YOUR VOICE IS URGENTLY NEEDED!!!

by SWALKER 21 Replies latest social current

  • kiddotan
    kiddotan

    1/10 of an acre, cool doesn't take up much room, camp 1/2 an acre... I worked for mining and exploration for some years have alittle idea of what goes on. Lets not count the quiet bit of dumping that happens, run off, that doesn't hurt anything at all, nothing to worry about.

    Nothing lives there, nothing could live there, it's dark over half the year and there is no vegetation at all.

    artic fox, muskox, lynx, martin, caribou and some people wander through occasionally. Rather big area, quite pretty in the daylight 6 months of the year.

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge

    I remember the "doom and gloom" crowd 30 years ago when they were building the Alaska pipeline. Their "armeggedon" never happened. But, for another perspective....some believe that oil will never run out...it's renewable:

    Oil Reserves Are Increasing

    by George Crispin

    by George Crispin

    Eugene Island is an underwater mountain located about 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1973 oil was struck and off-shore platform Eugene 330 erected. The field began production at 15,000 barrels a day, then gradually fell off, as is normal, to 4,000 barrels a day in 1989, Then came the surprise; it reversed itself and increased production to 13,000 barrels a day. Probable reserves have been increased to 400 million barrels from 60 million. The field appears to be filling from below and the crude coming up today is from a geological age different from the original crude, which leads to the speculation that the world has limitless supplies of petroleum.

    This really interested some scientists. Thomas Gold, astronomer and professor emeritus of Cornell held for years that oil is actually renewable primordial syrup continually manufactured by the earth under ultra hot conditions and tremendous pressures. This substance migrates upward picking up bacteria that attack it making it appear to have an organic origin, i.e., come from dinosaurs and vegetation. As best I have found so far Russian scientists support his position, at least that petroleum is of primordial origin. There is now plenty of evidence around proving the presence of methane in our universe. It is easy to see it as a part of the formation of the earth. Under the right conditions of temperature and pressure, it converts to more complex hydrocarbons.

    Roger Andersen, an oceanographer and executive director of Columbia’s Energy Research Center proposed studying the behavior of this reservoir. The underwater landscape around Eugene Island is weird, cut with faults and fissures that belch gas and oil. The field is operated by PennzEnergy Co. Andersen proposed to study the action of the sea bottom around the mountain and the field at its top and persuaded the U S Dept of Energy to ante up ten million which was matched by a consortium of oil giants including Chevron, Exxon, and Tex Corp. This work began about the time 3-D seismic technology was introduced to oil exploration. Anderson was able to stack 3D images resulting in a 4D image that showed the reservoir in 3 spatial dimensions and enabled researchers to track the movement of oil. Their most stunning find was a deep fault at a bottom corner of the computer scan that showed oil literally gushing in. "We could see the stream," says Andersen. "It wasn’t even debated that it was happening."

    Work continued for five years until funds ran out and they were unable to continue. With the world having 40 years of proven reserves in hand it is difficult to interest the major oil producers in much exploration, let alone something done merely for research, and so far from the current accepted theory of a fossil origin for oil.

    Similar occurrences have been seen at other Gulf Of Mexico fields, at the Cook Inlet oil field, at oil fields in Uzbekistan, and it is possible this accounts for the longevity of the Saudi Arabian fields where few new finds have been made, yet reserves have doubled while the fields have been exploited mercilessly for 50 years.

    Not only can the doom and gloomers not show us running out of the natural resources we recycle, but now there appears to be good odds of a limitless supply of petroleum working its way up to where we can capture it.

    A caveat: Gold’s theory is not yet accepted by all scientists, probably all the more reason to trust it.

    April 6, 2005

    George Crispin [send him mail] is a retired businessman who heads a Catholic homeschooling cooperative in Auburn, Alabama.

    Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com

  • SWALKER
    SWALKER

    Wonderlust:

    Like I keep saying, please view the information first. You seem to be basing your comments on other information. This is different in that the indigenous people still live off the land and exist from hunting and fishing. They make everything including their clothes from the land. We are not talking about LA or other populated places where there are jobs. Also, the pipeline has decreased the herd sizes that used to roam that land. That is a fact! The other thing was that when the pipeline went in, it was promised that only double-hulled ships would be used...they said an accident like the Valdese would never happen...it did! Now over 10 years later, the area is still devasted even though Exxon claimed it would clean it all up. Do you have any confidence that this won't happen again...plus with the amount that they say is there it is ridiculous to be drilling there anyway. I have a good idea...why don't we go drill all over George W's ranch in Crawford. I bet we could find about as much oil there! I'll show up with a drill if you'll show up with the workers!

    Swalker

  • wanderlustguy
    wanderlustguy

    I looked at it all, and have read it's the second largest oil deposit in the world. Also read there's all the animals there that will be wiped out, and have heard there aren't any that will be wiped out. It all depends on which way the people talking want it to go.

    It's just my opinion that it's gonna happen, and it won't have much affect if any on local wildlife. But I don't think oil in Alaska will cause another Veldez disaster, I believe that was operator error?

  • jt stumbler
    jt stumbler

    The New York Times


    October 28, 2005

    Big Rise in Profit Puts Oil Giants on Defensive

    By JAD MOUAWAD and SIMON ROMERO

    A sudden interruption in oil supplies sent prices and profits skyrocketing, prompting Exxon's chief executive to call a news conference right after his company announced that it had chalked up record earnings.

    "I am not embarrassed," he said. "This is no windfall."

    That was January 1974, a few months after Arab oil producers cut back on supplies and imposed their short-lived embargo on exports to the United States. Oil executives, including J. K. Jamieson, Exxon's chief executive at the time, were put on the defensive, forced to justify their soaring profits while the nation was facing its first energy crisis.

    Three decades later, their successors are again facing contentions that oil companies are making too much money and have failed to expand production.

    Politicians and other critics are asking why the industry allowed its refining capacity to tighten.

    Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, said yesterday that its third-quarter net income jumped 75 percent, to $9.92 billion. Its profit in the first nine months of this year - $25.42 billion - already equals its full-year earnings for 2004. This year's sales, which topped $100 billion in the last quarter, are expected to exceed those of Wal-Mart.

    Another oil giant, Royal Dutch Shell, reported a 68 percent jump in profits yesterday, to $9.03 billion. Chevron is expected to post a profit of more than $4 billion today.

    This year is shaping up as an exceptionally lucrative one for the oil industry, thanks to strong global demand, tight supplies and high prices for oil and natural gas. While the idea that the Bush administration was considering imposing a windfall profits tax was knocked down yesterday by officials, longstanding resentments against Big Oil are resurfacing and could end up imposing some additional burdens on the industry.

    The sense that government should step in to curb the phenomenal wealth and power often enjoyed by oil companies goes back to Exxon Mobil's corporate ancestor from the late 19th century, the Rockefeller oil trust known as Standard Oil.

    Today, Republicans and Democrats alike, aware of the politically sensitive issue of high energy prices, are putting increasing pressure on the oil and gas industry to return some of its profits. The ideas include forcing the industry to invest in more refining capacity, to increase inventories to cushion energy shocks, or to provide money directly to the government program that helps low-income people pay heating bills.

    Simmering resentment of the oil industry has heated up as gas lines reappeared in some cities this summer and gas prices rose above $3 a gallon, a record even when adjusted for inflation. Gasoline prices, already well above what Americans are accustomed to, spiked after two Gulf Coast hurricanes curbed domestic production and briefly pushed oil prices above $70 a barrel.

    This winter, Americans can expect to pay much more for heating their homes than they did last year.

    Senator Bill Frist, the Republican leader, said yesterday that executives of major oil companies will be summoned to Capitol Hill to testify about high energy prices. Some of Mr. Frist's language harked back to the 1970's and early 1980's when cries of price gouging at gasoline pumps were common.

    "If there are those who abuse the free enterprise system to advantage themselves and their businesses at the expense of all Americans," he said, "they ought to be exposed, and they ought to be ashamed."

    Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, was even more heated: "Big Oil behemoths are making out like bandits, while the average American family is getting killed by high gas prices, and soon-to-be-record heating oil prices."

    This week, J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois and the speaker of the House, called on companies to build or expand refineries in the United States and explain when a pipeline deal will be reached to bring oil and natural gas from Alaska.

    Oil companies, however, bristle at suggestions they should be taxed more. The last time a windfall tax was imposed on the industry, intended to punish it by capturing additional revenue beyond the taxes collected through the normal corporate income tax, was the period 1980 to 1988.

    Oil executives, echoing arguments heard in boardrooms around the world, say their business is highly volatile, with alternating periods of high and low prices. Only seven years ago, oil was at $10 a barrel.

    "What happens when we don't have a year like this one?" asked Red Cavaney, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, the industry's main lobbying group.

    The lure of higher margins from the refining business - rather than Mr. Hastert's encouragements - prompted one Houston energy concern, Marathon Oil, to announce plans to expand its refinery in Garyville, La. The company expects to increase production there to 425,000 barrels a day by 2009 from 245,000 barrels a day currently.

    Exxon was forced to defend its record of investing in refining capacity. The company said it had increased capacity at its existing refineries by 2 percent a year over the last decade, bringing in an additional 400,000 barrels a day through successive expansions.

    For the full year, Exxon plans to invest about $18 billion for both exploration and refining, a 21 percent gain from last year.

    "You have to look over a longer term," Henry Hubble, Exxon Mobil's vice president for investor relations, said in a conference call with analysts yesterday. "If you're trying to encourage supply growth, it seems odd to put in disincentives. You've got to let the market work."

    For the last quarter, the company said its capital investments totaled $4.4 billion, up 22 percent from the quarter last year.

    But in a sign that oil companies are making more money than they can plow back into their business, Exxon returned $6.8 billion to shareholders either by buying back shares or paying dividends.

    In an interview on Fox News 10 days ago, Lee R. Raymond, Exxon's chief executive, sought to quell some of the criticism. "Profit is not a dirty word," he said. "And it's absolutely required in our industry to have an adequate level of profit to be able to continue to invest."

    Later in the program, when asked whether Exxon's profits were "obscene," he said: "No, I don't think they're obscene. I don't think they're obscene at all."

    On Tuesday, the chief executive of BP, Lord John Browne, also tried to dismiss the issue of higher taxes. BP reported that its third-quarter profit rose 34 percent, to $6.46 billion.

    When asked how much pressure he was feeling about a windfall tax, Lord Browne quickly replied, "None." He said higher prices would have a cooling effect on demand, which would lower prices, and make a windfall tax unnecessary.

    But not everyone is persuaded by the argument that higher taxes would stunt investments and curb future production.

    "The industry says a windfall profit tax would limit investments," said Philip K. Verleger, a consultant and a former senior adviser on energy policy at the Treasury Department. "That's wrong."

    "You can come up with a tax that would not impact investments but might in fact stimulate them," Mr. Verleger added. "You allow the industry to recoup its investments and make a good return. Then you look at incremental revenue and tax that."

    Because of the hurricanes, Exxon said that its average oil and natural gas production fell 4.7 percent in the quarter. The company produced 2.45 million barrels of oil a day. Natural gas production fell 9 percent, to 7.7 million cubic feet per day. But Exxon said its production in the quarter would still have dropped 1 percent, excluding the effect of the hurricanes.

    Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, yesterday called on eight of the largest American energy concerns, including Citgo Petroleum, which is controlled by the government of Venezuela, to contribute 10 percent of their profits to heating-aid programs this winter.

    But Samuel W. Bodman, the energy secretary, said he was against any effort to impose taxes on the oil industry as a way of assisting poor families with energy costs. He said the Bush administration was considering requiring the industry to keep emergency stockpiles of gasoline and other refined products to guard against supply disruptions.

    This year's backlash may be reminiscent of what the industry went through during the oil shocks of the 1970's. But oil companies, subject to price controls throughout much of the decade, seem better able to fend off their critics today.

    "Our public image," Mr. Jamieson, the Exxon chief executive in 1974, said then, "is at a low ebb."

    Heather Timmons contributed reporting from London for this article.

  • Zep
    Zep

    There is a growing call for nuclear power to replace fossil fuels as stop-gap measure to counter Global warming while move environmentally friendly energy technologyis developed. Even former prominient environmentalist are advocating this.

    For me, Oil will run out in the 100years, but people will have to stop consuming it to the degree they do before then owing to Global warming. But then again there is always some loony who denies that oil will keep being discovered and that Global warming is a myth. So I guess if those people keep being heard you can forget about it...

  • Effervescent
    Effervescent

    On the other side of the coin-

    http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm

    I personally can appreciate efforts to preserve our planet, but I think a fair assesment of both sides of the issue is warranted.

  • Eyebrow2
    Eyebrow2

    Effervescent.....I agree 100%

  • rwagoner
    rwagoner

    I am all for not harming the striped alaskan skating newt but we need to lower our dependancy on our OPEC brothers.

    just one a**hole republicans viewpoint

  • under74
    under74

    swalker- I'm with you! rw is right though...although our opec brothers are running things at the moment.

    I also want to point out that a congressional commitee decided yesterday that they would cut foodstamps to thousands of people because our country is going bankrupt and we all know it's going bankrupt because people don't have enough money to put food on the table, right? This also cuts thousands of kids from free lunch programs.

    These are the gready selfish bastards we're dealing with swalker.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit