Arctic Drilling

by Mommie Dark 13 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Francois

  Image a 20' by 25' room; a room about the size of a 2-car garage. Now image a standard US postage stamp. That's about the ratio of the entirety of ANWR to the area to be drilled. And it's apparently not the pristine wilderness touted by environmentalists, a word quickly coming to mean fanatical and dishonest.

  As noted above, there is more damage done to wildlife by garbage left by humans, than by oil drilling. And in the Great Smokey Mountains, vast amounts of damage are done by well-intentioned people who feed the animals.

  You would think that a group of people who have had way too much experience with one group of "we're always right, you're always wrong - It's our way or NO way" fanatics would avoid 1) being those kinds of fanatics themselves, and 2) following another such group.

  $0.02

  Francois

  Where it is a duty to worship the Sun you can be sure that a study of the laws of heat is a crime.
• 

  Commie Chris

  Francoise: if it's true that more damage is done to wildlife by garbage than by oil drilling then there is one helluva lot of garbage being dumped by Americans. Please show me the studies which support this claim. I've seen the destruction done by oil and gas drilling. I've seen whole communities lose a way of life that has existed for thousands of years. The point, Francoise, is that none of this destruction is necessary. If Washington would devote a fraction of the money that it doles out in corporate welfare to multi-national coporations to instead promoting conservation and alternative energy, there would be no "energy crisis". Am I a "fanatic" or "dishonest" because I oppose needless environmental damage and government hand-outs to big corporations at the expense of the public interest?

  As for your last remarks about "a group of people" being "fanatics" or "following fanatics", what the hell are you talking about? Who are you talking about?
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  After reading several articles concerning the Arctic Refuge in such "radical environmentalist publications" such as National Geographic and Smithsonian, I've come to doubt the wisdom of oil drilling in the Arctic.

  The Prudhoe Bay operation extracts oil from a centralized deposit. This is not the case in the Refuge area, where the oil is distributed in many small pockets, necessitating more drill sites. With newer technology, the number of sites can be minimized, but there is still the potential for major disruption in the area.

  Also, the Arctic Refuge is a much more fragile area, and the future impact is simply not known at this time. It could be much, much worse than predicted, or much less....they just don't know.

  Now, if these oil deposits were sufficient to greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it might be worth the risk. However, the estimate is that the Alaskan reserves will supply approximately 6 percent of the oil used in the U.S. We will STILL be heavily dependent on foreign oil.

  Shouldn't we be looking for viable alternative sources? Six percent is such a small amount of oil as compared to the value of a pristine wilderness area.
• 

  Tallyman

  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.

  MD,
  Speaking from a bias of being allergic to petrochemicals,
  I gotta agree wit yer sentiments...
  Now, for poetic justice
  let's have that hellfire fueled by a combo of Gas/Diesel/Propane
  to roast those Planet-Raping FatCat Oil Barons...
  and if the Fire Tenders need something extra to stoke the flames,
  well then, throw a few of those Governing Body FartBags on the heap.
  wOw!
  Petro!
  Methane!
  b-OO-m!
  HOT!
  Hell should have enough Combustibles to last for all Eternity.

  These days,
  I'm agreeing more and more with a fellow Carolina Boy, Sweet Baby James:

  Damn this traffic jam
  [...]
  Now I used to think that I was cool
  Running around on fossil fuel
  Until I saw what I was doing
  Was driving down the road to ruin

  .