Drilling in ANWR and offshore

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Postby jaysweet3 » Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:23 am

I am not in the energy business, so I don't understand all of the conspiracies about oil and its impact on the development of alternatives. But right now we are using oil. Proabably will be for some time to come. But what ever the new source of energy is, it will be some kind of a natural resource, and it will have some kind of an enviromental impact on using it. Lets not call all of the future alternatives the second comming just yet.

Wouldn't you guys say that realistically world wide, we are on the oil wagon for at least another 50 years? Please... go drill for some domestic oil. Make an eskimo rich. Beat Cuba and China to the punch.
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8372
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois


Postby jrockncash » Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:41 am

Thats kinda what I was saying. All the hippie crap sounds nice but its not going to happen for awhile.

Whats the deal with the 20 million acres of leases that the oil companys have and arent drilling? That numbers not right but you get my point. And I understand not all of it has oil but they arent even drilling everything they have permission to now. It seems to me like they just want to get into ANWR so bad there willing to stick it to us to try and get at ANWR.
There is more value to land not developed than simply monetary. Aldo Leopold

The only thing necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmond Burke

What could be worse than getting humped by Bears? Bubbles Trailer Park Boys
User avatar
jrockncash
hunter
 
Posts: 2917
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:06 pm
Location: yelling at kids to get off my lawn.

Postby Rat Creek » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:36 am

First of all, the so called shortage of oil is based upon oil producers choosing to reduce supply, not because they can’t produce enough. There is a shortage on the market, not on the planet.

Secondly, no one has stated we shouldn’t continue to advance new technologies, but as of today, they are not viable. It isn’t a one or the other situation.

And for you fossil fuel haters, how about you lead the way? Get rid of your vehicle, turn off your lights and furnace permanently, don’t ride the bus, remove all plastic from your life (including your keyboard) and start saving the planet from something. And while this may sound incendiary, I would really love to see the no drill crowd actually practice what they preach, but they won't.
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4440
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Postby olddkguide » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:56 am

Well this price increase thing really kicked in in the late 70's. Face it , the oil companies will never reduce the price much if at all. They now know we will pay what ever THEY tell us the price is. Until we have another viable fuel supply we are at their mercy. New technology is certainly the long term answer to this problem, however the short term solution for our nation is drilling at home. We must break our dependency on foreign oil. We need a national energy plan to develop better fuel alternatives. The oil companies stopped fuel alternative development cold in its tracks in the late 70's. There is a city in Florida that receives its entire electrical supply form a methane source, a local feedlot. The citizens there pay practically nothing for their electricity. We have the ability to lick this problem. Give enough incentive and the results will come. The trick is to stop big oil from
dictating our energy supply. Once oil has to compete with other sources then and only then will we see price reductions. No competition simply allows for an uncontrolled power base. There is no quick fix to this, it's going to take time.
olddkguide
hunter
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:50 am
Location: Georgia

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:09 am

All this renewables talk is a lot like the famous quote from some guy decades ago that said nuclear power would be too cheap to meter.

At the time, the primary cost of producing electricity was the fuel costs. There was little polution control, safety was of less concern, etc. Therefore, it seemed logical that a new source of energy that could produce it's own fuel would be incredibly cheap. Even the statement that it produces it's own fuel is not a true statement. However, if the other costs, primarily the steel and concrete, were eliminated, then nuclear power would probably be too cheap to meter. We are making the same false assumptions about renewables by thinking they are like what we have today.

The same flawed logic applies to renewables. The environment impact of todays power plants is primary associated with collecting and burning the fuel, whether it's coal mining and air pollution or uranium mining and high-level waste disposal. Therefore it seems just as logical that if there is no fuel at all then there is no environmental impact. This is seriously flawed logic. Renewables require huge amounts of land, steel, concrete, etc. per unit of energy that they produce.

We are fighting over utilizing 2,000 acres in Alaska on a temporary basis. When they are done, they cap the hole and haul everything away for scrap metal or to satisfy the decommissioning laws and it returns to pristine wilderness over about 100 years. Now, we are to believe that permanently paving over millions of acres to put solar collectors or wind turbines is going to be environmentally friendly and have no lasting consequences. There will be huge amounts of pollution generated to manufacture the steel, concrete, glass, etc. Nothing lasts for ever and there will be tons of waste generated when they are decommissioned and replaced with new ones. Not everything recycles very well.

All power plants will be huge industrial operations requiring huge industries to support them. Always have been and always will be. If we can't utilize 2,000 acres or even 2 million acres at an incredibly remote location, in what logical world can we do anything anywhere.

BTW, the vast majority of you guys need to take some economics lessons. Particularly, you need to understand the concepts of present value, time value of money, etc.

In an ideal world, every company would be trying to maximize their present value. If leaving the oil in the ground is more valuable than selling it for cash, then it stays in the ground because the price is too low. If the cash is more valuable than the oil, then you pump it. Since every source of oil has different costs associated with getting it too market, the price determines how much is worth pumping and how much is not. This should be the primary factor determining when and where. Our Congress determines when for political reasons and the Saudis determine how much for political reasons. I agree they are the bad guys, but no worse than our politicians that are making us pay more for oil for their own political gains.

If we can't safely drill for oil here, then it can't be done safely anywhere. Is it somehow OK to poison the Arabs? Isn't that the basic argument for social justice or whatever the buzz word is?
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16187
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby olddkguide » Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:30 am

:cheers: Well said.
olddkguide
hunter
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:50 am
Location: Georgia

Postby don taylor » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:44 am

Well said indeed. I love the idea that we (spinnerman and myself) don't conflict much. Spinner doesn't leave much room to debate. He can make the other side of a argument seem silly.
BIGGER WATER DECOYS

Chairman- The Allegheny Chapter of Delta Waterfowl.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/4277478 ... 6859634909
User avatar
don taylor
Forum & State Moderator
 
Posts: 7534
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:38 pm
Location: Westmoreland County, Pa.

Postby pennsyltucky » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:40 am

i dont like the alternatives either. none of them are even close. and i dont think any of them will be. i didnt suggest any alternavive solutions, because i strongly believe that there arent any. we dont belong on this planet in the numbers we've grown to, and there simply isnt a way to sustain it. this whole arguement is a waste of time because of this fact. we found oil, and it has given us a free ride for a century or so, maybe 2, but just like anything else, it will end. theres just no magical alternative out there that can do what oil does for us. even if 5 billion of us vanished tomorrow, there still isnt anything that could take oil's place... keep drillin and wishin, but the ride is gonna be over soon enuf... probably in my lifetime.
muleskinner wrote:you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a benalli in the other.
User avatar
pennsyltucky
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: stoneboro, PA

Postby olddkguide » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:12 pm

Ug me make good caveman. :rofl:
olddkguide
hunter
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:50 am
Location: Georgia

Postby dudejcb » Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:49 am

why not?let's just take another toke off the oil pipe and when it's all gone we can go cold turkey then. Right? Why work towards other sources now? (read Tom Freidman's article in the NY Times today.

Yeah, the notion that when we're done in ANWAR we'll simply just cap the hole, weep up, and make everything pristine again (over 100 years or so) is a pretty optimistic (if not dangerously fair tale)position... it hasn't really played out that way so far anywhere else up till now. so why would it in this case, now?


Have any of your been to any of our domestic oil fields? they don't put down ONE hole, and there is a lot more going on than just a hole and a pump.

and olddkguide: you already are sounding like a good cave man. wasn't the best most successful cave man the one whobeat theother cave men out and took what he wanted and the others got whatever was left? So, fellow cave men, what shall we leave for our children?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby jaysweet3 » Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:17 pm

I don't think anyone is saying don't explore the options. Lets just take advantage of the resources that we have. We are on the top of the food chain and have opposable thumbs.
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8372
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Postby dudejcb » Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:28 pm

this is a pretty good article and makes the point(s) better than I can...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/opini ... ei=5087%0A

BTW: just lowering the national speed limit to 55 mph and having some CAFE regulations would do more than whatever ANWAR could/would provide... without the cost, other than we'd need to get up earlier to get to our hunting spots on time.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:03 pm

If the decommissioning standards are insufficient, then I would be all for toughening them. I seriously doubt they are insufficient for new facilities.

I drove on a lot of interstates with 55 mph speed limit. If you drive 55, you are a safety hazard.

You live in Idaho. Do you personally drive 55 mph when you travel the long distances out there? There is no law preventing you from doing this.

Truckers are paid based on miles driven. I believe it is somewhere around $0.60 per mile. Reducing the speed limit from 65 to 55 mph would cut their pay from $39 per hour to $33 per hour when driving. You are proposing a $6 per hour or even more in some states pay cut for all over the road truckers. Progressives are always looking out for the working man.

Why can't these things be voluntary? If people really believed it was the right thing to do, you wouldn't have to make it the law. They would buy smaller cars and they would drive slower. I'm sure we can all count on you to never exceed 55 mph for the rest of your life and never own a car that gets less than the highest mpg.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16187
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:53 pm

I drive 95 while drinking beer and tossing empties out the window. gotta get to my fishing hole right away.

you're not qa safety hazard aqt 55 if thaqt's the posted limit. when the limit is 75 (and everyone is doing 85) then going 55 is scary.

you are sooooo nice to look out for the well being of our trucker brothers.

BTW: i posted this on the other thread about evesdropping... it's 2:45 pm 6/24 and I'm in a meeting at the university of illinois, talking with smart guys about how to solve our natinoal energy crisis. I have a 6:45 flight back to boise. If you hurry you could meet me at O'Hare in time to buy me 3 beers, and then we could help each other understand all this.... in person!
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:09 pm

dudejcb wrote:you are sooooo nice to look out for the well being of our trucker brothers.

I just have one brother that is a trucker, but I look out for him when I can.

I have a honey-do commitment Image this evening or I would consider it.

I'm assuming Urbana campus with a connection through O'hare. You might miss your flight if you went outside of security for the beer and then back in to catch your flight. Regs don't let you through security without a boarding pass, so this kind of thing is pretty much out of the question at big airports like O'hare where it can take an hour to get through security.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16187
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:25 pm

no. i'.m in chicago... on halstead street off roosevelt.

think i need to split in about 10 minutes to turn in rental and still make the flight... c ya tomorrow
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests