Why is drilling a bad idea? This is an honest question

[ChloeForKerry]

I don't know anything about this subject.

[alittlelark]

1. uh, yeah..... it is a bad idea.

[arcos]

2. Because ANWR has enough oil for...... SIX months...

The environmental damage is not worth it at all.

[meisje]

4. So they'll be done in 6 months?

[pinkpops]

14. I think what they will do is spend years drilling,

building support facilities, etc. It is the build up of the area to support the drilling that will be most harmful. Sorry - I'm no expert either - this is something I heard somewhere awhile back.
And of course I have heard that there is not all that much oil there, much less than could be liberated by conservation.

[Beaverhausen]

15. It will take 10 years to get the project going

by then we should all be driving more efficient cars and not need this oil.

[arcos]

16. no... the amount of oil is enough to cover energy needs for 6 months... nt

[Geo55]

10. Yes , but

We can stretch that puppy a bit if we just use it for tanks and such.

[slor]

12. At best 6 months...

by the time they start pumping, the demand may be high enough to lessen that down to a measurement in days. And besides, it will mostly be sold to the Asian market, so yes, it is a idiotic idea.

[DODI]

3. It's a National Wildlife Refuge!!!

Also, from what I have read there is not much oil there. As it was put in an earlier DU thread -- a quick buck, that is all it is. It isn't going to solve any of our current energy problems, but will most likely cause environmental problems.

[oneighty]

5. Terrible idea

It is necessary that we use all the third world's resources before we harvest our own. We will rue the day that all our oil is pumped dry while others are not.

You just wait and see.

180

[joeybee12]

6. Spoling one of this country's last great wilderness areas is a GOOD idea?

Once they drill, it will never be the same. People who think we should drill have absolutely no phucking respect for this planet.

[wtmusic]

7. this should help

http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlands/arctic/oil.asp

[chomskysright]

8. 1. you ever heard and witnessed the Alaska pipeline?....

its propelled by jet engines. it sits off the earth/ tundra up there a foot or so and it melts the tundra thus changing the environment.

[pnutchuck]

21. Yes, I've seen it.

I used to live in Fairbanks, AK. It's not necessarily the pipe as it exists now, but when it was built, that altered the environment and killed animals and plant life there. I think that's the argument with the drilling in ANWR, it's the construction that will cause the environmental damage for such little overall results.

[Lindacooks]

25. Not to mention the plants they have to build, and the roads

and other infrastructure, like buildings for the workers to live in. And, of course, there WILL be oil spills. Prince Edward Sound still has not recovered from the Exxon Valdez in the 1980s, and Exxon STILL hasn't paid money owed from lawsuits.

[pnutchuck]

26. One of my friends is considered the golden child

of the fisherman in Edward's sound. It was his testimony at the Exxon trial that sealed the 200 million dollar settlement. He was only 7 or 10 at the time, he's kind of young, when he told the jury that he used to like to watch the otters play on the beach and now there were no more otters.

[chomskysright]

22. a sample letter to thank ur worthless Repub Senator....

Dear Senator :

I hate that you voted for the Alaskan drilling.

If you have not witnessed the Alaska Pipeline, let me just say this: the crude is propelled by jet engines. You know what a jet engine sounds like. That's what its like to be near the Alaska Pipeline. Now we have lots more of it.

Environmentalists stated: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm

1. more pipelines: "Environmentalists contended that while new technologies have reduced the drilling footprint, ANWR's coastal plain still would contain a spider web of pipelines that would disrupt calving caribou and disturb polar bears, musk oxen and the annual influx of millions of migratory birds....

2. no oil available from it for 10 years: We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash

You screwed up Senator.

[Beaverhausen]

9. here ya go- edumicate yourself

http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlands/arctic/

http://www.savebiogems.org/

[Goldeneye]

11. Its a wildlife area

its for wildlife. Shorebirds which are in decline, nest there. Loons nest there. Caribou live there. Drilling spoils the land. They can say its noninvasive all day and all night, but thats oil man talk. They'll say whatever it takes to get at a little more oil. Anyone who would sell out wild places for some oil is a greedy SOB and thats all there is to it. Besides, if they get this, what's to stop them from cutting down trees in the Seqoia forests or messing around in yellowstone? This is a stepping stone and its meant to weaken the environmental movement.

[mhr]

13. ANWR Holds Between 6 and 16 Billion Barrels Of Oil

The world uses 80 Million Barrels of Oil per day.

6 Billion barrels = 75 days of world supply

16 Billion barrels = 200 days of world supply

The US uses 20 Million Barrels of Oil per day.

6 Billion barrels = 300 days of US supply = .83 years

16 Billion Barrels = 800 days of US supply = 2.2 years

It will take 5-10 years before a drop of this oil hits a refinery.

Hardly seems worth the effort when raising the CAFE standards would save more than we get with drilling.

[chomskysright]

23. no oil out of it for 10 years....

o oil available from it for 10 years: We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash

[chomskysright]

24. the crude is propelled by JET ENGINES in the pipeline...

If you have not witnessed the Alaska Pipeline, let me just say this: the crude is propelled by jet engines. You know what a jet engine sounds like. That's what its like to be near the Alaska Pipeline. Now we have lots more of it.

[TrustingDog]

17. I want to know too... can't keep up with Everything! arg!

Where exactly will this take place, on a map, and how much of an area will it affect?

If it's anything Bush I Know that's it's bad, but am out of the loop of what this Really Means to the people and environment there. I believe Bush is doing this not so much for what oil he can get, but as a diss to environmentalists.

Disrupting the caribou migration that is a very important part of existence up there is one that I can come up with. Polluting pristines is another. Leave No Wilderness Behind, suck it all up?

[Cleita]

18. The oil to be gained isn't very much and isn't going to

make any difference in the price of fuel. It will damage a very fragile eco-system. Bush is doing this just to prove he can and to let us know that he doesn't care about the ordinary American or what they think.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. Question for you. Why should we ruin a pristine wildlife reserve

and obtain 6 months worth of oil when we could save probably a year's worth of oil if people stopped traveling 1 person to an SUV?

Why should we drill the hell out of a reserve while people are NOT PAYING a premium to drive a gas hog?

What's wrong with conservation?

[pnutchuck]

20. Because alternative fuel sources exist

and because drilling only destroys life that is necessary for our ecosystem and because billionaire oil ceos can't imagine an earth without oil. For all of these reasons and more, drilling is bad. And yet lobbyists have paid OUR politicians millions to continue drilling instead of exploring and implementing already existing alternative fuel sources. The Motown 3 do not want to have to refit and reconfigure all of their plants to meet the needs of environmentally friendly vehicles. Why? because they might lose money in the process, not much, but enough to make it not "cost effective". So fuck the environment, fuck cheaper fuel, fuck the people, big oil wins and everybody and every thing loses in the process.

[Payback Time]

28. Try to get a copy of the DVD "Oil on Ice"

It was distributed by Moveon.org last week for their house parties. There are much better directions to go in than to upset the ecological balance of this National Wildlife Refuge that's been called "the American Serengetti," whose herds are the sustenance upon which the Gwich'n peoples depend. There will be many effects from the building the infrastructure needed to carry this out, as well as the noise impact on the wildlife. It is not as "minimal" as "they" would like you to believe. And all this for 6 mo. of oil? When we need to be going into other directions anyway in order to ameliorate greenhouse gasses. Why not build a hybrid car plant or work with the Apollo Project to create energy related jobs that really are environmentally friendly?

[cally]

27. I think you have a legitimate question that needs answering

Why should I care about a wilderness that I'm unlikely to ever go to? It's a similar question to why I should want to protect the Yosemite back country...I'm unlikely to spend a week or two hiking to get there.

Then we can bring up the socioeconomic issues. Backcountry hiking is mostly for white, upper class folks. Forget about the natives where it's sacred ground. Which it probably is so those court cases will be worth watching.

The economic reason is because if we drill now then it won't be available when we really need it. All we'll do is encourage overconsumption of a scarce resource. We don't know the amount of oil under the refuge, but most are fairly certain that it's not much on today's scheme of things. Probably enough to give the US at most a year of oil. What does that do for us now? It just defers hard decisions about energy use. If we leave it alone, it would be there when we need it and not just to keep gas prices low to keep all of our gas guzzlers going.

Then there is the value of environmental lands. We once looked at wetlands as worthless. Seen as junk land. Now we know the bay I live near would not exist without those wetlands.

Then there are the rainforests. Most of life would not exist without them.

So, I know drilling in the Arctic will destroy an ecosystem. Make it impossible for a native tribe to retain their ancestral lands. Maybe kill off the herds of caribous. Probably make one of the last arctic refuges obsolete. For what?

[lastknowngood]

29. You don't shit where you eat. We have F**ked every bit of land

in the lower 48 so now we have to do the same for the artic.

[Booster]

30. Mainly it's to get a toe in the door so there will be no excuse not

to drill wherever they want, like coasts of Calif and Florida, etc. you have to wonder why they don't put a billion dollars in a trust fund and whoever comes up with an alternative to oil wins the prize. No money in it for the oil men so one of the first things Bush did was cut the funds going to such research. Of course, this is a double edged sword, because I believe if you pay someone to look for something they will never find it. Since we've been paying billions for research, haven't found a cure for anything since. Money.