WWF - Drilling in the Arctic

[dj1470]

Doing a bit of shilling here for my favourite cause since our government seems not to care what the Yanks will be doing not 10km from the Yukon border. If you feel so inclined click the link and please sign the petition. Cheers.
www.wwf.ca/HowYouCanHelp/DoNotDrill/donotdrill.asp

 

[onthebottom]

Please, it's a field the size of Dulles in a state where people shit and piss in buckets. It's not like we have control over your pot and gay marriage laws is it.

LOL

OTB

 

[Vietor]

Jasmine, I am not accusing you of being mentally defective, only very ill informed. Have you been even within 500 miles of the north slope? Have you driven Dalton Highway to the Artic Ocean? If you have, you have seen the large herds of caribou and muskox that are flourishing in proximity to and as a result of the pipeline. You would also see great care being given to the study and protection of the full panoply of native flora and fauna.

Since you are ignorant about the measures being taken to protect "biodiversity" in the far north of Alaska, I suggest that you concentrate on something you can know - your own backyard.

 

[dj1470]

It's not the drilling that I necessarily disagree with. I mean I love my cars and need to gasoline and oil. But couldn't they find a better place? Inevitably, there will be a spill. Somewhere sometime there will be an accident and millions of litres of toxic crude or some other chemical will destroy everything it touches. Not to mention that a spill in Alaska would undoubtably effect the Yukon or northern B.C. in terrible ways. Will the U.S. government or Exxon or Mobil or whatever help with that cost? And Americans wonder why people in other countries are fed up with their arrogance.

 

[feminista]

i think canada should take alaska.

 

[Vietor]

Jasmine, are you aware that as the population of prey has gone up on and around the north slope, the number of wolves has increased as well? What happened with wolves in Yellowstone was an occasion to learn the importance of predators; that learning from that lesson is demonstrated by the care demonstrated in the north slope.

My comment about your intelligence was derived from your willingness to criticize those who you think are not as thoughtful as you. What is so horrible in developing resources in a thoughtful and protective manner? You assume that it can not be done, an assumption that is not warranted by the decades of development that have already occurred on the north slope.

Do you understand all of the technical problems that kept Canada's tar sands from being developed for so long? Yet, given the rising value of petroleum, those problems have now been largely solved. Even greater difficulties face the development of US oil shale, but those problems will also be solved and those deposits will be mined in a manner that is less of a problem than the large amount of pollution put out every day in and around Toronto, your own backyard. That is where your effort, if you are truly interested in envronmental issues, is best applied.

 

[dj1470]

So. . .

There's an American, Mexican, and Canadian sitting at a bar having a drink. Suddenly a green genie pops out of the tequila bottle. The Genie says he will grant one wish to each person in order to help their countries. The Mexican says he wants Mexico to have food forever so his people won't starve and the genie made it so. The American says he wants America to be secure forever so he asks the genie to build a wall around his country and the genie made it so. When it was the Canadians turn he asked the genie how high was the wall around America? The genie replies 100 metres tall. The Canadian says my wish is. . . . please fill it with water.

 

[Jon]

unsolocited opinion...

Interesting thread...Ms. Jasmin MA(post # 9) makes an interesting point with her observation that underground oil deposits may help to buffer the effects of earthquakes; however, I believe that history shows that earthquakes are a part of the Natural World. Good to see some creative thinking, though. As far as drilling in this ecologically sensitive area of the far North; I believe that it is a done deal. The U.S. will, and has consistently shown that, they will do almost whatever is necessary to supply their insatiable 'need' for gas and oil. Ms. Jasmin MA makes another good observation, and that is that the ultimate solution, in my view,(regarding the essence of the question) is to develop renewable sources of energy, such as Hydrogen and Solar radiation, rather than basing essentially the World economy on finite resources, such as fossil fuels. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[Jon]

It doesn't make long term logic to exhaust all natural resources for
present needs. Better to deplete present reserves over a long period
of time, say 75 years, than exhaust those reserves for short to mid
term needs.

Best management of resources is to use someone else's reserves
to supplement current and midterm needs and save my reserves
to ensure long term needs.

To exhaust current supplies for current needs isn't planning for
the worse case scenario. Why deplete my reserves when I can
exploit yours and save mine when those reserves are more valuable?

Kill the goose that lays the golden egg isn't very prudent, is it?
I may not like paying higher current prices, but its better than to be
bankrupt in the long term.

Mr. DonQuixote, I'm not sure that I follow your logic here. As I see it, 75 years is a very 'short term' time period. A better solution might be to develop energy sources that are not finite, so that we do not face an ultimate energy crisis. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[Jon]

Reply...

...'does that help any'? If you mean does your reply clarify your point, no, not really. Perhaps we should not 'anticipate all needs for oil'; but rather we should be thinking about the alternatives to the uses of oil(and its by-products). In the interm, conservation and consumption levels might be areas worth looking at. Thank you for your reply, Mr. DonQuixote. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[onthebottom]

i think canada should take alaska.

LOL

With what, smugness and a couple of hockey sticks?

Make us an offer - everything is for sale for the right price.

OTB

 

[Jon]

I realize that earthquakes/hurricains are a natural and infinite occurance throughout history, however, do you agree or not that the last decade has seen alot more?

Thank you for your reply Ms. Jasmin MA . A possible consideration here might be that as scientific technologies improve, more data is then possible for collection. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[001]

Oil will run out sooner or later in the other regions of the world. When that happens drilling in the artic and anywhere else that oil exists will happen. We ride our “high horses” today (liberals, conservatives, environmentalist and every other group out there) because we have options. The day that gasoline is priced at 3 or 4 dollar litter and millions or Canadians are literally freezing to death in the middle of the winter because the can not afford to keep their homes warn than public opinion will change regarding drilling in the artic. At that point we will all take a more pragmatic approach to this issue.

 

[Jon]

additional...

...an important point Mr. 001. Just in the interest of receational debate, I believe that the real resource of the future, is not oil, but fresh water. It's not hard for me to imagine that sometime in the near future, fresh water will surpass oil, gold, platinum, uranium, etc. in its preciousness. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[Jon]

further comments...

true i do agree that the technological developments research and scientists use to measure and record earthquakes and hurricains has drastically imroved things, however it doesn't take a fancy machiene to record destructive activity... im sure there is comparative documentation of such inccidents throughout history even before the mighty computer. ancient civilizations have all used different methods in predicting and recording weather patterns.

if it seems as though we have been experiencing more and more feirce hurricains, more flooding or draughts, more serious earthquakes hotter summers, colder winters, etc... its probably because we are.

Thank you for your response Ms. Jasmin MA. All perspectives are valuable. But for me; I would have more faith in modern, objective scientific analysis, than in the anecdotal observations of less developed cultures from times past. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[Jon]

continuing...

...'well i hope im not around when that happens...' . Perhaps an alernative perspective might be that the value of one's existence could determined by what it is they leave behind for others. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[Jon]

Further...

true... however one cannot deny the importance and revalence of historical methods. look at medicine as a prime example (ancient chinese therapies and alternative healing methods are just as efficient if not more so then some modern technologies)

technology is not perfect and is subject to interpretation... however I dont disagree with your point at all...

and i think most science and techological findings would suggest that in fact we are seeing more and more.

Thank you your response Ms. Jasmin MA . I agree that technologies can be subject to interpretation. However, I believe that the more relevant consideration is that technologies are more subject to application. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[Asterix]

Oil exploration, and the pipeline in particular, could face growing problems in the future. The Arctic more than any other part of the world has been steadily heating up in the last hundred years, and areas of perma-frost that had been frozen for centuries are melting. Whole buildings are sinking into the muck in some places, and the shear weight of the pipeline leaves it very vulnerable, especially if some areas sink and others don't, with the inevitable bending of the pipe to follow.

Speaking of technology to extract oil, I listened recently to an interesting NPR program on how US companies plan on getting oil out of shale. The old idea was to mine it and truck it to plants, where it would essentially be cooked at a low temp until the oil dripped out. Problem was the process cost more the the oil derived. Their new idea is to leave the rock in the ground and drill holes deep down into the surface. Into the holes would be placed low energy heating devices that would slowly warm the rocks over years and even decades until the oil precipitated out. Immediately the engineers realized the problem of losing the oil into the ground water below. So what was their solution? Simultaneously freeze the water table below, so that it would act as a basin for the oil until there was enough to go in and get out. Not surprisingly they're dubbing this "fire and ice". Bizarre, and just a little desperate.

 

[strange1]

Whatever your view, the WWf comercial is pretty funny. To paraphrase, Alaska is full of fluffy birds that will soak up any oil that's spilled. A classic line.

 

[Vietor]

The premise that the world is facing an oil shortage and/or that we are running out of oil conflicts with the facts.
1. Net recoverable reserves of petroleum have been growing steadily for the last 50 years. For every year since 1946, the international petroleum industry has discovered at least 5 new tons of recoverable oil for every 3 consumed.
2. Currently the world's recognized reserves of oil than any time in history and are growing every year. In 2000 the estimate of world reserves from conventional resources was 2000 billion barrels of crude oil, up from 2400 billion in 1994 and 1500 billion in 1990. This does not include oil deposits in tar sands or oil shale.
3. If tar sand are included, Canada alone has an estimated additional 2000 billion barrels, 315 billion of which are currently recoverable.
4. The largest probable reserves of petroleum however reside in oil shale. According to a Mar, 2004 study, the US has 2000 billion barrels of reserves in this form.

"Eventually the world will move from an oil-based economy to something better. But given the huge reserves of world oil, it's likely that technolgy will drive this change, not scarcity."

Interestingly, there is not scientific consensus on even the source of oil. The better view is that petroleum is not just a fossil fuel, but is also produced by abiotic means. If this is correct, it is probable that the world will never deplete this resource.