| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy Forum » Why opposition to ANWR drilling is ridiculous!
Page 1 of 7 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| calderhome@yahoo.com |
 Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/ANWR.html - with pictures, maps, and
info links
--- pasted below----
The costly symbolism of ANWR
The United States is in serious energy crisis today, in part because
of the triumph of symbolism over substance in the United States
Congress. Our political pundits have elevated the 19.6 million acre
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR (see map
http://www.sitnews.us/1105news/110505/110505_anwr_closeup.gif), into a
sacred mythical land that no man dare tread upon, least they spoil its
great natural beauty forever (picture of drilling area
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/anwr05.JPG). In reality, any future
ANWR oil exploration would only take place in the desolate, treeless
area designated as "10-02," which represents just 8% of ANWR's land
area, and which encompasses the Coastal Plain north of the Sadlerochit
Mountains. Of that 8% of ANWR land, Federal law states that only
2,000 surface acres could ever be used for actual drilling purposes.
This 10-02 area was set aside specifically for oil and gas exploration
and is not legally defined as a "wilderness" or a "refuge." None of
Alaska's ANWR region is legally defined as a "park." We allow roads,
campgrounds, hundreds of toilets, hotels, and hoards of tourists to
violate the sanctity of Yellowstone (2.2 million acres) and Yosemite (.
76 million acres), which are both legally defined as "parks," but do
allow much needed oil drilling on just 2,000 acres of ANWR, which has
3.7 times the land area of the State of Massachusetts (5.3 million
acres).
Does any member of the United States Congress really believe that
drilling for oil on just 2,000 acres will destroy all wildlife and
vegetation, leaving behind nothing but a smoldering toxic wasteland?
Using directional drilling techniques, one single oil drilling station
can snake underground pipes out to 8 miles in all directions, so the
tiny footprint of oil recovery operations in ANWR would be
inconsequential to the local ecology. When the oil is gone and the
drilling equipment removed, any evidence that there was once oil
exploration at ANWR would soon vanish. Drilling in ANWR would be like
throwing a single peanut on the wall-to-wall carpet of a very large
living room floor; hardly a cataclysmic event.
Why are we paying Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia so much money for
imported oil when we could be producing that oil ourselves and giving
Americans high paying jobs in the process? Many of the same
environmentalists who oppose ANWR drilling support the construction of
giant solar energy arrays in the American Southwest, which would cover
thousands of acres in solar panels to produce electricity. Solar
panels on a roof are fine, but when you cover virgin land with them
you create a DEAD ZONE that will remain dead until the panels are
removed and the land has time to heal itself. Other environmentalists
support the building of thousands of wind turbines, which in addition
to being unsightly, are very effective bird and bat killing devices
that end the lives of thousands of our flying friends every year. Why
is damage done by solar and wind power schemes politically correct,
but benignly extracting oil from Alaska politically taboo?
The Congressional Research Service (see 76kb pdf
http://www.anwr.org/images/pdf/DonYoung_ANWR_Offset_Spending.pdf)
estimates that if oil recovery was allowed in the 10-02 area of ANWR,
it would be worth at least $94.8 billion in Federal income taxes and
$42.8 billion in royalties, totaling $138 billion. This study uses
the most conservative estimate of recoverable oil; 10.4 billion
barrels. The actual oil treasure could climb to well over 20 billion
barrels as new discoveries and improvements in oil drilling technology
increase the size of extractable reserves. Oil drilling is supported
by the Alaskan Native communities that live in ANWR, the State
Government of Alaska, and over 75% of Alaskan residents. Declaring a
huge area of land untouchable to oil recovery at a time of national
energy crisis is irresponsible energy policy. As long as so many
American political leaders place symbolism above substance, we will
never solve our strategic national energy problems.
Also see "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
Christopher Calder
-----
Christopher Calder is an ordinary American citizen who does not own
any energy related stocks and does not work for any energy related
business. He supports the use of oil until synthetic fuels can be
manufactured through energy from truly "green" carbon free nuclear
power.
.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fran |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 26, 11:12 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Quote: If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at ...
<some snakeoil site>
It took you a while, but you finally got to the top of your agenda --
the global polluters cartel agenda. Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply.
Ha ... 'biofuel hoax' indeed!
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fran |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 26, 2:03 pm, mergatroid <heav...@to.org> wrote:
Quote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com
mumbled:
Let's vandalise the arcticwilderness
See many Alaskans complaining about it?
Hint - jobs.
I wonder what they'll say after the first major oil spill?
What will they say about the loss of their ports as sea levels
continue to rise?
Without an environment, 'jobs' are a chimera.
Quote: Eat any Salmon this month?
No, I'm vegetarian, but global warming is reducing the number of
salmon.
Fran. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tim Crowley |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 25, 5:22 pm, "Brutus" <bru...@freetidbet.org> wrote:
Quote: "typical white person" <a...@white.band> wrote in messagenews:909ju3l2onnfgidcjthspdov8reicqdt0a@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:12:02 -0700 (PDT), "calderh...@yahoo.com"
calderh...@yahoo.com> mumbled:
If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about
Your whackadoodle perverted Buddhism website...
Wow. What a well developed, scientific rebuttal.
Brutus
yet somehow more meaningful than any Brutus post, ever. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Yer Pal Al |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 25, 7:50 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Mar 26, 11:12 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com
wrote:
If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at ...
some snakeoil site
It took you a while, but you finally got to the top of your agenda --
the global polluters cartel agenda. Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply.
How many cartpoolers do you drag behind your ox?
Quote: Ha ... 'biofuel hoax' indeed!
Maybe we can ferment tundra? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| typical white person |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:12:02 -0700 (PDT), "calderhome@yahoo.com"
<calderhome@yahoo.com> mumbled:
Quote: If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about
Your whackadoodle perverted Buddhism website... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brutus |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"typical white person" <avg@white.band> wrote in message
news:909ju3l2onnfgidcjthspdov8reicqdt0a@4ax.com...
Quote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:12:02 -0700 (PDT), "calderhome@yahoo.com"
calderhome@yahoo.com> mumbled:
If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about
Your whackadoodle perverted Buddhism website...
Wow. What a well developed, scientific rebuttal.
Brutus |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fran |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 26, 3:15 pm, mergatroid <heav...@to.org> wrote:
Quote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com
mumbled:
On Mar 26, 2:03 pm, mergatroid <heav...@to.org> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com
mumbled:
Let's vandalise the arcticwilderness
See many Alaskans complaining about it?
Hint - jobs.
I wonder what they'll say after the first major oil spill?
I get my paycheck.
What will they say about the loss of their ports as sea levels
continue to rise?
Fuck the increased solar radiation.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance...
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93620main_sun5m.jpg
You should look at your own graphs. The pattern is cyclic, and cannot
possibly explain the pattern of warming seen. And while we can do
nothing at all about the irradiance of the sun, we can do something
about how long it stays around to warm the troposphere, and the extent
to which this heat forces undesirable changes in albedo as ice melts.
Quote: NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead
author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research
Letters.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation
has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend,
comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the
20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the
global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports
to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said
And indeed, the IPCC considered this to acount for about 20-25% of
warming.
Quote: Without an environment, 'jobs' are a chimera.
Do you have one?
Yes, as it goes.
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fran |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 26, 4:12 pm, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Mar 25, 7:50 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 26, 11:12 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com
wrote:
If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at ...
some snakeoil site
It took you a while, but you finally got to the top of your agenda --
the global polluters cartel agenda. Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply.
How many cartpoolers do you drag behind your ox?
What's a cartpooler? I have no ox.
Quote: Ha ... 'biofuel hoax' indeed!
Maybe we can ferment tundra?
In depends on what you mean by 'tundra'. How is this relevant anyway?
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Yer Pal Al |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 25, 10:33 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Mar 26, 4:12 pm, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 25, 7:50 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 26, 11:12 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com
wrote:
If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at ...
some snakeoil site
It took you a while, but you finally got to the top of your agenda --
the global polluters cartel agenda. Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply.
How many cartpoolers do you drag behind your ox?
What's a cartpooler? I have no ox.
They make great hamburger. Sorry that you'll never know that - and
thankfully you won't hold it against me - because fortunately you have
no ox to grind.
You've taken a position against exploration for new oil. I was asking
you how you get to work that is petroleum free. An ox cart is one of
the few options and the riders you pick up to share the ride wouldn't
be "carpoolers" they'd be "cartpoolers."
Quote: Ha ... 'biofuel hoax' indeed!
Maybe we can ferment tundra?
In depends on what you mean by 'tundra'. How is this relevant anyway?
Tundra is composed of shrubs, grasses, moss and lichens. It's probably
not a good source for biofuels but it is organic and Alaska's tundra
region is larger than most countries. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were
a viable source for biofuel? Instead of a postage stamp sized scar in
the earth it would be 800K square kilometers.
Do you think if you put yourself in a brown paperbag and set yourself
on the window sill for a couple days Socratic Method will blossom on
you? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Yer Pal Al |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 25, 10:31 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Mar 26, 3:15 pm, mergatroid <heav...@to.org> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com
mumbled:
On Mar 26, 2:03 pm, mergatroid <heav...@to.org> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com
mumbled:
Let's vandalise the arcticwilderness
See many Alaskans complaining about it?
Hint - jobs.
I wonder what they'll say after the first major oil spill?
I get my paycheck.
What will they say about the loss of their ports as sea levels
continue to rise?
Fuck the increased solar radiation.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance...
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93620main_sun5m.jpg
You should look at your own graphs. The pattern is cyclic, and cannot
possibly explain the pattern of warming seen. And while we can do
nothing at all about the irradiance of the sun, we can do something
about how long it stays around to warm the troposphere, and the extent
to which this heat forces undesirable changes in albedo as ice melts.
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead
author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research
Letters.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation
has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend,
comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the
20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the
global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports
to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said
And indeed, the IPCC considered this to acount for about 20-25% of
warming.
Without an environment, 'jobs' are a chimera.
Do you have one?
Yes, as it goes.
What do you feed it? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fran |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 26, 5:17 pm, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Mar 25, 10:31 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 26, 3:15 pm, mergatroid <heav...@to.org> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com
mumbled:
On Mar 26, 2:03 pm, mergatroid <heav...@to.org> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com
mumbled:
Let's vandalise the arcticwilderness
See many Alaskans complaining about it?
Hint - jobs.
I wonder what they'll say after the first major oil spill?
I get my paycheck.
What will they say about the loss of their ports as sea levels
continue to rise?
Fuck the increased solar radiation.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance....
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93620main_sun5m.jpg
You should look at your own graphs. The pattern is cyclic, and cannot
possibly explain the pattern of warming seen. And while we can do
nothing at all about the irradiance of the sun, we can do something
about how long it stays around to warm the troposphere, and the extent
to which this heat forces undesirable changes in albedo as ice melts.
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead
author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research
Letters.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation
has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend,
comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the
20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the
global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports
to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said
And indeed, the IPCC considered this to acount for about 20-25% of
warming.
Without an environment, 'jobs' are a chimera.
Do you have one?
Yes, as it goes.
What do you feed it?
The same as its partner.
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fran |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 26, 5:14 pm, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Mar 25, 10:33 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 26, 4:12 pm, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 25, 7:50 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 26, 11:12 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com
wrote:
If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at ...
some snakeoil site
It took you a while, but you finally got to the top of your agenda --
the global polluters cartel agenda. Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply.
How many cartpoolers do you drag behind your ox?
What's a cartpooler? I have no ox.
They make great hamburger. Sorry that you'll never know that - and
thankfully you won't hold it against me - because fortunately you have
no ox to grind.
That's true.
Quote: You've taken a position against exploration for new oil. I was asking
you how you get to work that is petroleum free.
That's wrong on at least two counts.
1. I haven't 'taken a position against exploration for new oil'. I've
taken a position against messing with the Arctic wilderness.
2. Even if I had taken a position against exploration for new oil,
there'd be no logical contradiction between that position and fuelling
my car with fossil oil derived products. It might be my view that one
should use crude oil while it's available.
If it had been my view that everyone everywhere should stop combusting
fossil fuels immediately, then you'd be entitled to wonder how I was
going to fuel my car. Of course, my view is that policies that foster
sharp downward pressure on demand for fossil fuels should be
instituted. This would almost certainly mean that the cost to the end
user per unit of fossil fuel energy would rise, and thus encourage
more careful consideration befoe using energy, and also make renewable
or non-fossil based energy sources more economically viable.
Hence my sarcastic comment: "Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply."
Quote: An ox cart is one of
the few options and the riders you pick up to share the ride wouldn't
be "carpoolers" they'd be "cartpoolers."
If you think there are few options, you're egregiously underinformed.
Mass transit, especially powered by electricity is an excellent
option. So too are PHEVs and PEVs. So is biodiesel from algae and
butanol from sugar cane or switchgrass. Nuclear, wind, hydro and
geothermal are also possibilities. Effectively, 100% of Iceland's
stationary power comes from renewables.
Quote: Ha ... 'biofuel hoax' indeed!
Maybe we can ferment tundra?
In depends on what you mean by 'tundra'. How is this relevant anyway?
Tundra is composed of shrubs, grasses, moss and lichens. It's probably
not a good source for biofuels but it is organic and Alaska's tundra
region is larger than most countries.
That's possible, but almost certainly undesirable.
Quote: Wouldn't it be ironic if it were
a viable source for biofuel?
Not so much ironic as astonishing.
Quote: Instead of a postage stamp sized scar in
the earth it would be 800K square kilometers.
One good oil spill would be bigger than that. And you're also
forgetting the port facilities and road infrastructure.
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| mergatroid |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.Beta@gmail.com>
mumbled:
Quote: Let's vandalise the arcticwilderness
See many Alaskans complaining about it?
Hint - jobs.
Eat any Salmon this month? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| mergatroid |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.Beta@gmail.com>
mumbled:
Quote: On Mar 26, 2:03 pm, mergatroid <heav...@to.org> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com
mumbled:
Let's vandalise the arcticwilderness
See many Alaskans complaining about it?
Hint - jobs.
I wonder what they'll say after the first major oil spill?
I get my paycheck.
Quote: What will they say about the loss of their ports as sea levels
continue to rise?
Fuck the increased solar radiation.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead
author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research
Letters.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation
has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend,
comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the
20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the
global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports
to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said
Quote: Without an environment, 'jobs' are a chimera.
Do you have one?
Quote: Eat any Salmon this month?
No, I'm vegetarian,
MBBBBWHAHAHHA!!!!!
Of course, fucking stupid plant eating nitwit! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 7 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:05 pm
|
|