Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-14-2005   #11
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17
HANDS OFF the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge! No slippery slope, no arguement. No more oil industry reps yakking about how little of an effect it will be to RUIN our public lands for corporate profit. Take off!
Hot damn! Someone nuttier than I am! Take it away, kayaker, let em have it. I'm out of here.



tk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2005   #12
Parker, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1986
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 31
Send a message via Yahoo to wcrocket
HANDS OFF the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge! No slippery slope, no arguement. No more oil industry reps yakking about how little of an effect it will be to RUIN our public lands for corporate profit. Take off!
Supply and demand.... that what drives corporate profit. If they, and that includes you, stop using it the Oil Companies will stop pumping it.

Those Public lands will be used by the Public. That includes Commercial rafters, hunters, and some day even Oil and Gas Companies. People are not gonna freeze and live or die in the dark because you want to decide who can use that land. The majority may vote to keep O & G developers out this year but someday when they have to do with out fuel it will be developed.

wcrocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2005   #13
El Flaco's Avatar
Golden, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,879
My concern with ANWR:

The national security argument doesn't really wash - it's not enough oil at peak production to affect significant change. The estimated yield from that region equates to a six month supply of oil at the current rate of US consumption. Granted, we wouldn't use this all at once, and it would reduce the amount of mideast oil we import (currently 22% - our total foreign oil imports are over 60% with supplies from Mexico, Venezuela and Canada among the 'friendlies' that supply us).

However, we could reduce our reliance on foreign oil more effectively by adopting higher CAFE (CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY) Standards for light trucks, currently at 20.5%. this does not mean that Ford et. al. cannot produce your big honkin' shuttle rig- they must simply adopt a range of vehicles that average out to an MPG that's more efficient across the board. The Big Three earned record profits thoughout the 90's due to SUV sales, and they certainly would like to protect that money tree. With gradually stepped up CAFE standards, they can still build the dually Powerstroke trucks, but if they include the 11.5 mpg soccer mom Expedition in their range of offerings, they won't meet the standards. And we're not talking a huge jump in efficiency here. To put this into perspective- a one mile-per-gallon increase over 6 years would save about five billion gallons of fuel. Big Three will argue that this meets 'consumer preference', but that really comes down to the common good outweighing the petty wants of the relative few that can afford such vehicles. Common sense in my book- Buy a 4 cylinder mini-van, MaryAnn.

However, as long as the automakers line the pockets of Congress (and as long as the veto pen is wielded by an ex-failed-oilman), those standards aren't likely to be enacted anytime soon. There hasn't been an increase of those standards since 1985 (20 years!), and in that time our oil imports have risen from 40% to over 60%. Nice work, Congress. Campaign finance reform, anyone?

The other argument you hear is that the total land they want to drill on represents only 2000 acres in ANWR. That may be true, but it wouldn't be one 2000 acre parcel that gets affected- it would be more like forty or fifty smaller parcels spread out all over the Reserve. Lots of roads.

You'll hear that we'll gain revenues from oil and gas leases in ANWR. True- estimated at $1.2 billion. In other words, about what we send in a week in Iraq, 'protecting' the oil there. Fun fact:

Other items of note, direct from the Department of Energy's assesment of ANWR in March of 2002:

Oil production in Alaska from outside of the Arctic Refuge is projected to increase by 22% by 2020, from 900,000 barrels a day in 2002 to 1.1 million gallons per day.
· The amount of technically recoverable oil from areas of the U.S. outside the Arctic Refuge (136 billion barrels) is 17.7 times the amount of oil projected to be technically recoverable from within the refuge (7.7 billion barrels) .
· At peak production in 2020, oil from the Arctic Refuge would amount to only 800,000 barrels a day, "roughly seven-tenths of 1 percent of projected world oil production".
· The first drop of oil from the Arctic Refuge would not flow until 2011 if drilling is authorized in 2002.

No natural gas would be economically recoverable from the refuge by 2020.

It's just not necessary, folks. It's another government handout to oil exploration companies.
El Flaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2005   #14
Parker, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1986
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 31
Send a message via Yahoo to wcrocket
Okay.. I am getting bored with this topic. Lets argue about something else.

I think we should build a nice big ole Hydro Dam above Buena Vista on the Ark. It is a great idea. We will have more water and electricity for the Front Range and reduce our dependence on Oil.

Am I right?????
wcrocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2005   #15
Golden, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 321
Bush wouldn't approve of that kind of renewable energy development. He'd rather drill for oil and gas in the middle of BVs new whitewater park.

As far as argument about supply and demand goes -

Obviously it doesn't work. Oil and gas is not bought and sold as a simple free market commodity and constitutes someting like 70-80% of our nation's energy budget. Energy is a necessity and as populations grow and countries develop around the world we will need new sources. I can't turn away from oil and gas because what else am I going to put in my car?

However, oil and gas has a limited supply. THere is only a limited supply in the world and when its gone, its gone. While arguments vary about when this will occur, there is no arguing as to if this will occur. This is no solid foundation for ANY economy.

As such, what we really need more than new oil and gas development is to do the serious Research & Development on new technologies that are renweable. Numerous examples of these exist, such as wind and solar energy, biofuels, and fuel cells. It will cost a lot of money in the near term, but it will also create jobs and in the long term may even cheaper than oil and gas is now. Developing such alternives sooner rather than later would also allow us to preserve places such as ANWR because in the end, we might not need the resources contained within them.

So far, the oil & gas industry, and several middle eastern nations are more determined to hinder these technologies out of their own. There have been several puny research programs set up to deliberatly find such technologies to in feasable so that the oil & gas industry can keep on going as is. So when the oil and gas industry asks me for a favor such as opening up ANWR or Desolation Canyon to oil and gas drilling, an tell me its for my own good, I will hell no! I signed the letter.

benpetri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2005   #16
Parker, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1986
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 31
Send a message via Yahoo to wcrocket
Good Post Ben. I agree with many of your comments.

We will definitely deplete the majority of the worlds of Oil & Gas reserves. We have only been using them as a primary source for energy for about 100 years. No one is sure when we will run out but I have heard some time in the next 50 - 100 years we will be forced to switch to another full source. Hopefully, we won't screw things up before then.

The high cost of fossil fuels due to short supply will make the cost of developing alternative sources of energy economic. Again supply and demand. As far as oil companies discouraging that.... I think several plan to be around long after their gasoline pumps are gone. So I disagree with the suggestion that they oppose alternative fuels. They all want to pump that hydrogen or what ever the next fuel will be into your car and they are looking for ways to do it right now.

Regardless, I still think we need a new Dam above Buena Vista so tell me why we shouldn't do that and let the Texans have some lake front property at the foot of those mountains.

wcrocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005   #17
kayaker's Avatar
in a van down by the river, California
Paddling Since: 1974
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 126
oil and gas development in Alaska

get the facts about oil and gas development in Alaska
from the pros on open space and wilderness, the Wilderness Society<---click here for details
kayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2005   #18
JCKeck1's Avatar
Seattle, Washington
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,471
Send a message via AIM to JCKeck1
I just wanted to mention that even very clean roads a drilling pads do have a very large impact on the tundra environment. This is because the ground in that environment is frozen for a large portion of the year, but roads and drilling pads significantly raise the temperature of the surrounding ground. A two lane road affects an area similar in size to an eight lane freeway. This raise in temperature significantly alters the ecosystem of mosses, lichen and small herbacious plants that cover the tundra. Altering the plant life obviously has large effects all the way up the food chain. It doesn't take large oil spills to ruin a tundra environment.
I would also like to take this moment to give a little cheer to the supreme court and especially the chief justice: "Four More Years!"
JCKeck1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2005   #19
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 39

Everyone keeps going back and forth about the issues surrounding ANWR pro and con, yet no one mentions the alternatives. Specifically, COLORADO. The Piceance plateau and surrounding area have fairly sizeable reserves of coal, coal bed methane, and oil. Therefore, it is high up on the list as an alternative.
The arguments for drilling in Alaska, not Colorado, are many.
I would venture to say that of those who are active in this discussion, more live, work, and/or play in Colorado rather than northern Alaska. Since ANWR is a protected refuge, any drilling or mining is monitored closely for proper procedure. In Colorado, much of the land is under BLM jurisdiction, and no such environmental scrutiny will exist.
Secondly, the area in ANWR is minimal. About 5% of the entire reserve will be used. So, fortunately for all who imagine an entire wildlife reserve befouled with oil, you are wrong. The areas affected will be localized and minimalized. In Colorado, by contrast, virtually the entire plateau and northwest region will be affected, thus affecting a large portion of western Colorado. Species migration, hunting and tourism revenue, property values, and environmental concerns are all very significant topics that will be profoundly impacted. Which area stands to be more negatively affected?

The Alaskan north shore oil operations are economically and socially successful. The industry has allowed the area to profit and thrive, with many indigenous people thankful for the funds that have been brought.
In Colorado, no reimbursements will be given to the inhabitants, as occurred in Alaska. The economic rewards for any reserves in the Piceance region are outweighed greatly by the negatives. The harmful impact to Colorado’s thriving tourism and real estate market, as well as its effects on the land itself, point to further use of Alaska’s reserves.
Just a thought…

Western Slope WaterMan is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
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

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A short vid of the US National Whitewater Center Mike Harvey Whitewater Kayaking 4 10-26-2006 09:45 AM
A-1 on national TV. farp Whitewater Kayaking 9 10-24-2006 10:10 AM
US National Whitewater Center Video Mike Harvey Whitewater Kayaking 5 07-28-2006 11:26 AM
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Backpacking AndrewO Kayaking | Trip Planner 0 05-04-2006 03:15 PM
First ever Collegiate National Whitewater Championships fluid Whitewater Kayaking 1 03-31-2006 12:05 PM

» Classified Ads
2014 Rockstar Jackson...

posted by Scardenas95

Great shape, excellent boat!


posted by jordanfrank7

I am selling my kayak to get ready for the winter season. ...

Pyranha Burn 3 XL

posted by Rendezvous River Sports


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.