[Bman4k1]

Finnaly somebody with some common sense in the mainstream media. At 11:20 AMET on CNN Morning they were interviewing Miles O'Brien about ANWR. And he basically told the black guy that drilling in ANWR was a waste of time. He said "look there is anywhere from 1.5 billion barrels to 16 and US consumption is 7 billion a year. So even if we took the 10 years and billions of dollars to develop ANWR it would be enough for 2 months to 2 years." And he went on to say its prety much pointless.

Im happy someone in mainstream media is at least talking about the stupidity of killing a bunch of animals for maybe 2 years of oil. Its a drop in the bucket. But of course politicians will play their games with the public and media.

[edit - topic moved from Energy News to Open Discussion - markl]

[GHD]

I saw the interview too, I thought it was good. He did a good job of explaining the situation and the "black guy" (the news anchor) was fair to him.

Of course, we would never use all the oil in 4 months - 2 years because we could never produce it that quickly. But the point that there is only 2 years of oil available at most is valid.

[Bman4k1]

Didn't someone on the boards say that they could get at most MAYBE a couple of mill of barrels a year out of that thing?

[Waterthrush]

But you are missing the point: the goal of drilling in ANWR is not to help the US meet its energy needs. It's to produce an enormous short-term profit for the oil companies, infrastructure, and their investors.

There's reasonably efficient EROI oil there, existing infrastructure, and STAGGERING profits at today's prices.

The determination to drill ANWR is likewise staggering. It is brought up at every opportunity, it is brandished as an incentive for other countries to drill (how can we ask them to drill if we won't), the amounts available are exaggerated, it is claimed that it will at least buy us some time ...

But, the truth is, if drilling can only, only, only be allowed, it will mean some quick and pretty profits for the oil industry.

Me, I ask, "How can we ask other countries, many of them poor, to preserve their natural resources, their water, their forests, their preserves, if we won't?" I also have seen so little acknowledgement of what Peak Oil means that I think ANWR oil would be used for nothing more than to keep the US heading over the cliff at the same rate it is now for another few months. Why should I acquiesce to that? I honestly think the preservation of the area for the future is worth more than fueling 5 more months of the same level of consumption as now.

That said, I'm pessimistic. It reminds me of the many treaties with Native Americans, giving them title to the land, until someone decided they wanted it.

[Bman4k1]

Waterthrush: Very well said.

When I look at where they want to develop it will basically land lock ANWR and for sure harm many of the animals there.

Ah well, I can only hope and pray that reason will somehow come out ontop.