Alaska oil drilling back on agenda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13

When you get down to the nitty gritty of it, even present & future solutions to harnessing sources of alternative energy will have to rely on oil products in some way, shape or form. Gotta lubricate those turbines and insulate the wiring with something

---

Good point, that's an excellent thing to remember. Even though the majority of discussion and attention comes back to vehicular fuel, the fact that oil is used in almost every other facet of our lives makes it even more important to develop alternate sources of fuel. When crisis hits and we are forced to develop and rely on other types of energy, that is renewable, we'll still need oil reserves to be available for the "turbines and insulation" and other petroleum based products. It brings a different perspective to alternate energy: it's not just to "save the environment," but fuel consumers should think of it as conserving oil for other purposes, for saving their way of life in the future, everything from sneakers and nalgene bottles to computers and cell phones. Interesting, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yentna snow

ak oil perspective stuff.

---

You're pretty edumacated, for a jong. :the_finge

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owens

a state that is nearly 2/3 the size of the continental US

---

Just because it looks that big on a map doesn't make it that big. Less than 20% of the land are of the continental US. Alaska=570,374 sq. mi. Continental US=2,959,545 sq. mi. Math yields 19.27%. Numbers courtesy of Rand McNally. Not really essential to the discussion, but a pet peeve of mine that Alaska is viewed as that big (don't get me wrong, it is a big state, and it is more than twice the size of Texas).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owens

locking up all of the Rocky Mountains and prohibitng business there. Or perhaps banning steel production in the mid west

---

Nobody wants to see all of the Rockies locked up, but nobody is locking up all of the north slope...just the area designated as a National Wildlife Refuge. What's the use of designating federal land as protected if we're just going to turn around and change our minds on it decades later. Is it worth protecting or not? We felt once upon a time that a place as unique as ANWR needs to be left untouched by corporate greed, carelessness, and abuse.

I'd be willing to consider offshore drilling at ANWR, provided temporary rigs were used rather than building islands to drill from. Directional drilling has improved by leaps and bounds over the last few years. I only said consider, there are many facets to consider to this. No, offshore may not be as economical as drill sites on land, but are we if there's truly as much oil up there as the govt wants you to believe, it would still alleviate some of our dependence on foreign oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13

harnessing sources of alternative energy will have to rely on oil products in some way, shape or form. Gotta lubricate those turbines and insulate the wiring with something

---

We will probably never free ourselves from the use of petroleum. However, the most critical unit in any refinery is the FCC Unit. It breaks down the longer chains of hydrocarbons into shorter chains that can be used for fuel. Those longer chains are what would be turned into plastics and lubricants. How much oil would we really need if we weren't using it for fuel?

Once upon a time the United States made the decision to pursue gasoline powered cars rather than electric cars. Jay Leno owns an electric car made in the 40s. It still has the original Edison Batteries and still holds enough of a charge to travel 150 miles. No, the technology is not there right now to manufacture electric cars that perform like our gas cars...but could it have been? How long do we put off devoting ourselves to developing that technology? Perhaps, rather than spending all of our money on fighting drilling in ANWR we could work towards an electric vehicle. Nope, the oil companies will see to it that this avenue is never explored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Gaper

Seems strange that people don't want us to use OUR OWN resources. Especially when they reproduce at an exponential rate.

---

The People or the resources?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owens Never Sleeps

Timber people? I spent 5 years in SE Alaska watching people sell their homes and lose everything after the Clinton Administration locked up the Tongass. Our timber industry is decimated.

---

Substitute "Because the timber isn't economical to extract" for Clinton. The problem with most of Alaska's resources - Timber, Mineral, and even Oil is they aren't economical to extract without massive subsidies. Timber companies have asked to back out of Tongass deals because they can't get it to market at a sellable price. You know why we get our copper from Chile, our Oil from the Middle East? It's the cheapest source.

I'm not against Alaskans making a living - I'm against Alaskans using my land (it's the Feds, the nations, every citizens - NOT YOURS!) to finance a lifestyle they like. If you want a steady job...move to the lower 48.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cj001f

Substitute "Because the timber isn't economical to extract" for Clinton. The problem with most of Alaska's resources - Timber, Mineral, and even Oil is they aren't economical to extract without massive subsidies. Timber companies have asked to back out of Tongass deals because they can't get it to market at a sellable price. You know why we get our copper from Chile, our Oil from the Middle East? It's the cheapest source.

---

Not true. Readily available timber used to be right at the back door of the mills in Ketchikan, Haines, Wrangle, Klawok, Petersburg, etc... It was only AFTER Clinton locked up the lions share of the Tongass that companies started looking to get out of deals because they could no longer affordably get at the timber. I watched families lose everything as a result. And then watched the corner stores go down, and the clothing stores, and the restaurants, etc... It was like a horrible domino effect. And it was instant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cj001f

I'm not against Alaskans making a living - I'm against Alaskans using my land (it's the Feds, the nations, every citizens - NOT YOURS!) to finance a lifestyle they like.

---

That's my point - how would you like it if the majority of your state were deemed accessible to you and people from New Jersey told you that it 's their land not yours. And that their opinion (which stands to negatvely affect you with no real understanding of the ripple effects they cause) outweighs yours in your own backyard?

If Federal land in the Continental US were locked up at the same percentage as in AK, everybody here would have friggin kittens. Once again, you can protect YOUR land somewhere else and not give a shit about the negative impact on the people who live there because you don't have to see it or deal with it. If you were dealt the same hand you seem to wish to deal, you'd be hating it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cj001f

If you want a steady job...move to the lower 48.

---

That's just assinine.

In the end, this is a healthy debate. It shouldn't be easy to go punch holes in protected areas. With the current political climate it is likely that ANWR will get pushed through and people will have to find some other cause that is far removed from their own economic well being to make them feel better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owens Never Sleeps

Commercial Fisherman? They're getting they're asses kicked by farm raised fish.

---

THis can be stopped really really easily, the state needs to stop stocking 900 million pinks into Alaskan waters, thus drive the price way way down, its not the farms its simple supply and demand.

I'm not saying oil isn't important to our economy, I'm saying that it will eventully run out or get replaced, and then what is Alaska gonna do? And what is drilling ANWR gonna do? Do the costs out way the ends? I think not, I think ANWR has been billed as a solution to all out problems and will really have a low impact. Lets face the facts opening ANWR won't bring another pipeline boom, true there might be a few more jobs but it won't be the hundreds (or thousands) of jobs that the pipeline brought. Theres also a good chance that it'll bring the cost of crude down, and thus once again making a budget gap in AK.

As an informed Alaskan, I fully understand the need for jobs in our state. However, as a citizen of the United States, I am concerned about the state of Federal land contracts, especially the Federal ownership of ANWR. The facts on ANWR have been explained again and again, but many longtime Alaskans have explained the situation thus: the Federal ownership of ANWR was a response to a vast turnover of landownership between Alaska State ownership and the federal government. Alaska did not want to own ANWR, and opted for different lands, many of which are minerally rich. the federal government then decided that the ANWR lands would become a wildlife refuge, a designation which is CRUCIAL in our rapidly urbanizing world. I strongly feel that we should respect this Wildlife Refuge, home to species that have been secluded to Alaska as their last American home. Regarding jobs, ANWR is not an ace in the hole for oil production. The facts are highly disputed, but many (given, liberal) organizations can not expect more than a year or so of significant oil production, which is no great gain for our oil dependance nor Alaskan jobs. There are other projects in Alaska, such as a proposed natural gas pipeline, and expanded deep oil drilling in Prudhoe Bay that will result in a more significant amount of jobs. For the meager returns on opening ANWR, this is one Alaskan not ready to destroy a refuge.

Quote:

---

The facts are highly disputed, but many (given, liberal) organizations can not expect more than a year or so of significant oil production, which is no great gain for our oil dependance nor Alaskan jobs.

---

Actually, not just liberal organizations. Quite a few oilfield publications and studies have come to the conclusion that amount of oil available is not likely to be enough to justify the cost of getting it to market. In other words, you'll be paying the oil companies (through subsidies and royalty breaks) to drill and produce the area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnny1496

As an informed Alaskan, I fully understand the need for jobs in our state. However, as a citizen of the United States, I am concerned about the state of Federal land contracts, especially the Federal ownership of ANWR. The facts on ANWR have been explained again and again, but many longtime Alaskans have explained the situation thus: the Federal ownership of ANWR was a response to a vast turnover of landownership between Alaska State ownership and the federal government. Alaska did not want to own ANWR, and opted for different lands, many of which are minerally rich. the federal government then decided that the ANWR lands would become a wildlife refuge, a designation which is CRUCIAL in our rapidly urbanizing world. I strongly feel that we should respect this Wildlife Refuge, home to species that have been secluded to Alaska as their last American home. Regarding jobs, ANWR is not an ace in the hole for oil production. The facts are highly disputed, but many (given, liberal) organizations can not expect more than a year or so of significant oil production, which is no great gain for our oil dependance nor Alaskan jobs. There are other projects in Alaska, such as a proposed natural gas pipeline, and expanded deep oil drilling in Prudhoe Bay that will result in a more significant amount of jobs. For the meager returns on opening ANWR, this is one Alaskan not ready to destroy a refuge.

---

Boy I feel stupid

Nice post johnny

owens never sleeps wrote:' With the current political climate it is likely that ANWR will get pushed through and people will have to find some other cause that is far removed from their own economic well being to make them feel better."
Oh! like picking on heli-ski operations? Actually Owens, I realize that your a big boy and that this is your "house" but you should perhaps abstain from some of these "emotive" topics, It might pose a future conflict(only my 1.5 cents)

As for opening ANWR, there were some test wells drilled and some seismic testing done in the early eighties--the results however have been kept "secret"(for what exact reason I cant recall; something about not influencing the amount that oil companies would bid for drilling leases)
If it was really worth their while, the oil companies and their lobby would have had this area opened years ago. It is really just "the" test piece/Holy Grail of the pro-developement side verses the conservation side- If they open ANWR, they can open anything! As for a smaller-footprint, and "newer' technology
I call BULLSHIT, Have any of you ever seen the entire scale of development on the North Slope?The key word is infrastructure; it's comparible to any region-wide industrial developement in the lower 48; and it actually has worse air quality levels than Los Angeles
.
As for Timber, the market decided that southeast timber was too expensive;
partially for the above mentioned enviro. reasons, but mostly for economic reasons: competition from cheaper sources,value-added goods were uncompetitive, and primarily because the state and federal subsidies "ran" out. Sounds like some are all for globalization except when it takes food from their own plate!
By now you should know where I stand on ANWR!, even though I'm all for Heli-skiing in the Chugach!:)Enough of this shit for me, I am going back to picking on AKPM :FIREdevil