ANWR cheap trick

[Phish_on]

I am going to post this, just so those who are interested will be aware !!

I know we are not all agreed on this issue, and that's OK, images/icons/mad.gif I guess! ! ! But that's exactly why it's just wrong to take advantage of the current crisis to ram this controverial issue through the system ... here goes, take or leave, don't shoot the messenger, etc.


In this time of tragic urgency, our leaders in Washington have
pulled together and put all things controversial and partisan aside
for the sake of national unity. Our friends on Capitol Hill are
making sacrifices, holding off on key issues that can be won only
through struggle, such as energy and campaign finance reform. Our
opponents have respected the national need for unity too, until
now.

But today we learned that Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-AK) is breaking
with this patriotic spirit by trying to tack one of the most
controversial issues in America onto the Defense Authorization
bill:

He wants to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
the heart of the last great wilderness ecosystem in North America.
This is a mistake, because:
- Any oil found there wouldn't come on line for 10 years;
- The refuge contains just 6 months supply of oil;
- Existing fuel-efficient technologies could save more than that;
- Once it's gone, it's gone forever.

The Defense bill will be debated this Wednesday through Friday.

Please call your senators now:

Senator Patty Murray
Phone: 202-224-2621
Fax: 202-224-0238

Senator Maria Cantwell
Phone: 202-224-3441
Fax: 202-228-0514

Be sure they know you're a constituent, and urge them to:

"Please _block_ the vote on the Murkowski drilling amendment
to the Defense Authorization bill."

Please call even if you think your Senators are solid supporters
of protecting the refuge. Many Senators simply don't yet believe
that Murkowski will do it, but our sources are reliable.

America's entire environmental movement must rally now.

[Silent Lucidity]

Wow, it never seems to amaze me how these "servants of the people" find new and innovative ways to get amazingly slimy.

[CZ]

Right on Phish On. Legislators are definitely going to use this opportunity to push the ANWR issue forward for drilling.

When it's gone, it's gone. Why not dedicate more resources into alternative fuels and other energy sources that are renewable and clean. The sun is never going away, oil eventually will, or at least will be very scarce. Our dependence on foreign oil will not change, even if they drill in Alaska, as long as our country keeps using oil at the same per capita rate.

Why are we even discussing the drilling of ANWR? Because Bush and Cheney are so tied to the oil industry, they need to pad the wallets of those who helped elect them. Alaskans and Americans will receive very small economic benefit from the drilling - the big oil companies are going to rake it in. Especially since the government would subsidize the drilling, handing out billions to the oil companies - like they need subsidies to rob us at the pump, they already do a great job of that...

CZ

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

Attention:
For those of you who think that 2,000 acres isn't a lot of acreage in terms of the whole millions of acres, take this into account:

What hasn't been mentioned to the public is that these 2,000 acres that they will be drilling do not have to be consecutive (side by side). Theoretically, they could dot the countryside with drill sites. Let's not forget about all the piping needed to connect these sites.

Now that I have your attention, let me also throw this in your face because that's what Big Oil will do if this gets approved:
They count the acreage by what's touching the dirt, not what can be elevated above ground. In theory, I could have only 1 acres of land occupied on the ground with my drill site, but I could have a 10 acre, raised platform that will not count against my 2,000 acre allotment. This is how they will connect all the pipes. They will have their pipework all elevated as to not impact their proposed 2,000 acres.

This is what Johnny Public doesn't really hear or know. It's the truth, and it's an outrage (thanks truth.com for the trademark).

[Phish_on]

"The Alaska pipe line did nothing but good things for Alaska and the American economy."

The fish and birds in Prince William Sound and I had a good laugh over that one!

S.L., I don't have time to research the details and validity right now ... it would be great if someone did that. It came from an organization called "Move On" - I get the impression that the amendment has not yet been proposed, but the Senate is considering the Defense appropriations today and tomorrow and will vote on Friday (So sez www.senate.gov). (http://www.senate.gov).)

Don't want to fight, like I said, just want folks to be aware if you care.

[Silent Lucidity]

Here's some informatin about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge supplied by the US Dept. of Fish and Wildlife:

Refuge Information: Located in northeastern Alaska, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the most northern and one of the largest Refuges within America's National Wildlife Refuge System. The Arctic Refuge is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Nature remains essentially undisturbed in this scenic, pristine land. The Arctic Refuge's primary mandate: to protect the wildlife and habitats of this area for the benefit of people now and in the future.

Wildlife: The Arctic Refuge contains an impressive variety of arctic wildlife. Dominated by the rugged and majestic Brooks Range, the Refuge is vast and remote - domain of the wandering Porcupine Caribou herd, packs of wolves, hardy muskoxen, lone wolverines, flocks of snow geese, and other wilderness-dependent species.

The rich pageant of wildlife found within the Refuge includes more than 160 bird species, 36 kinds of land mammals, nine marine mammal species, and 36 types of fish.

Habitat: The Arctic Refuge is among the most complete, pristine, and undisturbed ecosystems on earth. Here coastal lagoons, barrier islands, arctic tundra, foothills, mountains, and boreal forests provide a combination of habitats, climate, and geography unmatched by any other northern conservation area - conditions that support the Refuge's diverse community of life.

People: The Arctic Refuge is a landscape like those that shaped America's unique heritage and culture - a place of reflection, beauty, and adventure. It's big and wild enough to make you feel like one of the old-time explorers - self- reliant, independent, and free.

The Refuge is an inspiration to nature enthusiasts, and a home to local Inupiat Eskimo and Gwich'in Indian communities. It is also a symbol, even for those who will never visit, of the link between wilderness and wildlife, and the need for both, now and in the future.

********************************

Okay, and here's some info regarding what those tree-hugger fanatics with the USGS have to say about oil potential:

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) updated its estimates of potential petroleum resources in the Refuge in 1998 by re-analyzing the original seismic data from 1984-1985 along with more recent data from seismic surveys and drilling in adjacent areas. Using the updated report and recent oil prices, the USGS estimated in 2000 that, assuming a price of $24 per barrel, there is a 95% chance of finding 1.9 billion barrels (BBO) of economically recoverable oil in the Arctic Refuge's 1002 Area; a 5% chance of finding 9.4 BBO; and a 50% chance of finding 5.3 BBO. Reported estimates of 16 BBO from the 1002 Area and adjacent private lands and offshore State waters do not factor in the costs of developing the oil field.

At prices less than $16 per barrel, there is reportedly no economically recoverable oil in the 1002 Area. (October-delivered crude oil prices closed yesterday at $27.70 a barrel.) Nearly 1 million barrels of oil a day are produced from the existing oil fields in areas west of the Arctic Refuge, and new wells are brought into production each year. Americans use 19 million barrels of oil each day, or 7 billion barrels of oil per year. There is, therefore, a 50% chance of finding a 9 month's supply of oil in the 1002 Area, at $24 per barrel.


Ongoing leasing activities and advancing oil recovery technologies on Alaska's North Slope and Beaufort Sea continue to provide the industry with new opportunities for exploration and development outside the boundaries of the Arctic Refuge.

*******************

Now, from what I can see of the pictures over
here (http://arctic.fws.gov/) it doesn't quite seem to be the vast wasteland that some would want us to believe. That is, unless your definition of waste land means that it's land not being exploited and therefore is a waste. And if that is the case then I'd be worried about what you would think about your own young children if they're not yet being "exploited".

I know, low blow there. But we are talking about a valuable resource in both instances and losing that resource affects us all.

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Silent Lucidity ]

[CATCH AND EAT]

Prince William Sound was solely the doing of a drunken captain leaving a wet behind the ear boy at the wheel. Not the fault of the pipeline. As far as exploiting my children...a comment that was unneeded and unsavory Lucidity. We are not he to insult each other and embarrase ourselves. Mearly to debate in rational thought what Phish-on put before us.

Sure it is easy to blame Bush/Chaney immediately even though they have only been in office less than a year. Did you see clinton/gore do anything regarding energy reserves? NO! Gore created the internet images/icons/grin.gif At least he said he did. Clinton was a great talker and sex god. But they did nothing but shut our bases down. Don't get me wrong by saying they did nothing that is not entirely true. Economically, Clinton capitolized on what Bush senior started in his last year as President. Both Bush's and Clinton have and had very tough decisions to make regarding the economy. W now has a major war and the economy plus the energy crisis to deal with. It's going to make an old man out of him fast.

I say, yeah the timing of ANWR is suspect but it (may) be necessary. A major disruption in the middle east will force the need to open researves and at that point we better have other options open (exploration, alternative fuel :rolleyes images/icons/smile.gif

Alternative fuels. What other fuels are more readily available than oil in the quantities oil can be harvested? None. Because we have yet to develope a sustainable supply of anything that can compare at the price of oil. Electric cars? Nope, no water years like this year will screw that deal. Solar energy? Nope, not enough sunshine in the NW. Coal? Nope, mining screws up the landscape and little bambi has to move somewhere else.

Hey, I would be the first to jump on the use something else but oil bandwagon if someone, somewhere had a consistent application to produce the energy we need to survive in todays modern world. Folks, it just has not been developed. If it has, it is not economical or applicable in a widescale form.

I for one do not want to go back to stone knives and wooden spoons like the Afgans are about to. I am sure there is an answer out there that eventually will save us all. Until then, The oil companies will line there pockets as you say, and make money. Just like any business is entitled to do. I do not own a business so that I can give my services away. Certainly, if they are allowed to "investigate" other reserves they will be carefull not to intentionally or even accidentally pollute this wilderness that I love too. I go to Alaska every year and I still cannot believe the beauty of it and its rugged frontier. But I still have to think that mankind is more important than a bug or fly or mouse.

With all the watch dog clubs and organizations out there, do we honestly think that and oil company in todays world would purposely ruin a natural ecosystem? Yes accidents may and will happen. We see this every day. Mother earth is pretty resillient and repairs itself everyday. It has distroyed itself and created new and wonderous landscapes to replace the old. Tree hugging is fine if it is done in the right context. But I find that the tree huggers are the ones that do the most damage by using eco-terrorism and property distruction to plead their case. Is that not wrong.

We must continue to explore for oil. We must continue to explore for a viable energy source to sustain us in the future. Yes, we must protect our environment. Being a responsible steward of resources of all kinds is essential. Fish, game, water, oil, ecosystems.... all are an important mix for the survival of our future generations.

[Phish_on]

ehhhhh yeah images/icons/rolleyes.gif

anyway the bill # is S.1416

[Thumper]

Well said C & E. Drill that puppy!!!!

[Deleted User]

BULL**** on drilling in the ANWR!!!! What a totally sneaky thing to try to do! It really disappoints me that some greedy politician would pull this kind of underhanded BS. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.This has nothing to do with national urgency it's greed pure and simple and a behind the back ploy to get a favored bill through.
Stew images/icons/mad.gif

[boater]

Thursday, April 19, 2001

Story last updated at 8:16 p.m. on Wednesday, April 18, 2001
OIL DRILLING: Six-month supply is not worth the effort

This is in response to the pro and con columns about the feasibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Both sides claimed to be using data from the U.S. Geological Survey report, but the numbers the two sides quoted were far apart. According to the pro side, the report said that there are 16 billion barrels of oil available. But according to the con side, the report said only 2.6 billion barrels are available. That is a huge difference.

A careful review of that report reveals that the results of the seismological studies in the ANWR were classified into three categories.

First, there is the maximum amount that might be found. Secondly, there is the amount that could be recovered with current technology, without regard to cost. Thirdly, there is the amount that is considered to be economically recoverable.

The report states that there is a 95 percent chance that there are at least 5.7 billion barrels of oil under the refuge but only a 5 percent chance that as much as 16 billion barrels exist. There is a 50-50 chance that the actual amount is about 7.7 billion barrels.

The report goes on to say that with current technology there is a 50-50 chance that 6.4 billion barrels could be recovered, if the costs of the recovery are not considered as a limiting factor.

Finally, the report states that when the costs of recovery are considered, then only 2.6 billion barrels of oil can be extracted from the ANWR.

Clearly, the pro-drilling side has stretched the figure well beyond any realistic estimates. The arguments are based on producing an amount of oil that simply cannot be recovered. The figure used by the anti-drilling side is the correct figure, as stated in the report.

To put all this into a better perspective, keep in mind that current oil consumption in the United States is about 20 million barrels per day. That amounts to 3.6 billion barrels over a six-month period.

The figures presented in the U.S. Geological Survey report clearly show that the amount of oil that could be economically recovered from the ANWR is less than a six-month supply for the United States.

Keep these figures in sharp focus as you listen to the debate about the wisdom of drilling in the Arctic wildlife refuge.

ROBERT P. STOLL, D.D.S.
Ponte Vedra Beach

[CATCH AND EAT]

Cool off Stew and Phish!!!! Gee wiz guys. Underhanded, sneaky or not, we still have to thrive as a nation. If you want to be dependant on foreign oil and its products then say so. Better to supposedly screw up their countries right? Let Saddam and whoever else use the scorched earth tactic to try to mess up their neighbors. Lets be realistic for a change.

We do have a large store of rainy day oil reserves out there. In the times we are about to face, we could make a decent dent in that like we did during the Gulf War. One of you said "well it would take 10 years to see any benefit from artic drilling". This may be true in fact. But it seems to be taking longer to develop any kind of alternate fuel source.

Hey, if you have any ideas of where else to drill say so. I'll listen. Suggest them to your congress person or local service station attendents. They know about this as the next guy.

If you have the research from both sides, send it to me and I will re-evaluate my position based on fact. Not fiction.

Speaking of fiction. Are'nt the oil companies suspected of cattle mutulations or was that the men from outer space. I thought so anyway......

images/icons/rolleyes.gif

[Deleted User]

Same old tired arguement dude! It's not about our dependency on foreign oil it $$$$$. Some greedy oil man from....ah let's see from .... TEXAS maybe see's a pile of money to be made by drilling in Alaska. Don't be confused by the fact C&E it's all about money. I'm not saying these kind of tactics are exclusive to any one political party but using the war as an excuse is pretty lame.
Stew

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: BIGSTEW ]

[Silent Lucidity]

"Solar energy? Nope, not enough sunshine in the NW."

On the surface I can shoot that down by saying that your rebuttal is like saying hydroelectric power isn't feasable because there isn't enough water in Wyoming to do it. However, by doing research (it's that stuff that requires reading) you will see that even during the darkest of overcast days there is still enough light filtered through the clouds to reduce our reliance on other energy sources. If we cannot at first cut our addiction to fossil fuels cold turkey we sure as heck can put a dent in our reliance on it.

If you have the research from both sides, send it to me and I will re-evaluate my position based on fact. Not fiction."

I've provided numbers showing that it wouldn't be worth the effort. What more do you want?

"Speaking of fiction. Are'nt the oil companies suspected of cattle mutulations or was that the men from outer space. I thought so anyway......"

What part of left field did that come out of?

[Mr.Kitch'nPass]

Its a comfortable 70 degrees in my house. My boats are full of fuel. My supercrew pu and my ford car also are full. Ive cut plenty of fire wood for the winter. "DRILL ON BABY" images/icons/grin.gif

[Vinny]

WRITE ON! . . . and when you do remember this:

$17 BILLION !! are going to the airlines (you remember, strong lobby, writes the rules the FAA approves then claims, "we're following gov't guidelines," "business at the lowest cost at any cost." shares responsibility for shoddy security and last week's attack.) unless we can stop it.

Write Congress (http://www.house.gov/writerep)

email congress today.

[Deepslayer]

I remember the oil shortage in the sixties! images/icons/frown.gif As far as I am concerned the more six month supplies of oil here and there they find are what will save us from the real greedy people. The members of OPEC that screw us every time we turn around.
Drill on! Maybe it will increase the Porcupine Caribou Herd like the pipeline did. images/icons/cool.gif

[Steelheadman]

Why drill oil in the ANWR? Should be able to find some oil in Iraq or Afghanistan. Bush Sr. should have never withdrawn from Iraq in the first place. I'd rather see the Texans drill in the Middle East rather than Alaska.

[Fountainhead]

Yup let's drill! My 105 pound old lady got ta drive her 454 to the Bon ta get some panties taday.
Remember when people drove small cars cause it cost less and and seemed like the right thing to do? Now we drive the biggest gas pigs we can. Big suv's stack the roads up here every day with one person in them, each gettin ****** at the traffic. For this "opportunity" we want to drill in eco sensitive areas? You guys have what ever opinion you want, but I am stickin with mine--butt a*s stupidity.

[Silent Lucidity]

Do you have any bill numbers that I can research on this one? And where did you hear about his actions?

[CATCH AND EAT]

You're right, I don't agree with you phish on. Drilling in this area is not a bad thing at all. Even if they did have a spill there the area would be minute in compared to anything of its kind. It is a barren area with not much living there. It is basically an area of about 5000 acres. (small by Alaska standards). A spill here is much easier to contain than a spill from some ocean oil rig.

The Alaska pipe line did nothing but good things for Alaska and the American economy. Yes, we need alternative power sources. But until someone comes up with a better and plentiful resource it looks like oil is it.

[Silent Lucidity]

Many of you are thrilled to death about drilling up in Alaska, so let's change the scenerio and see what your answers are.

Oil was just discovered in the Olympic Pinnensula near some of the best steelhead and salmon fishing waters in the Northwest. USGS says that it's gonna take ten years to get the production online and there's maybe 6 months of oil there. The oil companies say it's going to bring a lot of money to Aberdeen/Hoquium, as the processing will be done there.

Start drilling?

[CATCH AND EAT]

Actually, there are a lot more folks here from left field than I in this thread. It seems that the only way they can get their points accross is to insult the opposing view. This brings about instant gratification it seems.

Foreign oil dependency is not the answer boys. We need a little less of that and more answers on our own soil that will meet the needs of our future generations. Certainly many of you seem to have all images/icons/rolleyes.gif the answers. Think about it. If it truely takes 10 years to bring a oil field on line like you say it would seem that now is as good of time as any to start drilling and be prepared.

As far as the arguement of the timing of ANWR. Well this has been debated for quite awhile now. They were talking about it while I was in Alaska this year. My uncle lives in Anchorage (he's from left field too) he says drill!!! Timing? It has been on the agenda for a long time. Seems suspect due to the circumstances of late and I certainly can understand that.

Oil rigs are not beautiful things to look at agreed. Yet at this time in history they are a necessity. (same tired arguement eh?) images/icons/wink.gif I still have not heard a viable option to oil that will meet the demands. Ideas are welcome.

BTW, I read plenty my learned ANWR scholar. We just have different opinions on what to do with ANWR. I say, test drilling...nothing wrong with that. Puget Sound...That idea is silly. As I stated previously, I would rather drill on land than in the ocean or sound.

That said, I am ready for the next batch of insults and pot shots.

[AuntyM]

You guys got me riled!

Face it, we need to get off that Middle East t*t. NOW!

The best way to discourage drilling ANWR is to make it less profitable. In other words, less demand, lower prices no profit! ANWR hasn’t been touched by now in part because of the Clinton Administrations protections, but also because it was not considered profitable until now.

Teach your children not to waste resources, we can conquer this problem in one generation!
Turn down that thermostat, again!
Ride share, combine errands!
Buy and use more economical transportation. Keep it tuned
Boat Pool! Fill your boat with people first, then fish limits!
Bank fish, drift etc…
Invest in alternative energy

If you want to drive a big fuel hog (alone?)to haul that boat, and that boat is a big fuel hog, then don’t complain about oil companies who are only trying to provide Americans with the product they demand. Don’t be a freakin hypocrite!

Either be green or be a big consumer of oil, just don’t try to be both!

Post is not meant to single anyone out. Just needed to get that off my chest.

images/icons/frown.gif

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Yup let's drill! My 105 pound old lady got ta drive her 454 to the Bon ta get some panties taday.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like you got yourself the Tokyo Rose of the trailer park. images/icons/cool.gif

[Pitch Pocket]

I have to agree that we must become as self dependent as possible for our oil consumption. We have the best technology for drilling in the frozen north and are very aware of the risks to wildlife. Everyone's ears are perked up to the environmental aspects of drilling and no one will let them get away with dumping oil on the ground intentionally.

It is easy to suggest we get our oil from foreign sources where environmental rules do not exist. If you are truly concerned about the environment, then march on over to Iraq and check out their earth friendly practices where oil drilling is concerned. My bet is that it is a mess.

The glaring need to become independent of the Middle East oil overshadows the Chicken Little attitude right now. I say move forward with our best environmental hat on and find the oil. The sooner the better, my Suburban needs a fill-up.

[Phish_on]

Whoa ... ******, got a "can o' worms" graphic?

Who's got more money, Exxon or Ma Nature?
Heh heh heh - who's got more POWER ? ?

Well, in the long run, we will mess up our environment to the point where we cannot live ... the planet will heal and go on without us. Relative to the earth, the human time is insignificant - so I guess I can understand the "live for the moment" mentality that says fuel up the Suburban ... and I figure I've got about 40 more years if I'm really really lucky.

But I have 2 kids that suggest we should consider the future.

Last one out, blow up the dams!

[Backlash2]

SjP says that there are enough of us enviro's out there to make sure they do things right at ANWR. Well, I say wrong.

ANWR is too far out in the middle of nowhere for people to just pop in and check it out. It's the exact same reason most of you are in favor of drilling up there;
1.) You have never seen it
2.) It's not in your backyard, so you don't give a flying ****

They estimate there is enough oil up there for a six month supply. However, you won't be able to get it all out in six months, it'll be more like 6 years. And it will take 10 years from now until that is online. The dent that production puts in the US demands in ten years means you will still be importing more oil from the middle east by then than we are now. That sure sounds worth it to me images/icons/rolleyes.gif images/icons/rolleyes.gif

[4Salt]

We already have many viable energy alternatives to crude oil. Who would stand to lose billions if we decreased our dependancy on oil? THE OIL COMPANIES

They want nothing more than to ensure our dependance, and maximize profit for as long as possible. images/icons/frown.gif

[Vinny]

Good for you Auntie M. Also . . .

When prices are high, if you're not going to burn the fuel today . . . never, NEVER, NEVER FILL YOUR TANK.
When the refineries (and the gas stations) have their tanks full and can't store any more, then they'll have to reduce production (which they don't want to do) and the price WILL fall.

[bajaspecial]

For those of you still stuck in the 20th century, and want to trash our planet, here's some info that might open your eyes to what resources and technologies we should be spending money on to get to the general public, and FAST...

Hydrogen-powered bicycle: http://www.popsci.com/computers/01/09/17/adrenaline/
Already being used, but needs to be mass produced so the price will come down...biodiesel fuel: http://www.veggievan.org/

[CATCH AND EAT]

Name the alternatives!!!!! The viable alternatives. I still do not see your offerings or creative suggestions. Solar, Wind, Coal, Hydro, Nuclear, Cold fusion, take over Iran, Iraq, Saudie Arabia or should will just drill in Y'alls back yard for new and improved ideas. I am telling you at this juncture that what folks are reffering to as viable sources of energy just are not affordable.


You want to talk about ugly, look at solar energy plants or a field full of windmills. But at least there is no threat of spills (agreed) yet we still have not supplied the answer. Oh yeah, geothermal power..I forgot.

What answers are there? Combinations of resources...? Maybe, but we still need a solution for the future. Tri-flux converters have not been invented yet, warp drive not here yet... it seems that what ever power source becomes the predominate generator of the future we will still have a proponant and opponante.


Ramble, ramble, debate, debate.... still no progress on viable alternative fuels. I like many of you hope that we can one day find a source that is environmentally friendly, cheap, a source that can serve the world. That way all those poor countries that produce oil and its products will really become dependant on us to feed them. And we wont have to bomb them every week.

[4Salt]

C&E,

You need look no further than www.google.com (http://www.google.com) and do a search on alternative energy sources. I am not arguing with you on the "here and now" of oil being the most readily available energy source. We all know that crude oil is a finite resource, that we WILL exhaust someday. Why destroy what's left of the pristine areas of the earth, just to drill the last drop. Changing energy sources is inevitable. I say, let's get started NOW, while we still have area's like ANWR left.

[Silent Lucidity]

Obviously we aren't going to go off of our dependency for oil 100% overnight, but by SUPPLEMENTING oil consumption with the likes of solar and wind we will greatly reduce our overseas needs.

Also, get rid of all those damned SUV's. I went to my son's preschool orientation tonight and of the first 15 vehicles to pull up, 13 of them were either large trucks or SUV's, one was a minivan, and one was a Ford Escort. Guess which one was mine?

This weekend I will need to haul some stuff, so I'll be borrowing my mother's van. We do great with our car, and we get 30-35 mpg with it. What do you get in your rig?

The biggest and best alternative to our overuse of oil is CONSERVATION. Sadly, most people seem too ignorant to want to do such things, as it's not "convenient" enough for them.

[CZ]

Catch and Eat, please respond to the post earlier. Sure it's a theoretical example, but I'd like to hear your response.

"Oil was just discovered in the Olympic Peninsula near some of the best steelhead and salmon fishing waters in the Northwest. USGS says that it's gonna take ten years to get the production online and there's maybe 6 months of oil there. The oil companies say it's going to bring a lot of money to Aberdeen/Hoquium, as the processing will be done there.

Start drilling?"

[CATCH AND EAT]

Being that I own two boats (sled and a 23' Trophy I need a "truck" to tow these babies. Yeah, I definitly boat pool and very successfully I might add. Usually my buddies ride to where the boat is moored or to the launch site with me. That is why I bought a crew cab diesel truck(here is the swear word "Ford" for all you dodge and chevy lovers). 15 mpg is good for this size of a rig. I also have a family of 5. We also have a mini-van thank you very much.

If we can integrate some of these "viable" energies in viable areas how much of America will participate willingly? You are going to have a huge sales job ahead of you. People world wide are not going to accept these changes gracefully. Even if you slowly integrate these multi-trillion dollar ideas you are talking at least 75 years to change anything in the slightest in the most advanced countries.

So until something as good and economical as oil comes along we will continue to dream up new sources. Most will ultimately fail miserably. Sorry to sound so pesimistic but we have a consumer society that loves power. The viable alternative sources sited are not economical enough to develop so that the average consumer can use them. They are not like Bill Gates plan of a computer in every home for less than $400.00. At least he is close to achieving his goal in less than 20 years.

Drill and explore is still a good idea.

[garyk]

SL, nice long post back there aways, you've captured the argument well.

I like to look ahead, and I see future Americans judging us badly if we allow this pristine area to be exploited by Bush Oil Inc.

C&E, your argument seems to rest on 'there's no alternative to oil'. Actually, there's lots of potential and if alternative development were made a national strategic initiative you would see progress. But don't hold your breath while we have oil industry pawn in the White House.

IF only alternative energy were critical to a Star Wars defense system -- then you'd see some progress.

Finally, a rational energy policy that doesn't destroy the earth and ensures our survival and well-being isn't a Left or Right or Radical thing, it'a about as mainstream idea as it gets. The question should be "Why in 25 years have we made so little progress on this front". The short answer is -- look who's getting rich on oil, why would they want this to change?

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: garyk ]

[CATCH AND EAT]

CZ, see earlier post that said drilling in the sound was a silly idea. I do not like the idea of drilling in the ocean or a sound. Hopefully that is clear enough.

Yes, if we were mandated to change energy sources we would surely see more progress. We would also be living in smaller homes and I would be pulling my boat with a 2010 Ford Escort. It would take me three days to reach bouy 10. Then the Coast Guard would have to rescue me because my boat is not converted to alternative fuels and the solar panels are not working in the fog.

VIABLE COST EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE FUELS THAT CAN BE PRODUCED WITHOUT LANDSCAPE UGLY. Lets hear the ideas. Show me... images/icons/wink.gif

[Silent Lucidity]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CATCH AND EAT:
If we can integrate some of these "viable" energies in viable areas how much of America will participate willingly? You are going to have a huge sales job ahead of you. People world wide are not going to accept these changes gracefully. Even if you slowly integrate these multi-trillion dollar ideas you are talking at least 75 years to change anything in the slightest in the most advanced countries.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm curious about the above statement. If we have grids of solar panels, farms of wind props, or geothermal plants, how is this so difficult for the masses to accept willingly? I mean, cmon. If they're getting electricity one way or another they aren't going to notice whether it comes from a renewable resource or not. Other than when their environmental conscious feels better.

By using the gross exaggerations on dollars and time to implement such alternative energy sources I have to wonder whether you really have explored these options with an open mind, and not one swayed by corporate oil entities.

My previous scenerio that I mentioned said nothing about drilling in either the ocean or the sound. Please reread it, think about it, and then respond with your insights on the matter. I am interested in how you would reply.

[CATCH AND EAT]

SL my responce was not to your post but to CZ's post. My response to you is this. Yes I have seen the oil fields near Collinga California and just how unattractive they are. I have also seen mock ups and pictures of wind generation facilities (but unfortunately not in person). I have also seen the concept and layouts of solar generation plants (again not in person). None of which have any appeal to me asthetically or environmentally.

images/icons/frown.gif Now you should also know that I make my living in the auto industry. I am a strong supporter of the use of automobiles of many shapes and forms. Yes I drive a large tunaclipper truck back and forth to work (all of 7 minutes away) Yet I have also considered purchasing a hybred gas electric vehicle. Again not economically viable yet...No I do not car pool since in my case it is fruitless because no one in the neighborhood works near me.

Public transportation is a joke. 1920's technology MAX trains. How outdated is that. Trollys that were just torn out a few years ago are back. Ridership on both...not impressive. Not enough stops. Poorly located. Poorly and sneaking funding tricks. Bus service...thats an oxymorron.

Saying were are pupits of big oil and have bought the farm just is false. I think we all know that oil is a finite reserve but the criticalness of the alarmist thought that we will run out real soon is just not true. I still am with you on the need to explore alternative fuels and even methods of generation, propulsion energies but the fact remains we must depend on oil for the time being.

I say this because of the expenses that are still carried with the R&D of the alternatives. Look at Atomic power. It was the answer to all our future needs. Remember 3 mile island, Chernoble and the big mess at Hanford? It was all suppose to be safe and now look at the 10,000 year clean up process we made in just a few decades.

Wind and solor supplements might help a little but in the big picture fall way short of what is truly needed to run planet earth (the human portion). We must find a source that can generate what oil can. Who knows, if we could really bottle up and sell that solar power and store it like oil it could work maybe. We just need another Einstien or Steven Hawking (not Karl Sagan with billions and billions of particals) to work though these equations and formulate an answer.

You could be right SL. We could all ride our bicycles and rickshaws or drive hybred gas electric cars. but I don't think society wants to take a step back. Like you we all want to move forward. We want what is best for our kids (I have 3).

Drilling in the ANWR is not going to cause another Love Cannel senerio. It is not going to cause the tundra to disappear forever. It is testing the viability of the supply of this reserve. If viable develop it. If not cap it and restore the landscape (what little there is in the area we are speaking of).

Lastly, I want to say I am not trying to offend anyone on this thread. Only offer alternative thinking to a thread that was immediatly heading in one direction. That direction was "hate Bush/chenny because they are big oil". That was sold to us during the election. And, the only right idea is one that leaves all lands in tact and abolishs man from the scene.

I have watched to many sections of land set aside in the name of environmentalism hurt to many people in this state. Spotted owls, seals, suckers, all which there habitats were supposedly critical and it seems falsely identified. Lets just be careful in how we set up the future. "The land of the free and the Home of the Brave" may just become the "Land of the townhouses and the home of 3 families to a townhouse".

SL know that if I did not respond to you question quite right that I would try again if you would like to redirect your question. Best regards.

[Steve]

Just a casual observation, Would you spend million of dollars to build a pipeline, Spend 10 years builing it, jump thru the miles of red tape, etc, etc, for 6 months of crude? I think not! My guess is that there is a reserve of oil there that would rival the Texas oil feilds maybe Saudi and Kuwait..that the American Oil companies have know this for a long time and just kept a lid on it...

[Silent Lucidity]

That's the crux of the whole debate, Steve. Some think that it is worth it.