First off, let me get two things out.
1) Drilling for more oil in Alaska would allow the US to rely less on foriegn oil, particularly from OPEC.
2) Despite what many may think, caribou herds have more than tripled since the construction of the Alaskan Pipeline. TRIPLED.
Now, with that out of the way...
Here's some perspective on known petroleum reserves in Alaska. Note how much of the wilderness is relatively untouched.
Now, on to the animal pictures.
Caribou? Near the pipeline? OMGZ!!!/!1/!
The area seems remarkably well-preserved.
It's just I hear so much bickering from radical environmentalists who claim that the oil drilling would kill the eco-system that it's ear-shattering. Don't they understand context at all?
The oil reserves have been discovered in an extreme northern portion of the Wildlife Refuge, well north of the Arctic Circle. If further exploration proves the area is worth developing, the handprint of man would eventually cover an area measuring 2,000 to 5,000 acres -- less than 1% of total ANWR acreage. Now the term "minuscule" can accurately be applied. The maximum amount of developed land would be 8% of ANWR acreage.
Drilling for oil is not strip mining. Some winter roads will be built, though much of the heavy equipment is brought to work sites via gigantic hovercraft to avoid damaging the tundra. In summer, it's difficult to find evidence of the winter roads or hovercraft routes. Meanwhile, more than 92 percent of ANWR remains pristine and untouched.
What is the effect on wildlife? Very little, based on historical evidence. The population of the Central Arctic caribou herd, which migrates north each summer into the existing, nearby Prudhoe Bay oil fields, has been growing at 8.5 percent per year. Pregnant caribou cows bear their calves on land within or near the fields, and calves are born within a few hundred meters of oil field roads. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game monitors the effect of these drilling operations on all area wildlife, and finds negligible impact.
Just felt like sharing this with all of you. Let the debate begin!
EDIT: Source for informaion included.
...Debate? There's actually concern over this?
That's nice.
While I personally don't care what the Americans decide do up there as long as the pipeline stays off Canadian soil, I think it's pretty sad that they're going to spend billions of dollars on oil exploration -- in a wildlife reserve -- in an effort to get themselves off foreign oil when they could put that money towards alternate fuel development to get themselves off oil altogether. And it's pretty hypocritical to moan about all the foreign oil and then turn around and buy trillions of dollars worth of crap each year from China.
What's your source, by the by? Awful nice of you to steal all those graphics and say all that with such authority without giving due credit to your sources. Plus nine nice photos is about as valid an argument as nine ugly photos. I could take a bunch of pictures of all the homeless people in Vancouver's downtown eastside, post them in a thread entitled "Vancouver is the shittiest city on the planet", and it would be complete crap because it's actually quite the opposite.
Quote:
I think it's pretty sad that they're going to spend billions of dollars on oil exploration -- in a wildlife reserve -- in an effort to get themselves off foreign oil when they could put that money towards alternate fuel development to get themselves off oil altogether.
As I've said in other topics (particularly the old Energy bill thread from a couple months back), alternative energy methods are not refined/streamlined/sustainable enough for mass consumption. And oil supply is not the problem; it's refining capacity. More refineries would help ease the gas prices for awhile, while nuclear power (cleaner than oil, gas, or coal) would shoulder the burden of powering homes/cities/etcetera away from the fossil fuels.
Quote:
What's your source, by the by?
Recheck my first post. The source has been added.
Quote:
I could take a bunch of pictures of all the homeless people in Vancouver's downtown eastside, post them in a thread entitled "Vancouver is the shittiest city on the planet", and it would be complete crap because it's actually quite the opposite.
True, but that's a case where the pictures go against facts. In this case, the pictures go hand-in-hand with the facts.
Quote:
And it's pretty hypocritical to moan about all the foreign oil and then turn around and buy trillions of dollars worth of crap each year from China.
I'd rather we not get our materials from China either. Until it becomes more expensive to produce in China than to do so here (and with standards in China increasing as the nation industrializes, it might happen within the next decade), we're still going to see 'Made in China' on the bottom of goods.
As I've said in other topics (particularly the old Energy bill thread from a couple months back), alternative energy methods are not refined/streamlined/sustainable enough for mass consumption.
That's the point of putting the money into research -- so we can get there faster. Oil is a limited resource that is bad for the environment. I don't know why we're not working very hard to find a replacement as soon as possible.
Quote:
I don't know why we're not working very hard to find a replacement as soon as possible.
Two reasons: greed and laziness
YAY PUNCTUATION!
LOL
Quote:
I don't know why we're not working very hard to find a replacement as soon as possible.
Greed. Capitalism at its worst. =/
Oil companies(read: politician stock and income) would likely bankrupt in the face of an efficient replacement. Businesses that don't jump ship will find themselves closing shop, too. Assuming that the replacement functions differently, the entire automobile industry would have to be reworked. Old cars would have to be upgraded or scrapped, as the oil companies who supported them are now gone. And there's always a chance something could go wrong with an experimental replacement... Too many people think it's too much work for too little gain without thinking of the future consequences.
This is why the human race will be dying in 2200 A.D.
Quote:
1) Drilling for more oil in Alaska would allow the US to rely less on foriegn oil, particularly from OPEC.
Drilling for more oil in Alaska would keep the US to rely on more oil: It's unsustainable, meaning once the well dries out you have to go back to rely on foreign oil or what's left of it.
Quote:
2) Despite what many may think, caribou herds have more than tripled since the construction of the Alaskan Pipeline. TRIPLED.
And there were any accidents during the research or removing oil, those caribou will decrease in numbers. It's environmentally fiendish.
Quote:
The oil reserves have been discovered in an extreme northern portion of the Wildlife Refuge, well north of the Arctic Circle. If further exploration proves the area is worth developing, the handprint of man would eventually cover an area measuring 2,000 to 5,000 acres -- less than 1% of total ANWR acreage. Now the term "minuscule" can accurately be applied. The maximum amount of developed land would be 8% of ANWR acreage.
It only takes a small area to cause massive damage to world-wide ecosystems. Remember Chornobyl?
The best way to reduce oil consumption in the United States is to explore alternative sources of energy that is sustainable for environments because it makes no sense going to drill more holes just to see them empty in the next few decades (pretty much what Cycle said in his very first post in this topic).
Quote:
Drilling for more oil in Alaska would keep the US to rely on more oil: It's unsustainable, meaning once the well dries out you have to go back to rely on foreign oil or what's left of it.
Getting off foriegn oil is a good first step to less oil dependence.
Quote:
The best way to reduce oil consumption in the United States is to explore alternative sources of energy that is sustainable for environments because it makes no sense going to drill more holes just to see them empty in the next few decades (pretty much what Cycle said in his very first post in this topic).
Three decades is a long time to research, refine, and employ alternative fuels. A long time.
Quote:
And there were any accidents during the research or removing oil, those caribou will decrease in numbers. It's environmentally fiendish.
And ever since oil drilling took place outside of ANWR, the natural petroleum that leaks to the surface has decreased, thus allowing for the spread of more wildlife.
Here's the bottom line: Alaskans want this to go through by an overwhelming majority. Oil would be drilled up from solid ground, and not vulnerable offshore platforms. In eight years, Alaska's oil output would equal one-third of U.S. domestic output, vaulting it past the Gulf's output.
Sure there are risks. Most things in life worth getting require some risks to acquire. And in this case, the risks are worth it.
Quote:
Getting off foriegn oil is a good first step to less oil dependence.
They've already said it would be at least 10 years before any of this oil got to market. And even this wouldn't be enough to end our dependance on foreign oil.
Quote:
Three decades is a long time to research, refine, and employ alternative fuels. A long time.
He's referring to oil holes being emptied out during that period of time.
Quote:
Here's the bottom line: Alaskans want this to go through by an overwhelming majority.
Maybe, but an overwhelming majority of Americans don't.
Quote:
Sure there are risks. Most things in life worth getting require some risks to acquire. And in this case, the risks are worth it.
No, they're not. Why must we tear up some wilderness just to make big oil happy? Greed is the root of all evil. Greed is why some people want to drill there. Greed is keeping people in the dark on alternative energy sources. And someday, greed is going to destroy our world.
Quote:
No, they're not. Why must we tear up some wilderness just to make big oil happy?
It's not like they're going to strip-mine the whole place. Didn't you see the picture at the beginning? Over 90% of ANWR will remain untouched.
Quote:
Greed is why some people want to drill there.
You speak as if that's the only reason why.
Quote:
You speak as if that's the only reason why.
Actually, it isn't. I forgot to add laziness.
Three decades is a long time to research, refine, and employ alternative fuels. A long time.
Again, that's the whole point of putting more money and effort into it. If the energy industry was serious about alternate fuel sources, we'd already be there.
You speak as if that's the only reason why.
He forgot sloth.
You said this...
Quote:
1) Drilling for more oil in Alaska would allow the US to rely less on foriegn oil, particularly from OPEC.
...and then followed it up with this when questioned...
Quote:
And oil supply is not the problem; it's refining capacity.
Those two don't go together well.
Quote:
Three decades is a long time to research, refine, and employ alternative fuels. A long time.
Even though you misread the sentence, it wouldn't take that long if the U.S. was actually serious about it. It could probably be done within a decade just like with "going to the moon" in the 1960s. ;p The technology exists (just like it did in the 1950s), but dedication needed to make it completely feasible doesn't exist (unlike in the past).
Quote:
Until it becomes more expensive to produce in China than to do so here (and with standards in China increasing as the nation industrializes, it might happen within the next decade), we're still going to see 'Made in China' on the bottom of goods.
Any reason for this? The only way I see China (and many others) becoming more expensive than the U.S. for producing goods is for the U.S. to do some mighty "falling." I think it would take more of a consumer movement to not buy goods made in China than anything else.
Even though we're getting plenty of oil as it is from foriegn countries, the oil prices determined by OPEC - along with our small number of refineries to actually process the natural petroleum - have contributed to the large 'Price-per-barrel'. As it is, we're practically leaning on OPEC in terms of oil dependency; weaning ourselves off of them (or at least decreasing our need for their petroleum) would be a boon in the long run.
I'm just a very optimistic kind of guy (points to custom title). I believe that this move to drill in ANWR will bring a lot of benefits. If things go well, nuclear power will surge and take a big load off from fossil fuels. A natural step after that would be the implementation of alternative methods of fuel.
Optimism. It's what's for breakfast. 
Exactly how much oil is in ANWR anyway? If they drill it, no biggie. I don't see the harm, but I also don't see much use in it. We'll be out again in no time.
Maybe we should INVADE Alaska? Yeah, that would work. Claim that the Inuit people have organized a Taliban-like regime...
End poorly-thought-out political statement.
Quote:
Maybe we should INVADE Alaska?
Seriously, are you retarded?
Ultra, just out of curiosity, how would you feel if the US were dependent on Canadian oil, rather than Saudi oil?
There's a world of difference between depending on OPEC - an entire ocean away - and Canada, who's right next door. There's the matter of the tariffs still...I wish they'd get that cleared up.
Quote:
Seriously, are you retarded?
Besides the fact that IS an over the line remark, did you read the entire post?
He ended it with:
Quote:
End poorly-thought-out political statement.
So, why are you even attempting to take it seriously? It obviously isn't supposed to be. You use sarcasm all the time, you should recognize it. ;p
Are you aware of the fact that country that supplies the U.S. with the most oil is Canada? ;p
However, still doesn't change the fact I'd prefer oil be procured from American soil intead of the Middle East.
I just found it an ironic fact. Parade, a weekly magazine that comes with the Sunday papers my father buys, actually had an article on oil that had a nice little circle graph that broke down where the U.S. gets its oil. I think it said Canada was 14% to claim top prize. I don't have the article saved so I can't totally verify the percentage. I could be off by a couple in either direction. ;p
I was going to answer Ultra's reply but both Marauder's and Cycle's answers sound much better than the answer I would have thought out tonight.
Btw, the risk is still there. Even if it's miniscule, it's still a potential time bomb.
And one reason Alaskans are eager to develop oil in their reserves is due to the fact most of the state population voted Republican the last two elections. 🙂
Quote:
And one reason Alaskans are eager to develop oil in their reserves is due to the fact most of the state population voted Republican the last two elections.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I dislike the current two party system that the United States has currently. Please don't take offense: it's not your fault. 🙂
Quote:
I dislike the current two party system that the United States has currently. Please don't take offense: it's not your fault.
Agreed.
The political party system needs to be really worked on.
Moderate Republicans have forced GOP leaders to drop the project from the budget bill. I never thought I'd see the day where I'd be thankful for moderate Republicans.
There is plenty of research being put into alternative energy. Who is doing the funding? Why investors of course! The driving force behind "green technologies" is more about the demands of the free market than governmental regulation.
And lets not forget the taxpayers and foundations that support university research. There is some very interesting photochemistry going on at Caltech, trying to use the same principle to transfer electrons the way chloroplasts do. If anyone really wants to take a look at the projected energy requirements for an industrialized world, just imagine every citizen using the same energy as the average American.
That would be a step more efficient for Canada.
97.4 quadrillion BTU's/288 million US citizens = 0.338194
13.1 quadrillion BTU's/31 million Canadians= 0.42258
Source for numbers www.eia.doe.gov/kids/ener...nergy.html
I realize it's meant for kids, but it gives you an idea of the massive numbers involved.
Polycrystalline photovoltaic cells are coming along nicely. www.eere.energy.gov/solar...lline.html
www.almac.co.uk/proven/PV...lline1.htm
There is no massive conspiracy to suppress new technologies, only that these new technologies are not maturing as quickly as people would hope. Using and updating our current infrastructure until these technologies mature is the logical action. Drilling in the ANWR is a step towards less dependence on foriegn oil and a way to buy time as "green" technologies mature.
Jimro
It doesn't matter if the US is "funding" the operations because they ARE being worked on, and when they guys behind said green technology finally develope an energy industry killrer app, they can sell it back in a very "I told you so" manner, and one company gives everyone in the US energy, and it's fairly priced and fairly priced.
Biols down to more greed, probably, but they could only go so far with a non-expensive energy source.
Or perhaps we should just kill all the caribou so the machines won't hurt them and we feed some people for a little while. 
