Should stringent oil and gas drilling regulations be implemented in the Arctic?

It is my humble opinion that this is a political question that has no place in this forum.

Regulations- YES. Restrictions- NO.

It’s unreasonable to base a law, ban or policy on the basis of the Valdez event. It’s foolish to stop any practice or ignore opportunity based on the actions of one drunk sailor.

The energy companies should be held responsible for repairing the damage they do in exploring for and extracting resources. Established wildlife refuges are just that, refuges, and should be off limits. The profits the energy companies have recently earned should be spent on making their extraction process more efficient and environmentally responsible and contribute less to their salaries. The executives are currently a subclass slightly below investment bankers in accountability. The energy companies have never been held accountable for their environmental impact. For example, the canals dug in Louisiana by oil drillers contributed greatly to the damage Hurricane Katrina left behind.

I do not believe restrictions should be placed on drilling for oil in the Arctic. With all due respect to the environmentalists a choice must be made. Our dependence on Middle Eastern oil coupled with the inherent instability in the Mideast and their hatred of all things Western, particularly the US, will lead to constant military involvement on the part of the US and the Western world. We have the choice to be involved in near-constant warfare in the Mideast to protect our oil interests or befoul the environment by drilling in the Arctic with the associated risks of crude oil transport. Both warfare and drilling in the arctic will foul up the environment. We’re damned if we do and damned wf we don’t.

Only double hull tankers should be allowed in environmentally sensitive cold water areas, where the recovery time is long, anywhere on the planet.

There are so many burgeoning technologies that can be developed as alternatives, why should we even consider more Alaska oilfields? Recent unstable oil prices contributing to the economic downturn clearly demonstrate the imperative for the inherent stability of sustainable energy technologies. The cost of the Alaska proposition would be money better spent on sustainable alternatives, which promise a more durable future.

We need to consider alternatives to Middle Eastern oil for many reasons and drilling within our own territory is a short-term solution. It must be closely regulated, as is nuclear energy, to prevent rampant pollution and the resultant destruction of of the environment that can bring. This will buy us the time to develop alternative sources (something our society is particularly good at is innovation!) to a practical and affordable level, that can replace the use of fossil fuels.

Think long-term. 1 - Global warming is going to change the weather on the North Slope over the next hundred years. 2 - It is about time we started thinking about leaving something for our kids and theirs. 3 - We don’t need Alaska drilling to develop any new extraction technologies. 4 - oil from Alaska would have no impact on supply for years, even if we started drilling today. So, we just have to say “No” and let someone revisit the decision in 2030 or 2050.

If there is a no-go zone then there should be a corresponding no-use commitment by the advocates which translate to a commitment to reduce consumption by the advocates (and children) by some percentage.

Drilling in Arctic regions should be banned outright, not merely restricted. Here’s what developing new oil extraction sites will NOT do: 1) Make the US less dependent on Middle East (or any other oil source) in the next ten years. 2) Reduce fuel prices ever. 3) Create cleaner air and water. 4) Reduce production of global warming gases. 5) Promote development of cleaner energy technologies. 6) Stimulate our economy more than alternative energy technology development. 7) Preserve wilderness. Would approaches that accomplish any of these goals be a bad thing?

Poor question, poorly presented and asked. In the absence of describing the suggested regulation - it’s an empty question, all political. There should be some regulation, yes - but no more or less than any other geography needs - other than the regulation should fit the terrain, e.g we shouldn’t require double-hulled tanker ships to move crude from land-based wells overland to land-based refineries.

It’s time we considered our impact on the planet before we seek the immediate gratificaton of our need to exploit the natural world. The more we regulate (and restrict) exploration and exploitation for oil, the more we encourage alternatives to this limited (interuim) source of energy. Thanks for the boost through the Industrial Revolution to the present, but we’ll take it from here. Also, the Arctic has a bunch of problems, let’s not gum it up.

I definately think we should restrict drilling in the Arctic. The oil that would be obtainded would be a fleeting thing. All the oil on the planet - and natural gas, too - eventually will be depleted. Instead of arguing about allowing damage to occur in irreplacable, environmentally sensitive locations, we are better off in the long run to work on alternate energy sources for transportation and heating and any other use man develops a need for. In the meantime, there is solar, wind, etc.

Some places should be preserved, not only for ourselves, but for future generations and all the other life forms we share this planet with. I don’t consider myself an environmentalist; we just have to face the fact that oil is not a long term solution to our problems and risking such an environmentally sensitive area is not a good option. Although man is adaptable to most environmental conditions on the planet, many other forms of life are not, a mistake in the cold Arctic waters would be almost irreversible and cause unimaginable damage to a delicate balance of life that affects the whole globe. We should be looking to get away our dependence on oil, not looking for short term solutions that mainly benefit large corporations. We have the technology to move away from oil, we just need to pursue it more aggressively.

The planet is already been depleted and destroyied. We are nearing peak oil and anything we extract now just prolongs and makes worse the inevitable. The polar areas contain critical elements necessary for preservation of life as we know it, so destroying it, will reflect on us. We are wiping out the krilla and large fish stocks, melting the glaciers, polluting the coastlands, poisoning the land, etc. Accidents and stupidity WILL happen; Murphy has not been repealed. We need to stop a minute and rethink the situation rather than cobble together a temporary fix that solve nothing in the long term, and we do NOT have long to do it.

I think it is foolish for environmentalists to think that Arctic resources will remain forever off limits. I also think it is foolish for the oil industry to expect opportunities for “business as usual” extraction. The challenge is for both sides to work together to design rules and technologies that will be adequate to protect pristine environments while practical enough to allow oil production. The rules must be enforceable and governments will need to provide resources to monitor activities and enforce effective rules.

Since China and Russia are already drilling from just outside of the US and Canadian territorial limits, why should North America be the only ones to restrict the collection of North American Oil? Why not use the most technologically and environmentally sensitive methods of the US and CAN companies? If exploration and extraction is restricted much longer only Scandinavia, Russia and China will have use of the vast North American Arctic Oil basin.

Not drilling is as much a risk for Americans as drilling is for the environment. It has been proven that we can drill safely and with little impact to the environment. DRILL BABY DRILL!

Just about all oil tankers are double hulled now–the Exxon Valdez incident is ancient history. We need that oil. We also need all the oil we can get at on the Gulf coast and the Pacific coast. Our dependence on Middle Eastern oil has empowered Islam to become a bitter and powerful enemy. Our present economy runs on oil, & if we don’t keep it strong, we won’t have the energy (means) to develop alternate sources and keep the enemy at bay.
Regulation in Alaska, yes. Restriction, no. The Dems policy to “drill nowhere, drill never” is just another way gather in another voting block (greenies) to keep themselves in power.
America has the best politicians money can buy!

Because of Exxon’s supertanker Valdez no. Because of global climate change (warming) and other environmental factors yes.

There hasn’t exactly been a rash of tanker accidents since the Valdez, so what’s the problem? It’s not like Exxon (or anyone else) has a vested interest in having their tankers run aground. We should be taking this opportunity to celebrate the success of the oil companies in dealing with the risks inherent in their operation rather than pretending there’s some huge problem now that it has become politically expedient to do so.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! DRILL! DRILL! DRILL! NOW! NOW! NOW!

The United States should exploit its natural resources wherever and whenever possible, including the Arctic and Off-Shore areas, but using reasonable and effective regulation BUT NOT the kind of restrictions that extreme environmentalists and politicians want to impose. The United States should CHANGE its environmental policies (and many other policies) from an adversarial focus to a “cooperative/team-oriented” focus. This does not imply a complete laissez faire approach but an approach that focuses our attention and government wealth not on blocking activities but on working to ensure that activities are safe for employees and the environment.

A clear-cut example of EPA stupidity is that of paints. One can coat an outside water tank with an excellent coating, which lasts for about 20 years and requires a minimum release of VOC (but, the VOC per gallon is a little above the limits allowed). One can use “substitute” coatings which satisfy the VOC requirements (per gallon) but require two or three times the material and the coating system lasts about half as long. Rocket science not required to observe the MAXIMIZING of VOC releases.

Hey nasatechbriefs, what’s with the sinistral questions lately?

No Drilling until it can be done safely and cleanly!
Leave for future generations.
We have plenty of energy NOW, just have to use it more
economically.
What are all f you in favor of drilling driving today . A gas hogging SUV ?

We should drill for oil wherever it is to be found. The technology for doing it in a manner that does not harm the environment is well known and is not costly. Those alternate energy enthusiasts should keep in mind that there is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline, than in a gallon of liquid hydrogen. Other than plutonium, there is a greater energy density in gasoline than any other medium, and certainly than batteries. We should recognize that there is much evidence for the abiotic origins of oil. And on a planet with layers of hydrocarbons underground, and an atmosphere full of oxygen, it is hard to imagine that in the short or long term, these two will not meet and react. We may as well get some useful work out of the inevitable chemical reaction.

Hung N Huge

Crazy Pee Girls

Tasty Juile

Sweet Peaches

Tan Line Sex

Anal Movie Archive

4 Ever Models

Busty Nastya

High Def Teen Movies

Matts Models

Young Porn

Amateur Girls

Stacy Valentine

Little Hell Cat

Gag Abuse

Play With Paris

Sweet Monika

Hardcore XXX Porn

Hot Jocks Nice Cocks

Only Beef

Preg Nancy

Drunk Girls

Angel Cassidy

Priya Anjali Rai

Charlie Laine

Fucking The Help

Cam With Paris

Aurora Snow

Voyage For Vagina

Flashy Babes

Dripping Goo

Stockings Babes

Bailey Kline

XXX Pornstar Divas

Pop Porno

Toastee Exposed

Amber Andrews