Here we go - Pres. Bush's Agenda

[Crankyshank]

Because we have the technology right now to reduce our consumption and I would personally rather see more things done to limit that while pursuing alternative fuel sources. If we've tightened fuel efficiency standards and invested more money in alternatives and we're still far away in another 5-10years, then yes maybe we should then look at further drilling in Alaska. I think we're going gung ho on something that isn't necessarily going to be anything more than a band aid.

My father works quite a bit with oil companies on his current project. Based on what he has seen in his work and in his research, We're not that far from alternative fuel - it's just politicians on both sides seem to not want to alienate the oil companies on both sides. that's my particular fear and there's nothing partisan about it

 

[momof2inPA]

I thought most of the Alaskan oil went to the Far East, Japan and China (could be wrong, but I think I remember hearing that somewhere). I would hope that our government would at least provide for the oil produced from the new drilling to remain in this country, thus decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, although I mostly agree with the other conservationists on this thread and hope that no drilling would occur at all.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by luvsTink
soooo, if it isn't overrun by tourists and we can't see the beauty of this reason it is ok to exploit it? Just checkin

Yep, pretty much. The specific area is barely inhabitable.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by luvsTink
TOP 10 OIL INDUSTRY MYTHS

Source?

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Crankyshank
Based on what he has seen in his work and in his research, We're not that far from alternative fuel

What would this alternative fuel be? And how long is "not that far"?

 

[Island_Lauri]

Originally posted by BuckNaked
The portion of ANWR that would be affected by drilling is so small as to be insignificant, so I have no problem with that.

The prisoners at Abu Ghraib were abused because there some sadistic *******s in charge of guarding them. I hope they ALL do time.

As for the clemency issue, if I'm not mistaken, the Governor of Texas has no power to grant clemency unless the clemency board recommends that he do so. Therefore, his "review" would be meaningless unless the clemency board had already recommended clemency.

some sadistic *****s, that all it was? Then why did White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales bother writing his memos advising Bush to declare detainees in the "war on terror" to be outside the Geneva Conventions - to "substantially reduces" the chance of prosecution.

Once again, short-sighted - don't worry about how we treat our prisoners nor what that would mean for our prisoners.



The Governor of Texas had no power?

"Under Texas law, the governor has no authority to grant clemency to a condemned murderer on his own. He must first have a recommendation from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, whose 18 members are appointed in staggered six-year terms by the governor. Bush uses this legalism to put some distance between himself and the executioner's needle. Thus, he writes, "Despite the call being sounded around the country and world, I could not convert Karla Faye Tucker's sentence from death to life in prison."

Although that's technically true - without the board's recommendation, Bush can only grant a 30-day reprieve - Bush has considerable influence over the fate of the condemned if he chooses to exercise it. At the time of Tucker's execution, two-thirds of the board members were Bush appointees. Today, all of them are.

Bush's authority to grant a 30-day reprieve for any reason he sees fit is hardly as insignificant as the governor would like people to believe. Although Bush never talks about it, he also has the power to order the board to conduct an investigation where there is a question of innocence, a denial of due process, or any other matter that concerns him. He can instruct the board to hold a hearing or listen to the appeal of a death row inmate. He can tell the board that he wants it to reconsider a negative recommendation on clemency. Given the political makeup of the board, a 30-day reprieve under any of these circumstances could very well lead to a reversal of the panel's earlier recommendation. As the Lucas case made clear, Bush has the power to alter a death sentence if he wants to. When the attorney general told him the state was about to execute Lucas for a crime he didn't commit, the governor let the board know he wanted to commute, and the board delivered the recommendation."

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/prisons/dying_marv_electrifies_toy_sales.htm

Bush opposed simple safeguards like holding open meetings and vetoed legislation which would have provided funding for basic indigent defense. Bush also opposed legislation instituting life without parole and banning the execution of people with IQ's less than 65.

While it was Bush that steadfastly opposed changing the clemency procedures in the face of stinging criticism by the courts, it is Gonzales, himself. He was suppose to be providing Gov. Bush with ALL the details - including facts like one of the death row imates hade a "trial lawyer had literally slept through major portions of the jury selection".

"Gonzales's summaries were Bush's primary source of information in deciding whether someone would live or die. Each is only three to seven pages long and generally consists of little more than a brief description of the crime, a paragraph or two on the defendant's personal background, and a condensed legal history. Although the summaries rarely make a recommendation for or against execution, many have a clear prosecutorial bias, and all seem to assume that if an appeals court rejected one or another of a defendant's claims, there is no conceivable rationale for the governor to revisit that claim. This assumption ignores one of the most basic reasons for clemency: the fact that the justice system makes mistakes."

http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj/details.cfm?id=13986


The only saving grace is that the Attorney General is not a lifetime position.

 

[Crankyshank]

Approximately 10 years depending on the amount of funding.

The focus is onn Bio-diesel , hydrogen engines (BMW has a hydrogen car available in Europe), fuel cells, and then there's the hybrid engine which all ready significantly increases gas mileage without being as hard on the environment at diesel engines. There's also Solar power, wind power, Geothermo power, etc.. Hydrogen is probably the closest but they are having problems finding a way to cheapen the cell cost.

A-21 is one of the most promising alternative fuel sources being worked on. My Father did some work with a Nevada company regarding this. He's a manufacturing and design engineer. It's something like 55% water. There's a big debate on whether or not it's considered "alternative" since some petrol is involved. There's quite a bit of research invested in this. the problem is the funding needed to really push forward.

Mind you I don't have references at the ready. This is just a subject that interests me and I hear quite a bit about because my father has done work with it and really likes to talk about it. and they have lots of magazines about it, believe it our not.

 

[Island_Lauri]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Yep, pretty much. The specific area is barely inhabitable.

Except that it is "a vital birthing ground for polar bears, grizzlies, Arctic wolves, caribou and the endangered shaggy musk ox, a mammoth-like survivor of the last Ice Age" not to mention millions of migrating birds.

 

[Island_Lauri]

Originally posted by bsnyder
What would this alternative fuel be? And how long is "not that far"?

And just how fast do YOU think we would be seeing ANY OIL from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge??

"Although drilling proponents often say there are 16 billion barrels of oil under the refuge's coastal plain, the U.S. Geological Service says the amount that could be recovered economically -- that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted and sold -- is roughly 3.2 billion barrels, or only a six-month U.S. supply. Moreover, it would take 10 years for that oil to reach the pump, and even when production peaks -- in the distant year of 2027 -- the refuge would produce less than 2 percent of the oil Americans are expected to use that year."

http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp

 

[raidermatt]

The only shortsighted solution I see is the one that only includes supply or demand and not both.

Regardless of where you stand ideologically, it is simply not realistic to think we can solve the problem only with conservation. Don't be fooled into thinking that wouldn't be the case if Kerry were president either.

Decreasing demand should be a bigger piece of the solution, as should greater development of alternative energy sources. But we also need to address the issues with oil supply as well. This country is simply not going to voluntarily reduce its consumption of oil to the point where we do not need new supplies.

Clearly the 6 month supply is in dispute. Regardless, 6 months worth of oil for the entire country is a heck of a lot of oil. If it weren't it wouldn't be worth it to the oil companies to bother with it.

Its a situation where every bit helps, and this would certainly help.

Most experts predict that oil production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could not begin for 7 - 12 years and the Congressional Research Service estimates it would take at least 15 years.

Even if true, it would be shortsighted to not begin the process because the benefit would not be realized immediately. In fact, the idea that we not invest unless we see short term benefit is one of our problems.

 

[Deb & Bill]

And at $55/barrel, someone could make a bundle. Back in the mid 80's they were mining oil shale in Wyoming, but when the price of a barrel of oil went below $44/barrel, it wasn't economical any more, so they closed those fields down.

If the price of oil is going down slightly, why isn't the price of gas going down as well? Or did I miss that?

 

[luvsTink]

Source?

I made it all up.


sigh


http://www.arcticwildlife.net

 

[Laura]

Wow, I'd jump in on this and defend the environmental conservationist point of view, but you guys are doing great!

 

[Island_Lauri]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
Have you established a response to the fact that such a small percentage of the ANWR tract is involved? Unless you address this fact, it appears that you just want to oppose the drilling project there on ideological grounds - i.e. you must be opposed to drilling for oil anywhere, for any reason.

The fact remains that there is an INSIGNIFICANT amount of "footprint" involved. Another fact is that the area being considered is NOT part of that beautiful visage with mountains in the background and plains full of grazing caribou in the foreground. This area is swampy frozen wasteland - not a mountain in sight.

The oil industry has proven long ago that they can develop an oilfield with absolutely ZERO long term impact on the environment. Even during the time the work is going on, there is no measurable effect on the wildlife.

After the "six months supply" has been used up - say in about 50 years - then the place will return to its current pristine condition - full of swamps and mosquitos when it is not frozen solid.

Since you have brought this subject up, and since you have ignored all other posters who have mentioned the insignificance of the 'footprint' I have to wonder if you have any response to that arguement at all.

If you do, please share it with us.

I don't know if you bothered to read my post above yours....
But INSIGNIFICANT? I don't believe so. Here's a FACT for you:

"Though the footprint of oil development in Prudhoe Bay is estimated as 12,000 acres, it extends over more than 640,000 acres."

See the maps for yourself:

http://www.inforain.org/Northslope/anwr_2.htm


ZERO long term impact? What color is the sky in your world? Personally, I would like my sky to stay blue. Let's look at what has ALREADY taken place while drilling for oil in Alaska:

"Damage from the drilling has been considerable, profoundly affecting the land, the air, and the fauna of the region. The Prudhoe Bay fields and the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline have suffered an average of 400 spills annually on the North Slope since 1995, a total of 1.5 million gallons. A study of diesel spills in Alaska's arctic found that 28 years after an initial spill there were still substantial hydrocarbons in the soil and little vegetation recovery. The oil industry emits 56,247 tons of ozone depleting and acid rain causing oxides and nitrogen annually, more than twice the amount released by Washington D.C.. 3

 

[mudhen]

For those ANWR drilling supporters.......is there any
guarantee the big oil companies will use this new found
oil reserve domestically to help make us more independant
from foreign countries???

Why don't the oil companies use our domestic oil wells......
well, for domestic purposes instead of exporting a good
portion of it??

 

[jrydberg]

Just to clarify some things here, estimates of the oil reserves in the ANWR are varied. The low estimate (the DoE claims a 95 percent chance of finding) is 5.6 billion barrels. The high estimate (5 percent chance) is 16 billion barrels. The most likely is around 10-11 billion barrels.

At a robust production rate of 2 million barrels per day, that would be close to 14 years of production. In reality, likely longer since things would take a bit to get up to 2 million barrels per day.

In terms of the overall oil consumption by the US, it's not going to make a huge impact because we consume huge quantities. But it is a rather large reserve of oil that would have an impact.

As to the larger issue of alternative fuels, to me it's fairly simple. While it is economically feasible to rely on oil, we will. When it becomes cost prohibitive, it will then become profitable to develop alternative sources of energy. With oil being cheaper than milk, there's just not a big incentive to develop alternatives. That will change.

 

[caitycaity]

As to the larger issue of alternative fuels, to me it's fairly simple. While it is economically feasible to rely on oil, we will. When it becomes cost prohibitive, it will then become profitable to develop alternative sources of energy. With oil being cheaper than milk, there's just not a big incentive to develop alternatives. That will change.

yeah, but i hope it changes in enough time to do something.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by Island_Lauri
I don't know if you bothered to read my post above yours....
But INSIGNIFICANT? I don't believe so. Here's a FACT for you:

"Though the footprint of oil development in Prudhoe Bay is estimated as 12,000 acres, it extends over more than 640,000 acres."

See the maps for yourself:

http://www.inforain.org/Northslope/anwr_2.htm


ZERO long term impact? What color is the sky in your world? Personally, I would like my sky to stay blue. Let's look at what has ALREADY taken place while drilling for oil in Alaska:

"Damage from the drilling has been considerable, profoundly affecting the land, the air, and the fauna of the region. The Prudhoe Bay fields and the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline have suffered an average of 400 spills annually on the North Slope since 1995, a total of 1.5 million gallons. A study of diesel spills in Alaska's arctic found that 28 years after an initial spill there were still substantial hydrocarbons in the soil and little vegetation recovery. The oil industry emits 56,247 tons of ozone depleting and acid rain causing oxides and nitrogen annually, more than twice the amount released by Washington D.C.. 3

That is a nice dump of "factoids," assuming they are all true, and all taken within context.

First - there is no mention of the "fauna" that is damaged.

Second - It makes sense to me that an oil production facility would produce more hydrocarbons that a capital city that produces nothing but hot air - so what is the relevance??

Third - those images showing roads and installations on a map magnifies the significance in a visual way. If you were to fly over those areas and look at them as they are, you would not even see them. Those images are taken from a relative altitude of over a hundred miles in space. At that altitude you would not even know anything was down there.

Fourth - 28 years is a long time - if you are waiting for a ticket to the opera, but in the timeframe of the environment it is not even registered. For someone today to scream that "their" environment has been forever ruined seems a little disingenuous to me. Heck - New York City has really ruined the "environment" compared to what it was just 200 years ago - and it will NEVER be the same again, at least within a few hundred thousand years. Within a hundred years, that oil spill will be nothing more than a footnote in history.

Fifth - so what if they took more gravel from dump than they predicted - that to me means that they produced more oil than they expected. This is good. The same thing will happen in ANWR.

Sixth - I still see nothing that says it will be bad to develop the ANWR energy resource. It looks like a win-win situation to me. The only reason I can see to resist it is the notion that "oil is bad." Those who think that should stop driving, stop using anything made of plastic - especially cell phones and computers.

In fact, the "oil is bad" crowd should either shut up or resort to living without any of its benefits - demanding to eat nothing but worms until we have developed the perfect energy source.

By the way - how about nuclear power?? That is the only viable alternative in the near future. Are you against that too??

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
By the way - how about nuclear power?? That is the only viable alternative in the near future.

Well thats incorrect.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Just to clarify some things here, estimates of the oil reserves in the ANWR are varied. The low estimate (the DoE claims a 95 percent chance of finding) is 5.6 billion barrels. The high estimate (5 percent chance) is 16 billion barrels. The most likely is around 10-11 billion barrels.

At a robust production rate of 2 million barrels per day, that would be close to 14 years of production. In reality, likely longer since things would take a bit to get up to 2 million barrels per day.

In terms of the overall oil consumption by the US, it's not going to make a huge impact because we consume huge quantities. But it is a rather large reserve of oil that would have an impact.

As to the larger issue of alternative fuels, to me it's fairly simple. While it is economically feasible to rely on oil, we will. When it becomes cost prohibitive, it will then become profitable to develop alternative sources of energy. With oil being cheaper than milk, there's just not a big incentive to develop alternatives. That will change.

You are exactly correct. As long as oil remains the bargain that it is, there will be no incentive to replace it. Human nature just does not do that sort of thing.

As soon as we can no longer afford it - we will develop an alternative to it.

It will be expensive, and somebody will make tons of money off the process.

Then the same people who are waging war on the 'oil interests' will be taking aim at the new "tyrants of energy" because they have the audacity to actually "make money" from the needs of the public.