The thing that Republicans don’t bother to tell people when there drooling over drilling in the wildlife refuge is that it estimated to have a little over a years supply of oil in it. So in my opinion the cost isn’t worth the gain. The refuge has a estimated 1.9 billion barrels of oil and the U.S. consumes 19.6 million barrels of oil a DAY.
2006-07-31 09:02:42 · 22 answers · asked by The Prez. 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The high gas prices could be a plot by big oil to sway the American public to favor drilling the refuge!
2006-07-31 09:14:42 · update #1
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is home to some of the most diverse and spectacular wildlife in the arctic. The Refuge's rich pageant of wildlife includes 36 fish species, 36 land mammals, nine marine mammals, and more than 160 migratory and resident bird species. If we drill there, the different species that are already there will be subjected to dangerous conditions and therefore will be on the verge of extinction…if they are not already. If should be left alone.
2006-07-31 09:17:14 · answer #1 · answered by Nisha 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Where did you get your "facts"?. The USGS estimates that 10.4 billion barrels are recoverable from ANWR alone. There's also a nearby area that has about the same amount, that was OK'd for drilling by Congress about 80 years ago, that has never been touched. (Your number on daily consumption is about right). This information is readily available on Yahoo.
Let's round the numbers to 20 billion barrels recoverable versus 20 million barrels daily usage. That's 1000 days, or a 3 year supply if we don't use oil from any other source. Now "in your opinion the cost isn't worth the gain". Are you a professional and do you really have ANY IDEA AT ALL of the cost or the benefit?
2006-07-31 09:28:13 · answer #2 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A Wildlife refuge should not be used to drill for oil. Those types of places are there for a reason, to save life, not for big oil companies to come in and kill off the animals and deplete a natural resource. To make a short answer long, NO, They should not drill in that type of an area.
2006-07-31 09:53:10 · answer #3 · answered by vegaschic 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are drilling all over Utah, Wy and Co right now. Bush has opened all federal land to be drilled !! Do some reading on where they are drilling right now in the USA!!!!! From Bad to Worse - Colorado BLM to Hold the Largest Lease Sale in State History
BLM recently announced that on Tuesday, May 11 th the state office will hold the largest oil & gas lease sale in Colorado history, exceeding last quarter's record-setting sale by over 27,000 acres or approximately 43 square miles. Up for grabs is 196,735 acres of national public land in 172 parcels (the February 2006 sale included 169,602 acres in 157 parcels). Northwest Colorado will be hardest hit by the sale, in which 118,000 acres are slated for sale in Moffat County alone.More information, including maps showing leases in Forest Service roadless areas, photos of some of the threatened Forest Service roadless areas, is available at http://www.roadless.net/ - click on “ Oil & Gas Leases Threaten Roadless Areas ” near the upper right portion of the page. Read This !!!
2006-07-31 13:44:31 · answer #4 · answered by jdfnv 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure we should go ahead and drill, lord knows that all those SUV drivers with 1 or 2 people in the car need the fuel. Oh by the way there might be oil in the Grand Canyon and maybe even under Half Dome in Yosemite too.
2006-07-31 09:25:48 · answer #5 · answered by Chuck P 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i could agree that it may help us sustain our life now...yet we would desire to initiate questioning out into the destiny. that's time that our u . s . and the international initiate finding for greater potential recommendations for gasoline. The Alaskan's voted to proceed oil drilling so there is money obtainable for his or her each year verify they get by being a citizen of Alaska. this is all on the subject of the money (direction can no longer say i could think of differant if i became getting the money as nicely). And in case you observed the Valdez oil spill- yeah it does impact the animals. it may't be the drilling, or the pipeline- this is a deliver loaded with oil working aground. i in my view am no longer against oil drilling, I merely think of that we would desire to initiate finding at another recommendations slightly greater heavily.
2016-10-01 07:41:36 · answer #6 · answered by syverson 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should drill werever we have to for a resource that is essential to our economy. Even if we convert all of our cars to hydrogen or electric or something else, we will still need massive amounts of oil. Many industries, especially the plastics and petrochemical, require oil.
What is the risk to a couple of carribou when compared to the risk of a near total economic collapse and a 30s like depression. People seriously need to get their priorities straight.
2006-07-31 09:13:37 · answer #7 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. we should plant it in hemp and produce ethanol, year after year after year.
And sadly, your estimate may be off, I've seen figures over 20 Million barrels a day.
FYI: I said hemp instead of corn because one acre of hemp will produce the same amount of ethanol as 10 acres of corn. Ever ask the question, what % of this country is going to have to become farm land in order to feed that 20 MM B/d hunger? Try 50+%
2006-07-31 09:09:06 · answer #8 · answered by Alan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No there is plenty of oil in Los Angelas and off shore in CA.
Alaska is to far away. We could level Watts and pump oil from South Central LA.
Go big Red Go
2006-07-31 09:07:06 · answer #9 · answered by 43 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Drill
2006-07-31 09:05:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋