Polar Bears A Ruse To Stall Drilling

Polar Bears A Ruse To Stall Drilling

There are 24 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Feb 18, 2008, titled Polar Bears A Ruse To Stall Drilling. In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

Exxon used to encourage motorists to "put a tiger in your tank." Well, a different animal may begin influencing traffic soon.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Dave

Granby, CT

#1 Feb 18, 2008
Perhaps we should drill in Texas. I know, after Bush cuts the brush we can drill there. Or maybe in your back yard.
Seriously, what is needed is a better funded research to find fuels that will last us through this century and into the next. Relying on a bucket of energy that is 75% depleted is not a wise approach. It should also be noted that the Roe Institute has a right wing political agenda.
Shoreliner

Guilford, CT

#2 Feb 18, 2008
Thank you Mr. Lieberman.

It is high time that the ANWR be developed for all Americans.
Mr Giblets

India

#3 Feb 18, 2008
if you Americans can't drill in your own country for your own oil, well, all I can say is, you aren't in charge of your own country!
PS we have inshore and plenty more offshore HERE - but will we drill ? of course not! who IS in charge? certainly it's not Big Oil.

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#4 Feb 18, 2008
Giblets ... have another pint and sleep it off.... USA got spoiled on its own oil from OK and TX decades ago and can't kick the habit. There is a pitance of oil in anwr ... what about conservation? Bush is a conservative... what does he conserve? Why does he not call for conservation? Speed up getting rid of old light bulbs... that would save more than what is in ANWR.
Dirk

United States

#5 Feb 18, 2008
Drilling in ANWR for internal combustion engines is completely wrongheaded.

Petroleum reserves need to be preserved, not for gasoline, but for chemical feedstocks.

This is the source of all our drugs, plastics, many materials, paints, synthetic fabrics, the stuff of modern life

Dirk
CTFamily

Marion, CT

#6 Feb 18, 2008
While we are waiting for other energy alternatives to be developed, we need whatever domestic production we can get. If ANWR can be drilled without damaging the environment, it should be. And anyone who lives outside a city and has to drive to get anywhere has no right to say otherwise.

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#7 Feb 18, 2008
But drilling can't and won't be done "without damaging the environment" .. just building the roads to get there is damaging. There WILL be spilled oil. Do you think the oil companies care about the environment (other than getting caught and fined?) Why not leave ANWR for our grandkids? Maybe by then they can get the oil without damage... and the oil will be more valuable then. Conservation! Aren't conservatives supposed to conserve?

We are at a crossroads where we can ruin or conserve the biosphere. As it goes, so so we.
Shoreliner

Guilford, CT

#8 Feb 18, 2008
Coolmind wrote:
But drilling can't and won't be done "without damaging the environment" .. just building the roads to get there is damaging. There WILL be spilled oil. Do you think the oil companies care about the environment (other than getting caught and fined?) Why not leave ANWR for our grandkids? Maybe by then they can get the oil without damage... and the oil will be more valuable then. Conservation! Aren't conservatives supposed to conserve?
We are at a crossroads where we can ruin or conserve the biosphere. As it goes, so so we.
Are our grandkids going to vacation in ANWR?

Everything in life comes at a cost. There is no free ride.

Do you think that the benefits derived from drilling for oil in ANWR, or any place for that matter, outweigh the benefits?

I do and I believe that most reasonable Americans support this.

As for you and your ilk, maybe you would like to turn back the clock and live like Americans did in the 1850s with no electricity or running water.
Zonker

Danielson, CT

#9 Feb 18, 2008
Shoreliner wrote:
<quoted text>
Are our grandkids going to vacation in ANWR?
Everything in life comes at a cost. There is no free ride.
Do you think that the benefits derived from drilling for oil in ANWR, or any place for that matter, outweigh the benefits?
I do and I believe that most reasonable Americans support this.
As for you and your ilk, maybe you would like to turn back the clock and live like Americans did in the 1850s with no electricity or running water.
Your simplistic view on ANWR is amusing. And the result of not thinking an issue through.

ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil. How much is recoverable is questionable. At an extraction rate of 1 million barrels per day, it'll last 25 years or so. Theoretically. But oilfields are not static. They pump a lot at first, then peak, then decline. Prudhoe Bay is in decline, as is Cantarell, Ghawar, Burgan, Kirkuk, Ahwaz, and several others.

Global oil consumption is currently 83 million Barrels PER DAY. Oil is a global commodity. Do you posit that ANWR would be only for Americans? A ridiculous assumption. Oil is a global commodity. If we say all US oil is for domestic consumption, other nations will follow suit. We don't have nearly enough domestic sources to risk that.

We currently import nearly 2 million bpd from Canada alone, another 1.7 mbpd from Saudi Arabia.

ANWR is like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The world is running out of oil. Keeping ANWR off limits will protect it for when things start to get ugly.

Someday, we will use the reserves there. But not so that misinformed people like you can fill up their SUV's.

The following Republicans voted against drilling in ANWR the last time it came up, 2005.

Lincoln Chafee-RI
Norm Coleman-MN
Susan Collins-ME
Mike DeWine-OH
John McCain-AZ
Gordon Smith-OR
Olympia Snowe-ME

They understand that in a world of declining resources, protecting what little we have left is critical.

Our best shot for economic survival is with the Oil Sands of Canada.

You really need to do more research before posting ignorant nonsense. You apparently have litle to no understanding of the oil markets today.

Oil has paid for my retirement, well before age 60. Understanding the reality of peak oil has made me a very wealthy man. I am amused when I read comments such as yours.
Gotta Love It

United States

#10 Feb 18, 2008
I think we should do some drilling on the CT shore line... there is ound to be oil there. So what if it ruins the view, or anything else. We need that oil.
Lie Detective

Zebulon, NC

#11 Feb 18, 2008
Coolmind wrote:
Giblets ... have another pint and sleep it off.... USA got spoiled on its own oil from OK and TX decades ago and can't kick the habit. There is a pitance of oil in anwr ... what about conservation? Bush is a conservative... what does he conserve? Why does he not call for conservation? Speed up getting rid of old light bulbs... that would save more than what is in ANWR.
1. You butchered the use of the word conservative.
2. Oil is what keeps America going so we need to have sources within our reach that we can use so we don't have to rely on the Middle East or other countries for oil.
ArchieBunkerRejo iceth

Hartford, CT

#12 Feb 18, 2008
Coolmind wrote:
But drilling can't and won't be done "without damaging the environment" .. just building the roads to get there is damaging. There WILL be spilled oil. Do you think the oil companies care about the environment (other than getting caught and fined?) Why not leave ANWR for our grandkids? Maybe by then they can get the oil without damage... and the oil will be more valuable then. Conservation! Aren't conservatives supposed to conserve?
We are at a crossroads where we can ruin or conserve the biosphere. As it goes, so so we.
Cool - there won't be enough oil spilled to make much of an impact on anything, so don't worry on that account. Big Oil's first priority may not be the environment, but they do wish to avoid both lawsuits, and the loss of revenue due to wasted product (oil spills), so rejoice! Big Oil is on your side, albeit for reasons which you may not agree.

ANWR will still be there for your grandkids, as will the caribou, the moose, the bear...

I notice you have a new pic. Did you put on some weight? You still look hot, just more curvy perhaps.

“The Truth Will Set You Free”

Since: Jun 07

Gainesville, FL

#13 Feb 18, 2008
Coolmind wrote:
But drilling can't and won't be done "without damaging the environment" .. just building the roads to get there is damaging. There WILL be spilled oil. Do you think the oil companies care about the environment (other than getting caught and fined?) Why not leave ANWR for our grandkids? Maybe by then they can get the oil without damage... and the oil will be more valuable then. Conservation! Aren't conservatives supposed to conserve?
We are at a crossroads where we can ruin or conserve the biosphere. As it goes, so so we.
Here, chew on this awhile nomind.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/...

Research Shows Little Effect From Arctic Offshore Oil Drilling; Study Reveals Thriving Oceanographic System

"We analyzed several species of fish, clams and amphipods," said Trefry. "We also studied the water, ice and mud to check for potential pollution." What Trefry's team and their colleagues from Battelle Ocean Sciences, Kinnetics Laboratories, Applied Marine Sciences and the University of Texas Marine Lab discovered through their analyses was a pleasant surprise. "We found early in the process that impacts to the environment from offshore drilling were minimal," Trefry said. "In fact, the entire offshore area was near pristine. During the past four years we've continued to monitor the area and still have no evidence of significant impacts."

"What we came to realize is that extreme caution by industry, combined with movement of water and sediment offshore, help keep the coastal system clean," he said

“The Truth Will Set You Free”

Since: Jun 07

Gainesville, FL

#14 Feb 18, 2008
Zonker wrote:
<quoted text>
Your simplistic view on ANWR is amusing. And the result of not thinking an issue through.
ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil. How much is recoverable is questionable. At an extraction rate of 1 million barrels per day, it'll last 25 years or so. Theoretically. But oilfields are not static. They pump a lot at first, then peak, then decline. Prudhoe Bay is in decline, as is Cantarell, Ghawar, Burgan, Kirkuk, Ahwaz, and several others.
Global oil consumption is currently 83 million Barrels PER DAY. Oil is a global commodity. Do you posit that ANWR would be only for Americans? A ridiculous assumption. Oil is a global commodity. If we say all US oil is for domestic consumption, other nations will follow suit. We don't have nearly enough domestic sources to risk that.
We currently import nearly 2 million bpd from Canada alone, another 1.7 mbpd from Saudi Arabia.
ANWR is like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The world is running out of oil. Keeping ANWR off limits will protect it for when things start to get ugly.
Someday, we will use the reserves there. But not so that misinformed people like you can fill up their SUV's.
The following Republicans voted against drilling in ANWR the last time it came up, 2005.
Lincoln Chafee-RI
Norm Coleman-MN
Susan Collins-ME
Mike DeWine-OH
John McCain-AZ
Gordon Smith-OR
Olympia Snowe-ME
They understand that in a world of declining resources, protecting what little we have left is critical.
Our best shot for economic survival is with the Oil Sands of Canada.
You really need to do more research before posting ignorant nonsense. You apparently have litle to no understanding of the oil markets today.
Oil has paid for my retirement, well before age 60. Understanding the reality of peak oil has made me a very wealthy man. I am amused when I read comments such as yours.
Besides Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico we have huge oil shale reserves out west that vastly outweigh the Canadian oil sands. It's another source we need to go after for our own energy independence until a cost-effective and reliable alternative is found.

But, the first thing we need to do is shift our electricity generation to nuclear - especially the new generation of reactors. That is the solution that will do the most to lower oil use - use it for hydrogen generation and for new generation electric vehicles as well as our everyday needs.
Zonker

United States

#15 Feb 18, 2008
The Truth Matters wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico we have huge oil shale reserves out west that vastly outweigh the Canadian oil sands. It's another source we need to go after for our own energy independence until a cost-effective and reliable alternative is found.
But, the first thing we need to do is shift our electricity generation to nuclear - especially the new generation of reactors. That is the solution that will do the most to lower oil use - use it for hydrogen generation and for new generation electric vehicles as well as our everyday needs.
I agree that we need to shift electricy gen. to nuclear for the reasons you stated.

But the oil shale is another topic of great misunderstanding.

"Oil shale is an organic-rich sedimentary rock, which belongs to the group of sapropel fuels. It is differentiated from bitumen-impregnated rocks (tar sands and petroleum reservoir rocks), humic coals and carbonaceous shale. In oil shales, the kerogen has not yet been naturally cooked into petroleum by heat and pressure.

Oil shales vary considerably in their mineral content, chemical composition, age, type of kerogen, and depositional history, and are derived from a number of different organisms. One classification scheme is based on their composition, dividing them into three categories: Carbonate-rich shales, siliceous shales, and cannel shales."

In a few million years, oil shale will become petroleum. Right now, it gives us kerogen, which is a very low grade energy source. So far, it has not been economically feasible to process shale. The process is very environmentally dirty, even worse than oilsands production.

" The oil derived from oil shale is not a direct substitute for crude oil in all applications. By comparison with West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark standard for crude oil in the futures contract market, shale oil sulfur content ranges up to 9.5% by weight, where West Texas Intermediate's sulfur content is limited to no more than .42% Shale oil also contains higher concentrations of olefins, oxygen, and nitrogen than conventional crude oil, as well as higher viscosities. It does not contain the full range of hydrocarbons used in modern gasoline production."

Oil shale may help in some applications, but it is not a replacement for bitumen based oil.

Americans need to get over blaming Big Oil or the Middle East for our problems. We need to face the fact that major changes must be made to lessen our dependnce on oil.

We've got to get past the parochical view that 'America's lifestyle is not negotiable'(G.W. Bush). We can either make changes willingly, or let change be forced upon us. The former will be a lot less painful than the latter.

Since: Jul 07

NYC NY

#16 Feb 18, 2008
Zonker wrote:
<quoted text>
Your simplistic view on ANWR is amusing. And the result of not thinking an issue through.
... I am amused when I read comments such as yours.
ANWR is not a tank that oil can be tapped when we need it. The development of ANWR will take many years, to build the roads and pipelines, then more years to drill enough wells to start production.
Knucks the Knucklehead

United States

#17 Feb 18, 2008
60 Minutes, the TV news show, reported that the happiest, most content nation rated by the experts is Denmark, where 25% of the electrical power comes from wind. They are said to pay on average 50% of their income for taxes. Do the Danes get some oil from the North Sea? I don't know. Free running democracies such as ours in the U.S. tend to send everyone on the highway of their choice to hell. Oil is one highway, nuclear another. Anyone ever hear of nuclear reactor pressure vessel neutron embrittlement and its associated costs during decommissioning? We should have more care about what future generations will think of us.
Zonker

United States

#18 Feb 18, 2008
Lie Detective wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You butchered the use of the word conservative.
2. Oil is what keeps America going so we need to have sources within our reach that we can use so we don't have to rely on the Middle East or other countries for oil.
Your complete inability to comprehend the problems facing us is startling! And frightening. There is zero chance that we could ever produce enough oil domestically to stop our dependence on foreign oil.

We use over 20 million bpd now. We produce less than 40% of that amount. America's oil production peaked in the 1970's. Coinciding with the first OPEC induced oil shock.

We would need to discover another Prudhoe Bay sized find monthly to become energy independent - and it ain't gonna happen.

Grow up and quit believing right-wing propaganda. Do some reading on the subject before making ignorant observations.
Zonker

United States

#19 Feb 18, 2008
GigaTOE wrote:
<quoted text>
ANWR is not a tank that oil can be tapped when we need it. The development of ANWR will take many years, to build the roads and pipelines, then more years to drill enough wells to start production.
And ANWR was discovered how many years ago? How many other semi-large fields have been discovered in the USA since then, with all our new geologic technology?

>>>>>WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.<<<<<

Better to save it until our grandchildren really need it. We have wasted resources like drunken sailors. Time to conserve.

“The Truth Will Set You Free”

Since: Jun 07

Gainesville, FL

#22 Feb 18, 2008
Now, back to polar bears.

Reports from Greenland are saying that the polar bears are starving and invading towns right now because of TOO MUCH ICE.[original story in Danish]

Just another one of those stories you won't hear about unless you do some research.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Prudhoe Bay Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fire and Gas (Jan '16) Feb '18 Artic sunshine 2
News Alaska LNG plans water testing, drilling for su... (Apr '16) Apr '16 Jennie 1
News 'Ice Road Truckers': No Lisa Kelly on IRT Season 6 (Jun '12) Nov '15 Cantusee 14
News Putting the hammer down: Sterling woman to be f... (Jun '09) Jan '15 Tundra Wookie 4
An Affair In Prudhoe Bay (Jun '14) Nov '14 slipperyslope 5
Schlumberger Men just full of cheaters!!! (Nov '10) Oct '14 slipperyslope 4
News Bulletin 02/09/14 (Feb '14) Feb '14 Ray 1

Prudhoe Bay Jobs

Personal Finance

Prudhoe Bay Mortgages