Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 14

• 0%

  STONERS1 year, 2 months ago

  "Coastal erosion has more than doubled along a segment of the Arctic Alaska coast during the past half century," it said, adding the land loss was being magnified by the conversion of freshwater "thermokarst" lakes into saltwater bays as they become inundated with waters from the Arctic Ocean.

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago

    I wonder. how is it that oil wells can be drilled and pumped in deep north Atlantic, sometime 1000's of feet below the ocean, and yet some people are claiming that these wells in Alaska will somehow succumb to natural erosion of land around them and ultimately the sea? Is this article alarmist? I think so.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago

      A must read environmentalist argument against drilling in Alaska. These egocentric capitalists come equipped with a few arguments in favor of drilling and all of them are terrible. I'd like to start with my favorite: establishing oil drilling facilities is beneficial to the wildlife. My God, what a good joke. You'll typically find a proponent declaring that since drilling in the Alaskan Prudhoe Bay, the caribou population has risen from a few thousand to tens of thousands. Well, this is true and I won't deny it. My guess is that the initial rise in population was because all the smaller, weaker animals they used to prey on were now dead and littered about the landscape; the caribou took full advantage of all the free meals.

      These "environmentalist" should know that caribou subsist only on a diet of arboreal lichens. (not a small animal)

      Interestingly, the Caribou Herd which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32000 animals.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        mjw20251 year, 2 months ago

        I would be wise of environmentalists to take courses in physics before they start harping about alternative energy sources, carbon footprints ect. They seem to have illusions that just because it's another energy source it can replace what we now use.

        Reply
• 0%

  TOtheMOON1 year, 2 months ago

  Good luck!

  Reply
• 0%

  BronxBomber1 year, 2 months ago

  Can you imagine the cost it would take to make reparations if such a disaster should occur?$$$

  Reply
• 0%

  HannibalBarca1 year, 2 months ago

  I read in a Canadian oil report today that Shell will hopefully begin the deepest off-shore oil well in the world in Alaskan waters soon.

  Reply
• 0%

  agentX1 year, 2 months ago

  So much for Bush's plan to open up the Arctic to more Oil drilling.

  Reply
• 0%

  denden791 year, 2 months ago

  Just one more reason to step up solar and wind power.

  America's reliance on oil (imported or domestic) may be our downfall!

  As for BP & Shell, Mobil-Exxon,I personally DO NOT buy their products(or Volero, Venesala) because the are all greedy, over-paid, and anti-American!

  Let's get back to AMERICAN OIL, and use less, not more! Trade in your SUV for economy's sake. BIG GAS GUZZLERS SUCK!

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    capecoralM1 year, 2 months ago

    Hayden explains the limited capability of every solar-related energy source by relating how the laws of physics impose certain inescapable shortcomings. Along the way he precisely quotes the many well-known energy charlatans making statements that defy the laws of nature.

    When it comes to wind, Hayden shows wind farms can generate electrical power at the rate of about 1.2 watts (W) per square meter (m2) for most sites, and up to 4 W/m2 in rare sites where the wind always comes from one direction. The goal is to generate enough energy to replicate a 1,000 megawatts power plant operating around the clock. To do that in California, for example, would require a wind farm one mile wide stretching all the way from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

    To produce as much energy as a conventional 1,000 megawatt power plant using solar would require a 127 square mile field of solar mirrors collecting enough heat to turn a turbine. Now that would have quite an environmental impact!

    Reply
• 0%

  ETproductions1 year, 2 months ago

  Just goes to show we need to drill faster. Maybe burning more of that oil will stop global warming or whatever it is. Sumpin like dat.

  Reply
• 0%

  Charlson1 year, 2 months ago

  Who's footing the bill for all these oil wells that need cleaning and tapping? The government? Oil companies? Us?

  Reply
• 0%

  getreal11 year, 2 months ago

  From the way things look we do not have much choice. May as well make some money for our country and reduce the cost of a lot of things here. Our Government needs to have a business to help make money and I not talking about the politicians getting support.

  Reply
• 0%

  timada2 months, 1 week ago

  I’ve just come back from an <a rel="follow" href="http://www.cruisevacationcenter.com/alaska_cruises.htm">Alaska Cruise</a> and I have to admit I saw how the disappearance of sea ice that shields against storm-waves, and of permafrost that holds shorelines together, is eating away at the coast of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. I’ve been there 4 years ago, and I remember how that place was looking totally different.

  Reply