Discussion in 'Large Format' started by edela_rothman, Apr 18, 2002.
For those who have helped in this effort, keep up the good work!
For those you contributed to this effort.....you're out of your mind!
Check the local gas prices. Ready to buy a Vespa,with snow tires, or
get on your 12-speed bike? I am presently doing a major portfolio on
urban sprawl...I hate it. For those who have supported this blockage
of drilling on 1% of the ANWAR...you're nuts....but Sadam loves you!
Remember this nonsense when the middle east blows up and the oil flow
Seems like much of the problem is urban sprawl -- that and lack
of good public transportation in these sprawling urban cancers.
(you think Denver is bad? have you ben to Houston lately? Or
Whatever your take on this, one can hardly deny the fact that
640,000 acres is hardly a negligable impact by any scale. Yes, I
know the Gov. only quoted 2,000 acres affected, but they didn't
bother to count roads that would be built, and most land cleared.
Apparently, it only counts if there's a concrete directly on top of it,
hence the misleading figure. Gas prices suck, (as does urban
sprawl, for that matter) no doubt about it, but I do believe there
are better ways to work our way to a better situation than
screwing up some of the last pristine wilderness for a finite
amount of fossil fuel.
Besides, this is a photography forum, not a political debate...
If you think gas prices are bad here, take a trip to Iceland
sometime. Gas there hovers around $4-5 a gallon after currency and
metric/english conversions. I believe the rest of Europe has much
higher gas prices than here, as well.
"Land cleared"? There's NOTHING there to be cleared. Those pretty
pics shown by Greenpeace are NOT of the area where drilling will take
place. And, in case you haven't noticed lately, neither the wildlife
nor environment have suffered because of the North Slope activities.
This is no difference. You may want to be dependent on Sadam, or
those nuts in Venezuela, but I want some alternatives. And I DON'T
want to go back to bicycles. 640,000 acres. What kind of nut came
up with that figure - Tom "Puff" Daschile?
Yes, this is a photo forum. But, you don't make such unsubstantiated
statements, THEN try and cut off debate. Too late, buster!
Those of us who contributed to this are not out of our minds. I
filled up yesterday at $1.63/gal. here in Los Angeles. My vehicle
achieves 35-37 mpg, and I believe that we'd all be better off were
unleaded regular priced nearer $5.00/gal. That would put a large
dent in urban sprawl and reduce the number of single-occupant 6,000
lb. SUVs (Stupid Useless Vehicles) that clog our freeways and fill
the air with smog.
By the way, anyone who thinks drilling in ANWR would have a positive
effect on anything is mistaken. An honest root cause analysis shows
that urban sprawl, high gasoline prices and smog are all traceable to
too much population. Until that is addressed, all "supply-
increasing" actions will be outrun and futile.
Quoting Russ Limbaugh or (equally brain dead but from the
other side of the political spectrum) Amy Goodman always adds
more heat than light to any conversation.<P>And exactly who
tried to "cut off debate", Alec?
While this is a photographic forum that should be devoid of this
political rhetoric, there are several important points that I feel
need to be made parallel on this subject of interest to the landscape
photographer. 1) After trying for 20 years, WE STILL DO NOT HAVE AN
ENERGY POLICY. Without it and the intelligent diversification to
phase in alternative fuels and other forms of clean burning energy,
we will continue to be held hostage by the Middle East. 2)
Irrespective of your political persuasion, the economy is driven by
energy consumption in the industrial and private sector. 3) We have
as a nation been continuing to restrict use of fuel oil and encourage
the use of natural gas that is vastly less polluting. 4) In a free
economy, you cannot legislate or by any other means force a consumer
to spend less of their disposable income on huge SUV's that get
horrific miles per gallon. Inefficiency is what eventually illicits
engineering or design improvements. Because of cheap energy, Detroit
gave us what we wanted. Gas guzzling civilian tanks that places the
priority on horsepower and speed versus fuel eficiency. From my
perspective, the only way that the big auto makers will change course
and get back to valuing the utilization of energy is when American
consumers have to reach into their wallet for a "C" note for a tank
of gas. And it will be here sooner than you think. As far as Alaska
goes, I wish I could find all of the loonies that said the world
would end when the Trans Alaska Pipeline went into service in the
late 1970's. How the Caribou would cease to exist and it would create
an environmental fiasco the likes of which civilized man had never
seen. Well guess what, the caribou herds are the largest we have ever
seen. The only spill recorded was from a mentally deranged person
that shot the pipeline with his rifle. Fortunately, it was
immediately located and cleaned up. Whenever I find a person that
spouts this type of rhetoric, I ask them if they would put their
money where their mouth is - Would they refrain from all forms of
hydrocarbon energy indefinately to start to curb our insatiable
appetite for oil (no auto, plane or bus travel)? The answer is always
a resounding NO because it is our standard of living. We would rather
ignore the situation than face the music.
Regarding natural resources, it is always good sense to intelligently
exploit these in a balanced mode considering the environment.
Ironically, the native Alaskans are a majority in favor of
exloitation that unfortunately, will not happen for some time to
come. Look at the bright side. Prior to 1974 and the oil embargo,
thermal pane windows and pink insulation were not very popular.
Shortly thereafter, they spawned entire corporations in fever pitch
to conserve energy. We are about primed to go into another cycle of
conservation as the good old USA continues to escalate our dependence
upon foreign oil.
I apologize if my position seems off the wall. I made reference to
that figure because it came up several times in some research I
recently did. If it's wrong, so be it, I apologize. I don't want to be
dependent on anyone, Saddam included, but I also don't want to
see delicate ecosystems put at the potential of risk so my
neighbor can afford to drive his SUV a little cheaper. My point
was just that there are better ways to solve dependence on
foreign oil and the energy crisis in general than drilling in the
ANWR. That's all- I don't want a debate.
Glad you recognize [and appreciate] intelligent advocacy, Ellis.
Surely you're not one of the urban nuts who thinks we ought to all
move BACK into the cities, are you? Man, I couldn't target practice
off my deck if that happened. Then, again, maybe I could!
I was responding to David, who made his statement then tried to
change the subject.
Personally, I would *love* my SUV to run on hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel
is a wonderful alternative to gasoline. Yeah, hydrogen bleeds out,
but you just fill it back up again. A full tank would bleed out in a
week or so. Most people use their vehicles more frequently than that.
Thus, no more oil drilling, the "energy" companies stay in business
producing truly clean energy, and everybody goes home happy. Except
ok, for all the "anti-oil, there is a huge global (republican)
conspriacy to destroy all things natural and good" photographers:
1) film is made from plastic
2) plastic is made from oil
therefore: shooting sheet film means you must be a selfish, oil
consuming bigot who can't wait to invade Iraq and hates all creatures!
BECAUSE: if you were not an oil consuming bigot who hated nature, you
would assuredly be using a digital camera, which uses 1% of the
petroleum product compared with sheet film. Not to mention all the
awfull chemicals one needs to develop said film.
can we PLEASE not have this debate on this forum???? pretty please?
I is always funny how many of the people who demonize oil and SUVs,
are still driving vehicles with internal combustion engines. If you
really feel that strongly about oil and the environment, why are you
driving at all? Surely if you gave up your car it would help end
sprawl and the crowded freeways and help the ozone layer. Think about
it, the money that you save from not buying $5.00 a gallon gas could
be better spent on getting yourself some much needed therapy.
There are just too many people packed together in the big cities,
and what bothers me the most about living in a big city is that in
some of the neighborhoods I've lived in, you can go weeks, months,
even years without seeing your neighbors.
Neighborhoods in the big city are becoming less than
neighborhoods and seem more like parking lots these days. Gangs,
drugs, violence, urban blight, carjacking, we all know about these
problems, the thing that saddens me the most that I see everywhere are
the endless numbers of kids going arund aimlessly who don't seem like
they're being raised by anybody.
I'm sensitive to this obviously since I have a 4yr old son, and
6yr old daughter, and I see teenagers to 5yr olds coming and going
with nobody to look after them. I've seen this in poor neighborhoods
and in affluent areas, to me it doesn't make any difference where the
parents are, the big city is no place for kids in any neighborhood to
be wandering around alone.
We need to do something about this issue and the other issues
that have been raised so that we can hand over a better legacy to our
For starters, They are only talking about maybe 2% of the oil we need
coming out of that area. Second oil is priced on the world market so
prices most likely would not be that affected and lastly I'd be more
than happy to pay more for gas if it meant saving the one state we
have left that's still in pretty much a wild state. I feel I owe it
to my children and there children.
Is it a bit hot in here tonight or is it just me???
Could I challenge you to bring your LFs up to the area? I think you
might enjoy the photo experience, Spring, Summer, Fall or Winter.
Visit both ends of the cultural debate on this issue (Arctic Village
versus Kaktovik) and chronicle your cultural and environmental
adventures. You could drop a few bucks into their economy and get a
realistic view of the issues. You would afford credence to you
viewpoint (either side) by being able to say, "I been there!" "I seen
Bring your experiences home and champion your cause through
photographic lectures or a fine art show. You are an LF photographer.
Make a difference!
Or...stay where you're at and philosophize on how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin, having knowledge of neither.
You find will one thing that Alaskan's do have in common is we are, at
once, both amused and unamused by the views of Outsiders who think our
lives are just like theirs. We enjoy educating them by showing them
Now...are we back on the LF track?
I hate arguing politics, especially here - but you started it.<BR>
For a country boy (by that I do not mean just "not in the city", as
in - midwest agribusiness, no land NOT plowed, "country" - )
I also grew up, and have spent a large part of my adult life in
fairly remote areas of the west (the places you come to on vacation
from whatever mega-lopolis...). In my 50 years I have seen first-hand
the damage (and waste) caused by development and commercialization.
I have also heard all the arguments against industrial development
of "sensitive areas". and I do not disagree with most of those
BUT - (you knew there was going to be a BUT.. didn't you!) -<BR>
More damage is done in one summer by tourists, photogs, hikers,
bikers, et al. - to the wilderness areas of the mountain west than
could be done in the ANWL in a decade. (and don't even get me started
on snow mobiles, ski resorts, etc.,etc.)<BR>
The wilderness and high country areas of the lower 48 hold an
immensely more diverse (and in sheer numbers of wildlife and foliage,
exponentially greater), varied and fragile biosystem than you will
find on the tundra! <BR>
Yet, how many of you do those things every year? <BR>
Do the posters in L.A., think about the Colorado River when they turn
on that lawn sprinkler? (or why the City of L.A. really needs to
pressure Congress to divert even more water - from the Columbia
River, 1800 miles away?)Do they think about the death of the Salmon
Runs on the Columbia when they order that grilled Salmon at Upscale
Do they think about the damage to the environment, air and water
pollution, done every day by their city - by its very existence?
Do you in NY, Boston, Houston, Denver? <BR>
No, because its too close to home. We can't come to grips with the
fact that we are part of the problem. We poison our backyards, yet
scream when someone wants to extract oil from a remote (and in terms
of bio-culture - a desert) area. <BR>
When I worked in New England, there were mass-protests against a
power plant being built in NH. Bostonians (who's demand for ever-
increasing power production was the reason for the plant construction
in the first place)formed an army of protesters - key among them,
Jane Fonda - called the Clam Shell Alliance. Not many from N.H. -<BR>
The locals produced posters and bumper-stickers with a statement that
pretty much sums up my feelings about the ANWL issue -<BR>
"Let the Bastards freeze in the dark!"
Thank goodness. Keep up the good work, Senate.
As to our long term strategic benefit with respect to energy, if there
is oil in the area, it would behoove us to leave it there until such
time as it might really be needed.
If you're a country boy then maybe you can answer a question I've
always been meaning to ask somebody. If someone finally decides to
leave the big city, where do you go?
I've been to a few place out of the country, but I mean here in the
states, is there a place to go to where they're not doing the things
they do in the big city? Do those kinds of places really/still exist?
I'm a city boy so I'd like to know, if one ever decides to leave
the big city, where do you go where they don't have some degree of the
problems you've mentioned? I don't mean living like a 'mountain man',
I mean a community, where you can raise your kids, and give them an
Sal said: "I believe that we'd all be better off were unleaded
regular priced nearer $5.00/gal"
Hey Sal. You've got to be the posterboy for "Driving a Yugo"!!!!!
Why, I bet you even wish your TAXES were higher too, right?
Check yer email.
I don't know if this is really the right forum for this discussion,
but I'm going to chime in anyway.<br><br>
I live in Maryland and work in DC. Gasoline here ranges from around
$1.60 to just under $2.00 per gallon. I usally buy in Maryland,
where the tax on gasoline is one of the highest in the nation.
Unfortunately I drive 65 miles one-way to my job, so I shell out
around $50/week to keep gas in my Honda. I'm not complaining; just
telling you where I'm coming from.<br><br>
Oh, and I'm a moderate, so...<br><br>
First to all you unltra-right-wing types, get off it. You are being
manipulated by the oil companies, who are trying to convince you that
we NEED to drill. Have you ever asked yourself why they feel we NEED
to drill? Do you really believe that they have the country's best
interest in mind? Has it ever occurred to any of you that the name
of the game is PROFIT? Now, I'm not some anti-capitalist, but I do
recognize that oil companies have NEVER had my best interest in mind
when striking out on a new venture.<br><br>
I would also say to those of you who are only regurgitating what
you've read/seen/heard in the press to gather more information about
the subject. Yes, it's ONLY 2000 out of millions of acres, but the
significance of those 2000 acres is much greater than the Limbaugh's
and Liddy's of the world would have you believe. First, those 2000
acres need not be contiguous. In fact, when totaling the area taken
by a pipeline, only the ACTUAL FOOTPRINT of the pipeline need be
considered, so if it is perched upon "legs" with "feet" of only a
square foot or two, one could have miles and miles of pipeline and
still could count it as only an acre of land. Obviously the impact
would be much greater than that acre. Second, the 2000 acres
referenced make up the entire western shoreline of the reserve,
approximately 25 miles in length.<br><br>
Now for all the left-wing, bleeding hearts out there: Didn't we hear
this same argument vis a vis drilling for oil and natural gas in the
Gulf of Mexico? And has anyone given any thought to what the
alternative to drilling in ANWAR would/will be? Will there now be
more wells in the Southwest? Or in the gulf? Did you know that the
BLM has already allowed exploration to begin right outside Arches
National Park? I know, I know, that's a lot of questions, but one
has to ask whether it's smarter to move drilling to areas in the
lower 48 that are MUCH MORE HIGHLY utilized in favor of "saving" an
area that's rarely even seen by human eyes. I would also advise you
to gather more information than just what's provided by Greenpeace,
the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy. While I agree that these
organizations have a purpose, I would also say that if we had
listened to them in the mid-50s, much of the southwestern US would
not have water right now. Sometimes sacrifice is required in the
name of progress.<br><br>
The success of the Senate is not and should not be measured by
whether or not a proposal is passed or defeated; its success is
measured by the fact that there is debate at all.
"Sometimes sacrifice is required in the name of progress." - Please define 'progress'.
Is having more consumer goods than you have time to use progress?
Is being able to get clinically obese on cheap junk food progress?
Is driving everywhere and then having to use your free time and pay to use a gym in order to keep fit progress?
Is having leisure time, but nowhere pleasant to spend it progress?
Is having cheap 'gas', but having to commute 50 miles to work progress?
Is having a world economy that relies on an ever-increasing human population progress
Is the exploitation of 80% of the world's inhabitants by the other 20%, progress?
Is the destruction of the diversity of human culture progress?
And before you accuse me of being an unrealistic left-wing do-gooder: I want to see a more responsible attitude to the environment for purely selfish reasons. I don't want to spend the rest of my life looking at a cheaply built brick and concrete jungle, listening to the roar of traffic, breathing polluted air and eating tasteless food, thanks very much.
Besides, that constant haze of pollution really fucks up the quality of light in my photographs.
Pete, I'd answer Yes to all those questions, enthusiastically! It's
called Personal Freedom. Its the reason we kicked your butts out
over 200 years ago. Now, look at us, versus you. We're still
advancing, while you're wearing out your fingernails trying to hold
onto what you've got left, which isn't much. I'd say we made the
Peter, thank you for putting far more eloquently what I'd like to say.
If realistic means: 'well we want to have more so we use the earth
till all is gone', than I don't want to be realistic!
Please: is all our wealth (or what ever we like to call it) enough
reason to leave a mess to our children?
I always thought that we photographers knew a bit about beauty...
NO. It's called being a corporately owned sheep. You have the
'personal freedom' to do exactly what politicians and international
companies want you to do.<br>I'm glad we no longer have the
responsibility for looking after you lot.
Sorry Wim. That wasn't aimed at you, but at smart Alec.
Wrong email address in my last posting.
Alec: what if your neighbor's personal freedom means that he makes a
hell of a noise in the middle of the night, burns awfully smelling
stuff in his backgarden and has the singing birds for breakfast.
Is 'the pursuit of happiness' just the 'pursuit of consumer goods'?
The pure greed to secure large portions of unused natural resources
is what spawned the pursuit of the New World in the 1400's and it is
the most fundamental tenet of the human economy. In a text book
world, we surely would have been better as a human race if we used
our intelligence to think beyond the end of our nose. Unfortunately,
the only lessons we humans learn are those following aggregious
mistakes. Without lumber that is harvested, minerals that are mined,
petroleum that is drilled and water that is piped, we would be living
in a cave. Politely ask a vegetarian photographer about their link to
the meat industry (boiled bones to produce gelatin film backing) and
you will see a face of disbelief and denial. I have seen the railroad
cars of animal bones that Kodak has shipped from the packing houses
in the West to Massachusetts. My point is that the more we embrace
the realities of our human existance in the intellectual form and
refrain from pure polarity on the issues we face to protect our
environment, the better chance we have of making real progress.
Spouting emotion only creates irrational behavior and takes us back
to how our animal ancestors resolved disputes. Natural beauty is
everyone's cause as we have the strongest economy in the world but at
what price? How we balance the need to provide jobs and prepare for
the world our children will live in will define out future. In a
rather simplistic way, when I take my son with me to make make a
photograph in a wilderness area here in Colorado, I feel that I have
done a small part to make a positive impact on the future generation
that hopefully he can feel passionate about as he grows up.
It's funny... I live in a society (Sweden) where it is actually
possible to get by without owning a car (even in the countryside,
though admittedly harder). Gas prices are around USD$4/gallon, of
which about 80 percent is tax, intended to keep car usage down. And
it works. People use public transportation, urban sprawl follows the
subway and train lines, etc. I used to live in Northern California,
so I do understand that changing the American society to be less car-
dependent would take a very long time, probably a generation or two.
But it must eventually happen, so perhaps it would be a smart move to
start the change sooner rather than later? I'd say that with gas
prices above $2/gallon (used to be 85c), the change has begun,
although most Americans have not yet accepted that. Keeping the gas
prices down by increasing the supply - Alaska or not - will just
postpone the inevitable transition. Better save the Alaskan oil for
colder days. Best regards, Åke
Fair enough Michael. Emotion alone will get us nowhere. Though I get
emotional speaking about these things.
But there is more between living in a cave and in the way Hollywood
prescribes. Just think about what you are doing. Is this buy really
necessary, do I have to go by car, couldn't I do without yet another
snack. You get the picture.
It is not just good for future generations, but for our personal joy
in life as well. The food I cook tastes so much better now it is
almost all bio-organic. It costs more, it tastes better and
it 'feels' better.
And yes, sometimes I am lazy and go by car. Or stupid and eat another
bucket of cookies.
I know this has little to do with photography (allthough the pursuit
of consumer goods is very apparent here
Thanks for the e-mail Matt, you touched on something elemental to
the debate, living a fuller and happier life by lowering you standard
of living. Compared to other countries most of us enjoy a pretty high
standard of living, and the folks who don't have money are still
living like 'kings' off their credit cards.
Some folks here don't know what poor is, you go to some countries
and poor means not eating for a couple week if you eat at all, not an
old TV, a raggedy car, a place to stay and all you can eat like here
in the states. I've been broke several times, flat broke, but I've
never gone hungry. Here in the States you can live like a king while
you put yourself in debt and I believe that is at the heart of the
A while back my wife and I looked at what we were doing, we were
astounded by the debt we had run up on our credit cards, we made a
pact that we would quit using them except in an emergency, pretty much
cash only until we paid them off. The more we reduced out debt the
more fun life became. Our standard of living hasn't really changed
even though we might have less, or rather our quality of life has
Everybody is going to go through a period when they're broke
unless you picked rich parents, I've been broke several times so don't
bother with a thread about being broke, which you typed on your
Are you using so much oil for your LF cameras?
Sounds for me to much of topic!
I think you are all in the wrong movie here!
Hey Michael, If I come up and we go out to where the oil is
underneath, how many mosquito bites will I get for each 45 minutes of
shooting? I hate mosquitoes! Best regards. Jim
Although home with the flu today, I had to drag myself out of bed to
see what's happened with this thread. Here goes:
Eric - Circumstances, in this case elderly in-laws who can't tolerate
the elevation at which we're planning to build our next home, plus
the inability to walk away from long-term retirement programs just
yet without benefits being trashed, mean there's no viable
alternative to an internal combustion engine driven vehicle for us at
this time. I've taken reasonable steps to minimize my impact on the
planet by driving a vehicle that achieves very high fuel economy and
is rated as Ultra Low Emission.
Michael - I've been to the great land. Natives survived just fine
without Europeans and a cash based economy before our invasion. I
feel no compulsion to drill in ANWR so anyone can exist there in
other than a subsistence situation.
Matt - you're absolutely correct about the "amount of damage done in
one summer by tourists, photogs, hikers, bikers, et al." You
underscore my point about greatly excessive population. I take this
subject very seriously, and am childless by choice, again to minimize
what we take from the planet. Our home here has no lawn, thus no
sprinklers. Since forced to install living landscape materials by
homeowners association covenents, I have planted low water demand
xeriscape species and sustain them with a drip irrigation system.
It's the least consumption possible without being fined for violating
Alec - yes, I wish my taxes were higher. Although we have no
children of our own, I find it unconscionable that a huge cut in
current taxes was enacted despite the massive debt our government
carries. That debt is nothing more than a tax in advance on the
children of everyone here who does have them. All I can offer to
those who think taxes are too high in the US is what my late father
would say to me when I complained on that subject: "May you pay as
much in taxes next year as you earned this year."
Chad - just because BLM made bad decisions does not mean we should
Pete - were it not for the level of technical expertise you bring to
actual photography posts (much greater than mine) I don't think we
could be told apart. If I ever make it across the pond again it
would be nice to meet you.
Jonathan - Americans (collectively) are a spoiled child. You are
correct that most of us here do not have a clue what poor is. Yes,
there are some pockets of real poverty, but for the most part "hard
times" are perceived as not being able to get the loan for a desired
new car. Stuff abounds, but enjoyment of life is in short supply.
While I don't display signs or bumper stickers on my vehicles, I do
read those in front of me. One that provided a good laugh along with
a possible way to deal with some of the inane attitudes around us
was: "I feel much better since I gave up hope." Of course those of
you with children might not like it as much.
"we will continue to be held hostage by the Middle
Think it is the other way around, or don't you get newspapers in the
To those who are for the drilling: now, what happens AFTER you
finally burn out the Alaskan oil? Plead to somebody who still has oil
supplies (like Russia) to sell it at a resonable price? And what you
are gonna do if they won't be "reasonable"? Declare war on them? You
actually have to decide this right now. There is not much oil left on
Michael Bird had the best idea - why not come up here to Alaska and
check out ANWR for yourselves. We can use the extra tourism. Sheet
film is available in Fairbanks at Alaskan Photo Repair (Agfa - they
also sell used LF equipment), Fairbanks Fast Photo (Kodak) and the
University of Alaska Fairbanks Wood Center (Kodak and sometimes
Ilford). Gas prices are about the same as outside (I think -- I walk
to work and so have only bought one tank the last two months).
That's about all I can contribute to the discussion, since as an
employee of the University (and therefore the State) of Alaska, I am
forbidden by state administrative law from saying anything which
might discourage exploitation of oil in the ANWR (even as a private
citizen -- this is sent from home on a personally-owned computer)
Adrian: Clearly you understand my literary intent. When we import
over 60% of our daily oil consumption from the Middle East, we are
extremely vunerable to the changing winds of politics. When the rest
of the Arab world equates our affiliation with Israel as sleeping
with the enemy, how long will it be before greed for oil revenues is
surpassed by sympathy for the poor and surpressed? In my opinion, we
are dangerously close to a Middle East catastrophy that could bring
our economy to its knees in less than a month.
As far as hydrocarbon resources in the world, you would find the
projections of reserves for oil and natural gas to be 50-100 years in
the future even at modestly escalated consumption trends. The key is
the forward price model used to make the calculation. The higher a
BBL of oil of an MMBTU of natural gas, the more technology (deeper
water drilling, better seismic etc.) we can expend to explore for and
produce it. In my previous life as a Petroleum Engineer I was
intimately involved in these efforts. Natural Gas is one of the most
important components of a Clean Resource model that we can use. We
are quite independent from our Middle East dependency and its
combustion byproducts are 1000 times cleaner than the cleanest fuel
oil. In the United States mainland, we have just about found and
recovered all of the oil that there is to find. Here is an alarming
statistic. The best oil well only recovers 8-12% of the oil that is
in the reservoir in primary production. Secondary recoveries (water
floods) recover a bit more and tertiary floods (polymers etc.) may
raise the recoverable oil to about 25% of what is in place. That
means that we leave 75% (+/-) in the ground. We can recover more than
90% + of the natural gas from a natural gas field.
Alaska will not solve the problem all by itself. It is but one piece
of a very dimensional potential solution. But without intense
government funded research to discover a new source of universal
energy, we are collectively watching the sand pass through the center
of the hourglass. Have a good weekend.
Pete, please note that I made arguments from both sides of the
fence. Remember, I'm a moderate.<br><br>
We won't rely on oil forever. Guranteed. And somehow I doubt the
world will end before the alternative is discovered.<br><br>
If you're not contributing to a solution, you're nothing more than
part of the problem. Quit your bitching, and do something meaningful.
When we import over 60% of our daily
oil consumption from the Middle East
I heard on Nightline the other night that we actually use
very, very litle Mideast oil in the states. I dont recall the exact
number but it was way less than 20% of our oil. the reason we defend
it is because our allies in Europe depend heavily on it. Thats just
what I heard-dont shoot the messenger
At any rate, Sal is on the money. This great country is going to be on
a world of hurt if we dont wake up and smell the stink of growth that
has brought us much to be thankful for, but has become an
In the year 2000, we imported a total of 53% of our consumed oil. 23%
of it came from OPEC countries. The remainder came from Non-OPEC
countries including Russia, Mexico, Canada Nigeria and many others.
In the last two years with the growing economy, this import number
Check out the year 2000 numbers at:
Information is power......
It looks like on average over the past few decades, that the Nightline
figures were pretty close. Nowhere do I see 60%, or even over 25% of
our imports coming from the Mideast. Makes you wonder what exactly
we're protecting, doesnt it?
Still can`t see what it has to do with LF!!!!
Go back shooting!!!
There are no simple answers :
eg Hydrogen when burnt becomes water = a great greenhouse gas =
global warming. And where do you get the energy from to break down
water to get hydrogen in the first place?
Some species have thrived around the Alaska pipeline some hate it.
But if it is not easy to know the answers it is easy to know the
questions eg Pete Andrews list. My list starts with 'Do I want my
children and grandchildren to have as good a world to live in as i
What has this got to do with LF ? I'd like landscapes of the future
to be as good as the present ones.
BTW, I love you guys!
ok ! ok ! the environment is a subject I get emotional about. But
when you think that in a few decades we could change the whole
world's climate and get rising sea levels, more frequent and more
powerful storms, more frequent el nino events, droughts, floods etc
then perhaps that is not a bad thing.
ok ! ok ! the environment is a subject I get emotional about. But
when you think that in a few decades we could change the whole
world's climate and get rising sea levels, more frequent and more
powerful storms, more frequent droughts, floods etc then perhaps that
is not a bad thing.
I dont own a car I walk and ride my bicycle to get where I need to
go, so I have no concern if gas is $.10 or $10 a gallon.
I was expecting a discussion of LF photography issues when I stumbled
onto this thread. How on earth did we hit upon this topic?
Knowing full well that drilling in the arctic refuge is not a
complete solution to our energy problems, I'm still all for drilling
there. I hope President Bush will skirt congress and pull something
along the lines of an executive order to get the job done.
Drilling in the arctic does not mean automatic enviornmental ruin as
greanpeace, and the sierra club et al would have you believe. Since
the Alaskan pipeline has been in place, the caribou population has
continued to flourish. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if their
population is sufficient enough that the caribou farts start to
contribute to the much overblown "greenhouse effect."
Relax Colin, pop open a tall cold one and enjoy life a little. The
enviornment isn't going to change all over the world, just because we
drill in Alaska. The climate hasn't been studied long enough to tell
if a trend towards global warming even exists. Even if it did exist,
is global warming aactually a bad thing? Is industrialized man to
blame, or is it a naturally occuring event? I understand that the
polar ice caps on Mars are melting too. I didn't know Mars had
SUV's, factories or conservatives to cause global warming there. Do
you think it might be the sun that is causing the warming? Na, guess
that would be to obvious.
The USA has a strong economy, in spite of the nay-sayers, and we will
continue to need new sources of energy to fuel our growing economy
and population. Natural gas (other than Sals'), alternative fuels,
and conservation all play a part in the energy picture; but for the
short term, we need more oil, refineries, and power plants. Without
more power plants spewing out tons of coal emisions, how will we ever
power those tiny little electric cars? In the long term we
definately need to look into other sources of energy, as well as
superconductor technology to cut energy loss in power lines, and
hydroelectric needs to be exploited more.
Those of you who either don't care or actually want $5.00/gal plus
fuel prices, ARE YOU INSANE?! All levels of the economy will be
adversely effected, even yours Sal. There are a lot of very decent,
hard working people out there who would sufer from these high
prices. Even those who drive the little rice burning 40mpg cars will
sufer from hyper-inflation. Be careful of what you wish for!
Sal: I want to sincerely thank you for not having any children. I
can sleep easy knowing that the gene pool is safe for yet another
Of course Eric, there are no enviromental problems! If there would
be, we had to change the way we live. That is what we don't want, so
there are no enviromental problems.
I guess this is what people call realistic?
Eric - thanks for your well reasoned contribution. It's good to hear
from those who keep an open mind, reach conclusions based on best
available scientific evidence rather than wishful thinking, strive
for an inclusive society, respect the constitutional separation of
powers, and are always civil, sticking to issues rather than
descending into personal attacks.
Were the US government to levy appropriate fuel taxes, resulting in
gasoline prices rising to the level I described, there would indeed
be temporary negative economic consequences for many decent, hard
working people, including myself. I consider that alternative
preferable to the path we're now taking. It is easy to conclude
that, since ever-growing human population and its load on the
environment has been tolerated so far, why worry now? The problem
with this approach is that carrying capacity of the planet will be
reached suddenly and irreversibly if we ignore the evidence and
continue our exponential increase of exploitation and pollution.
You don't know this man, so making a snide comment on whether he
did or didn't have kids is wrong.
The USA has a strong economy, in spite of the nay-sayers, and we will
continue to need new sources of energy to fuel our growing economy and
the economy, the economy, the economy. The economy, the economy, the
economy. The economy the economy the economy. Growth, growth,
growth. Growth, growth, growth. the econonmy the economy the
economy. This is true patriotism! Who gives a flippin flop about
anything but the economy and growth? This should always be the number
one thing on our minds, always. Why should we, with more than anyone
else, sacrifice one little penny that could be going into our pocket?
Conserve? Develop alternatives? Sustainable anything? Nahhh! Hell, we
could probably have even more money without these damn environmental
regulations! The environment doesnt matter anyway, and theres nothing
wrong! That *overwhelming majority* of scientists who say there IS
something wrong are just angry because they arent on retainer by the
oil companies. We dont have too much growth and too many people
already, we need MORE oil use and people and growth to fuel our
economy and growth, which will then grow more, and then we'll need
more oil and people and growth to the fuel that economy and then of
course more growth and more poeple and more...! This cycle then
apparently continues, without end, in the small minds of those who
support it. They think we can get bigger and bigger and richer and
richer forever and ever.
Those who promote this endless growth attitude are apparently unaware
of some very basic physical and ecological laws of this planet, and
need to to be locked up for 6 months with nothing but an ecological
economics book or two. If you really care about the economy, you
should learn why we cant continue the way we have been forever.
We are not only economically healthy now, we are economically bloated
and materialistically obese, and could stand to lose more than a
little weight to help ensure our future health-or even just our
future. Quite simply, we cannot sustain the madness of growth forever.
Obviously some people, and oil companies, will never accept this on
their own. Politicians will never address this pro-actively because
its political suicide. It will only happen when the rest of us educate
ourselves and realize the economic (and ecologic) fallacy and
ultimately destructive effects of continuing to follow the endless
growth mentality, and make it socially unacceptable. But we have been
programmed to believe that growth is always good. We are so screwed up
that it has become morally reprehensible to even suggest that growth
and greed isnt desireable! In fact, growth has brought us many good
things to be thankful for in the past, but there is NO reason to think
it can continue in perpetuity, or that its drawbacks wont eventually
outweigh its benefits. In fact, they already do outweigh its benefits
for those who value open space, uncrowded wild places, wild things,
and the possibility of a sustainable future in a liveable world.
The First Drunk is an oilman... need we look any further for the real
reason he is pushing this? His buddies will all get rich as will his
family. No honest person spends $200 million to get a job that pays
less than $200 thousand a year.
As for gas guzzling SUV's. Just try loading a full sheet of plywood,
a batch of 2x4's and a few bags of fertilizer in the civic & see what
happens. I live in a relatively rural area and more than 70% of the
roads in our county are dirt with a number of the towns having no
paved roads at all. Some times of the year you don't get in or out
without 4wd and at times you have to wait a day or two for the roads
to clear up a bit to travel them. Anytime I head out to Grouse Creek,
Yost or southern Idaho or northern Nevada I have to take overnight
gear just in case the weather gets feisty. Jarbidge, Nevada is so
isolated you can't even get to it from Nevada roads 7-9 months out of
So yes, some of do use SUV's or trucks because we have to. The rest
of the time I drive a VW diesel (82 model) that gets around 50 mpg
and is light enough that it is easier to tow or dig out of the snow
when the inevitable happens. In spite of the ads, AAA does NOT tow
you even when you get stuck in a snowbank in downtown Lynn, Utah. (I
know it is downtown as there are two buildings within a quarter mile).
If I could do it with an electric car, I would. If I could use
hydrogen, I would as I have seen & driven hydrogen powered cars &
they are great... just no place to fill up in Almo, Idaho or Gold
Hill, Utah or the middle of nowhere. So, we are stuck with gas &
diesel for the present.
As far as all the statistics we keep repeating, a federal study shows
that 74.4 percent of statistics are made up as needed while the other
50% are wrong.
I bet if we made all government employees take public transportation
we would save a lot more oil than with any other proposed solution.
Here's some statistics for ya....30% of the worlds natural resourses
have been destroyed since 1970.The seas are in severe decline.Dont
eat too much fish...esp the kids...unless you like mercury....that
is if you can find the fish .Cancers on the rise...overuse of
chemicals in food and animal feed.Disease on the rise...overuse of
antibiotics.Rise in childrens asthma ...cause....air
pollutants.General overall suffering of humankind...
directly or indirectly related to all the problems of humanity both
physically and psychologically. Time to wake up! If you cant work
for a better planet for altruistic reasons do it for greedy
ones.....do you really want your children and grandchildern to live
in a garbage dump?
I know there are many economical and also money oriented problems on
the world. But for example the USA is not behind the Kyoto protocols
and tid not sign them up!
So everything should be fine in USA, isn`t?
But it is not a political forum here!
I am so glad this isn't a usenet forum...
The fact of the matter is that the ANWR debate in Washington is simply a political game that's being played by each party to earn points for their side. I don't believe for a second that either party really gives a rats a** about ANWR or its oil; they're just looking to mollify their constituents.
Politics aside, the unfortunate aspect that's being ignored is that defeating drilling in ANWR simply shifts the focus to other areas. Here's one of the headlines from my local rag yesterday:
Again, I doubt anyone in Washington really cares about the outcome. You can bet they'll act like they do at their conventions though.
Well, I doubly hosed that one up!
(screwed up the HTML AND I used the wrong link)
Rockies eyed as plan to drill oil-rich refuge heads to defeat
Good grief - have you guys never heard of the word "TROLL"? Note the
guy who started this never replied to any other posts - he just sat
back and had a good chuckle...
So you're saying this guy is short, ugly, and lives under a bridge!??
Separate names with a comma.