Senate votes for ANWR oil drilling
#21
03-17-2005, 04:45 PM
Originally Posted by gbl102
[font=Arial][size=2]Not true! He's enviro-enemy number one because he's:
1. Reduced funding of the EPA and DEP. (I have friends who have lost their jobs due to W).
2. Created a "Clean Skies" act that does exactly the opposite. It allows the energy companies to expand and not have to adhere to pollution regulations.
3. Created a friendly forests initiative that includes "the mechanical treatment of vegetation." READ: Cutting down trees!
4. Pulled the US out of the Kyoto treaty. Some argue this is because it would cause our energy companies to have to clean up their act and then they would have to shutdown (see point #2). I think that's garbage.
1. Reduced funding of the EPA and DEP. (I have friends who have lost their jobs due to W).
2. Created a "Clean Skies" act that does exactly the opposite. It allows the energy companies to expand and not have to adhere to pollution regulations.
3. Created a friendly forests initiative that includes "the mechanical treatment of vegetation." READ: Cutting down trees!
4. Pulled the US out of the Kyoto treaty. Some argue this is because it would cause our energy companies to have to clean up their act and then they would have to shutdown (see point #2). I think that's garbage.
3. Actually, for many forrests cutting out some tres is healthy. As long as selective cutting is carried out, and only on new growth forrests, the impact is the same as a windstorm. The ecosystem is designed to cope. Note though, that old growth forrests MUST not be affected (i couldnt believe people to be stupid enough to do that, plus most of the old growth is on private land [duke power land comes to mind]). Also note that there have been close to 1000 acres of forrest added to the chestatee-oconee national forrest and i'm sure others.
4. Agreed that the point on the Kyoto treaty is complete garbage., there were much more important reasons for pulling out of the treaty than making energy companies clean up their act.
Now, asking out of ignorance (i dont want to act like i know it if i dont) what wildlife exactly will be displaced in the drilling? (read: is it tundra or the rainforrests of the south/coast)
The main reason that i am not totally agains the drilling, if it gets us 16 years, thats 16 years that we have to develop our biodeisel and ethenol production (i'm fairly confident that this is the fuel we will use in the near future).
#22
03-17-2005, 06:26 PM
Originally Posted by AZCivic
Find me a news story of anyone ever having died from mercury poisoning from eating a fish. It sounds like you're just one of those people who makes things up and claims the sky is falling without any facts whatsoever. You're not contributing to objective discussion.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...ck=1&cset=true
When poison is on America's dinner tables
By Stephanie Kehas
Published March 16, 2005
Painfully cold fingers and toes. My hands maintained a constant blue-purple discoloration--even at room temperature--from poor circulation. Fatigue set in and quickly sapped all of my energy, turning simple daily activities into great challenges; I winced at the idea of having to bend over to tie my shoes.
These were the early symptoms of my agonizing experience of being poisoned by mercury--invisible and silent in its intrusion into my body. From 1997 to 2000, I followed a high-protein, low-carb diet recommended by my doctor. Fish was my primary source of protein. Lunches typically included canned albacore tuna four to five days a week. Meals in restaurants meant orders of sushi. Without realizing it, I was poisoning myself with mercury.
I am and always have been athletic, academically astute and quick-witted. Most recently, prior to getting sick from mercury, I played starting linebacker in a women's professional football league, where I was one of the top players on my team. I am trained and have practiced as a physical therapist and have competed graduate work in my field. In fall of 2003, I began a doctorate program in rehabilitation science at Boston University. As I began my studies I found myself struggling with my course work, which was becoming an overwhelming and insurmountable challenge. My strong critical thinking, reasoning, memory and comprehension capacities, in which I took great pride, became severely diminished; I lived each day in an increasingly thick mental fog. As my symptoms grew more extreme, my hair became brittle and thinned. My normally excellent digestive system began to deteriorate, and I began to lose coordination in my hands and feet. Playing football became impossible. My normally positive outlook diminished and was replaced with depression. By the spring of 2005, I was forced to surrender my academic studies and my football league, both of which were my life.
Despite these symptoms, my physician of 15 years had neither an explanation nor suggestions regarding diagnosis, treatment or prognosis. My luck shifted by chance upon meeting someone who had suffered similar symptoms, and he warned me about mercury poisoning. I immediately saw a doctor who was experienced with mercury poisoning who promptly tested me for mercury. My initial urine samples showed mercury levels that were outrageously high--more than 7,000 percent higher than the laboratory range deemed acceptable. My doctor began chelation therapy immediately.
My path of recovery continues today with a focus on rebuilding and repairing my salvageable tissues. At times I am bedridden for several days, drained from my battle and sickened from pathogen die-off. A good week for me consists of being able to carry out normal daily functions three out of seven days. My disabilities have taken a toll in yet another part of my life. Since insurance refused to pay for my treatment, I had to pay out-of-pocket for more than four years of treatment. Medical expenses have drained all of my financial resources and have forced me to indefinitely halt my medical treatment. As I reflect on the last few years of my illness I ask myself why I wasn't warned about the mercury in my food. Why isn't mercury-laden seafood removed (or at least labeled) in stores and restaurants nationwide? I feel betrayed and disappointed that federal and state governments are not doing what they need to do to protect Americans from mercury-contaminated seafood, especially because the Food and Drug Administration has long known about mercury contamination in seafood.
Had there been labeling at the point of sale or, for example, a mercury calculator available like the one at www.gotmercury.org, I might not have been sickened by mercury. Mercury toxicity from eating seafood is entirely preventable. Consumer awareness is the key to preventing the life-crushing ordeals such as the one that I am living with today.
----------
Stephanie Kehas lives in Manchester, N.H.
Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
By Stephanie Kehas
Published March 16, 2005
Painfully cold fingers and toes. My hands maintained a constant blue-purple discoloration--even at room temperature--from poor circulation. Fatigue set in and quickly sapped all of my energy, turning simple daily activities into great challenges; I winced at the idea of having to bend over to tie my shoes.
These were the early symptoms of my agonizing experience of being poisoned by mercury--invisible and silent in its intrusion into my body. From 1997 to 2000, I followed a high-protein, low-carb diet recommended by my doctor. Fish was my primary source of protein. Lunches typically included canned albacore tuna four to five days a week. Meals in restaurants meant orders of sushi. Without realizing it, I was poisoning myself with mercury.
I am and always have been athletic, academically astute and quick-witted. Most recently, prior to getting sick from mercury, I played starting linebacker in a women's professional football league, where I was one of the top players on my team. I am trained and have practiced as a physical therapist and have competed graduate work in my field. In fall of 2003, I began a doctorate program in rehabilitation science at Boston University. As I began my studies I found myself struggling with my course work, which was becoming an overwhelming and insurmountable challenge. My strong critical thinking, reasoning, memory and comprehension capacities, in which I took great pride, became severely diminished; I lived each day in an increasingly thick mental fog. As my symptoms grew more extreme, my hair became brittle and thinned. My normally excellent digestive system began to deteriorate, and I began to lose coordination in my hands and feet. Playing football became impossible. My normally positive outlook diminished and was replaced with depression. By the spring of 2005, I was forced to surrender my academic studies and my football league, both of which were my life.
Despite these symptoms, my physician of 15 years had neither an explanation nor suggestions regarding diagnosis, treatment or prognosis. My luck shifted by chance upon meeting someone who had suffered similar symptoms, and he warned me about mercury poisoning. I immediately saw a doctor who was experienced with mercury poisoning who promptly tested me for mercury. My initial urine samples showed mercury levels that were outrageously high--more than 7,000 percent higher than the laboratory range deemed acceptable. My doctor began chelation therapy immediately.
My path of recovery continues today with a focus on rebuilding and repairing my salvageable tissues. At times I am bedridden for several days, drained from my battle and sickened from pathogen die-off. A good week for me consists of being able to carry out normal daily functions three out of seven days. My disabilities have taken a toll in yet another part of my life. Since insurance refused to pay for my treatment, I had to pay out-of-pocket for more than four years of treatment. Medical expenses have drained all of my financial resources and have forced me to indefinitely halt my medical treatment. As I reflect on the last few years of my illness I ask myself why I wasn't warned about the mercury in my food. Why isn't mercury-laden seafood removed (or at least labeled) in stores and restaurants nationwide? I feel betrayed and disappointed that federal and state governments are not doing what they need to do to protect Americans from mercury-contaminated seafood, especially because the Food and Drug Administration has long known about mercury contamination in seafood.
Had there been labeling at the point of sale or, for example, a mercury calculator available like the one at www.gotmercury.org, I might not have been sickened by mercury. Mercury toxicity from eating seafood is entirely preventable. Consumer awareness is the key to preventing the life-crushing ordeals such as the one that I am living with today.
----------
Stephanie Kehas lives in Manchester, N.H.
Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
Last edited by Jason; 03-17-2005 at 06:48 PM. Reason: Quote tags, please.
#23
03-17-2005, 07:32 PM
Struggler at large
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: South East Valley Sprawl of Greater Phoenix
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by AZCivic
Find me a news story of anyone ever having died from mercury poisoning from eating a fish. It sounds like you're just one of those people who makes things up and claims the sky is falling without any facts whatsoever. You're not contributing to objective discussion.
Thanks for the link, Greenandblue.
#24
03-17-2005, 07:44 PM
Struggler at large
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: South East Valley Sprawl of Greater Phoenix
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Stevo12886
Now, asking out of ignorance (i dont want to act like i know it if i dont) what wildlife exactly will be displaced in the drilling? (read: is it tundra or the rainforrests of the south/coast)
The main reason that i am not totally agains the drilling, if it gets us 16 years, thats 16 years that we have to develop our biodeisel and ethenol production (i'm fairly confident that this is the fuel we will use in the near future).
#25
03-17-2005, 09:54 PM
It will be 16 years' worth (at today's usage rates) 10 years from now, and that's *if* the yield is at the upper end of the range. The estimates are based on the results of one test well - and those test results have been kept secret for about 20 yrs now. 
The kicker is, that given the proximity of where that oil is, it can't be sent down the trans-Alaskan pipeline. Rather, it has to be sent via tanker - and the only feasible shipping locations are the west coast refineries, Japan, & - China.
China must be very happy about this latest development. Maybe if we give them 80% or so of this oil, they won't cash in the $200 billion or so & rising (as of this writing) of our debt that they're holding in Treasuries. Want an interesting & informative perspective on the leverage that country is gaining on us, and how ANWR serves their needs even better than ours ? Take a look at Thomas Friedman's column in the NY Times today (no bleeding heart, he). Here's the link (you must be a member, but it's free):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/op...r_1&oref=login
The other thing is how much it will cost per barrel to get this oil. Estimates are up to $500 / barrel - even if oil is $100 / barrel, it's not financially viable.
The oil companies aren't really interested in ANWR anymore for those reasons. Sure, you'll have some token exploration there - after all of this effort by concerted individuals, they *better* put a couple of wells out there. But the *real* opportunities (ie; biggest potential yields) are off the Pacific coast and Gulf of Mexico - *that's* where big oil wants to go. And this bill opens up a way to do that.
Now I've added an additional point of discussion, having nothing to do with the eco aspects, but more with the financial. For the record - I don't think this is a wise move, when all of this is taken into consideration. If we had been working harder on developing alternative fuels over the last few years, we wouldn't be needing to chase the last drop of oil, along with the rest of the world. We'd be getting ready to *export* the new technologies to others at this point. Kinda like Toyota
Not to worry, though... guess where the 2nd largest known reserves in the world are (and there's even more potential that they haven't found yet, perhaps pushing them past Saudi Arabia) ? That's right - Iraq. Bet we'll be seeing oil out of there before 10yrs time. The unknown right now, is if it'll be headed our way (new contracts with Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil notwithstanding)
The kicker is, that given the proximity of where that oil is, it can't be sent down the trans-Alaskan pipeline. Rather, it has to be sent via tanker - and the only feasible shipping locations are the west coast refineries, Japan, & - China.
China must be very happy about this latest development. Maybe if we give them 80% or so of this oil, they won't cash in the $200 billion or so & rising (as of this writing) of our debt that they're holding in Treasuries. Want an interesting & informative perspective on the leverage that country is gaining on us, and how ANWR serves their needs even better than ours ? Take a look at Thomas Friedman's column in the NY Times today (no bleeding heart, he). Here's the link (you must be a member, but it's free):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/op...r_1&oref=login
The other thing is how much it will cost per barrel to get this oil. Estimates are up to $500 / barrel - even if oil is $100 / barrel, it's not financially viable.
The oil companies aren't really interested in ANWR anymore for those reasons. Sure, you'll have some token exploration there - after all of this effort by concerted individuals, they *better* put a couple of wells out there. But the *real* opportunities (ie; biggest potential yields) are off the Pacific coast and Gulf of Mexico - *that's* where big oil wants to go. And this bill opens up a way to do that.
Now I've added an additional point of discussion, having nothing to do with the eco aspects, but more with the financial. For the record - I don't think this is a wise move, when all of this is taken into consideration. If we had been working harder on developing alternative fuels over the last few years, we wouldn't be needing to chase the last drop of oil, along with the rest of the world. We'd be getting ready to *export* the new technologies to others at this point. Kinda like Toyota
Not to worry, though... guess where the 2nd largest known reserves in the world are (and there's even more potential that they haven't found yet, perhaps pushing them past Saudi Arabia) ? That's right - Iraq. Bet we'll be seeing oil out of there before 10yrs time. The unknown right now, is if it'll be headed our way (new contracts with Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil notwithstanding)
#26
03-18-2005, 01:06 AM
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 1,797
Just some ANWR notes:
Wildlife doesn't seem to mind much if we're there. The population of the Central Artic caribou herd near the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay has grown an average of 8.5% per year. The oil exploration operations don't bother them a bit.
When ANWR was created in 1980 a section was set aside for oil exploration. It is that area in which the Senate has approved oil exploration. Imagine that.
Take the highest estimate of oil reserves from ANWR, then take the lowest. Use those numbers to come up with a mean estimate of ANWR oil potential. That figure is 10.4 billion barrels of oil. That much oil could meet the total petroleum consumption needs of the state of New York for 34 years; Georgia for 54 years, Maine for 259 years, Pennsylvania for 39 years. That is not an insignificant amount of oil.
If the most optimistic estimates of oil reserves in ANWR turn out to be true, it would be enough to replace 30 years of oil imports from Saudi Arabia.
Will oil production from ANWR exceed estimates? Who knows? The estimates for Prudhoe Bay were around eight billion barrels of oil. So far we've extracted 14 billion barrels .. and we're not near through.
Take a dime and place it on the corner of a large 12x24 foot carpet, about the floor size of a single garage. This represents the space required for the ANWR projects.
When ANWR was created in 1980 a section was set aside for oil exploration. It is that area in which the Senate has approved oil exploration. Imagine that.
Take the highest estimate of oil reserves from ANWR, then take the lowest. Use those numbers to come up with a mean estimate of ANWR oil potential. That figure is 10.4 billion barrels of oil. That much oil could meet the total petroleum consumption needs of the state of New York for 34 years; Georgia for 54 years, Maine for 259 years, Pennsylvania for 39 years. That is not an insignificant amount of oil.
If the most optimistic estimates of oil reserves in ANWR turn out to be true, it would be enough to replace 30 years of oil imports from Saudi Arabia.
Will oil production from ANWR exceed estimates? Who knows? The estimates for Prudhoe Bay were around eight billion barrels of oil. So far we've extracted 14 billion barrels .. and we're not near through.
Take a dime and place it on the corner of a large 12x24 foot carpet, about the floor size of a single garage. This represents the space required for the ANWR projects.
#27
03-18-2005, 04:15 AM
Struggler at large
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: South East Valley Sprawl of Greater Phoenix
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Hot_Georgia_2004
Take a dime and place it on the corner of a large 12x24 foot carpet, about the floor size of a single garage. This represents the space required for the ANWR projects.
Originally Posted by GreenAndBlue
The oil companies aren't really interested in ANWR anymore for those reasons. Sure, you'll have some token exploration there - after all of this effort by concerted individuals, they *better* put a couple of wells out there. But the *real* opportunities (ie; biggest potential yields) are off the Pacific coast and Gulf of Mexico - *that's* where big oil wants to go. And this bill opens up a way to do that.
#28
03-18-2005, 05:39 AM
Here's what it boils down to:
The ANWR drilling issue is complicated and controversial, and both sides make good points on some issues and not-so-good points on other issues. Here is what I think the issue comes down to:
Oil is indeed running out or at least running towards the low end. slowly but surely, in all the know sources worldwide - no one disputes that. We need to drill oil on our own soil when and where we can find crude in order to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and help us sustain ourselves. If a few animals and birds have to "re-route" themselves in the process, then so be it. Animals are more resilient and flexible than most greenies give them credit for.
The "greater good" should apply to humans before it applies to animals. And face it, we are an oil economy, and will be for many decades to come.
Let's do what we can with minimal disruption, but don't put the welfare of animals ahead of the welfare of humans.
Oil is indeed running out or at least running towards the low end. slowly but surely, in all the know sources worldwide - no one disputes that. We need to drill oil on our own soil when and where we can find crude in order to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and help us sustain ourselves. If a few animals and birds have to "re-route" themselves in the process, then so be it. Animals are more resilient and flexible than most greenies give them credit for.
The "greater good" should apply to humans before it applies to animals. And face it, we are an oil economy, and will be for many decades to come.
Let's do what we can with minimal disruption, but don't put the welfare of animals ahead of the welfare of humans.
#29
03-18-2005, 07:38 AM
another ANWR info site
Here is a good story on ANWR and reasonable points as to why it's not going to hurt it one bit by drilling there:
Got this at this web page:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/17/183746.php
ANWR: Making the Wasteland Bloom Oil
Posted by Dave Nalle on March 17, 2005 06:37 PM (See all posts by Dave Nalle)
Filed under: Politics - Scroll down to read comments on this story and/or add one of your own.
The Electric Car: Development and Future of Battery, Hybrid and Fuel-Cell Cars (Iee Power & Energy Series, 38)
Michael H. Westbrook
Book from Institution Electrical Engineers
Release date: 01 December, 2001
As I predicted some while ago, the change in the balance of the Senate finally paid off and they just passed a bill opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling.
It's about time we got our act together, overcame the ridiculous complaints of environmental opportunities and did something with this godforsaken wasteland to put it to some sort of good use. Admittedly it's not going to solve our oil needs singlehandedly, but why not create jobs and get at least some oil out of the area. Keep in mind that ANWR - contrary to what so-called environmentalists claim - is an inhospitable wasteland. While the southern sections are at least inhabited by bear and caribou, the area where the drilling is planned looks like the picture to the right. For about a month in the summer scrubby grass grows there and for the rest of the year it's all mud and ice. While technically part of the wildlife refuge, the only life there is a singularly unappealing and virtually unkillable species of flat-worm that lives in the mud. They can't even build roads on the mud plain and have to drive in and out of the area in the winter when the ground is frozen. It's the definition of a godforsaken wasteland.
Environmentalists will continue to spin candyfloss fantasies about ANWR, but the truth is there for anyone to see. My favorite photo from ANWR is shown to the left, where a bear is lounging on the Prudhoe Bay pipeline to warm up in the cold weather. Bears, caribou and other wildlife of the area regularly use the pipeline as a heat source and their population has actually increased since the pipeline was built. Just as the pipeline is non-destructive, the same is true of the planned wells. With modern drilling technology their footprints are tiny and their ecological impact on the blighted and uninhabitable land around them is negligible.
Frankly, the fact that environmentalists have wasted so much time defending the ANWR wasteland when they could be pursuing real ecological issues and actually trying to do something constructive is one of the reasons why the environmental movement in the US is becoming increasingly marginalized and losing any effective voice in politics. If they were to concentrate on real problems and creative approaches to conservation they could have a real influence in the political mainstream. For example, why not focus on promoting alternative fuel vehicles? They're becoming a marketplace reality, and even a moderate change such as the conversion of the US automobile market to hybrid motors would save 100 times more petroleum than ANWR could ever produce, and have an incalculable positive impact on the environment in an area that actually benefits human beings. Perhaps if notable environmentalists like Michael Moore and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would set an example by not travelling in convoys of gas-guzzline SUV limos we could make some progress.
But at least until liberals join conservatives in looking for more serious solutions to our fuel independence issues, ANWR will provide us with a bit more oil to keep us afloat with no harm to the environment.
For more info on the ANWR project and what ANWR is really like, check out the ANWR Webpage,
Posted by Dave Nalle on March 17, 2005 06:37 PM (See all posts by Dave Nalle)
Filed under: Politics - Scroll down to read comments on this story and/or add one of your own.
The Electric Car: Development and Future of Battery, Hybrid and Fuel-Cell Cars (Iee Power & Energy Series, 38)
Michael H. Westbrook
Book from Institution Electrical Engineers
Release date: 01 December, 2001
As I predicted some while ago, the change in the balance of the Senate finally paid off and they just passed a bill opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling.It's about time we got our act together, overcame the ridiculous complaints of environmental opportunities and did something with this godforsaken wasteland to put it to some sort of good use. Admittedly it's not going to solve our oil needs singlehandedly, but why not create jobs and get at least some oil out of the area. Keep in mind that ANWR - contrary to what so-called environmentalists claim - is an inhospitable wasteland. While the southern sections are at least inhabited by bear and caribou, the area where the drilling is planned looks like the picture to the right. For about a month in the summer scrubby grass grows there and for the rest of the year it's all mud and ice. While technically part of the wildlife refuge, the only life there is a singularly unappealing and virtually unkillable species of flat-worm that lives in the mud. They can't even build roads on the mud plain and have to drive in and out of the area in the winter when the ground is frozen. It's the definition of a godforsaken wasteland.
Environmentalists will continue to spin candyfloss fantasies about ANWR, but the truth is there for anyone to see. My favorite photo from ANWR is shown to the left, where a bear is lounging on the Prudhoe Bay pipeline to warm up in the cold weather. Bears, caribou and other wildlife of the area regularly use the pipeline as a heat source and their population has actually increased since the pipeline was built. Just as the pipeline is non-destructive, the same is true of the planned wells. With modern drilling technology their footprints are tiny and their ecological impact on the blighted and uninhabitable land around them is negligible. Frankly, the fact that environmentalists have wasted so much time defending the ANWR wasteland when they could be pursuing real ecological issues and actually trying to do something constructive is one of the reasons why the environmental movement in the US is becoming increasingly marginalized and losing any effective voice in politics. If they were to concentrate on real problems and creative approaches to conservation they could have a real influence in the political mainstream. For example, why not focus on promoting alternative fuel vehicles? They're becoming a marketplace reality, and even a moderate change such as the conversion of the US automobile market to hybrid motors would save 100 times more petroleum than ANWR could ever produce, and have an incalculable positive impact on the environment in an area that actually benefits human beings. Perhaps if notable environmentalists like Michael Moore and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would set an example by not travelling in convoys of gas-guzzline SUV limos we could make some progress.
But at least until liberals join conservatives in looking for more serious solutions to our fuel independence issues, ANWR will provide us with a bit more oil to keep us afloat with no harm to the environment.
For more info on the ANWR project and what ANWR is really like, check out the ANWR Webpage,
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/17/183746.php
#30
03-18-2005, 11:14 AM
Struggler at large
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: South East Valley Sprawl of Greater Phoenix
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by lars-ss
Here is a good story on ANWR and reasonable points as to why it's not going to hurt it one bit by drilling there:
Got this at this web page:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/17/183746.php
Got this at this web page:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/17/183746.php
There is the extreme in both directions... there is the camp that says it won't hurt one bit, and there is the camp that says it will be disasterous. The truth is somewhere in the middle. As for me, I will continue to argue that the risks far outweigh the gains, and its setting a terrible precident for opening up more areas that have been previously restricted.
