House Drops Arctic Drilling From Bill

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hey! Let's build some oil refineries in the middle of Yellowstone Park and slap a Wal-Mart and some apartment buildings there too. It's only a few hundred acres out of two million, right?

Are you planning on visiting ANWR anytime soon? Or do you want to keep those ~2000 acres pristine just for the sake of doing it?

I love the people who want to save the ANWR "just because".

Or are we drilling "just because?" I guess a large part of that "because" would be to primarily benefit bacon-fat dripping Alaska and Sen. "Pork pie" Stevens as it does next to nothing to benefit the national energy situation.

I must have missed the record oil prices over the past 6 months, has anybody else? Or was that just my imagination?

Wasn't warring in Iraq going to drop our gas prices as claimed by other conservatives? THAT DIDNT HAPPEN DID IT?

So believing that drilling a new place for oil is make gases cheaper is stupid. It doesnt matter how much we drill, as long as there are fewer gas processing plants gas it's not going to go back 90's level. Besides we should think of an alternative solution to getting Oil like... i dunno ALTERNATIVE FUELS so we can say a big "fvck you!" to the middle east.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hey! Let's build some oil refineries in the middle of Yellowstone Park and slap a Wal-Mart and some apartment buildings there too. It's only a few hundred acres out of two million, right?

Are you planning on visiting ANWR anytime soon? Or do you want to keep those ~2000 acres pristine just for the sake of doing it?

I love the people who want to save the ANWR "just because".

I know, it is kind of a funny thing to watch. What makes the land in ANWR worth saving but the farm fields being goggled up south of Chicago not? Both are wilderness that will be developed for the use of this nation.

The loss of farmland everywhere is a national tragedy. Beautiful and productive farms are being lost in the East also; upstate NY, Southern and Western Jersey and Eastern PA as just one example. These are provide and represent irreplaceable historical and cultural heritage. Driving by the farms, orchards and cow pastures is one of the highlights of my day.

Seeing them eradicated from the modern landscape is disheartening, and I worry in thier absence people will lose the true nature of America and a huge part of our cultural roots. So many people don't even know what 4-H is. 🙁

 

[Genx87]

Wasn't warring in Iraq going to drop our gas prices as claimed by other conservatives? THAT DIDNT HAPPEN DID IT?

Huh? I dont recall anybody saying that.

So believing that drilling a new place for oil is make gases cheaper is stupid. It doesnt matter how much we drill, as long as there are fewer gas processing plants gas it's not going to go back 90's level. Besides we should think of an alternative solution to getting Oil like... i dunno ALTERNATIVE FUELS so we can say a big "fvck you!" to the middle east.

We currently import about 2 million barrels of ME oil a day. This site is supposed to ramp up in about 10 years to 1 million barrels a day. This isnt about erasing the need for foreign oil but about staying ahead of our own demand curve. In 10 years instead of getting 360 million barrels out of there we are forced into the open market which will have increased pressure not only from our own demand but from countries like China and India.

It is about how you want to tackle the problem. Do you want to stay ahead and remain competitive, or think in the near term and allow ourselves to fall behind.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The OP in his leftist diatribe has forgotten that the Senate has to consider it now, and they have written it in to their budget. So it ain't over just yet 😀

Exactly.

My quote from the other thread:

The plan at this point is to reinsert it in the final bill. It is still part of the senate budget so when the house and senate representatives meet to finalize the comprimise bill it could still be in there.

Still... the house has passed this so many times. They sure picked a great time to get all weak kneed. And they don't even have to be worried now. One poll reported by a paper up here shows that nearly 60% of Americans (not just Alaskans - that would be over 80%) wants ANWR opened.

There were two choices here. One, Don Young had a contingent of 40 congressmen who were prepared to vote against any budget that didn't contain ANWR drilling language. This would have effectively killed the budget altogether and started the process over... delaying any drilling language till next next year at the earliest.

Plan B, the plan they just used, was to allow the budget to pass as is (without ANWR) and then reinsert it into the final compromise budget when the joint committee meets to hash out the differences between the house and senate version of the budget.

So to all of you who are gloating right now... it ain't over yet. 😉

 

[Orignal Earl]

Canadian Environment Minister Stephane Dion has said the plan will disrupt a caribou herd that migrates through the Yukon to the refuge.

He said that would make life harder for aboriginals who depend on the herd for food

It looks like this would affect some aboriginal people
We are not just talking about trees

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Canadian Environment Minister Stephane Dion has said the plan will disrupt a caribou herd that migrates through the Yukon to the refuge.

He said that would make life harder for aboriginals who depend on the herd for food

It looks like this would affect some aboriginal people
We are not just talking about trees

This argument comes up every time we open a new field. It has yet to come true. All of the doom & gloom prophecies concerning the carribou have not only turned out to be false, they have been 180 degrees out of whack.

The best example of this was the belief that the pipeline would kill off the Porkupine carribou herd. Not only did it not kill off the herd... in just under 20 years the heard tripled in size from ~8000 animals to just over 24,000 animals.

They also thought the pipeline would disrupt migration patterns. Again, nope. Carribou walk under it, over it, around it... they hold their calves up against it in the winter to keep them warm.

What's more, the herd in question doesn't hang out on the coast. They are pretty far inland, where drilling isn't going to happen.

(And there isn't a tree within 100 miles of where the drilling is going to happen.)

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Are you planning on visiting ANWR anytime soon? Or do you want to keep those ~2000 acres pristine just for the sake of doing it?

I love the people who want to save the ANWR "just because".

Or are we drilling "just because?" I guess a large part of that "because" would be to primarily benefit bacon-fat dripping Alaska and Sen. "Pork pie" Stevens as it does next to nothing to benefit the national energy situation.

No, we are drilling for a year of oil. You can spout your conservation rhetoric and continue to not follow it yourself, but there is no reason you can't have both alternative research and oil drilling at the same time.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I know, it is kind of a funny thing to watch. What makes the land in ANWR worth saving but the farm fields being goggled up south of Chicago not? Both are wilderness that will be developed for the use of this nation.

Wait, so anwr AND farmland south of a MAJOR metro area are both "wilderness?" Jebus *effing* christ, did you get this from Rush, maybe Hannity, or O'Rielly? Wait, probably all three, eh? Land that has been developed by man for the cultivation of crops is not wilderness OR a National Park. Sorry to burst your buble like that kiddo.

 

[pinion9]

I live in Alaska, so I feel I can speak to this. How many of you have ever visited ANWR? How many of you will ever go there? We are talking about a 19 million acre refuge. You can fit 10 states into ANWR. We are talking about using 2000 acres, or 1/100th of 1%, for drilling. Drilling ANWR would be great. Too bad that you people, who have never seen the near barren pseudo-wasteland, prevent good things from happening.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87
I know, it is kind of a funny thing to watch. What makes the land in ANWR worth saving but the farm fields being goggled up south of Chicago not? Both are wilderness that will be developed for the use of this nation.

Wait, so anwr AND farmland south of a MAJOR metro area are both "wilderness?" Jebus *effing* christ, did you get this from Rush, maybe Hannity, or O'Rielly? Wait, probably all three, eh? Land that has been developed by man for the cultivation of crops is not wilderness OR a National Park. Sorry to burst your buble like that kiddo.

What makes the land within a "national" park so special? Because some special interest group lobbied enough in congress to get it cordoned off?

Your logic breaks down bigtime.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Strk
ANWR was just a band aid anyways. We need a real alternative to oil.

:thumbsup:

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Canadian Environment Minister Stephane Dion has said the plan will disrupt a caribou herd that migrates through the Yukon to the refuge.

He said that would make life harder for aboriginals who depend on the herd for food

It looks like this would affect some aboriginal people
We are not just talking about trees

There are about 200 people that live on ANWR. 200 people in 19 million acres. That is about 100,000 acres per person. They won't notice the oil companies there. If they do, F THEM!

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Legend
Can an environmentalist explain something to me. Would oil drilling really affect more than 5% of the Alaskan wilderness?

I'm for alternate energy research, but I'm trying to understand why not to drill oil in the meantime.

For what we might get out of there, NO amount of destruction of the wilderness is worth it. If there was enough to supply us for 100 years, sure, sounds good, but do it right.
That's not the case though. It's a very small amount of oil according to what I've read.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87
I know, it is kind of a funny thing to watch. What makes the land in ANWR worth saving but the farm fields being goggled up south of Chicago not? Both are wilderness that will be developed for the use of this nation.

Wait, so anwr AND farmland south of a MAJOR metro area are both "wilderness?" Jebus *effing* christ, did you get this from Rush, maybe Hannity, or O'Rielly? Wait, probably all three, eh? Land that has been developed by man for the cultivation of crops is not wilderness OR a National Park. Sorry to burst your buble like that kiddo.

What makes the land within a "national" park so special? Because some special interest group lobbied enough in congress to get it cordoned off?

Your logic breaks down bigtime.

So, your logic is: to hell with it all? Mine it, drill it, pave over the damn thing, rape it all you want. Im not going to have kids, but my sister has kids and they may have kids.

BTW, the land within a National Park is special because Scientists (biologists, geologists, ecologists, etc) have deemed it so. What is so special about your black heart? Maybe we can just take it out and see what happens? Afterall, its only trained professionals claiming that it does anything, eh?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Legend
Can an environmentalist explain something to me. Would oil drilling really affect more than 5% of the Alaskan wilderness?

I'm for alternate energy research, but I'm trying to understand why not to drill oil in the meantime.

For what we might get out of there, NO amount of destruction of the wilderness is worth it. If there was enough to supply us for 100 years, sure, sounds good, but do it right.
That's not the case though. It's a very small amount of oil according to what I've read.

We have gone over this already and Conjur provided information this should provide us with 1 million barrels of oil a day for 26 years.

 

[arsbanned]

Make it a hundred and you gotcher salf a dealllll.

Originally posted by: Pabster
The OP in his leftist diatribe has forgotten that the Senate has to consider it now, and they have written it in to their budget. So it ain't over just yet 😀

Hence my post.

Though it is sweet to shove the gloating of the Right wingers who want to destroy that area for a tiny amount of oil back in their faces, the risk is not over yet.

Gotcha covered. :thumbsup: 😛
I'm on the phone to Senator Collin's office right now. :thumbsup: You know, one of the moderates holding you wackos back from the outright destruction of the U.S.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87
I know, it is kind of a funny thing to watch. What makes the land in ANWR worth saving but the farm fields being goggled up south of Chicago not? Both are wilderness that will be developed for the use of this nation.

Wait, so anwr AND farmland south of a MAJOR metro area are both "wilderness?" Jebus *effing* christ, did you get this from Rush, maybe Hannity, or O'Rielly? Wait, probably all three, eh? Land that has been developed by man for the cultivation of crops is not wilderness OR a National Park. Sorry to burst your buble like that kiddo.

What makes the land within a "national" park so special? Because some special interest group lobbied enough in congress to get it cordoned off?

Your logic breaks down bigtime.

So, your logic is: to hell with it all? Mine it, drill it, pave over the damn thing, rape it all you want. Im not going to have kids, but my sister has kids and they may have kids.

BTW, the land within a National Park is special because Scientists (biologists, geologists, ecologists, etc) have deemed it so. What is so special about your black heart? Maybe we can just take it out and see what happens? Afterall, its only trained professionals claiming that it does anything, eh?

Oh, I didnt realize scientists made laws regarding our national parks. That is interesting stuff right there.

My point is quite simple. What about ANWR makes it not worth touching? We have no problem tearing up millions of acres of farmland and forest around our urban areas each year for expansion and forcing the wildlife off of it. Yet we have a problem developing 2000 acres in a remote wilderness park 3 people visit a year and 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of American will never see and I bet 98% doesnt even know where it is on a map?

You point is obviously pitted with lots of anger about land you will never see.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Legend
Can an environmentalist explain something to me. Would oil drilling really affect more than 5% of the Alaskan wilderness?

I'm for alternate energy research, but I'm trying to understand why not to drill oil in the meantime.

For what we might get out of there, NO amount of destruction of the wilderness is worth it. If there was enough to supply us for 100 years, sure, sounds good, but do it right.
That's not the case though. It's a very small amount of oil according to what I've read.

It is going to take these big oil companies billions of dollars and several years to even get a drop of oil out of ANWR. They are greedy SOBs as well. Do you really think these companies are willing to put out that kind of money and time for a miniscule amount of oil? I don't think so. There is plenty of oil in the area. Have you ever visited a site like is proposed? It DOES NOT DESTROY WILDERNESS! As a matter of fact, the wild animals flourish around these areas.

I propose that all oil from ANWR be labeled as such, that way you won't have to buy any.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hey! Let's build some oil refineries in the middle of Yellowstone Park and slap a Wal-Mart and some apartment buildings there too. It's only a few hundred acres out of two million, right?

Are you planning on visiting ANWR anytime soon? Or do you want to keep those ~2000 acres pristine just for the sake of doing it?

I love the people who want to save the ANWR "just because".

Yeah, you geniuses keep believing that.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87
I know, it is kind of a funny thing to watch. What makes the land in ANWR worth saving but the farm fields being goggled up south of Chicago not? Both are wilderness that will be developed for the use of this nation.

Wait, so anwr AND farmland south of a MAJOR metro area are both "wilderness?" Jebus *effing* christ, did you get this from Rush, maybe Hannity, or O'Rielly? Wait, probably all three, eh? Land that has been developed by man for the cultivation of crops is not wilderness OR a National Park. Sorry to burst your buble like that kiddo.

What makes the land within a "national" park so special? Because some special interest group lobbied enough in congress to get it cordoned off?

Your logic breaks down bigtime.

So, your logic is: to hell with it all? Mine it, drill it, pave over the damn thing, rape it all you want. Im not going to have kids, but my sister has kids and they may have kids.

BTW, the land within a National Park is special because Scientists (biologists, geologists, ecologists, etc) have deemed it so. What is so special about your black heart? Maybe we can just take it out and see what happens? Afterall, its only trained professionals claiming that it does anything, eh?

Oh, I didnt realize scientists made laws regarding our national parks. That is interesting stuff right there.

My point is quite simple. What about ANWR makes it not worth touching? We have no problem tearing up millions of acres of farmland and forest around our urban areas each year for expansion and forcing the wildlife off of it. Yet we have a problem developing 2000 acres in a remote wilderness park 3 people visit a year and 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of American will never see and I bet 98% doesnt even know where it is on a map?

You point is obviously pitted with lots of anger about land you will never see.

Your myopia and the right-wing myopia has no bounds. Were you part of the "Regan/ME" generation? Take all you can get NOW, to hell with the future...snort it, drink it, spend it, inject it, take it, *eff* it.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Legend
Can an environmentalist explain something to me. Would oil drilling really affect more than 5% of the Alaskan wilderness?

I'm for alternate energy research, but I'm trying to understand why not to drill oil in the meantime.

For what we might get out of there, NO amount of destruction of the wilderness is worth it. If there was enough to supply us for 100 years, sure, sounds good, but do it right.
That's not the case though. It's a very small amount of oil according to what I've read.

It is going to take these big oil companies billions of dollars and several years to even get a drop of oil out of ANWR. They are greedy SOBs as well. Do you really think these companies are willing to put out that kind of money and time for a miniscule amount of oil? I don't think so. There is plenty of oil in the area. Have you ever visited a site like is proposed? It DOES NOT DESTROY WILDERNESS! As a matter of fact, the wild animals flourish around these areas.

I propose that all oil from ANWR be labeled as such, that way you won't have to buy any.

Bullsh!t. Big oil has LOTS of money to burn, why not throw a few billion in there to get a little oil out. Of course they would.
Your last little dig assumes this thing is going to go through. We'll see. If it's anything like the rest of Bush's dream list, it ain't goin no fvckin place. Oh, except for the war. That continues to go to hell in a handbasket. :thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87
I know, it is kind of a funny thing to watch. What makes the land in ANWR worth saving but the farm fields being goggled up south of Chicago not? Both are wilderness that will be developed for the use of this nation.

Wait, so anwr AND farmland south of a MAJOR metro area are both "wilderness?" Jebus *effing* christ, did you get this from Rush, maybe Hannity, or O'Rielly? Wait, probably all three, eh? Land that has been developed by man for the cultivation of crops is not wilderness OR a National Park. Sorry to burst your buble like that kiddo.

What makes the land within a "national" park so special? Because some special interest group lobbied enough in congress to get it cordoned off?

Your logic breaks down bigtime.

So, your logic is: to hell with it all? Mine it, drill it, pave over the damn thing, rape it all you want. Im not going to have kids, but my sister has kids and they may have kids.

BTW, the land within a National Park is special because Scientists (biologists, geologists, ecologists, etc) have deemed it so. What is so special about your black heart? Maybe we can just take it out and see what happens? Afterall, its only trained professionals claiming that it does anything, eh?

Oh, I didnt realize scientists made laws regarding our national parks. That is interesting stuff right there.

My point is quite simple. What about ANWR makes it not worth touching? We have no problem tearing up millions of acres of farmland and forest around our urban areas each year for expansion and forcing the wildlife off of it. Yet we have a problem developing 2000 acres in a remote wilderness park 3 people visit a year and 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of American will never see and I bet 98% doesnt even know where it is on a map?

You point is obviously pitted with lots of anger about land you will never see.

Your myopia and the right-wing myopia has no bounds. Were you part of the "Regan/ME" generation? Take all you can get NOW, to hell with the future...snort it, drink it, spend it, inject it, take it, *eff* it.

And what if I am? What does that have to do with this discussion about why we should or shoudnt drill in ANWR?

I think your idea that land around a city is not worth as much as land in a remote wilderness to be hypocritial and lacks reasoning

 

[Jadow]

the america people seem to want $3 per gallon gas, at least the politicians they elect do.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Legend
Can an environmentalist explain something to me. Would oil drilling really affect more than 5% of the Alaskan wilderness?

I'm for alternate energy research, but I'm trying to understand why not to drill oil in the meantime.

For what we might get out of there, NO amount of destruction of the wilderness is worth it. If there was enough to supply us for 100 years, sure, sounds good, but do it right.
That's not the case though. It's a very small amount of oil according to what I've read.

It is going to take these big oil companies billions of dollars and several years to even get a drop of oil out of ANWR. They are greedy SOBs as well. Do you really think these companies are willing to put out that kind of money and time for a miniscule amount of oil? I don't think so. There is plenty of oil in the area. Have you ever visited a site like is proposed? It DOES NOT DESTROY WILDERNESS! As a matter of fact, the wild animals flourish around these areas.

I propose that all oil from ANWR be labeled as such, that way you won't have to buy any.

Bullsh!t. Big oil has LOTS of money to burn, why not throw a few billion in there to get a little oil out. Of course they would.
Your last little dig assumes this thing is going to go through. We'll see. If it's anything like the rest of Bush's dream list, it ain't goin no fvckin place. Oh, except for the war. That continues to go to hell in a handbasket. :thumbsup:

26 years @ 1 million barrels a day.

No small amount of oil.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87
I know, it is kind of a funny thing to watch. What makes the land in ANWR worth saving but the farm fields being goggled up south of Chicago not? Both are wilderness that will be developed for the use of this nation.

Wait, so anwr AND farmland south of a MAJOR metro area are both "wilderness?" Jebus *effing* christ, did you get this from Rush, maybe Hannity, or O'Rielly? Wait, probably all three, eh? Land that has been developed by man for the cultivation of crops is not wilderness OR a National Park. Sorry to burst your buble like that kiddo.

What makes the land within a "national" park so special? Because some special interest group lobbied enough in congress to get it cordoned off?

Your logic breaks down bigtime.

So, your logic is: to hell with it all? Mine it, drill it, pave over the damn thing, rape it all you want. Im not going to have kids, but my sister has kids and they may have kids.

BTW, the land within a National Park is special because Scientists (biologists, geologists, ecologists, etc) have deemed it so. What is so special about your black heart? Maybe we can just take it out and see what happens? Afterall, its only trained professionals claiming that it does anything, eh?

Oh, I didnt realize scientists made laws regarding our national parks. That is interesting stuff right there.

My point is quite simple. What about ANWR makes it not worth touching? We have no problem tearing up millions of acres of farmland and forest around our urban areas each year for expansion and forcing the wildlife off of it. Yet we have a problem developing 2000 acres in a remote wilderness park 3 people visit a year and 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of American will never see and I bet 98% doesnt even know where it is on a map?

You point is obviously pitted with lots of anger about land you will never see.

Your myopia and the right-wing myopia has no bounds. Were you part of the "Regan/ME" generation? Take all you can get NOW, to hell with the future...snort it, drink it, spend it, inject it, take it, *eff* it.

And what if I am? What does that have to do with this discussion about why we should or shoudnt drill in ANWR?

I think your idea that land around a city is not worth as much as land in a remote wilderness to be hypocritial and lacks reasoning

You dont know anything about logistics or what constitutes pristine land do you?