Debate on oil/gas

Three minutes. Wow. That is pretty short.

A lot of articles say that there is still a lot of oil left to get in the Middle East. If you have to get sources for this "speech", I am assuming that you might want to find some of these articles. They shouldn't be hard to find, just Google news search for some stuff. But, then you should say that we have to drill in ANWR, Artic National Wildlife Refuge, before the oil in the Middle East runs out. Some articles project that there is 25+ years oil in ANWR for the US, just for the US. Some say that ANWR can't be drilled in because it will hurt the ecosystem, but, it isn't really that big of an area. But, it takes like 10-15 years to find the oil and stuff, so, that's why we have to drill for it now.

If you want anymore specs, just ask.

-Big D

Sorry about the double post here, but I have to add in this part.

Don't say that we have to change our lifestyles. That is just ridiculous. Lets see here, we would have to change what fuels airplanes, trucks, cars, semi's, and ect. use to get to place to place. How long would that take??? That might take more time than it would take to run out of oil...But, you could comprimise a point, and be like, "Well, we can drill for oil in other places, but still find a way to decrease the amount of oil that we use." I mean, really, is it bad to have a surplus of oil???

-Big D

we should say "forget oil" and move on because the terrorists are going to keep raising their prices

Although Crude Oil isn't scarce, why wait till it is. I don't think we should concern ourselves with forieghn oil prices when we can make our own biodiesel. It's very easy to create, and making a proccessor for it costs only about 100$ but thats no biggy when the stuffs only 50 cents a gallon, and puts less wear and tear on your engine than regular diesel.

that is true, but diesel fuel has drawbacks. Unlike octane or regular gasoliine it produces more fumes in the air that harm the environment. The percentage of emissions from combustion is much more higher than the emissions from regular gasoline. Bio-fuel would be the best. Have you heard of a bus in Europe that runs completely on fuel made by soybeans.

I personally think that we should drill for oil in Alaska; it would only destroy the environment if there is a major spill. And -no offence to all you hippies out there- its not like a spill would really do much damage, the area in question is about 1/2 of 1% of Alaska.

As for your speach, you should talk about alternative fuels, there are so many you could make a 10 minute speach just talking about the different kinds.

Here's my view. I think that we need to seriously ask ourselves how much we love oil. I say it's a bit too much. It's not the only way to fuel our cars and such. I do think that Americans are averse to change. Heck, we all should know how long it took for changes to happen in society. I feel that the first step should be to ditch the hummers and embrace the hybrids. When the majority has shown their love for hybirds, then maybe companies will be less reluctant to fund research for alternative fuel opportunites. It's expensive, but it will greatly reduce prices in the future and we will not be as dependant upon other nations.

Oh, and as for drilling in Alaska, it may be 0.5%, but Alaska is a pretty big place and if something were to throw off the eco system, it could cause serious problems not only for the state, but for the country.

Thank you, pianogirl, for getting the facts strait! The solution is to decrease our dependancy on oil so that eventually we have the tecnology and mentality (i don't think that's spelld right...) to use another source for power. And I am compleatly against the drilling of ANWAR, as it would ruin a lot, and solve very little. Here are my reasons (they were posted on another thread, but it stoped, and they speak very well for this one). Also, clifford, I really resent that remark about Alaskan 'Hippies'. there are plenty of people, and some very real, and very good, reasons why dirlling in that region should not be allowed.

1) It is a national wildlife refuge, after all; the Porcupine Caribou Herd travles through a significant portion of ANWAR, and saying that drilling wouldn't affect it or the delicate balance of life in the refuge is compleate bullcrap. (For those of you who don't know about it, it is one of the largest Caribou herds today, and spends its calving and spring/summer time in the refuge).

2) If the refuge is drilled, more than just the Caribou will be disturbed, and in the case of Muskoxen, this can be fatal to them. Caribou are at least able to run away safely-that is their main defense. For a muskox, the main defense is to stay put (rather like tricerotops), and they are not built to run for extended periods of time. With their heavy, oily coats they overheat extremly quickly, and could get into realy nasty situations where they are overcome by heat exaustion.

3) What people say about ANWAR having 'vast tracks of unsed land' could be considered as true, since it is mainly tundra, and it is rare to see wild animals on the tundra. The conflict with the theroy that the oil-developing companies wouldn't hurt the ecosystem is that they would need to get two basic materials to build roads, housing, and other developmental prodjects-gravel and water. ANWAR is full of streams and small rivers criss-crossing everywhere, and they are the only source of those two materials. However, rich plants grow by the rivers because of the presence of the water. And what do you get with rich plants by a water source? Caribou and Muskoxen, among other herbavores. And with the presence of that type of animal, the carnavores, such as bears, wolverines, and wolves become present as well. What I'm trying to say is that with the removal of water and gravel from the streams, which have their own ecosystems, would disturb the animals with very probably disasterous results.

4) Drilling in the refuge would actually violate the Alaskan Native Corporation's trust. It is obvious in the title (Alaska NATIVE Wildlife Artic Refuge).

5) And, finaly, the last reason (at least for this post) is that the amount of oil that is projected in ANWAR would not even be enough to change the oil/gas problems faced nowadays. We would need an enormous amount of drilled oil (the number escapes me at the moment) to fix the rising gas prices.

Anyways, there's my two cent's worth, feel free to argue with me!

clifford wrote:its not like a spill would really do much damage, the area in question is about 1/2 of 1% of Alaska.

(Sorry for dobleposting here, but I had to reply to this seperatly)

WHat dot the words "Valdeze Oilspill" mean to you? This werck happened almost 17 years ago (Febuary 1, 1989), and it still hasn't been compleatly cleaned up, is still weraking havoc on the ecosystem, and has effected various parts of the world by carying harmful processed oil in water currents and screwing up other ecosystems.

And even if Alaska is the largest state, that dosen't mean that we have areas that can be wasted!