Using fear to despoil an Arctic refuge

Bob Jennings, Evergreen

Published April 18, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

April 18, 2008

5:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

Houstongolfnut,

Dang you. You took almost all the good facts I wanted to post. You did miss one. Cuba and Mexico are drilling on the continental shelf. We could do that too but we are hamstrung by the green ninnies who believe that by closing their eyes and demanding a solution they will get one.

Alternative fuels will be developed when they are PRACTICAL, not before. Drilling in ANWAR or offshore will provide domestic oil. Allowing oil companies to build refineries (simple procedure would be to pass a national law that permits granted cannot be revoked, nor can additional restrictions be placed on companies after construction has begun.) will provide more gasoline and more supply equals lower prices. Law of supply and demand.

That law cannot undone. Of course, the greenies don't want common sense, they want common ownership of all businesses. It worked so well under the Soviet Union and other societies.

Until next time HGN. I'll just have to read faster.
April 18, 2008

6:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

Mr Bob Jenning of the People's Republic of Evergreen, other than left-wing ranting about the oil industry (which was here making big profits long before the Bush Administration), what is the alternative? E85? Don't make me laugh. That's one of the reasons prices are going up. Corn is a food staple, not a source of fuel. Besides ranting against Bush, what is YOUR sensible alternative to oil?

And, where is it written we have an "obligation" to protect the wildlife? And where, except in the beady little liberal mind, is it written that drilling for oil destroys wildlife?
April 18, 2008

6:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

Mr. Jennings presents a very emotional argument against drilling for oil. That same argument has been used against any drilling for decades.

And, like most Liberals, he attacks the Industry that feeds us. That seems to be popular by Democrats these days.

Again, he doesn't propose a good solution how to solve our energy problem in America. The Democratic candidates have proposed 'windmills'. I wonder if that is realistic???

We need more discourse, and not anger vented, in order to solve these large problems.
April 18, 2008

6:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

As can be researched fairly easily, if all of ANWR was an NFL football field, the area that has been proposed by the energy industry and the GOP to open for exploration and drilling would be the size of a MATCHBOOK in the endzone. That this has been portrayed as raping the wilderness and a gross disrespect of our national heritage by the eco-ZEALOTS on the left is pitiful. They do NOT want conservation they want complete preservation of the wilderness with no intrusion at all. They use the moniker of "BIG OIL" like it was some kind of invading army - not the industry that provides the planet with the energy we need everyday. They are morons.
April 18, 2008

8:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

raysmom writes:

Why aren't you screaming about the Farm Bill? 297 BILLION $$ going to 19 Democratically held districts to huge family land trusts that promise to conserve land and grow corn for bio-fuels and do neither- there are no controls or enforcements. President Bush, or "Georgie-Boy", as you put it, is threatening to veto this historically bi-partisan bill, with the support of REAL environmentalists, advocates for the poor, and fiscal conservatives, but Dems are brain-washing the public, again. Go to NPR to learn more- not exactly a big purveyor of conservatism.

Speaking of Bio-fuels- see Time Magazine dated April 7, 2008. Again, not a conservative agenda in sight in this publication, but the front page screams, "The Clean Energy Myth". The environmental impact of this under-researched boondoggle, (one of the largest investors is George Soros, of course), is catastrophic. I quote, "Hyped as an eco-friendly fuel, ethanol increases global warming, destroys forests and inflates food prices. So why are we subsidizing it?" 750,000 acres of Brazilian rainforest was lost in the last 6 months of 2007 alone. You can feed a person enough corn to last them for 365 days on the corn it takes to produce 1 tank of ethanol!

We must stay competitive in our oil production, or be held hostage to foreigners who couldn't give a tinkers d@mn about the environment. We can also lessen their destruction by reducing dependence on their production, and instituting our our controls over how we drill, which has proven to be very effective- see the Alaskan Pipline, where the caribou are flourishing,

So you should be concerned, and active, in your environmetal beliefs, but stop using your rhetoric to undermine an administration that you obviously hate, to the detriment of your country and the world.
April 18, 2008

8:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

rpmcmurphy writes:

The US can utilize it's natural resources, or bury itself in the dustbin of history by continuing to buy oil from nations who would prefer our nations end.
April 18, 2008

8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

sschow writes:

Good god, this letter contains everything I look for when deciding whether or not an opinion is valid:

1. "Obscene" profits, no mention of profit margins.
2. Mentioning greed...give me a good definition of greed. Is it wanting too much? Ok. So who is the arbiter of deciding how much is too much? Where do they derive this power from? What if two people have this job and their opinions differ? Answer that and I'll cut you some slack.
3. Belittling nickname for our president (I don't like him either but calling him Georgie Boy is basically ad hominem).

Survey says, "Uninformed, ignorant, emotionally driven argument!" I'll pass thank you very much. Come back with some facts and I'll be all ears.
April 18, 2008

8:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

AngelontheSidelines writes:

ANWR drilling is planned for the critical Caribou calving grounds. It is easy to say that the caribou would have the rest of Alaska, and that the greenies are socialists, but that does not change the fact that drilling in the calving area will destroy the herd.

If the industry is so good at slant drilling, why not drill from outside the "matchbook", into the "vast" oil fields?

Twenty years of oil supply is the time frame of sucking up the irreplaceable deposits for six months of actual American oil demand. Is it worth it to us to decimate calving grounds for a couple dozen tanks for the Hummer?
April 18, 2008

9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

primafacie writes:

"Is it worth it to us to decimate calving grounds for a couple dozen tanks for the Hummer?"

Yes.
April 18, 2008

9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

"If the industry is so good at slant drilling, why not drill from outside the "matchbook", into the "vast" oil fields?." - Angel
Excellent question. If you look at the computer imaging regarding the projected "footprint" that would be needed on that "matchbook" that is exactly what will occur. The actual footprint will be minimal, relative to the entire size of ANWR and to the size of the oil field beneath. But the slant drilling will extend out from that area to recover the oil from the pool that lies underneath. Years ago this would have not been possible, but the new technology is quite amazing. The fact that we are also drilling wells in the Gulf of Mexico to about 8000 - 9000 feet down is also pretty amazing.
April 18, 2008

9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Have you every been to Alaska? Are you a petrolium engineer? Do you know anything about (deep sigh) caribo and their calving practices? I didn't think so. The gloom and doom about the Alaska pipeline never materialised. Please name the places on earth that are not 1)sacred 2)irreplaceble 3) worthy of protection. There aren't any are there?
April 18, 2008

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Angel: think of it this way; compare it to Colorado. We could access all of the oil in the entire Front Range and Great Plains by developing an area the size of one Centennial Airport.

That's not a foot print, it's a pinky-toe print, if that much.

As for the earlier arguments to use alternative fuels; why, may I ask, would that be a good idea?

Alternative fuels cost more, create energy much less efficiently and hurt the poor of the world. (If liberals are supposed to be out to help the poor, it bewilders me that they want to impoverish them even more with alternative fuels.)

Consider, it takes more energy to create ethanol than ethanol produces, 29 percent more energy. That means we have burn more petroleum to create ethanol than what we'd burn if we didn't make the ethanol in first place. Ethanol also severly pollutes ground water and increases demand on food stuffs, driving up prices (hurting the poor).

Consider, it costs more to build solar energy plants than what they're worth. Out here in Las Vegas, we just built a solar energy plant on Nellis AFB at a cost of $100 million. It will produce about $1 million of electricity each year for 30 years and then be obsolete. That means we taxpayers lost $70 million and we still need a coal-fired plant to give us the electricity we need! Better to have just built the coal plant since it is still needed anywa and it would be cost effective.

Who do you think is hurt most by the rising fuel costs, and the subsequent rising of all other costs, the most? The poor. Why then are these bleeding-heart liberals wanting these foolish ideas that hurt the poor? Because they don't trully care.

Oil, coal and uranium are still are best and most cost-effective sources of energy. If you want lower costs, quit the unnecessary fear mongering about "the environment", put on your thinking caps and support ANWR drilling.
April 18, 2008

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Angelonthesidelines,
Let's say you do start drilling or place some kind of building or do any other activity that might drive caribou out of their calving grounds. What's going to happen? Are the caribou going to just stop breeding? Are they going to get together and say, "Well, they put that big drill there so I guess we can't have any more babies. We're screwed!!"
April 18, 2008

10:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

The idea that ANWR will significantly and quickly add to our domestic oil supplies is just flat-out stupid.

No one knows how much oil is in ANWR, much less can be extracted from it. The actual oil producers aren't even pushing to drill there anymore, it's the exploration companies who want to. So, we're looking at years of "development" right there.

And let's say after several years they do get some oil out, in fact, let's say they actually hit paydirt and get gushers of the stuff. Does anyone honestly believe the producers are going to reserve all that oil for the US markets alone? That they won't put those barrels of oil on the global markets so that they go to the highest bidder? Even if the US is that bidder, it's not going to make a bit of difference in what we're paying for gas, and furthermore, at our rate of consumption whatever oil we buy back won't last very long.

And I don't need to have it "written somewhere" that I have an obligation to protect our wildlife and natural resources. I have a mind of my own, not to mention a conscience.
April 18, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

OhBrother writes:

wow-so from reading the majority of these post-just keep using oil, keep driling and never question our government when it comes to oil. Don't blame the oil companys, there just doing there job...sounds like we got every thing taken care of, no need to worry anymore. If your concerned about our enviroment, just shut up and don't think about it
April 18, 2008

11:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

OhBrother, take heart. These posters don't represent the ingenuity that Americans are known for. There will always be the slackers, the naysayers, the bleaters who want to keep the status quo...and progress generally marches over and right past them.
April 18, 2008

1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

TryThinking said "Please name the places on earth that are not 1)sacred 2)irreplaceble 3) worthy of protection. There aren't any are there?"
I think Roman Catholics would get mighty upset if an Italian oil company wanted to go drilling for oil beneath St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City because there was the potential for a vast oil deposit down below. Muslims, Jews, and Christians might get violently upset if a mining company proposed creating a mine below the Al Aqsa mosque into the Temple Mount because they found traces of high quality uranium ore. Decades ago, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed damming the Grand Canyon to create water supplies for California and electricity. That got shot down in a hurry. So, yes, as a matter of fact, there are areas people consider irreplaceable.
If Americans conserved even a minimal amount in their driving and car purchase habits, we wouldn't need to drill in ANWR. I for one consider caribou far more important than Hummers or Navigators or other oversized under-efficient energy hogs.
April 18, 2008

2:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Tbone,
If profit margins don't matter to you, and I start a company that makes $2,000,000,000 in profits, but my expenses were $1,999,999,999, are my profits "obscene"?
April 18, 2008

2:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Bmac writes:

This coming from a putz (probably a rich ex-Californian) living in Evergreen. What do you think all of the houses in Evergreen and the rest of the mountain towns are doing to the environment here in Colorado? You nitwits on the left sure want to control everybody else just as long as you get your mountain oasis! As for alternative energy the left always pushes for (such as ethanol), it is usually worse than what it's supposed to replace! Having said this, I do think that the auto companies should stop screwing around and come up with cars that get at least 50 mpg now - not 20 years from now (which I'm sure is doable). The gas prices are killing me.
April 18, 2008

3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Peterpi,

You missed the point. I agree that there are some places that we shouldn't drill. Can you agree that there are some places we should? Every inch of the planet becomes hallowed ground just as soon as some one wants to drill there. If we can't drill in some god-forsaken part of the barren north slope of Alaska, where can we drill? The environmental hacks view virtually every patch of the planet as being mother earth that should remain pristine. Multiple-use is the answer.

The Sierra Club has it foundation in the Hoover Dam. They gave up Hoover to prevent a dam that would have flooded Dinosaur. More Americans enjoy the benefit of Hoover dam, the clean power it produces, the flood control, the recreation and the water storage that it provides than ever would have enjoyed the canyon that was flooded. You and the Sierra Club are probable convinced that you are morally superior to the guy that takes his boat out on Roosevelt Lake. But he and people who drive Hummers are citizen as well. The public’s land is the public's land. Not just whiny environmentalist but everyone's.

I’m absolute shocked that wilderness designation used to shut off millions of square mile to motorized travel has not been challenged under the American’s with Disabilities Act. Shouldn’t a disabled American citizen be able to use a four-wheeler to access the nation’s wilderness? Maybe attorney should sure the federal government for this obvious ability based discrimination.
April 18, 2008

4:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hazardous_T writes:

They should have titled this "Using fear to inflict a Socialist doctrine"
April 18, 2008

4:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hazardous_T writes:

"The Sierra Club made the Nature Conservancy look reasonable. I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth look reasonable. Earth First! now makes us look reasonable. We're still waiting for someone else to come along and make Earth First! look reasonable." Former Sierra Club executive director David Brower.
April 18, 2008

4:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

I would love to see the strat column if they drill in ANWAR. This is geologically interesting county. The problems with drilling there are (1) only work during the coldest months because of the permafrost. (2) where do you house the workers? In apartments or off shore on ships. Workers there would need an entire town to supply their needs, food services, medical, recreation. There is no infrastructure in that part of the world.

We should drill more in the Gulf and off shore continental America. The work can go on most of the year and men and supplies can come to the rigs by helicopter from Gulf states. Also, the refineries are there.

Drill off the panhandle of Florida where we know the oil is located, and where the new drilling technologies work the best.
April 18, 2008

4:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

glowrock writes:

Hey Eli, if your REVENUE was $2 billion/year and your EXPENSES were $1,999,999,999/year, your profit would be $1.00 even. If your profits were $2,000,000,000 and your expenses were $1,999,999,999, then your revenue would be $3,999,999,999.

I assume you just forgot that little bit of logic.
April 18, 2008

7:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Rephrased for the sake of making glowrock happy:

Tbone,
If profit margins don't matter to you, and I start a company that makes $2,000,000,000 in REVENUE, but my EXPENSES were $1,999,999,999, are my PROFITS "obscene"?
April 18, 2008

11:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

farmboy writes:

Tbone wrote, "if every single drop of oil was available to the US as gasoline, it would provide us with a whopping 472 days of fuel."

I don't buy that at all. Oil companies wouldn't be willing to spend billions of dollars and multi-years of preparation for an operation that would last only 472 days. They have to know there's a lot more than that up there.
April 19, 2008

12:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

Compared to US annual usage, there isn't that much potential oil in ANWR. I think Bush and the oil companies are fighting for drilling in ANWR because if they win there, they can drill damn near anywhere.
Oil companies promising to be environmentally conscious and leave a small foot print made similar promises about Prudhoe Bay and the Trans Alaska Pipeline. There is considerable environmental degradation and devastation caused by both.
According to a pro-ANWR group, the US imports 70% of its oil. If ANWR is in place the US would import only 2/3 of its oil. Nice touch, using a percentage in one sentence and a fraction in the other. Changing 2/3 to 66%, we would cause environmental harm for 4% of the US oil consumption. I repeat, we could acheive the same effect with even a small degree of consumer conservation efforts, such as smart driving and buying more fuel-thrifty cars.
Finally, oil companies love to say they'd do all their exploration, drilling, etc. during the winter months on the icepack. The icepack is getting thinner, the permafrost is getting thinner, and the icepack season is getting shorter.
Every estimate of placing ANWR oil online is in 10 years after Congressional approval. If gas prices stay high and if the EPA improves corporate fuel economy requirements, by the time ANWR becomes productive, it may be superfluous. Another reason to see the first paragraph..
April 19, 2008

12:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

farmboy,
Most articles that talk about the development of ANWR oil reserves say the oil would be drawn out over a 20 year period. The companies can't drain it as fast as the US consumes it, and they wouldn't want to. That's why its overall impact on oil supplies is realtively low.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Using fear to despoil an Arctic refuge

Bob Jennings, Evergreen

Published April 18, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs