I am absolutely heartsick over this. We don't need more oil at the expense of every other living thing on the planet. I am NOT going to rant on because if I get started I'll be frothing at the mouth in jig time. Suffice it to say that this morning I am wishing with all my heart that there really is a hellfire so Gee Dubya and his ilk for sure get what they deserve.
Arctic Drilling
by Mommie Dark 13 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Amazing
MommyDark: I understand your concerns. The past drilling and pipelines have proven time and again to cause no harm to the environment. A recent PBS TV program here in Chicago showed that. The harm to bears is from people's trash, and not oil drilling or pipelines. The Governor of Alaska had studies done and the results showed no negative impact. A friend of mine, has a releative who went to Alaska to monitor this issue and was forced to admit that this is not a problem, though the person is an avid environmentalists. No one wants to harm the environment. But some radical elements in society promote extremist propaganda about this. I saw how environmentalists did this with nuclear power plants, that is, they told deliberate lies to try to get voters to close my plant at Trojan Site in Oregon. When groups resort to lies, then I know something is fishy ... Amazing
-
Seven
As a frequent visitor to Alaska, I am equally upset about this too but I'll have to give credit to the previous stooges for this one:
"To take just one example, the Clinton/Gore Administration opened up Alaska's precious National Petroleum Reserve, selling the first oil-drilling leases in May 1999. Compared with George Bush, however, Gore is Mother Nature herself." -Eric Aterman, The Nation, Oct. 16, 2000.
edited to place " " around Aterman's quote.
-
Sam Beli
Are those of you who wish to NOT drill in Alaska going to start walking to the grocery store instead of driving? This is one excellent way to begin showing your intense love of nature, IMHO.
Sam Beli
-
Kent
Hi MD!
There is many accidents in life - evolution certainly isn't one of them!
I can see your concerns. Outside the coast of Norway we have a lot of oil-rigs, and there is always a risc of an accident. On the other hand, there is extremely heavy regulations, and the security is real good.
These days there is a lot of noise about having gas-pipes to where I'm living - and I'm all for it. I'm even for a gas power-plant!
Modern technology isn't our enemy. It's just to use it correctly. How much energy do you use in a year? How much do every American, European - our industry?
Either we have to go back to horses - or we have to accept we need to get the energy from somewhere.
In Norway the prize of gasoline is about 1,20 dollars (US). Would Americans be willing to pay that?
Just asking, he, he...
Yakki Da
Kent
"The only difference between a fool and the JW legal department is that a fool might be sympathetic ."
Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org -
JanH
Kent,
In Norway the prize of gasoline is about 1,20 dollars (US)
Per liter!
For metric-challenged merkins, one gallon is approx 3.8 liters. $4.56 per gallon anyone?
Glad I don't have a car!
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911] -
peaceloveharmony
For metric-challenged merkins
ahhh jan, i know you love us merkins! thanks for clarifying, i'm also glad i don't have a car!
as for the oil drilling in alaska, i'm not sure what to think. i tend to agree with kent
Either we have to go back to horses - or we have to accept we need to get the energy from somewhere
the idea i guess is to get the energy in the least harmful way. and i have no clue how that can be done.love
harmony"If God has spoken, why is the world not convinced?"
..........Percy Bysshe Shelley, English poet (1792-1822) -
Commie Chris
Amazing: Again with the name-calling? Is everyone who opposes oil/gas drilling and pipelines in the Arctic a “radical” and/or dishonest?. I see no facts in your post, just name-calling. Here are some facts:
Massive oil and gas exploration and drilling of the type proposed by Bush is not “safe”. It can cause enormous environmental destruction. This can clearly be seen in areas of the Arctic which have undergone drilling over the past decade. Formerly pristine wilderness, home to caribou, moose and all kinds of wildlife, and home to people who have lived in harmony with that wilderness for thousands of years, has been reduced to desert-like conditions, with very few economic benefits going to those who call this region home. I have seen it - I work as a lawyer for First Nations in the Canadian western Arctic.
Pipelines are also not safe. They leak and explode all the time. According to the industry’s own reporting (and most leaks are probably not reported) every couple of days, a natural gas pipeline incident occurs in North America. Since 1986, in the US there have been, in addition to thousands of leaks and explosions which “only” harmed the natural environment, there have been 1,407 injuries and 322 deaths from natural gas pipelines. In Alberta (a small energy rich Canadian province, the Energy Utilities Board listed 950 reported (how many unreported?) pipeline failure incidents in the year ending March 31, 2000, a 7% increase from the previous year. In addition to these obvious threats to human safety, there is evidence of serious impacts on wildlife from pipelines.
Then there are problems with flaring. Flaring is used for a wide range of purposes within the industry. During well testing it is used assess the rate and pressure and size of reservoir in order to size the diameter of the pipelines and the amount of equipment that's going to be needed to get the gas out. The gas, unburnt, will have a wide range of lighter hydrocarbons. Primarily methane, which is the main hydrocarbon of interest, CH4, but there can be a range of other hydrocarbons. Particularly of high interest are C5 to C8. In that case, we are talking benzene, ethyl benzene and styrene, which are also known to be hazardous air pollutants when they are placed into the air. The biggest concern is the presence of hydrogen-sulphide. It's a sulphur product that can occur naturally. Hydrogen-sulphide, once released into the air, is one of the most toxic substances known to humanity. If sulphur is converted into sulphur dioxide then you have concerns around air quality and the impacts on humans, but also degradation of soil and water bodies, etc… There are also noise, odor problems and of course greenhouse gases associated with them.
There's a large range of air toxins that can be released that are directly from the gas or created through the flaring process itself through products of incomplete combustion. People living in those areas report increases in respiratory problems, headaches and fatigue. As well, livestock and wild animals have reduced reproduction, slow growth and in some cases death and stillbirths. The oil/gas industry has argued that flaring was a pretty safe way to get rid of waste gases, claiming that it basically converts everything out of the hole into carbon dioxide and water. So studies were finally done in the late '90s and it showed there was quite a toxic chemical soup of these kinds of compounds that are being released from the flares.
Finally, there is no sound economic argument for drilling in the Arctic. To the extent that there is an “energy crisis” (and that is highly debatable) it is likely that all of North America’s energy needs could be addressed through conservation and alternative energy sources. All this could be done for a fraction of the cost of building the insane “missile defence shield”. (BTW, isn’t it funny how the very companies which will profit from this huge expenditure of tax-payers money by Washington, and those oil/gas companies which profit from the give-away of public lands and resources are the same ones that scream about the horrors “big government” whenever legislation which would protect the environment or public health is proposes.) But then drilling in the Arctic has nothing to do with the public interest or addressing a supposed “energy crisis”. It is all about Bush, the servile toady of big business, doing his duty to the oil/gas industry which funds his election campaigns by ensuring massive give-aways and profits for them. That’s “big government”.
And what of the deeper moral issues involved. Does the land not have some value in itself? Are we not devaluing our humanity by looking at the land as merely something to “exploit” for economic gain?
-
Seven
Hi Sam, If we're going to open up the nineteen million acres and drill then lets use it ourselves. Are we still going to be oil dependent? This is what I find upsetting. Or are we going to sell it all? There's enough high quality oil with a low sulfur content(more than Saudi)beneath Gull Island to last us for 200 years. Also, friends who work at Prudhoe say we pumped natural gas back into the ground 24/7 when the pipeline was designed to run an additional gas pipe above it. This is a crock. We needn't be dependent upon the Mid-East for oil. The only walking we need do is for exercise, which I do. As far as nature goes if we use the pipeline as an example the caribou herds have increased in numbers by taking refuge along the pipeline.
seven
-
philo
For the 'merkins' in Britain, and her proud territories, a gallon is 4.54 litres. Ha ha ha.
Jan, seeing your hair, I guess you have a motorbike. Though I can't see any bugs in those distinguished whiskers.
philo