Drilling Anwr

[dairygirl4u2c]

even if drilling in ANWR was not bad for the environment, it's still not wise to drill right now.

primiarly, this is because we have a few months strategic reserve, that's it. if we ever have an emergency, we'd need that gas in alaska. if we upped the reserves, then i probably wouldn't be all that against it.

but also... is it better to relieve the country now, or do it when gas is really really high? it's bad now, but it will be worse later, and that's when it'll be needed. when it's more clearly changing things significantly. maybe when it does get to 10 then we could drill.

if it were a ton of gas up there... then sure we could drill and be happy for awhile. but it'd only run our country for six months. since it's only a token amount relatively, but still not compltely petty change,,,, it's better to have the rainy day fund, and/or high gas relief fun.

not a short term fix for a long term problem.

[fides quarens intellectum]

start drilling now - it's going to take a long, long time to set it all up anyway.

[goldenchild17]

The government's going to need to figure out what's more important. "Going Green" and taking care of the environment or alleviating our dependence on foreign oil. I consider myself an earth loving hippie to a certain extent, but I think the most responsible thing is to drill there and collect the oil. I believe God meant for us to use it so we should and not keep stressing our economy, while feeding the economies of other nations who are using their oil. Of course I believe that nuclear energy is probably the best option overall both for the economy and for the earth, but with the bad stigma attached to it as of late I don't really see that happening for awhile.

[dairygirl4u2c]

that is a good point... i'm not sure how to respond to that, other than to say we'd have to look at the details of how long they think it'd take.

as a matter of judgement, i'd guess it'd take six month to a year tops. if that were the case, we should surely wait for the reasons i said.

as to how it'd affect us if there were an emergency.. i don't see there being a big enaough threat right now, given we have canada, and stuff... that would just ify thinking we had to do it for an emergency when really we'd be doing it to have it now.

at most, we would set it up, and then wait for an emergeny. since that's not going to happen, we should just wait.

but as usual... my stance is more contingent on empiracal facts than anything though, given how long it'd take to make it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not trying ot argue God doesn't want us to use it... i think he wants us to use it. i only think he wants us to use it wisely.
i haven't necessarily seen any reasoning that says it's wise to do it now.

[goldenchild17]

Personally, and I know this isn't a consensus, but I personally believe the strain that foreign oil is creating on our economy is an emergency. I think even if it were a temporary situation we could drill there and maybe ride out the price surges of foreign oil for awhile until they dropped again. If that other thread was right and there is a possibility of gas going up to 10 bucks an hour I'd say that's probably an emergency.

[picchick]

I agree that God wants us to use his gifts wisely.

My fear is what drilling in Alaska will do for the wildlife there. I know that someday we will have to go there but have we exhausted all other possiblities of an alternate energy source?


Edit: I should mention that I am new to this topic so I am not totally familiar with its content.

Edited April 28, 2008 by picchick

[dairygirl4u2c]

well.. if there was more certainty that it would go up, i might agree with you. i can see, if you insist that you think it's going up to 10, how you would think that.

i guess you do have the fact that the european countries are at 10 dollars a gallon, and the dollar is historically down. i would say though, that i doubt it's going to go up, cause that would be so unheard of thing to do in such a short period. the oil regulators you'd think would ease us into it if there's a sudden problem. i could see how you might say otherwise if that's your argument. i disagree though as a matte of judgment.

note though... this is only because of teh dollar down and the 10 dolalr argument... pepole who've been saying drill all along have been baseless and usually just wimpered away from the threads on the matter.

Edited April 28, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1512995' date='Apr 28 2008, 06:04 PM']that is a good point... i'm not sure how to respond to that, other than to say we'd have to look at the details of how long they think it'd take.

as a matter of judgement, i'd guess it'd take six month to a year tops. if that were the case, we should surely wait for the reasons i said.

as to how it'd affect us if there were an emergency.. i don't see there being a big enaough threat right now, given we have canada, and stuff... that would just ify thinking we had to do it for an emergency when really we'd be doing it to have it now.

at most, we would set it up, and then wait for an emergeny. since that's not going to happen, we should just wait.

but as usual... my stance is more contingent on empiracal facts than anything though, given how long it'd take to make it.[/quote]

So, you think there isn't much oil up there? Is that why you think we should wait?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote][url="http://www.anwr.org/features/akeval.htm"]California Surprises[/url]

The MMS Pacific OCS report documents the oil and gas commodities, resource categories, data and methodologies of the assessment of the federal offshore area of California, Oregon and Washington.

Its significant findings include:

* Nearly 11 billion barrels of undiscovered oil and 19 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered gas in the region may be recoverable using existing technology.
* Relatively large volumes of undiscovered oil may exist offshore central and southern California, due largely to the presence of Monterey-type strata, which are potential source and reservoir rocks.
* Half of the undiscovered, conventionally recoverable oil and gas in the region may be economically recoverable under existing conditions.[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

"So, you think there isn't much oil up there? Is that why you think we should wait?"

partly. the main reason is bc emergency and relief when we really realy need it.

but, if we had like, years of it then sure, as i said in my initial post. years of it, combined with all the other oil, would be a way to relieve us now and keep it there for a signficant amount of time.

as it is... now it's only somewhat substantial... it'd run our country for six month as i initially said... but not so substnatial that we could just break away and do our own thing, or think it safe to drill now.

it's the perfect size to wait.

Edited April 28, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[goldenchild17]

I don't know what's going to happen to the prices. What I know is that they are already unacceptable (in my opinion) and there is no reason for me to think they are going to stay the same or go down. 10 is just the number I threw out there based on the topic in open mic which is predicting similar numbers. I do believe there is more oil in ANWR than you probably think, but I don't really know for sure not being an expert in the area.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1513069' date='Apr 28 2008, 06:39 PM']"So, you think there isn't much oil up there? Is that why you think we should wait?"

partly. the main reason is bc emergency and relief when we really realy need it.

but, if we had like, years of it then sure, as i said in my initial post. years of it, combined with all the other oil, would be a way to relieve us now and keep it there for a signficant amount of time.

as it is... now it's only somewhat substantial... it'd run our country for six month as i initially said... but not so substnatial that we could just break away and do our own thing, or think it safe to drill now.

it's the perfect size to wait.[/quote]

In general I'd be a proponent of waiting. But I have to wonder, what are we waiting for exactly? Do we know for sure how much is there? Possibly more than you think, but possibly not. Can we really know until we get things set up there? I think we should at least get set up there and be prepared to check it out. If its not much then we may have to wait until it could serve a real use. If its more then we could start using it and alleviating our dependence on foreign oil, at least until either the prices on foreign oil go down or we can develop another means of energy dependence (i.e. nuclear). But at the least I think we (figuratively) should be up there setting things up. I don't like what it could do to the animal/plant population up there, which is why I think nuclear energy is a better option, but as it is now, I think its our best temporary solution.

Edited April 28, 2008 by goldenchild17

[dairygirl4u2c]

if you wiki anwr etc, the probability is that it's six months.... there's varying lower probabilityes that it's more.... like a five percent chance it'd last a year or something like that.

[CatherineM]

If you want to talk strategic, if you leave it in the ground, then you have to defend the arctic. That's vulnerable. If we got into a WWII kind of situation, our biggest problem might end up being steel. We don't make our own anymore like we did 60 years ago. It's not just that the mills are closed, they have been dismantled. Ditto for a lot of the auto factories that would be needed to make tanks and planes. Then you've got shut down cotton mills and trying to make uniforms. The US is really a different place than it was when we last had a whole scale mobilization. That's just commodities. How about people. The school lunch program was started during WWII because recruits were undernourished. When my oldest went in the Navy his recruiter said that 50% of highschool seniors can't pass the physical because of excess weight, and 25% because of hearing loss (ear bud head phones).