The Truth About ANWR
[Guest post by DRJ]
Living in West Texas in the middle of oil country, I get a lot of emails from friends and family about energy. I was surprised to learn that Snopes.com has written an article about one of those emails entitled The Truth About ANWR.
The email uses photos and maps to show where proposed ANWR drilling is and what it looks like. It compares the barren Coastal Plain area that supporters want opened for exploration and drilling with the beautiful Alaskan wilderness that is not designated for drilling.
Without elaborating, the Snopes.com article labels the conclusions in the email “scant and one-sided” and links to websites with opposing views on ANWR drilling. However, Snopes.com apparently concedes that the ANWR photos contained in the email are accurate.
ANWR photos and references are at the link. Take a look and decide for yourself.
— DRJ
not all valuable wilderness is “beautiful” from our perspective. we know we’re gonna have to shift to alternative energy sources eventually and i think sooner is better, otherwise i’d be like a junkie finally resolved to go off smack – right after i shoot up the last quarter ounce in the cupboard.
assistant devil's advocate (375260) — 7/26/2008 @ 11:30 amAnd how much oil is there? And it will last how long?
And it will affect the price by how much?
next.
JAR (f95d62) — 7/26/2008 @ 11:32 amI have friends from west texas who have moved here to Southern California.
SteveG (71dc6f) — 7/26/2008 @ 11:53 amOne day the lady from Texas was listening to some California women go on and on about global climate change and they asked her what she thought…. she paused for a moment and said:
“In Texas we just call it the weather.”
Oh, so because it will only reduce our dependence on foreign oil by a mere 10% we should ignore the possibilities.
What are you protecting?
How about we open up all of the proven sources we have in the United States and coastal waters? That will last us for many, many years, and reduce our dependence by a HUGE amount, choking off the hundreds of billions of dollars we are sending to nations who don’t like us very much, and keeping all that money here in our own economy.
But you wouldn’t support that, either, would you?
Next.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 11:59 amwe know we’re gonna have to shift to alternative energy sources eventually and i think sooner is better
What is stopping you from doing it yesterday? Can you only function as part of a collective?
How ya fell about nukes?
j curtis (c84b9e) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:00 pmI lived Midland many years ago. 🙂 I remember those oil fields quite well. There was a pump right across the street from our house and I can still smell the lubricating grease.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:01 pmThe other, equally important reason to start drilling in ANWR is that if we don’t, when the Prudhoe Bay fields cease producing, the Alaskan Pipeline will have to be shut down and decommissioned. We need to get ANWR online in a timely fashion to keep from losing the investment in the pipeline.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:01 pmI propose that ALL Liberals be deprived of Oil, Gasoline, Natural Gas, and their byproducts until we are allowed to drill off shore and in ANWR.
Now, how determined are the Libs?
PCD (9ebc0f) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:05 pmJAR #2,
Alaska produces less than 300M barrels of crude oil annually and production is declining as the oil is depleted. Alaskan production constitutes about 17% of America’s total crude oil production. Meanwhile, ANWR is projected to have 10.3B barrels of crude oil recoverable at a rate of 400M barrels per year.
DRJ (070f3d) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:10 pm“Scant and one-sided” = Snopesspeak for “an inconvenient truth”
Xrlq (d8011b) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:10 pmDrumwaster #6,
By West Texas standards, that almost makes us related.
DRJ (070f3d) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:12 pmDRJ, you don’t really expect JAR to understand what a large impact on supply 300 Million barrels a year would be do you?
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:16 pmI remember going to concerts at Ector County Coliseum, and hanging out at the arcade just inside the food court entrance at Midland Park Mall.
One of my first jobs was bagging groceries at the Gibson’s Grocery Store on Cuthbert just off Andrews, right next to the movie theater. I think it might have closed down after I joined the Navy, but that big triangular shopping center (formed by Andrews, Cuthbert and Midkiff) should still be there. I remember a Sears being there along time ago…
Haven’t been back in a while – going on 13 years…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:23 pmwhat a large impact on supply 300 million barrels a year would be
about three and a half days of world consumption at today’s rate, which is about one percent.
assistant devil's advocate (375260) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:24 pmFrom the snopes article; is this comment true or false?
Remember when Al Gore said that the government should work to artificially raise gas prices to $5 a gallon? Well, Al Gore and his fellow Democrats have almost reached their goal!
If Gore really said that, and with Obama recently telling us that he was overjoyed by the rise in gas prices, I don’t know how liberals can complain about the gas prices now and I don’t see how any Democrat could get elected in 2008 except with extreme ineptness by the Republicans.
I’m still looking for proof that he actually said it though.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:35 pmit’s a bit rich for the Democrat Party to complain about $4 gas when they are doing everything in their power to deny the ability to get more gas.
Like the man who killed his parents & then pleaded for mercy because he was an orphan.
steve miller (0da5b6) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:44 pmSo- if all the oil consumed since the strike in Pa. in 1859 totaled 1 trillion barrels and the oil shale sands of the great western USA have equivalency of 2 TRILLION barrels of oil, why the chicken little BS? Omigawd, what would happen to the Arabs, Nigeria and scum like Chavez (all adored by the left) if we didn’t need no stinkin’ oil from THEM? Of course they could still sell to China, Japan, Euroweenies and India. What would we be paying? Naturally oil independence doesn’t bode well for Botxo Nancy or Dirty Harry plans for rest of us, not to mention big fat asshat algore and urkel (owned by chicago mobster pols).
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:46 pmAre the pictures environmentalists really that misleading?
Do you really believe drilling in those ugly sites are going to not effect the pretty pics the “greens” are showing us?
How much did the white house say we would get from ANWR? 90 days worth of oil at our 22 mile per gallon average consumption.
90 days. Oh also I might, based on numbers from Bush’s own Energy Department, drilling in the banned areas off the coasts and in ANWR would only produce enough oil to reduce the price of gas $0.06 a gallon from where the cost would otherwise be two decades from now.
Shouldn’t we be talking about more ways to become less dependent on oil all together? Not just the worlds supplies but ours as well?
The world is at it’s peak in oil supplies folks. The world has not peaked as far as population and demand for oil.
Do the math folks.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:57 pmMichael Barone
Our system of divided government and litigation-friendly regulation makes it hard for our society to do things and easy for adroit lobbyists and lawyers to stop them. Nations with more centralized power and less democratic accountability find it easier: France and Japan generate most of their electricity by nuclear power and Chicago, where authority is more centralized and accountability less robust than in most of the country, depends more on nuclear power than almost all the rest of the nation.
In contrast, lobbyists and litigators for environmental restriction groups have produced energy policies that I suspect future generations will regard as lunatic.
No, we call them Democrats. I hope McCain is planning to base his fall campaign on this.
The Iraq War is over.
Mike K (586583) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:58 pmDo the math folks.
— The “math” is you do everything, period.
Icy Truth (10a986) — 7/26/2008 @ 1:06 pmDrumwaster,
You know your geography. Gibson’s is gone now and Sears moved to the Mall but it’s been replaced by the Midland College Advanced Technology Center. However, you’d still recognize it because things don’t change much in West Texas. You might even run into someone you know.
DRJ (070f3d) — 7/26/2008 @ 1:13 pm#18 kindly note how far oil futures have fallen the past week merely on Bush’s unilateral talk about possible drilling, with no aid from moobat lib Congress. Far more than six cents, no?
And maybe one might consider that whatever new amount is produced domestically lowers fractionally what we import. Why must liberals continue to obfuscate the issue? Why does Botox Nancy want the strategic oil reserve tapped? How much and for how long would that lower oil prices? Besides we know that Mr. Pompous Jackass algore wants gas at $5 a gallon. I guess that helps his carbon credit rip-off business immensely? I’ll drive a Prius when your hypocritical limo libs stop flying hither and yonder in their private jets or sitting idling in their chauffeur driven Escalades and Navigators.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 7/26/2008 @ 1:14 pmYes. The total area is the equivalent of a medium-sized airport tucked away in the nastiest sections of South Carolina swampland. 2,000 acres from among 19.2 million.
For your average sized 2BR, 2BA home, it is SMALLER than the equivalent area of the bathroom floor behind and under the toilet, where nothing currently is, and nothing wants to be.
But those are facts again, and you have made clear how loathsome you find those to be.
That’s exactly true, since those pictures are well away from where the actual drilling is going to happen, and has no more effect on those pretty pictures than your comments have to do with actual evidence.
Maybe we should beg the Saudis and the Venezuelans to send us more oil, y’think? That ought to lower prices by a gazillion dollars per ounce, according to Chuck Schumer’s “magic oil” theory.
You neither understand Huppert’s concepts, nor how modern economics works.
We have found – within the past few years, long after that book’s title was written (maybe you should have actually opened it, huh?) – proven oil reserves at least TWICE the size of all oil fields currently in production.
That means for every barrel of oil we have used throughout history, there are still two more in the ground.
Doesn’t sound like a “peak”, unless you are inverting that definition like all the other big-word concepts you throw around.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 1:23 pmDRJ, is that Grandy’s still there? They had a Chicken Fried Steak and Mashed Potatoes meal to die for. Drive-thru, too! (The biscuits and gravy were pure caloric goodness, too.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 1:27 pmDrum, can you honestly assure us that those pretty “Green” sites in the pictures will not be touched while drilling in the ugly pictures where the caribou still roam?
How do you get there???
If you read my comments, and let them sink in (of course you don’t and never will) the last thing I want is The U.S.A. to have to depend on foreign oil.
You know that, but you find it necessary to inject your big knowledge of “Evil Doer” oil suppliers.
I don’t want to use any more oil, get it?
Gas consumption is going down finally.
We are talking about cars getting 55 MPG. This is a good thing. You must know that???
Drum said: “We have found – within the past few years, long after that book’s title was written (maybe you should have actually opened it, huh?) – proven oil reserves at least TWICE the size of all oil fields currently in production.”
How proven are your oil reserves?????
Please spare me the right wing web sites this time Drum.
Thanks for telling me I throw “big-word concepts” around.
(I’ll take my compliments from you where I could get them, amongst all of your know it all insults.)
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 1:43 pm#22, the gas prices currently going down are based on speculation and hope that we find more oil in ANWR.
06 cents per gallon is based on the actual cost of gas prices coming down over 10 years.
Of course it’s all speculation.
But this is coming from our White House.
We all trust them here right???
Seems like you do.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 1:46 pmOiram,
You don’t have to use oil if you don’t want to but the rest of us still need it.
Drumwaster,
The Grandy’s building had a problem and was torn down but there are several locations still in business and an ample supply of chicken fried food throughout West Texas.
DRJ (070f3d) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:10 pmOh-ire-am – I don’t want to use any more oil, get it?
— It isn’t about what you want; it’s about what we need.
Icy Truth (10a986) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:11 pmYes. Because those “pretty green pictures” are nowhere near the coastal swamps that are going to be drilled.
You look at green meadow, and ignore the swamp. You see the mountain and ignore the frozen tundra.
The caribou would appreciate the warmth (since the oil can’t be pumped if it is frozen solid, there are heaters every little ways), as will the polar bears.
The Eskimaux would also appreciate the influx of wealth, and they are American citizens, not foreign sheiks looking to fund a madrassa.
How do the people in Alaska feel, and why does your opinion trump theirs?
Ask these guys:
“The United States holds the world’s largest known concentration of oil shale. Nearly five times the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia underlies a surface area of 16,000 square miles. The enormous potential of this domestic resource is a key to the Nation’s energy security and economic strength, and to the quality of life Americans enjoy today and hope to ensure for future generations.
More than 70 percent of American oil shale — including the thickest and richest deposits — lies on federal land, primarily in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. These federal lands contain an estimated 1.23 trillion barrels of oil — more than 50 times the nation’s proven conventional oil reserves.”
I’ve heard parrots throwing around “big words”, too. Doesn’t mean the concepts were appropriate to the conversation, or that the birds understood them.
Just ask Inigo.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:12 pmYet you are typing on a keyboard that almost certainly contains various plastics. It connects to a computer than uses electricity created by a generator – which, unless it uses coal or water pressure, is fired by hydrocarbon fuels (oil or gas). Much of your house will probably include plastics (such as the shingles on the roof, the insulation in the walls, the electrical outlet face plates, the carpeting or linoleum on the floors). If you own any kind of transportation (roller blades, bicycle, skateboard, moped, even a 100% electric car) you will definitely use oil.
If your clothes are not 100% natural fibers, if your shoes are not made of woven jute canvas (with no rubber on the soles), etc., etc.
You are not allowed to shop at any large grocery chain, you are not allowed to use any public utilities, etc., etc.
Or else you are a hypocrite from your stated beliefs.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:19 pmOiram, if you don’t want to use any more oil, then don’t.
And 55 MPG is not a good thing in my world.
We don’t have to depend on the ‘World’ if we use what we have on our own continent.
Lastly, when’s the last time you saw a working Drill site?
Buckshot (ac5d83) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:20 pmCome to Oklahoma I can show you some pretty quickly
A major part of the problem is that people are not familiar enough with modern drilling methods. For example, instead of a dozen different oil wells pumping out oil, we can now drill a dozen different wells in a dozen different directions from one location. This gives the same oil output as a dozen wells but minimizes the “footprint” of the drilling activity. And that is only one feature of new technology, there are more. The people seem to have a vision of a landscape that looks like a porcupine of oil derricks. And even that wouldn’t harm the environment, it would simply look different. But I don’t think the animals that live there share our aesthetic values.
crosspatch (f07ad4) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:22 pmAs you said, crosspatch, with horizontal drilling and related techniques, you don’t even have to drill directly above where the oil is located.
DRJ (070f3d) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:29 pmThanks once again Drum.
You say “Try These Guys”
Oil Shale and Tar Sands
That’s your “Twice the world’s oil reserve”?
Use your fast fingers to calculate how much it will cost to produce all of that DRY oil.
You do know what Oil Shale and Tar Sands is right?
Once again……. nice Try Drum.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:36 pm#30, Drum, I don’t need a lecture on what my keyboard is made of.
The oil it takes to make modern household appliances such as the keyboards we’re tying on pales in comparison to what it takes to give energy to our current wasteful habits.
Find me percentage of oil for plastics vs. Oil consumption for Home heating and transportation.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:39 pmI didn’t even see the word “hypocrite” till after I commented.
There it is, that’s what you love to use isn’t it?
You use that against Gore and company.
They are using and I am using the tools that we have at hand to stop the further disintegration of our environment. Get it???
We all understand that Oil is what brought us the lifestyles we are all accustomed to. We weren’t born in a barn.
We also understand that the world and it’s population can not continue this path. Something needs to be done.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:42 pmOne of the successful environmental movement and Democrat lies is that their are alternatives to oil. Even at $5 per gallon of gas there are no alternatives to oil. Europeans are paying $10 per gallon, and they are still buying and using millions of gasoline powered cars. That is because the alternatives to gasoline are even more expensive.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:42 pmThe economic ignorance on the left is stunning. ANWR has roughly the equavalent of 30 years of imported Saudi oil. The speculators would be dumping oil futures so fast they’d fall down from dizziness. Not only can we drill out of the shortage but it really won’t take long at all. Once it becomes official policy oil will drop drastically. Those traders are there to make money.
Capitalist Infidel (c4ec46) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:43 pm#31 “55 MPG is not a good thing in my world”
Serious Buckshot?
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:44 pmAnd did you?
It is not economically viable to produce oil from those sources while oil is being gotten elsewhere at $50/barrel. However, when it is above $100/barrel it becomes economically viable to use those resources. (That is why your “Huppert Peak” is nonsense. Your claims of “we’re running out of oil” always neglects the proper conclusion to that sentence: “at current prices”.)
The only obstruction to actually using that oil is the Democrats running Congress.
No, it is twice what the Saudis have in their proven reserves. It is also larger than the cumulative total amount of oil that has been consumed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Yes, I do. Energy independence. (You DO know that almost half of the oil bought from Canada – our #1 oil supplier, at better than a billion dollars a day – is from the tar sands in Alberta, don’t you?)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:44 pm#37 True Europeans are paying $10 for gas, roughly 2 times as much as we are.
A decade ago they were paying 4 times as much as were.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:45 pmBecause Europe has no domestic oil production. We do. Why are you opposed to using our own supplies, rather than paying unhappy foreigners?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:47 pmThat’s funny, so it takes gas going up to $100 a barrel to make Dry oil viable.
Looks like the 5 oil companies truly, truly have us by the………… you know what.
Wow.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:47 pmDamn Drum………. you don’t get it do you?
I don’t want to pay unhappy foreigners.
Wow
Hard of seeing I guess.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:48 pmBy the way, you fail to see my logic in the price ratio. Europe used to, I repeat, used to pay 4 times as much as we did.
A decade ago when we were paying $1 or so, they were paying $4 or so. Get the math?
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:50 pm#42 – The north sea produces quite of bit of oil. These field are operated by UK and Norway. But even when Europeans paid four times the price for gas (the difference is taxes) than the USA, they stuck with gasoline operated cars because the alternatives are so much more expensive.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:51 pmWe are not up to speed, when it comes to developing tar sands the way Alberta is.
It will cost us a pretty penny to be.
Hence the White house’s estimation of 6 cents savings in 10 years.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:52 pmThat’s funny, so it takes gas going up to $100 a barrel to make Dry oil viable. So that we could save .06 cents in 10 years.
Looks like the 5 oil companies truly, truly have us by the………… you know what.
Wow.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:53 pmNext Subject Please
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:54 pmWe are not up to speed, when it comes to developing tar sands the way Alberta is.
The Athabasca tar sands in Alberta were developed by Americans.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:56 pmactually Shell claims it can develop the oil shale at half the current per barrel price.
maybe they can, maybe they cant. but no logical reason not to try. and as for oiram’s question of guaranteeing no damage to the picturesque parts fo ANWR, no, cant do that, but its also an impossible and impracticable standard. thats a typical lib debate tactic. but here’s what prudhoe bay looks like after years of drilling. do you know how many people visit ANWR each year? under 1,500. bet none go to the coastal plains, but even if all 1,500 do should we hold 300 million people hostage to them? potentially ruin our economy for them? no way, not worth
chas (82ec6c) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:01 pmA decade ago, Republicans were running Congress, not the EU.
And yes, it takes higher prices for foreign products to make more expensive domestic production economically viable. If it is cheaper to buy sugar from overseas (at 7 cents a pound, say, whereas it takes 22 cents a pound for American sugar) and Congress prohibits the production of domestic sugar, what should we do if foreign sugar suddenly jumps to 30 cents a pound? Domestic sugar production is suddenly profitable again, but cane growers are specifically prohibited from growing any on American soil, despite the fact that we have more area that will grow sugar cane than anywhere else on the planet.
Your idea is to quit using sugar entirely, or use even more expensive chemical substitutes.
And you assert that we are wrong for pointing out the many thousands of ways we need to use sugar in our economy.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:01 pmWho said anything about Sugar?
I thought we were talking about Oil here.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:04 pmplease tell me you dont think there are only 5 oil companies? are you that ill-informed? no wonder you want the next topic, you’re over you head on this thread. try looking here, notice how those huge and overwhelmingly powerful American companies are dwarved by nationally owned companies. remembering that next time you bitch about exxonmobil causing gas prices to be so high.
chas (82ec6c) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:06 pmThe Saudi oil fields were developed by American and British companies. The desalinization plants the Saudis are using to supplement their need for fresh water was developed by an American company. Their phone systems are entirely developed by American companies and American patents.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:07 pmI call them “analogies”. Jesus called them “parables”.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:07 pmi hope that is a deliberate stupid act. even if it is it just shows you have no answer. you just are against drilling cause nancy and harry say for you to be against it.
chas (82ec6c) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:08 pmYeah America! #55
How come it takes oil to be $100 a barrel for producing Shale and Tar sands to be economically viable??
🙁
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:12 pmA decade ago we also weren’t spending the better half of a trillion dollars on a war that has seen tax cuts instead of tax increases.
“Republican Congress” LOL I was waiting for that one.
Another Republican cherry picking good news and blaming congress, but yet not doing the same the Democratic congress during Reagan’s time.
“The Buck Stops Here” My friend, or rather here and there and then.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:15 pm#58 – are you just a slow reader or wish to remain willfully ignorant? i posted an article where Shell says they can do it for half of current oil prices, taht would be the $70 range.
chas (82ec6c) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:16 pm#59 and that’s done what to the economy??
chas (82ec6c) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:17 pmBecause it takes an extra processing step. That extra step costs more money per barrel. That means the “supply” would cost more than what is paid to have some pumped out of the ground – without that extra step – and shipped half-way around the world this time last decade.
However, when those formerly inexpensive barrels are no longer cheaper than what we need to drill locally – even including that extra step – why are you trying to stop those companies from using the cheaper alternatives? Why are you forcing them to pay more money, and – by extension – forcing the consumer to pay higher costs, too?
Seems like you want to punish the little guy who needs that cheaper gas to make enough money to feed his family…
Why do you hate the middle class? Why do you hate the poor?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:17 pmHell, a mere two years ago, we weren’t paying the better half of a quarter of a trillion dollars, either. It has taken the Dems running Congress to double those prices, and it took the Republican President just the merest rumor of increasing domestic production to cause prices to drop by double-digit percentages in a week.
If you want to pay more in taxes, you go right ahead. Let the rest of us keep the money we earn.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:21 pmOiram, when Canada was first starting to produce oil from the Alberta tar sands, the break-even price was around $55-60/barrel. What you see to be missing here is that the technology and infrastructure is now in place, which greatly reduces the cost per barrel.
In addition, you tell us to “do the math” regarding the cost benefit of drilling ANWR and developing oil shale. Well, there are plenty of oil companies who have already “done the math”, and they feel they can deliver the oil at a profit.
Why in God’s name would they want to dump all that money into those endeavors if they didn’t think they were worth it?
TomB (c3f8e5) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:21 pmSo again let me get this straight.
Oil companies raise gas prices, make record profits correct? Spare me the percentage argument please.
With these high oil prices they turn around and tell us that it’s finally economically viable to start producing Shale and Tar sand.
Someone is being hoodwinked.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:22 pmUse your fast fingers to calculate how much it will cost to produce all of that DRY oil.
You do know what Oil Shale and Tar Sands is right?
Once again……. nice Try Drum.
Comment by Oiram
Do we really want to debate Obamabots ? The future is with alternatives that the kid doesn’t even know about. Like injecting cultures of Archea into subterranean coal deposits and watching the organisms make methane from the coal without ever digging it up.
Garbage in; garbage out. Ignorant kids are ignorant kids.
In the meantime, while we are waiting for the science to solve the problems, and the nuclear power plants to be built, we need oil.
Mike K (586583) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:22 pm#64 TomB writes “In addition, you tell us to “do the math” regarding the cost benefit of drilling ANWR and developing oil shale. Well, there are plenty of oil companies who have already “done the math”, and they feel they can deliver the oil at a profit.
Why in God’s name would they want to dump all that money into those endeavors if they didn’t think they were worth it?”
Read comment #65 please Tom.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:23 pmHow come it takes oil to be $100 a barrel for producing Shale and Tar sands to be economically viable??
For a variety of reasons. Here are some of the bigger ones. The raw product is not a liquid, it is tar stuck in sand very similar to asphalt. The tar sand must be surfaced mined and transported by truck and/or conveyor belt to the refinery, not cheaply in a pipeline like ordinary oil. It is then cooked a subjected to various chemical processes in order to separate the oil from the sand. The sand, and there is lots of sand, must be disposed of. The US shale has less oil per ton or dirt than Canadian tar sands, therefore the costs will be higher.
In contrast, in Saudi Arabia, they don’t even use pumps to extract the oil. It comes out under natural pressure. I don’t know the current figures, but about 20 years ago, there were only about 750 well heads in Saudi Arabia compared to 50,000 in the USA. Consequently, Saudi production costs are far less than the USA.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:24 pm#68 Perfect sense
“For a variety of reasons. Here are some of the bigger ones. The raw product is not a liquid, it is tar stuck in sand very similar to asphalt. The tar sand must be surfaced mined and transported by truck and/or conveyor belt to the refinery, not cheaply in a pipeline like ordinary oil. It is then cooked a subjected to various chemical processes in order to separate the oil from the sand. The sand, and there is lots of sand, must be disposed of. The US shale has less oil per ton or dirt than Canadian tar sands, therefore the costs will be higher.”
This is a vicious or should I say viscus circle.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:26 pmNot correct. There are literally DOZENS of different industries that are making more in profit than oil companies are…
You seem to think that the oil companies get the oil for free. And the various levels of government make twice what the oil companies do per gallon.
But the oil companies are just trying to punish the public, and the government is out to protect us?
That’s like saying that the cop is out to screw you while the extortionist working with the Mafia is on your side…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:30 pmMaybe you mean ‘viscous’.
And even that doesn’t make any sense.
You really need to talk to Inigo.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:33 pmDrum says ” Oil companies raise gas prices, make record profits correct?
Not correct. There are literally DOZENS of different industries that are making more in profit than oil companies are…”
Oil Companies are making record profits. Dozens of different companies are? Good for them, don’t convolute the fact that oil companies are indeed making record profits my friend.
Again, I know what you are thinking. Oil profit percentages are low compared to other products. Those other products would be happy to make the same low percentage as oil companies if they competed against only 5 other companies and their product was a daily necessity of all people on the planet.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:41 pmI do mean viscous Drum thank you.
Maybe if you got the irony in it knowing the spelling the way you do, you might understand where I’m coming from here.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:42 pmOiram,
Which of these 105 oil companies are the 5 that have to compete?
DRJ (070f3d) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:45 pmWouldn’t it be a vicious circle of viscous products?
DRJ (070f3d) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:46 pmMarioiraM wrote: “Looks like the 5 oil companies truly, truly have us by the………… you know what.”
— Your reference to the Big Five (ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips), as if they control everything in this country, is truly silly; especially seeing how a study conducted just last year showed that they represent 20 percent of non-OPEC production in the world. There are more than 20 other companies in the US that both produce significant amounts of oil and engage in new exploration.
Icy Truth (10a986) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:49 pmLast time I checked, I wasn’t buying my oil from a company down the street called Saudi Oil, or venezuela oil.
Who sells it to us here in this country? I mean really sells it to us. Don’t tell me about the middle men guys.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:53 pmThey just want to get rid of oil, cripple our society, all while protesting nukes, not letting there be windfarms near their homes, and essentially make us go back to pre-industrial revolution times. Oiram is so far out of its depth here it is to laugh.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:56 pmYes, US OIl companiesare small players compared to the really big multinationals, some owned by the countries where they are based.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:57 pmDopes like oiram want the government to control oil here or at least tax the profits much more heavily. Look to our south to see what a crackerjack job Hugo Chavez’ socialist minions are doing running Venezuelan oil facilities into the ground. But I’m sure Obama, Pelosi, Reid and company can do a better job. Congress really has performed brilliantly since dems took over almost two years ago. Maybe Obama can enlist his planned for federal civilian militia to run everything so it pleases the UN and Europe. Let’s all reach across the aisle and give Barry Hussein the benefit of the doubt and rejoice in hope, change and a new world order. Imagine electing a brlliant part-Negro as POTUS and having the world accept him as the long anticipated Lightworker. That or the anti-Christ.
Then what’s your point? Are privately owned businesses not allowed to make money? Or are only those companies who make less than a certain amount?
What is that amount and who says so? Who gives them that right?
Government profit percentages are TWICE that of the actual private companies you want to punish. And that is BEFORE it pays its corporate income taxes, and any of the employees pay their income taxes, and the investors pay the taxes on their dividends.
And our current government is the only government we are allowed to have. Talk about monopolies…
Again, if you want to pay more in taxes, no one is stopping you. But why should the rest of us have to pay those higher prices to that monopoly? Just because you think we should?
We have a monopoly making the rest of us pay artificially higher prices from private companies, while using the power of the gun to keep those prices higher than they need to be. Meanwhile you think the monopoly should be not only allowed to keep those prices high, but they should get to take more of our money at the point of a gun in addition to those artificially higher prices.
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:58 pmIt went from “the five oil companies” to being shown that that’s a laughable exaggeration, to, as usual, that’s not what I meant, haha I laugh at you, next topic, do the math, try harder guys, etc. etc. etc.
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:59 pmYou don’t want either the facts or the larger pictures.
Got it.
Say, how are those unicorn steaks coming?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:59 pmJD, that’s your fall back. I’ve heard it all before.
That’s not what I want. I just would like to know that we are taking steps to wean ourselves off of oil.
Drilling for oil from Dry Oil Shale and Tar sand (thanks Drum) that is truly cost ineffective is not the answer.
Gas consumption is starting to go down. People are starting to get that we need alternatives. I see a ton of hybrid’s out on the road.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 3:59 pmProducing expensive gas to keep us at our 22 MPG habit is not the ultimate answer.
Unicorn steaks….. hahahha. Now that’s funny.
I see the facts, you yourself Drum searched and searched and told me about BLM. But you expect everyone to assume that this if free flowing oil in ANWR and you know it’s not.
Until the country understands the facts about our DRY OIL in ANWR, we will be crippled by oil.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 4:02 pmSo denying access to available resources while the research and effort by engineers and yes, energy companies into finding alternative fuel will help to bring about the independence from oil quicker? Is that what you’re saying? So by that logic if we just cut off the supply now completely within hours we should all be in our magical eco-cars that run strictly on the power of Ed Begley’s self-importance?
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 7/26/2008 @ 4:04 pmThis bears repeating, you all should really let this sink in. Because I know you feel the need to protect the oil companies.
Oiram said:
Again, I know what you are thinking. Oil profit percentages are low compared to other products. Those other products would be happy to make the same low percentage as oil companies if they competed against only 5 other companies and their product was a daily necessity of all people on the planet.
Ask yourself if you would be happy to make a %5 profit margin providing your to the buyer competition was low and it was something society depended on daily.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 4:07 pmYou guys are all intelligent people. You need to understand what our dependence on oil is doing to this county.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 4:09 pmPeace Brothers and Sisters.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 4:09 pmWhere did I say this? We were talking about the oil shale and tar sands in the lower 48.
The oil in ANWR has to be pumped out, just like the fields in Prudhoe Bay. Once we start creating it, the market will find a place for it. Prices will drop even more than the President’s unilateral action caused.
There is ANWR, which has oil that must be pumped out, just like we currently do on the North Shores.
There are the tar sands in Colorado. That is what they call “dry oil”.
You are confusing the two. (Why am I not surprised?)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 4:10 pmWhich county? And what about the parishes and unincorporated cities?
And our “dependence on oil” has raised our standard of living to among the very highest on the planet.
You’re welcome.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 4:12 pmI buy my gas at a Murphy Oil station, 3 cent discount with a Wall Mart card or a Swifty 5 cent discount for cash.
Hazy (c36902) — 7/26/2008 @ 4:14 pmWho declared pumping more “expensive gas” to be “our ultimate answer” to a troubling and important issue like the energy situation? Where did anyone claim that this was the “ultimate” answer? You use the term “the 5 oil companies” then scurry around to cover your ass after you got tooled on that one and then claim your detractors hold a belief that has never once been expressed in the words that you attribute to them. You are so thoroughly dishonest in your arguments its almost comical.
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 7/26/2008 @ 4:15 pm#77 – Oiram
Who sells it to us here in this country? I mean really sells it to us. Don’t tell me about the middle men guys.
— The “Big Five” produce 9.7 billion barrels per year; the next 20 US companies produce 2.1 billion barrels (22% as much as the Big Five, 18% of the total for the top 25). Are the Big Five really big? Yes. Are they everything there is to know? No.
Icy Truth (10a986) — 7/26/2008 @ 4:16 pmDrumwaster- You’re just wasting your time because the troll has its talking points. America should NOT seek energy independence for a multitude of reasons, including “fact” that greedy Americans hog energy and pollute the planet. Perhaps the big thing if you listen to the goracle or urkel is that they want to tell you how to live, what to eat, what cars to drive. Taxes raised because it is the “fair” thing to do even if half the “taxpayers” pay zero income tax now. Don’t forget class warfare and all the liberal special interests groups. You cannot expect dems to throw the greenfreaks under the bus. So many victims to assuage and anger to mollify. Urkel would rid of those terrible instruments of war, such as nuclear weapons. Of course many of us are aware of the do as I say, not as I do hypocrisy inherent in the philosophy of the lib/socialist/neo-marxists. ANSWER and George Soros know what is best for us. All hail Obamanus, Cher, Castro, Imadamnutjob, NK’s lil’ Kim, Chavez and the rest of the ginormous despotic a-holes that for some reason create orgasms for liberals.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 7/26/2008 @ 4:23 pmI’m not trying to just teach the unteachable troll. I am also leaving information for future perusers of this thread.
They get to see Oiram’s scamperings and scurryings and shifting of goalposts, and when they are compared to the facts presented and logic used, those future readers will be able to learn something they may not have known.
And the dissemination of truth is never s futile exercise. It has its own quiet satisfaction. An intellectual contentment, if you will. I can hardly think of a better way to spend one’s life.
Too bad Oiram will never get to know that feeling.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 4:31 pmI did. It didn’t answer my question.
Why are the oil companies willing to risk so much money on areas and technologies you insist aren’t worth it?
TomB (c3f8e5) — 7/26/2008 @ 4:43 pmAs an aside Oiram, why have oil prices (not just futures, but I paid $3.85 today) tanked in the past 2 weeks?
TomB (c3f8e5) — 7/26/2008 @ 5:07 pmTom, why are you asking Oiram? Given that he knows more about ANWR than the USGS does … or so he thinks.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2008 @ 5:11 pmSometimes I get tired of kicking my dog.
TomB (c3f8e5) — 7/26/2008 @ 5:21 pmI hear ya.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2008 @ 5:22 pmBy country, here are the US oil imports as of May 2008.
DRJ (b1ff9b) — 7/26/2008 @ 5:40 pmYep, DRJ, those dirty, evil, greedy Canadians are at it again.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2008 @ 5:47 pmWell done, DRJ. Let’s hear no more about the inadequacy of an extra million barrels per day, okay, anti-drillers? We would be able to tell Hugo Chavez to go suck himself until his head implodes.
Imagine having an extra third of a billion dollars every month kept within our own economy…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 5:52 pmAll I see here is “Red” talk.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/26/2008 @ 6:05 pmSorry, did someone say something? I could have sworn I heard something.
Must have been the wind.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 6:07 pm#105
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/26/2008 @ 6:18 pmHi Drumwaster. And yes you are having one of your hallucinations again. 🙂
No, just reading some blatherer come up with yet another nonsensical statement having nothing to do with either the subject at hand or reality in general.
I haven’t hallucinated since that night in… well, never mind, it’s been a long time.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 6:22 pmThe big mistake here is to down play the risks and disadvantages of oil drilling here in a bid to make a point. One major issue to consider is the environmental ramifications. There is always a price to pay for change. Am I against it? Not really. Question is, how effective will it be?
love2008 (1b037c) — 7/26/2008 @ 6:29 pmlove2008, look at Prudhoe Bay’s record. Its pretty good. The drilling platform and the pipeline are not the greatest environmental threats.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2008 @ 6:31 pm#107
love2008 (1b037c) — 7/26/2008 @ 6:34 pmI would keep those drugs very close. It keeps those demons away.
That’s known as a “Type I” error. (You, I mean, not the Type II error you just noticed.)
Yes, there are some risks, but the risks are easily controllable, the worst case scenario has already been postulated and plans set forth to limit same, and the risks of NOT doing so are worse, since we are experiencing those negative outcomes already.
You’re arguing “out of the frying pan and into the fire” without admitting that we are already in that frying pan. Time to turn down the heat, wouldn’t you say?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 6:37 pmWhat demons? That was a wonderfully pleasant night. (I don’t have bad dreams because my conscience is clear.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 6:39 pmMichael Barone adds his thoughts on environmentalism and energy.
DRJ (b1ff9b) — 7/26/2008 @ 7:20 pmBarone pretty much nails it, DRJ.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2008 @ 7:24 pm“The time may be coming when our lunatic environmental policies are swept away by a rising tide of common sense.”
Amused Observer (43c305) — 7/26/2008 @ 8:04 pmLet me restate my original point: Even at $5 per gallon, there are no substitutes for gasoline. Consider that one gallon of a liquid can move a two ton car with four passengers 20 miles in Air Conditioned comfort is a miracle. You could not peddle/push your car 20 miles on $5 of food. All costs considered, alternative energy sources cost the equivalent of $15 to $20 per gallon.
If our politicians want to serve the will of the people, they will allow us to drill for oil in our backyards, coastal zones and frozen mud flats.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 7/26/2008 @ 8:35 pmI would add one minor proviso…
“in relative safety”.
For the amount of oomph per kaching, the fact that we have an entire infrastructure built to safely distribute, store, disseminate and utilize it, and do so safely enough that the average person can continue to use it in almost all climates, weather conditions, and times of day without taking special safety precautions, speaks VOLUMES about its desirability as an energy source.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 8:44 pmAnd then there’s hydrogen.
How many microseconds after the first commercially available hydrogen powered vehicle hits the road will it take the environmentalists to notice it emits large amouts of water vapor? Which, as we all know, is the largest greenhouse gas by far.
TomB (c3f8e5) — 7/27/2008 @ 3:39 amAside from the abject silliness of the argument, what, exactly, is this “change” you speak of?
TomB (c3f8e5) — 7/27/2008 @ 3:52 am#119
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:47 amLike you said, it’s a “silly argument” so lets not indulge it.
Why not? You’re the one who made it.
Let’s discuss exactly what “change” is.
TomB (c3f8e5) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:04 amHydrogen gas did not work out very well with the explosion of the huge German Zeppelin in New Jersey many years ago. One hopes they’d have the safety issues worked out.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:07 am#121
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:31 amWhat argument? You are the one trying to make an argument out of what I said. Dont you think that the idea of drilling oil here instead of depending on imports represents a “change” of policy? And with change comes risks but that does not mean it is impossible.
We already produce oil domestically, on the North Shore, the Gulf and many, many wells in the lower 48. We won’t be making any “change”. The only thing we will be doing is allowing more of what we are already doing, or have done in the past.
TomB (c3f8e5) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:52 amNo more than starting to use the extra bedroom in your house (which has stood empty for years) would represent a “change of (housing) policy”.
We already have the oil. We know how to safely extract and process it, and that technology is decades-old. Why not actually start using it?
There are examples of nuclear power that has produced high amounts of electricity for many years without a single problem. Why not allow companies to start building them again?
Refining crude oil into gasoline has been going on since before we ever started using the internal combustion engine. Why not allow us to construct more refineries (eliminating that particular bottle-neck in the raw-material-to-finished-product-to-consumer-use chain), without all of the NIMBY restrictions (like Ted Kennedy killing a windfarm 5 miles off the coast of Massachusetts because “it would ruin the view from Martha’s Vineyard”)?
None of this requires new technology, and no new infrastructure. It can provide finished product within the next two years, unlike (say) the solar panels plan (covering the entire state of Arizona and some of New Mexico to replace current electrical generation, which doesn’t cover industrial or transportation energy use).
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:06 amHey Drum, it just dawned on me, but isn’t “change” supposed to be a good thing, based on the immense number of times the Messiah has uttered the word?
Love, since there is a “price to be paid for change”, are you going to hold Obama to that same standard?
TomB (c3f8e5) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:35 amNot if that change happens to be negative.
Getting brain cancer is a “change” that will bring “hope”, but it’s not really what you want for a birthday present, is it?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:37 amPeter Huber explains why the world is not going to see a reduction in greenhouse gas output.
This is why I found Obama’s speech in Berlin to be so completely ridiculous as he told Europeans about his commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. Europe has done less to really reduce greenhouse gas output than we have, but he was pandering to them as if they had some high ground on the issue.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:44 amHeh.
TomB (c3f8e5) — 7/27/2008 @ 10:41 amRefineries kind of need NIMBY restrictions. They can explode after all, and they have some pretty bad emissions. The government might need to just buy up a buffer zone around the refinery. Regardless, more refineries is a good thing, especially if they are built with modern technology.
By the way, what is wrong with a car getting 55 MPG? Isn’t efficiency good? Just like flex fuels or plug-in hybrids, they reduce our demand for oil.
I think the military should devote some time to developing a less oil dependent force. Carriers could manufacture hydrogen for their planes. We have build nuclear ships to very small sizes (look up NR-1), and we already have flexible fuel engines on tanks. I’d hope that the next generation would not run on petroleum to such an extent.
OmegaPaladin (a400e4) — 7/27/2008 @ 10:59 amOmegaPaladin, “flex fuels” are not much of a solution given that alcohol production in the US is very expensive itself in terms of petroleum, and having an adverse impact on food prices.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 11:22 amA lot of things “can explode”. But we don’t just stop operating them.
In addition, there are many places where jobs are scarce that would welcome new refineries. How about the government get out of the way and just allow companies to build them?
TomB (c3f8e5) — 7/27/2008 @ 12:01 pm#126
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/27/2008 @ 2:05 pmLove, since there is a “price to be paid for change”, are you going to hold Obama to that same standard?
Yes I would. Change always has a price. Even the Obama brand.
Question is who pays the price? The government or the locals? The politicians or the environment? Will drilling here actually reduce the cost of gasoline products in such a way that justifies the cost? How much oil really can be gotten from the ANWR area? Will America ever be free from oil dependence on oil producing nations, by drilling enough here? Is that a realistic hope?
love2008, your vague questions make it appear that you think you have a point. But you don’t.
There is an enormous amount of oil and gas in the ANWR and there is an equally large amount of oil and gas in the Arctic in toto. That’s the recent conclusion of the USGS. A serious initiative to exploit those fields would dramatically drop the price of oil in the near term.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 2:11 pm#134
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/27/2008 @ 2:42 pmI have not indicated any kind of dissenting opinion here. I have said earlier that it is always a better option than continuous dependence on foreign imports. Who wouldnt prefer that. Just raising legitimate concerns. There is no need to fight here SPQR.
Then what was your point in post 108?
I see none of that here.
Which are?
There’s that “change” argument.
So why do you think drilling in areas we have already drilled won’t be effective?
TomB (c3f8e5) — 7/27/2008 @ 3:08 pm#136
love2008 (1b037c) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:01 pmYou are misreading my post again. I did not say it “won’t” be effective. I simply asked “how” effective it would be? Why are you having problem understanding it? Or are you just trying to pick an argument?
You seem to be doing everything in your power to avoid answering the question. So, in the interest of furthering the discussion, why do you feel the need to question the effecacy of drilling?
Look, if you made that initial post just to be contrary, fine, just admit it, but you seem to be putting an awful lot of effort into not answering.
What are your “legitimate concerns”?
TomB (c3f8e5) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:41 pmTo head off what will surely be a post decrying my spelling, the word is “efficacy”.
Sorry.
TomB (c3f8e5) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:42 pm#139
First of all, I would never chide you for a mistake. No one is perfect.
As for the “legitimate concerns” argument, maybe this could help:
Environmental Problem Type: [HABIT]
Because of the geographic location of the ANWR, the oil drilling could have a number of effects on the environment. Any oil spill would be disastrous and would be difficult to clean up because of the cold weather in the Northern Slope. Animals that might be influenced by an oil spill include polar bears, caribou, and anumber of fish that inhabit the water near it. As well as the sea and land being affected by oil spills, the nature of the product pollutes the air during usage, thus causing global warming and ozone depletion.
For further reading, check this out.
A Balanced view point.
love2008 (1b037c) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:39 pmYou may have missed it, but we have been drilling on the North Slope of Alaska for decades, without incident.
If you want to play the “what if” game, you can make an argument against anything. Without accomplishing much.
We have proven that the environmental concerns regarding drilling in extreme conditions are unfounded. Is your hypothetical “what if” enough to prevent us from drilling?
TomB (c3f8e5) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:49 pmlove2008, that’s not a “balanced” viewpoint. Its a load of propaganda. Prudhoe Bay is just to the west of ANWR, and has been producing oil for quite a long while.
Ozone depletion? What a load of horse manure.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:54 pmSheesh, as a friend of mine says “Stupid should hurt more”.
It turns out that Virginia has one of the largest uranium deposits known, but it can’t be exploited because of state law prohibiting uranium mining. Story here. As for stupidity, the story quotes an environmentalist:
“Jack Dunavant, head of the Southside Concerned Citizens in nearby Halifax County, is another outspoken critic. He paints a picture of environmental apocalypse. “There will be a dead zone within a 30 mile radius of the mine,” he says with a courtly drawl. “Nothing will grow. Animals will die. The radiation genetically alters tissue. Animals will not be able to reproduce. We’ll see malformed fetuses.””
Want to know why we have four dollar a gallon gasoline? Because of people as stupid as Dunavant. If stupidity hurt as much as it should, Dunavant would have a fatal dose.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:37 pmOops, the last line should not be in italics.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:38 pm