THE Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Thread (merged)

[Plantagenet]

Are you saying we should use up all of our oil now to sustain our current wasteful way of life?

Of course not.
I'm supportive of Roscoe Bartlett's plan to drill ANWR and use the proceeds to develop alternative energy to replace oil.
Do you really think all the oil in the US is in ANWR? If so, you are wrong.
I doubt that even you actually believe your own inaccurate rhetoric (i.e. "use up all our oil now"... "burn up the whole earth").

[cube]

Why do you need Anwr to do what private industry could easily do, without it. What a disingenuous piece of nonsense that is.

It depends what you mean by "could easily do".
If you mean a drop in replacement for crude oil there is absolutely NOTHING out there that even comes close to what oil can do....and there never will be. The closest thing out there would be nuclear power + lead acid EV cars. People are just going to have to accept the fact that it's downhill from here on out.

[cube]

All of the alternatives will require fossil fuels to maintain and run.

If it requires oil then it's not really an "alternative" is it?

[Plantagenet]

peak oil cannot be avoided. The United States will fall within two decades never to rise again as it is currently known.

Roscoe Bartlett has for years been the only member of Congress smart enough to recognize the danger of peak oil. Now he is proposing a program to fight and work to overcome that serious problem.
Peak oil is a very serious problem, but there are lots of people who aren't ready to give up just yet. The sooner we get started on alternative energy and economic restructuring in the US the better.

[Iaato]

I'm supportive of Roscoe Bartlett's plan to drill ANWR and use the proceeds to develop alternative energy to replace oil.

Is it better to use the Arctic Refuge oil to fuel our current way of life, or is it better to use the energy that we would gain from reducing waste to develop alternatives.
Simple question, PA, answer it.
PStarr, intelligence is not necessarily correlated with ethics. Bartlett has just revealed himself as another politician focused on the short term and "getting mine."

[pstarr]

something I've learned about country pinhead republicans in my time out here in timber country. They certainly don't let their envy of city folks dilute their greed, stupidity, avarice, and propensity for violence toward the defenseless.

[Plantagenet]

I'm supportive of Roscoe Bartlett's plan to drill ANWR and use the proceeds to develop alternative energy to replace oil.

Is it better to use the Arctic Refuge oil to fuel our current way of life, or is it better to use the energy that we would gain from reducing waste to develop alternatives. Simple question, PA, answer it.

Your question is nonsensical.
Is this what you are trying to ask?
Roscoe Bartlett proposes to use the money from ANWR to develop energy alternatives.
You are proposing to use "energy" (I assume you mean money) gained (I assume you mean saved) from reducing waste to develop alternatives.

But any savings from reducing waste is distributed across the economy and is not available for alternative energy research, unless new taxes are imposed on middle class folks.
Obviously, ANWR is much better way to fund alternative energy research. It will provide much more money for alternative energy by leasing fees and taxes on Big Oil, and will do so without raising taxes on the middle class. In addition, it would stimulate the economy and create high paying technical and construction jobs.
Roscoe Bartlett is a very smart guy. His new proposal shows it again.

[Iaato]

PA, if you look at human nature and the history of US politics closely, you realize that both options we describe would be used wastefully to maintain and grow the current way of life, no matter what the original premise for the law was. A populace desperate for gasoline will not allow that Arctic oil to be funneled into research.

Using the energy from reducing waste to adapt our way of life will come naturally; people who can't drive anymore will bike or use mass transit, and so on. Adding fuel to the fire now by drilling arctic inhibits that adaptation.

[Plantagenet]

A populace desperate for gasoline will not allow that Arctic oil to be funneled into research.

You don't get it. The oil doesn't go to research. The MONEY goes to research.
Bartlett's bill would direct and dedicate the tens of billions of dollars in new, additional federal tax MONEY obtained from leasing and taxing ANWR to research on alternative energy.

[pstarr]

You have been here long enough PA to understand what is going on here. I am surprised you have learned so little.
We do not need research on wind and solar. We know they work. We need to subsidize their installation with tax and government programs. We need to create an electric infrastructure including long-haul freight train lines, intercity passager systems, and local public transport. This works

We do not need research on biofuel gimmicks. They have already failed. We do not need research on CTL, tar sands, shale, THAI, SAGH, or super deep water. They barely work and are a waste of money and time.
We need to powerdown now and stop feeding the consumer frenzy. now. We certainly do not need to tie research into a boondoggles.
The 10 billion possible barrels in ANWAR are good for a few years. THEN WHAT? Do it now or STFU. And stop handing out public money and lands to oil companies.

[cube]

...We do not need research on wind and solar. We know they work. We need to subsidize their installation with tax and government programs. ...

and these subsidies will be paid for by an economy that was made possible by oil.
This is why I always laugh at all the "enlightened" liberals who think that taxing gasoline to pay for electric trains is smart. ANYTHING (even if it doesn't run on oil) that became financially possible only because of oil will collapse once the oil money dries up. NO amount of solar, wind, public transit can save us. That's why they call it die-off.

[sicophiliac]

You have been here long enough PA to understand what is going on here. I am surprised you have leaned so little. We do not need research on wind and solar. We know they work. We need to subsidize their installation with tax and government programs. We need to create an electric infrastructure including long-haul freight train lines, intercity passager systems, and local public transport. This works. We do not need research on biofuel gimmicks. They have already failed. We do not need research on CTL, tar sands, shale, THAI, SAGH, or super deep water. They barely work and are a waste of money and time. We need to powerdown now and stop feeding the consumer frenzy. now. We certainly do not need to tie research into a boondoggles. The 10 billion possible barrels in ANWAR are good for a few years. THEN WHAT? Do it now or STFU. And stop handing out public money and lands to oil companies.

The powerdown will happen regardless of ANWR, the oil will come online strong when we are well past global peak( around 2020) so I see this as a way to soften the landing so to speak. It wont be for people to go buy more hummers and go on road trips, that extra oil will have to be used for vital services, shipping food, medicine other basic necessities etc... Can you really honestly say that investing in R&D in alternative energy would be a total waste of money? No more advancements to be had?

[pstarr]

...We do not need research on wind and solar. We know they work. We need to subsidize their installation with tax and government programs. ...

and these subsidies will be paid for by an economy that was made possible by oil. This is why I always laugh at all the "enlightened" liberals who think that taxing gasoline to pay for electric trains is smart. ANYTHING (even if it doesn't run on oil) that became financially possible only because of oil will collapse once the oil money dries up. NO amount of solar, wind, public transit can save us. That's why they call it die-off.

It's not that I disagree, but exactly what I said makes more sense than the garbage that PA spewed

[pstarr]

We need to powerdown now and stop feeding the consumer frenzy. now. We certainly do not need to tie research into a boondoggles.The 10 billion possible barrels in ANWAR are good for a few years. THEN WHAT? Do it now or STFU. And stop handing out public money and lands to oil companies.

The powerdown will happen regardless of ANWR, the oil will come online strong when we are well past global peak( around 2020) so Can you really honestly say that investing in R&D in alternative energy would be a total waste of money? No more advancements to be had?

Do you know how much money and time it would cost to develop an entirely new oil field in a remote frozen arctic wilderness? The North Slope pipeline is 35 years old, is eroding, and the rest of the equipment is deteriorating. 10 billion barrels for 1/2 year US consumption
And NO, the time for research is way way way past. It is time to act NOW.

[Peleg]

peak oil cannot be avoided. The United States will fall within two decades never to rise again as it is currently known.

Roscoe Bartlett has for years been the only member of Congress smart enough to recognize the danger of peak oil. Now he is proposing a program to fight and work to overcome that serious problem. Peak oil is a very serious problem, but there are lots of people who aren't ready to give up just yet. The sooner we get started on alternative energy and economic restructuring in the US the better.

Absolutely. Opening ANWR is nothing but a profit sharing plan for a few oil execs and some legislators. It would not generate enough fees to make a difference, most of the profits would go right into the pockets of those who have bilked the people for years and it would'nt come on line for years.

Not to mention the fact that alternatives will never replace the scale and EROEI of light sweet crude. It's that simple. So playing this game and saying that well we need ANWR to help fund alternatives is just another oil grab. The fact that Roscoe would involve himself is the shicking part, the idea is just as stupid no matter who puts it forth.

These people play on the fact that the average person will never be able to simultaneously capture scale, time rate of change, relative scale and supply and demand at the same moment. When they add to this the funky numbers they all start tossing out when they see what they want. People don't know what to think. Flip a coin.
I think more highly of Roscoe then to call him greedy, but certainly most people who want ANWR are motivated by avarice, plain and simple.

[Plantagenet]

Peak oil is a very serious problem, but there are lots of people who aren't ready to give up just yet. The sooner we get started on alternative energy and economic restructuring in the US the better.

Opening ANWR is nothing but a profit sharing plan for a few oil execs and some legislators. It would not generate enough fees to make a difference

You don't know what you are talking about.
The leasing fees and subsequent taxes on ANWR oil production would generate an estimated 200 billion dollars for alternative energy research.

[doodlebug2]

{thread merged by moderator}
If possible, please explain why the reason for drilling in Anwar WILL or WILL NOT alleviate the current supply problems. Even today, D. Cheney was saying problem solved if we drill in ANWAR. I read recently that it would drop maybe 75cents a barrel, at 129$ a barrel, BFD. It seems that whomever you listen to or read has opinion, they all can't be correct. Right?
Why not let Oil Comps drill, and when it doesn't solve the problem, it is then proven that the problem is bigger than that. If oil is then coming out of our ears after Anwar, that group can have their proof. I am at the point of whom to believe. I am not for drilling there, but I just am tired of listening and getting different answers from different groups.
I would like to get facts to make my mind up. Thanks

[Dreamtwister]

This topic has been covered at length. Here are just a few threads:
Drilling in currently off-limits areas of the US
An acceptable case for drilling in ANWR?
alaska equals nothing
Congressman Roscoe Bartlett Opposes Drilling in ANWR
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; The Last Nail in the Coffin
The search function is your friend.
{the above threads are now merged}

[Lore]

Drilling in ANWR and off the Gulf Coast is chemotherapy for a dying patient. It only helps to prolong life for a brief while, giving the illusion that everything is alright and its business as usual.

[ProudFossil]

When do Democrats allow ANWR and/or new off-shore drilling?
at $5.00 a gallon for gas?
at $6.00 a gallon for gas?
at $7.00 a gallon for gas?
never