Drilling In The Anwr

[Mercy me]

I am for drillling in ANWR. At this point we need to look at it from the angle of national security. Let's quit sending all that money overseas to the Middle East and Venezuela.

At the same time we need to look at alternative fuel sources. I have seen some very promising developements and I don't mean ethynol. We need to look at raising the CAFE standards. Asking Americans to drive less is hard because by and large, our cities were built after the development of the automobile. We simply need them to get around but we can make them more efficient and we should

[dairygirl4u2c]

I for one am all for nuclear.

What about the rainy day fund thing?
I would argue that it's suppose to be able to run the country for six months. The amount it's going to reduce our dependence is very little. I suppose you would argue the amount that rainy day is going to help is very little. But the fund seems more beneficial than the reduction in dependancy that would occur.

Also, if you were to go to ANWR without an emergency, I'm not sure of the facts but the condition of the place is something to consider. If it's a permanent damage to such a small help that it'd provide us, then it's pointless and hurting a permanent God given paradise. If the damage will smooth over, which I'd think it would, then sure go for it.

But that's ignoring the fact htere's really no substantial benefit to going.


Soc, just out of curiosity. Do you follow everything conservatives are suppose to believe? Of course, I realize you follow what the CC teaches if there's anything that conflicts. So maybe an example or two of that, but mostly things beyond that.

Edited March 28, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i've changed my position on this issue, i think. i note that we have oil reserves already. and i don't think the damage to the refuge is high. if the reserves are not sufficient, and there is more damage than i realized, i could change my position back. but, now that i am aware of the reserves, i have no reason to be against drilling.

[Cure of Ars]

Coal is the energy of the future. Been a bad boy all year so that I can get some from Santa even.

[Mercy me]

I say drill in the Gulf of Mexico first. The Chinese are helping Cuba start to smell of elderberries the oil out from under the Florida Keys. I say we to beat them to it.

[Dismas]

I'm all for drilling it now. It might not last more than a couple decades, but really that's all we need.

Consider that as I am typing this, there are people brain-storming ways of excavating huge deposits of oil shale with minimal environmental impact.

Right now, there are methods of converting organic solid waste, from sewage to landfill, into oil. The people developing these methods are less than a decade from making this process profitable.

As for the ANWR itself, it's a proven fact that life flourishes near the drilling sites, at least in comparison to the lifeless, frigid tundra further away.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not sure why you'd think it'd be twenty years. i've heard other people say that too for some reason.
at current consumption, just looking at the raw data, there's a 95 percent probability that ANWR would last 6 months, and a 5 percent probability 2 years. so, at 51 percent, ie more likely than not, there's prob like a year and 3 months or so. even if you assumed we cut our consumption down by a quarter, that'd be 5 years. more likely than not. but, if we drill now, we have no reason to use less and all the reason to use more.
after looking at the raw data, our reserves would only help us out for 55 days at current consumption. if we cut it by a fourth, then two third of a year. probably enough, but i second GWB and say we should double the amount of reserves we have. so, i'm not sure we should drill ANWR until we have more sufficient reserves. my view is that it's contingent.

[Norseman82]

Two words: dilithium crystals.

[Jaime]

The reality is that ANWR would do nothing to drop the price of crude oil. The reason being that the largest supplier of crude to the US is not Venezuela, it is not Saudi Arabia,

Its Canada.

If oil continues to rise in price despite the fact that we are getting it from our next door neighbor, why would drilling in Alaska have any impact at all?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i've heard at its peak production, ANWR would be 20 percent of the US production. now, if you assumed we'd get twenty percent reduction in prices, then maybe we could see gas go down 50 or sixty cents per gallon, 2.20 or so. and that's at its best. but, you could't assume we'd get all the savings, as the oil companies would get the profits still. so, if that is what you jaimie are implying, then sure what's the difference.

it seems almost insane to want to drill ANWR when we have concerns over foreign dependency on oil. especially when the current econ benefic now is so low. and the econ benefit when we'd need it would be high.
and none of the people who are for it that have posted have justified their positions, but have chosen instead to run and hide.
nothing new under the sun.

[XIX]

From what I understand, nuclear power is like flying on a plane. It is scary as all anything, but in reality is it quite safe.

[url="http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm"]http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm[/url]

Edited September 3, 2007 by XIX

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Cure of Ars' post='1376696' date='Sep 2 2007, 11:05 PM']Coal is the energy of the future. Been a bad boy all year so that I can get some from Santa even.[/quote]
This man is right on.

[Jaime]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1376977' date='Sep 3 2007, 01:30 PM']i've heard at its peak production, ANWR would be 20 percent of the US production. now, if you assumed we'd get twenty percent reduction in prices, then maybe we could see gas go down 50 or sixty cents per gallon, 2.20 or so. and that's at its best. but, you could't assume we'd get all the savings, as the oil companies would get the profits still. so, if that is what you jaimie are implying, then sure what's the difference.

it seems almost insane to want to drill ANWR when we have concerns over foreign dependency on oil. especially when the current econ benefic now is so low. and the econ benefit when we'd need it would be high.
and none of the people who are for it that have posted have justified their positions, but have chosen instead to run and hide.
nothing new under the sun.[/quote]


Its also logistics. Canada is closer to us than Alaska. If the largest block of oil we purchase is from Canada, (And ANWR cuts into that) how is it cheaper ?

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1220426' date='Mar 27 2007, 10:11 AM']What about the chemicals used in batteries that are later disposed of in land-fills, causing a much greater environmental danger than carbons?[/quote]

Recycling.