Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Svenska
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jul 17, 2008 - 05:25pm PT
|
The national pertroleum reserve was set aside for, go figure,
petroleum development. This came as a huge suprise to me.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 08:05pm PT
|
true, however, there have been no takers...it's even open to international firms, but nobody wants to touch it because the oil deposits are too small and not worth the effort to extract
why is it acceptable to "destroy the environment" where the benefit (in terms of barrels of oil) is minimal at best, but unacceptable where the benefit is proven to be long-lasting?
here's an analogy...let's say alaska is the front page of the nyt; the area in anwr that is proposed for drilling is equal in size to a single letter of regular copy...tucked away at the very edge of one corner where nobody would even notice it
anwar is accessible via the prudhoe bay site, which means minimal impact from new infrastructure...the prudhoe bay caribou herd has INCREASED in population since drilling began at the site...the gulf of mexico has the highest concentration of oil rigs in american waters and there was not even a single leak during hurricane katrina, which reached category 5 before making landfall--the technology is vastly improved and the chance of a catastrophic spill is minimal...rather, the worst spills occur in the transportation of oil via ocean-going tankers...drill at home = minimize spills
|
|
MZiebell
Social climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 08:31pm PT
|
Bookworm: anwar???
Anwar is the English transliteration of two Arabic names commonly used in the Muslim World: the male given name Anwar (أنور), meaning "luminous"; or the female given name Anwār (أنوار), meaning "a collection of lights." Both names may also be encountered as surnames. In Francophone countries, both names are usually transliterated as Anouar.
You mean The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, right? Calling it "anwar" makes it easy to forget that it is a National Wildlife Refuge set aside very specifically to protect something very, very special. Calling it "anwar": that's the kind of BS foisted on us by folks who have no idea what's there except about three days worth of U.S. petroleum consumption.
Also, the National Petroleum Reserve and the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge are two different things in different places:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_National_Wildlife_Refuge
Vs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Petroleum_Reserve
|
|
adatesman
Trad climber
philadelphia, pa
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 10:01pm PT
|
Bookworm-
I take it that you consider 7 million gallons of oil spilled during Katrina so insignificant as to qualify as "not a single leak"?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/
Might want to research that a bit....
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2008 - 07:19am PT
|
i'll continue to resist criticizing a poster's typing skills as indication of his/her knowledge of the issues...but i gleefully point out an inability to READ
thanks for the link adatesman...you'll note that my post referred specifically to the drilling rigs in the gulf, which did not suffer any leaks though bearing the brunt of katrina's force...the article you provide simply validates my point:
"The Coast Guard estimates more than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled from industrial plants, storage depots and other facilities around southeast Louisiana."
of course, you will blame W, but what about the nola politicians who are responsible for ensuring the safety of their citizens? you know, the pols who siphoned away money meant for strengthening the levees
are you old enough to remember the forecasts of disaster surrounding the alaska pipeline? how it would destroy the habitat? well...
http://dgilber2.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/11-bears-on-pipeline.jpg
it seems the bears have discovered that walking atop the pipeline is much easier than walking on the ice and snow
http://www.carsareevil.com/images/Alaska_Pipeline_and_caribou.jpg
enviros claimed caribou would not go near the pipeline, thus disrupting their migration/breeding...now caribou are seen huddling near the pipeline in winter for warmth...also, the pipeline was built high enough that migrating caribou could pass beneath, which they did
why not require that oil companies pay a third party (i.e. green peace) to monitor the drilling and ensure that every precaution is taken?
|
|
AbeFrohman
Trad climber
new york, NY
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2008 - 08:05am PT
|
dinosaurs were once wildlife too.
drill it.
drill everything.
|
|
adatesman
Trad climber
philadelphia, pa
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2008 - 10:51am PT
|
Bookworm-
While the article didn't deal directly with leaks from the offshore rigs, what was spilled is a direct result of the offshore rigs being there. Its all part of a system and separating one part out is a fundamentally flawed view.
Additionally, there's evidence that the rigs did in fact leak. The satellite images from Skytruth clearly show oil slicks emanating from damaged oil rigs: http://skytruth.mediatools.org/gallery/432
And lastly, the Minerals Management Service reports that 113 oil platforms were destroyed and 457 pipelines were damaged (101 of which were 10" diameter or greater). http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0501.htm
Do you honestly believe that a pipeline full of oil (they do not purge them when they shut down in preparation for a storm) that is closed off on either end will not leak when broken somewhere in the middle? Even if we accept your premise that the rigs themselves didn't leak, is it really honest to claim that they're separate from the pipelines connecting them to the mainland? The pipelines wouldn't be there if it weren't for the offshore rigs, so.....
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2008 - 11:05am PT
|
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2008 - 01:20pm PT
|
Kinda curious about the statment that no-one is interested in the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska (NPRA)
Conoco Phillips has been on an active drilling program in NPRA
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/352874017.shtml
Just as ANWR would require a pipeline running Westward to hit pump station one (PS1) of the trans-alaska pipiline, NPRA would require a pipeline running to the east to hit PS1
Many of the formations that have been known about for 30-40 years and at that time were considered not economically feasible are now being developed. No, none of those fields will be producing a million barrels a day, but a couple thousand barrels here and there adds up.
|
|
Svenska
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 18, 2008 - 02:03pm PT
|
Note difference in education about Alaska issues from people who live in Alaska vs. folks who live elsewhere.
Doesn't mean folks outside of Alaska don't have a valuable opinion, just means they don't read local papers.
Read the newsminer.com or adn.com for a week and you might learn some things about oil/gas exploration in Alaska and about what a gem our governor is (today's news in particular).
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2008 - 02:06pm PT
|
Yeah, I really like that Governor you guys have up there.
(she's darn cute too)
She's in the center...
|
|
Svenska
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 18, 2008 - 02:17pm PT
|
The whole "hot governor thing" creeps me out, but I guess it’s like porn, to each their own.
Now she is the "hot mean governor."-see below link
Does that make her hotter?
http://www.adn.com/politics/story/468174.html
i.e. v.p. nomination?
Over.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2008 - 03:14pm PT
|
"Do you honestly believe that a pipeline full of oil (they do not purge them when they shut down in preparation for a storm) that is closed off on either end will not leak when broken somewhere in the middle? Even if we accept your premise that the rigs themselves didn't leak, is it really honest to claim that they're separate from the pipelines connecting them to the mainland? The pipelines wouldn't be there if it weren't for the offshore rigs, so..."
again, abatesman, you missed my point...the most and worst spills occur in the transportation of oil, not in the drilling...drilling off OUR OWN coasts and in OUR OWN lands will minimize the distance required for transporting the oil and, thus, minimize the potential for catastrophic spills
will accidents happen? of course, but i argue it's a risk we must take while simultaneously developing alternative fuels...just like the risk you willingly take every time you get in your car...would walking be safer for you and the environment? sure, but you accept the risk because of the overall benefit
by the way, obama insists drilling isn't a valid answer because it will not yield any gasoline for 5-10 years...however, his alternative plan to focus on developing alternative fuels will take at least 10 years to bring online with "no guarantee" that any alternative fuels will result...at least drilling guarantees us a supply of oil in the meantime
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2008 - 03:20pm PT
|
It's so funny how people think this is an environmental issue. The environmental protection of ANWR was set in place simply because the majority of Americans don't have the brain capacity to see the bigger picture.
The environmental impact is irrelevant. It seems as if people like bookworm are trying to ruin our country, but the fact is his mind can't grasp bigger concepts. So we feed him the "environmental" thing so that he has something concrete to focus on. It makes me laugh! Poor little thing is clueless!
|
|
Svenska
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 18, 2008 - 03:29pm PT
|
In the end what little oil/gas reserves in A.N.W.R. will be obtained from horizontal drilling from a site on the border of the area.
No one will be happy, thus everyone will be satisfied.
|
|
adatesman
Trad climber
philadelphia, pa
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2008 - 04:52pm PT
|
Ah, bookworm... I don't even now where to start. I guess with your point about transportation being the issue, not the drilling. Guess what- if you drill offshore you have to transport the oil onshore in some fashion to ultimately do something with it. Therefore transportation is by definition part of the process and inseparable from the drilling aspect of it.
And in the instance we're discussing here (Katrina), the drilling was done just off our own coast and transported in through pipelines. Between the damaged platforms, broken pipes and damage to the infrastructure onland almost as much oil was spilled as what happened with the Exxon Valdez. Doesn't sound like the risk of a catastrophic spill was minimized so well by drilling offshore in an area prone to hurricane damage, does it?
Now, having seen the satellite images of the leaking platforms and pipelines linked above would you care to explain how you can still maintain that there were no leaks as a result of Katrina?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2008 - 05:30pm PT
|
Sue me, I'm reposting this from another thread
One one hand, Alaska WILL be drilled. It's only a matter of time as oil will only get scarcer and we are WAY behind on any timetable to replace enough oil use not to get in a HARD pinch.
And in a HARD pinch, with oil at $300+ dollars a barrel, with "blood in the streets" people will say, Go drill. Sad but true. We're also likely to shoot ourself in the global warming foot with lots of coal.
Guess what, if we drill alaska now, there won't be alaska to fall back on when things get really scarce.
It's like saying, "I have $40,000 in the bank and I'm dependent on the japanese for my $80,000 a year salary. I'll be less dependent on the japs if I spend that 40k now"
Nope
We need to be having a "Moon shot" level of investment and activity for alternative energy and conservation. As it is, it's still cocktail conversation and political nice talk.
and McCain, dinosaur that he is, proposes a 300 Million award for somebody AFTER they discover a great car battery. Doesn't that seem insane? How much investment would the "Possibility" of getting that 300 mil inspire? It's like spending the publishers clearinghouse prize before you get it.
PEace
Karl
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2008 - 07:03pm PT
|
Karl,
A friend pretty much uttered the same sentiments to me 4 or 5 years ago when there was all this talk of opening up ANWR. As I recall he said something along the lines of, suck all the oil out of the middle east, and when they go dry and oil is really valuable, then we open up ANWR. There is something to be said for that.
But given the sort of politiceans we have from either side of the aisle, odds are they'll see a political advantage in allowing drilling sooner then later.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2008 - 07:26pm PT
|
Bookworm: "... you'll note that my post referred specifically to the drilling rigs in the gulf, which did not suffer any leaks though bearing the brunt of katrina's force ..."
Sir, perhaps it is you who has some mis-information:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/17/pfotenhauer-misinformed-oil-spill/
Care to take back what you said??
~~
As for drilling in ANWAR, they don't want to do it now, silly. They just want to buy the leases now. They can drill when oil hits $300, and they don't have to pay those high prices for the leases.
|
|
nb3000
Social climber
Oakland, CA.
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2008 - 07:47pm PT
|
If a drilling company got an ANWR contract and started moving on it TODAY ... how long would it take to eventually pipe it all the way into my truck at the pump?
Do we NOT need viable long-term alternatives for energy/fuel? ...
Some of both ...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!