Gale Norton lies.
So, Tars Tarkas, that makes it perfectly alright to lie to people?
They have to have the shit scared out of them, so it doesn’t matter if the information used to do the scaring isn’t accurate?
Lying is justified by wanting progress?
Personally I think this could be done and still tell people the actual truth about what the drilling in ANWR would entail.
But apparently others disagree, because people just need to have the shit scared out of them so there can be alternative developments. :rolleyes:
There has to be another way to get people interested in alternative fuels than lying to them.
Can I start with Ronald Reagan? Cuz ya know Jimmy was hip to the groove…
bit of a Freudian slip there. 
UncleBeer
That is for exploratory work involving 3D seismics and exploratory wells. If they strike oil, I would not expect such restraint.
catsix
We do not know precisely how much or where the oil even is. Hence the necessity of a considerable amount of pre-drilling exploration, which comes at no small expense to the government. In a 1991 study by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management determined the probability distribution of the field size for ANWR and estimated a 46 percent chance of discovering economically recoverable oil. I admit that this is pretty good by industry standards, but it is hardly a guarantee.
Well, color me a rabid liberal, but as far as I am concerned, the situation is rather binary. The government has limited resources to allocate. Either it can allocate these resources in an ethically questionable, stopgap sort of way or it can invest them in developing alternative fuel sources, a project that nearly everyone approves of. And for good reason.
Well no, since we seem to be able to improve our oil position militarily, without recourse to additional drilling.
I simply think our resources are best spent elsewhere, and dividing them in some non-binary way would slow down both drilling and research & development.
MR
Binarydrone, and Stoid, feel free to spread that blame over anybody who failed to help, including Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton. I apologize for implicating only Clinton, obviously this spans more than just his administration.
Back to reading this rapidly changing thread! Damn work is slowing down my ability to respond!
Oil companies were hesitant about exploration in ANWR anyway - who knows how much oil there really is? It wouldn’t be cheap to look, either.
Hopefully we’ve gotten the push to really start looking at sensible alternatives to gasoline. Electric cars are a dead end - we’ll still be burning fuel in the power plants we need to power them, after all. Hybrids are a start in the right direction. Fuel cells would be ideal. I’m sure that we’ll have a pretty efficient, inexpensive fuel cell within ten years, and hopefully get it nailed down and inexpensive enough to start putting vehicles on the market in 20 years. I hope.
Maeglin:
So, if it’s good by industry standards, that’s not good enough to warrant exploration. We have to wait for a 100% guarantee? If everybody waited till something was 100% guaranteed to succeed, progress would never happen.
It’s not ‘rather binary’ if the government would learn to reallocate funds away from programs that are accomplishing nothing. But of course, they won’t do that. And as for this ‘nearly everyone’ approving of allocating all available funds to developing alternative fuel sources, well, you’re going to have to prove that. Again I’m not saying that alternatives are a bad idea. What I am saying is that they’re still a lot more uncertain than oil.
Yet another thing that conservatives (namely W) are criticized about on a daily basis. If they use military might to secure oil sources in potentially hostile areas, they’re accused of being nothing more than bullies responsible for the current state of the Middle East. So on the one hand it’s ‘Well we can just go muscle oil out of Middle Eastern countries all we want, why drill in ANWR?’ and on the other it’s ‘We’re bullying the Middle East and we’re bad bad people for starting wars over nothing more than oil.’
I think that government spending doesn’t prevent research companies and universities from working on alternatives, nor does it prevent them from spending their own money on exploratory drilling. What’s lacking here isn’t necessarily money, because I’d be happy enough with the government opening ANWR to private enterprise in limited amounts under strict terms. Are you also opposed to that?
N
Why not? is lying so morally wrong? don’t tell me you’ve never lied! (oh, honey, you’re don’t look fat in that dress!)
I have been influenced by the Truth wackoes and their anti-tobacco propoganda!
hey, if it works, sure.
you seem to be grasping on to your version of the truth, and others grasp on to theirs. Is saying that oil causes pollution a lie because it doesn’t pollute that much?
well, I’d love to hear your ideas, but your too busy lying to yourself about how everything is fine and that carabou like big oil drills in their forest. must make them horny to quintuple their herds! too bad that was refuted further down! But is that lying justified? you seem to want to lie to further you agenda, but when i suggest it, it is suddenly more immoral than Caligula! We have to convince people that alternative fuels will be profitable, i suggest a billion dollar prize from the Federal governement for the first company that can come up with a working, clean alternative fuel that is cheap and profitable. Here is some info on fuel cells, maybe something along these lines will show up soon: http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm
I am. Despite the ecological concerns, this website says oil dependence will drop a whole 2%! http://www.adn.com/front/story/782280p-834376c.html 2% is certainly worth raping the environment! after all, we’re all gonna be dead in 100 years, who cares about our children if i have cheap gas now!:rolleyes:
Yeah, but you see, I’m from Kentucky. We’ve been through this song and dance before–“Oh, we’ll just come and take the fossil fuels right out from under your land. You’ll hardly notice.” Then the coal comp’ny came with the world’s largest shovel, and all that.
Dr. J
I thought we fought ignorance here, not attempted to further it so that we could meet our own political agendas.
If there is a study that indicates the Alaska pipeline had some other effect on caribou than the study I read, then I’d be happy to see it. The info I read was that the caribou gravitated toward the pipeline because it was a source of warmth, and that the warmth did seem to encourage mating. Please point me to some sources that disagree, and I will read them. Given a compelling argument backed up by facts, I’ll admit I was wrong.
Currently the information I have says that oil causes less smog and pollution than the gasoline that includes levels of ethanol. That does not mean that 2,2,4 trimethylpentane causes no pollution. There is a difference between ‘less’ and ‘none.’ I am fully aware of that. Are you?
And there already is sort of a ‘prize’ for coming up with an inexpensive, efficient fuel cell that the public will want to get their hands on. Patent rights. If sweetening the pot is something you want to consider, put together some details and propose it.
But I do disagree about deliberately miseducating people so that they’ll agree with you. I’m an engineer, and perfectly capable of admitting my errors as soon as evidence makes them apparent. An engineer who does not make mistakes does not make anything.
Now, which is worse: misinformation that is recanted when the speaker finds out she’s wrong, or a speaker who knows she’s wrong but lies anyway? If I’ve done the former, I will admit to being wrong. You’ve advocated lying even when you know the facts are different. Do you see a difference?
catsix
I suspect you are extending my arguments a little farther than I intended. Allow me to clarify.
This is not what I had intended. You spoke of ANWR drilling as if it were a sure thing. I am not suggesting that we wait to drill anywhere, as from what I understand, in the oil industry, there is no such thing as a guarantee. I was just responding to:
We don’t know if it is possible, hence the exploratory work first.
Well sure, if you have the whole budget to play with, I am sure there are tons of solutions to our energy problems. But I think this is something of a red herring, N. We really can only discuss this issue within the constraints that already exist/
Furthermore, I do not think that allocating all funding to r&d meets with universal approval. I merely proposed that the endeavor of finding alternative fuel sources in general is less problematic than ANWR drilling.
And if you are going to argue that uncertain oil is more certain than the development of alternative fuel sources, well, cite please. 
Just because an argument can be made by the political opposition does not make it a particularly good argument. For a liberal I have something of an imperial streak: quite frankly I do not mind bullying the Middle East for our oil supply. However, I do think that the United States should be held responsible when it does it badly. I have few qualms about the theory, but the cause for complaint, as far as I am concerned, is in the execution.
But what can I say, I am a Western Devil.
Yep. Even if the government is not responsible for the exploratory work itself, it is responsible for enforcing necessary regulations, be they commercial, environmental, etc. Your strict terms.
And this will cost a fortune. We aren’t trying to rape Texas again, where easy communication and transit are possible. In order for the arm of the government to make good on any of it’s promises to the American people to keep exploration and drilling clean, it will require an expensive long arm.
And there will be scandals, whether real or invented by the left-dominated environmental machine. And the government will have to allocate funds in order to spin, recover, or otherwise deflect blame.
I think that ANWR drilling just doesn’t pass my cost-benefit muster, regardless of the ethical questions of caribouicide.
y&c,
MR
Now, now, UncleBeer. You skipped straight to the end of that press release. However, I will give you kudos for finding the (debatable) pearl of wisdom in that mephitic shell-heap of a press release.
Would you care to comment on the apples and oranges in paragraph 2 of that release?
Comparing a thirty-year estimated total yield against one year of imports from a single, beleaguered supplier, and barely coming out ahead? Hey, if we’re gonna juggle figures, another, less attractive way of putting it is that ANWR would reduce American dependence on Iraqi oil alone by less than five percent a year. Oooooh, where do I sign up?
And what about that wonderful little attached list?
You could run Vermont for 665 years on ANWR’s oil for gosh-golly gee whillikers’ sake! If Vermont were its own country and didn’t have to compete with the other forty-nine states and dependencies, and never increased its consumption.
On the other hand, Texas presents a bit of a problem, as it seems to require time-travel. You would have to spend thirty years pumping out all of ANWR’s oil, then travel back in time to 2002’s consumption rates so that Texas could burn it all up in nine years, in addition to all the other caveats mentioned above.
ANWR is quite literally a drop in the bucket, according to the Department of the Interior’s own estimates. Why do some want to risk wrecking an ecosystem for that drop? Because it is a political payoff designed to reward those who put the Bush Administration in office. Plain and simple. Well, that and the fact that Jesus is going to return soon, so we’d better hurry up and get rich quick.
To sum up, semen proctologist batshit Charles Whitman baby carriage.
Ooh, all the ANWR oil could run Kentucky for 77 years!
Since I can assume we don’t get to keep it all for ourselves, let’s see what they’re trying not to tell us. KY has about 4 million people; that means they expect me to use <calculator> 2725 barrels of oil in 77 years, or 35 barrels a year.
There are 280 million of us (probably more, I don’t recall), so if we each use 35 barrels a year, that comes out to about 9.8 billion barrels. In other words, it could get the US through one year, before giving out a few days into the following January. And, keep in mind, this is the DoI using its most optomistic estimate.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I’m beginning to think Gale Norton was a worse choice than Ashcroft.
I couldn’t agree more.
Dr. J
Norton-isn’t she a graduate of the James Watt School of Environmentalism?
catsix-how about a cite for your claims? I’m not saying you’re lying (well, not YET, anyways), but perhaps some back up could be helpful?
Um, no. This is one of the reasons why I’m going to get an accountant just as soon as my twinkie-farm starts to pay off.
And those of us (ok, not me specifically, but I know a bunch of the Vuntut Gwich’in) who depend on those caribou for the bulk of our food supply have not yet had enough assurance that there will be no damage. While yes, there seems to be little impact for what has gone on until now, the increased risk of accidents that goes with increased development have us less than comfortable. And yeah, the herd may have quintupled, but you know, there’s warnings out on our side of the border on eating some of them - any animals hunted around pipelines, past or present. It seems that those grazing around pipelines and other developments are carrying elevated levels of heavy metals and other poisons that can make them hazardous to eat, especially the liver, which is a favored bit for pregnant women…
Frankly, the track record of companies in cleaning up messes in sensitive environments is less than stellar (especially if said environment is virtually unpopulated by their standards), and the Arctic is damn delicate. What is going to be done when the blowout happens and you spew oil across 50 acres of prime calving ground? Will it REALLY be able to be cleaned up in time? What is your definition of ‘cleaned up’? What are the odds that an old well won’t leak? Are you SURE that remote monitoring systems will be sensitive to slow leaks? What will be the inspection schedule? Is maintenance going to be sacred? For how long? We know how expensive such maintenance is, after all… And after the DEW line poisonings and other nastinesses, we are just a little reluctant to accept verbal assurances that all will be just fine. DON’T tell us that’s the detail level and we haven’t got there yet. To us, those petty details are crucial to whether or not it’s a good idea to do at all.
The most of us up here aren’t really keen on the polarized sides - we don’t agree with Develop or Be Damned, OR Rabid Ecofreaks.
First of all, I never said anywhere it was all Bush’s fault that we haven’t been developing alternative energy sources. I agree that every administration since Carter has neglected this.
BUT
This administration is doing worse than nothing, IMO. They are making things worse by not even entertaining the notion of conservation or alternatives. They are catering exclusively to an industry that doesn’t want alternatives explored and surely doesn’t want conservation.
We better get off our ass soon and do something or we are all going to be in a world of hurt. Drilling in ANWR though is no solution at all. And don’t be fooled into thinking that it has anything to do with Saddam. The administration wanted to drill there LONG before Saddam made his threat, LONG before 9/11. This is just a lame way to justify what amounts to a little bit of oil in 10 years.
Now as to why Clinton didn’t get more done in this area, Hmm, perhaps he was a bit sidetracked by the republican witch hunt. But that is a whole nother issue.
Ah yes, the good old ANWR arguments from people who have never been further North than Washington State. My hat is off to you.
I love it, the Left’s exaggerated junk-science propaganda being used to debunk the Right’s exaggerated junk-science propaganda…
Most of you are, again, forgetting that oil has a great many more uses besides mere automotive propulsion. Yeah, we can cut down, eventually and at great expense (and I don’t see people lining up 'round the block to buy the hybrids currently available) the amount of gasoline used in cars and trucks… But that same hybrid or fuel-cell technology has a wee but further to go before it’ll power a jet aircraft.
Us land-based drivers can put up with a doubling in weight and a halving in horsepower- combined with a quartering in usable range- but somehow I just don’t… er, think that’ll fly with the air-transportation industry.
To say nothing of the myriad plastics and other synthetics we get from oil… To use a tired example, the case of your PC, you fucking hypocrite.
Getting back to the “alternative sources” argument, it appears every one of you, on both sides of the fence, has forgotten that, in addition to the ten to forty billion barrels of potential oil, ANWR very likely holds anywhere from ten to a hundred Trillion cubic feet of natural gas, which, if you’re up on current, in-place and in-use fuel-cell technology, you will realize is a pretty vital component.
There’s a prototype gas-liquification plant right here in town that supplies nearly every single megawatt it uses, from it’s own, compact on-site natural-gas “fired” fuel-cell installation. Which, in addition to the electricity, produces clean water and most of the heat needed for the buildings.
It’s functional today- in use, proven technology. Clean electricity, near-zero emissions, more efficient than engine/generator combinations, less maintenence-intensive, cheaper per kilowatt in the long run, quieter.
But, we still gotta drill for the fuel to run it.
But, since one drills for oil in the same spots one drills for natural gas, and using the same technology and processes, and since drilling for oil is bad and evil…
Oh wait, that would assume that there’s some benefit to oil exploration, that improved or increased resources might have the effect of further improving the alternative energy technology. But we know that’s not the case, that’s just right-wing propaganda!