[at-l] > RELIGIOUS, SENATE LEADERS OPPOSE ANWR DRILLING

[icw39@ncfreedom.net (Clark Wright)]

Thanks for some bravely, and well stated points; it is indeed a more
difficult issue than appears at first glance; ANWR has become kind of a
poster child for deeply held feelings, on "both sides."  I tend to agree
with you re the wells and drilling having little lasting impact; the
real impact issues are where there are big discoveries - then you have
huge infrastructure issues, including pipelines, initial treatment
facilities, refineries, lots more people, more tanker traffic in Prince
William Sound, etc.  Not necessarily a reason not to do it, but more
valid impact concerns crop up at that point.  Also, one of the huge
energy wastes of all time continues to take place up in northern alaska
- they vent and burn gazzillions of cubic feet of natural gas because
there is no available market, and no gas pipeline to route it to a port
or market - so far, the logistics have made it unattractive economically
to use this gas, so while the oil is captured and piped down to the big
oil pipeline, the gas is just vented off and flared as "waste!"

We do need to, as you pointed out, consider the considerable impacts
associated with some alternative energy sources, such as windmills,
dams, and even the electric batteries and solar panels, that involve a
great deal of chemical waste issues.  Becoming more efficient is always
the best, first step.  Many talk about fuel cells and hydrogen as the
next great breakthrough, and there is promising news on several fronts
there.  Sure would be nice to go from essentially nonrenewable carbon
fuel sources [oil/gas/coal] to essentially limitless hydrogen based fuel
cells, but even that does not come without its own impact issues, not
the least of which is the substantial infrastructure changes it would
trigger - can you imagine the overall cost of decommissioning or
converting thousands of refineries, hundreds of thousands of service
stations, millions of miles of underground piping, etc.?  Not to mention
the retrofitting of millions of passenger and industrial internal
combustion engines - no small feat even if one discovers the perfect new
fule tomorrow!  It is amazing what we run into in terms of just
infrastructure momentum that always favors an existing energy system. 
Think also about the power grid; it is just not well set up for having
lots of local homes add power into the system, yet that is an area where
we could do great good now and in the future . . .

Lots of challenges and opportunities lie ahead [kinda reminds me of the
proverbial half-full/empty glass! :)]

thru-thinker


kahley wrote:
> 
> At 12:28 PM 2/9/02 -0700, Ron Martino wrote:
> >kahley wrote: I don't oppose oil extraction everywhere -
> >just in those areas where the impact is unacceptable, after /all/ costs
> >are factored in.
> 
> I guess I would need to go and see this place to understand what
> makes it soooo special.  I'll admit a prejudice...there are no trees
> there and I understand, no mountains and little water, so since flat
> land gives me the heebiegeebs and I require the company of trees,
> this place sounds less than attractive (*aren't we all glad that I
> don't make these decisions<g>).
> Seriously..specifically.....what makes this place so special as to
> make it untouchable?
> 
> > > I'm up in the air about ANWR.  It SHOULD be explored and evaluated.
> >
> >         I don't follow - why?
> 
> Because oil is maybe second to water as a most valuable natural
> resource and we are foolish not to know how much of it we have.
> 
> >         If it were discovered that there's oil all along the Appalachian
> >mountains, but it turns out that the drilling sites are going to happen
> >to have to be sited in close proximity to the AT, throughout its length,
> >would you consider an effort to stop the drilling 'nutty'? Or does our
> >thirst for oil outweigh all other needs?
> 
> First, I didn't refer to efforts to stop the drilling as nutty.
> I said not to evaluate was nutty.  And putting my previously
> mentioned prejudice aside, the AT has a greater value because
> it is accessible to a greater number of people.  It is more useful
> in it's current state, at least for now.   I do not subscribe to the
> "wilderness for wilderness sake" theory.  I wish I could, I really
> really wish I could but it's a small small world and the idea that
> we can't touch any part of a 2 million acre hunk of public property
> that maybe .0001 percent of the public will ever see is a problem
> for me.  We are all gonna have to face the fact that until we get off
> of the oil teat,  something's gotta go.  If I have the choice of windmills
> on the AT or another choked, dammed river or drilling in the ANWR,
> the choice is easy for me.  And, we hold this nightmare image of oil
> wells as the huge metal structures used to drill the well.  After the
> well is on line, that thing goes away and you have a well head
> about the size of a shelter which hardy represents as great a lasting
> scar as would windmills on the ridge tops.
> I hope we are all doing more than gripe about this.  Mike and I have
> made significant changes in our lifestyle to minimize our impact
> on this world.  we recycle everything we can.  Half of our clothes
> are purchased used, in fact half of everything we purchase is used.
> including gear.  I curb cruise and dumpster dive.
> We do not have central heating because we figured out we could
> save half the amount of heating oil by doing without,  I don't own
> a dish washer or clothes dryer and never have.  I defrost my freezer
> rather than burning energy to automatically melt off frost.  We own
> 12 acres of land and have kept 11.75 acres untouched (still more of
> an impact than the proposed ANWR drilling on the whole parcel).
> We live in about a thousand square feet of space, unlike my parents
> who feel they need 2500.
> OK, so I'm boasting.  We are proud of the steps we have taken to
> be kind to the earth.  I guess I'm almost unwilling to listen to people
> who have done little to conserve and yet seek to limit the nations
> options re our natural resources  I guess I'm even bordering on being
> snooty about this but I can't help it.  If everyone adopted even a part
> of our lifestyle, the situation would already be eased.   This isn't
> aimed at your Ron, unless you are like most of the people who fill
> the landfills with yesterday's "must haves".  Forgive me if I ask though,
> how do you dry your clothes?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AT-L mailing list
> AT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l