Luke Puckett from Indiana's 2nd Congressional District has been very vocal that it's high time we start drilling for oil in the United States, including ANWR. Porter County Politics is proud to endorse Luke's efforts and his candidacy for Congress. Luke Puckett on drilling for oil - energy independence.
While reading one of my favorite sites, The Foundry, I came across this post tonite. I have copied in full, and I think I'm cool doing so because it appears the author there did the same from an email forward.
First, do you know what ANWR is?
ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Now, a comparison:
And some perspective:
Note where the proposed development area is (in the ‘ANWR Coastal Plain’):
This is what the Democrats, liberals and ‘greens’ show you when they talk about ANWR. And they are right, these are photographs of ANWR:
Isn’t ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place?
Well, that’s not exactly the truth.
Do you remember the map?
The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain.
Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you?
What’s going on here?
The answer is simple.
That is NOT where they are wanting to drill!
This is what the proposed exploration area ACTUALLY looks like in the winter:
And this is what it ACTUALLY looks like in the summer:
Here are a couple screen shots from Google Earth:
As you can see, the area where they are talking about drilling is a barren wasteland.
Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife.
Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the ‘depleted wildlife’ situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay. Don’t you think that the Caribou really hate that drilling?
Here’s that same spot during the winter:
Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.
Now, why do you think that the Democrats are LYING about ANWR?
Remember when Al Gore said that the government should work to ARTIFICIALLY raise gas prices to $5 a gallon?
Well, Al Gore and his fellow Democrats have almost reached their goal!
Now that you know that the Democrats have been lying, what are you going to do about it?
P.S.: Drilling does not “destroy.” It creates jobs, resources and strengthens our economy — all while protecting our environment. Everyone benefits, even caribou.
Join Luke's team today.
57 comments:
Interesting post. However, why haven't you researched beyond your focus on ANWR?
A large oil field has already been discovered at Gull Island 5 miles off the shore of Prudhoe bay in the Beafort Sea. Another large oil field has also been discoverd at Kuparuk oil field. Check this out:
- Prudhoe 600 Ft. of pay zone, 100 square miles
- Kuparuk 300 Ft. of pay zone, twice the size of Prudhoe
- Gull Island, 1,200 Ft. of pay zone, at least four times the size of Prudhoe . . . Estimates are that it is the RICHEST OIL FIELD ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.
The ANWR is a wedge issue being used by Republicans and Democrats. We don't need to drill in the ANWR. The question should be why is oil not be brought to market from the large oil fields that have already been discover and drilled of the north slope of Alasaka????
Thanks for the additional information, for full disclosure I didn't do the original research, I copied from an email. Not much of a digger myself, just getting great info online is enough work
GREAT work! Gotta spread this around. Pictures say it all. Thanks. --Michael
Michael, thanks a bunch of stopping by. I remember back in the fall of 2007 when the Mccain blogging community was smaller and we feared our candidate wouldn't make the spring ... when we all commented much more liberally and engaged each other ... miss those days a bit.
But, it worked and now John Mccain is the presumptive nominee and the campaign is growing more complex by the week.
Thanks again for stopping by
What strikes me is the often repeated argument that "Even if we start drilling today we won't see any oil on the market before 10 years". But I have heard that argument 10 years ago too, as well as in the beginning of Bush's first term when he tried to reverse the ban on drilling.
This is typical of my own experience with environmentalist claims.
They get way too much mileage from the claims that any development disturbs wildlife migration and breeding sites. The problem with that is that when human intrusion is minor the animals become accustomed to our presence when experience teaches them that we are not threatening them or that our installations actually make their lives easier.
Were this not so, all the wildlife photography and intensive studies we see wouldn't be possible. The people who make wildlife films use camouflage, but it hardly fools the animals. What does the trick is that the photographer or scientist (e.g. Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, etc.) becomes part of the creature's environment, usually neutral, sometimes friendly.
Animals are quite adaptable, which is what evolution requires. They wouldn't survive if they couldn't endure the slightest disturbance.
Yup, it'll take 10 years.
8 years of stalled permitting and litigation followed by two years of getting the hardware onsite and drilling.
anonymous "why haven't you researched beyond your focus on ANWR"
Why haven't you done YOUR research?
Gull Island is a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Kuparuk oil field has been pumping oil since 1981 and production peaked in 1992. It now produces only about 200,000 bpd.
Stop reading all those conspiracy sites. They will rot your brain.
Gull Island is a myth... sort of. I mean, the place is real, and wells have been drilled, and oil did come up... but the only person that estimates "that it is the RICHEST OIL FIELD ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH" is a dude who wrote a book, and those who read the book and believed him in spite of a total lack of corroborating evidence.
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/690171677.shtml
tells the (probably) more authentic story.
To the first poster, anonymous, I believe we already are drilling at Kuparuk....and have been for years. Perhaps a different field(?) but it's producing 200+k barrels of oil a day. To Gull Island, though, it's hard to separate fact from fiction on that one. Not having the knowledge nor expertise to lay claim to truth but there are plenty who challenge the veracity that such a large field of recoverable oil exists there. I'm aware of the speculation that there is some type of conspiracy involved in covering up the amount but I'm also aware of those who worked the initial two fields at Gull Island and state there is oil there but not enough under what has been tested thus far to warrant further test drills.
Now, NPR-A to the west of ANWR has an equally large amount of oil(though dispersed a bit more so the drilling site would have to be larger)and there's a simple reason why we aren't drilling there. It is leased land to the oil companies who have requested permits to build an infrastructure/pipeline years ago but that's where "they" get ya....every anti-growth organization masquerading as environmentalists legally challenge at every step. This whole crock of why we don't drill in leased lands is absurd when we can't even get the permission from those who know what is best for us.
" What strikes me is the often repeated argument that "Even if we start drilling today we won't see any oil on the market before 10 years". "
When I hear that, I like to make a similar argument about Global Warming. Even if we start cutting emissions today, we won't see the benefits for years, so why do it at all? It usually doesn't go over too well.
The ANWR is a wedge issue being used by Republicans and Democrats. We don't need to drill in the ANWR.
But of course, we also don't need not to. The Democrats happen to be dead wrong on ANWR, as this photo essay aptly demonstrates.
Who cares if it's a "wedge issue?" If someone is dead wrong, it behooves us to keep pointing it out, and pointing it out, and pointing it out, until they either see the light or are run over by the train (meaning, in this case, their constituents).
I don't know why all the comments on this post tonite, but thanks a bunch for stopping by.
I wrote this post a while back, from an email sent to me, and actually learned some things I didn't know about ANWR. Later in that same month, Luke Puckett candidate for Congress from Indiana took a team of candidates and existing representatives to ANWR. You'll find some great photos, videos, and commentary on his site. http://www.puckett08.com
it's an instalanche, briefs ;) Mr Reynolds looks to have picked up on your post from somewhere..good info even if it is a month+ late;hehe
The area proposed for drilling, said to be 2,000 acres out of 19,000,000 plus, is less than 1.05% of 1% of the area of ANWR. Put another way, ANWR is about the size of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Vermont all put together, and one still needs 2/3rds of the county in New Hampshire that includes Keene, New Hampshire (the southwestern-most county in NH), while 2,000 acres is 3 1/8 square miles.
Re: why don't they just drill in the offshore areas adjacent to ANWR?
As a Civil Engineer, I speculate that the construction and operation of an offshore platform in an environment of 10-month sea ice is prohibitively expensive...and dangerous to the facility and crew. A facility constructed on fast land has got to be safer and cheaper. Does a Pet. engineer have any figures?
When considering ANWR, it certainly is necessary to keep the size in perspective. As noted in the post, ANWR is larger than several states. The land to be used for drilling would be about the size of a large subdivision. I did not look it up again, but I thought the 2,000 acres included the roads to get to the site. Actual drilling and support would be a couple of hundred acres, IIRC.
I personally don't like the precedent of turning a Wildlife refuge into an oil field. I'll spare you the impacts because no one on this blog will listen, but when something is turned into a refuge, or wilderness area, or state park, or national monument, or national park, we are saying 'There is something special here that shouldn't be disturbed' and apparently enough people agreed to turn it into a national wildlife refuge. I don't like the precedent that we can just change our minds. how ling before we are drilling in Yellowstone, or Yosemite.
You folks continue to miss the entire point of drill vs. not to drill. Consumption is the problem not supply. We Americans think that we can drive our SUVs and minivans till Kingdom come and we'll be ok. I hate to break it to you but we can't. We have to consume less not drill more. Should we drill where there is oil, yes I agree we should; however, until we change our habits we're just delaying the inevitable, oil is a NON-renewable resource.
Politicians lie. Environmentalists lie. Oil companies lie. Everyone with an agenda lies. Ignore what they all say. What we need is to consume less oil and focus on what we can use for ever, fuels like water for hydrogen, solar, and geothermal. Notice I left out food-based fuels, if we all starve to death because we cannot afford to eat because some fool in Washington DC decided to give huge subsidies to former food producers to produce fuel so he can drive his Hummer around then does it really matter in the end? Food belongs in my stomach, NOT my car’s fuel tank.
I do know that Shell is trying to explore the Beaufort sea. They had Frontier drilling managing two vessels for the job. One is the Kulluk an eight sided oddball that is designed for ice service, and one of their conventional drillships.
http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=2&storyid=9103
But since the environ mental ists get to change the rules in the middle of the game it may all be for nothing.
s to create a flash show with audio based on your research? Will give your site credit at the top of the video.
To the poster that compared drilling for oil now will reap benefits in 10 years to global warming spending now will save the environment later.
This is a fallacy. With oil, we know what it does, and how to get it. With global warming, we really don't know if we created it, or if we can effect it. And if we can alter it do we know what else we will change. So it is in no way the same thing. We need to allow drilling now. If we do, the price of gas will fall immediately. If you doubt me look to the recent fall in price when 1 of 2 stumbling blocks was removed by Bush.
As for preserving the beauty of ANWAR, oh please. It was probably done in a government land-grab or state move for more federal park funds. And it should never be the government's job to stand in the way of its own people.
Okay. This analysis is highly offensive to anybody that is at all educated on this issue. This is deceptive and misleading.
To the people who really think that this is some liberal conspiracy to keep jobs out of the hands of hard working Americans: FUCK YOU.
To the motherfuckers who really think that because the the landscape is a tundra and not mountainous it justifies drilling: FUCK YOU. Why are we looking to drill anywhere when there is plenty of energy provided by natural and CO2-less means (e.g. wind, tidal, geothermal)
To the idiot who is convinced that there are no negative effects on wildlife because it is only a "small" dot on a map: well you are just an idiot.
To the assholes that think that pursuing more fossil fuels is the solution to the energy crisis: Fuck you. We need to move forward and stop spinning our wheels in the mud.
The whole point of the anti-drilling argument goes far beyond the fact that we are going deep into the wilderness to drill for oil. WHAT we destroy is really not that important, but what we destroy it FOR.
The money and time proposed to be spend over then 10 years planning building and drilling would be more beneficial if it were put toward (very) long term solutions like natural source of energy (e.g. wind).
It has little to do with that specific swath of land in Alaska, and much more to do with means and the ends. Just to make it clear, the environmental effects would be much greater than the deceiving picture try to indicate. It's not just the oil rig itself, it is the fact that you need pipelines and shipping routes as well. It's the enormous amount was produced during construction. It's the amount drilling by products which get released as a result of drilling. You have to think about EVERY THING\.
Although you seem to think that the means in this case is just a small patch of Alaskan Tundra, it is for a short-sided ends of lower fuel costs.
Really, you have to attack these problems holistically. I am highly offended by you interpretation of the argument against drilling.
Drilling is bad/stupid because it simply perpetuates the use of fossil fuels, which has negative impacts on the economy and the environment. Drilling (anywhere) simply pushes us deeper into fossil-fuel dependence and further from the transition away from it.
Get a grip. More drilling regardless of how 'innocent' you try to make it seem is not the answer. Perpetuating this myth is bad for humanity.
I think drilling in ANWR would be fine, but first lets pass a bill that says no domestic oil can be exported. Right now 1.6 million barrels per day leave US soil as exports. Thats 7% of our consumption! Drill Drill Drill all you want, it doesn't mean more oil for the United States, it means more oil for China and India too!
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0325640920080703
I don't like the precedent that we can just change our minds.
Why not? Priorities and extingencies change. We are even allowed to change our mind on the Constitution - it takes some work, but it's possible.
drilling in Yellowstone, or Yosemite
Geothermal, dude. Where better to put a geo plant than somewhere with lots of activity?
Anonymous said...
You folks continue to miss the entire point of drill vs. not to drill. Consumption is the problem not supply
IT is quite undertstandable why you remain unnamed. Socialists want to control us by using energy. The entire point is that WE DO HAVE OUR OWN SUPPLY. QUIT STANDING IN THE WAY OF AMERICANS USING OUR OWN NATURAL RESOURCES!!!
Every other country does everything necessary to get their own energy. Russia is definately doing that in Georgia! Meanwhile, idiots like you are are trying to weaken our Nation's economy.
Socialists are dishonest. Capitalism is what the USA was founded on. Big Business is good and profits are good. You have been listening to NBC too much.
Re: drilling offshore of ANWAR.
The water is very shallow on the Arctic coast so platforms are not used. They build gravel islands and drill from there.
Re: NPR-A
Private oil companies do not own the NPR, it is now BLM land. USGS used to own it and drilled (contracted Husky Oil) many exploratory wells from Umiat on the east to the Beaufort Sea coast on the west - found nothing.
Re: Conservation
We can't conserve our way out of high oil prices because of the exploding demand in China and India. Every gallon of gas you save will be snapped up by a Chinese or Indian commuter's car.
anony 6:08... if you look at the graphics, sites have already been drilled there, this is just a new one...
With a bit o'luck this will play out like this... we'll transit off of useing crude for fuel, when electric vehicles become prevalant. As the foreign oil producers peak and fall we will still have plenty of reserves using oil to do what it does best, lubricants.
In order to do that though we need means of making electrics, and this is where Nukes come in. Solar and wind and geo are nice, but they arent big enough until every house has solar roof tiles and a wind station. And IMPORTANTLY They don't provide constant power which is what is required.
Our move forward is predicated on the use of energy that is contained in materials. Now that the technology has caught up, Nukes are the best for this..
Bear walking on the pipe looks like a faked pic to me...
Great post -- Makes the no drill Democrats squirm. There whole story is nothing but jive talking anyway. Now that AGW has been thoroughly debunked what are they going to do next.
It would be nice if we could drill everywhere. The Alaska Pipeline is now carry about 800k bpd where as it was designed for 2 mbpd. Think of all the high paying jobs drilling would create.
Before it was ANWR, everyone referred to the area as wasteland. It still looks like wasteland. BTW, who think mountinas have oil?
Gee, Ben. Not only are you ignorant about politics, history, and economy, you're idiotically foul-mouthed to boot. Not a good combination when you're trying to convince me that I should amend my ways and run my life consistent with your viewpoint. Say- I have an idea. Try nicedoggie.net. They'll welcome your views with open arms. I promise.
Bill H
Ben,
As has been mentioned already, if you wish to draw me into discussion, I am much more amenable to do so if you are not offending me. This is a very real discussion with plus/minus impacts regardless of the position you might espouse. Your attitude does little to move me to consider your position and, in fact, reinforces the notion that hot-headedness frequently comes packaged with ignorance.
Steve
I apologize for the foul language, but it is highly offensive that you think that because I am against drilling I am somehow conspiring against you. I am trying to point out how little drilling for more oil addresses the issue of an over all problem.
Anti-drilling advocates are not forming a liberal conspiracy, they are just putting forth a more complete solution to a complex problem, that does not rely on tactics of the past that have put us into this ugly situation to begin with.
It is a thought out response deduced from reasoning and research. If you do your own honest research and you will understand why drilling is short-sighted and offer nothing more than a talking point for high-gas prices.
ENDING DEPENDENCE ON FOSSIL FUELS (FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC) IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THIGN THAT HUMANS CAN DO TO SAVE THE PLANET.
No money effort should be spend to procure more oil. It needs to be put into SUSTAINABLE projects such as wind and solar.
If you had the opportunity to cut down all the trees in you local park, so that you could build a house there instead, would you? Just because they are "American Resources" does not mean that they 'need' to be extracted from the earth, especially when alternatives are available.
Please, I beg of you all, to look past fossil fuels and toward the future. Stop with arguments for drilling and start will arguments for progress. It takes
Ben, the only thing you convinced me of is that you are a flamer.
Thanks to everyone for the great debate, I was in a conference today in Indy and missed a few and just moderated them.
We need to drill, and drill as much as possible. We also need to encourage American ingenuity to innovate.
We don't need to pander to foreign interests, or rely on people like the Russians to control our destiny.
#dontgo is a marvelous movement, and I think Pelosi is feeling the heat.
To the anonymous poster who called the discussion offensive and then proceeded to demonstrate your limited vocabulary by referring to all others using the "F" word...you don't convince anyone by ratcheting up the your rhetoric. Try providing links to verifiable facts. And take a hint that the cos nor the huffpo nor media matters nor moveon are authoritative sources. And SO WHAT if we want to drive SUV's, we are paying for what we use, Komrade!
I apologize for the foul language,
OK, it isn't like I've not heard those mean words before. Daddy was a Jarhead, and I've certainly used my share of invective. But I'll tell you what, Ben- I've never met you, and my first impression is not favorable. Apologize, yes, but be aware you are already well behind the eight ball.
...but it is highly offensive that you think that because I am against drilling I am somehow conspiring against you.
Ben, hon, know this- you are not important enough to have a conspiracy theory all your own.
Anti-drilling advocates are not forming a liberal conspiracy, they are just putting forth a more complete solution to a complex problem, that does not rely on tactics of the past that have put us into this ugly situation to begin with.
No- I don't think they're forming a liberal conspiracy either. But, most everyone who is anti drilling is liberal/left. It's almost, but not quite QED. You talk about a complete solution to a complex problem. Yet you say in a proudly ignorant fashion no more oil. Almost as though you want to shut it off. Say- did you know that the plastic to make your keyboard has oil in it? The carpet under your feet? The insulation in your walls?
Oil- it isn't just for gasoline anymore!
It is a thought out response deduced from reasoning and research. If you do your own honest research and you will understand why drilling is short-sighted and offer nothing more than a talking point for high-gas prices.
Ben, using just those three examples I gave you, you should be able to deduce that a lot of what we have is not made from pixie dust. High gas prices? Let me guess- you commute 2-3 miles a day to work on your earth friendly bicycle. The one that requires oil to produce it, oil to tire and saddle it, lubricate it. That's if you don't telecommute from home over lines that require oil to form them, on a computer that I've already pointed out is virtually a puddle of oil sitting on your desk. Who,exactly thought all this out, Ben, bacause it isn't unicorns farting rainbows that make all this stuff possible. And that's all before we get to gas prices. I'm not worried about 4.00/gal gas. But the working single mom who can barely afford to cover rent, commuting 18 miles a day each way is concerned. I'm willing to bet she has some foul language for your line of thought.
ENDING DEPENDENCE ON FOSSIL FUELS (FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC) IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THIGN THAT HUMANS CAN DO TO SAVE THE PLANET.
Ben, shouting stupid sloganeering at me isn't going to work. Especially when I've just taken your argument from you and set it on fire.
No money effort should be spend to procure more oil. It needs to be put into SUSTAINABLE projects such as wind and solar.
No more money to procure oil? Now you're just being stupid. Marxist stupid. Wind and solar are not bad ideas, but are you aware just how many wind turbines it would take to light up SoCal? Solar? Might work on an individual basis. But as a regional solution, no way. What do you think about nuclear? I'm kinda guessing not, even though it is safe, clean,and abundant.
If you had the opportunity to cut down all the trees in you local park, so that you could build a house there instead, would you? Just because they are "American Resources" does not mean that they 'need' to be extracted from the earth, especially when alternatives are available.
Dude- there are these things called "Home Depot". There you can exchange that green paper for pre-cut wood. It's freaking fantabulous. You need to try it sometime.
I can't finish your argument, since it was cut off. Suffice to say, if you want to argue against oil, you had better have some real ideas next time around.
Bill H
"No money effort should be spend to procure more oil. It needs to be put into SUSTAINABLE projects such as wind and solar." - Ben
Ben, why don't you put YOUR money where your foul mouth is, and show me the courtesy to let me do the same? If you want to invest in solar and wind-generated electricity, by all means do so. But keep your hands off of my wallet.
You buy into the notion that humans are responsible for global warming. I do not. I don't even buy into the notion that we're seeing an unprecedented warming of the planet.
I do buy into the notion that every time an oil field is developed outside of the Middle East, Russia, and Venezuela that the world is a safer place.
Bill S.
Here is the story of Luke Puckett's recent trip to ANWR, he's running for Congress here in Indiana's 2nd District.
Indiana Congressional Candidate Luke Puckett leads trip to ANWR
Whatever else I may think, that photo of a bear on the pipeline is priceless.
It's always interesting that anytime there is a discussion about energy independence, there is an automatic and opposition reaction against whatever proposal maybe on the table. From ANWR, to solar (people think the panels don't look nice), to wind (in today's NYT there was a story about corruption in New York State), to E85, to electric vehicles, there is some group that is opposed to the United States breaking free from dependence on imported oil.
I wonder if anyone has followed the opposition money back to its roots to make sure it isn't coming from oil states flush with cash.
Why not just go to Ca (off the coast) and put a drill on the platforms already in place and put billions of gallons of oil on the market in less tham 12 months. They have served as fish attractors for years so the fish won't leave for more than a day or two. Firefighter 16
Once again thanks to everyone who has commented and maintained some decorum here on this controversial issue.
We do need to drill, or better said, let oil companies drill offshore and in ANWR. Increasing supply is good for Americans.
We also need to innovate and bring on a bunch of alternative energy sources. These two options can both happen and create jobs for Americans.
To Bill H,
I first want to say that this discussion has nothing to do with people wanting to deny other people of things. It is about developing a comprehensive and sustainable energy future for america.
You couldn't have been more to the point about me. I do ride my bike to work and type on a computer both of which require oil to produce. So what will we make our tires, bikes, computers out of when we used up all of the petroleum to transport ourselves around?
This is a discussion of energy solutions. So you are basically advocating that drilling for oil to help solve the energy crisis is a good idea, because oil has non-energy related benefits.
Sure we use oil as a resource that can be used to make plastic bottles, cars, etc, but to continue to burn fossil fuels to produce energy?
Although it is true that petrol products produce commodities and not energy. The vast majority of the oil pumped out of the ground goes on to get burned, which is what I have come to realize (through research, discussion, and critical thinking) is really an inane path for us to pursue.
As a physicist I do think the nuclear power is an attractive alternative to fossil fuels, it is much cleaner and we have developed very safe ways of converting its stored energy into electricity. The only reason is that it not ideal, is that there is a huge nuclear reactor called the sun constantly pouring energy onto our earth that is safer and cleaner than nuclear could every be.
I advocate a mulit-dimensional solution, which only excludes things that need to be burned to extract the energy. Burning increases the carbon footprint, reduces air quality (a public health concern), and (possibly) causes global warming. I say possibly here with reluctance, because I am still looking for a peer-reviewed paper from a respected scientific community denying human impact on global warming.
Yes it would take many solar panels to power SoCal, however they are building two record breaking (in terms of energy production) solar plants their now and are developing solar panels that also double as windows. Thus we could have solar panels in every house.
Thus why don't we save the last bits of oil we have for things like plastic and not energy. This would drastically reduce the demand for oil so that the current amount of oil being produced would be more than enough to meet the world's plastic/oil commodity demand.
Fossil Fuels are a bad solution to the ENERGY crisis. Does that make more sense?
I agree, the bear photo is amazing! Thank you for this post. Thank you.
Just a few questions for opponents of increasing our supply of fossil fuels.
1. what do you propose to replace all the other things made from oil? (lubricants for machinery, plastics - car parts, home appliance parts, computer parts, tools, etc. - cosmetics, etc. etc. etc.
2. what is the environmental impact of the "footprint" required for alternatives such as windmills or solar panels? (can you imagine the land area required for a bank of solar panels needed to replace a single oil fired electric generating plant? what is the ecological impact of that?)
3. we currently have no way to STORE the massive amount of energy created by a huge bank of windmills or solar panels for use when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. What do we do then? (HINT we can't just pull a rope and start up a generating plant. These things work by building up high pressure steam to power turbines to turn massive generators. That takes significant time. And if we have to keep a fossil fuel plant ONLINE as a backup, ie. burning fossil fuel, what's the point?)
4. and while we're at it, it is well known that France gets about 80% of it's electricity from nuclear plants. Funny, I haven't heard of massive failures and deaths in France. They use the modern method of grinding up and reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. The actual "waste" is minuscule, and relatively low grade radioactive. Here in the U.S., more people have been killed in Ted Kennedy's car than have been killed in nuclear accidents.
I have about twice as much to go, but I'll wait to see some of the "intellectual and well researched" responses to these first.
whether the oil is used domestically or exported doesnt matter, i would like to see it all used here, but regardless, it still puts more on the market, lowering the overall price...
Briefs, and everyone else- Sorry for the gale-force windedness of my comments, but I just couldn't let our friend go unanswered. I promise to try and keep it a bit shorter next time.
And, yeah- that bear-on-a-pipeline shot is cool.
Bill H
Ooof- I see we have two different Bens posting. No matter...
I first want to say that this discussion has nothing to do with people wanting to deny other people of things. It is about developing a comprehensive and sustainable energy future for america.
Ok, Ben. Don't even try to disavow what you said in your very last post. I quoted you accurately when you said that no more money should be spent for drilling:
No money effort should be spend to procure more oil.
Looks very much like you are trying to deny people things. If you had tried to rationally entered the debate with your do-all solutions of wind and solar, instead of attempting to bluster your way in with your apparent dislike for oil and all it does, I might have listened to you. You foolishly tried to tell us that oil is evil. Ben, remember when I told you were ignorant of history? Here's your free history lesson for today:
When oil was discovered in Pennsylvania during the 1880's, we were still using whale oil to light lamps, lubricate machinery, and in general use it for what we use "dino juice" for today. Roads were still dirt in most all cities, and do you know what the number one pollutant was then? Ground up horse manure. That caused more lung and respratory diseases than just about anything else you care to name. Oil was a godsend, Ben. It didn't even fuel our cars then, but it did make the Industrial Revolution possible. Matter of fact, at the time, gasoline was a waste product! It was just run off, and allowed to evaporate. Nobody knew what to do with it until the car appeared on the horizon- say, 1890. It also allowed us to slow, and eventually stop the wholesale harvesting of whales. The whole point is, everything you see, touch, taste- all of it- is tied to oil. Modern life would be impossible. It isn't just an energy issue- it is a national economy and a national security issue. An immediate halt to exploring and drilling new supplies is simply insane. Yet you advocate no new oil. This is why I cannot see your point as serious.
You couldn't have been more to the point about me. I do ride my bike to work and type on a computer both of which require oil to produce. So what will we make our tires, bikes, computers out of when we used up all of the petroleum to transport ourselves around?
So, what exactly is your suggestion? That we return to horse and buggies? See, to produce the electricty to recharge all those electric cars that would be part of Utopia- I don't know if you approve of them or not- the energy has to come from somewhere. Solar panels will help in keeping the batteries charged, but plug it in at night, and just where is the power going to come from? Ben- here's a number to wrap your brain around: 15,000,000. That's approximately how many people we have in SoCal. Photo-voltaic cells outputting 3-12 volts at 1/4-1/2 amp each in direct sunlight isn't going to cut it. Nuclear power can readily do the job, but there seems to be relatively few people willing to say yes to that. You yourself appeared lukewarm to the idea.
Sure we use oil as a resource that can be used to make plastic bottles, cars, etc, but to continue to burn fossil fuels to produce energy?
So may I safely assume your previous stance on oil exploration and drilling was just a smokescreen (yes- pun intended)? "Use oil as a resource to make cars." Not an exact quote, but not incorrect. Are you aware it takes more energy to produce a car than it will burn, leak, and otherwise consume in it's working lifetime? Let's take an example closer to you- your bicycle. You had it custom made for you at a local shop, which uses a comination of wind and solar power. Like I said- individual solution, this stuff may work. BUT! The paint came from somewhere. The chrome came from somewhere. The tires came from somewhere. The reflectors, the gearsets, the bearings- it all came from somewhere. And all of it has oil as a base at some point. Either as an ingredient, or in the manufacturing process. Nuclear is anthenema to quite a few people. Geothermal may work if you have a plant (I'm going to go strawman here) in Yellowstone. Wind or solar? Any idea what it takes to keep a company as large as Timken or SKF running? That leaves oil, natural gas, and coal as your primary sources of power.
Although it is true that petrol products produce commodities and not energy. The vast majority of the oil pumped out of the ground goes on to get burned, which is what I have come to realize (through research, discussion, and critical thinking) is really an inane path for us to pursue.
Just to be clear, I'm assuming you mean petroleum- not petrol. Actually, what you're saying about the use of petroleum products isn't far off the mark- I think it's about 1/2-2/3 of a barrel is used as some sort of fuel. That said- do you have a working idea to replace all that fuel? Ben, you likely won't belive this, but Big Oil also knows that at some point, they will be running out of product. All of the large companies are looking for an answer. It's in their best interest, and they are well aware of that.
As a physicist I do think the nuclear power is an attractive alternative to fossil fuels, it is much cleaner and we have developed very safe ways of converting its stored energy into electricity. The only reason is that it not ideal, is that there is a huge nuclear reactor called the sun constantly pouring energy onto our earth that is safer and cleaner than nuclear could every be.
As an automotive electrician, I advocate the use of nuclear energy without reservation. Ben, it seems that with your advocacy of solar energy- on it's own, not a bad thing- that you've studied something about this. Do you have, or are you working on a solution to make solar genuinely viable? I mean, you've made the point that you are a fan of solar, but I've heard nothing that convinces me that I want to see a switch of our economy over wholesale to a technology that cannot keep pace with demand. Faulty though they may be, oil, natural gas, and coal can. Hydroelectric and nuclear could if allowed to.
I advocate a mulit-dimensional solution, which only excludes things that need to be burned to extract the energy. Burning increases the carbon footprint, reduces air quality (a public health concern), and (possibly) causes global warming. I say possibly here with reluctance, because I am still looking for a peer-reviewed paper from a respected scientific community denying human impact on global warming.
Wow- you are all over the map. First you say no new oil sources, then you say limited use for oil drilling to produce commodities, and now you're at no using fuel at all. I'm starting to feel neck pains from the whiplash. Look- I will stipulate that you are a physicist. I won't argue that. So, surely you must know that in order to release the caloric heat available in fuel, the energy, the most common way for extraction is by heating it to a point of combustion, and then converting that combustion into mechanical action. Even the earliest humans realized this. I'm not too concerned about the so-called carbon footprint- everything on this planet is carbon-based. Everything. Plants thrive on CO2- wasn't it not too long ago that the Amazon Rainforest was called the "Earth's lungs"? There are more trees in the US today than 100 years ago- all taking in CO2, outputting oxygen. Air quality is far less a concern today in the West than 50 years ago. We- the US, Canada, Japan, and Western Europe- have learned (at no small expense) to control pollution outputs. Other industrialized countries- India, for example- are slowly but surely coming to grips with the problem. And until someone comes up with an accurate model, global warming needs more proof than Al Gore saying so.
Yes it would take many solar panels to power SoCal, however they are building two record breaking (in terms of energy production) solar plants their now and are developing solar panels that also double as windows. Thus we could have solar panels in every house.
But what are the outputs? Record breaking means nothing if it isn't sustainable. Look- I know you gotta start somewhere. The first diesel ran on coal dust. The first practical diesel was 20 years later. Dr. Rudolf Diesel had to start somewhere. But to make it viable, he had to make it sustainable. Now- the windows doubling as solar panels- that could work. That is a viable idea.
Thus why don't we save the last bits of oil we have for things like plastic and not energy. This would drastically reduce the demand for oil so that the current amount of oil being produced would be more than enough to meet the world's plastic/oil commodity demand.
Please tell me you aren't one of those "peak oil" people. Ben the Canadian tar sands reserve in Alberta has enough oil to serve the entire planet- with the caveat "at current consumption rates"- for centuries. Our oil shale reserves are also estimated in the centuries. And that is without touching the OCS, the Gulf, the Atlantic, or, the whole point of this post, ANWR.
I'm sorry, Ben. You put up a much better argument this time around. But I am still not convinced.
Bill H
To Bill H,
You obviously don't do any research on sustainable fuels, so I have taken the liberty linking you to some articles that explain exactly HOW VIABLE THESE ALTERNATIVES ARE. Please follow the links, read the articles, and watch the videos. You may be surprised at how close we actually are.
On history:
Good research on the beginning human use of oil. The only difference now is that fossil fuels are the number one polluter in the world now. Meanwhile viable alternatives to combusting fossil fuels for energy are being developed. Thus your argument that oil was a godsend in 1890 does not apply in modern day. It is an argument of the past, which is exactly what I am advocating against, we need NEW, BETTER technologies. The bottom line is that we have reached an environmental state where burning fossil fuels is simply making things worse. Meanwhile we are on the verge of many sustainable energy breakthroughs that will take a similar amount of cost and effort to more drilling.
On everything being tied to oil:
You realize that oil is merely just a soup of fat or lipid molecules called hydrocarbons, which are produced in abundance by plants (hemp, jatropha, algae, and sunflowers to name a couple non-food-competing varieties). Thus the hydrocarbons used to produce plastics can come from pond scum as well. So there is a viable way of producing hyrdocarbons beyond drilling for more oil. Especially since current oil production is far greater than plastic's hydrocarbon demand, there is just NO REASON TO DRILL ANYWHERE FOR MORE OIL. This is unless of course you are worried about ENERGY, but that is really not necessary.
In fact, this scientist claims that 10% of new mexico could grow enough algae to meet the ENTIRE US demand for energy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ToojK_MJd0&feature=related
On oil production for energy:
I did say that "no more money/effort" should be spent to procure more oil" the key word in that sentence is more. There is currently plenty of oil being sucked out of the ground to produce oil-based commodities. Thus drilling for MORE oil and setting up NEW RIGS is just NOT NECESSARY.
This coupled with, dare I offend your 'freedom', CONSERVATION ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE we can easily meet the modified energy demand. We can solve the energy crisis by developing non-combustion based energy. Not to be too political here, but the 1-3% increase in oil production from domestic US oil, could easily be made up if all vehicles have fully inflated tires. Simply by turning off your computer at night (as opposed to sleep mode) and turning off lights (and replacing them with more efficiently bulbs) make a much bigger difference than you think.
The plants in California will, "in the middle of a sunny day will generate about 800 megawatts of power, roughly equal to the size of a large coal-burning power plant or a small nuclear plant." Really. Read it for yourself from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/business/15solar.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
They just have developed solar panels that absorb in the infrared band instead of the visible band so they work AT NIGHT... and are about 80% efficient:
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1329/
In addition check out this kite (wind) generator being built by a group in Europe, which may lead to a single kite capable of powering 100,000 homes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/03/renewableenergy.energy
The ALTERNATIVES are REAL. OIL is just NOT THE ANSWER.
On global warming:
It is sad that you think that Al Gore is the only one saying that global warming is human-caused. That is simply completely false and is misleading to people who don't know otherwise.
For your own benefit, try to find a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPER from a RESPECTED INSTITUTION saying that humans are not (at least) contributing to global warming. Wikipedia and other similar sources do not count, it needs to be a SCIENTIFIC REVIEW done by SCIENTISTS. Denying global warming is almost akin to denying evolution the evidence is so undeniable.
The only reason there are more trees now in the US, is because we almost deforested the entire northeast around 1900, not because the ecosystem is flourishing, that is a misleading statement.
In addition, the Amazon, "earth's lung" get's worse every day. It is SMALLER than it has ever been and is getting SMALLER:
http://www.realtruth.org/news/080207-001-weather.html
You need to do honest research to understand humans ecological impact on the global environment, which largely stems from the combustion of fossil fuels.
Really you are just living in the past and being short sighted about OIL being an irreplaceable commodity. Energy is all around us. When we explore ALL POSSIBILITIES, one finds that OIL is one of the poorer overall energy-producing products. It is hard and expensive to get out of the ground, it requires that you burn it to release it's energy releasing greenhouse gases, and its energy production is fundamentally limited by the Carnot Cycle and is actually less efficient the modern day solar cells. In an earlier post I explain that only about 12% of each barrel of oil actually gets converted into usable energy. (I can reexplain this is if you want).
With these alternatives how do you still support more drilling?
DRILL,DRILL,DRILL,DRILL Now!
Mean while Nuclear,Nuclear,Nuclear,
then Geothermal,wind,bio-diesel, solor,etc...
You are ALL missing the big picture.
WHO is funding these "left-wing environmentalist wacko groups?" Why, none other than the ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION. That's right, "conservative, right-wing" (not really -- phony RINO GLOBALIST is more like it!) Rockefeller/his agent is providing millions in funding so these groups can file lawsuits against drilling. That keeps supply low and prices up, donchaknow....
NOW YOU KNOW!!!
To Bill H,
Do you still think that I am just blowing steam out my ass?
Please do research and become an alternative energy advocate. I am not trying to hurt people I am trying to help them. When you get down to the detail drilling for more oil is simply not a good solution.
Ben
I have never once received any funding from anybody to be an "enviromental liberal wacko." By the way, when did the desire to have my children grow up in a clean and safe world become a "wacko" idea? Simply put, pursuing sustainable energy is a more educated and well thought out way of dealing with the current energy problem of the world. The benefits of drilling pail in comparison to the benefits of sustainable energy.
I have arrived at my conclusions through independent research and analysis. To suggest that the case against drilling is some type of conspiracy simply points to how little research you are actually doing.
The case against drilling has very little to do with the actual price of OIL. It has to do with improving our means of ENERGY production in both the short and long terms. It has to do with creating cheap, sustainable, energy sources that can be used for an indefinite number of generations. It is a MOVE to SUSTAINABLE energy sources and away from the economically, enviromentally, and politically harmful source of fossil fuels. It's about improving the example we set for other rising countries. It's about living in a world as equals with our international counterparts to promote peace and prosperity across the globe. It's about ending our dependence on foreign oil and carbon-belching fuels. It's about rearraning our world view to be more comprehensive and effective toward acheiving the goal of prosperity for us AND our children.
Please stop saying that I am conspiring against you, because I have done the research to find out that more drilling is just one of the worst solutions we have to our current energy problems. It is because I love this country and this earth that I make these statements. It is because I want everyone to have clean air and water to breathe. It is so that there are enough fish in the ocean, so that my grandchildren can enjoy fish. It's about creating sustainable enviroments in which ecosystems such as rain forest, temperate forest, grasslands, coral reefs, open ocean water, tundras, deserts, and many more can flourish so we can study them and show their beauty to future generations. It's about not squandering the resources of our precious planet for the chance to save a couple of pennies per gallon at the pump.
Please, for the love of the planet do research and get educated. Drilling is more of the past and we have the technology to move forward. Stop spinning wheels and get with the 21st century before the US becomes second or third world, because we failed to change (on a fundamental level) the way we think about and use energy.
Ben:
I've just got to say it: don't lead with a source from YOUTUBE when you're berating the other guy to use peer-reviewed scientific journals. And I do hate to be a stickler, but none of your sources are actually peer-reviewed scientific journals. I'm just saying...
Bill H: I've developed an internet crush on you. "Unicorns farting rainbows...." I love it.
Ben (again): You're right that skepticism regarding catastrophic man-made global warming is portrayed by adherents of this alarmism as tantamount to raising questions about certain aspects of Darwinian theories of evolution: it's the new Heresy. Which isn't to say that there aren't RESPECTED scientists who pose serious questions.
How about this: if I say that I've come to my opinion based on "independent research and analysis" often enough, will you change your mind?
Amy,
Okay, once again you dodge the point and make it seem like I am saying something I am not.
Why do you want to drill? Gas Prices? Because your new hero says, "I'm not worried about 4.00/gal gas. But the working single mom who can barely afford to cover rent, commuting 18 miles a day each way is concerned."
So according to your line of logic we should drill to reduce gas prices for the working family... BUT!!!!!
According to TIME magazine: Drilling will drop the price of gas by 3.5 cents by the year 2027.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884,00.html
See it graphically here:
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2127/
(Look at the source on that chart, it is the US Energy Information Administration).
That is literally 0.8% of a decrease over the NEXT 20 YEARS!!! Meanwhile, if we continue to burn fossil and dump C02 in the air over the next 20 years.
So let's really think about the links I gave. I gave links to **scientific** companies that are explaining the research that they are currently doing on alternative fuel/energy research.
So yes those were scientific links put up by SCIENTISTS. The youtube video is merely for convenience but if you want to look at the companies website, here you go:
http://www.valcent.net/s/Home.asp
You have not put up any links or anything pointing to oil being a viable research, so who is actually doing "independent research and analysis" here.
All you say there is a respected scientist "who pose serious questions." Show me one. Literally show me ONE. You can't just say something and not source it AT ALL. I have source everything I have talked about and you have sourced nothing.
So I am not making this up and I am getting research from respected news institutions, clean energy technology company websites, and government agencies who do this as their job.
I just don't get it, whey won't you look into the alternatives. Why are you so hell bent on pursuing oil as an energy resource, when there are so many options that are more beneficial to the economy and energy production and less harmful to the environment?
Why won't you accept the fact that alternatives are real?
Why don't you/can't make a good argument for drilling WITH SOURCES, based on "independent analysis" and maybe then we can have a real debate?
Ben,
I really DO hate to be a stickler, but for accuracy's sake, I have to point out that since my last post was my first post, I couldn't possibly have been doing something "once again."
I'm not sure exactly which point I'm supposed to have been dodging, but I defy anyone to show me how or where I was trying to "make it seem like [you were] saying something [you were] not."
The point of my closing, and largely rhetorical, question was that you are not the only one who has come to his opinion based on evidence, reason and analysis. Besides which, I'm not interested in debating my analysis with you: there is certainly no more pointless an endeavor than to argue with a zealot like yourself.
While I'm not inclined to spend any real time recapitulating research you will surely just dismiss out of hand (re: scientist skeptical about catastrophic man-made global warming), here's a list compiled on wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/2jorjm
I feel this source (with its links) is sufficient given that, despite your claims, the web-pages for Time, Ecogeek and Valcent Products, Inc. do not, in fact, constitute peer-reviewed scientific sources.
Post a Comment