Drilling in Alaska

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

AvsGirl41

New Yorker
Joined
Aug 28, 2002
Messages
2,948
Location
Denver, Colorado
Waste no time with that mandate, George!

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/111604/sta_20041116007.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]
 
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/20041108/globalwarming.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. :up:
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Chernobyl or global warming...which to choose. :| :sigh:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Dreadsox said:
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.
 
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.
 
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. :tsk:

It's nice to have such a reasonable discussion in FYM.:hug:
 
Jamila said:
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.
 
Dreadsox said:
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 said:
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.
 
As soon as equipement for utilizing alternative energy sources go into mass production then the costs would go down, and the money will stay in the country's own economy instead of sending it to the middle-east. Oil prices are very high at the moment and it doesn't look like they will go down soon (if they'll come down at all). Oil isn't going to last forever, we could save ourselves a lot of trouble in terms of damage to the environment and public health (and the cost of that to the economy, as if the damage in itself isn't reason enough). We deserve politicians who can think beyond these short-term solutions like in Alaska.
 
I essentially agree. But, to date, it seems we have not had a politician anywhere be able to adequately articulate a way to achieve this goal.
 
I think that's really what I dislike about the Alaska drilling thing, that it's just a short-term solution. But admittedly not a heck of alot of good alternative ideas have come up. Maybe it's a creativity crisis.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I guess that I must have dug out a good one, now tell me you like Indiana Jones :wink:

omg not only do i have all 3 on DVD but i also have a 4th behind the scenes one....when i was little i would play 'indiana jones' with my guy friends every day....i can quote the lines from all 3 movies....and i can't wait till the 4th one comes out!!!
 
Jackpot :sexywink:

I honestly do not go hiking without my wested modified A2 bomber jacket. That jacket serves me very well.

Indy IV should be great, I too have the DVD but down here they didn't have the bonus disk (wasn't in like every 10th copy of the Best Buy thing). Probably should look on ebay.

I am waiting for the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles to come out on DVD.
 
Last edited:
Yay, we can now rule over FYM, and then the world

:hug:

indyfix2.jpg

Best.Bit.Ever. (of course this was the jokey pic, with the mobile phone replacement made after ET Special Edition but we all know what I mean because google images this was as close as I could get)

It's not entirely OT, because um..... Indy was in Alaska in the 20's and wound up finding oil... the perfect excuse.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom