|
dsqrd
Apr 21, 2005, 3:33 AM
Post #1 of 11
(605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 28
|
ummm,.... ...The House bill also would make it easier to build liquefied natural gas import terminals, even if states or local communities oppose the project, and require refiners to use more corn-based ethanol in gasoline. It also would extend daylight-saving time by two months to reduce energy use .... WTF?
|
|
|
|
|
jeep4evr
Apr 21, 2005, 3:54 AM
Post #2 of 11
(605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2004
Posts: 80
|
Best thing we could do is drill in that <1% of ANWR. But then again, I'm all for lessing our dependence on foreign oil.
|
|
|
|
|
hopper
Apr 21, 2005, 4:35 AM
Post #3 of 11
(605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2003
Posts: 53
|
In reply to: Best thing we could do is drill in that <1% of ANWR. But then again, I'm all for lessing our dependence on foreign oil. Of course, because our problems are always solved with such a short-sighted view and further "fueling" our dependence on oil.
|
|
|
|
|
bluefunk
Apr 21, 2005, 4:44 AM
Post #4 of 11
(605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 43
|
Anybody know any good web sites on this issue? I am doing a report on it for school.
|
|
|
|
|
jeep4evr
Apr 21, 2005, 4:44 AM
Post #5 of 11
(605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2004
Posts: 80
|
oil dependence isn't going away anytime soon (I happen to thoroughly enjoy my gas guzzling sports car). But I guess it's also short sighted that opening ANWR would create jobs, increase state revenue, lower importation cost. But I'm getting away from my point. Once alternative energy becomes more economical and practical then let it roll in. Till then... yeah, you know
|
|
|
|
|
phaedrus
Apr 21, 2005, 5:40 AM
Post #6 of 11
(605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 3046
|
phaedrus moved this thread from General to Community.
|
|
|
|
|
dookie
Apr 21, 2005, 12:06 PM
Post #7 of 11
(605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 3528
|
blue - there's tons to find about ANWR on the internet: http://www.anwr.org/ http://arctic.fws.gov/ http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/ some interesting misinformation everywhere, by many people that have no idea they just don't like the idea of drilling for more oil - and there's high emotions on both sides of the issue.
In reply to: At peak production, ANWR's 10.4 billion barrels (mean estimate) could yield America 1.5 million barrels per day for roughly 30 years and increase domestic production by 20% by 2025, according to the Energy Information Administration. In reply to: Under ANILCA, much of the Refuge was designated as wilderness area, but NOT the coastal plain of ANWR. Rather, the Act set the coastal plain area aside for future consideration of the development of its vast oil resources. Current legislation calls for responsible development on no more than 2000 acres of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain. That's 0.01% of ANWR's total acreage of 19.6 million. The remaining 99.9% would remain off limits to development.
|
|
|
|
|
dsqrd
Apr 21, 2005, 2:56 PM
Post #8 of 11
(605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 28
|
I'm not sure I'm as worried about the current plan to drill in that 1% of ANWR - but am more appalled by the other parts of the same bill ... "The bill calls for $8.1 billion in tax breaks over 10 years, most of it going to promote the coal, nuclear, oil and natural gas industries. In addition it would give refiners and oil companies $2 billion over eight years for shifting from making MTBE as the additive is phased out. It also calls for $2 billion over 10 years to fund research into oil and gas recovery in extremely deep areas of the Gulf of Mexico..." article here http://sfgate.com/...ional/w231751D97.DTL and how the heck did extending daylight savings time become part of this?!
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Apr 21, 2005, 3:24 PM
Post #9 of 11
(605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
In reply to: At peak production, ANWR's 10.4 billion barrels (mean estimate) could yield America 1.5 million barrels per day for roughly 30 years and increase domestic production by 20% by 2025, according to the Energy Information Administration. let's see, 1.5 million barrels per day x 365 x 30 = 16.4 billion. A more realistic number would be 1 million barrels per day. And that's what is technically recoverable; economically recoverable numbers will be markedly lower. The 2000 acre claim is a farce. They only count the places where equipment acutally touches the ground - drill pads, airstrips, and - this is really twisted - the footprints of pipeline support pilings. Roads and gravel pits aren't counted at all in the 2000 acres. Also excluded are seismic and other exploratory activities. http://www.nrdc.org/.../artech/farc2000.asp
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Apr 21, 2005, 3:36 PM
Post #10 of 11
(605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
Both my wife and son will be rafting down the Hulahula river this Summer from the town of Arctic Village to the Arctic Ocean, a 14 day raft trip. Just from researching this region ad nauseum and seeing the projected benefits, I am appalled that this was passed. Judd Gregg, the senior Senator from NH, is a very good client and friend of mine, as is the junior Senator John Sununu. After hearing how both voted on ANWR, I called them over the phone to tell them first-hand about my thoughts. I am not sure how either felt after my call, but they both know that I will refuse further commissions from them. It's not alot, but it is all I can do.
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Apr 21, 2005, 3:50 PM
Post #11 of 11
(605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
Wow edge, that's quite a move. Don't underestimate it. Not all of us have the privilege of being able to call up our Senators and say "Listen, about this Arctic thing..." What anyone can do is go to http://www.senate.gov, pick their state, and click on the "webform" link for each of their Senators to send them a message on this subject. Will he or she read it? Hell no. But you can bet someone on their staff will. Senators are the ones to write to on this - it's a done deal in the house but the Senate has stopped this in the past and they're the ones that will do it again.
|
|
|
|
|
|