By 2008 great

[dolluper]

According to the news if passed[should] oil will be hatched out of the ground in Alaska by the year 2008,they say there is only enough oil for a six month supply for the USA.Also they say it will effect the wildlife and destroy the enviroment grossly, the words of the press.Do you think it's worth all this trouble for only a six month supply when in full production???? Seems not worth it to me but what do I know<br />Also by 2008 where I live we a going to have smart meters[got to be joking but true]They are supposed to save electrial power if the consumers take advantage of off peak hours,we are presently paying just under 4 cents kw/hour for anytime useage,with the smart meter off peak after 10pm to 4am would be 2.9 cents kw/hour peak time 9.3 cents kw/hour {2pm to 10pm] and about 5 cents kw/hour the restof the time,talk about getting the electrial shaft again and we have to pay for the STUPID Meter

 

[K5WAS]

Re: By 2008 great

What I have heard reported that we won't see any oil from ANWR for 10 years and it is about a 1 year supply. Yes, it is worth it. We need all the domestic oil that we can produce. If it is not worth it economicaly no oil company will accept the deal.

 

[JB]

Re: By 2008 great

The press says a six month supply because that's what the tree huggers tell them.<br /><br />Think about that for a moment. Even if it is "only" a six month supply if it was the only source (people who know say it's more like six years), as a 5% increase in total production it would last 12-15 years. If the 6 year figure is more correct, it would last over 100 years.<br /><br />People point to the Prudhoe Bay development and whine about the "urban sprawl". They don't live there. The people who live there love it and want more. They want schools, running water, clinics, indoor plumbing and the things that the residents around Prudhoe Bay have. They say that PB had zero negative effect on the wildlife, particularly the reindeer that the tree huggers wanna hug. They say that the reindeer have actually increased.<br /><br />When I say "they", I am talking about live interviews with people who live where the drilling is proposed, not someone with an agenda about what others should be doing, quoting vague statistics that they don't understand.

 

[dolluper]

Re: By 2008 great

It's interesting to hear different reports on the same issue from different regions,the more facts the better I guess,we can only go by what we hear since we are not in the area effected,seems some of the reports are from "tree huggers" but what in fact is the truth it would be nice to know

 

[eeboater]

Re: By 2008 great

When the Alaskans say "please, tap our friggin oil" and the rest of the lower 48 makes it impossible for it to be done. I laugh.<br /><br />The Alaskans should be allowed to do what they want!!

 

[PW2]

Re: By 2008 great

It will be interesting to see how many, if any, oil companies sign up for these "rights".<br /><br />There is no reason it has to dramatically affect the environment, but the cost in infrastructure to get it out of the ground and to a market---there has to be more oil than predicted or it won't be worth the cost. It is mostly politicians trumpeting this--the oil companies are not nearly as excited about it.<br /><br />Overall, the original Alaskan pipeline was done in an environmentally sound manner and has had minimal impact to the environment, but there was lots of oil to spread the costs.<br /><br />Today the Alaskan government is having a hard time getting oil companies to sign up to build a parallel Nat Gas pipeline from the north slope because of potential costs vs predicted revenues.

 

[KaGee]

Re: By 2008 great

Originally posted by eeboater:<br /> When the Alaskans say "please, tap our friggin oil" and the rest of the lower 48 makes it impossible for it to be done. I laugh.<br /><br />The Alaskans should be allowed to do what they want!!

Just another example of how the extreme left selectively chooses it's view on State's Rights. In this case, the Alaskan people have no right to determine what they want because it crosses the Enviro-Whacko Left's agenda.<br /><br />Now if Alaskans wanted to allow free abortion on demand, gay marriages etc, etc.... The Left has no problem with promoting States Rights.

 

[PW2]

Re: By 2008 great

Aw, cmon<br /><br />It is the Arctic *NATIONAL* Wildlife Refuge. It is a US Government reserve, and as such, the state of Alaska has no jusisdiction over it--<br />just as any other state does not have jurisdiction over the USFS or any other Federal Wildlife preserve.<br /><br />It is *Not* a question of "States Rights". I know the state of Alaska wants the jobs created, and wants the revenues, but there are laws involved, and even the political right is supposed to respect the laws

 

[eeboater]

Re: By 2008 great

I spent over 10 days in Alaska this summer... You know what? The Artic National "Wildlife" Refuge seemed to be missing one thing... the "Wildlife." Heck, I didn't get up as far as the Arctic Circle and the area was sparse nothing ness!!! Tapping the oil would cause little to no impact on the area. They were able to build a pipeline - YEARS ago back when they didn't have the technology they have today, and everything seems to be fine. I saw animals walking. Regular amounts of legs, wings, heads, eyes and ears. Nothing out of the ordinary.<br /><br />I'm thinking more animals will die each year from slipping and breaking their necks on Moose sh*t than if we drilled for oil up there.<br /><br />Sean

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: By 2008 great

Damn EE, that was some funny stuff!

 

[ZmOz]

Re: By 2008 great

Nobody even really knows how much oil is there until they pump it out! All this complaining is ridiculous, we need all the oil we can find! And we better not be shipping any out of this country!

 

[PW2]

Re: By 2008 great

10 days, and you completed an EIS on an entire ecosystem.<br /><br />I am impressed!

 

[POINTER94]

Re: By 2008 great

Anyone with common sense could see that the impact on wildlife arguement was a smoke screen. But when your base voters are nutcases, occasionally you have to eat some pecan pie. The neat thing for the left is that all the rich oil companies will have to spend money to find out if there is oil there. The good news for the right is, the left is usually wrong. Remember the wasteland that alaska was to become when the pipeline was put in? And all the dead caribou? Same thing.

 

[JB]

Re: By 2008 great

LMAO at ee!!

 

[demsvmejm]

Re: By 2008 great

Originally posted by eeboater:<br /> <br />I'm thinking more animals will die each year from slipping and breaking their necks on Moose sh*t than if we drilled for oil up there.<br /><br />Sean

LMAO!!!!!!<br /><br />I am suspect of the arguments against drilling in the ANWR. However, the only time it seems to come up is during a redumblican ruled administration, or congress. Never does it seem to be an issue when the dems are in charge. Until we have a truly non-partisan, neutral assessment of the situation, we will never know the truth. As for the environmental impact, I don't think anyone could honestly say that there would be none. As for managing the EI to "acceptable" levels, if the redumblican party followed their pattern, they'd let the oil companies determine what was "acceptable" and that would be a recipe for disaster. On the other hand we couldn't leave it up to the tree hugger either. <br />Until we the people of the United States of America get a non-biased assessment and propsed management of drilling in the ANWR, I say HANDS OFF!!!!

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: By 2008 great

During January-September 2004, total U.S. oil and natural gas wells drilled were up 15% from the same period in 2003.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html