Drilling in Alaska - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-16-2004, 10:53 PM   #1
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Drilling in Alaska

Waste no time with that mandate, George!

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/...41116007.shtml

[Q]FAIRBANKS - The Interior Department has approved ConocoPhillips' plan to build two oil production pads in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, but the company has not yet decided to go forward with the drilling.

The two new pads would be developed on land leased by the company in 1999 on the eastern edge of NPR-A, southwest of the existing Alpine oil field. Oil was discovered at the sites in 2001.

If the sites are built, it would be the first commercial oil development in the NPR-A, according to the Bureau of Land Management.

Rebecca Watson, the assistant secretary for land and minerals management, has approved the plan for the two pads, along with the accompanying pipelines and power lines.

Ed Bovy, spokesman for the BLM's Anchorage office, said drilling could begin by next winter. Oil from the Alpine Satellites could reach the trans-Alaska pipeline by the summer of 2008.

Natalie Knox, spokeswoman for ConocoPhillips in Alaska, said the company has not yet made a decision to develop the two pads and other Alpine satellites. That decision depends on the outcome of another permit review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on all five pads, she said.

In the final approval document, BLM required ConocoPhillips to reroute a road to lessen the environmental impact. The new plan will allow the road to enter a three-mile setback from Fish Creek that is supposed to be free of disturbances.

The agency has been criticized by environmental groups during recent planning for oil leases elsewhere in the reserve because it has not made such setbacks ironclad.

Bovy said the new route will require less gravel and fewer road miles, while staying on ridges and away from more sensitive wetlands.

The BLM also required ConocoPhillips to raise pipeline clearances to seven feet off the ground. Existing North Slope Borough regulations require lines to be five feet off the ground, Knox said.

The BLM also required the company to attach power lines to pipeline supports instead of stringing them on separate poles.

The reserve covers about 23.5 million acres of public land west of Prudhoe Bay. Estimates of oil reserves in the NPR-A range from about 6 billion to 13 billion barrels of oil.[/Q]
__________________

__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 10:58 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:50 AM
Go nuts georgie boy, better to drill it off your own turf than fork over more money to the Sheiks.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 11:16 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Jamila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,454
Local Time: 05:50 PM
It would be nice to have a civilized and serious debate about the state of our environment.

Here is an article which greatly disturbs me:

http://animal.discovery.com/news/afp...alwarming.html

Are we really ready to sacrifice the future of entire species of animals for our wasteful energy needs?

We could be saving so much of our oil reserves for our future energy needs by developing alternate energy sources such as solar and wind power.
__________________
Jamila is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 11:21 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:50 AM
Solar and wind are simply not viable solutions for our energy needs, if we must have a solution right now - nuclear power, go nuclear - nuclear good.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 12:21 AM   #5
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Chernobyl or global warming...which to choose.

I had really hoped they would hold out on Alaska. I don't know what gave me that idea.

I would be happy if the U.S. made public transportation a solid and respectable alternative to our car-obsessed society. It would be a start.
__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 01:42 AM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:50 AM
Nuclear does not denote the doom and gloom bullshit from the greens. A properly run nuclear facility, which is what you get in the west for the right price and with the right oversight, is no danger to anybody.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 04:12 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:50 PM
Alaska was not a state that was divided in the least. they were a Bush supporting State 100%. I would think that they would have indicated displeasure with the President over this issue by not voting for him.

Reality is that we need resources.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 04:26 AM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:50 PM
It's true that we need resources but I was glad when those Republican Senators voted against drilling some years back. What with the new composition in the Senate we might get it this time.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 07:29 AM   #9
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 06:50 PM
It's interesting -- Alaska is a very nature-loving state. but I had a friend who lived there -- Anchorage to be exact -- and said Alaskans were in full support of the plan. It's going to create an amazing number of jobs and huge revenue for the state. Anyone else live in Alaska and have a perspective on this?
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 07:49 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 07:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Alaska was not a state that was divided in the least. they were a Bush supporting State 100%. I would think that they would have indicated displeasure with the President over this issue by not voting for him.

Reality is that we need resources.
as sharky said, this project will provide Alaska with great opportunity.

another reality, however, is that we need a healthy environment.
and this is a decision which will certainly not just impact the U.S.
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 07:52 AM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:50 PM
the question I have is would there be enough oil there or natural gas to actaually have an impact on our current dependance on the world.

If it does not....then I am not for this at all.

And I agree with everyone here, we should seek alternative means....but somehow....we just keep saying and not doing.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 08:04 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Jamila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,454
Local Time: 05:50 PM
The reason, I think, why the USA is currently not currently pursuing alternative energy sources is because the oil companies (especially Exxon) have way too much influence in the Bush Administration.

There have been some attempts in past administrations to start exploring alternate energy sources but not enough sustained resources have been put into research and development to produce a comprehensive plan of action by the U.S. government.

Very shortsighted plan for the future of the USA in my opinion.

It's nice to have such a reasonable discussion in FYM.
__________________
Jamila is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 08:15 AM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Jamila
The reason, I think, why the USA is currently not currently pursuing alternative energy sources is because the oil companies (especially Exxon) have way too much influence in the Bush Administration.

There have been some attempts in past administrations to start exploring alternate energy sources but not enough sustained resources have been put into research and development to produce a comprehensive plan of action by the U.S. government.
Private companies can and do pursue research into alternative sources of energy.

Long-term government funding of research is traditionally limited because of the public's desire for immediate results.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 12:28 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 12:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
And I agree with everyone here, we should seek alternative means....but somehow....we just keep saying and not doing.
That's because the companies/governments who are in the position to make some changes usually have financial reasons not to. Nuclear power is safe and relatively clean, but before we know what to do with the waste, we'd better have a back-up plan.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 11-17-2004, 12:42 PM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth
That's because the companies/governments who are in the position to make some changes usually have financial reasons not to.
Our current sources of energy are too cheap to justify massive investment into alternatives. As resources are depleted, alternatives will be ushered in when they are more cost effective.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com