PDA

View Full Version : Alaskian Oil



Bam Bam
05-25-2006, 08:59 PM
House OKs oil drilling in Alaska refuge
H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Citing the public outcry over $3-a-gallon gasoline and America's heavy reliance on foreign oil, the House on Thursday voted to open an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, knowing the prospects for Senate approval were slim.

Drilling proponents argued that the refuge on Alaska's North Slope would provide 1 million barrels a day of additional domestic oil at peak production and reduce the need for imports.

But opponents to developing what environmentalists argue is a pristine area where drilling will harm caribou, polar bears and migratory birds, said Congress should pursue conservation and alternative energy sources that would save more oil than would be tapped from the refuge.

The House voted 225-201 to direct the Interior Department to open oil leases on the coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - an area of 1.5 million acres that is thought likely to hold about 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

But the action may be little more than symbolic. Arctic refuge development, while approved by the House five times, repeatedly has been blocked in the Senate where drilling proponents have been unable to muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

"We need to develop energy, here at home. ... We can't say no to everything," declared Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., who pressed for a House vote on opening the refuge that lies east of the declining Prudhoe Bay oil fields 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle.

The refuge was set aside for protection in 1960 and expanded by Congress to 19 million acres in 1980 with a stipulation that its oil - limited to the coastal strip - could be developed, but only if Congress directs to do so.

The federal government would share revenues equally with the state.

While oil companies have long eyed the area where federal geologists estimate anywhere from 5.4 billion to as much as 16 billion barrels of oil may be recoverable, environmentalists it as among its top priorities for protection.

"There are simply some places that should be off limits to drilling. The Arctic refuge should be one of them," said Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif.

The coastal strip is a calving area for caribou, home to polar bears and musk oxen, and a seasonal destination for millions of migratory birds.

Drilling opponents cited an Energy Department analysis that ANWR's oil would have little impact on gasoline prices and reduce imports by only a few percentage points. Currently 60 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil used daily in the United States comes from imports.

Advocates for opening the refuge to energy development said the tundra and its wildlife can be protected using modern drilling techniques and environmental restrictions. They argued the additional domestic oil would help move the country toward more energy independence.

Congress approved drilling in the refuge in 1994, but President Clinton vetoed the bill.

Had Clinton not issued his veto "we would have had a million barrels of oil today," said Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska. "We should be drilling off shore, we should be drilling in the Rockies and most of all we should be drilling in the Arctic refuge."

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., countered that had Congress passed improved auto fuel economy measures 11 years ago when they were considered, today "we would save far more oil than ANWR would produce."

"This Congress hasn't voted on a single conservation measure since gasoline hit $3 a gallon," said Boehlert.

"Rather than debating how we could increase the fuel efficiency standards (of cars) over the next few years, we are debating about a bill that won't produce the first barrel of oil for 10 years and it will come from a pristine wildlife refuge," complained Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a leading drilling opponent.

---

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: http://arctic.fws.gov/

I believe that due to the long periods of time (10 years) before the oil will flow, the fact that it will only slightly dent the nations demand for foreign oil, and it will devastate another wild preserve for the sake of our inventions and drive thousands of animals out of their homes and territories. This is ridiculous.

Please voice your opinions...

Mutant Squirrle
05-25-2006, 10:23 PM
well you know... one day we will regret everything we have done.. thats how life is haha

and look who passed it ... oooo george bush isnt he the sharpest tool in the shed!

Avaphi
05-25-2006, 10:28 PM
Actually, This was the correct move, After this deal we have enough gas to last us 23 some odd years. Now if you figure in, ford plans to sell the first hydrogen cell car by the year 2010, We are in the clear. Cant afford a hydrogen car? More people buying hydrogen cars? Stay with you gas one for a few more years :cool: Sorry to ask but, What would Kerry have done?

KyleGut3
05-25-2006, 10:41 PM
you also need to factor into this document that these people are trying to convince you that this is the wrong action.

I think its fine, like db said a lot of people will still need gas after hydrogen cars, and they aren't all bad for the environment. a lot of animals move closer to the drills to get the heat.

Bam Bam
05-25-2006, 11:41 PM
If you have ever separated hydrogen and oygen from water like i have you would know that it is not at all hard and can be done with a nine volt battery. (electrolysis is what the process is called). The hardest step in developing hydrogen technology would be convincing people it is the right way to go.

Edit:

Do the math:

2006+10=2016
-2010 =4 years with no alaskan fuel and with hydrogen technoledgy.

SubiN
05-26-2006, 05:15 AM
soon or later gas is gonna finish :(

BenLand100
05-26-2006, 06:23 AM
If you have ever separated hydrogen and oygen from water like i have you would know that it is not at all hard and can be done with a nine volt battery. (electrolysis is what the process is called). The hardest step in developing hydrogen technology would be convincing people it is the right way to go.
Lets have a quick lesson on the law of conservation of energy. All you're doing by creating hydrogen by spliting water is storing energy in the hydrogen which is released withen the fuel cell when the hydrogen recombines with oxygen to form water. So, if you're going to power your car from the hydrogen created with electrolysis using a 9 volt battery, it simply will not work, or take massive ammounts of time (and batteries) to generate the hydrogen to power the car. Here is some proof: It takes x ammounts of hydrogen per second to power your car, you need an ammount of hydrogen x times the ammount of time (in seconds) you want to run the car. how much hydrogen per second does your power source create?
And, since i'm on the topic, using hydrogen powered devices is going to do nothing besides strain other energy sources. There honestly is not a good source for getting natural hydrogen in the ammounts we would be needing it. And to manufacture it you would need to use energy from another source.
The main idea: Either nuclear power needs to be more widely used or we need to cut back our energy use. Because the ammount of energy we need is not going to be possible when fossil fuels run out. We get energy totaly from the sun. It is stored in various ways all over the earth. We are releasing it at too rapid a rate.

Bam Bam
05-26-2006, 10:19 AM
Lets have a quick lesson on the law of conservation of energy. All you're doing by creating hydrogen by spliting water is storing energy in the hydrogen which is released withen the fuel cell when the hydrogen recombines with oxygen to form water. So, if you're going to power your car from the hydrogen created with electrolysis using a 9 volt battery, it simply will not work, or take massive ammounts of time (and batteries) to generate the hydrogen to power the car. Here is some proof: It takes x ammounts of hydrogen per second to power your car, you need an ammount of hydrogen x times the ammount of time (in seconds) you want to run the car. how much hydrogen per second does your power source create?
And, since i'm on the topic, using hydrogen powered devices is going to do nothing besides strain other energy sources. There honestly is not a good source for getting natural hydrogen in the ammounts we would be needing it. And to manufacture it you would need to use energy from another source.
The main idea: Either nuclear power needs to be more widely used or we need to cut back our energy use. Because the ammount of energy we need is not going to be possible when fossil fuels run out. We get energy totaly from the sun. It is stored in various ways all over the earth. We are releasing it at too rapid a rate.

The nine volt battery was only an example...you are correct in the fact that you would need much more energy to split enough for a car. However with the alterative energy options we have now it would be possible to recover a good percentage of the energy lost when fossil fuel runs dry. The only reason that it cant be done now is because few people embrace what we already have available to us.