http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nat...&en=48ee39b222f81833&ei=5094&partner=homepage Are we surprised that the vote came down as it did? At this point anyone who believes that the drilling will help with gas prices and do anything constructive towards easing the US' energy 'crisis' is living in a dream world, happily provided by the GOP and their PR machine. you almost have to admire that--it takes courage to be so consistently and willfully ignorant. Blackfish
"supporters of exploration argued that the oil is needed to help break America of its import habit." I learned in Mass Communications that you premis should be outlined in the first paragraph, you must have skipped to the second. Energy crisis? How bout' a need to not depend on other countries.
Too bad you are using seismic data from the 80's when you make that argument. All the stats you see trumpeted by the liberals on the impact of ANWR drilling come from the 1980's. There was an updated feasibility study done in 1998, I believe, but it also used the old, outdated technology from the 80's. Imagine how far computing has evolved since the 1980's. Oilfield technology has been on a similar trajectory. We don't know how much oil is there until we drill. Next door neighbor Prudhoe Bay is arguably the top oilfield in the nation, and wildly exceeded reserve estimates. ANWR is a remote, isolated tundra that is -40 below and frozen for 300 days a year. If there is a place to drill, this is it. It can and will be done in an environmentally friendly way which won't disturb the caribou elk that live there. Wildlife has actually increased in Prudhoe Bay since development began there. If you support cheaper energy, less dependence on foreign oil, environmentally friendly development, and a larger employment and tax base, then you should be in favor of ANWR. The Alaskans -- the people closest to the issues -- are overwhelmingly in favor of it. That should tell you something.
Taken from ANWR.org: "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." LIKELY
You must not have had your kool aid today. Drink up and it will make sense. I think he's referring to the "study" that shows the wildlife likes the heat given from the pipelines etc...
Too bad the same Republicans that voted to drill in ANWR won't vote to lift the drilling ban in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. I mean if we can drill in an environmentally safe manner in Alaska then why are they afraid that drilling off the western coast of Florida is going to trash the beaches and threaten tourism.
Actually, if you've been reading the news, you would know that Jeb Bush has recently reversed course on this topic and now supports drilling in the Gulf in areas as close as 125 miles off the coast of Florida. It's going to happen.
Actually, I have been reading the news. So why 125 miles? What are they afraid of? There is plenty of oil much closer to the coastline. If we can drill for oil within eyesight of the coast of Texas and Lousiana that why not Florida? Either you think drilling is environmentally unfriendly or it is safe. You can't have it both ways depending on if it is happening in your own backyard.
Not really sure what point you are trying to make with your confused argument, but basically it boils down to people being more influenced by aesthetics than animals. A sunbather doesn't want to look at a rig, whereas an elk frankly doesn't care, as evidenced by Prudhoe Bay. And by the way, parts of what Jeb Bush is now backing comes within 23 miles of Pensacola.
So, he's not running for reelection next time? Good to see you making actual posts, Trader_J, even if I disagree with them. Do you have a link regarding the new studies you mentioned? Keep D&D Civil.
You need to go back and read my Classics in case you forgot what an 'actual post' looks like. Back before the libpigs infested this forum like roaches taking to a dirty sewer, I put much more time into my posts.
"Back before the libpigs infested this forum like roaches taking to a dirty sewer" Well, I tried. Do you have that link? Keep D&D Civil.
I don't believe I said which data I was relying on. don't be so arrogant as to assume you know. My father, geologist and cartographer, has been involved in the mapping of the Artic and Canadian Yukon for the past 30 years for petrochemical analysis under contract from the Canadian, US and Russian governments. Let me see if I can break some of this down for you. Oil coming out of the sands of Arabia is cheap to refine compared to the oil that comes out of hard soil and rock like the Arctic. Even in the oilsands of Alberta where there is a tremendous 'rush' going on is a bit of a joke, energy wise, since from a strict kilojoule perspective it takes *more energy and cost to get it out and refine it* than is actually gained from the oil itself. It is, of course, a different kind of energy being used to get it out...electricity from coal, or hydro, etc. But the overall ratio equals a loss. Fabulous economics. That isn't to say a profit can't be made on the venture, since tax breaks and subsidies make it profitable for the companies, but from an energy perspective, it's a loss. The second thing is that oil is world commodity and the prices are set on the world market, not by the piddling amounts that the US may *or may not* be able to extract for it's own purposes in a few decades time. The world prices, which the US is still going to be victim to, will be unaffected by the Arctic drilling. Tell you what--you want to convince me it's a great thing economically speaking? Cut away all the corporate welfare and see if they could really make it work. I doubt it. The Alaskan people being in favor of it means nothing in regards to the environmental cost. They care about the jobs and the money. Talk to my cousin who lives in Anchorage. And if you really believe the glowing oil company reports that deer and bears and foxes are snuggling with the oilmen and romping merrily singing pretty songs about the whole thing, I have a great oceanfront property in Nevada to sell you too. Blackfish
If you were close to the issue, you'd know that the 1980's seismic data is the ONLY data out there right now. As a result, I could definitively conclude with full confidence that this was the data you were using. The rest of your post was completely tangential to the point. I know how prices are set, I know that oil from Saudi is much cheaper to extract. I also know that dealing with a cartel is a pain in the rear -- especially a cartel with the political risk of OPEC. If we can lessen our dependence on the Arabs, while at the same time creating jobs and tax revenues for the USA, then the measure is worthy of support.
