Alaska Gov. Pushes for Oil Drilling Near ANWR - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mikemover · #1 08-19-2004, 07:06 PM

LONG, LONG overdue! If the feds don't have the brains and the balls to get us on the road to producing more oil domestically, maybe the state of Alaska does!

__________________________________
Thursday, August 19, 2004

PRUDHOE BAY, Alaska — Just mentioning "ANWR" and oil drilling in the same breath is bound to touch off a controversy.

But the governor of Alaska says it's a non-issue because he plans to search for oil on state land just off the shore from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski said he is encouraging oil companies to begin test drilling as early as January on the first three miles of submerged land off the Alaska coast, land that belongs to the state.

"We are a sovereign state and we have this authority and I hope we find a big puddle down there," Murkowski said.

______________________

Kuan · #2 08-19-2004, 07:45 PM

I agree, as long as it's Alaska and NIMBY.

Botnst · #3 08-19-2004, 07:52 PM

Man, I'd love to have a smelly ol' oil well chuggin' away night and day in my backyard. Yes, lordy!

sfloriII · #4 08-19-2004, 07:55 PM

Here Here!! Let's get on with the drillin'!! It's about time.

mplafleur · #5 08-19-2004, 09:57 PM

Hey, I tried to get one in my front yard! I wanted one but they chose to drill it down the road a piece and I got dealt out of the card game.

It's about time! 1000 acres in the middle of freak'n nowhere. If they had opened it up to drilling way back in the Clinton days, we'd be close to production now.

No, it won't replace our imports. But can sure the he** help a lot.

MTI · #6 08-19-2004, 10:05 PM

Hard to see in this graphic, but the larger box is the estimated reserve and the smaller box in the upper left of each bigger box is the depleted portion.

mikemover · #7 08-20-2004, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mplafleur

It's about time! 1000 acres in the middle of freak'n nowhere. If they had opened it up to drilling way back in the Clinton days, we'd be close to production now.

Exactly.

They like to show you the pretty little postcard images of mountains and streams and caribou and all that crap, but the reality is that a VERY small part of the area in question actually looks like that. MOST of ANWR is a dry, desolate, windy, greenish-brown grassy tundra with NOTHING as far as the eye can see, and farther. My good friend Andrew has travelled and hiked extensively in Alaska, and has been to ANWR a number of times, and described it in a similar manner. He says he can't believe there is such an uproar over such a miserable chunk of land.

The very small area needed to extract the oil would not be missed by anyone, and it is not in anyone's "backyard", would not be damaging any "pristine wilderness", would not endanger any caribou or seals or penguins or anything else cute and cuddly-looking, and there is INFINITELY less risk of spillage and widespread environmental impact when drilling on land and piping and/or trucking it to the refinery, compared to offshore drilling, or when compared to shipping oil in tankers from overseas.

But now the state is going to have to drill offshore, where the risk of accidents and environmental damage is much greater, because the feds won't allow them to drill on "their" land.

Is the oil under that area the answer to all of our energy problems? Of course not. But the benefits FAR outweigh the risks and cost.

As is often the case, the people who have their panties the farthest up their a$$ over this situation know very little about what they are actually upset about, and are just reacting with emotion rather than logic.

Mike

sfloriII · #8 08-20-2004, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

But now the state is going to have to drill offshore, where the risk of accidents and environmental damage is much greater, because the feds won't allow them to drill on "their" land.

I know residents of Alaska get a monetary return for oil from their state. After all, it's their state and the oil coming from it is theirs. I wonder if the Feds decided to drilll offshore so they wouldn't have to shell out dollars to the Alaskans? Just makes you wonder.

Kuan · #9 08-20-2004, 08:32 AM

Bloody ANWR. You guys have been sucked into such a non-issue. We've been drilling in ANWR since 1968. Only since Clinton closed it off has it been a political issue. ANWR is a case of whose dick is larger, Democrats or Republican? It's an issue only because Clinton did it to spite the Republicans and now the Republicans want to win it back just because they feel slighted.

Those of us who still feel we need to drill in ANWR feel that way because we want to satisfy our own needless overconsumption. Of cause it benefits us, we who won't curb our silly driving habits and who oppose public transportation, nuclear energy, we who can't drive anything smaller than an explorer, we who have a family of three but live in a 5000 sqft. house, we who require that their hot water be at a constant 104 degrees while they're on vacation.

The price of oil will not go down. Prices are set by the market. More and more commodities are produced domestically and prices are still rising. Demand is what drives oil prices. OPEC still has a chain tied around our nutsack. OPEC tugs and we cough. Our measly amount of oil we seek to produce isn't enough to offset the power of the world's biggest and most powerful CARTEL. A million barrels a day? Two million, five? OPEC will just plug it up at whatever rate they feel just to stand on our necks a little harder, maybe twist their foot a little.

mikemover · #10 08-20-2004, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfloriII

I know residents of Alaska get a monetary return for oil from their state. After all, it's their state and the oil coming from it is theirs. I wonder if the Feds decided to drilll offshore so they wouldn't have to shell out dollars to the Alaskans? Just makes you wonder.

Nope, read the article again. It's the state governor that's talking about new drilling just offshore.

Mike

Lebenz · #11 08-20-2004, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Hard to see in this graphic, but the larger box is the estimated reserve and the smaller box in the upper left of each bigger box is the depleted portion.

Thanks for the post, if the representation is accurate and current, why are there even concerns about fuel shortages and massive price hikes?

mplafleur · #12 08-20-2004, 12:05 PM

Can you post the original image of that graphic, or it's source?

MTI · #13 08-20-2004, 01:54 PM

I have to apologize, I misread the legend on the graphic. The large box is the 2004 estimate of "proven reserves." However the smaller box within the larger is "annual production" based on 2002 audits.

The graphic is part of National Geographic's current article "The End of Cheap Oil."

Lebenz · #14 08-23-2004, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebenz

Thanks for the post, if the representation is accurate and current, why are there even concerns about fuel shortages and massive price hikes?

Anyone?

JimSmith · #15 08-23-2004, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebenz

Anyone?

It is a supply and demand issue, with a war over the ultimate control of cheap, readily available resources. The rest of the stuff costs more to "harvest" and so no one wants to produce from these places until the price is higher.

I say, use the Middle East Oil until the sand caves in. Once it is all gone, so is their strength. They have no indigenous economy other than oil and gas. Use theirs first and then use ours. We need a long term strategy here, not a solution that puts our next century of economic leadership at risk to relieve price pressure in America where, of all the industrialized nations, oil is really about the cheapest, especially when compared to Europe. Surely we are able to compete with them with oil prices at 3/4ths their prices? Or are we only able to compete with oil at 1/3 to 1/2 their price? Jim