I say we go for it and stop being dependant on the middle east for our oil. I dont want to hear from the hippies that we need to find an alternate source of fuel, IE, solar powered cars. Noone disagrees with you but until we do find that we will have to settle with what we know for now.
Alaska oil drilling debate
Interesting...
You quote Fox news... and no other source. not even the USGS.
Here's a point that you haven't yet considered: It's all moot unless you can get the oil to refineries in the US. You're not going to have a pipeline anywhere near there in the next 20 years... Fire up them tankers.
Want to know why?
1. The area that is being considered is not under the direct control of the State, it's Indian Reservation territory, and unless the US wants to break yet another treaty with natives (or inuit, more properly) they're not getting that oil.
2. The pipline that would carry that oil has to go through Canada at some point, and there are no new leases for land that will be used for pipelines. The other problem is that the US (well actually Imperial Oil and Gulf Coast oil) have to refurbish their pipes to allow wild life to pass.. that's already costing a hell of a lot (btw, you can't dig into permafrost... gotta put it up on stilts, sorry.)
Anwr is going to yeild at best 10 billion barrels, but the refining costs will not be worth it, when coupled with the environmental and extraction costs. If you figure 1 million barrels per day, you have at best 3 years of fuel before you have to start pumping in sea-water (and destroying that part of the land reserve) to get the rest of the oil out. The indian settlement near Prudhoe bay is staring at the prospect of losing all of its jobs. Anwr may provide jobs, but frankly, they're not sustainable either... Prudhoe bay has had numerous oil spills, and most of the area is currently inhabitable by fish or most wildlife. Also, it was projected to give 20-40 years worth of max production, it's lasted about 28 at 50% or thereabouts, and it's about empty. The problem isn't the COST of the oil its the CONSUMPTION of fossil fuels.
How about instead of dumping the money on making that area easier to drill in, put the money to use elsewhere. I'm sick of people thinking there isn't a problem.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Alright here are more sources than just "Fox News"
ANWR
ANWR
I dont see why posting something from Fox News means it automatically gets discredited. Would it have been better if I cited CNN or MSNBC? Its not an indian reservation by the way. Its owned by an Indian Corporation that is for the drilling.
Actually, it's territory that is "owned" only in title.. it's a reservation for another band's hunting and fishing areas.
Fox News isn't automatically discredited, it's just better to find other sources that don't obfuscate, or drop certain points that should not be ignored. To be certain, if you point out a link from JUST CNN or JUST MSNBC it'd be a better idea to find info from a corroburrating source. Usually if something is AP News credited or Reuters, it's considered a more solid link... they've already got news media sewn up, so they don't need to sensationalise to draw viewers away from competing networks.
Either way, if the US became "self-sufficient" for oil, it'd only be for a short while... The US's consumption of oil has increased an avg of 8% year-over-year.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Alright I got you. I just thought that you were discrediting the link cuz it was from FoxNews. I know its slanted towards the right but you cant deny CNN and MSNBC is slanted towards the left. I think they should just do away with the current format of doing news and get rid of commentary and plain tell the stories how they happenned and never put any input on what they think of it. Crossfire,Oreilly etc.... Those are the shows that need to go in my opinion. I understand news would be boring but thats not the point of news to be entertaining.
wouldn't the money be better spent in finding a new source of energy? or maybe implementing bio-diesel more widely?
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
^^ exactly. How many 100's of billions will it cost to get Alaska going? Look at what Toyota and Honda have done with only a couple of billion with their hybrids. Diesels are also getting way cleaner, soon to be on par with gas. Biodiesel is the way to go.
Biodiesel is really the only true zero emissions fuel.
---
Bio diesel isn't anycheaper. Go price out a gallon of cooking oil.
I agree with lack of refinaries. North America needs more but the liberals and tree huggers won't let them build any more. In fact in the last 30 years we have lost refinaries. You can have all the crude in the world. Without a way to convert it to fuel oil and gasoline, prices will remain high to convert it.
I would LOVE to see more work done on alternative fuel sources. Look for IRL cars go to Ethenol next year and then NASCAR after that. I think the R&D used there by GM, DC and Ford will find their way to us eventually. Can't happen soon enough. Plus, if people in this country would stop buying TRUCKS AND SUV'S!!!!
Whether it's pricey or not--the fact that it's renewable will make a lot of difference when the oil dries up.
Still, i don't drive an SUV, nor will i ever.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
the alaskan reserves are not worth going for. more waste of money to benefit big corporations. its not baout helping america, its about rich a mericans getting richer from fat govt contracts...like haliburton....
Middle east oil is heroine to the US economy. We;re hooked to it, and although at any time we could give it up, we dont, because we want SUV's and big trucks for our only child.... Like heroin junkies, we'll do anything to get our oil. Whether i be toppling govts through economic warfare, inciting rebelions, or invasion; stealing; lying; or drilling in one of the last few places on the planet we haven't @!#$ up yet
Until society changes, nothing will. so dril lthe oil...you greedy bastards
What's cooler..than being cool?
mrgto wrote:Bio diesel isn't anycheaper. Go price out a gallon of cooking oil.
This thread isn't about what's cheaper, it's about what we can do to get off other people's oil.
But cooking oil isn't the same as Biodiesel. Biodiesel right now is only about 20 cents per gallon more than diesel itself. And we've just barely started with it.
---
personally, i say hydrogen power will be the best step. That is, once we figure out how to produce hydrogen cheaper...
Promise that forever we will never get better at growing up and learning to lie
Diesel is the way to go, interestingly enough the Jeep Liberty Diesel gets better highway mileage than the Ford Escape Hybrid. Electric engines are limited by the weight and efficiency of batteries and electrical motors, I doubt they'll catch on until hydrogen fuel cells are perfected. Problem is when you say diesel most Americans think of a Mac truck or a '70s Mercedes with black smoke pouring out of it. The new European designed diesels run very clean though. Its just hard to change public opinion.
<img src="http://www.geocities.com/fudd_22602/elmer-shoot.gif"> Old school Js rock
Right now hydrogen is a loosing proposition. It takes more enegy to aquire hydrogen then is released by it through combustion or fuel cell technology. The last time someone extracted all the energy hydrogen had to offer, all hell broke loose.
Biodeisel is a step in the right direction. Right now they are taking waste cooking oil and coverting it, but the idea that biomass can be converted and used in place of fossil fuels is the really exciting thing there. We can grow our fuels. Something the industrial hemp crowd has been saying for years.
While I don't really believe in interfering in the free market, something has to be done about SUVs. There is a need for vehicles like that, but only about 1% (if that) of the ones on the road are being used for anything resebling what they used to be built for. I say "used to be" because today's SUV is anything but rugged. Most would absolutely calf if you actually dared take them down a logging road or heaven forbid, off-road. The manufacturers cannot be expected to ignore demand, so somehow demand must be curbed. High fuel prices are one way, but not really effective, something else must be done. One thing I would stop is emmission exceptions. I don't know how many, but some juristictions allow SUVs to pollute more than cars. Why? If you need it, you'll make it cleaner. Poor fuel economy just amplifies the effect, so that must be dealt with as well. In the 70's, a dramatic fuel shortage spawn a great improvement in fuel economy but it has slowed in recent years by people's demands for horsepower. Look at those brand new, highly advanced, hemi-powered trucks. They get crap fuel economy. How is it that an engine built in 2005 is allowed to consume at that level?
Consumption is killing us and it's about to get a lot worse.
PAX
mrgto wrote:Bio diesel isn't anycheaper. Go price out a gallon of cooking oil.
I agree with lack of refinaries. North America needs more but the liberals and tree huggers won't let them build any more. In fact in the last 30 years we have lost refinaries. You can have all the crude in the world. Without a way to convert it to fuel oil and gasoline, prices will remain high to convert it.
I would LOVE to see more work done on alternative fuel sources. Look for IRL cars go to Ethenol next year and then NASCAR after that. I think the R&D used there by GM, DC and Ford will find their way to us eventually. Can't happen soon enough. Plus, if people in this country would stop buying TRUCKS AND SUV'S!!!!
MrGto: good to see you again.
Okay, here's the thing: Bio-diesel isn't vegetable oil. There are conversions using Diesel engines, and here's the way it works for getting the fuel:
1: find a restaraunt that has a deep-fat fryer (most small pizza places do)
2: ask them how Much it costs them to have the spent oil carted away for recycling
3: offer them the Half the amount for the fuel (usually its about $160 CDN per 50 Imp.Gallons recycling charge).
4: screen the oil through a fine mesh to prevent clogging during injection
5: use a diesel conversion from <a href="http://www.greasecar.com">Greasecar.com</a> to mix diesel and the oil in varying mixtures to produce power or long range efficeincy.
BioDiesel is made in different process, which requires no sweating or alkaline mixture to extract the ethanol... Most vegetable oil is made from Canola, Corn and other leafy-green plants, where Biodiesel uses mostly only corn. Also, Vegetable oil is much more viscous than biodiesel.
Hahahaha:
Hydrogen power will become more prevalent when it becomes easier to separate hydrogen and oxgen without using electrolysis. As of now, the easiest way is to have a photo-voltaic/wind powered farm to power the electrolytic process, but it is pretty slow, I know.
Biodiesel it a great step, and that's probably why in Europe (where fuel price swings are felt much more acutely) over half the cars sold are Diesels, as Petrol vehicles are heavily taxed on the outset, and the price of fuel makes them less attractive. Also, I think that Natural Gas, which can be made as a by-product of Bio-diesel fermentation IIRC, is also a good idea to start implementing if you want power... I saw an epsiode of TRUCKS! where they hooked up a propane injection system into a Dodge Ram 1500 Diesel (I think it was an earlier model... I might be wrong, either way, it was a diesel), it gaind about 130 HP on the big bottle, and it was mixed along with reg. fuel injection while driving regularly. It was great.
Really, I think that we're going to start seeing diesel being implemented a LOT more than the current models of cars (only a VW Golf, Jetta, Passat and Beetle... wow) once these fuel prices hit their next plateau. I know that I've looked VERY seriously at converting my Alero over to Nat. Gas, but it's not much cheaper than gas presently.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
mrgto wrote:I agree with lack of refinaries. North America needs more but the liberals and tree huggers won't let them build any more.
It's not them as much as nobody wants to live near a refinery. If you've lived near one you'd know what I'm talking about, the horrible stench in the air. Nobody wants to live somewhere where it stinks 24/7/365. MrGTO come on the 'liberal and tree hugger' arguement is so old the dust mites have already moved into the industrial age.
Quote:
Showdown Vote Approaches on Arctic Drilling
By Richard Simon Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — With a showdown vote as early as today, President Bush (news - web sites) appears closer than ever to achieving a goal at the core of his efforts to increase the nation's energy production: opening an Alaskan wildlife refuge to drilling for oil and natural gas.
Senate filibusters have blocked Bush's proposal in the past. But last year, four pro-drilling Republicans were elected, replacing anti-drilling Democrats in the Senate. Now the chamber's GOP leaders say they are confident they have the votes to advance the measure, long one of Capitol Hill's most contentious environmental matters.
Drilling supporters also hope surges in gasoline prices will increase pressure on the Senate to approve energy exploration in a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"Oil is trading above $50 [a barrel], gas prices have risen 7% in the last month and American boots are on the ground in the Middle East," said Sen. Pete V. Domenici (news, bio, voting record) (R-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
"Now is the time [to approve the drilling], and senators know that."
Since he first ran for president, Bush has made opening part of the 19-million-acre refuge in northeast Alaska to oil and gas exploration a centerpiece of his plan to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
The administration has said the drilling offers "the "single greatest prospect" for onshore oil and gas development anywhere in the United States; its passage would represent a major legislative triumph for Bush.
To make that happen, Senate Republicans are attaching the drilling measure to a budget bill that requires only a simple majority to pass. By contrast, overcoming a filibuster requires 60 votes.
Both sides in the fight were hesitant Monday to predict the outcome; both expect a close vote.
"I haven't purchased any champagne yet," said Jerry Hood, Washington lobbyist for the pro-drilling group Arctic Power.
Environmentalists were not ready to concede defeat.
"We're continuing to fight for every vote until the last vote is counted," said Peter Rafle, a spokesman for the Wilderness Society. "This thing is far from over."
But an aide to a moderate Republican senator who has opposed the drilling said Monday of the proponents: "I think they've got the votes."
The government has estimated that 6 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil lie beneath the tundra.
Environmentalists contend that drilling would spoil one of the nation's great wildernesses and endanger wildlife, while making a negligible dent in oil imports.
They say that far less oil can be recovered economically than the 7 billion barrels a year that Americans now use. And they say it would take years before any oil would reach the market.
Some Democrats have called for releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve — the nation's emergency stockpile of petroleum, stored in underground salt caverns — as a way to increase supply and cut prices. Bush has said he opposes that strategy.
"This debate is more than just about protecting one of America's last remaining natural treasures," said Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record) (D-Wash.), who is pushing to strip the drilling language from the budget bill. "It is a question of … what inheritance we leave our children."
Bush and others contend that technology has made it possible to extract the oil from the refuge without damaging the environment, an assertion opponents dispute.
When the drilling measure came before the Senate in 2003, pro-drilling forces mustered 48 votes for it — 43 from Republicans, five from Democrats. Four Republicans elected to the Senate last November voiced support during their campaigns for the drilling — Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida and John Thune of South Dakota.
Drilling opponents are trying to sway some who have supported drilling. For instance, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) (R-Pa.) voted for the drilling in 2003, but an aide said Monday that his boss had not stated his position on attaching the measure to the budget bill.
Lobbyists for environmental groups also have sought to broaden the debate beyond the drilling's effect in Alaska, warning about its implications for other regions.
Martinez, the freshman senator from Florida, has been the target of a television ad in his home state warning that opening the Arctic refuge to energy exploration could lead to drilling off the Florida coast.
But a spokesman for Martinez said he was still likely to support the Arctic drilling, adding that the senator was working with the administration "to address the concerns of Floridians that drilling in [Alaska] will not mean drilling off Florida's beaches is next."
Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) (R-Neb.) has been the target of a radio ad run by an environmental group in his state declaring that "protecting America's wilderness used to be something that everyone got behind — Democrats and Republicans."
But a Hagel spokesman said the senator still supports the drilling.
Ads opposing the drilling also have run in the home states of Democratic Sens. Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, both of whom supported Arctic drilling in 2003. Spokesmen for Landrieu and Akaka said their positions remained unchanged.
The anti-drilling forces are pressing their case that the measure has no place in a budget bill, decrying the procedural maneuver as a back-door tactic.
"The drilling lobby knows they can't sell off the Arctic refuge if they have an open, honest debate," said Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record) (D-Mass.), a leading opponent of the drilling.
Kerry said he believed opponents could still prevail "with a coalition of those who oppose drilling and those who just plain old reject the politics of back-door, rig-the-process scheming."
Possibly ruining one of America's last remaining natural treasures for a year maybe 2 years worth of oil is just not worth it and would have little effect on oil and gas prices or help us very much to become more energy independent.
Do a google search on "Lack of refinaries" and tell me what you come up with.
And just a FYI, why wouldn't just ONE major car company such as a struggling Mitsu invest in a bio diseal conversion business then build motors around it?
You don't think people would LOVE to buy cars that drove off that?
MrGTO:
Interesting. Most Car companies are Car companies, and Oil Companies are... well oil companies.. They may invest and profit off the other, but creating a Market like that would never fly... Would you want to only be able to fill up a mitsubishi/Daimler dealership? Preposterous.
Most people in the North American Market have been used to cheap fuel for so long, and have been acquainted with the drawbacks of heavy duty diesels for so long that they can't conceive of using a Diesel for anything unless it's in an SUV that's a hauler.
Volkswagen is currently the only company in North America that is offering cars with Diesel engines... Most NA manufacturers only implement diesel in their exported cars or in their 1ton+ trucks. We're not in the friendliest market for Diesel right now... you'd have to go to Europe or possibly Russia to find them en mass.
Also, As pointed out earlier, sure there are a lack of refinaries, but would you want one in your backyard? I dare say not... My Grandparents live in Sarnia Ontario where there 3 major refineries and 2 Chemical plants (Shell/Gulf Coast, Imperial Oil, Sunoco, Dupont and I forget the other chem plant...). the place doesn't have an odour because of 2 things: 1. the companies had to do massive clean ups and retrofits in the 80s, and 2. the town has actually moved away from the plants.
Either way, until you can build refinaries on top of prisons, you won't be seeing too many new ones out there.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
There goes another one of America's last remaining natural treasures.
Quote:
Senate Backs Opening New Alaska Oil Spigot
Wed Mar 16, 6:57 PM ET Politics - Reuters
By Tom Doggett and Chris Baltimore
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As U.S. oil prices soared to a record high on Wednesday, the Senate gave President Bush (news - web sites)'s energy plan a major boost by voting to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (news - web sites) (ANWR) to oil drilling.
Republicans have tried for more than two decades to open ANWR to oil exploration. The Bush administration, which views ANWR as the centerpiece of its national energy plan, was blocked the past four years by a Senate coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats.
Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, led the fight to defeat a Democratic effort to strip ANWR drilling language from a budget resolution to fund the federal government. The vote was 51 to 49 in favor of keeping the drilling provision in the bill.
However, the Republican plan to give oil companies access to the refuge is far from a done deal.
Last year, Congress failed to reach a budget agreement. The House of Representatives and Senate have sharply different versions of budget plans for tax cuts and spending reductions that may not be reconciled this year.
The refuge, about the size of South Carolina, sprawls across more than 19 million acres in northeastern Alaska. Drilling would occur in ANWR's 1.5-million acre coastal plain.
Bush welcomed the vote as a step toward making "America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, eventually by up to a million barrels of oil a day."
Opponents said there is not enough oil in the refuge to justify harming the area's caribou, polar bears and other wildlife. Instead, they say, Congress should boost mileage standards for vehicles to reduce U.S. oil demand and reliance on oil imports.
"I think it is very foolish to say that oil development in a wildlife refuge can co-exist," said Democrat Maria Cantwell of Washington, who sponsored the amendment to strike the ANWR drilling language. "For those who say somehow this is going to affect gas prices ... we won't see this oil for 10 years. It would have a minimum impact on markets."
6 BILLION BARRELS WAITING?
The government has estimated energy companies would find it cost-efficient to recover at least 6 billion barrels of oil from ANWR if prices were at or above $35 a barrel.
U.S. crude oil prices soared to a new high of $56.50 a barrel at the New York Mercantile Exchange on Wednesday, after a government report showed a steep decline in gasoline stocks.
The ANWR provision calls on the federal government to raise more than $5 billion from companies in leasing fees to hunt for oil. Alaska would keep half of the money.
Republican leaders put the ANWR provision in the budget resolution because budget bills cannot be filibustered under Senate rules, as Democrats had threatened to do to any measure that allowed drilling in the refuge. The budget resolution requires a simple majority for passage, instead of the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster on other bills.
Domenici said new drilling technology would not harm the land searched for oil. "To explore to find out whether (oil) is there will absolutely do no damage to anything," he said.
Drilling supporters also argued ANWR could eventually boost U.S. oil supplies by an extra 1 million barrels per day (bpd), cutting U.S. dependence on oil from the volatile Middle East.
The United States consumes about 20.8 million barrels of oil a day and imports account for 58 percent of supply.
With drilling costs in ANWR high compared to other oil-rich areas, energy firms are taking a wait-and-see attitude.
"We would look at (ANWR) in the same way we'd look at any other commercial opportunity in our global portfolio and would consider it on that basis. We won't speculate on what our decision would be if it were opened," a spokesman for oil giant BP said.
Must be nice to have poloticians in your back pocket doing your bidding.
Funny... It's going to take about 9 years until the oil starts moving, best estimate... Thats assuming there is a deposit that is easily accessible and under sufficient pressure.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
No need to drill in Alaska. No need for hydrogen. Michael Savage has the right idea.
Oil for Illegals
Approximatley 20 million illegal mexican immigrants come in to this country every year.
Mexico is sitting on BILLIONS of barrels of cheap oil. More oil than they know what to do with. These illegal immigrants, or "temporary guest workers" as Bush likes to call them, are draining our country dry.Through their unwillingness to pay taxes, their expecting free healthcare (which they receive thanks to the ACLU) , and their complete and total refusal to do anything to help the country that is taking care of them is raising the cost of living for everyone of us who DO pay taxes.
So we should tell Mr. Bush to trow a pair, head down to mexico, tell Vicente Fox to give the US 1 barrel of oil for every illegal immigrant who we have to support.
That my friends is the solution.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
good day.
My other car is an interceptor.
thats grow a pair
My other car is an interceptor.
Every time this has came up for a vote before, OPEC has reduced prices as to make drilling uneconomical (They tried this time, but failed). That's why the bill hasn't had a chance before now. For it to be economically wothwhile to develop the Alaskan oilfields, oil must cost above an estimated $40/barrel.
OPEC didin't want this bill to pass, they don't want us to start developing the Alaskan oilfields. Prices of Mid-Eastern oil will probably come down to prevent companies from wanting to invest in this development.
