Rocky Mountain Front, the latest info

[1_pointer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> catylitic convertors for cars as mandated by the Federal Government <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't think they are required as long as the emission standards are met.

If the Front is the last place left to drill, I think it should be set aside untill it is absolutely neccessary that it's drilled. Not just to save a few pennies.

I agree that a new technology must be developed to solve this problem. However, it must be done by someone whom the oil interests can't buy out. Neccessity is the mother of invention. Too many don't see the neccessity, so they aren't crying for the invention of something new. Just like the increase in efficiency of vehichles during the '70s.

 

[Oak]

There needs to be more emphasis on conservation, rather than finding new places to drill. What those conservation efforts should be, I'm not sure. But, using the excuse that we need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil to drill places like ANWR, the Roan Plateau in CO, and the Front in MT is pure BS. How much oil or gas are we going to get from those places? Is it going to make a difference in how much we import? When there's no more in those places, what will we be dependent on then? There's a hell of a lot of technology out there that would reduce our demands for oil and natural gas if it was only mandated. Unless we start finding alternatives to petroleum, we're always going to be dependent on foreign oil. Bush's excuse for drilling is typical of someone who's thinking about the short term (getting re-elected next year). Do you really think that he believes (or do you?) by drilling places like ANWR and the Front that we'll reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

Finalshot made a good case for not drilling the Front. I don't know how you could argue for drilling there. How we wean ourselves from the oil tit still needs to be resolved. I don't claim to have all the answers, but drilling our last great places is not the solution.

Oak

 

[Oak]

You posted while I was writing, 1-p.

Oak

 

[Washington Hunter]

What do you guys think about taxing the hell out of gasoline? Wouldn't that make some people begin to think about conserving? Also would slow down sales of gas guzzlers.

 

[BHR]

Oak and Pointer,

You both avoided my question. Where is it socialy acceptable to drill anymore.

Pointer,

Your "oil intrests can't buy out" comment is Helen Chenowith type shit. Come on, your smarter than that. If you are going over the deep edge, I want some links. And don't bother to use that sheriff guy from Oregon!

You guy's are a couple of young idealists. Nothing wrong with that, that's whats made this country great. Come up with some solid ideas on alternative energy sources, and I'll help back you. This would undoubtably be the worlds greatest discovery to date.

Paul

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, all I can tell you is that the Front is not a socially acceptable place to drill for natural gas.

Why do you think theres so many people that are against it?

By the way, if you dont mind, can you provide any proof that there is a "real" shortage of natural gas proving that we absolutely need to drill the Front?

I havent heard a single report or headline reading, "Thompson Falls residents latest victim to natural gas shortages."

Is there one person on this board that has run out of natural gas to heat their homes? Please respond if so.

I think the Bush Administration is great at propaganda. They've tried scaring the public into believing that massive shortages exist. Funny how we never heard about such shortages before?

Also, from a simple economic point of view, drilling the Front is a ridiculous idea. The value of leaving it intact, greatly exceeds the value of the couple days worth of gas thats there.

For me it comes down to what makes sense, and nobody is going to convince me that it makes economic, social, or environmental sense to drill the Front.

 

[Washington Hunter]

So...nobody likes my idea of an incredibly high gas tax?

 

[BuzzH]

Paul said, "Where is it socialy acceptable to drill anymore."

How about the Powder River Basin in MT and Wyoming...

I guess Bush doesnt think 150,000 proposed CBM wells by 2015ish in the PRB is enough...so we have to drill a few thousand more on the front?

Another question Paul, WHERE DO YOU THINK ITS SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE to drill for natural gas?

 

[1_pointer]

Paul- I know nothing of Helen Chenowith. However, I do believe that small advances in technology have been purchased in the past and then shelved. Do you agree? I don't think I'm going over any edge. I can't answer you question as to where it would be acceptable to drill as I have no knowledge of places where natural gas is located. But, it would be perfectly okay by me for drilling to happen in Las Vegas, NV.

I have little knowledge on workable alternative sources of energy. One thing I would like to see is it be derived from a source that is renewable, like maybe ethanol?

I think a renewable energy resource would be the bees knees. Wind has some application in certain places, but more so as an auxillary source rather than a primary one. What about tide generators? Tidal movements drive the turbines. I do know a type of rechargable fuel cell for individual homes is in the works. Don't know what it entails, just know of a company dumping quite a few $$$ in R/D.

Yes, conservation is not a solution to the problem, but I hope that it buys us enough time to find a better/workable solution before its actually a neccessity.

Yeah, I'm an idealist. Stick around long enough and you'll see, I will change the world for the better (may just be a small corner of it)!!!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-13-2003 15:34: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paul,

In all seriousness, I think it is acceptable to drill ANYWHERE BUT MY BACKYARD (with my backyard defined as anywhere I MIGHT want to hunt or fish....) I have never understood the AM radio fear of "being dependent on Foreign Oil", as we have always had a foreign policy to prop up various Oil regimes, and when the going gets tough, invade them and make them ours. There is nothing wrong with fighting wars over Oil, as our American lifestyle requires many times more Oil other's lifestyels.

What is the rush to drill our "last best place", if we run out of other countries to invade, and we get tired of drilling the shit out of Ok and TExas, then we can drill Canada, Mexico, etc..... Let's just save ours, for the Rainy day. It ain't going anywhere, and it will still be there in 10 generations for people in 3003 to decide. Let's not make that decision for them, when there are plenty of other countries we can prostitute.

 

[BHR]

Come on Pointer,

I want links if your going to spring this conspiracy theory shit on us, and Las Vegas would be an aceptable place to drill for me too. You got some good ideas and I hope some smart people come up with some real alternative solutions sooner than later.

Buzz,

You should have watched the 60 minutes program on natural gas a couple months ago. Very informative and hardly a right wing program. You need to research the issue a little deeper before you make incorrect statements like you are making.

I get the feeling that you guys don't want anyone thoughtful and tough to challenge you? I don't mind the challenge from you guys, it helps me learn and be a more well rounded person. How about you?

And Buzz, I like the Alaska idea, but unfortunately we should have start working on a way to transport it several years ago. Also W. P. does have point. If we raise the price, maybe people will start to conserve more. Unfortunately with the supply and demand situation, rising prices are already a reality.

Paul

 

[Washington Hunter]

Paul, hey thanks for at least acknowledging that I had a point. I seriously think that higher priced energy is the only thing that will make people conserve. Personally it would be a very bad thing for me, my truck averages 16 mpg, and I like to drive hundreds of miles from home several times a year scouting and/or hunting. If gas were to double or triple in price, I'd either have to severely limit the number of trips per year, or move closer to the good hunting in this state, or another state altogether (probably Montana.) Anyway, I do realize the economical ramifications of higher priced gas. But it sure would make those alternative energy sources more attractive. Those hybrid cars would become popular fast, and even us hunters wouldn't be left out, I just recently read that Chevy is coming out with a hybrid Silverado.

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, what incorrect statements are those?

I also agree with the AK idea, and I agree that the pipeline should already be half way to the lower 48.

 

[Ithaca 37]

BHR, "I get the feeling that you guys don't want anyone thoughtful and tough to challenge you? I don't mind the challenge from you guys, it helps me learn and be a more well rounded person. How about you?"

Well, since you asked, I'd love to have someone thoughtful, tough, intelligent, educated, knowledgeable, wise, insightful and articulate challenge me. But if they had all those attributes they would agree with me on everything.

I doubt you'll ever know enough to challenge a gerbil.

 

[BHR]

Ithaca,

Your a bigger windbag than Rush! I see you found some good ditch weed.

Buzz,

Of the two pipeline ideas, which one do you favor?

Paul

 

[1_pointer]

Okay Paul, I admit it, the oil industry would stand aside and let some young'un out of MIT revolutionize the world.

Actually, I don't believe all the theories myself, I just didn't have a better argument.

I too appreciate you keeping me 'honest' as that is the only way we get better at this. Plus, you never no, I may take some nugget of knowledge from SI and change the world with it!

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, to be honest, I'm not up to speed on the available options for the pipeline.

What I heard about it was from a friend who works on the Slope in AK. He said there was some negotiating to do with Canada, if I remember right.

Fill me in on what you think.

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

One alternate pieline involves going into the Artic Ocean, up the Mackenzie, to tie in with a Canadain pipeline project. A joint effort would save a lot of resources. The Alaskens don't like the idea because it would bypass their state, bring fewer jobs, and gas to the southern part of the state. POLITICS!!! They are so much threatened by this other pipeline route that, in the current energy bill, their is a stipulation that any pipeline built has to go through Alaska. I do not know all the pros and cons of either route, but certainly would like to keep the options open. This could be one main reason why the energy bill has stalled, and hopefully future negotiations remove this language from the bill.

See, sometimes you can learn a little from T. V.! What do you think about all this, Buzz, and please refrain from bashing Bush in your response this time. Sometimes the details can be complicated, and our information is not as complete as the politicians we have elected to make these desisions. Sometimes they have other motives as well, no doubt. But until you have hard evidence, keep it to yourself, and give them the benefit of the doubt. OK?

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, I like the idea of doing what makes the most sense and gets the natural gas to the lower 48 as quickly as possible. That way, all this nonsensical talk of destroying the best wildlife habitat in Montana would go away.

I'll be honest, what frustrates me, is that the politicians (all not just Bush), brashly throw our tax dollars at projects without looking at all available options. I think its nieve to think that their own greed doesnt play into many decisions. Again, its not just Bush, its all of them.

What I do blame the current Administration for is they have the choice to stop that type of crap from happening...but they wont. Neither will any other party, more than likely.

Once again, not to beat a dead horse, but it really bothers me to send 87 billion to Iraq, when we could be trying to get things like this issue here off the ground. Instead, we're spinning the wheels and talking about drilling the Front. Not the right answer.

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

I'll have to agree with you, politics and common sense, rarely go hand in hand.

Paul