Users who Dugg This
bobosmitor
5469 Followers
bobosmitor
5469 Followers
Jan in Colorado
7723 Followers
Jan in Colorado
7723 Followers
cute lil princess
104 Followers
cute lil princess
104 Followers
James Lowell
4253 Followers
bille3Jul 22, 2010
We have not cut back on oil consumption fast enough. Now they will simply end the production through the courts. Close as many offshore wells as possible with the moratorium and prevent any new development. Bingo! we are out of oil.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ninhJul 22, 2010
You're not out of oil, you just get to pay the Arabs more money for theirs.
bille3Jul 22, 2010
We will not be using domestic oil supplies.
Using imported oil from our enemies seems to be far more acceptable to people.
dromniJul 22, 2010
As a non-American, I am curious: what is the usefulness of Alaska if you can't drill the s**t out of it?
Are you planning to sell it back to the Russians, or something like that?
realcoolguy9022Jul 22, 2010
gotta finance extreme deficit spending somehow!
elisevilleJul 22, 2010
Drilling hardly pays the federal government anything like the worth of their take - much less the environmental destruction that will someday cost us trillions to attempt to repair.
realcoolguy9022Jul 22, 2010
Keep drinking that green kool-aide
spinningheadJul 22, 2010
Ah, facts = kool-aid. This is why we cant have nice things.
realcoolguy9022Jul 22, 2010
Doing anything = not green. THIS is why we can't have nice things. Between the carbon nazis and the drilling fear-mongers I'd be surprised is America survives the coming energy crunch.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
askantikJul 22, 2010
All the oil in ANWR, off-shore, and in the ground in the US combined doesn't add up to s**t. And land doesn't have to be "useful" economically in order to be preserved.
timthetaxmanJul 22, 2010
Think of the caribou that might see it! Could you imagine having to look at in oil dike in your backyard?
Seriously though, no one even goes there and most Alaskans are pro drilling. Some elite thinks they know what best for everyone though.
If we don’t get oil from Alaska, than we will have to import it from other people who will drill for it.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
captininsanityJul 22, 2010
Drilling in Alaska is just fine if we don't have drunk driving oil tanker captains and regulators that can be bribed with meth and hookers.
timthetaxmanJul 22, 2010
@captininsanity
That argument might hold water if the other counties they we will be importing the oil from instead were not even worse.
captininsanityJul 22, 2010
Actually I'm not arguing against drilling in Alaska. It's reasonably safe under proper regulation, and way better than deepwater drilling. We need to clean up our regulatory committees. This ban makes no sense.
bunkybunk242Jul 22, 2010
It's some of the last untouched wilderness in the United States. The impact on local wildlife could be disasterous. Besides drilling platforms, any attempt to exploit the minor oil reserves of ANWAR would require an immense support network of pipeline, service roads, airports, housing and other infestructure. Aside from that, there is the risk of an oil spill, which would be catastrophic. The impact on global oil prices would be negligable. Even if the oil reserves were beyond our highest estimates, OPEC would simply reduce the amount of oil it exports to keep the prices high.
You should also read this report by the US Energy Information Administration for more information.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/
TL;DR: Drilling in ANWR is not worth it
timthetaxmanJul 22, 2010
Do you even know anyone that has been to ANWR or is ever planning to go? Even the native Alaskans who are in the areas are pro-drilling. They are quite poor and could use the work.
Further, if we don’t drill here, they will just drill elsewhere for the oil. Wouldn’t you rather it be in the United States where environmental group can keep an eye on them? Not to mention, it would help with the trade deficient.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bunkybunk242Jul 22, 2010
No, I don't know anyone who has been to ANWR or is planning to go. Despite that, I would like to be able to someday visit that place without having to see pipeline, trucks and tons of oil company employees.
The Alaskan Inter-Tribal Council, which represents 229 tribes in Alaska, officially opposes the development of ANWR because it will threaten the enviornment that their livelihoods depend on, specifically the Caribou herds (You can read the resolution they passed here: http://aitc.org/sites/default/files/AITC%20Resolution%202009-02-26.pdf).
It is unlikely that the development of ANWR will provide many jobs to the indeginous population, seeing as drilling for oil in remote and dangerous locations requires advanced training, certification and years of experience, which I doubt the tribesman of Alaska have been able to aquire in their very remote villages.
They can drill elsewhere, there is oil in the United States that is not within the confines of an isolated Wildlife Reserve in northern Alaska. The government (and I believe most Americans) has ackowleged the need to reduce our dependence on oil, now is not the time to destroy one of the few places relativly untouched by pollution to get more of it.
timthetaxmanJul 23, 2010
@bunkybunk242
When I said natives, I meant both the Native American population and permanent state residents.
Even the Native Americans are split. The ones that are closer to it tend to support it.
Here is a quote from National Geographic.
“In Alaska most residents like living in an oil-enriched state, which, in lieu of levying an income tax, rewards each individual with an annual dividend from oil-lease revenues (last year's dividend came in at $1,964 per resident). Along with their governor, legislature, and congressional delegation, Alaskans for the most part are in favor of opening the 1002. Oil is a big employer in the 49th state.
The Native American community in Alaska, however, is deeply divided. South of the Brooks Range, in such places as Arctic Village and Venetie, the Gwich'in Indians view development of the coastal plain as a threat to the caribou herd that supplies them with much of their protein. Subsistence hunters from these and Athapaskan villages in Canada kill and use some 3,000 to 5,000 caribou every year. They view the coastal plain as sacred ground.
But north of the mountains, many Inupiat Eskimos in Kaktovik on Barter Island favor onshore oil leasing for the economic opportunities it might bring them—especially if oil is found on their coastal land. Inupiat subsist on caribou too, but they also have access to marine mammals such as seals and bowhead whales. The Inupiat view their offshore waters as sacred and oppose drilling there.”
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/08/01/html/ft_20010801.3.html
This is the whole problem with the idea of public land. No one can agree how to best use it. It it were privately owned, that matter would be settled one way or the other.
bunkybunk242Jul 23, 2010
I will accept that there is some division within the Native American community over the drilling, but I don't really think that matters (I believe that the financial dividend the state pays it's residents to allow companies to pillage it's natural resources taints the argument up there). Even if all of them wanted to drill in ANWR, it would still be a huge long-term mistake which could not be undone.
There idea of public land is a fantastic one. If the government didn't preserve this land, corporations would destroy it. President Theodore Roosevelt (a huge badass and leader of the early conservation movement) said it best:
"Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."
There are beautiful and wild places left in the world, we shouldn't bulldoze them just to get to something that is slowly killing the planet.
spinningheadJul 22, 2010
Whats the usefulness of Yellowstone if you cant make it a giant self-heated shopping mall?
bunkybunk242Jul 22, 2010
The Grand Canyon could be the most badass waterpark/textile mill ever!
spinningheadJul 22, 2010
I thought the Grand Canyon already was a water park.
dawnrunsamokJul 23, 2010
As an Alaskan, I'm curious, what is the usefulness of your home?
As for Alaska it is home to a large number of Native Alaskan tribes, to many generations of settlers, including my family. It is also beautiful beyond description, summer or winter, with a menagerie of wildlife.
And people do live "up there", they have for thousands of years. Also, Alaskans are split down the middle on the subject of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Please remember that, it is a wildlife refuge, the last 10% of a coastal habitat that is home to many species of life, and is also the breeding ground for the vast Caribou herd.
Many feel that with a spill occurring on the North Slope every day (yes, every day) that we should take every precaution possible before drilling, if at all. This ban was put in place because said precautions, and the environmental impact studies were not adequate.
Many people seem to feel that Alaska is America's great oil patch. And that due to its remoteness it's acceptable to squeeze every drop of oil, gas and gold from Her rich land. But we feel that Alaska is home, and also a jewel of America that is worth protecting.
realcoolguy9022Jul 22, 2010
They should build a solar panel array up there. /greentards
neutron7Jul 22, 2010
Keep on breeding and driving SUVs
/greedtards
twinklyjesusJul 22, 2010
LOL 50% of the year it's dusk 24 hours a day.
realcoolguy9022Jul 22, 2010
The way some of these activists talk they make it sound like it's literally going to be in their back yard.
breadfredJul 22, 2010
Twinkly, do you really believe that it is dusk for 182 and a half days continuously? Granted, there are less hours daylight than closer to the equator. And, it is overcast 3/4 of the time it is light.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
twinklyjesusJul 22, 2010
breadfred: yup, that pretty much covers it.
neutron7Jul 22, 2010
Looks like with all the BP kerfuffle the OIL companies forgot to bribe someone.
superkendallJul 22, 2010
This is so stupid. Every other country on earth is gearing up drilling to reduce dependance on foreign oil until alternative energy is affordable, we are the only people on the planet who are willing to let ourselves be put over a barrel and let other people control how much we pay for oil.
And on top of that it's irresponsible to the environment, since we'll be buying oil from places that care exactly zero about the side effects of drilling. What we drill for here we can monitor and contain problems..
spinningheadJul 22, 2010
Huh? We are the only first world country that isn't on a renewable construction binge. Look at the UK. We cant lower the price by drilling an ANWR and, even in we could, that just raises consumption. We have to break the cycle.
veggieslaveJul 22, 2010
Fact: Exxon. BP. Next?
luke1h7Jul 22, 2010
So there is hope after all. Not everyone in the government is crazy (like the guy in New Orleans who overturned the moratorium on deep sea drilling LOL).
phramusJul 22, 2010
I'm all for environmental protection ... it's important. But seriously, do we need to waste time, money, and probably some brain cells documenting "possible effects" and disgruntled animals? We know already that s**t happens. What we want now is a well-constructed plan to mitigate the effects of s**t happening and possibly even a plan to keep s**t from happening.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
twinklyjesusJul 22, 2010
Ah, Judicial Activism, going where the voter fears to tread, since 1967.
s73v3rJul 22, 2010
Why is it only "Judicial Activism" when the outcome tends to be liberal, but its "Following the Will of the People" when the outcome tends to be conservative?
twinklyjesusJul 22, 2010
It's not. It's when a judge makes a ruling when there's not a case presented regarding the issue. And, usually it is a liberal judge that makes these type rulings. Conservative judges confine themselves to issues in place in their courts and not on any issue that happens to pop up in the news,Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
s73v3rJul 22, 2010
That makes absolutely no sense. The judge wouldn't be able to make such a ruling without a case.
captininsanityJul 22, 2010
America: Fighting good ideas, then reluctantly implementing them in a way that makes no sense for anyone.
How it works
Party A: Lets do this!
Party B: NO!
Party A: How about a compromise?
Party B: Only if we write the terms.
Random corporation: Do it this way, it will drive up profits.
Party B: Ok we'll be nice this time, we'll vote for your bill we wrote.
Party A: Ok fine.
Closed AccountJul 22, 2010
God I'm really starting to hate our government. The energy policies we have are going to lead us to have to conquer foreign oil outright within my lifetime if we don't make a radical discoveries in terms of nuclear fusion or perhaps off planet solar collection.
s73v3rJul 22, 2010
You know the domestic oil in the US adds up to about dick with our current consumption levels, right? If you want domestically produced energy, then you need to start promoting Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, and Nuclear.
stormkrowJul 22, 2010
Let's clear up a few misconceptions and lies here. Here are the facts:
An Oil company BUYS an oil lease from the US or the State, offshore/onshore doesn't make a difference.
Once the oil company gets a producing well on said lease they can then sell that oil on the open market to ANYONE mostly whoever is willing to pay more.
If said well is damaged and spills oil it destroys AMERICAN land even though we NEVER got to use that oil.
FACT:
Only 19% of the oil from BP Gulf Oil well would have ever reached American markets.
FACT:
Nigeria/Cameroon/Gabon all have 60/40 splits with oil companies where the African nation gets 60% of the profits and/or oil as they choose.
10lbhammerJul 22, 2010
not sure who's burying you, but whoever it is is f**king retarded.
spinningheadJul 22, 2010
People who prefer to keep blissfully driving their Suburbans to the mall without having to consider facts that may lead them to change their behavior.
erkokiteJul 22, 2010
For all those bitching, oil reserves in Alaska are smaller than you think. Production would likely not be able to start until 2018, and even then, at peak production rates, it would only be able to produce about 5% of daily usage. It would not affect world oil prices either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy#Department_of_Energy_projections_and_estimates
So it might help a tiny bit, but it certainly isn't enough to make us even close to dependent on foreign oil. And this comes at a cost of spoiling a pristine natural area. I mean for the price you pay, you're not getting a whole lot. You're gonna have to move to nuclear and renewables at some point in the future anyway.
pw378Jul 22, 2010
Well the poor unemployed people in Alaska thank you for your concerns, but ask you to f**k off and let them decide what is best for their State. Let Californians decide for California, and let Alaskans decide for Alaska. The f**king arrogance is amazing.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rentalcanoeJul 22, 2010
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
http://www.anwr.org/gallery/images/55-Permanent_wilderness.jpg
pw378Jul 22, 2010
Seriously, photo-shopped.
If you've been up there, and I have, you'd probably commit suicide from all the damned black flies, mosquitoes, and other bugs that will shed a man to pieces in a few hours. I'm not saying that is a reason to drill or not, just a fact. Its very beautiful, and absolutely huge... an entire oil drilling operation takes up as much space in anwr as a gnat on the ass of an elephant.
dawnrunsamokJul 23, 2010
I'm Alaskan, and have spent time up in the Refuge living with the Gwich'in. As with the rest of Alaska, you do as they do, you adapt. Besides, the bugs are worse in Florida than on the Tundra.
Okay, you're right, just poking a little fun at you, sorry. The bugs really are pretty thick in summer.
However the point I'd like to make is this: however small a drilling operation is, there is always a spill. Always. Just as it is on the Slope. And it just shouldn't matter how big or small the rig is. The land in question is a designated Wildlife Refuge. It's only 10% of the North Coast, and deserves to be protected.
Would you agree to a drilling platform in a wildlife refuge in your home?
(I'm not trying to pick a fight, just a civil conversation. Few Diggers I've encountered have actually been to the Refuge, and I'm interested in your opinion. Thx)
cyber2uallJul 22, 2010
The judge didn't get his suitcase full of money yet. Not to worry, drilling will begin shortly.
pw378Jul 22, 2010
or already got his suitcase of cash from the Sierra club and other environmental groups.
mnocketJul 23, 2010
It will be fun to watch the change in attitudes if we return to oil shortages and gas lines like we had in the 70's.
dawnrunsamokJul 23, 2010
As an Alaskan, I'd just like to say that people do live "up there", they are called the Gwich'in and have lived above or near the Arctic Circle for thousands of years; they depend on the land for a large part of their subsistence. It is not barren, rather the Tundra is home to an abundance of life, both in winter and summer. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwich%E2%80%99in ) Like the general population of AK, the Gwich'in are also split on the question of drilling, and it can be argued that they have the most to lose.
As I said, Alaskans are split down the middle on the subject of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Please remember that ANWR is a wildlife refuge, it's the last 10% of a coastal habitat that is home to many species of life, and is also the breeding ground for the vast Porcupine Caribou herd. Much of the rest of the Northern Coast has already been given over for drilling or drilling exploration.
And many feel that with a spill occurring on the North Slope every day, (yes, every day) that we should take every precaution possible before drilling, if at all. This ban was put in place because said precautions, and the environmental impact studies were not adequate.
Some people seem to believe that Alaska is America's great oil patch. And that due to its remoteness it's acceptable to squeeze every drop of oil, gas and gold from Her rich land. But we feel that Alaska is home, and also a jewel of America that is worth protecting.
addiktionJul 23, 2010
I'm not really an advocate for oil although I can't deny its been a major factor in the advancement of mankind over the last 125-150 years. But I think we should put pressure on other innovators to come out with something better. It's going to take awhile until green energy meets the same demands and low cost we are used too but its bound to accelerate as more Chinese and growing 3rd-world populations move to Hydrocarbon fuels. In my opinion I think this will be enough to spark the down slide of oil reserves and spark the prices to increase, thus eventually meeting green energy at a crossing point. I think there will have to be more than one solution than just one sole medium of energy. Perhaps even Nuclear Energy will be required as wind, solar, and geothermal still have a ways to go. Either way I'm happy to see these green technologies slowly growing and the wildlife habitat preserved in Alaska so there is no chance of a repeat like the gulf of Mexico.