Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Should we drill in the ANWR?

  1. #1 Should we drill in the ANWR? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1
    I have to write an essay on weather or not I think we should drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I am pretty new to this issue and was wondering if I could find out what some of the different views on the issue are. I plan to try and reach an unbiased fact based view.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I will not express views but suggest you may wish to consider the economic benefits, the environmental risks and then the balance between the two.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    If an unbiased view is your plan Google the web and then be sure to visit the web sites of the Exploration and Production companies with lease holdings so you can get their spin on it. The company I work for has a substantial lease position there. We have a biased but informative set of web pages on it. Good luck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Should we drill in the ANWR? 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by yahar
    I plan to try and reach an unbiased fact based view.
    This could be difficult, but good luck. My own opinion is that we should be focused on conservation and renewables, which could easily make the potential ANWR production seem trivial. Oil production from the North Slope is slowing down and the oil companies want ANWR to keep the TAPS running full for a few more years. The impact on world oil prices and US energy security will be quite insignificant.

    It's difficult to make an objective assessment of the environmental impact because individual beliefs about what is an acceptable impact vary. It's certainly true, as oil companies claim, that drillsites are smaller and fewer in number than they used to be in the old North Slope days, but the production still has to be gathered to a central facility from all the drillsites and this means a network of pipe and roads. The CPF itself will be the equivalent of a small city, with power generation, oil/gas separation, gas cooling and compression for reinjection, living quarters for hundreds of workers, and presumably an airstrip. There will most likely be a number of gas turbines operating to generate electicity and run the compressors, with the unavoidable emissions from the engines. Perhaps there would also be a topping plant to produce diesel for all the trucks. The trucks, by the way, are used by all workers to get around from the CPF to the drillsites, and truck engines are never turned off in the winter - they are left running 24 hours a day to avoid freezeups. This is a picture of a CPF at the Kuparuk oilfield.

    http://gerritvynphoto.com/blog/wp-co...-oil-field.jpg

    You would often see a brown smog hanging over the facilty. This might not happen today with improved emission controls on fired heaters and gas turbines.

    I think concerns about caribou migration route interference are overblown. The caribou were completely untroubled by the Kuparuk field. Arctic foxes would come up on the gravel pads and try to steal your lunch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Another angle to look at is how small of an area within ANWR they want to use. I never saw a number to it, but my recall of seeing it on a map has my best estimate at about 0.2% of ANWR.

    If the plan to use a pipeline, which I think is likely, then on the con, you have the possible leaks. On the pro, you have the fact that wildlife likes and flourished with the little added warmth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    I have to write an essay on weather or not I think we should drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. - - - - I plan to try and reach an unbiased fact based view.
    For starters, drop the "we".

    Name the entities who are going to drill in the ANWR, name the recipients of benefit and what those benefits are to be, name the payers of costs and what those costs are, and so forth. That will help in the search for a fact based view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    A few numeric facts.

    ANWR is 19,286,482 acres. The area allowed for exportation is 1,500,000 acres. This is only 7.8% of ANWR. Of this, once a site is chosen, only 2,000 acres is planned for development. This is only 0.01% of ANWR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    This is only 0.01% of ANWR.
    Fun with facts!

    I want to play too. Here's a numerical fact, a totally fact based number that I calculated all by myself:

    A normal deck area on a semisubmersible drilling rig - they have comparatively large deck areas - is less than 10, 000 m^2.

    There are about 4000 (rounding up) drilling rigs in the Gulf, some larger, many smaller.

    So about 40 million square meters of Gulf is taken up by drilling rigs. 4X10^7

    The Gulf itself is about 1,600,000,000,000 m^2, if I did the calc correctly. 16X10^11.

    So less than .0025% of the Gulf of Mexico is taken up by drilling rigs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5
    Lets change the debate from extraction to emissions. The problem with drilling for oil is radiative heating / the Greenhouse Effect not habitat destruction. Even if we only drill on a fraction of the Earth, we are still polluting the atmosphere. How would you guys like an injection of 100mg of cyanide?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Magus
    Lets change the debate from extraction to emissions. The problem with drilling for oil is radiative heating / the Greenhouse Effect not habitat destruction. Even if we only drill on a fraction of the Earth, we are still polluting the atmosphere. How would you guys like an injection of 100mg of cyanide?
    This thread started as a needing ideas, pros and cons, for drilling in ANWR. Your argument would suggest we shouldn't drill anywhere, or do you just mean the difference in energy usage to keep people warm in the Arctic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1
    hi !!!

    its really a informative post...

    i don't think we should do this ....

    thanks for your information .....
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •