Headlines U.S. Senate OKs Alaska wildlife refuge drilling

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,542
611
507
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/16/wildlife-refuge-drilling050316.html

On one side you have the ecologists who say no drilling, and on the other side you have the corporate lobbyists who say drill it. Since the republicans are in the pocket of corporate pigs, they rejected the democrat motion.

Dang... It looks like some politicians would sell their mother for more oil. It's disgusting, this will have catastrophic consequences on wildlife in Alaska, yet of course, people like Dan will say "who the fuck cares if I can drive my SUV for less".
 

bigck3000

The Iron Lung
1,684
1
0
no....your boy dan would probably dig up some out dated fact about only .0002% of the land is being used and there are no baby beavers there. Does it really matter anymore...we are at the whim of money hungry men and the irony is that they are backed by the "working class" individuals in this country. Its like trying to kill a bear with one of those fruity NERF bats.
 

switch_scribe

dolor ex fides
290
0
0
:mad: Bollocks. Ain't that some shit. I really wish they would discover oil somewhere like under the tomb of the unknown soldier. Then those oil-greedy dicksnots would try to drill there, and all the vets in this country would endanger their asses for even thinking about it.

The Senate needs to stop being like a drunken prom date, and learn to say no to the right things.
 

ReiMeishin

Dreaming to live
585
0
0
I hate the arrogant Republican machine as much as the next guy thinking towards the future. However, this is not an issue worth fighting for. America has already been built on the once-great forests and grasslands of this great land. Moving aside a few, yes, just a few, more evionmental units is not going to destroy us anymore than we already have been. They are not going to strip mine the state, the Alaskans (red state) would not allow that.
 

Skitch0o0

Put it in MY butt...
979
1
0
Rage against said:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/16/wildlife-refuge-drilling050316.html

On one side you have the ecologists who say no drilling, and on the other side you have the corporate lobbyists who say drill it. Since the republicans are in the pocket of corporate pigs, they rejected the democrat motion.

Dang... It looks like some politicians would sell their mother for more oil. It's disgusting, this will have catastrophic consequences on wildlife in Alaska, yet of course, people like Dan will say "who the fuck cares if I can drive my SUV for less".
Ah yes, asshole SUV owners. Oh and the real irony is that they will still be paying the same for gasoline if not more even with extra drilling since the increase in supply, for some reason, only seems to up the demand, thus keep the price the same or higher.
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
sorry guys I don't own an SUV.. but I woulda thought that you "pro-choiceers" wouldn't want to infringe on someones right to choose what vehicle they drive... hmmm...
as guessed... I am glad that they finally did this.. we need to lessen our dependance on foriegn oil.. as a precursor to developing an alternative(as effective or more) fuel... OPEC is tapped out.. they are at thier max production levels.. so we either need to provide more supply.. or change the fuel... I feel that ANWR is a short-term solution... but a short-term solution is better than no solution at all... and it will still take 5-10 years for the oil to come to market.. so had they done this 10 years ago I wouldn't have just pait $2.24 per gallon today.. and maybe we woulda done more research into alternative fuels...

let the Alaskans vote on it.. let them decide if they want it in thier backyard.. this wouldn't be the first oil drilling that has taken place in Alaska... they know better than I do what effect it has had on animals...
Since the republicans are in the pocket of corporate pigs,
and the Democrats are in the pocket of fringe environmental groups ...
this will have catastrophic consequences on wildlife in Alaska
yeah... just like the Alaskan pipeline did... they have been spewing this mantra for decades... yet it has been shown that it can be done in an environmentally friendly way...
....your boy dan would probably dig up some out dated fact about only .0002% of the land is being used and there are no baby beavers there.
key word here being ... fact... you are more than welcome to challenge any sources I post...
Then those oil-greedy dicksnots
are we not all "oil-greedy" just about everything we produce... or consume needs or has needed oil...
 

gurlgonewild

Was machen Sie?
1,086
0
0
here's a bandaid for your hard earned money

there are those of you who think of it as a need, its not. we need to spend more money on R&D for alternative energy b/c the oil will run out someday whether we drill alaska or not.

GWB decision is purely pro-business. they've got him in their pocket and in turn he lines theirs. i recall reading somewhere the annual oil contribution from alaska will have little or no impact at all on supply. okay so what you're telling me then is, the inputs are greater than the outputs AND you're disrupting a naturally prisitne environment in the pursuit of a few drops of oil.

so, i should accept having to pay more for less (even though that'll happen eventually anyway) while you contribute to raising the costs above and beyond those expectations? price hike on top of price hike, sounds like an excellent deal to me.

when do we break ground?
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
we need to spend more money on R&D for alternative energy b/c the oil will run out someday whether we drill alaska or not.
very true... I agree... but while we remain dependant on oil... we should use our own... I'm all for an alternative as long as it can sufficiently power our vehicles... all our vehicles... I still wanna be able to tow a boat up a hill....

i recall reading somewhere the annual oil contribution from alaska will have little or no impact at all on supply.
it will mean less oil we buy from other countries .. therefore would impact supply... now OPEC might decrease output.. but I doubt that.. with the demand rising through the roof in China and India...the degree to which it will impact supply is purely speculation at this point.. one side says it won't impact at all and one side says it will impact greatly... but by the time we start pumping from the new pumps in Alaska the demand in China, India and the US will have risen so much that it won't have as much effect as it would if it were able to be tapped and pumped today..
rage said:
environment friendly...HAH. it's corporate friendly.

Environment"Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas"
I don't think there are any scientific studies that have shown a decline in any animal population in Alaska due to the oil industry...
Corporate friendly... "Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain. " also worker friendly



interesting pic
ANWR to scale
 

gurlgonewild

Was machen Sie?
1,086
0
0
DanGeo23 said:
it will mean less oil we buy from other countries .. therefore would impact supply... now OPEC might decrease output.. but I doubt that.. with the demand rising through the roof in China and India...the degree to which it will impact supply is purely speculation at this point.. one side says it won't impact at all and one side says it will impact greatly... but by the time we start pumping from the new pumps in Alaska the demand in China, India and the US will have risen so much that it won't have as much effect as it would if it were able to be tapped and pumped today..

not neccessarily. a minimal amount of natural resources, is a minimal amount no matter how high/low demand or supply goes. its not really speculation as we have the technology and professionals who have surveyed the site and can tell you w/ complete confidence how large of a mass exists underground, and estimate its ability to be converted.

then on the back end, (prices) will stiffle production/sales of US drilled oil in order to compete in the marketplace and they may never reach capacity. so even though capacity is minimal to begin with, it'll likely be even less due to economics.
 

Jung

???
Premium
14,205
2,465
637
This response constitutes a "drive-by" posting. Meaning, I did not thoroughly read every reply.


Some problems I have with this decision:

1) The USGS (US Geological Society) estimates 10 billion total barrels in ANWR. The US currently (as of 2003) consumes approximately 20 million per day. Gale Norton was on Hannity's radio show (yeah, I'm a glutton for punishment) and she said that she expected 1 million barrels a day for 30 years. One million barrels per day?!? We use 20 times that right now, so the impact on importing from the Middle East would be next to nil. Besides that, our usage will only continue to grow exponentially. This year might average 30 million per day. True, we did get more out of Prudhoe Bay than estimated. However, past results do not indicate future success.

And speaking of Prudhoe Bay... my information indicates that Prudhoe Bay has produced a grand total of 15 Billion barrels in its entire 25-year history. It produces about 1 million per day or less than 400 million per year. Certainly no where near 14 Billion per year.

2) It represents more of the same. Non-renewable resources are, well, non-renewable. Meaning, they will run out someday. We have the technology (and ability to develop it for mass production) to use renewable energy in every aspect that we currently use petroleum for. We even have synthetic lubrication. Hmm, but how to pay for the transition...

3) The US taxpayers will pay for the oil companies to survey the area and find the oil. That's right, they still do not know how much oil or where it lies. So we finance their expenses in locating this oil. Except no provision gets included that we get a major price break once they find it. No, despite the high price of a barrel of oil, Exxon & Shell are still making record profits. So taxpayer money can go to finance an outdated system, or it could go to developing a seemingly limitless source. But being limitless, it would be hard to make fistfuls of cash from it.

4) The United States government has finally acknowledged Peak Oil. Look it up. It explains a lot of our recent actions. [link]

5) The oil would take anywhere from five to ten years to make it to market. They have to find it, extract it, etc., etc. So no immediate impact on the fuel prices. Also, do not count on a lowering of prices once it does get to market. The last time oil was over $50 per barrel (about six months to a year ago?), the Wall Street Journal had a report about how Exxon & Shell were reporting the highest overall profit and profit margin in their history. Meaning, it costs them more to buy it, but they are passing the additional cost and then some along to you, the consumer. What makes you beLIEve they would lower the costs in this situation?

And I did not even go into the environmental reasons. Those that want to go in there (because it means mega money for their campaign contributors) boast of a 2,000 acre 'footprint' in a 19.5 million acre area. But that 'footprint', to the best of my knowledge, only represents the actual permanent equipment. It does not included roads, pipelines, etc., that go along with such a massive operation.
 

bigck3000

The Iron Lung
1,684
1
0
incredibly well written "drive by".....and Dan...the keyword was "outdated" meaning that studies or publication made more than a year ago that are even loosely related are not viable sources. But you knew that....didnt you?

again my feelings on the topic.....what can we do..."they" want it done..and "they" are in power.
 

SouthWolf

I'll fuck you up!!!
92
0
0
Well I think that it doesn't make a big enough difference either way. The impact on our supply and the prices isn't going to be significant so i don't care let them go ahead and drain the fossil fuels so they have no choice but to develope better alternate fuels.

As far as the enviroment. The technology is much better than it use to be and drilling can be done while having lil to no effect on the wildlife. There is plenty of land there and most of it is barren anyway so the enviromental argument is mute also.

Sooooooo....in conclusion. Six one way and half a dozen another way. It's a pointless argument. Just something for both sides to bitch about. At least that's my opinion