SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For decades, proponents of oil and gas drilling have viewed Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as an area rich with natural resources that could help fuel the United States' drive for energy independence.
Now, Congress may be on the verge of finally handing them permission to deliver on an old Republican mantra: Drill, baby, drill.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 13-10 last week to approve a bill that would allow oil and gas exploration in the refuge's 1.5-million-acre coastal plain. The measure will be added to the Senate's tax-reform package that is expected to be put to a vote before the end of the year.
And:
Alaska drilling tucked into tax bill:
The multi-decade fight over allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) could quickly be resolved if the GOP-controlled Congress approves the massive tax overhaul package. The bill includes language that opens up ANWR for drilling, and it will be taken up by the Senate this week, although the vote could be delayed if the Senate struggles to put together enough votes. The outcome of the legislation is unclear.
Also at Quad-Cities Online (opinion) and Alaska Public Radio
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @08:46AM (9 children)
If you are so concerned about the land, then buy it, and preserve it as you see fit; make an offer the owners cannot refuse.
When will you marxists learn??? Capitalism is your salvation!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @08:52AM (3 children)
Capitalism is your salvation!
make an offer the owners cannot refuse.
Absolutely! Either their brains or their signature will be on the contract... Indeed, it is capitalism in its purest, most naked form
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @09:30AM (2 children)
You lunatic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @09:39AM
Some seem's
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @07:33PM
Capitalism = Voluntary Interaction
Only for the signatories, and only if not under duress. Everything else is collateral damage. *You better move, railroad's comin'... right now!* Capitalism is Gangsterism.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @10:25AM (2 children)
Are there US laws that the government can use to take ownership of the land if they need it (with "compensation")? In many countries there is. As the capitalists already have the government in their pocket... buying land to prevent drilling might not even be a solution.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @03:09PM (1 child)
Which are used for everything from public works projects (buying towns to dam up and flood the area for water retention/energy production), to favorable real estate development (forcing wholly owned small business Americans from their area in order to 'gentrify' it using some hyped up real estate developer, who it turns out doesn't actually have the money to redevelop the property and now it is derelict because you paid off and evicted the former business/owners who chose to retire rather than dealing with the hassles of relocation in their personal twilight years), to grabbing up land either for reforestation projects, or BLM ownership to limit state power.
The dirtiest part in all of this, is once the local government or the feds have eminent domain control over some parcel of property they can do whatever they want with it, even find sneaky ways to not disclose an auction/sale is going on and sell it at favorable rates to their politically connected friends. We had exactly this happen with some property that had been intended to create a bridge over a river a few years back. A particularly powerful wealthy landowner with properties along that section of river got it for well below market rate in an undisclosed 'auction'.
Whatever anyone tells you, the US is just as corrupt as many other regions. Just far more of it is backroom dealing than out in the open shakedowns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @09:20PM
Which.... what? Oh you mean the text fucking subject line. Don't do that. It's retarded and best left for the drooling monkeys on the green site. Keep all information in the body.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @11:17AM
> If you are so concerned about the land, then buy it, and preserve it as you see fit; make an offer the owners cannot refuse.
Done!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Purchase [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_National_Wildlife_Refuge [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday November 27 2017, @10:19PM
I can only hope that your own land, your home, your community might be threatened by corporations exploiting the adjacent land for greed, and that your own quote resonates in your brain. Yeah, why don't you just buy all the adjacent land to prevent it from becoming oil sludge. Or radioactive sludge. Or something.
Similarly with the atmosphere. Buy it all up and don't let polluters pollute it.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Monday November 27 2017, @09:40AM (4 children)
Alaska has already proven it can manage drilling in wildlife refuges in a responsible way preserving both the wildlife and the environment. The drill pads and the pipelines have been some of the best technological demonstrations in decades and the wildlife aren't bothered by pipelines or the gravel roads.
As a state, Alaska has gone after lease holders that tried to end run the rules, even yanking back some leases where there was non compliance.
.
.
I frankly didn't know why this would be pushed right now, because the price of crude is very low, there is a surplus of well head gas, and the market for oil is down substantially, just as electric vehicles are hitting their stride. Looking into it I found: [forbes.com]
It all started when there was and export ban on US Oil. US refineries had to process domestic oil, as well as Alaskan and Canadian Crude even when their refineries weren't tuned for it. The foreign imported oil was lighter, sweeter (less sulfur) and much more expensive. But the US Alaskan and Canadian Crude was cheap. So they retooled their refineries to handle it, bought it at a discount, refined it, and sold it overseas at full price.
Now most US refineries are equipped to handle the heavy sulfur rich crude better than the foreign crude, and they would rather not switch back. Turns out the Shale oil is the light sweet variety, and it is better suited to the refineries we USED to have, but which now are concentrated in foreign markets.
So we export the light sweet stuff, at high prices, (now that Obama lifted the Export ban in 2015) and we refine the cheaper heavy stuff in country.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @09:46AM
Shut up, or Trump will notice and reverse that too.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sulla on Monday November 27 2017, @03:40PM
Going to agree with you on this. I was reading about the Keystone pipelines after that spill news came out and was wondering why they suck so bad compared to the Alaska pipeline. In Alaska conaco-phillips has a bounty it puts on finding leaks or possible leakes, when a company rewards proactiveness rather than punishing compliance you will get better end results.
Another recent example of AK as a state doing the right thing was with a Shell offshore drilling platform a couple years back. As shell was towing the rig into place it fell over, rather than contact AK coast guard for assistance they drug it back to washington and fixed it there hoping AK wouldn't find out. The state found out and pulled shell's leases.
My guess as to why this is happening now is that Lisa wants it in exchange for supporting the tax plan.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hyperturtle on Monday November 27 2017, @05:42PM
They need her vote to help pass the tax package. That's why it came up now. She's on the short list of people requiring incentives to vote in favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 28 2017, @12:34AM
It's being pushed right now because it's a foot in the door. The truth is that we're a net exporter of oil these days, so tapping other oil fields isn't necessary. And between the cost of extraction and the fact that we need to be getting off of oil, the whole thing makes no sense other than as a talking point.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @10:13AM (2 children)
The wildlife stuff is just politics. Even if we purposely sprayed the oil everywhere, then lit it on fire, the resulting wildlife damage would have no impact on anybody outside of Alaska.
The main negative is if you believe that there will be a major oil shortage in the future. In that case, we'd make more money selling once prices are high, so we should wait.
If we drill, then we make a minor contribution to lower prices. Every bit helps to ruin Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and other unsavory places.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @12:08PM
Wildlife is The Great Library of nature's biotech inventions. Till we learn how to, at least, make proper virtual copies, destroying any species is an act of irreparable stupidity.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @12:13PM
Pray tell, why would you want to see Russia, Venezuela and Iran _ruined_? At what level would you like to see them ruined? International-influence style or rather personal-death-of-citizens style?
"Ruined" as in "widespread famine due to failing state income" ... which is looming in Venezuela?
"Ruined" as in "attacks neighbours to gain resources and strategic power" ... which Russia arguably already did?
"Ruined" as in "funds religios extremists to cheaply lash out at enemies" ... which the government keeps telling us is exactly what Iran is doing?
Do you really, honestly think that "ruining" lots of people will give you peace and quiet?!? That all those ruined people will silently die, shut up, and/or leave all the goodies to you?
If bending to your will is the only path to a good life that you can offer to the world, then God save us all if you ever get a say on the nation's policy!
Oh, wait, my bad, I forgot about The Orange One, you already got your say ... :-(
(Score: 2, Insightful) by alincler on Monday November 27 2017, @12:27PM (4 children)
RTFAs, CTRL+F climate
0/0
Business as usual.
"Supporters also argue that advancements in technology allow for energy production
to occur safely and with minimal environmental impact"
And they're planning to put the resulting CO2 in which planet's atmosphere?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @12:50PM (3 children)
As long as there is demand for oil, all that CO2 will be put in that same atmosphere anyway. The only difference the unthinking eco-cultists can make, is put the dollars into someone else's pocket.
And as a strange coincidence, the pocket-owners and the cultist-handlers' financiers just happen to be the same.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday November 27 2017, @04:34PM (2 children)
Last time I checked, oil executives are several orders of magnitude more wealthy than scientists and climate activists. If you're trying to say that the former are financing the "eco-cultists"...well, [citation needed].
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @04:54PM (1 child)
Saudi & Russian oil exec are orders of magnitude wealthier than Western oil execs.
They DO finance eco-cultists to kill off their competition.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday November 27 2017, @06:09PM
That could explain the climate-related fights over getting certain reserves out of the ground, which I suppose is on-topic here. But that's a side conflict for environmentalists, whose main push to fight climate change is promoting renewable energy. That fight cuts against all oil execs. Meanwhile, other concerns like habitat destruction, water pollution, and eminent domain abuse still must be considered on their own merits, regardless of outside interference.
Also, [citation (still) needed].
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday November 27 2017, @03:04PM (2 children)
Drilling projects will use land about the same size as a small city, ANWR is the size of a large state.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 28 2017, @01:06AM (1 child)
I haven't checked what's in this version, but the "1002" area isn't the size of a city. 6100km2 is a county (equivalent to 40x60 miles).
We just had yet another pipeline spill in the lower 48. One can understand why people would be nervous about overall cleanliness of extraction in places where observers aren't welcome.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday November 28 2017, @01:40AM
The wiki on the trans-alaska is pretty interesting
ttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_Pipeline_System
Further down the link it lists the number of leaks by year, 2003 to 2006 had four leaks. Does not show more recent data though, and before 03 there were a lot more per year. The low numbers are probably due to trying to not waste oil, if oil level falls too low (too little going in or too much leakage) the pipeline will need to shut down. If shut down it cannot start back up again because it is self lubricating and far below where it was built to be at.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Monday November 27 2017, @04:52PM
When I see the words "Here's What You Should Know" in a headline, it makes my blood boil. I don't know exactly why. Maybe because of the arrogance of the journalist to assert that this article is the sum total of knowledge on the subject, and that I both need to read it and don't need to read anything else.
Or maybe it's article with this kind of headline tend to have a definable political bias coming from that part of my own side that I would rather just stop talking. Arguments so preaching-to-the-choir bad that they do more harm than good. They say don't judge a book by its cover, but for some reason I can't help it when it comes to patronizing headlines.
So...please never, ever, EVER put that phrase in the Soylent News headline EVER again.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday November 28 2017, @01:45AM
More horseshit being shoved down our throats by the alt-animal animal loving fascists. We have let the caribou lobby control Washington for far too long now. The last time they got a pipeline their population quadroupled due to year-round source of heat and bedding grounds, another pipeline could put their population so high that their influence would be unstoppable.
No new alaska pipeline #thinkofthewilderness
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam