Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

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

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Drill in ANWR?

Poll ended at Mon 13 Sep 2004, 18:58:32

Yes, we now have the technology to do it cleanly
4
14%
Yes, we need the oil, and nobody goes there anyway
3
10%
Yes, it will rape the land but we need the oil
4
14%
No, if ANWR opens up, all the national parks are at risk
1
3%
No, this is one of the last great wildernesses
9
31%
No, bring on peak oil
8
28%
 
Total votes : 29

Re: A Bi-Partisan Solution to ANWR

Unread postby darwinsdog » Sat 12 Jul 2008, 20:52:30

There isn't going to be any "transition to alternative energy." All the alts combined aren't a drop in the fossil fuel bucket. Drilling the dregs doesn't go into preps for powerdown anyway. It goes into propping up BAU. Get real.
User avatar
darwinsdog
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri 27 Jun 2008, 03:00:00

Re: A Bi-Partisan Solution to ANWR

Unread postby green_achers » Sun 13 Jul 2008, 15:16:42

Anything you do to increase supply will lower prices of the alternatives also. That would be a market signal for them to not be developed.

If we are ever going to develop alternatives, fossil fuel is going to have to be expensive. No government program or any other definition of "we" is going to do the R&D. Just ask Jimmy Carter.
User avatar
green_achers
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun 14 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Mississippi Delta

Re: A Bi-Partisan Solution to ANWR

Unread postby bsneath » Sun 13 Jul 2008, 18:02:58

Why not stipulate that the proceeds from ANWR & OCS oil and gas leases shall be used to encourage alternative energy development? This way we can avoid near term economic collapse and promote alternatives to oil and gas.
User avatar
bsneath
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat 12 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: A Bi-Partisan Solution to ANWR

Unread postby IgnoranceIsBliss » Mon 14 Jul 2008, 08:48:43

emersonbiggins wrote:1. It will be drilled.

2. It will not matter, at least as far as the price of oil is concerned.
\

The only good thing with this scenerio is that at least we won't have to keep hearing "The Democrats/ liberals/ environmentalists won't let us drill our way out of this mess!" and "It's all THEIR fault!" anymore. I wonder what the war cry will be when we find out that drilling really didn't help us?
User avatar
IgnoranceIsBliss
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed 23 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: A Bi-Partisan Solution to ANWR

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Mon 14 Jul 2008, 10:49:41

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote: I wonder what the war cry will be when we find out that drilling really didn't help us?


"You STOPPED believing! You STOPPED believing!"

Once the consensus trance breaks, expect the harbinger to be shot.
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas

Re: A Bi-Partisan Solution to ANWR

Unread postby Nickel » Tue 15 Jul 2008, 07:25:39

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:I wonder what the war cry will be when we find out that drilling really didn't help us?


"The Democrats/ liberals/ environmentalists kept us waiting too long to drill our way out of this mess! It's all THEIR fault!"
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America

The ANWR 2,000 acre lie:

Unread postby hillsidedigger » Fri 20 Nov 2009, 14:37:45

I imagine this has been discussed before but the search function here doesn't work for me.

So, I'll just ask - How many of you believe Sarah Palin when she implies that a mere 2,000 spot in the Arctic Refuge contains close to one percent of the remaining oil reserves of the world?

I asked that same question on the 'homesteadingtoday' forum a little over a year ago and you would be shocked how many responded that if Sarah said it, it must be true.

I wonder if that lie is contained within her new book?

:lol: :lol:
User avatar
hillsidedigger
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun 31 May 2009, 22:31:27
Location: Way up North in the Land of Cotton.

Re: The ANWR 2,000 acre lie:

Unread postby Maddog78 » Fri 20 Nov 2009, 17:53:57

I really don't know if this strip contains that much oil but to put it in context it is not just a square block of land she is talking about.
It's a strip along the coast, so using directional drilling it could well contain quite a bit of oil.


http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/ ... g_ahwr.htm


At the time Congress established ANWR as a protected area, one significant sliver of it along the coastal plain, known as the 1002 area, was not included. Congress specified further study of that portion for its oil and gas production potential. Today, the largest untapped onshore energy reserve in this country is made up of roughly 2,000 acres of the 1002 area.

snip....................

While friends of the porcupine caribou struggle to protect the 1002 area from oil drillers, it’s estimated that we could be pumping as many as 16 billion barrels of oil— as much as 30 years worth of Saudi Arabian-type oil — out of a 2,000 acre drill area, which is a little more than one-hundredth of 1 percent of ANWR. By our math, that would leave approximately 18,998,000 acres for visiting birds, Snowcats (the mechanical variety) and the caribou, who, by the way, don’t have the good fortune in this case of being endangered, or this debate would have already been over.

snip.......................
User avatar
Maddog78
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon 14 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: The ANWR 2,000 acre lie:

Unread postby avtech » Sat 21 Nov 2009, 04:11:18

Q. Would the 2,000 acres be in one compact area?

A. No. The "limitation" does not require that the 2,000 acres of production and support facilities be in one contiguous area. As with the oil fields to the west of the Arctic Refuge, development could and would be spread out over a very large area. Indeed, according to the United States Geological Survey, oil under the coastal plain is not concentrated in one large reservoir but is spread under the coastal plain in numerous small deposits. To produce oil from this vast area, therefore, supporting infrastructure would stretch across the coastal plain: rather than the "footprint" the industry talks of, we would see instead a sprawling spider web of development.

http://savethearctic.com/arctic.asp?id2 ... d3=arctic&
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
avtech
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri 15 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: The ANWR 2,000 acre lie:

Unread postby MD » Sat 21 Nov 2009, 07:43:30

A teaspoon of salt flavors the whole stew.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4953
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: The ANWR 2,000 acre lie:

Unread postby hillsidedigger » Sat 21 Nov 2009, 11:21:44

There are a lot of links and maps on the internet about the 'phantom 2,000 acres' and in truth the so-called 2,000 acres is mostly just the footprint of the 500 or so drilling pads to be established across the 1.5 million acres of the coastal plain within the Arctic Refuge.

In order to spot the drill holes in the best locations and determine the direction to drill a thorough seismographing of the 1.5 million acres would need to be executed requiring up to 9,000 miles of seismograph line.

Can 9,000 miles of seismic testing occur on 2,000 acres?
User avatar
hillsidedigger
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun 31 May 2009, 22:31:27
Location: Way up North in the Land of Cotton.

Re: The ANWR 2,000 acre lie:

Unread postby DomusAlbion » Sat 21 Nov 2009, 11:31:08

It will be explored and it will be drilled. We (the USA) will need the oil.
"Modern Agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food."
-- Albert Bartlett

"It will be a dark time. But for those who survive, I suspect it will be rather exciting."
-- James Lovelock
User avatar
DomusAlbion
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1979
Joined: Wed 08 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Beyond the Pale

Re: The ANWR 2,000 acre lie:

Unread postby hillsidedigger » Sat 21 Nov 2009, 11:31:45

Maddog78 wrote:I really don't know if this strip contains that much oil but to put it in context it is not just a square block of land she is talking about.
It's a strip along the coast, so using directional drilling it could well contain quite a bit of oil.


http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/ ... g_ahwr.htm


At the time Congress established ANWR as a protected area, one significant sliver of it along the coastal plain, known as the 1002 area, was not included. Congress specified further study of that portion for its oil and gas production potential. Today, the largest untapped onshore energy reserve in this country is made up of roughly 2,000 acres of the 1002 area.

snip....................

While friends of the porcupine caribou struggle to protect the 1002 area from oil drillers, it’s estimated that we could be pumping as many as 16 billion barrels of oil— as much as 30 years worth of Saudi Arabian-type oil — out of a 2,000 acre drill area, which is a little more than one-hundredth of 1 percent of ANWR. By our math, that would leave approximately 18,998,000 acres for visiting birds, Snowcats (the mechanical variety) and the caribou, who, by the way, don’t have the good fortune in this case of being endangered, or this debate would have already been over.

snip.......................


Why do dishonest websites often have the word 'freedom' in their name? :-x
User avatar
hillsidedigger
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun 31 May 2009, 22:31:27
Location: Way up North in the Land of Cotton.

Re: The ANWR 2,000 acre lie:

Unread postby hillsidedigger » Sat 21 Nov 2009, 11:35:12

DomusAlbion wrote:It will be explored and it will be drilled. We (the USA) will need the oil.


Well, then, why don't they just come out and say we need to develop a new 1.5 million acre oilfield instead of saying, "It's only 2,000 acres"?

I don't think enough oil would be found there to make a big difference and in the long run all the oil that has been pumped from Alaska (which isn't all that much) will be proven to be futility only offsetting the inevitable for a short time.
User avatar
hillsidedigger
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun 31 May 2009, 22:31:27
Location: Way up North in the Land of Cotton.

Re: The ANWR 2,000 acre lie:

Unread postby Maddog78 » Sat 21 Nov 2009, 16:54:02

hillsidedigger wrote:I don't think enough oil would be found there to make a big difference



Well, that's it then. Cancel the seismic. Send Palin back to Alaska.
sidedigger doesn't think the oil is there so that's good enough for me.
User avatar
Maddog78
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon 14 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: The ANWR 2,000 acre lie:

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 21 Nov 2009, 17:04:49

hillsidedigger wrote:
DomusAlbion wrote:It will be explored and it will be drilled. We (the USA) will need the oil.


Well, then, why don't they just come out and say we need to develop a new 1.5 million acre oilfield instead of saying, "It's only 2,000 acres"?


Prudhoe Bay is only about 150,000 acres in areal extent. Are you saying that we're now finding oilfields near 10X larger?
Peak Oil Obfuscation Protocol 101: POOP101

Pretend the phrase, " None are so blind as those who will not see." only applies to everyone else.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: The ANWR 2,000 acre lie:

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 21 Nov 2009, 17:59:19

The real question that should be asked is, what impact has the development of Prudhoe Bay fields had on the wildlife? Secondly is that level of impact acceptable for ANWR development?

If the answer is minimal and acceptable then drill, if the answers are otherwise then don't drill.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17056
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: The ANWR 2,000 acre lie:

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 22 Nov 2009, 00:03:37

Tanada wrote:The real question that should be asked is, what impact has the development of Prudhoe Bay fields had on the wildlife? Secondly is that level of impact acceptable for ANWR development?
If the answer is minimal and acceptable then drill, if the answers are otherwise then don't drill.
The Prudhoe Bay caribou herd tripled in size after development of the Prudhoe Bay oilfield and pipeline. Oil field development actually appears to be good for Alaskan Caribou.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26619
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

PreviousNext

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests