Alaskan Oil Drilling Defeated

[Sultan Bhargash]

Something pleasant to happen surprising in an era of unprecendented partisanship; the pres-friendly senate defeated the Alaska drilling bill. That was the right thing to do. We ought to wait till every foreign source is exhausted before harvesting our own and selling it like it was diamond seeds.

 

[Akka]

Yay !





(though I'm more concerned about ecology rather than reserves)

 

[Peri]

Praise be and halleluiahs all round

 

[Richard III]

 

[Unregister]

That's good, it would've been horrible to have all that land being drilled.

 

[metalhead]

Originally posted by Unregister
That's good, it would've been horrible to have all that land being drilled.

First of all, they wouldn't have drilled every acre of ANWR. The proposed drilling site would have left the vast majority of the land untouched. The fact that we are more worried about the Alaskan elk herds than reducing our dependance on foreign oil is disgusting to me.

 

[Plastic]

But those elk are important!

More important than the nation I guess.

 

[Maj]

"Something pleasant to happen surprising in an era of unprecendented partisanship; the pres-friendly senate defeated the Alaska drilling bill. That was the right thing to do. We ought to wait till every foreign source is exhausted before harvesting our own and selling it like it was diamond seeds."

Convenient time to reach a decision.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by metalhead


First of all, they wouldn't have drilled every acre of ANWR. The proposed drilling site would have left the vast majority of the land untouched. The fact that we are more worried about the Alaskan elk herds than reducing our dependance on foreign oil is disgusting to me.

The way to reduce dependance on foreign oil is to find alternatives to oil, not to drill more.
Hydrogen cars, in example.
These could have been developped for years if only there would have been the WILL to do them.

 

[Richard III]

Plastic, as you might remember from another thread, we Canadians have lots of oil to sell you at market prices...

 

[Maj]

I keep hearing comments on how H-powered cars will help reduce reliance ... but to what degree?

What percentage of oil consumption goes towards vehicles? I can't imagine it's very much when electrical power, plastics, lubricants & oils (you know what I mean ) fertilizers, etc demand such great quantities of the stuff.

Unless we find and employ alternatives for producing the aforementioned I foresee more drilling in exotic areas, protected or not.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Maj
I keep hearing comments on how H-powered cars will help reduce reliance ... but to what degree?

What percentage of oil consumption goes towards vehicles? I can't imagine it's very much when electrical power, plastics, lubricants & oils (you know what I mean ) fertilizers, etc demand such great quantities of the stuff.

I've always been upset by seeing such a wonderful matter as oil being wasted in thermal engines. At least, plastics are not a WASTE of oil, there is nothing that can (for now) replace oil in plastic-making, while there is PLENTY of things that can be burnt.
Hence I'm particularly virulent against oil-powered thermal engines, as I feel it's a total waste of one of the most formidable natural ressource

And well, thermal engines consume a HUGE quantity of oil each year. It won't make your country oil-independant, but it will sure help a big bunch.

 

[metalhead]

Originally posted by Akka

The way to reduce dependance on foreign oil is to find alternatives to oil, not to drill more.
Hydrogen cars, in example.
These could have been developped for years if only there would have been the WILL to do them.

Are you kidding? Auto manufacturers and energy companies have been working on fuel cell operated cars and alternate energy sources for years. I know it runs counter to popular theory, but there is no worldwide push to keep oil as our main source of energy. The auto manufacturer that develops the first hydrogen powered automobile will be revered, and that patent will be worth trillions. Many of the best and brightest minds in the world are working as hard as they possibly can on these solutions. They simply aren't viable, but don't just assume that because we don't have them yet that there isn't a will to produce them.

I agree with you that we need to develop alternate energy sources. The problem is, it may be 20 or 30 years before such a vehicle is mass-producable, and afordable to the general public. This doesn't help a thing right now, when increased domestic oil production could significantly reduce many of the problems we face due to our reliance on foreign oil.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by metalhead


First of all, they wouldn't have drilled every acre of ANWR. The proposed drilling site would have left the vast majority of the land untouched. The fact that we are more worried about the Alaskan elk herds than reducing our dependance on foreign oil is disgusting to me.

The fact that you would deprive future generations of Americans the natural beauty of their nation,
for some political/economical agenda, is disgusting to me.

I have learned to expect nothing better than knee-jerk denouncements from this poster, anyway.

 

[metalhead]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


The fact that you would deprive future generations of Americans the natural beauty of their nation,
for some political/economical agenda, is disgusting to me.

I have learned to expect nothing better than knee-jerk denouncements from this poster, anyway.

Thanks for the ad hominem attack. Really raises the level of discourse!

The fact is, we aren't depriving anyone of anything. Most of ANWR will be left untouched, and besides the fact that the tourism there is effectively nil, most of it is a pretty desolate place anyways. But if we shouldn't deprive people of the natural beauty of their country, then why do we drill for oil anywhere? In fact, why have we constructed skyscrapers, roads, etc? Don't they also deprive us of this "natural beauty" that you speak of?

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by metalhead


Thanks for the ad hominem attack. Really raises the level of discourse!

The fact is, we aren't depriving anyone of anything. Most of ANWR will be left untouched, and besides the fact that the tourism there is effectively nil, most of it is a pretty desolate place anyways. But if we shouldn't deprive people of the natural beauty of their country, then why do we drill for oil anywhere? In fact, why have we constructed skyscrapers, roads, etc? Don't they also deprive us of this "natural beauty" that you speak of?

It wasn't an attack, it was an observation.

And use your common sense, Please.
Of course I wouldn't consider Manhattan Island to be an area reserved for natural beauty.
It is a population centre, thus it must have all the trappings of modern industrial society.

But some areas are worth reserving.

Your inital rant claimed that the USA has not need for natural areas, in contrast to having to buy oil from foreign states.

I pointed out that it is important to reserve some untouched regions of your nation, lest it become an industrialised mess.

Being resource rich isn't so good when you can't breathe.


Perhaps you should consider before launching into a chest-beating, boy-scout rant...

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Good, restricted production and increased prices give me a little windfall on my holdings.

 

[CurtSibling]

*Tired phrase*
I am sure there will be new sources of oil coming up really soon!

 

[metalhead]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


It wasn't an attack, it was an observation.

And use your common sense, Please.
Of course I wouldn't consider Manhattan Island to be an area reserved for natural beauty.
It is a population centre, thus it must have all the trappings of modern industrial society.

But some areas are worth reserving.

Your inital rant claimed that the USA has not need for natural areas, in contrast to having to buy oil from foreign states.

I pointed out that it is important to reserve some untouched regions of your nation, lest it become an industrialised mess.

Being resource rich isn't so good when you can't breathe.


Perhaps you should consider before launching into a chest-beating, boy-scout rant...

I agree that some areas are worth reserving. But ANWR isn't exactly a picturesque tract of land, and resembles more an arctic wasteland than anything else. Nowhere in my post did I claim that we don't need any natural areas and should forfeit all of them in favor of development for economic/political gain. I would ask that in the future you respond to what I say, rather than what you think I really feel.

I was making a statement about this case. PERIOD! There was no broader implication in my statement, nor was it knee-jerk like you claimed. Simply the way I have felt since the ANWR debate surfaced in the public a few years ago. Many opponents of drilling in ANWR have used as their principal argument that drilling will disrupt the natural habitat of Alaskan elk. My argument is that people are more important than elk.

 

[CurtSibling]

We all need energy, and we cannot easily change the way our infastructure relies on the resources that industry is desperate to hack up landscapes for.

Fine and good.

But I would say to you that we also have the technology to seek re-usable forms of power, and cleaner for our surroundings.

I know this,
As my father is an high executive in the energy sector, and even he bitterly comments on the wastage experienced by the industry.

And how it could be minimised by proper usage of available technology.

Many people whine that we cannot implement other types of energy consuption in our industries and cities. This is utter rubbish.

Many companies are happy to keep the status quo, milking huge profits from the current situation.

My argument is that people are more important than profit.

I know your view, and you know mine.

I think we have no more to gain in this discussion.