• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

GOP Abandons ANWR Oil Exploration

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Liberals and environmentalists seem to be running the agenda at this point in Bush's second term, and that is unfortunate. By deciding no to bring to a vote bills which would allow exploration not only in ANWR, but also off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the Bush and Company are not only ensuring that we will continue to pay through the nose for foreign oil, but that they will also be known as the government which will pander to ANYONE in order to attempt to regain their so-called mandate, which we all know, they really didnt have in the first place.

This is a bad move, and will further detiorate the relationship between factions of the GOP. The Republican Party may have invented wedge issues, but the Democrats are learning fast.

The good in all this is that the Bushnevik faction of the GOP is self destructing in a big way, and that is good news for anyone who knows what a real Conservative is.

Article is here.
 

Archon

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana/Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
danarhea said:
The Liberals and environmentalists seem to be running the agenda at this point in Bush's second term, and that is unfortunate. By deciding no to bring to a vote bills which would allow exploration not only in ANWR, but also off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the Bush and Company are not only ensuring that we will continue to pay through the nose for foreign oil, but that they will also be known as the government which will pander to ANYONE in order to attempt to regain their so-called mandate, which we all know, they really didnt have in the first place.

This is a bad move, and will further detiorate the relationship between factions of the GOP. The Republican Party may have invented wedge issues, but the Democrats are learning fast.

The good in all this is that the Bushnevik faction of the GOP is self destructing in a big way, and that is good news for anyone who knows what a real Conservative is.

Article is here.
I tend to think that ANWR has already been tapped. It seems to be a major energy source for HAARP, HIPAS, EISCAT, SuperDarn, SABRE, and many other non-existant ionospheric exploitations that "no longer exist". If you are privvy to satcom imagery take a look at the north and south pole... you'll se nothing but intricate antennae and dipoles built to modify our atmosphere to accomadate HR **** .... yeah... I know... sounds conspirational..... get a glimpse of the birds eye view.......... the neo-cons are not saving ANWR.... they are draining it. Anybody been to Alaska lately? I have.
 
Last edited:

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Archon said:
I tend to think that ANWR has already been tapped. It seems to be a major energy source for HAARP, HIPAS, EISCAT, SuperDarn, SABRE, and many other non-existant ionospheric exploitations that "no longer exist". If you are privvy to satcom imagery take a look at the north and south pole... you'll se nothing but intricate antennae and dipoles built to modify our atmosphere to accomadate HR **** .... yeah... I know... sounds conspirational..... get a glimpse of the birds eye view.......... the neo-cons are not saving ANWR.... they are draining it. Anybody been to Alaska lately? I have.
I and jallman both live in alaska.. Visiting alaska does not make you an expert in knowing what is best for this great state. Opening ANWR would do a number of things. It would produce more revenue for the state, more jobs to many of us alaskans and most importantly, bring more oil into the United states! THE VAST majority of alaskans want ANWR opened, the VAST majority of lower 48 population that oppose it, do notunderstand what of a vital need this is for us. ANWR has not been tapped. The only expected drilling to occur is in a very small area. I think you should be weary of your own state of texas and its oil than Alaskan oil production! I am so sick and tired of what the continental US thinks what is best for alaska!
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
AK_Conservative said:
I and jallman both live in alaska.. Visiting alaska does not make you an expert in knowing what is best for this great state. Opening ANWR would do a number of things. It would produce more revenue for the state, more jobs to many of us alaskans and most importantly, bring more oil into the United states! THE VAST majority of alaskans want ANWR opened, the VAST majority of lower 48 population that oppose it, do notunderstand what of a vital need this is for us. ANWR has not been tapped. The only expected drilling to occur is in a very small area. I think you should be weary of your own state of texas and its oil than Alaskan oil production! I am so sick and tired of what the continental US thinks what is best for alaska!
I'm with you on this one. ANWR may technically be federal property, but no one outside of Alaska ever uses it or goes to it. If the people of Alaska favor drilling for oil there, great. If they don't, that's fine too. But the federal government should just shut up about it, or better yet, give/sell the land to the state of Alaska.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,306
Reaction score
13,540
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
AK_Conservative said:
I and jallman both live in alaska.. Visiting alaska does not make you an expert in knowing what is best for this great state. Opening ANWR would do a number of things. It would produce more revenue for the state, more jobs to many of us alaskans and most importantly, bring more oil into the United states! THE VAST majority of alaskans want ANWR opened, the VAST majority of lower 48 population that oppose it, do notunderstand what of a vital need this is for us. ANWR has not been tapped. The only expected drilling to occur is in a very small area. I think you should be weary of your own state of texas and its oil than Alaskan oil production! I am so sick and tired of what the continental US thinks what is best for alaska!
ANWR is federal land. The taxpayers pay for it and the population of Alaska probably makes up about 1 to 2 percent of the federal tax base so the opinion of Alaskans on it is pretty much irrelevant.

I would like to know how an oil field that would take 20 years before hitting full production and even then producing a day less than 1 percent of worldwide demand is going to make any difference on what any of us pay at the pump?
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
SouthernDemocrat said:
ANWR is federal land. The taxpayers pay for it and the population of Alaska probably makes up about 1 to 2 percent of the federal tax base so the opinion of Alaskans on it is pretty much irrelevant.

I would like to know how an oil field that would take 20 years before hitting full production and even then producing a day less than 1 percent of worldwide demand is going to make any difference on what any of us pay at the pump?
It probably would get sold to another country. I think it makes more sense to be going after stranded oil and oil sands in America and Canada.
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
ANWR is federal land. The taxpayers pay for it and the population of Alaska probably makes up about 1 to 2 percent of the federal tax base so the opinion of Alaskans on it is pretty much irrelevant.

I would like to know how an oil field that would take 20 years before hitting full production and even then producing a day less than 1 percent of worldwide demand is going to make any difference on what any of us pay at the pump?
:roll:

When was the last time ANWR has had any relivance in the news other than oil related issues! I could care less that the land is federal. Im not speaking solely about the government. Im speaking of public opinion. YOU, SOuthernDemocrat, HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what oil production would do for us in alaska. Secondly, at the current rate, Alaska provides about 16-17% of america's oil needs. It would boost if we developed ANWR, thus taking the dependency on foreign oil down. I never said anything about the cost at the pump!
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
scottyz said:
It probably would get sold to another country. I think it makes more sense to be going after stranded oil and oil sands in America and Canada.
That plan would "make sense" if sensibillity was part of the goals of the GOP. While you are at it, why not try and hit the demand part of the situation instead of working the supply? But then again, the majority of the public doesn't understand things like supply/demand curves anyway.

The big oil lobby is certainly getting its money worth. The US addicition to foreign oil, the reason the US is in Iraq in the first place, is a result of people ignoring the Hubbert curve. And fighting it with more holes in the ground makes about as much sense as fighting terrorism by bombing Iraq. Both solutions outlined actually only make the problem worse.

The only way the market economy in the US is going to move away from oil (something that the Bush administration didn't even pay lip service to until $70 oil) is if it is expensive. By using supply adds as the only solution (while ignoring things like imposing fuel efficency standards and power plant upgrades, etc.), all you are doing is increasing the risk to the economy at the future point of time when oil is not longer a feasible power source, and bringing that time closer to the present.

Classic GOP short-sighted greed.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
danarhea said:
The Liberals and environmentalists seem to be running the agenda at this point in Bush's second term, and that is unfortunate. By deciding no to bring to a vote bills which would allow exploration not only in ANWR, but also off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the Bush and Company are not only ensuring that we will continue to pay through the nose for foreign oil, but that they will also be known as the government which will pander to ANYONE in order to attempt to regain their so-called mandate, which we all know, they really didnt have in the first place.

This is a bad move, and will further detiorate the relationship between factions of the GOP. The Republican Party may have invented wedge issues, but the Democrats are learning fast.

The good in all this is that the Bushnevik faction of the GOP is self destructing in a big way, and that is good news for anyone who knows what a real Conservative is.

Article is here.
Frankly, I am thrilled about this! I did not support the drilling at all. This is excellent news for environmentalists. The evangelicals are becoming more aware of environmental concerns and the GOP does not want to lose those voters, as they need them desperately.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,306
Reaction score
13,540
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
AK_Conservative said:
:roll:

When was the last time ANWR has had any relivance in the news other than oil related issues! I could care less that the land is federal. Im not speaking solely about the government. Im speaking of public opinion. YOU, SOuthernDemocrat, HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what oil production would do for us in alaska. Secondly, at the current rate, Alaska provides about 16-17% of america's oil needs. It would boost if we developed ANWR, thus taking the dependency on foreign oil down. I never said anything about the cost at the pump!
So essentially, you are promoting it as a big federal pork barrel project for Alaska.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This is just another indication of the ineffectiveness of the Bush administration.

Congrats to all the hard work done by the environmentalists.

And congrats to the moderate republicans who are distancing themselves from, as someone called it in these forums, the Bush-cooties! LOL
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
danarhea said:
... ensuring that we will continue to pay through the nose for foreign oil ...
ANWR can't get us oil fast enough to dent oil prices. It'll only supply about an hour's worth of petro-products per day. I fI thought it'd be helpful to the country as a whole, I'd be for it. However, it doesn't seem like it'll do much for the country. It does seem like it'd help some particular segments of the country involved in the petro-industry though.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Are we not going to need oil in 20 years? Yes, we will. So it makes sense to use ANWR oil then, and that means start the process now.

In the meantime, there are things we can do to lessen our use of oil. I have a list, but it doesn't matter. We are too lazy and selfish and short sighted to do even the smallest or simplest things.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
UtahBill said:
Are we not going to need oil in 20 years? Yes, we will. So it makes sense to use ANWR oil then, and that means start the process now.

In the meantime, there are things we can do to lessen our use of oil. I have a list, but it doesn't matter. We are too lazy and selfish and short sighted to do even the smallest or simplest things.
Well you are goona have to do it eventually, and the sooner the better for both the environment and the long term economy. Global warming is real, and for the US to not at least make a little effort to reduce petro usage, it is just another reason why the world is pissed off at its policies.

The US coasts are going to be some of the hardest and first hit regions for the effects of global warming, and this hurricane season is evidence. Only the truly brainwashed, or brainwashing, can still say that global warming isn't real. If it is real, then the reason that the Gulf of Mexico is warmer is probably partitally based on global warming. And those warm waters is what is causing increased hurricane activity, than it is a logical conslusion that global warming causes hurricanes.

But logic and science has never been big in the GOP.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
python416 said:
Global warming is real, and for the US to not at least make a little effort to reduce petro usage, it is just another reason why the world is pissed off at its policies.

Only the truly brainwashed, or brainwashing, can still say that global warming isn't real. If it is real, then the reason that the Gulf of Mexico is warmer is probably partitally based on global warming. And those warm waters is what is causing increased hurricane activity, than it is a logical conslusion that global warming causes hurricanes.

But logic and science has never been big in the GOP.
It is real, but the amount of contribution from human activities is still questionable.
 

ShullsM

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SouthernDemocrat said:
ANWR is federal land. The taxpayers pay for it and the population of Alaska probably makes up about 1 to 2 percent of the federal tax base so the opinion of Alaskans on it is pretty much irrelevant.

I would like to know how an oil field that would take 20 years before hitting full production and even then producing a day less than 1 percent of worldwide demand is going to make any difference on what any of us pay at the pump?
Is it 1%? I didn't think it was quite that low, but from what I hear, it is low. Look, drilling in ANWR doesn't accomplish anything for the state of our oil resources. Drilling in ANWR is not going to free us from the dependancy on foriegn resources. It's just not. It MAY make a small scratch, but I don't see it doing much more than that.

I think Cantwell and the Dems are doing a good job of keeping this issue in check.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
UtahBill said:
It is real, but the amount of contribution from human activities is still questionable.
First it isn't real. Then it is real, but it doesn't matter. That is a classic GOP universal talking point that is used for almost everything. Too bad there is no one to smear, cause then they could have used the full play:

1) the information is wrong
2) the information source is wrong or a lier
3) it is just partisan politics
4) okay the information is write, but it doesn't matter


The whole preemptive worse case forcasting that brought us the "we have to do something now, or it will be too late later" that the neocons are using for Iraq selling was taken from Greenpeace talking points against global warming. Even though Greenpeace needs a reality check in many ways, they got it right with global warming.

How come it is ok to take the worst possible outcome and sell that to push for something as big as a war, but it isn't okay to use that reasoning where it was orginally created to push for saving something even bigger - the planet.

I'll tell you: because there is money in war, and the Bush administration is far too short-sighted to see that there is also money in non-petro power.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
python416 said:
First it isn't real. Then it is real, but it doesn't matter. That is a classic GOP universal talking point that is used for almost everything. Too bad there is no one to smear, cause then they could have used the full play:

1) the information is wrong
2) the information source is wrong or a lier
3) it is just partisan politics
4) okay the information is write, but it doesn't matter


The whole preemptive worse case forcasting that brought us the "we have to do something now, or it will be too late later" that the neocons are using for Iraq selling was taken from Greenpeace talking points against global warming. Even though Greenpeace needs a reality check in many ways, they got it right with global warming.

How come it is ok to take the worst possible outcome and sell that to push for something as big as a war, but it isn't okay to use that reasoning where it was orginally created to push for saving something even bigger - the planet.

I'll tell you: because there is money in war, and the Bush administration is far too short-sighted to see that there is also money in non-petro power.
Perhaps you misunderstand what I said. It IS real, and we have proof that it has happened in the past, without the influence of man. So whether or not man is a major contributor to the issue, we WILL get cycles of warming, and cooling. The thing to do is prepare for it, adapt to it, because it is bigger than us, and adapting is about all we will be able to do. Man's influence may, or may not, hasten the onset of warming, or the next ice age, but we will have to deal with it when it comes, either way it comes.
There are other reasons for using less of our oil, coal, gas, etc. But so far, nearly all I see and read about indicates that our leaders are only looking to produce more, instead of finding ways to use less.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
ANWR can't get us oil fast enough to dent oil prices. It'll only supply about an hour's worth of petro-products per day. I fI thought it'd be helpful to the country as a whole, I'd be for it. However, it doesn't seem like it'll do much for the country. It does seem like it'd help some particular segments of the country involved in the petro-industry though.
It isnt the ANWR provision of the bill that would help us, since just about all oil produced in Alaska ends up in Asian markets (cost to transport is lower), but the provisions for exploration on the east and west coasts of the US.
 
Last edited:

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
danarhea said:
It isnt the ANWR provision of the bill that would help us, since just about all oil produced in Alaska ends up in Asian markets (cost to transport is lower), but the provisions for exploration on the east and west coasts of the US.
Seems to me that after all the hurricanes in the gulf area lately, there should be some incentive to look elsewhere for oil, and for refinery capacity.
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
danarhea said:
It isnt the ANWR provision of the bill that would help us, since just about all oil produced in Alaska ends up in Asian markets (cost to transport is lower), but the provisions for exploration on the east and west coasts of the US.

Urban myth my friend.. urban myth.. only about 7% of the oil from alaska goes to asian markets. But most of you guys are missing the big picture here. Opening AMWR would boom the alaskan economy. It will create thousands of new jobs. That would be a great thing for alaska.

Here the democratic party is complaining about Job loss, WHY NOT STEP UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
AK_Conservative said:
Urban myth my friend.. urban myth.. only about 7% of the oil from alaska goes to asian markets. But most of you guys are missing the big picture here. Opening AMWR would boom the alaskan economy. It will create thousands of new jobs. That would be a great thing for alaska.

Here the democratic party is complaining about Job loss, WHY NOT STEP UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
Dems are only concerned about their own job losses, such as whiners, ACLU lawyers, social workers, welfare workers, etc. Odds are, if ANWR was to open up, 95% of the jobs would be taken by hard working, blue collar, republicans. I am guessing that 5% would be the camp followers such as prostitutes, labor union leaders, etc.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
AK_Conservative said:
But most of you guys are missing the big picture here. Opening AMWR would boom the alaskan economy. It will create thousands of new jobs. That would be a great thing for alaska.
I see. Alaska's concerns are "the big picture." Concerns of 0.2% of the country are "the big picture." What's good and useful for the nation as a whole in the long run, that's the small picture. Got it.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
AK_Conservative said:
Urban myth my friend.. urban myth.. only about 7% of the oil from alaska goes to asian markets. But most of you guys are missing the big picture here. Opening AMWR would boom the alaskan economy. It will create thousands of new jobs. That would be a great thing for alaska.

Here the democratic party is complaining about Job loss, WHY NOT STEP UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
And who told YOU that it is urban legend? Want to know who told me it is true? None other than Bob Poe himself, face to face. Other than being a world famous oil exploration engineer from Schlumberger, someone regarded as one of the foremost experts in the field by the big oil companies, and someone who gives lectures all over the world on petroleum-related topics (he just got back from giving one in Russia), he also happens to be one of my company's clients. I talk to him about 8 times a year, and the conversations are always very interesting.

You can read about the last conversation I had with Bob Poe in this thread.

And finally, I am not a Democrat, but since you choose to call me one, I think I will call you a Communist. Nya Nya Nya. :rofl
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
ANWR is federal land. The taxpayers pay for it and the population of Alaska probably makes up about 1 to 2 percent of the federal tax base so the opinion of Alaskans on it is pretty much irrelevant.

I would like to know how an oil field that would take 20 years before hitting full production and even then producing a day less than 1 percent of worldwide demand is going to make any difference on what any of us pay at the pump?
And this is why the Dems and even modern Reps have their heads up there asses . . . ever hear of a little thing called states rights? The federal government should not trump what's best for the individual states.
 
Top Bottom