No Arctic drilling

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 4/10/02 | Editorial staff

[Homer_J_Simpson]

IT'S A HARMFUL illusion to think that tapping an Alaskan wildlife refuge will help this country's energy woes. The oil remains far away, costly to extract and limited in quantity. Drilling will be destructive to a unique and fragile region.

[Centurion2000]

We should look into developing new forms of fuel, because in 80 or so years this planet's gonna be tapped out. And if that doesn't concern you, then think on our current Meast prediciment.

I think your full of crap with the 80 year figure but you're right. We don need alternate energy.

NUCLEAR REACTORS need to dot the land. Then we'll be fine. So tell you're enviro-whacko buds to quit whining about atomic energy.

[zoyd]

What the oil industry is asking for is access to 2,000 acres, an area no bigger than Dulles Airport. "This footprint would be 50 times smaller than the Montana ranch owned by Ted Turner, who helps bankroll efforts to keep ANWR off-limits."

Sounds to me like you ought to be bitching at Ted Turner. He's controlling much more land than at issue in ANWR.

BTW, have you ever been to ANWR? Or Alaska at all? I'm curious, because Alaska is a BIG PLACE. Your worries about drilling are obviously bounded by your own environmental concerns, NOT taxpayer expense, 6 months' supply, 10 years to build, yada yada yada. Come clean, and just admit you hate oilmen, and hate oil.

You probably hate it so much, you probably only drive 20 miles a day.

[rohry]

Man you are propoganda infested! Even the picture that you posted is from an environmental whacko site!

http://www.protect-the-arctic.com/images/pic-home.jpg

You are pitiful if you think these people are presenting a picture of where the oil is. (Hint: it is nowhere the mountains.)

[zoyd]

BTW, how many acres does that photo represent? Any idea?

I could show you a picture of Florida that has sandy beaches and palm trees, but it doesn't obfuscate the reality that there are swamps in Florida.

[KnowYourEnemy]

I think the resolution is just fine on my 667ghz G4 Apple powerbook. Maybe you will appreciate this one more.

P.S. Choose Nuclear, it's less sticky!

[TomB]

Now you are lying. That is a picture of the interior of ANWR. The proposed drilling is on the coastal plain.

Coastal Plain
      spring                                             summer                                       winter

SWL, I stole some pics from your post. I wanted to give you credit.

[SGCOS]

...I think the resolution is just fine on my 667ghz

What the hell are you smoking?

[Willie Green]

While I agree with building more nuclear plants, here's a reality check for you: The world currently runs on oil.

Build electricly powered mass-transportation systems where it makes the most sense: in our nation's most densely populated regions and urban areas. Light rail for local systems, high-speed rail and maglev for inter-city travel. While this certainly won't eliminate our dependence on oil, it will significantly reduce our dependence.

The technology is available NOW.
However, it will take time to construct.

Added benefit: In coastal areas (such as Kalifornia) nukes can be coupled with desalination plants to alleviate water shortages.

[rohry]

Your problem is that you get all you info from this site:

The Arctic Protection Network is a grass roots organization based in the San Francisco Bay Area that is dedicated to protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. We have three objectives:

 

• Learning
  

  We share with American citizens education and information about the Arctic Refuge and the threats against it.
  

  Action
  

  We empower Americans to take direct democratic action by influencing their legislators. In so doing we strive to help defeat legislation that is intended to open the Arctic Refuge for oil drilling, and we work to ensure permanent protection for the Refuge by achieving its formal designation as a Wilderness Area.
  

  Networking
  

  We couple the traditional strength of grass roots passion and word-of-mouth activism with the power of electronic communications to build a nationwide network of support for the Arctic Refuge. We count on fellow Americans to spread the word.

Take your propaganda somewhere else, please...

[Brad C.]

I don't see how ruining one of the very last pristine areas of wilderness for 6months of oil, will benifit most Americans 10years from now.

By your own words, it will benefit Americans 10 years from now, because that is when the oil will become available.

[TomB]

Here, maybe this will confuse you even more:

As you can "plain"ly see, the areas affected are nowhere near the "prisine mountains" that you pictured in your post.

[KnowYourEnemy]

"What the hell are you smoking?"

Some primo hashish, you? What is bush snorting?

I thought I would have alittle backup on this one, but obviously I was wrong. I support nuclear power, but I'm not keen on drilling for more oil, at least not using the current technological means.

[connectthedots]

The Chronicle's ed-board all walked or peddled to work today, I'm sure.

Probably so since the hill in SF aren't very steep.

[FairWitness]

Ya, this sucks too, cause there is estimated to be no more than a 6month supply of oil

Enough with this stupid "6 month of oil" mantra already! If the supply is so limited as you try to imply, no big oil company is going to actually drill there. If they do, it will mean there is a significant supply.

[CyberCowboy777]

This is the real area of the proposed drilling - Great Pics!

[Wphile]

Choose nuclear

Now, you are really dreaming. I agree with you but the greens won't have ANYTHING to do with nuclear power. Plus, it looks like the Senate is going to vote against Yucca Mountain which means we don't have a centralized place to put the waste. That means, no more plants get built.

The Greens....NO, NO, and NO!

[CyberCowboy777]

"In fact, the only spot where it's legal to drill for oil is on what's called the coastal plain of ANWR, the snippet on the northern coast of the Refuge. You rarely see pictures of the coastal plain, because it's not what TV producers call a beauty shot (I know this hyper-technical TV lingo from my years as a producer). So, they show mountains and Disney animals and crystal-clear running water and say, This is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where the evil greasy snout-nosed Republicans"

[CyberCowboy777]

Now here is a real picture of the area where drilling will occur:

[KnowYourEnemy]

The 6month oil theory is a safe bet, there is estimated to be 3billion barrells worth of oil that is economicaly feasible to drill for. 18 billion total, but much of that is unatainable given current technoligies.

Also just because the development areas are small, there are still pipelines that run all the way across the state, and they have been known to rupture!

Honestly, I don't see why everyone wants to drill so badly. Is it the fact that some people are telling you no, or is it directly linked to the "becoming less dependent on foreign oil spiel?" To use one of your analogies, "Can't be kinda pregnant, Can't be kinda independent from foreign oil" It is either all or nothing, and ANWR is only a drop in the barrel.

[Brad C.]

I have been near where that picture was taken, you can see the Haul road just above the caribou antlers. Nice picture just as the road comes out of the Brooks Range, truely beautiful.

There is a small pine tree with a sign on it as you drive down Atigun pass. "This is the last tree..." Now if you just turn around, and get back on the road for another hundred miles, you will get to the coast.

BTW, the mosquitos swarm so much they almost dark the sun at times, depending on how much exposed flesh there is.