Thread: Oil wells maybe being opened in Alaska

They are thinking about lifting the ban about not allowing oil wells in alaska. It may hurt the environment, environmentalists say

The US Government continues to pretend that the US can reduce its dependence on foreign oil. Opening up more of the Alaskan wilderness to oil exploration is part of this delusional process.

An aggressive approach to energy conservation would save several times the equivalent of what can be produced from Alaska.

Meanwhile, the need to import huge volumes of oil every day leads to the political consequences associated with protecting those supplies: support of corrupt regimes, such as Saudi Arabia; invasion of Iraq; confrontation with Iran; destabilisation in Latin America.

Yea, our environmentalist scientists really need to get on the ball, etenal is not a very practical fuel alternative, and neither is nuclear power

Anyone know what opening up Alaska would do for the american gas consumer?
Ten years from the start of production, it will lower gas prices by about $.04 for ONE DAY!

Thats it!

Sound worth the destruction?
Does it help our foreign oil dependence, like Bush would have you think?

It's just more dirty American oil business

Conjunctions like the Alaska Support Industry Alliance have been trying a long time to "privately" develope and finally they have the support of the president. A president who is lieing to us declaring this is a real solution to aid the oil problem.

Originally Posted by paleo

It's just more dirty American oil business

Do you drive to work in a car? Do you purchase groceries from a store which takes deliveries by truck? If so would you care to justify the hypocrisy inherent in your statement?

If Americans would stop driving so many wasteful vehicles it would go much much further to help the fuel issues.

When an SUV gets 1/3 the mpg of many cars and 50% of the population is driving them it's easy to figure out that if they stopped driving them we would have a whole lot more fuel to go around. Some will argue that they save gas because more people are hauled around in them, this is so not the case. Drive around phoenix for a while and count the number of SUV's or multi seat trucks with more then one person in them, it's about 1% if that. Most of those with more then one person might have two kids for a short trip to school and then the soccer mom drives it around the rest of the day with just her.

Some people need trucks and SUV's...most just want them to make themselves feel more secure, or perhaps as a status symbol. The symbol I give to these people is L as in Looser. Have you figured out I have a serious dislike for SUV's yet ?

The problem just goes back to stupid people, they are everywhere

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

If Americans would stop driving so many wasteful vehicles it would go much much further to help the fuel issues.

isnt it amazing how whenever we insult something we are we talk like we arent one? why not say, "if we stop" instead of "those americans stop." be proud of your country.

Meanwhile, the need to import huge volumes of oil every day leads to the political consequences associated with protecting those supplies: support of corrupt regimes, such as Saudi Arabia; invasion of Iraq; confrontation with Iran; destabilisation in Latin America.

Although I'm not entirely disagreeing with your sentiments, it does concern me when folks focus on the Middle East when discussing foreign oil. I too have done it, and you did mention Latin America, which is important, but most imported US oil comes from Mexico and Canada, the ME is far down on the list. Most US oil comes from, surprise, the US. Being the second largest producer of crude in the world, the benefits of being able to refine and possibly export our own oil can, if possible, jumpstart the economy and keep it in overdrive for some time.

I absolutely see no reason why energy conservation, crude exploration, and building more refineries all have to be mutually exclusive.
Certainly these things can be done simultaneously and complimentary.

When an SUV gets 1/3 the mpg of many cars and 50% of the population is driving them i

I challenge this statment in bold.
Please provide sources.

I think it's called hyperbole.

Even without SUVs and trucks, the average mpg is still going to be in a conservative guess under 30mpg. 20 years ago honda's got 40 mpg if not more mpg, now with all the advances in technology the mpg of most cars are still 30 and with hybrids 60. Now this doesnt make sense to me shouldnt mpg go down with advances in technology. Also what is the point of developing hybrids when regular gas engines are able to get the same mpg.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I think it's called hyperbole.

I think it's called cheap sensationalism.

DAMN THEM!

Originally Posted by chamilton333

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

If Americans would stop driving so many wasteful vehicles it would go much much further to help the fuel issues.

isnt it amazing how whenever we insult something we are we talk like we arent one? why not say, "if we stop" instead of "those americans stop." be proud of your country.

Hmm, guess I never thought about it. But your right.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

The US Government continues to pretend that the US can reduce its dependence on foreign oil. Opening up more of the Alaskan wilderness to oil exploration is part of this delusional process.

An aggressive approach to energy conservation would save several times the equivalent of what can be produced from Alaska.

Meanwhile, the need to import huge volumes of oil every day leads to the political consequences associated with protecting those supplies: support of corrupt regimes, such as Saudi Arabia; invasion of Iraq; confrontation with Iran; destabilisation in Latin America.

this is old post but statements are as incorrect today as in May.

The US government, is not in charge of the industry that is in charge of exploration, procurement, refining or distribution of oil products. Exxon/Mobil, Texaco and BP are, with others.
All US refineries are owned by business interest and refineries in most of the world. The US does not refine any oil from the mentioned nations. (we have only one company-being Valero that can refine thick oil) we import most what is refined from the UK, Canada and Mexico, plus domestic oil 48% which is all sweet oil and not available from nations mentioned. maybe five percent is the result of thick oil being refined and imported indirectly from mentioned nations. This is why Saudi Arabia is building some impressive refineries.
The reasons are cost/effective and a little hard to explain. 1-the cost to get a refinery approved and into operational is not worth the effort. 2-they are limited to access because of government and groups of nitwit's, to the oils that are available and not tapped. 3-the cost of one barrel of west Texas oil to the cost of one barrel UK oil is to the refinery cheaper from the UK. this involves taxes, shipping and cost of product even though
the distance of WT oil is 3-700 miles.

You have no idea what US industry pays to comply with the environmental standards set. Americans complain about industry moving overseas and don't understand the cost of building a steel mill, cement processing plant or any oil based product facility in the US, forget cost of labor.

There is no need to explore Alaska, all the oil in the western US sands or about 100 sites now in the books. We know oil is there.

I will concede we tend to drive a few more miles than most people, but as an example i have kids that spread out and would take a 5,000 mile trip to visit each. The end cost would be the same in a Travel Home or a VW, with a very nice comfort level.

Originally Posted by kingjacob

Even without SUVs and trucks, the average mpg is still going to be in a conservative guess under 30mpg. 20 years ago honda's got 40 mpg if not more mpg, now with all the advances in technology the mpg of most cars are still 30 and with hybrids 60. Now this doesnt make sense to me shouldnt mpg go down with advances in technology. Also what is the point of developing hybrids when regular gas engines are able to get the same mpg.

I never understood the engine size thing in the US, europe have faster more fuel efficient cars for way less capacity. look at the biggest selling vehicle in the US, the ford f150 pick up youve got a choice of 4.2litre, 4.6litre or 5.4litre. then the superduty goes to 6.8litre. the suv's are 4litres upwards. The smallest car engine that ford US does(from what i can see) is a 2litre engine in the focus

The same thing for chrysler they start at 2.4litres upwards to 6.1litre, and dodge from 2.4litre to 8.3litre(8.3litres which europe can match with under 3.5 if speeds your thing)

Ive never understood that, its like "we want a faster car" and someone says "yeah, just give it a couple more litres and it'll be fine"

I reckon the majority in the UK and europe drive sub 2litre cars