drilling is a good thing, I will briefly address it. I know a lot about the potential devistation caused by oil exploration. I've worked on oilfield cases. There are considerations yall have never dreamed of like contamination of underground fresh water sources and the accumulation of naturally occuring radioactive materials. Radium exists in nature, but its all diluted underground and spread out so its not really that dangerous. But oilfield production brings up this radium and it collects on the equipment (mostly the pipes) and accumulates till its incredibly dangerous. When those pipes are pulled up for cleaning (which is done constantly) the radium can get spread all over the ground and permanenty ruin land. Radium has a half life of about 2000 years. That means in 2000 years the land will be only half as radioactive, and 2000 years later it will be half of that and 2000 years later it will be half of that. So it can take thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of years before that piece of property stops being dangerously radioactive. My boss recently got a billion dollar judgment from Exxon because they made some property so damn radioactive you can probably bake a potato on it, and never told the people living nearby (who were all getting the specific kinds of cancer that you get from this particular type of radiation) that they were being hiroshimaed. And radiation is just one of thousands of potential environmental disasters caused by oil exploration. I could go on and on. But its a waste of time to go into it here. It's not like we haven't had these discussions before and those who don't want to hear me, don't hear me. If you believe that oil exploration is good for the environment, its a waste of time for me to try and change your mind.

Even if its not potentially devistating for the environment, I just don't see how its necessary. Over 95% of the Alaskan shore has been opened up to oil exploration. The government decided it would be a good idea to save that last little sliver for conservation purposes. I think its kind of greedy for the oil industry to insist upon getting the entire 100% of everything. It's not like conservationists are trying to stop oil exploration on all of the Alaskan shore, or even on half of it. They are just trying to save one tiny little sliver.

Besides, its a temporary fix to the problem. The solution is for us to get off the oil teat.

Think of it this way. What will be happening in 20 years if we do or if we don't drill in ANWR.

If we drill in ANWR now, in 20 years we will still be totally screwed if we haven't come up with an alternative to oil, and there will be no remaining pristine Alaskan wilderness areas left for conservationists.

If we don't drill in ANWR, in 20 years we will be totally screwed if we haven't found an alternative energy source, but at least we will have conserved a tiny sliver of natural Alaska with the caribou and lush fields and all that.

[Roscoes_C&W]

I think the people of Alaska should have more of a say than some douchebag lawyer in NYC.

[Roscoes_C&W]

we saved little slivers of land all over the place. Everytime I drive somewhere theres slivers of protected land. I have worked on pieces of land that have become totally undevelopable because of conservationist thugs who muscle out small developers looking to build a residential home on 40 acres of land. They use illegal methods to force people to donate their land to them, one of them being the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. I have dealt with this first hand and it's becoming harder and harder for people to build, unless you are Barbera Streisand or something and you can donate millions of dollers to have them look away. So stop acting like there's no protected land on earth besides the ANWR area and if we drill in it we are totally screwed for eternity.

[Post]

"So stop acting like there's no protected land on earth besides the ANWR area and if we drill in it we are totally screwed for eternity."

He's not acting like that. He's acting like the amount of protected land pales into comparison to what isn't (and what's actually being used), and that the probable rewards from it are small compared to the probable issues it will cause.

[Murrie]

they should get Mr. Burns to hook them up with his fancy slant drilling operation, then they could get that oil from under that evil elementary school!

[Swifty_Johnson]

What happened with the alaskan pipeline is Caribou are able to use it as a shield from the bitter cold, so less of them die every year, so their population is greater then before the pipeline went in.

The part of the ANWR that will be touched by oil exploration, if you Scale down ANWR to an area that is 12 feet by 7 feet, the size of the oil exploration area will be the size of a quater in the upper left part of it. 99% of ANWR will be untouched, and even if the worst doom and gloom happen, 99% of ANWR wouldn't be effected by it.

If we drill in ANWR now, in 20 years we will still be totally screwed if we haven't come up with an alternative to oil, and there will be no remaining pristine Alaskan wilderness areas left for conservationists.

That's a good one. You make it sound like ANWR is going to be totally trashed, which is extreamly far from the truth. If we drill at ANWR, there will be plenty of pristine Alaskan wilderness left for conservationists who don't even go there.

Swifty

[Hammer]

I don't think they should back door it in a spending bill. I'm for the drilling but I would rather see it debated on it's on merit. Another six months of rising gas prices and I expect the debate to be over. The truth is most americans have no idea what it is or even where it is.

[]LoL[Harm]

I'm for the drilling but I would rather see it debated on it's on merit. I will not tolerate any debate in regards to back door drilling!

[Hammer]

Just make sure you are the driller.

[MickeyFinn]

All of this could be avoided if the world ran on biodiesel.

[Allison]

Done deal. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=586785

The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

[Swifty_Johnson]

I don't think they should back door it in a spending bill.

I agree, let go by itself. When the truth is known it will further erode support for the democrats as gas prices go higher.

On the plus side, higher gas prices = more incentives to do something about it, so this will speed up devolpment of other energy sources.

All of this could be avoided if the world ran on biodiesel.

Or Methane, then Morety would become very very rich.

Swifty

[Roscoes_C&W]

How bout a car that works off of human energy? We can build plugs on us that the vehicle connects to us and we have to eat to drive. So we can get in the car with a bunch of potatoe chips and pizza and coca cola then eat it while we drive down the road. Then if you want to race someone you got to pull out the stockpile of Lard and shove some lard down ur throat for some extra power boost, like nitrice.

[spyder913]

^^^ lol

[Noleader]

It got past the dems attempt to block today :(

51 to 49 vote

[Roscoes_C&W]

It's perfect because people are over weight. Obesity is a giant problem, and with this new system i plan on implementing it will help with weight loss, without excersize. Everybody loves to eat, but who gets to eat guilt free? With this new system we will be encouraged to eat more, no more guilt, no more weight gain, healthier people, healthier environment. This is the greatest thing I've ever thought up. I need to present this to some bio engineers, physicians, and mechanical engineers. Nobel Prize, here I come.

[Murrie]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00052

in case you want to see how your jerkoff voted...

[Post]

I hope McCain runs for the Republican party next term. If he won, he would still carry a lot of the stuff I want to the White House, and it would make the Republicans all warm and fuzzy with the words "REPUBLICAN" being written all over the Presidency. Me, I don't care if it says "INDEPENDENT GOBBLE-DEE-DOO", just as long as the bottom line of what I want is happening.

[Noleader]

Well both my Senators voted to stike it from the budget.

[Allison]

So, 7 Republicans crossed over and 3 Democrats.

[Post]

That means that there are more evil-chaotic Republicans than there are lawful-good Democrats.

[Allison]

Exactly. :laugh:

[Boom]

The part of the ANWR that will be touched by oil exploration, if you Scale down ANWR to an area that is 12 feet by 7 feet, the size of the oil exploration area will be the size of a quater in the upper left part of it. 99% of ANWR will be untouched, and even if the worst doom and gloom happen, 99% of ANWR wouldn't be effected by it.

Source please.

And keep in mind that the exploration footprint =! area effected.

[Allison]

Yeah, I think it's closer to 10% of the refuge that will be opened to drilling, not 1%, and that doesn't include any additional roads or pipelines that might be needed, if any. And we'd certainly be getting into crystal ball territory to make the claim that any foreseeable damage that might occur within that 10% of ANWR (or whatever the exact percentage is) wouldn't have an affect on anything outside of that 10%. There's just no way to know that.

Edit: ah, we're talking about footprints of actual structures? That's certainly an interesting way to look at it. And by interesting, I mean self-serving. :laugh: That's like saying a Super Wal-Mart doesn't affect anything outside of its structual footprint. There will obviously be affects, be they good or bad, significant or minute, there will be affects outside the footprint.

Edit again: Yeah, closer to 7 or 8% of ANWR. Here's an overview of the debate:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7159486/

[Boom]

Yeah, if you build a highway right down the middle of 1000 acre forest, the actual paved surface might only be like 20 acres, but the area effected is going to be much greater than 20 acres, it could even be the entire 1000 acres, depending on a whole lot of factors.

[Roscoes_C&W]

Well if you design it so that drainage is treated before released then it shouldn't effect much more than the highway itself. The main thing you need to deal with is the drainage that is usually contaminated with solids like from tires, and other things like oil. But that's a pretty common thing nowadays, treating drainage.

[Allison]

Oh, as for my personal feelings, I do think including it within the budget is stupid, and it shouldn't pass that way. But I'm a bit torn about whether or not we should be drilling there.

On the one hand, I think Alaska has the right to make a buck. And, if drilling in ANWR were the best solution to reducing our foreign dependence on oil, I think, given the fact that most studies say we can do it with minimal impact, we should take all precautions necessary and drill away.

But, I think when we're talking about any negative impact on a protected reserve, we have to make sure it's in the nation's best interests to do so. And I think if our true intent was to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, there are much more effective measures Congress could take to that end --- of course, those measures cost money instead of making money ...

So, yes, if the high-end estimates are true, drilling in ANWR could have a small impact on our dependence for foreign oil, which would benefit the nation in the short term. But in the long term, its effects on our dependence will be negligible. So I don't see much point in it when Congress isn't doing anything that would have a greater, long-term impact.

I guess you could make the argument that this minimal, short-term solution is just a segway to help us out until we get to the point of taking those greater measures, but right now it just seems to be about who can make a buck off of it, and that doesn't sit well with me.

As with a lot of issues, I can see both sides. So , I think, as I do with a lot of issues, that some compromise is in order. And perhaps allowing drilling on that 7 or 8 percent is a compromise. It's certainly going to happen whether we like it or not, so it's kind of a moot point. But, I think a lot of people are going to be watching very closely for the first sign of trouble, as well they should be. I just hope, since it's going to happen anyway, that it turns out to be a fountain of oil, otherwise, I don't see how it will have been worth it.

Of course, if we reaalllly wanted to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we should all secretly be wishing that the well is dry. After all, we'll never take those greater measures until we're forced to by crazy-high prices.

[Roscoes_C&W]

Really, I doubt it reduces our dependence on foreign oil. I thought I remembered hearing something about how we export most of our oil we drill here on U.S. soil because it was more cost efficient.

[Boom]

It's going to take about 10 years before we see the first drop of oil from ANWR. It's not going to do anything at all short term, and it won't solve anything long term. If we allow drilling in ANWR about 5 or 6 top oil execs who are already worth billions will be worth more billions. That's it.

[Rooster]

Uhh, no. It's another little slice of independence from OPEC oil. With enough little slices - we can show them the finger.

But I guess if you can't win the entire war in one battle, why fight it.

Glad our forefathers didn't think that way.

[Allison]

Oh please, the only way we'll ever give the finger to OPEC is if we drastically reduce our consumption and/or start using alternate forms of energy.

If the high-end estimates of ANWR are realized, (best possible scenario) by 2020 our dependence on foreign oil might be reduced from 62% to 60%. So, yes, it has the potential to slightly reduce our dependency, at least for the short-term. But, don't pretend like ANWR is one "slice" of a bigger pie on the road to independence. If that were our goal, we'd be recovering oil from all those places where it's not as profitable to drill. We'd be aggressively moving toward alternate energy sources; we'd be promoting conservation.

But we're not doing any of those things. We're only doing what's easy, convenient, and profitable. And by drilling in ANWR, the President can now say to the public, "Look, we're doing something about those awful gas prices." It's predominately about politics and money, not reducing our dependency. To pretend otherwise is naive, at best.

edit: I apologize for my tone and for contributing to the lowering of this debate, but I find it offensive that you would suggest that those who oppose drilling in ANWR, even if would mean slightly reducing our dependence, are somehow in opposition to our forefathers. I mean really, if I suggested that we outlaw automobiles because it would reduce our dependence, and you opposed that, would it be fair of me to say to you, "Well, I guess if you can't win the entire war in one battle, why fight it. Glad our forefathers didn't think that way."

Can't you just say "I don't think it will do any harm, and it will reduce our dependency some, so that's a start," without insulting those who think it might do more harm than good?

Meh ... if I'm out of line here, someone stop me. I'm weaning myself off nicotene this week and I know that's making me more bothered than I should be. And even if I have a point maybe I shouldn't have said anything. I can't tell. Bleh .....

[Rooster]

Because I hate other people trying to social engineer other's lives.

Let people do what they want - it's a free country (mostly). If it's not infringing on your rights - fine.

You have absolutely no right to tell anyone they shouldn't drive a car, or eat a cheeseburger, or smoke a cigarette - if it's not infringing on your rights (while realizing that rights are not absolutes, in a vacuum).

Other states (should) have ZERO ZIP NADA say-so about Alaska's land. National land? WTF? The U.S. government doesn't (or at least shouldn't) own land - it rents it from the state that it's in.

Save the polar bears, the caribou, the birds - but screw the people.
It's a postage stamp in relation to a football field (the proposed drilling compared to ANWR). Caribou & other wildlife are known to congregate around the pipelines that are above ground due to the heat. They have very advanced ways of NOT destroying the environment setting it up.

And I'm pretty sure all those smarty pants enviro-scientists said we were going to run out of oil in the '80s. Not really good at guessing I'm thinking.

[Allison]

Okay, so if you don't believe the federal government should set aside land for national preserves, that's fine. Make an argument for that. If you don't think that the "does more harm than good" argument is a valid one in this case, then make an argument for that, too.

But you're obviously bringing in all your emotion and bias and disdain for the "enviro-whackos" and those who would infinge upon your right to eat a cheeseburger and bringing it all to bear upon those who disagree with you about ANWR. It's inappropriate. And there's absolutely no reason for you to get that pissy and insult those who disagree with you by calling them "dumbshits" and insinuating that they are somehow lacking the will to fight or that they are acting counter to the spirit of our forefathers. I understand it's emotional for you, but it's absolutely improper to speak in those terms.

[Post]

Keep in mind that this was never about how you feel about the land. It was about the means that the Republicans are using to do it. They're purposely going around a system that was put together so they - and anyone else - couldn't do it that way. Me, I don't believe in the "BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY" approach. I guess some people do, as long as they agree with the end result.

[Hammer]

I said before I didn't like them attaching it to a spending bill but that was before I realized there was an up or down vote on it. I mistakenly assumed they had to vote on the entire bill or against it. I have no problem with majority rules. Kind of a democratic way to handle things.

[Post]

"I have no problem with majority rules."

I do when that's not the rule. If there's some loophole that gets around the President's veto that only takes 50.1% of the vote, I'd have a problem with it. Same goes for here.

[MickeyFinn]

Well, look at the bright side. If it turns out to be a big ass pocket of oil, sure we might club a few baby seals but at the same time saving thousands of Iraqi lives... right? ;)

[Roscoes_C&W]

No, we will end up exporting the oil to Japan or something and continue to buy the same amount of oil from Opec. Our dependency on the middle east will remain the same, if not increase with more people needing oil. To think this will free us from the middle east dependency is ridiculous.

[Swifty_Johnson]

http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf

This is a map of ANWR and the proposed drilling site. So please tell me how ANWR is going to be trashed by it.

The problem wasn't that it was an up or down vote, the problem is they bypassed the attempts at the Filibuster to roll it into a bill that can't be Filibustered.

As to it taking 10 years to get oil from there, that is going to be good, as in 10 years there will be so much pressure on the world Oil supply that it will make an impact.

Swifty

[Grundy]

Isnt ANWAR gonna get mad if we start drilling?

[MickeyFinn]

Swifty, the problem is more that they are playing dirty politics to get what they want. Personally, I hate oil. Nothing good comes from it... But I think if it's done right they could cause minimal damage.

[Rooster]

Nothing good comes from oil?

Vehicles/machines, etc... okay, I can buy that if you're a tree-hugger.

but last I checked - PLASTIC is pretty damn important.

And it actually makes machines run, keeps them lubricated - so they can make stuff - that consumers (you and me!) buy. :)

[MickeyFinn]

I of course meant as a fuel, the primary use of the stuff. I just happen to see alot of potential for biodiesel, and I'm glad to see state governments are starting to power their bigger machinery (like ferries) with it

[Rooster]

biodiesel has problems, that I can't recall now.

You said Oil, you didn't say "gas" or "diesel"

[MickeyFinn]

Yes I did, that's my mistake.

Diesel runs at very high compression, so the engines have to be tougher... But America could run its cars off of the waste that our farms leave behind after croppin'. Not only would we have to outsource to other countries for oil, but the farmin' man gets another paycheck.

I'm not an environmental alarmist, but I'm all for spending less money on anything but ourselves :)

[]LoL[Harm]

I just hope Halliburton has the ability to drill for oil, so they can get the contract bid. ;)

Also, if our government was so big on getting new sources of oil they should be looking towards this, http://www.changingworldtech.com/. Which has a much bigger potential for oil independance than drilling anywhere. But why invest in new technologies, lets just stick with tried, the true and the out dated. Why...perhaps because the tried and true is run by their constituents and this new technology isn't. Perhaps those in power have too many "friends" in the business that drill oil. I really don't know, but overall it doesn't make sense. But of course neither does politics.

Also the oil produced by CWT does not have the issues that bio-diesel does.

Edit: MWAHAHAaaaa, Halliburton does DRILL for oil! Lucky for us they appear to know what they are doing http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0317-03.htm.

[Tammarion]

I'm not eager to join in on drilling in ANWR - from my point of view, the oil will still be there 20-30 years from now, and 20-30 years after that - its not going anywhere, and theres just plain no point in rushing, when other countries are happy to sell it to us.

All this fuss is Bush picking up a big stick to beat down the environmental lobby with - if they're not spending money fighting ANWR, they'll just spend it on something else, and at the same time disarming Democrats who complain about $2 a gallon gasoline.

[Tammarion]

Sometimes I think we need a Department of Baloney....

http://www.baen.com/chapters/W199909/067157843X__2.htm