EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

9 Comments

1. 1. Sisko 09:15 AM 9/7/12

   The offshore fossil fuel resources will eventually need to be developed. At a time when the USA needs job creation why not develop the capability to utilize these resources today. That would not necessarily mean that we would use all those resources today, but it would lessen the risk to the US of having our lack of domestic energy being used against us by a foreign country.
   
   The article states: “Republicans were incensed that more acreage was not being made available for off-shore drilling, but environmentalists couldn’t believe what they were hearing for different reasons”
   BTW- I am not a republican and do believe we should protect the environment.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. MrsWormer in reply to Sisko 10:33 AM 9/7/12

   First off, America doesn't have enough oil reserves to become energy independent. We will always have to import oil, and if you think the U.S. and Saudis are going to let their relationship deteriorate for "national security," then you don't know jack about politics. A few hundred oil jobs weighed against the potential of an oil spill in the Arctic is a horrible wager. Just because the oil is there doesn't mean it has to be exploited. At some point we have to learn that the earth is not a supermarket to be picked clean by voracious profiteers. It's our f**king home.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. yarberry in reply to Sisko 11:22 AM 9/7/12

   Offshore fossil fuels do not 'need' to be developed. This is about $$$. There is money to be made. Since we need to quantify everything in terms of money or costs, the 'costs' of damage to the delicate environs can be written off. But the real 'costs' of our refusal to address our impacts on the planet and how we can develop in a sustainable and, hopefully harmonious, fashion will be a terrible burden for the future generations.
   
   The idea that drilling for oil in the Arctic is somehow creating 'energy independence' and 'security' for America is a totally lame argument. Oil, and coal, are global commodities. The oil coming out of the Arctic may well go to China or Japan. We currently are exporting vast quanities of cheap coal from Wyoming to India and China. And doing so at the cost of local environmental damage in the western states. America is not a separate world. We are part of the global society. Time to thing in those terms and quit buying into the lies being fed us by those seeking to profit off of our ignorance and gullibility.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. yarberry in reply to yarberry 11:25 AM 9/7/12

   I hate it when people don't spell check their work. Sorry, but I hope you can read around to get to the idea.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Sisko 02:57 PM 9/7/12

   MrsWormer
   You might look more closely at what I have written. I did not write that we should develop the resources to achieve energy independence.
   
   Do you deny that those resources will be utilized at some time? Do you deny that it would lessen the ability of a non-north American nation from disrupting our energy supplies or threatening that action? Do you deny that developing those resources will create jobs at a time when that is critically needed?
   
   Yarberry- Yes fossil fuels are a global commodity. They are also a global commodity that can and have had their supplies disrupted as tools of international diplomacy throughout history. Do you deny that these resources will eventually be developed? They of course will. It is only a question of when.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Bops 02:59 PM 9/7/12

   Big oil companies can't be trusted.
   
   Careless spills can be avoided, just another $'s oil lie.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. yarberry in reply to Sisko 04:06 PM 9/7/12

   You used the word that affirms my point; commodity. We see fossil fuels (and most resources) in economic terms. This view, by its very nature, is not capable of addressing the non-economic value of places like the Arctic.
   
   So, unfortunately, yes I do beleive these will be developed (read exploited), because as I said it is about $$$.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. jgrosay 06:37 PM 9/7/12

   If oil is present only in the kind of sedimentary rocks named "calcareous", and most of the floor of the Arctic ocean is made, either by alluvium soil or of newly formed crust from the ascending plumes of magma under the plates, I'd say that the only you'll find by drilling in the Arctic will be pebbles, somebody spent not long ago $600 million drilling for Oil around Iceland to find nothing, something that could have been predicted, as all the bottom in the central region of the Atlantic ocean is new sea floor, no sediments at all there, and Iceland is an island of pure volcanic origin, so you'll find nothing there but Olivine and things like.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. CDC53 03:19 PM 2/14/13

   The problem with drilling is it is a total mess from start to finish.
   
   There is still a lot of abandon equipment in the Arctic and Antarctica from old expeditions and oil exploration. Lots of old oil drums and non-biodegradable stuff that needs packing out.
   
   Does the government think we won't notice any trash, oil, or structures dumped or left in the ocean? Does Obama and the oil companies think we live on the motto "out of sight, out of mind"?
   
   You can see all the wildlife that uses the contested 1002 area on these many ANWR maps. The area backs up to the Beaufort Sea/Arctic Ocean and could be radically effected by any spill.
   http://www.cccarto.com/ANWR/ANWR.html

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this