Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?

tolbiny · #1 12-22-2005, 06:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bocablkr, there are many othere people that disagree with your "facts". Some say that there is enough to hold us for "years".

We should already have pumped the place dry by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

From ANWR.org A website deicated to propome drilling in the refuge.

Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. The US is currently using nearly 20 million barrels per day and increasing every year- so the low end estimate is a months worth of oil in the US. The high end is at less than 16 months. No "realistic" estimates have come out that think ANWR could fuel America for any signifigant period of time. At best estimates that it could contribute 1-3% of our total production for 15-20 years (at current levels of incresing use) before it became uneconomical to continue.

adios · #2 12-22-2005, 06:41 PM

But if there is no significant impact on the ANWR environment why not? ANWR.org seems to imply there wouldn't be much of an impact if any.

BluffTHIS! · #3 12-22-2005, 06:50 PM

The thing is that if it could be guaranteed 100% for certain that the ANWAR's environment would not be damaged, the lib enviros still would be opposed just because of their utopian unspoiled enviro notions, but most importantly, because they really don't want us to have large supplies of oil because of the rest of their agenda against carbon fuels.

Rockatansky · #4 12-22-2005, 08:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is that if it could be guaranteed 100% for certain that the ANWAR would produce no oil, the right-wing nutjobs would still be dermined to drill, since what this is really all about is winning a symbolic victory over people who care about the environment. They really don't want us to have large supplies of oil because it would lower the oil companies' profit margins.

[/ QUOTE ]

BluffTHIS! · #5 12-22-2005, 08:34 PM

Excellent logic. The right wants to drill just to screw the enviros, but at the same time really wants less oil. And the left chortles with glee as the right acts at cross purposes.

Rockatansky · #6 12-23-2005, 01:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent logic. The right wants to drill just to screw the enviros, but at the same time really wants less oil. And the left chortles with glee as the right acts at cross purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad to see you're coming around. Proof positive that we shouldn't give up on the mentally handicapped.

tolbiny · #7 12-22-2005, 08:54 PM

I never said that it shouldn't happen, i was just responding to the misconception that there might be enough oil to last for "years".
As another poster said the actual drilling will represent only a very small percentage of the actual impact. Getting the equipment in and the oil out is the tricky part, and a major spill would wreck huge portions.
I am against drilling in anwr, mostly because its simmply a red herring for powerfull people to act like they are addressing the energy problem (and a small group of people will make buttloads of money). We shouldnt let them get away with this in general principle- its like the gay marrige debate- Why the [censored] should any body care when comparing it to the number of people who have health insurance problems, the state of education in this country the war in iraq, government overpending, socila security... ect ect. But the best solution for most of these problems is to get teh government out of them, and no one wants to run on that ticket, so they pull up crap like this, and to a lesser extent abortion (by lesser i mean that it is actualy a legitimate problem to have a beef with). Any one who seriouly thinks that gay marrige is the number one issue in the country should be smacked, hard.

BluffTHIS! · #8 12-22-2005, 09:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am against drilling in anwr, mostly because its simmply a red herring for powerfull people to act like they are addressing the energy problem

[/ QUOTE ]

Proves the point I made above.

tolbiny · #9 12-22-2005, 10:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am against drilling in anwr, mostly because its simmply a red herring for powerfull people to act like they are addressing the energy problem

[/ QUOTE ]

Proves the point I made above.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't, Firstly because you didn't have a real point above, just another moronic attack on the "libs". Secondly i am not a liberal. I am pretty hard core anti bush, but thats because i am hardcore anti morons trying to run my life. If your pro bush, you aren't a conservative.
Preventing ineffective measures like ANWR might be the only way to force some kind of resolution or progress.