Gas Prices, ANWR, etc.....

[captainhampton]

I know very little about this, someone explain how they would fix the problem. What are the solutions? Also, do you support drilling in ANWR, if not, why?

[saysmydoctor]

No solutions and no drilling. This should really encourage to search for alternatives, not seek out quick fixes like crackaddicts.

[Burning Star IV]

The Canadian Government recent auctioned off parcels of ocean floor in the Beaufort Sea for oil exploration. It's only a matter of time before the American Government does the same.

[xmadeofstonex]

It's not a good solution, it's a temporary fix.

High gas prices are a good thing, they'll force innovation, change only happens when our nuts are in a vice.

[open mind]

drilling in ANWR would supply alot of decent jobs in my home state........but i'm still against it because it would encroach on the breeding grounds of the biggest caribou herds on the continent (which would in turn effect many native alaskans ability to subsist off the land), the oil companies have repeatedly shown they aren't very concerned about preventing spills (the pipeline recently spilled a couple hundred thousand gallons of oil on the tundra because nobody thought it would be a good idea to do simple maintenance work on it), most jobs it would create wouldn't go to alaskans (the ones that do would be on the low end of the totem pole) and it's a band aid approach to the energy crisis to begin with.
more efficient and widespread use of alternative energy is the way to go, and it's everyone's fault for not demanding it sooner (we all knew oil would become harder to come by, and that prices would rise well in advance).

[se1046]

I'm all for drilling in Alaska. It's definitely not a quick fix but in the long run it would bring down prices. This is also not going to happen, but building new oil refineries would help also. All in all though there is no way to fix this problem in a timely manner. Looking for an alternative is great though.

[open mind]

I'm all for drilling in Alaska. It's definitely not a quick fix but in the long run it would bring down prices. This is also not going to happen, but building new oil refineries would help also. All in all though there is no way to fix this problem in a timely manner. Looking for an alternative is great though.

there already is drilling in alaska.....there has been for decades.
looking for an alternative is the only choice we have in the long run.

[timchoke]

I'm for opening up ANWR, with sensitivity to the wildlife (and the people who depend on it).
However, I agree that it is only a temporary fix. But I think it will be helpful to lower gas costs (while simultaneously creating jobs in America) while alternatives, like sugarcane, are heavily researched. Please forget ethanol. It's an inefficient mean and we're only focused on it because of all the subsidies the US government is giving corn farmers.

Also, I think it's important to realize that the problem is maybe less the price of oil but rather the worthlessness of our dollar. Shore up the dollar, and gas prices won't seem nearly as high. Just sayin'...

[Machu505]

Alternative means are the only answers. No drilling.

Also, no ethanol. It's not a practical alternative fuel.

[GiggsOho]

Drilling an ANWR is a complete waste. The oil hits the open global market, we don't get to horde it for our own use. I can't believe people actually think this is a viable option. Alternative options is the ONLY answer.


Also, could someone please show me something that says Ethanol is not a viable option? Not trying to be difficult, I just want to read up on it.

[asmolitor]

there's only around 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR as per average estimates, and it'd take 10+ years to reap the benefits if drilling started today.

whereas if you're still predisposed to domestic drilling as a bandaid for oil problems... north dakota, by recent (and grossly overestimated) research, could have up to 400 billion barrels. and well, i don't think there are exactly the same wildlife/natives concerns that alaska has.

[Machu505]

Drilling an ANWR is a complete waste. The oil hits the open global market, we don't get to horde it for our own use. I can't believe people actually think this is a viable option. Alternative options is the ONLY answer.


Also, could someone please show me something that says Ethanol is not a viable option? Not trying to be difficult, I just want to read up on it.

It takes about a gallon and a half of gas to make a gallon of ethanol, so...

[GiggsOho]

It takes about a gallon and a half of gas to make a gallon of ethanol, so...

Link me to something.

[Machu505]

Link me to something.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April06/Features/Ethanol.htm

http://www.livescience.com/environment/071027-ap-biofuel-crime.html

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=7216688&story_id=10252015

[GiggsOho]

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April06/Features/Ethanol.htm

http://www.livescience.com/environment/071027-ap-biofuel-crime.html

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=7216688&story_id=10252015



Thanks.


I knew there was backing behind it, I just wanted to read it in order to grasp the full extent of why Ethanol isn't practical. That's insane that 510 pounds of corn only make a half tank of Ethanol, yet could feed a kid for a year.


Even more interesting was an article linked to the second one: http://www.livescience.com/environment/top10_emergingenvironment_technolog ies-1.html

The ocean holds solar energy that is the thermal energy equivalent of 250 billion barrels of oil?!?! Are you kidding me? That's where the alternative energy needs to come from.

[DannySniper]

I know very little about this, someone explain how they would fix the problem. What are the solutions? Also, do you support drilling in ANWR, if not, why?

Don't move to Australia.

We're currently paying approx. $1.65USD for a litre of petrol (gas) here.

If my calculations are correct (they might not be, your system confuses me) this equates to me paying about $6.25USD for a 'gallon of gas'.

Its outrageous, as it pushes the price of all other commodities up. I can't afford to live anymore.

[se1046]

there's only around 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR as per average estimates, and it'd take 10+ years to reap the benefits if drilling started today.

whereas if you're still predisposed to domestic drilling as a bandaid for oil problems... north dakota, by recent (and grossly overestimated) research, could have up to 400 billion barrels. and well, i don't think there are exactly the same wildlife/natives concerns that alaska has.

lets drill alaska and north dakota!

[Machu505]

lets drill alaska and north dakota!

Let's not!

[wesgemm08]

Let prices keep rising so people are forced to seriously look at alternatives in the near future.

[Burning Star IV]

This is a transcript from a radio station in the Yukon, just to give some perspective and add to the discussion.

The US president is asking Congress to lift a ban on offshore oil drilling and approve oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. George W. Bush told Congress they’ll have to explain to voters why they’re paying a dollar a litre for gasoline if they don’t but the chief of a northern Yukon first nation who’s paying more than $2.00 a litre says bush is barking up the wrong tree. (Brian Boyle) If chief Joe Linklater wants to put fuel in his snowmobile he’ll be paying $2.06 a litre. George Bush told the US Congress this morning that fuel prices will come down if they approve drilling in ANWR and allow off shore oil exploration. Linklater isn’t buying that argument. (Linklater) “If they were to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for example, it would take 10 years to get that oil to market and then it would only affect gas prices by one or two cents.” Linklater says his people depend on the caribou that use the arctic refuge as a calving grounds. He says he’s willing to pay the going rate for fuel and doesn’t believe putting the caribou at risk from oil drilling will bring any savings at the pump.” Linklater has spent years lobbying politicians in the US to protect the caribou from oil development. He doesn’t think Bush’s plan is going to fly although he admits some politicians will feel obligated to back Bush. (Linklater) “I don’t think it’s going to get a lot of support other than from senators who depend heavily on oil and gas money to fund their campaign.” Linklater says his first nation will continue to fight any initiative to drill in the refuge.

[se1046]

This is a transcript from a radio station in the Yukon, just to give some perspective and add to the discussion.

So what you're saying is... Bill Clinton could have done this 10 years ago and we wouldn't be having these issues?

[Jason Tate]

So what you're saying is... Bill Clinton could have done this 10 years ago and we wouldn't be having these issues?
No, what he's saying is Bill Clinton could have done this 10 years ago and we'd have $4.65 a gallon instead of $4.67. Read.

[Machu505]

Anyone who thinks we should drill there is not smart.

[se1046]

Anyone who thinks we should drill there is not smart.

We need oil refineries not more oil.

[open mind]

We need oil refineries not more oil.

we need renewable alternative energy solutions that are more ecologically friendly.
increasing oil supplies is a poor and short sighted solution that ignores the effects our oil consumption has on the climate.

[asmolitor]

lets drill alaska and north dakota!
So what you're saying is... Bill Clinton could have done this 10 years ago and we wouldn't be having these issues?
We need oil refineries not more oil.

0 for 3. and that's just THIS thread.

1) by the time drilling could start in either location, we'd be fairly close to 2020. by then, i'm almost positive we'll have some sort of alternative energy.
2) sure bill clinton, could've given approval for ANWR drilling in say, 1998, but he also would've had to sign a mandate that capped india and china's population and economic growth.
3) more oil refineries, but not more oil? one would think that the purpose of the former is the latter.

[se1046]

0 for 3. and that's just THIS thread.

1) by the time drilling could start in either location, we'd be fairly close to 2020. by then, i'm almost positive we'll have some sort of alternative energy.
2) sure bill clinton, could've given approval for ANWR drilling in say, 1998, but he also would've had to sign a mandate that capped india and china's population and economic growth.
3) more oil refineries, but not more oil? one would think that the purpose of the former is the latter.

Was joking about drilling in alaska and north dakota. Should have read where I said finding alternatives would be very useful. As for more oil refineries... that's definitely needed.

[shit stroll]

this keeps getting better and better. you are for more oil refineries, yet you're for less oil? what the fuck.

[asmolitor]

Was joking about drilling in alaska and north dakota. Should have read where I said finding alternatives would be very useful. As for more oil refineries... that's definitely needed.

fine, but when that statement comes after the assertion that drilling in alaska would bring down prices it's more of an afterthought for you anyway. but if you want to hang your hat on "Looking for an alternative is great though." be my guest. plus, i'd love to see more on that wonderful paradox you've created of wanting oil refineries but not oil.

[saysmydoctor]

We need oil refineries not more oil.
:facepalm:

Yes, let's waste money on oil refineries when there is no oil in the market. You know shit about supply and demand.

[BlinkinDuke]

:facepalm:

Yes, let's waste money on oil refineries when there is no oil in the market. You know shit about supply and demand.

Well thats assuming we've already hit peak oil which most oil experts have agreed hasn't happened yet (coming in the next 2-7 years but still hasn't happened yet).

[Justin_stacy]

Its insane how outdated our energy policies are in this country. To have 75% of our reserves off limits to exploration is ridiculous. Environmentalists are more then welcome to have their religion, but the disproportionate influence they have over national policy has to be regined in on, particularly when the issue is so important to nation security (where is the demand for 'separation of church and state'?).

Oil is going to be needed for at least another 50 years if not longer, and all the wishing and whining and fear mongering by certain groups isn't going to change that. Blocking exploration on the Pacific shelf, in Alaska, and the Gulf (where China is currently drilling) is hurting Americans in the long run. We also have to open the Dakotas which have some of the largest, and deepest, reserves in the Nation.

Being energy independent shouldn't take a second fiddle to unready Alternative technology. But that isn't to say Alternatives should be put on the back burner, either. We can do both, we can drill and build refiners, become energy secure, all the while expanding the usage of Nuclear power, wind, sun, hydrogen, and ethanol....none of which are to the point today to sustain us at our current needs and at an appropriate cost.

[open mind]

Its insane how outdated our energy policies are in this country. To have 75% of our reserves off limits to exploration is ridiculous. Environmentalists are more then welcome to have their religion, but the disproportionate influence they have over national policy has to be regined in on, particularly when the issue is so important to nation security (where is the demand for 'separation of church and state'?).

Oil is going to be needed for at least another 50 years if not longer, and all the wishing and whining and fear mongering by certain groups isn't going to change that. Blocking exploration on the Pacific shelf, in Alaska, and the Gulf (where China is currently drilling) is hurting Americans in the long run. We also have to open the Dakotas which have some of the largest, and deepest, reserves in the Nation.

Being energy independent shouldn't take a second fiddle to unready Alternative technology. But that isn't to say Alternatives should be put on the back burner, either. We can do both, we can drill and build refiners, become energy secure, all the while expanding the usage of Nuclear power, wind, sun, hydrogen, and ethanol....none of which are to the point today to sustain us at our current needs and at an appropriate cost.

enviormentalism is not a religion.
i say fuck opening ANWR now that the supreme court has shown the oil companies they'll get off with a slap on the wrist for causing major spills that alaska is still feeling the effects of nearly 2 decades later.
the longer we take a "let's do both approach" the longer the oil companies and their partners will stall and/or kill alternative energies.

[Justin_stacy]

Environmentalist 'movement' has long since been turned into a religion or cult.

The longer we standing behind a policy of pretending alternative source are ready, the longer we fuck ourselves. All it will take is one blip in the Middle East, Asia or South America and our country effectively shuts down, all because we're more preoccupied with wishing then facing up to reality. Finding a way to be energy independent should be our primary focus and for now that includes some level of drilling for oil.

[BlinkinDuke]

Dude, we already hit peak oil. More drilling isn't really going to help. Alternative sources get very little funding which is really fucked up since they are going to be depended on in 20 years. I don't think anyone with a brain is pretending that alternative sources are ready either. There's a number of companies making ground but haven't really gotten the funding to do it. And if they do get funding (like the hydrogen fuel cell) then unrealistic expectations cause the companies to lose that funding.

Also, there's better places to drill for oil than ANWR that won't disrupt an entire ecosystem

[open mind]

Environmentalist 'movement' has long since been turned into a religion or cult.

The longer we standing behind a policy of pretending alternative source are ready, the longer we fuck ourselves. All it will take is one blip in the Middle East, Asia or South America and our country effectively shuts down, all because we're more preoccupied with wishing then facing up to reality. Finding a way to be energy independent should be our primary focus and for now that includes some level of drilling for oil.


please elaborate.
the electric car was ready, but that was effectively killed in recent years.
we can't totally cut off oil consumption at this point, but there is plenty we can do to greatly decrease it and our dependence on it right now.

[BlinkinDuke]

Well, we can't really cut our dependence on oil that much at this point and just about everything relies on oil to be made. Food, computers, cars (not just gas), using the internet, electricity, and a whole bunch of other shit is all tied into oil.

[kwsqd]

Dude, we already hit peak oil. More drilling isn't really going to help. Alternative sources get very little funding which is really fucked up since they are going to be depended on in 20 years. I don't think anyone with a brain is pretending that alternative sources are ready either. There's a number of companies making ground but haven't really gotten the funding to do it. And if they do get funding (like the hydrogen fuel cell) then unrealistic expectations cause the companies to lose that funding.

Also, there's better places to drill for oil than ANWR that won't disrupt an entire ecosystem

we have not hit peak oil.

[Burning Star IV]

It's going to hard to find somewhere to extract oil without pissing some one off, but ANWR and the Beaufort are too sensitive. Large population of Chinook Salmon are disappearing from the Yukon River and its tributaries. Extensive oil extraction will surely cause an even more drastic reduction in numbers in salmon, but also in the caribou. Many First Nation group rely exclusively on these two source for food reserves, and I think we've screwed them over enough.

There are a few places that will undergo extensive oil exploration very soon, such as the Mackenzie River Delta, which is believed to contain mass amounts of oil, coal, and natural gas. Plus, the tar sands in northern Alberta is producing, at a 10% recovery rate, 170 billion barrels total. More efficient technology that could increase the rate of recovery in a place like the Alberta tar sands could be the answer until oil is no longer an ecnomic commodity.

[open mind]

Well, we can't really cut our dependence on oil that much at this point and just about everything relies on oil to be made. Food, computers, cars (not just gas), using the internet, electricity, and a whole bunch of other shit is all tied into oil.

yes we can.
the coal, solar, wind, hydro-electric, and nuclear technology we have right now could greatly reduce the amount of our oil consumption if implemented on a widescale in different combinations by making the most oil hungry of our appliances, cars, and machinery less oil dependent........you could argue that they would be expensive to implement and we'd all have to eventually upgrade when technology advances further anyways.......but in the long term (with oil prices being what they are and are going to be) we'd all end up saving money.

[BlinkinDuke]

we have not hit peak oil.

United States hit peak oil back in the '70s. And we can't just drill in any damn country, so yes, we have hit peak oil. The world has arguably hit peak oil. Not enough information to really know for sure but if the world hasn't it yet, its coming in the next 5-10 years

yes we can.
the coal, solar, wind, hydro-electric, and nuclear technology we have right now could greatly reduce the amount of our oil consumption if implemented on a widescale in different combinations by making the most oil hungry of our appliances, cars, and machinery less oil efficient........you could argue that they would be expensive to implement and we'd all have to eventually upgrade when technology advances further anyways.......but in the long term (with oil prices being what they are and are going to be) we'd all end up saving money.

You don't realize how rooted into society oil is and how overly optimistic your views of alternative energy are too, I mean, its my fucking job to know this stuff

We've arguably hit peak coal
Solar and wind are both terribly inefficient and we haven't come up with a power grid for areas when there is no sun or wind
Nuclear energy only exists because of oil and without oil, there would be no nuclear energy (not to mention nuclear energy is still in its infant stages)

[thesecondplace]

Also, could someone please show me something that says Ethanol is not a viable option? Not trying to be difficult, I just want to read up on it.

Look no further than the price of corn today compared to last year and the year before. Drastic increases in such a vital commodity have a far reaching impact around the world, much like the rise in crude oil.

While I'm not against drilling in ANWR, I don't think it should be used as (or could even) a fix to our current pump problems.

Hydrogen on a small scale. Nuclear on a large scale. I think this would be ideal.

[open mind]

You don't realize how rooted into society oil is and how overly optimistic your views of alternative energy are too, I mean, its my fucking job to know this stuff

We've arguably hit peak coal
Solar and wind are both terribly inefficient and we haven't come up with a power grid for areas when there is no sun or wind
Nuclear energy only exists because of oil and without oil, there would be no nuclear energy (not to mention nuclear energy is still in its infant stages)

i do realize how dependent on oil we are, i also realize there is much we can do right now to decrease that dependence.........i'm not saying we can totally stop oil consumption with the technology we now have, just that we can certainly lessen it to a great degree.
how have we arguably hit peak coal? i know we've got huge reserves of the stuff that isn't being mined as fast as it could be.

[Justin_stacy]

Dude, we already hit peak oil. More drilling isn't really going to help. Alternative sources get very little funding which is really fucked up since they are going to be depended on in 20 years. I don't think anyone with a brain is pretending that alternative sources are ready either. There's a number of companies making ground but haven't really gotten the funding to do it. And if they do get funding (like the hydrogen fuel cell) then unrealistic expectations cause the companies to lose that funding.

Also, there's better places to drill for oil than ANWR that won't disrupt an entire ecosystem

'Disrupt an entire ecosystem,' that's a pretty sleazy attempt a scare tactic. No matter where one drills for oil, or any other resource, nature is going to be touched. Platforms don't float, and oil doesn't pump itself. So the surrounding area is going to have some impact, that is just the nature of the beast. But we have the technology and the know how to do it in reasonable manner limiting the scope of the impact. With ANWR as an example only 2,000 of the 19 million acres would see any involvement from the oil industry, or less then .01% of the land. There also isn't any particularly 'better' place to drill. The type of slant drilling that will be needed in the Dakota's, for instance, will take a much larger "footprint" to get done and will use less refined and developed technology.

As for the first part, whether or not we've hit our peak, or are cresting, or are leveling off in our need for oil, the world is not. Reasonable estimate say the need for oil will rise by 1/3 by 2030 and prices will climb to $200 a barrel by the end of this decade. Regardless of what one wants to believe, even with sharp cuts in usage, oil is going to be the corner stone of our energy needs for at least another generation, if not longer, which means there is an important need to make sure we have some access to the substance to fend off from the 'drought' that is certainly coming. That is why we have to start the efforts to drilling now, waiting does nothing and will only prolong the problem. Energy is too important to our economy and security to leave in the hands of foreign bodies. We are beyond the point where domestic drilling can lower prices, Clinton's pandering saw to that, but it still has the potential to be a back up plan while we work on the 'alternative' ideas that aren't ready to serve us.

[open mind]

'Disrupt an entire ecosystem,' that's a pretty sleazy attempt a scare tactic. No matter where one drills for oil, or any other resource, nature is going to be touched. Platforms don't float, and oil doesn't pump itself. So the surrounding area is going to have some impact, that is just the nature of the beast. But we have the technology and the know how to do it in reasonable manner limiting the scope of the impact. With ANWR as an example only 2,000 of the 19 million acres would see any involvement from the oil industry, or less then .01% of the land. There also isn't any particularly 'better' place to drill. The type of slant drilling that will be needed in the Dakota's, for instance, will take a much larger "footprint" to get done and will use less refined and developed technology.


just because we have the technology doesn't mean the oil companies will put it to use........we recently had a huge spill on the tundra along the pipeline here because the geniuses running the oil companies didn't think it would be a good idea to keep an eye on pipe erosion........factor in the recent decision to let exxon virtually get off for the gross neglect that led to the exxon valdez oil spill, and there's no reason to have any faith in the oil companies working in alaska because they now know that they don't have to really pay for their mistakes.
to say drilling ANWR would affect so little of the land requires overlooking all the service roads and camps that will need to be built to run and (if history is a good measure) poorly maintain facilities........never mind the fact that your estimate of the land companies want to drill on is insanely low, i mean get real, just because the debate is centered on a small part of ANWR doesn't mean that the oil companies don't want to drill in more of it.

[WakeUpBlondie]

I would be willing to endanger animals to save money

[open mind]

I would be willing to endanger animals to save money

it's not just animals that would be affected...there are people (and not just the people in the nearby area) who've been living off the animals that reproduce there for thousands of years.

[WakeUpBlondie]

it's not just animals that would be affected...there are people (and not just the people in the nearby area) who've been living off the animals that reproduce there for thousands of years.

Ha I was sarcastic. I heard that the oil in Alaska will only provide us with gas for 1-3 years-ish, which isn't worth screwing the enviorment up

[shit stroll]

I would be willing to endanger animals to save money
i wouldn't.

[Fallinto_rhythm]

Alternative means are the only answers. No drilling.

Also, no ethanol. It's not a practical alternative fuel.

I personally think using ethanol is horrible idea. It would start and cause more problems. So you're right its not practical.

[youkwalks]

good news, the saudi's plan to start drilling an untapped oil field. Should help a little bit.

[GiggsOho]

http://www.pickensplan.com/media/


T. Boone Pickens, an oil tycoon, with an interesting proposal.

[saysmydoctor]

good news, the saudi's plan to start drilling an untapped oil field. Should help a little bit.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, the Saudis, who are making bank off our crisis, drilling just a bit more...definitely will help...ahahahaha

[AnarchyintheUS]

Solution:

http://www.gearlog.com/images/HL2Gravgun.jpg


:-)