TTORA Forum banner

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge open for drilling

5772 Views 97 Replies 19 Participants Last post by  AK98Taco
Surprised no-one has commented on this yet. A 51-49 vote made it official that the U.S. government intends to exploit the natural resources of ANWR. I wouldn't be surprised if the threat of the U.S. becoming less dependant on foreign oil gets OPEC to reduce oil prices. Being both an environmentally conscious outdoor enthusiast, and an exploration geologist, I have mixed feelings about it, but overall, I'm glad this is happening. To learn more follow this link:
1 - 20 of 98 Posts
It is only a step in a long proccess. I wouldn't get to excited, I have a feeling tat the battle is just begining. Like the energy crisis in the 70's that facilitated the TAPS and the production of Prudhoe, this is completely a demand issue. It will happen when the deamnd dictates.
It is stupid not to use a resource. It's like someone who dies with a million dollars stuffed in their mattress. If you want an alternative produce it. Othewise we have to deal with the system and infrastructure we have.
Ursidae69 said:
Anyone that knows me can already guess how I feel about this. I'll just add my 2 cents. :D

First Economics:
The notion that opening ANWR will reduce our dependence on foreign oil is just political hogwash designed to make you believe it’s your patriotic duty to drill. Fact is, Chevron and other large oil companies will own that oil, and that oil will enter the world market, not just the US market. Assuming we can get even the highest estimates out of ANWR, OPEC will still be the world's leading oil producer by far and all they have to do is lower the supply to keep the demand up. They will not lose any money, and if they really do fund terrorists, and I think the damn well do (bastards), they will still be able to do it with ANWR pumping. The largest segment of the world's population, the many 3rd world nations, are just now coming online into the petroleum based market. You think gas is high now? Wait until 6 billion screaming Chinamen want gas for their cars. Bottom line, it's a world market and ANWR won't make a noticeable dent in that market. It will take at least ten years before we actually get any oil out of ANWR if they started today. They need to build thousands of miles of roads and pipelines, docks for ships, and the actual wells. They can only work and build when the ground is frozen, otherwise the tundra is too soft and you can't drive anything on it or you sink. Used to be that the areas stayed frozen >200 days per year, the last few years the opposite has been true and the areas has been staying thawed >200 days per year. And people think global warming is a joke. ha

First off your too wordy for not having a clue, typing too much text and misrepresenting them as facts seems to be a trend on this forum lately.. The infrastructure is already up here in prudhoe bay which is not far fron ANWR(get a map). The Ground is frozen much of the year and gravel Roads along the flow lines will provide access the days that ice roads cannot be used (which will be used primarily for heavy equipment) Ships & docks? Your a tool Get a clue before you spout off your ignorant bullshit, 40 miles of flow line to connect most the fields to the Badami Sattelite field and another 40 miles of existing infrastructure to the production centers in Prudhoe, then it gets sent down more existing pipe TAPS to an existing terminal and shipping facility (Valdez). . You are posting on second hand knowledge and what youv'e picked up is quite questionable. In the 4 years I have bveen working here break up is in june and freeze up is no later thanthe second week of septmenber on averge. How many fucking days is that?? I bet you never have been to the Arctic.

I can't take anything else you talk about seriously becasue you started off with lies, desception and ignorance. The rest of your post is probably the same.

Alt Fuels and Conservation:
Governor Swarzeneggar (sp?) already has begun a hydrogen fuel network delivery system in California. The technology is here and in use now. There are buses that run on hydrogen, they emit ZERO emissions, in fact, they actually clean the air. Hydrogen is readily available, worldwide, we just need the infrastructure in place. Once we have the infrastructure in place for both making hydrogen through electrolysis and have a delivery system, the automakers will follow suit with the market. We will always have gasoline driven cars, but once we start converting just a small percentage of our national fleet of cars to alt fuels, the barrels of oil we'll save will far outnumber the barrels we would have gotten from ANWR.

Automakers also have the technology available now to greatly increase gas mileage, but they choose not too. It's America, everything is market driven here, and the market the public wants are SUVs and Hummers getting 8 mpg. If the government raised standards for gas mileage, even if just for sedan style cars, the automakers could do it no problem. But, we choose to drill instead.

The entire north coastal plain is already heavily dotted with oil development. The only place free from this is the small section of coastal plain in ANWR. As the leader of the free world, why can't we choose to protect the last few wild places in this nation? The analogy used is that the whole drilling footprint will be the size of a municipal airport in a place the size of North Carolina. This small postage stamp will be of little impact. This again is just plain rhetoric by those wanting drilling. There will have to be roads, there will have to be pipelines and more roads for the pipelines and these will stretch across vast stretches of land. It's completely misleading to say it will be a small impact. Some people, like the local Gwich’in Native American tribe, need the ANWR to stay wild and they have a connection with the land. It's not right to ignore their pleas.

The Future:
I'm sure the drilling will pass, the house is an easy pass and of course Bush will sign. It was pretty sneaky to put it in the budget rather than a stand-alone bill, but hey, it's politics. In ten years, gas will be so high, but all the pumping in ANWR and everywhere else will mean little to the average American consumer, but the oil-execs will be as rich as the Middle East terrorists. Nice how that works. Hopefully we'll have more alt fuels coming on-line. Once we get a nice Toyota truck in an alt fuel model, I'll get one. I trust Toyota. But, all the drilling won't mean a thing except environmental damage.

We have so many important things that we make out of petroleum, plastics, surgical tools and implements, etc., etc. I hope we will someday stop wasting the stuff in our inefficient cars.

That's all I got to say. :)

Don't state an opinion based on BS and represent it as fact.
Triple BB said:
The American people are being mislead on this one. First pumping a million barrels of oil a day out of ANWAR will do nothing to change the price. There are several reasons. First, compare a million barrels a day to what OPEC produces. It ain't nothing. Around here, we say we're just one OPEC decision away from hard times. With China and other countries growing appetites for oil, OPEC will only need to turn down the tap a bit and the price won't change. Second and this is the biggest misconception on why drilling ANWAR won't change anything is refinery capacity. Its been 15 or 20 years since a new oil refinery has been built in this country. Our refinery's are currently at full capacity. Until you build a dozen more or so, you can pump another billion barrels of oil a day and the price won't change. You'll just have to build more storage tanks to hold it all as gasoline production is maxed out. What we're hearing now is nothing more than political rhetoric and an attempt by BoyGeorge to fatten the wallets of his buddies in the "ol bidness". And this is coming from a card carrying republican who lives in oil and gas country.
We need to expand our refining capacity, I agree. The problem is no one wants to build a new one under current environmental regulations. Their is no incentive. There is no financial benefit for the investment at this time for those who would invest.
Ursidae69 Some people said:
You should research this more. You will find the answers(if you can shift through all the layers of misinformation) quite enlighteneing. This is not on that tribes land. They will not get any financial benefits from it. It is human nature to not want to see your neighbors enriched.
Ursidae69 said:
Okay, smart guy, yeah Prudhoe Bay is relatively close based on the size of Alaska to ANWR So, does the analogy that all the poiticians use that says this whole footprint will be the size of a municiple airport fit?? How big is a small airport compared to the hundred miles of road and pipeline needed to get from ANWR to Prudhoe?? The slick lies you people tell are sad.

Yes, I have been to Alaska, spent two weeks in Fairbanks a couple years ago, drove up to the Arctic Circle. These gravel roads, how long will that take to make hundreds of miles of them??

If you're argument was half as good as the useless insults, you might be worth debating with. People that shit-talk in place of making a good point are annoying. :rolleyes:
First of all ANWR is 60 miles to the east of Prudhoe Bay, This iilistrates youre exageration. It is not hundreds of miles.

Second Prudhoe was developed using 1970's technology. Of course the footprint is larger in Prudhoe bay than What is required in ANWR. There have been lessons learned and technological advancements. Just likee the difference betwen a vehicle from 1977 compared to today things have gotten more effecient, cleaner and more reliable. Footprint refers to the amount of space that permanant facilities and infrastructure will take on the Tundra. The size of an entire municipal airport is actually given alot of wiggle room(that's huge!) A production pad will be about the size of a footbal field some larger some smaller. Multiple directional wells will be placed on each pad and tied into a manifold building on that pad, The flow will then have to be piped toa facitlity for initial seperation and transport.
There will have to be at least 1 large flowline connction this network of well pads to the existing infrastructure capable of handling in excess on 1 million BBL a day. Heavy equipment and drilling rigs can move accross the the tundra on Ice roads and staged for work on thes pads. The ice road can melt and the rigs can stay until the short summer is over and ADEC will approve more offroad travel (Travel accross tundra is well regulated and requires a perment from the state regardless of what type and size of vehicle). This is not a theory. This has been used to develop the Alpine Field to the west of Kapurak that borders NPRA. Lessons learned will make the next venture even more effecient, with even less impact.

If you want to talk wildlife I have many pictures and memories of waiting hours for huge herds of caribou to cross a road.(they always have the right of way).

So you drove the haul Road? That haul road was built decades ago. It's a scenic drive but it took less than a year to build.

I have no talking point. This is my real life experience through more than just a visit to Alaska and the oil industry.
See less See more
Breathegood said:
A voice of reason. Nice to see someone who thinks rationally about these things. If you don't mind me asking, what do you do up there? Do you work for an oil company or are you up there coincidentally?

I am an HSE Professional who happens to work in Prudhoe Bay and have been working here for only 4 years. Prior to that I was on the downstream side on the Texas coast. The culture is much different and very environmentally concious up here. Most of the workers are Alaskan and care about the state. But at the same time thee north slope of Alaskais comparable to West Texas in relation to population centers, but is alot more isolated.

absolut taco said:
When all other oil is gone and the earth is fucked, drill wherever you want. Until then, leave nature alone.
That is my $.02
That is quite an emotional statement. Do you have anything to contribute or are you going be another "I agree with what he said" poster?
This picture was taken in late june/early july . Fly fishing among floating chunks of ice is fun!
See less See more
Something ya'll should see.
usgsfishman said:
This is certainly a good debate. My question is where do we turn when the world oil reserves dry up? I guess the theory is rape and pillage today, we'll deal with alternatives when it's all gone...
When do you think oil is going to "dry up"

Why is using natural resources equivelent to rape and pillagery in your opinion? I guese those of us who hunt or fish are "plundering" natural resources when we harvest a fish or animal?

Perhaps those who harvest an orange grove are Raping mother earth and stealing her precious fruit, for their own consumption and or god forbid profit?

I think I getr the gist of this emotional response. Using our natural resources is nasty business and is doubly bad whenever someone makes money from producing this resource.

I think if you take this thinking to it's conclusion the earth would be a better place without the human parasite.
absolut taco said:
F Earth is not making any more. That's why we need to conserve what little oil is left.
And you are certain of this?
Perhaps there is more oil than you think?
Ursidae69 said:
Your right-wing propaganda machine is really rolling today bud. From the link you gave:

The oil supply is finite and how long it lasts depends on which propaganda you want to listen to. The above quote and others to your fanatical side are attibuted to books. I have a dozen other books from the other side of the argument saying the opposite. Why don't you find peer-reviewed stuidies that say the oil will last so damn long?? Why don't you stop reading political propganda and subscribe to a scientific journal or go to your local library and read some of them.

You can ignore reality all you want, save this post and show me in future years when the oil will ever drop below 50 a barrel. Cheap oil is gone, if we are smart as a nation, we'll lead the world into cheaper, cleaner alternatives that are renewable. Why are you so against that?
Who injected politics into this? I posted a link and all the sudden it's propaganda?

$50 dollars a barrel is a steal. If you want to get to the troot of the problem the current population on this planet is not sustainable without the use of fossil fuel. Certainly altenatives wil be nice but they have to follow the laws of energy conservation.
If we run out of petroleum tommorow how much food could the world produce?
Enjoy the planet, don't baby it, we are only here for a short while.
Ursidae69 said:
Why can't you just accept that not everyone thinks like you, we all have our opinions. Drilling just because it is there is a valid option and I can see people's point of view on the matter, but I don't act like a dick and make assertions about your intelligence. We have a difference of opinion, deal with it.

I don't think drilling is worth the environmental damage, however large, when the oil supply will still be >50 dollars a barrel, OPEC will still have all the money, and our dependence on OPEC will still be significant.

You think it is worth it. We don't agree, big deal.
Funny, I never questioned anyones intelligence. It seems that you are the one who cannot deal with my assertions.
hytenor said:
Why you evil, murdering bastage!! that poor fish will never see it's home again; shame on you!

was it tasty? :D


(People for Eating Tasty Animals)
It was a threatened arctic species of fish that was the last of it's gender in it's species. It was delicious.

Actually it is a flavor between a A Salmon and a Lake trout. Pink firm flesh but not as oily as salmon. You would think with all the pollution we are dumping into prudhoe bay the fish would have more oil content?

I try to lead people to the truth, yet so many won't see it. I think it is a genetic program in people to divide on every issue they can regardless of logic.
Ursidae69 said:
It wasn't in this post, but earlier in the thread buddy. You made all sorts of assertions, but hey, it's the internet, no biggie. :D
Those assetions are true.. Don't post BS and you won't get called on it.
To bad you have no further input of substance rather thna bitching about the methods used in debate.
Ursidae69 said:
Is this where we both start screaming "Would you stop touching me??" :lmao:

I'm leaving for a couple weeks for my yearly Baja trip, hope the discussion continues in my absence. Take it easy. :)
Have a good trip, Take lots of pics.
hytenor said:
yum! we've been getting some wild Steelhead in the stores of late that is sooo good :D I hate the farm-rased "Atlantic salmon" that is always available.
There is this one lake in the high-Sierra that has golden trout (some over 20") with a bright red/orange flesh that is extremely oily but after hiking 3 days the protien really hits the spot...and tasty? :D The other lakes with these monster goldies have the normal salmon colored meat. this one lake has the only population of a certain shrimp that gives them the color/texture.
Now, I just need to get myself back into shape for the long hike since this summer will have a late ice-out and the fishing will be glorious.
Delicious! I would rather have wild Salmon anyday, Sea run feeder Kings and silvers are very good.
1 - 20 of 98 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.