The Truth about ANWR

[SUBMAN1]

Tired of misinformation? Do you really think drilling in ANWR will disrupt Alaska's pristine landscapes? How much land are we talking about? What does it look like? How much oil is really there? This video should answer all of those questions and more:



-S

PS. Why do the tree huggers really care about an area without any trees at all?

[Enigma]

Tired of misinformation?

Yes.


.....Could you please knock it off?

[jeremy8529]

Well, that video has a very strong bias for sure, which could lead me to believe that a few truths could be stretched to fit the creators needs.

Now, this is my opinion on energy, we should drill, for the immediate 10-15 years, but we should look for an alternative most diligently, while we are at it. I think that fossil fuels should be reserved mainly for aviation, domestic cargo, seafaring trade and military uses. Basically machinery in which it would not be practicle to run on Hydrogen, or other alternatives should be the ones that use it. While transportation and other light machinery should use whatever comes up in the next few years whether it turns out to be Hydrogen, methane, or pure electric. Basically in this way, we don't waste all of our fuels on trucks and cars, instead we should use it on things that can't live without it. I think in this way we could lower the cost of fossile fuels for the use of transportation of food and trade goods .

I noticed the video said, that on the most conservative estimates we have 60 years of fossil fuels left, now who ever made the video would probaly be dead by then, i certainly plan on being alive and well.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Enigma

Yes.


.....Could you please knock it off?

Obviously you didn't watch the video. :p

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by jeremy8529

Well, that video has a very strong bias for sure, which could lead me to believe that a few truths could be stretched to fit the creators needs.

Now, this is my opinion on energy, we should drill, for the immediate 10-15 years, but we should look for an alternative most diligently, while we are at it. I think that fossil fuels should be reserved mainly for aviation, domestic cargo, seafaring trade and military uses. Basically machinery in which it would not be practicle to run on Hydrogen, or other alternatives should be the ones that use it. While transportation and other light machinery should use whatever comes up in the next few years whether it turns out to be Hydrogen, methane, or pure electric. Basically in this way, we don't waste all of our fuels on trucks and cars, instead we should use it on things that can't live without it. I think in this way we could lower the cost of fossile fuels for the use of transportation of food and trade goods .

I noticed the video said, that on the most conservative estimates we have 60 years of fossil fuels left, now who ever made the video would probaly be dead by then, i certainly plan on being alive and well.

I'm all for an alternative fuel source, but we are no where near ready to do this. $5 a gallon gas is the dumbest idea our Congress has come up with yet. We did this to ourselves. We need to pass legislation to not only open up drilling, but to put incentive on alternative energy sources. And biofuel is not the answer - that makes problems worse!

We need to be free of all the red tape!!!

Hydrogen is a wonderful idea, but it is no where near ready for the mainstream. Its biggest hinderance are both storage in the vehicle, and the cost in energy to convert it into a fuel.

-S

PS. I challenge any person to provide one good reason why ANWR shouldn't be opened up to drilling?

[Tchocky]

Reason - It would make no appreciable difference. At all.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

Of course, it helps if you lie about it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Reason - It would make no appreciable difference. At all.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

Of course, it helps if you lie about it.

So maybe it won't lower gas prices Tchocky, but it just might get us off our foreign oil dependency. That USED to be worthy goal. You don't think so?

[Tchocky]

I think it's a great idea to reduce dependency on a single region. It doesn't make sense for any country to be so dependent. France really made a difference by going almost totally nuclear.
But the scale of energy imports and the size of the ANWR mean that it would make no appreciable difference at all. Drilling there wouldn't get America off of foreign oil.
As part of a wide-scale refocusing of energy supply, then it may. But I don't see that happening.
By 2025, ANWR would reach full flow of 876,000 barrels per day. By then, if energy patterns continue, the US will be importing 16 million barrels per day.

A drop in the bucket? Barrel?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I think it's a great idea to reduce dependency on a single region. It doesn't make sense for any country to be so dependent. France really made a difference by going almost totally nuclear.
But the scale of energy imports and the size of the ANWR mean that it would make no appreciable difference at all. Drilling there wouldn't get America off of foreign oil.
As part of a wide-scale refocusing of energy supply, then it may. But I don't see that happening.
By 2025, ANWR would reach full flow of 876,000 barrels per day. By then, if energy patterns continue, the US will be importing 16 million barrels per day.

A drop in the bucket? Barrel?

I agree, a drop in the bucket. I still think it's worthwhile though.

PD

[Enigma]

Agreed, drop in the bucket. Besides, we should spend that time money and focus on Alt. fuels. The repercussions outweigh the productivity/outcome of the project.

PS. I challenge any person to provide one good reason why ANWR shouldn't be opened up to drilling?

I'm not the one to ask. Try National Congress of American Indians, the Gwich'in, or the Inupiat. Oh, and it's a protected national wildlife refuge. To some of us, that isn't a foot note or an aside.

[Zachstar]

The truth about ANWR

It sucks

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I think it's a great idea to reduce dependency on a single region. It doesn't make sense for any country to be so dependent. France really made a difference by going almost totally nuclear.
But the scale of energy imports and the size of the ANWR mean that it would make no appreciable difference at all. Drilling there wouldn't get America off of foreign oil.
As part of a wide-scale refocusing of energy supply, then it may. But I don't see that happening.
By 2025, ANWR would reach full flow of 876,000 barrels per day. By then, if energy patterns continue, the US will be importing 16 million barrels per day.

A drop in the bucket? Barrel?

It's not just ANWR, it's the Dakota fields, gulf of Mexico, Pacific coast. We have a lot of oil if we'd just let ourselves drill for it.

[jeremy8529]

Hmm, while ANWR is not THE solution it is PART of the solution, that is just one site, but it could set the pace for more new oil fields. One of the fears I have is this, we get the price of fuel down for maybe 3-6 years, and then we just quit researching alt. fuels because the market for them just dies. Right now, in the past few years, we have gone so far in RD for new and more efficient cars. If gas was .20 a gallon, we would not have made these achievements. I want to see a world, were gas cost maybe 2USD a gallon, and we can pull 60-80mpg out of the average car, but you can't have it both ways.

Another note, and possibly a quite nasty can of worms as well, if it is the congressmen that are stopping us from doing what is necessary, what stops us from calling/writing them in mass, and threatening to not re-elect/de-throne them? Subsim petition anyone?

[August]

Originally Posted by Enigma

To some of us, that isn't a foot note or an aside.

That's not really fair. When gas was <$2.00 a gallon i was all in favor of keeping our nations oil in the ground. Sort of like keeping it in the bank so to speak. But if these gloom and doomers are correct we're running out and if we're to have any hope to keep our civilization running long enough to develop those fancy alternate fuels you're talking about we better get busy drilling.

[Enigma]

I dont see it as a solution. I see it as a band aid. With the potential for disasterous results.