Would a lot of problems be solved?

[Guest Jay Z. Hollywood]

Minus the Israel/Palestine situation, I'm a neophyte when it comes to other political affairs.

 

Honestly, would life be a lot easier for the US as a whole if we drilled for oil in the fucking Alaska wildlife preseve?

 

It would

A) Dramatically lower gas prices

B) Not fund terrorism

C) Allow us to get the fuck out of the Middle East, openly support Israel and no longer tiptoe around pissing off our "allies" in Saudi Arabia, or whatever.

 

 

Personally, I think the good (ease pressure on the economy, save American lives) than the bad (preserving the "pristine wildernss" of a remote area of the planet.)

 

I realize I might be missing a ton of info about this issue, anyone else have an opinion or care to fill me in?

[MrRant 0]

I prefer to use up other countries resources whilst hoarding our own that when other countries resources have finally been exhausted we can move in for the kill.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

The only problme I see with drilling for oil n the ANWAR is that it will only provide a short term solution to a long term problem. From what I have read , the amount of oil up there is very miniscule. There is maybe about a six month supply up there, with tthe possibitly of a little bit more larger supply. But to me this won't solve our problems, just put it off for however long the oil last and then it is leads to us crawling back on our knees to the Middle East once again.

 

I think a better solutuion would be to raise fuel effficiency in all automobiles. If this happens then I feel we would all use less oil. This would help the situation. But, the auto industry is one of the most greediest inwdustries out there. This is the industry who said that putting seatbelts in all their cars that they make would bring their financial ruin. So I am not hloding my breath here, but there are so many better options than drilling for oil.

[Guest El Satanico]

Finding alternatives to oil is the only thing that will solve the problem.

[Guest EsotericMaster]

i thought we do drill oil in Alaska. don't we sell it to Japan?

[Firestarter 0]

Answer to original question:

 

Yes.

 

Answers to other questions brought up in the course of the thread:

 

Yes, we do drill oil in Alaska at present. We used to sell it to Japan, among other foreign countries (including China and South Korea), but this practice was stopped following recent mergers (B-P et al).

 

No, we do not drill oil in ANWR (Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge - there is no second A in the acronym) at present. Alaskans themselves, including their Senate representatives, overwhelmingly support drilling. The only people who oppose it are Congressional representatives hoping to pick up environmental credentials from so-called "green" lobbyists to aid them in future elections.

 

ANWR's total potential: DOE studies indicate a statistical mean of approximately 11 billion barrels of technically recoverable crude (maximum of about 42-50 billion, assuming advances in drilling and recovery technologies) and current consumption rates are approximately 20 million barrels per day with a 1.4% increase per year. Even at these rates ANWR's total reserves could supply the entire nation for a period of 2-5 years. Of course, transportation, deterioration, and storage problems mean that we would never be able to supply the entire nation through ANWR drilling, but it would enable us to drastically reduce our Persian Gulf imports (currently at 12.6% of domestic consumption) and thus reduce our dependency on OPEC.

 

Gas prices would not be reduced at all since flow rates &c indicate a maximum increase of 1.5% in the world's oil supply were ANWR to be opened to drilling.

 

So what's the answer? Shale extraction. Next generation technologies currently in development (estimated R&D time span is 5-10 years) have the projected ability to recover vast amounts of oil from federal lands in Tennessee, Wyoming, Colorado, and other midwestern states with minimal environmental impact. How much? More than twice the total that ever has or ever will come out of the Persian Gulf. Enough to supply the entire country for well over two and a half centuries at current consumption rates - which are projected to begin a steady and irreversible decline within 20-30 years as a result of alternative energy technologies.

 

So why drill in ANWR at all? To tide us over. Depending on our enemies for our energy is not smart, and whatever the media may say, I assure you that every country in the Persian Gulf and almost every country in OPEC is our enemy.

 

Despite what you may have been told, the cuddly caribou, the lovely little birdies, and the trillions of mosquitoes that call various parts of ANWR their home will not all die screaming in agony the instant a survey team picks a likely site. Section 1002, the only section which can be developed, is a mere 7% of ANWR's 19 million acres. Of that 7%, less than 2,000 acres would actually be used for drilling. Less than 0.001% of ANWR would be touched in any way at all, including pipelines. Read this paper from the Heritage Foundation for more information.

[Guest El Satanico]

Yes and why spend money on improving the technology for alternatives to oil when we can just spend billions on technology that will find more oil.

 

Yes...oil the renewable substance that will never run out...it's the answer.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Why do you assume, Marney, that we *want* to rely on oil for two and a half more centuries? Why not put that vast R&D money into renewable resources to almost completely rid ourselves of the black crack and help get rid of pollution in the process?

 

EDIT: Added "help" in front of "get rid of polution", because renewable energy isn't the only solution.

Edited August 26, 2003 by Tyler McClelland

[Justice 0]

Well, the biggest problem is the transition over it. We still have to have oil as we transition to Hydrogen or Electric or whatever because that will take years and years to do a complete switchover. Remember, this isn't an overnight thing. This will take at least a few decades, and I'll be that once OPEC catches on they'll really try to gouge us before they go down in flames. Best to have something to prevent that from happening. But whatever; I'd prefer better gas mileage on cars as well.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I agree, but why can't we help expedite that process by funneling some money into such programs? The sooner we make this technology economically feasible, the sooner we can start phasing gasoline engines off of our roads.

[EricMM 0]

On ANWR: The amount of oil there really does vary depending on who you ask. From enough to last 6 months to enough to last five years, it all depends on who you ask. Some people are afraid that drilling in ANWR will result in massive pollution, I don't think it would be that massive. The reason I'm so dead set against ANWR drilling is that it is a move in the wrong direction. Replace oil's role, not find more oil, that's my idea.

 

On shale oil: Yeah I agree, shale oil is a underappreciated resource. But I really don't want to see America become any more independant than it already is regarding fossil fuels. We already waste enough when we're importing, I can't imagine how much we would waste if we had our own resources to burn. And every drum of oil that's burned adds more CO2 to the atmosphere that hasn't been in the atmosphere since the age of the dinosaurs, when massive volcanos sents lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. Guess what, during the era of the dinos it was FUCKING HOT. The fossil fuel CO2 we put into the atmosphere is not part of the natural carbon cycle per se. If you burn wood, you can assume that carbon is put back into a new tree in a few years. Thats how these things work. But carbon in fossil fuel form has been sitting underground since an era where our atmosphere had far more carbon than we do now. And we're burning it so fast, there's no way the carbon cycle can keep up. I don't think alternate forms of Fossil Fuels are the real solution, but at least, at the very least, there will be no middle east strings attached.

 

Anyyways, regardless of where we get our oil, for now, the best way to use it is efficently. I daresay it would cost less than a few billion dollars to increase efficency in America. It doesn't cost THAT much to insulate a home and give it good windows. The kind of waste we see in New England and Florida is atrocious. If we just work to use less energy every day, all oil would last longer.

 

And I've got a hint for you: lowering the amount of heat that your house looses every day in the winter will NOT make you uncomfortable so don't give me this whiney anti-conservation nonsense. It would cost money. But in the long term, it would save money.

[NoCalMike 0]

the technology is at least START mildly getting off the liquid crack is there and ready to start using, however the almighty dollar sees fit for that to be halted every step of the way.