- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- 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.
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.
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!
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!
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.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?
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?
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.
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.
So essentially, you are promoting it as a big federal pork barrel project for Alaska.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!
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.danarhea said:... ensuring that we will continue to pay through the nose for foreign oil ...
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.
It is real, but the amount of contribution from human activities is still questionable.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.
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.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?
UtahBill said:It is real, but the amount of contribution from human activities is still questionable.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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!
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.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.
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!
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?