A Complete Waste of Space

Nice article....though I'm sure our resident "energy farmer" will
take you to task....

It is not to late, yet, to do something smart like that....
The funny thing about it?
It would make a better case for alternative energy....
With one exception?
Them tree huggers won't wipe their hind ends with saran wrap...
and they're not "green" enough...to do it barehanded....

Pudfark wrote: Them tree huggers won't wipe their hind ends with saran wrap...
and they're not "green" enough...to do it barehanded....

Maybe they can learn how to wipe their asses from the swarthy sons of the desert..
It may be "green" but it's closer to brown I'd bet.

here's the true problem(along with the fact that the study in question was bought and paid for by the oil industry)--from the article itself:

" the U.S. currently imports over 60 percent of its crude oil, according to API. The Northern Economics-University of Alaska study estimates that Arctic offshore development could cut U.S. imports by about 9 percent over 35 years."

in other words, even by the rosy scenario, you've fucked up the arctic region and STILL end up importing over 50% of your oil and gas. Note too, that this assumes the rest of our production stays up to current levels, a mighty bold assumption.

Well a 9% increase in domestic production is still 9% of the money that stays here....and doesn't go there...not to mention,
that it would be an incremental step is the direction.....you say we should be going....

Pudfark wrote:Well a 9% increase in domestic production is still 9% of the money that stays here....and doesn't go there...not to mention,
that it would be an incremental step is the direction.....you say we should be going....

9% over 35 years

35 years sounds like a decent timeline to attain and consolidate a leading global postion in alternative fuel/power research and production to benefit later generations...

Pudfark wrote:Well a 9% increase in domestic production is still 9% of the money that stays here....and doesn't go there...not to mention,
that it would be an incremental step is the direction.....you say we should be going....

and, if production doesn't pan out? Or, worse, if you have a spill like the Gulf Spill in those waters?
The costs would be staggering.

Daiichidoku wrote:

Pudfark wrote:Well a 9% increase in domestic production is still 9% of the money that stays here....and doesn't go there...not to mention,
that it would be an incremental step is the direction.....you say we should be going....

9% over 35 years

35 years sounds like a decent timeline to attain and consolidate a leading global postion in alternative fuel/power research and production to benefit later generations...

one would think, huh, Daii?

Well, Slick if yer wrong? I believe you are.
You can still "thumb" a ride with the Amish...

Pudfark wrote:Well, Slick if yer wrong? I believe you are.

about what? Simple math? The numbers are right there in the study, and they are optimistic numbers out of the folks who stand to make money from the drilling. They don't add up to squat, overall.

You can still "thumb" a ride with the Amish...

as stupid as Americans seem to collectively be about the subject of petroleum and development of new options, the Amish might come out looking like the smart crowd.