Steven - first of all, I don't think we should drill in ANWR today just to keep a fleet of inefficient vehicles on the road. I'd be open to it if congress implemented a no exemptions 50mpg CAFE standard, or higher. We should not waste a precious natural resource on keeping SUV's and trucks and NASCAR moving.
That said, modern drilling rigs aren't like the classic photos you see of places like west Texas or Kern county California, etc. There are not hundreds of rigs on every square acre of land. One rig can directionally drill several wells over vast land mass. A rather small 5 acre or less site is all you'd see over dozens of square miles.
I just don't see the destruction the same way Greenpeace does. In my opinion the environmentalists should be stopping the rampant destruction of amazonia for industrial farming. I see that having a much bigger environmental impact and is happening right now.
Second, the record of the Alaska pipeline and Prudhoe bay is nearly flawless. There were some minor issues a few years ago from aging infastructure, but clearly the biggest environmental impact has been the Valdez disaster - not the actual drilling.
Third, Canada is creating a far bigger environmental disaster in Ft. McMurray with the Athabaca tar sands. The tailings ponds and now the largest man made lakes in the world. Pollution is seeping into ground water, river water. It's an ecological nightmare that I've seen first hand. I'd turn over ANWR tomorrow if they'd cease that catastrophe. So called syncrude is a travesty.
So that's my take. Not saying I'm not ecologically minded, just ecologically prioritized.
Bush keeps digging our hole deeper and deeper... This is why elections matter.
Hello. Wake up people!! They're not trying to save people money... They're just trying their best to maintain an addiction to oil consumption. It's a self-serving agenda, driven by interests in oil profits... Just like the Iraq War was... And by self serving, I don't mean for the good of the country or the planet... It's just filling their bank accounts...
Very good post, aquapura. I have suspected, based on random readings over the last several years, that drilling in ANWR could, due to current technologies, be less invasive/damaging than it would have been 25 years ago. I'm not *for* it, mind, but if keeping it as an option can SIMULTANEOUSLY keep conservation, far-improved CAFE standards, and research into alternate modes on the table too, I think it's worth discussing.
"Ecologically prioritized" is exactly what Bush et al are not - they are "politically prioritized" and that is the biggest problem of all.
the problem with drilling/exploration anywhere is the infrastructure severely fragments habitat. search 'road effect ecology'. just cause the drilling pad is now 5 acres per square mile (640 acres) the roads/pipelines/utility corridors degrade a zone that extends for over to 1/2 mile on either side- suddenly there is no pristine areas left.
remember that we can 'produce' more oil through improved efficiency, then by extra production. oil output can be tweaked by 1 or 2%, but we can save 20 to 50% with the latest systems/machines & reducing use.
i hate arguments that say, "well, it could be worse; we could be doing x." no, the issue is anwr, not the deforestation of the amazon basin or anything else. do we want to drill there or not, and what would the consequences be? let's not confuse the issue here.
also, in regard to increasing CAFE standards, sure, you could increase it to 50 MPG, and create a completely unrealistic standard given current technologies, or you could start thinking about this in completely different terms, i.e. what are alternative forms of energy and how can they be tapped to create a new energy economy?
killer - Again I'd say we need to ecologically prioritize. Of course road infastructure would have an effect on ANWR. Then again, my fear is that due to primarily non-US related causes gasoline will spike to a breaking level and suddenly all environmental roadblocks will be bulldozed over by an angry public that wants cheaper oil no matter what the ecological cost.
The rest of the world extracts oil in a quite un-ecological manner. By comparison US oil drilling is highly regulated and quite clean. Any drilling in ANWR today would not end up looking like the Baku fields in Azerbaijan. Google some photos of that and you'll be disgusted.
My point is, I think the environmentalists need to be a little more open minded about ANWR. Of course they need to make sure there are very good trade off's, but there are bigger environmental problems out there to fight tooth & nail.
Besides, in Alaska the dalton highway is already there, the Alaskan pipeline is already there. Drilling in ANWR would require extensions into vigin land but there is the benefit of using some existing infastructure.
Different topic but I'm not sure what you mean by "producing" more from efficiency gains. At current prices I'd bet you can't find any oil company not using the latest gas/water injection methods to increase flow from every operating well. People are even starting up old stripper wells in W. Pennsylvania these days. Not sure that's what you were implying.
Gas Spending Map
Steven - first of all, I don't think we should drill in ANWR today just to keep a fleet of inefficient vehicles on the road. I'd be open to it if congress implemented a no exemptions 50mpg CAFE standard, or higher. We should not waste a precious natural resource on keeping SUV's and trucks and NASCAR moving.
That said, modern drilling rigs aren't like the classic photos you see of places like west Texas or Kern county California, etc. There are not hundreds of rigs on every square acre of land. One rig can directionally drill several wells over vast land mass. A rather small 5 acre or less site is all you'd see over dozens of square miles.
I just don't see the destruction the same way Greenpeace does. In my opinion the environmentalists should be stopping the rampant destruction of amazonia for industrial farming. I see that having a much bigger environmental impact and is happening right now.
Second, the record of the Alaska pipeline and Prudhoe bay is nearly flawless. There were some minor issues a few years ago from aging infastructure, but clearly the biggest environmental impact has been the Valdez disaster - not the actual drilling.
Third, Canada is creating a far bigger environmental disaster in Ft. McMurray with the Athabaca tar sands. The tailings ponds and now the largest man made lakes in the world. Pollution is seeping into ground water, river water. It's an ecological nightmare that I've seen first hand. I'd turn over ANWR tomorrow if they'd cease that catastrophe. So called syncrude is a travesty.
So that's my take. Not saying I'm not ecologically minded, just ecologically prioritized.
Bush keeps digging our hole deeper and deeper... This is why elections matter.
Hello. Wake up people!! They're not trying to save people money... They're just trying their best to maintain an addiction to oil consumption. It's a self-serving agenda, driven by interests in oil profits... Just like the Iraq War was... And by self serving, I don't mean for the good of the country or the planet... It's just filling their bank accounts...
Shame on the Bush Administration.
Very good post, aquapura. I have suspected, based on random readings over the last several years, that drilling in ANWR could, due to current technologies, be less invasive/damaging than it would have been 25 years ago. I'm not *for* it, mind, but if keeping it as an option can SIMULTANEOUSLY keep conservation, far-improved CAFE standards, and research into alternate modes on the table too, I think it's worth discussing.
"Ecologically prioritized" is exactly what Bush et al are not - they are "politically prioritized" and that is the biggest problem of all.
im drinking your milkshake...
that WAS helpful, aqua. and i didn't even have to spring for beer!
Steven - If I ever make it to Kentucky I do expect a shot of bourbon.
the problem with drilling/exploration anywhere is the infrastructure severely fragments habitat. search 'road effect ecology'. just cause the drilling pad is now 5 acres per square mile (640 acres) the roads/pipelines/utility corridors degrade a zone that extends for over to 1/2 mile on either side- suddenly there is no pristine areas left.
remember that we can 'produce' more oil through improved efficiency, then by extra production. oil output can be tweaked by 1 or 2%, but we can save 20 to 50% with the latest systems/machines & reducing use.
i hate arguments that say, "well, it could be worse; we could be doing x." no, the issue is anwr, not the deforestation of the amazon basin or anything else. do we want to drill there or not, and what would the consequences be? let's not confuse the issue here.
also, in regard to increasing CAFE standards, sure, you could increase it to 50 MPG, and create a completely unrealistic standard given current technologies, or you could start thinking about this in completely different terms, i.e. what are alternative forms of energy and how can they be tapped to create a new energy economy?
killer - Again I'd say we need to ecologically prioritize. Of course road infastructure would have an effect on ANWR. Then again, my fear is that due to primarily non-US related causes gasoline will spike to a breaking level and suddenly all environmental roadblocks will be bulldozed over by an angry public that wants cheaper oil no matter what the ecological cost.
The rest of the world extracts oil in a quite un-ecological manner. By comparison US oil drilling is highly regulated and quite clean. Any drilling in ANWR today would not end up looking like the Baku fields in Azerbaijan. Google some photos of that and you'll be disgusted.
My point is, I think the environmentalists need to be a little more open minded about ANWR. Of course they need to make sure there are very good trade off's, but there are bigger environmental problems out there to fight tooth & nail.
Besides, in Alaska the dalton highway is already there, the Alaskan pipeline is already there. Drilling in ANWR would require extensions into vigin land but there is the benefit of using some existing infastructure.
Different topic but I'm not sure what you mean by "producing" more from efficiency gains. At current prices I'd bet you can't find any oil company not using the latest gas/water injection methods to increase flow from every operating well. People are even starting up old stripper wells in W. Pennsylvania these days. Not sure that's what you were implying.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.