I heard on the tv yesterday that GWB was appointing (?) the democratic governor of Alaska to some position. And that this guy, a democrat was FOR oil drilling in his state.
Must we drill Alaska?
Why? Are there no other energy sources elsewhere?
Should it be protected as a natural wildreness area?
“It”? You mean the whole darn state?
What’s so special about Alaska?
“Alaskan wildlife” and “petroleum” have been on rather strained terms with each other even since that whole Exxon Valdez incident. Sure, drilling for oil won’t affect the environment much, but another accident carrying the oil away from Alaska might. (I’m hoping that big long Alaska pipeline has safeguards to ensure that it doesn’t dump its entire contents all over the landscape if it ruptures.)
I’m fairly certain that they would have some sort of safeguard. It is in the oil companies’ best interest to get the oil safely to its destination.
I once read about the invention of an electromagnetic patch that could be used to slow the flow of oil from a damaged tanker.
I was really hoping he would tap Gov Knowles (D-Alaska) for Interior or Energy, but for some reason he didn’t.
As for Alaska, given todays standards and regulations I seriously doubt there’s a real ecological reason not to drill. The problem that I have with drilling is that it’s still a temporary solution. Unless we “tighten our belts” (maybe a few million fewer SUV’s to start with) eventually we’ll be back to depending on Arab oil, but this time without any kind of backup. Not a good thing in my book.
As JC says, all this drilling is a very temporary solution. The oil industry is one of the worst examples of welfare…Here is an entire industry that is given beneficial tax status when in fact the products they produced, if taxed correctly to account for the externalities, would result in much oil usage by everyone.
And this subsidization is threatening to make this country a has-been in many ways. Notice which two auto companies have introduced hybrid vehicles…not American ones! Notice who is getting a large portion of their power from wind energy…Denmark, not the U.S.
We have a President who is intent on propping up an industry that ought to be dying away because he and all his buddies made their money in it…At our expense. (Not that the current administration was miles better, but…) It’s gonna be a long 4 years!
That’s supposed to read “much less oil usage by everyone” of course!
I don’t know that this is a very good measure. Texas is leading the country in adding wind power, but isn’t going to stop producing/using oil any time soon.
Um, yeah, there are safeguards on the Alaska pipeline. In fact, I’ve been in the very room at my Dad’s company where Alascom (the phone company (I know, wtf?)) monitors the pipeline. If any of the monitors notice something wrong, the pumps can be shut down.
And we’re ALREADY drilling Alaska! What is up for grabs is whether to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a Pennsylvania-sized chunk out of the NE corner of Alaska.
The key problem is NOT the drilling, it is the transport. We’d need another pipeline. And the tankers would still go out of Valdez to the rest of the world. The pipeline has performed well ecologically, as have the drillheads at Prudhoe bay. The tankers, well, we have had that one teeensy little problem…
The thing about Alaska, is that there is very little private land. 99% of the state is Federal land (Forests, Parks, Wildlife refuges, Monuments, military reserves, etc, etc etc), Native corporation land, or State land. So, the oil companies can’t drill on their own land, they have to pay to drill on public land.
BUT, it is absolutely NOT clear that drilling for oil is a major ecological problem. Sure, there are bound to be some problems. But the drilling and pipeline themselves shouldn’t cause much problems, caribou walk right under the pipeline, it doesn’t scare them, I’ve seen it with my own two eyes.
However, do we need to begin drilling now? Not really. Oil prices are very low, even with the current spike. We can wait for 10-20 years.
Also, for the record, Tony Knowles (the D gov from AK) is a former oil worker. There are very few Alaskans who are actually opposed to oil. Sure, everyone wants them to be careful, but oil is a huge part of the economy in AK. No politician could be elected on a platform of “Shut down the pipeline”.
If you all are seriously interested in stopping oil exploration in Alaska, perhaps gaining some familiarity with Alaska first will be helpful. I know you all think it’s a deserted wildlife park, but lots of people actually live there. If you want to influence things the state government could be a better place to start than the Feds. But remember, Alaskans tend to be a leeeetle independent (The previous AK gov, Wally Hickel, was elected on the Alaska Independence party ticket. That’s ENCE, not ENT. That’s right, the Alaska seccesion party!), so throwing around orders and demands is not a good way to start.
And, you should remember that royalties from oil development is the major source of revenue for the state gov’t. When you talk about stopping oil development, lots of Alaskans are gonna think you’re interested in impoverishing them.
TXLonghorn wrote:
You’re talking about George W. Bush’s presidency, right? 
If you stopped “drilling for oil” you might really hurt the Alaskan economy.
Yes, if you shut down the major component of the Alaskan economy, it is possible that there might be consequences to the entire Alaskan economy. This much is obvious. What was your point?
I don’t think Bush’s old ties to the oil industry are the main concern. People want cheap gas. Any policy that conflicts with that is politically unfeasible.
This statement really requires some qualification, does it not?
It’s not at all that simple. This is not just comparing apples to oranges, it’s comparing apples to crocodiles.
Just because people want something does NOT mean that they are entitled to it (although I agree with you somewhat on the political feasibility issue somewhat…although this may be partly because of an utter and complete failure of our supposedly “liberal” media to educate the American public in any way on this issue).
Anthracite…Well, okay, I am not saying that I have done the study to show exactly the correlation between underpricing of oil and the effect it is having on alternate technologies. This was a bit of rhetorical flourish. But, my basic point is that as long as fossil fuels are effectively being subsidized to high heaven, these other technologies can’t compete. And, subsidization of has-been industries I don’t believe has proven to be a very wise idea in the long run.
I imagine the reason that the Democratic Gov. supports drilling is because the drilling creates jobs. I’m guessing that quite a few people in Alaska like the idea of more jobs, whether they’re “environmentally correct” or not. That is probably a big reason why GWB won Alaska.
I am personally against drilling in Alaska, because I think we need to focus more on finding alternative energy sources and putting them to use. I think that as long as we keep drilling and keep the price down, no one will be motivated enough to pursue alternative sources. I don’t think we should wait until we’re all out of oil or down to the last drops before we really try to find alternative sources, leave that oil that isn’t being drilled for yet up in Alaska, who knows we might need it for something else.