Did you watch CNN last night when they were talking about drilling in alaska?

[Laurel]

rant

As I sit here and read people parroting what I've heard on O'Reilly and all the other "liberal media" in regards to ANWR, I have to wonder...does it ever occur to you free thinkers to wonder WHY Rush and others are feeding you this anti-ANWR blather? ("I don't listen to O'Reilly or Rush! I thought this all up by myself!" And it's amazing how all the right-wing talk shows happened to think it up at the exact same time!)

Has it ever occurred to you that you're being played?

Have you ever stopped to think that we have a President who has a large financial stake in oil, and that the development of alternative energy products - which would be to the benefit of the US in sooo many ways, reducing our reliance on the Middle East, giving us cleaner air, etc. etc. - runs contrary to his (and others in power) interests? Didn't you scratch your head when Chevron wrote a letter to Bush asking that he have a top environmental scientist be removed from an International panel, and Bush requested that scientist's removal the very same week? Do you ever question the motivations behind the crap you're force-fed via your favorite "news" outlet, or do you just swallow it whole and regurgitate it here and elsewhere?

You folks remind me of the teenagers who are tricked into buying $75 t-shirts made by Hanes bearing the slogan "Fuck Corporate Greed". Do you ever get tired of being sheep to the RNC, or are you happy chanting whatever slogans AM radio hands you this morning?

 

[Goldfrapp er]

Did you know that even if we drill in Alaska it will at most produce something in the range of 600,000 barrells of oil a day? Do you realize the U.S. consumes 15 million barrells a day? Less than half of that comes from the U.S.

We need to become a self reliant and self sustaining nation in terms of energy. Drilling in Alaska is far from the answer. Besides which it is 10 years away from producing that amount of oil.

Right now if we changed federal regulatory standards on miles per gallon a car gets, we could save as much as two million barrells a day. increasing it from something like 27 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon. But what are we doing as a nation? We are buying SUV's to drive too and from work everyday. Not for offroad or hauling. They are some of the worst in terms of miles per gallon. So our own ignorance and the inability for even modest increases in automobile standards, we think of drilling for more, and wasting more, and endangering more.

How smart are we? Wake up America. We need to change our habits and our overwhelmingly wasteful energy uses in all facets.

It's going to take a real attitude change in the minds of many Americans. Hope it's not a pipe dream to think it can happen. It needs to.

 

[lavender]

 

[seXieleXie]

Re: rant

<snip> Do you ever get tired of being sheep to the RNC, or are you happy chanting whatever slogans AM radio hands you this morning?

laurel makes me wet.

 

[Goldfrapp er]

right on Laurel.

 

[Skibum]

todd, had the media showed a ice-shrouded expanse of alaskan tundra, adrift with blowing snow and crags of barren rock and lichen, would you have been happier?

the effect would have been the same...the beauty would have been more stark, but hardly lessened...the value of this place is not that it's a vacation spot, but that it ISN'T one...and if you don't get that then you'll never understand those that want it left untouched

the oil in the arctic will extend our supply for decades, but then what? pretending that there will always be oil is so short-sighted...it takes eons to produce and we use cubic kilometers of it in a heartbeat

why wait until it's gone to face the inevitable?

Until it is economically necessary and free market forces make alternative energy sources viable, we will continue to depend on petroleum for energy. Developing ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico could lower our dependence on foriegn oil, and that becomes a political advantage that would end our need to prop up unstable regimes in the Middle East.

 

[WriterDom]

Why bother drilling? Who needs 16 billion barrels of oil? And yeah, will take a while to develop, but who needs the 250,000 or so jobs it would create.

Who cares about the billions of Treasury Federal revenues that would come from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Sure, the oil companies would rather pay the government (we, the people) but, if not they'll just continue to buy oil overseas and pass it along to the consumer.

And there is a ton of research being done on alternate energy. Guess who is doing it? Not mommy and daddy government, but the big oil companies. ExxonMobil will outlive fossil fuels. And we'll wonder why we have a 16 billion barrel worthless puddle of oil underneath an arctic wasteland.

 

[sigh]

ExxonMobil will outlive fossil fuels.

now there's a comforting thought...

as sure as there is a devil in hell, exxonmobile will outlive fossil fuels...i've no doubt of that...but if we play by their agenda they'll bleed every drop of oil out of the planet at what has already been a huge environmental cost before we switch to alternatives that they control

and you don't think that the development/use/routing of alternative energy sources (whatever they might turn out to be) will create jobs and add tax dollars to federal coffers? energy is money and money is taxed, regardless of the source

and you call the arctic a wasteland just because you'll never go there...but once we thought the rain forests were useless too (other than as a cheap source of rubber) until we discovered the balance they play in the global climate and the huge reservoir of plant alkaloids that just now we're discovering may cure a wide spectrum of human ailments

but now they're disappearing so fast that we may never have a chance to discover those medicinal compounds and find a way to synthesize them...why carelessly shrug off an ecology as a wasteland before you fully understand its value?

 

[bored1]

Im fairly sure there was oil drilling in Pennsylvania,Ohio,New Jersey etc. I have yet to see devastation of the environment in these states. I look at it as a matter of choice, I dont want some overzealous special interest group dictating what I drive or how warm I keep my home. If greenpeace had there way we would all be riding the bus. Drill for the resource, create jobs and reduce our dependence on oil from the middle east all at the same time. Argue all you want there will be drilling for oil in ANWR and in the Gulf within 10 years. It is in the nations long-term interest to do so. The decision will be made on that point alone.

 

[Azwed]

Its not really the drilling that will create the problem. The drilling and any buildings will fuck up the permafrost which is important for some reason, but I forget why exactly.

The problem is transporting all that oil out is going to fuck up a fair amount of stuff.

Why bother doing it when it is only going to extend our oil supplys for a few more years?

Leave it up there as our ultimate strategic reserve just in case we ever get truly fucked. Then put all the money we would have spent on infastructure into creating alternative energy sources.

Of course none of this is going to happen because the return on our investment is not going to happen quick enough. Most people don't think long term true politicians don't think past the next election.

 

[WriterDom]

and you call the arctic a wasteland just because you'll never go there...but once we thought the rain forests were useless too (other than as a cheap source of rubber) until we discovered the balance they play in the global climate and the huge reservoir of plant alkaloids that just now we're discovering may cure a wide spectrum of human ailments

but now they're disappearing so fast that we may never have a chance to discover those medicinal compounds and find a way to synthesize them...why carelessly shrug off an ecology as a wasteland before you fully understand its value?

All they need is one drilling platform and a pipeline. How can that be compared to cutting down the rain forest? The eco-nuts said the north slope drilling would kill off the caribou. The herds increased 5 fold.

 

[Azwed]

All they need is one drilling platform and a pipeline. How can that be compared to cutting down the rain forest? The eco-nuts said the north slope drilling would kill off the caribou. The herds increased 5 fold.

Have you seen the gelogical maps of the area??

What the various rock formations are and how they are distrubtied.

Where the oil is and what not would be shown as well.

I would be seriously impressed if you had seen them and could read them.

Depending on the way the oil is distrubuted and the rocks they will need many drilling platforms then one. I haven't seen the maps of ANWR but my dad probably has. I could ask them and if he has not seen them he could probably get them from someone and interpret them.

Finding oil is about the only thing he is really really good at. He did found and run an oil exploration company for several years so I would completly trust anything he said.

Besides the pipeline and all other roads is what would cause the damage not the drills and support buildings. You can't air lift all this stuff in.

 

[WriterDom]

Leave it up there as our ultimate strategic reserve just in case we ever get truly fucked. Then put all the money we would have spent on infastructure into creating alternative energy sources.

Of course none of this is going to happen because the return on our investment is not going to happen quick enough. Most people don't think long term true politicians don't think past the next election.

A strategic reserve does no good if the infastructure isn't in place to deliver it. And the oil isn't a liability, it's an asset. The government will make billions by opening it up to exploration.

But, it really doesn't matter. It's not coming to a vote any time soon. At least not under Dashole.

 

[Azwed]

A strategic reserve does no good if the infastructure isn't in place to deliver it. And the oil isn't a liability, it's an asset. The government will make billions by opening it up to exploration.

But, it really doesn't matter. It's not coming to a vote any time soon. At least not under Dashole.

I know that I come from an oil family remember. I just wasn't stating the obvious.

Find the highest concentration of oil that can be pulled out with one well head. Put your drill there and go for it. Lay your pipeline down the road you used to haul in the equipment. That would be minimal damage to the area. I do'nt think just that would really even be a problem and once the derrick is removed all that is there is the pipeline and the pumper.

The pumper is less then 30 feet tall and does not require a lot of support.

I have a question for everyone though.
What is the real reason we are dependent on foreign oil? I will give a hint if no one gets it after a while.

 

[WriterDom]

I have a question for everyone though.
What is the real reason we are dependent on foreign oil? I will give a hint if no one gets it after a while.

It's in our interest as long as it's cheaper and no political crisis shuts off the supply

 

[Azwed]

Ahhh you sort of got it but not really.

The answer is that it is not cheaper for us to extract our own oil. We have oil still in the US that has not even been touched. They have explored it and done the mapping but thats it. The fields are all either too small or not of a high enough quality to drill right now. In 10 or 15 years when oil prices go up we may drill these sites.

If these same sites were in Venezual, Ecuador or on coast of Russia they would be drilled because labor is cheaper there. In a counry like the US it is cheaper to buy the oil then for us to get it out of our own land. Works the same way with steel.

Edit for
Bah I read to fast while eating.
Yeah you really did get it just stated it in a funny way I guess.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Colorado Rocky Mountains.

Anybody recognize them?

Rhumb

 

[koalabear]

It gives them more oil to put out to sea with, then turn around and bring it back as imported. Better price that way.

 

[WriterDom]

Bah I read to fast while eating.
Yeah you really did get it just stated it in a funny way I guess.

Well, yeah, if the liberals wont let us tap a 17 billion reserve at the asshole of the North Pole, are they going be more excited about drilling of the coast of Florida? If oil was found in pussy, they would outlaw fucking.

 

[Azwed]

All the ones my dad's company former company had royalties too were in Texas I think. Some might have been off shore I don't remember.

Don't matter though cause they aren't ecomomical to drill and hopefully never will be. We better have some at least the hint of alternative energy sources around by the time a barrel of oil hits 50 some dollars.

"If oil was found in pussy, they would outlaw fucking. "

I like that quote though

No you can't drill there it will distrub the bacteria.

 

[paphian]

<snip>

Besides which it is 10 years away from producing that amount of oil.

Right now if we changed federal regulatory standards on miles per gallon a car gets, we could save as much as two million barrells a day. increasing it from something like 27 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon. But what are we doing as a nation? We are buying SUV's to drive too and from work everyday. Not for offroad or hauling. They are some of the worst in terms of miles per gallon. So our own ignorance and the inability for even modest increases in automobile standards, we think of drilling for more, and wasting more, and endangering more.

<snip>

Changing the "fleet required mileage" isn't gonna do anything any faster than drilling ANWR would. The average turnover in the US auto fleet is something like 10 years, also. So if you changed the minimum required mileage now, and assuming the autocompanies didn't cheat (which is damned easy to do), you might see the benefits in a decade.

Besides... what's all the huge fuss? The boundary designation of the ANWR is essentially arbitrary, decided by previous administration fiat. Now everyone acts like it was engraved in stone and handed down at Mt. Sinai.

 

[paphian]

Re: rant

<snip>

Has it ever occurred to you that you're being played?

Have you ever stopped to think that we have a President who has a large financial stake in oil, and that the development of alternative energy products - which would be to the benefit of the US in sooo many ways, reducing our reliance on the Middle East, giving us cleaner air, etc. etc. - runs contrary to his (and others in power) interests? <snip>

My ex-GF was involved in the oil business for many years. After the stories I've heard about Shrub from her first-hand experiences with him, I don't think I'm being played, I know we're all being played.

 

[TWB]

You know you are being played when the reason for the drilling keeps changing.

Yeah, the califonia fuel shortages, we need it, uh, I mean, the war in afghanistan, oops I mean the middle east crisis, uh, I mean,

(Oh yeah, we need star wars, too, to prevent jetliner terrorism, yeah, thats it)

 

[Azwed]

Re: Re: rant

My ex-GF was involved in the oil business for many years. After the stories I've heard about Shrub from her first-hand experiences with him, I don't think I'm being played, I know we're all being played.

I know we are being played too. My dad worked for and did contract work for various oil companies including Bush.

 

[Ishmael]

OK

First of all, regardless of your stance on drilling in the ANWR, the footage shown by the networks is NOT that of the area under consideration. What they are showing is footage shot south of the Phillip Smith Mtn's of the Brooks Range. The proposed drilling site is on the North Slope. Primarily Artic tundra. They know this and I find it to be highly misleading. A violation of their role as stewards of the truth.

The issue is reliance on foreign oil. Politicians will use any cause 'du jour' to further their arguments. Sensationalism aside, the core issue remains.

Millions are spent annually, by the government and industry, in the research of alternative energy sources. One of the most viable energy sources has been demonized and discarded. Nuclear power. It's clean, safe, and cheap. But it's to scary for the environmentalists, so the plants aren't built. Forcing a greater reliance on fossil fuels.

Fuel cells, fusion (which will also be demonized), and other alternatives are not economically viable. The costs are prohibitively high to force a 'switchover' as some have suggested. Some sources of power that have been tried in the past and discarded are the "Wankel" and "Sterling Cycle" engines. Research is expensive and time consuming. For every 'breakthrough' there are a hundred dead ends. And all those dead ends have to be investigated, because you dare not put all your eggs in one basket. Research and it's associated costs is some times a bitter pill to swallow for a society that thrives on instant gratification.

Ishmael