| Author |
Message |
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
 Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:53 pm |
|
let's *beep* up the beauty of nature in those 2,000 acres by extracting oil then let's burn the oil and *beep* up the atmosphere! wooooooooo!
-------signature-------
"Sometimes, words have consequences you don't intend them to mean."
-george w bush. xD
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:56 pm |
|
What natural beauty could oiling 2000 acres take away? Oh, no! There's a few roads! Oh, no, some animals may have to move! Big deal! We need it, it will greatly help us, and it will DO LITTLE.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:58 pm |
|
what if there was oil under your house and i came along and destroyed it to get to the oil, perhaps killing you. wouldn't that be lovely?
you can never retrieve the wildlife and natural essence of that place after it has been smitten.
-------signature-------
"Sometimes, words have consequences you don't intend them to mean."
-george w bush. xD
|
|
|
Monkey
Captain
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 833
Location: On a quest you probably wouldn't believe.
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:48 pm |
|
Does anyone else actually live in Alaska?
I would much rather have a hybrid car and keep my wildlife refuge...
We don't need anyone to come up here and take what belongs to the Natives...
There are tribes on both sides of the issue such as the Inupiat who support drilling and the Gwichin who oppose it. Both hold true to their Ancestors practices and ways of life but while the land belongs to the Inupiat, the Gwichin depend on the large caribou herds that roam there...
Bringing it down to a more personal level the opening of ANWR would mean a larger dividend for me and other Alaskans, yet it would also mean the destruction of a beautiful landscape that I haven't seen for many years...
-------signature-------
"Maybe I should get myself fired."
Millennium Actress
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:29 am |
|
| Jemah wrote: |
you can never retrieve the wildlife and natural essence of that place after it has been smitten. |
You could not be more wrong.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:38 am |
|
| Monkey wrote: |
There are tribes on both sides of the issue such as the Inupiat who support drilling and the Gwichin who oppose it. Both hold true to their Ancestors practices and ways of life but while the land belongs to the Inupiat, the Gwichin depend on the large caribou herds that roam there...
Under US law, ownership of land and the mineral resources under it are two separate things. And the caribou will GO AROUND the oil wells. That's what the cattle do in Texas. It doesn't bother them.
Bringing it down to a more personal level the opening of ANWR would mean a larger dividend for me and other Alaskans, yet it would also mean the destruction of a beautiful landscape that I haven't seen for many years...
First off, it is possible to drill for oil without "destroying" the land. Get used to the idea. Second, we are talking about 2000 of 19 million acres. That's 0.1%! And not even all of that will be used.
|
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:56 am |
|
Have you studied this? I had to do a critical evaltution on this for advanced higher geography (last year of school stuff). There is a number of problems.
How do you propose getting the oil out of Alaska? You would have to use a pipeline. This would need to be raised above the ground, or it would melt the permafrost, as for oil to flow it needs to be a reasonably high temprature. This would be very expensive.
Then there is the option of either taking it down to the south of Alaska and shipping it (expensive and potentially enviromentally dangerous) or building the pipeline in Canada. This would result in a discussion with the canadian government and more expense.
The pipeline would have to be repaired and kept clean all the time, so that there wouldn't be any disaster or problems. As it is so big and vital it would be an obvious target for terrorists. That means it would have to be guarded all the time, again another expense.
So you could do that, or have the options of building more economical machinary, or other means of power. And there is the problem that this costs money. But it will have to happen in the future, so why not do it now? Or are we all not caring about others, but rather our own benefit?
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:47 pm |
|
Why isn't it a huge problem with the other pipelines in Alaska and Canada?
|
|
|
Captain Patrick
Commodore
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2421
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:13 pm |
|
Those pipelines do not run though animals breeding ground and feeding grounds. so we should not drill up there.
|
|
|
sabertooth1217
UPN Boycotter
Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 11484
Location: Texas
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:24 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | I'm all for finding a new feuls to use so we become less dependant on fossil fuels.
But drilling on a National Wildlife Refuge.... That is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard.
He's willing to endanger the lifes of thousands of animals just for oil. PETA and greenpeace are going to go ape when they hear this. |
I agree 100%
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:31 pm |
|
| chakotay99 wrote: | | Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | I'm all for finding a new feuls to use so we become less dependant on fossil fuels.
But drilling on a National Wildlife Refuge.... That is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard.
He's willing to endanger the lifes of thousands of animals just for oil. PETA and greenpeace are going to go ape when they hear this. |
I agree 100% |
Why? It's Tundra.
In fact, that wasn't even wildlife refuge until Jimmy Carter arbitrarily said it was. Why waste that land.
If anyone can give me one positive that can come to mankind, by not drilling up there, then maybe I'd consider the argument, but I still haven't seen one.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:43 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | chakotay99 wrote: | | Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | I'm all for finding a new feuls to use so we become less dependant on fossil fuels.
But drilling on a National Wildlife Refuge.... That is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard.
He's willing to endanger the lifes of thousands of animals just for oil. PETA and greenpeace are going to go ape when they hear this. |
I agree 100% |
Why? It's Tundra.
In fact, that wasn't even wildlife refuge until Jimmy Carter arbitrarily said it was. Why waste that land.
If anyone can give me one positive that can come to mankind, by not drilling up there, then maybe I'd consider the argument, but I still haven't seen one. |
Right, however did you know that Jimmy Carter was the man responsible for setting land aside for oil drilling, hmmm? The same man who STARTED it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:54 am |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | Why isn't it a huge problem with the other pipelines in Alaska and Canada? |
They are, but at the moment the economic cost is more than is spent. And in response about the area being huge and the animals not having to wander around, the reindeer are migratory, and the oil pipeline would interfer with this.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:09 pm |
|
Good news! Watch this video of a news report from FOX
javascript:videoPlayer('031605/sr_wilson_031605','ANWR%20Approval','Special_Report','acc','Politics',-1);
The ANWR drilling has been APPROVED by the Senate! (Narrowly)
This is good news! Now let's hope the House approves it this time...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:22 am |
|
Lets hope that they actually disapprove of it and decide to do the sensible long term benefit, clean energy.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:29 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | Lets hope that they actually disapprove of it and decide to do the sensible long term benefit, clean energy. |
Face reality, as bad as it is. There is a huge infrastructure already paid for and in place to use oil as a central energy source. The energy companies are NOT going to replace it with anything else until that thing is so cheap it justifies changing to a new infrastructure. So they (and we) are going to use up oil until it is just too expensive, and suddenly the energy companies will switch over to something else, and claim they did it "for us".
So even IF we invest in long-term paybacks of "clean energy", we are going to be using oil-based energy for some time, and we have to get that oil somewhere.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:53 pm |
|
Yes, and did you know that it has been proven that MORE caribou will come WHEN there is oil drilling? That is a FACT, proven time and again.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:28 am |
|
Oh yes, all that lovely oil to drink I suppose? 
|
|
|
Five - seveN
Rear Admiral
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 3567
Location: Shadow Moon
|
| Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:29 am |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | Jeremy wrote: | | Lets hope that they actually disapprove of it and decide to do the sensible long term benefit, clean energy. |
Face reality, as bad as it is. There is a huge infrastructure already paid for and in place to use oil as a central energy source. The energy companies are NOT going to replace it with anything else until that thing is so cheap it justifies changing to a new infrastructure. So they (and we) are going to use up oil until it is just too expensive, and suddenly the energy companies will switch over to something else, and claim they did it "for us".
So even IF we invest in long-term paybacks of "clean energy", we are going to be using oil-based energy for some time, and we have to get that oil somewhere. |
So, what you do is invest money to make those other energy sources cheaper, and stop drilling for oil so that it will becone more expensive. Simple, isn't it?
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:44 am |
|
How long is the oil going to last? 20, maybe 25 years? (I can't remember, been a few years since I last did geography.) I'm talking about all the oil in the world there.
It really makes sense to invest the money in some cleaner form of energy, unless you want to give up electricity altogether...
The country that will be most affected when the oil market crashes is going to be the USA. Why? Because as a country they burn 1/4 of the world's oil.
As for me personally... my energy is mainly produced through coal and nuclear energy, with a bit of wind in there as well. It doesn't stop me worrying about the rest of the world though.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:15 pm |
|
| Seven of Nine wrote: | How long is the oil going to last? 20, maybe 25 years? (I can't remember, been a few years since I last did geography.) I'm talking about all the oil in the world there.
It really makes sense to invest the money in some cleaner form of energy, unless you want to give up electricity altogether...
The country that will be most affected when the oil market crashes is going to be the USA. Why? Because as a country they burn 1/4 of the world's oil.
As for me personally... my energy is mainly produced through coal and nuclear energy, with a bit of wind in there as well. It doesn't stop me worrying about the rest of the world though. |
I think we should do both. Yes, it should last 30 years, and give us BILLIONS of barrels of oil. Yes, I think we should have businesses invest in new technologies, but it's just too expensive for the consumer at this time. Therefore, I think that for now we should drill in Alaska.
And I don't know exactly how, Jeremy, but I know that it's true that the amount of carabu will increase. I'll get you more info on that.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:08 pm |
|
| Five - seveN wrote: | | webtaz99 wrote: | | Jeremy wrote: | | Lets hope that they actually disapprove of it and decide to do the sensible long term benefit, clean energy. |
Face reality, as bad as it is. There is a huge infrastructure already paid for and in place to use oil as a central energy source. The energy companies are NOT going to replace it with anything else until that thing is so cheap it justifies changing to a new infrastructure. So they (and we) are going to use up oil until it is just too expensive, and suddenly the energy companies will switch over to something else, and claim they did it "for us".
So even IF we invest in long-term paybacks of "clean energy", we are going to be using oil-based energy for some time, and we have to get that oil somewhere. |
So, what you do is invest money to make those other energy sources cheaper, and stop drilling for oil so that it will becone more expensive. Simple, isn't it? |
Simple, is it? Do YOU have the $$$? Do you know of anyone (or any group) with a few billion dollars to invest who would prefer a high-risk research venture versus a sure-fire garaunteed (though modest) return?
(I am not advocating that mindset, just pointing it out.)
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:04 pm |
|
i say drilling should be done on bush's head. perhaps you might strike some oil? 
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:05 pm |
|
| Jemah wrote: | | i say drilling should be done on bush's head. perhaps you might strike some oil? |
Oh lord...
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:34 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Seven of Nine wrote: | How long is the oil going to last? 20, maybe 25 years? (I can't remember, been a few years since I last did geography.) I'm talking about all the oil in the world there.
It really makes sense to invest the money in some cleaner form of energy, unless you want to give up electricity altogether...
The country that will be most affected when the oil market crashes is going to be the USA. Why? Because as a country they burn 1/4 of the world's oil.
As for me personally... my energy is mainly produced through coal and nuclear energy, with a bit of wind in there as well. It doesn't stop me worrying about the rest of the world though. |
I think we should do both. Yes, it should last 30 years, and give us BILLIONS of barrels of oil. Yes, I think we should have businesses invest in new technologies, but it's just too expensive for the consumer at this time. Therefore, I think that for now we should drill in Alaska.
And I don't know exactly how, Jeremy, but I know that it's true that the amount of carabu will increase. I'll get you more info on that. |
I would like to see it, thanks.
What people don't realise is that there are more adverse weather conditions happening worldwide, and these create a huge amount of damage called El Nino). Recently there has been big floods in the south of England almost every year with millions of pounds of damage. This is just a small example. So its not cheaper, but just the money being used in repair rather than prevention.
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
