U.S. OKs Expanded Oil Drilling in Alaska

[beyoku]

They couldnt wait till they got thier grubby little hands on this land.

"U.S. : Demands better obesity drugs to fight a growning trend"

How bout we consider this source and work on creating more efficient cars for once. I sick of the SAME make and model of SUVs that just get bigger and bigger each year.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...go_ca_st_pe/alaska_oil

 

[raildogg]

I never supported drilling for oil in Alaska. The quantity of oil is not enough to justify destroying the land for many many animals who live there. This is where Bush is definately wrong. I have more to add, later.

 

[Beowulf]

Sure having more efficient cars would be nice but whats wrong with an SUV especially if you can afford to buy gas with no problem.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I would support drilling there in times of more need or emergency. Today is not that time.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Beowulf
Sure having more efficient cars would be nice but whats wrong with an SUV especially if you can afford to buy gas with no problem.

Because you have to invade other countries and rape the environment to support their drinking habits.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Beowulf
Sure having more efficient cars would be nice but whats wrong with an SUV especially if you can afford to buy gas with no problem.

Supply

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Beowulf
Sure having more efficient cars would be nice but whats wrong with an SUV especially if you can afford to buy gas with no problem.

I would recommend people to not buy SUV's. They are a huge pile of !@$#. 8 gallons?

good thing Ford cancelled the Excursion. Now only if other companies can cancel their humogous SUV's that nake our enemies stronger. Every SUV you buy, the enemies of America get stronger. Remember that.

 

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Beowulf
Sure having more efficient cars would be nice but whats wrong with an SUV especially if you can afford to buy gas with no problem.

Because you have to invade other countries and rape the environment to support their drinking habits.

I like my escalade.🙂

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: raildogg
I never supported drilling for oil in Alaska. The quantity of oil is not enough to justify destroying the land for many many animals who live there. This is where Bush is definately wrong. I have more to add, later.

Proof that the land will be destroyed.

 

[raildogg]

Everyone must sign this Petition to stop the drilling for oil in Alaska

 

[maddogchen]

The problem I have with this is that they only think there is oil there and they also don't know where it is. Its almost like going fishing. And while you're doing it, your disturbing the water. In this case the local environment.

 

[ReiAyanami]

let's open up the grand canyon. nature's already giving us a head start!

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg
I never supported drilling for oil in Alaska. The quantity of oil is not enough to justify destroying the land for many many animals who live there. This is where Bush is definately wrong. I have more to add, later.

Proof that the land will be destroyed.

Just step outside and look around you. Can't you see the destruction caused by our existence
?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Everyone must sign this Petition to stop the drilling for oil in Alaska

😀

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg
I never supported drilling for oil in Alaska. The quantity of oil is not enough to justify destroying the land for many many animals who live there. This is where Bush is definately wrong. I have more to add, later.

Proof that the land will be destroyed.

crickets....

 

[shrumpage]

As a resident of the state in questions, I support drilling in ANWAR.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg
I never supported drilling for oil in Alaska. The quantity of oil is not enough to justify destroying the land for many many animals who live there. This is where Bush is definately wrong. I have more to add, later.

Proof that the land will be destroyed.

We don't need it. Majority of the analysis says that it will provide up to 6 months of petroleum supply. But will end up destroying the untouched wilderness there.

The 19 million-acre land you point to have so many animals there that surely will be effected by this. For what? for only 6 months of oil, it is not worth it. It contains the caribou, moose, wolves, foxes grizzly bears and polar bears and a whole lot of other animals. If they get the opportunity to drill there, other untouched areas around it are at danger.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Beowulf
Sure having more efficient cars would be nice but whats wrong with an SUV especially if you can afford to buy gas with no problem.

I would recommend people to not buy SUV's. They are a huge pile of !@$#. 8 gallons?

good thing Ford cancelled the Excursion. Now only if other companies can cancel their humogous SUV's that nake our enemies stronger. Every SUV you buy, the enemies of America get stronger. Remember that.

Uhh, thats one of the most ludacris statements I've ever heard.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
As a resident of the state in questions, I support drilling in ANWAR.

of course, you'll get $2,000, along with all the other people who live there for it

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg
I never supported drilling for oil in Alaska. The quantity of oil is not enough to justify destroying the land for many many animals who live there. This is where Bush is definately wrong. I have more to add, later.

Proof that the land will be destroyed.

We don't need it. Majority of the analysis says that it will provide up to 6 months of petroleum supply. But will end up destroying the untouched wilderness there.

The 19 million-acre land you point to have so many animals there that surely will be effected by this. For what? for only 6 months of oil, it is not worth it. It contains the caribou, moose, wolves, foxes grizzly bears and polar bears and a whole lot of other animals. If they get the opportunity to drill there, other untouched areas around it are at danger.

2 Billion barrels only a 6 month supply???

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg
I never supported drilling for oil in Alaska. The quantity of oil is not enough to justify destroying the land for many many animals who live there. This is where Bush is definately wrong. I have more to add, later.

Proof that the land will be destroyed.

crickets....

Proof that the drilling will NOT harm the environment there?

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Beowulf
Sure having more efficient cars would be nice but whats wrong with an SUV especially if you can afford to buy gas with no problem.

I would recommend people to not buy SUV's. They are a huge pile of !@$#. 8 gallons?

good thing Ford cancelled the Excursion. Now only if other companies can cancel their humogous SUV's that nake our enemies stronger. Every SUV you buy, the enemies of America get stronger. Remember that.

Uhh, thats one of the most ludacris statements I've ever heard.

tell me how? Please do

We should do all our best to support our country to use less energy, and getting people to buy more energy efficient cars is a great first step.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg
I never supported drilling for oil in Alaska. The quantity of oil is not enough to justify destroying the land for many many animals who live there. This is where Bush is definately wrong. I have more to add, later.

Proof that the land will be destroyed.

crickets....

Proof that the drilling will NOT harm the environment there?

crickets.....

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg
I never supported drilling for oil in Alaska. The quantity of oil is not enough to justify destroying the land for many many animals who live there. This is where Bush is definately wrong. I have more to add, later.

Proof that the land will be destroyed.

We don't need it. Majority of the analysis says that it will provide up to 6 months of petroleum supply. But will end up destroying the untouched wilderness there.

The 19 million-acre land you point to have so many animals there that surely will be effected by this. For what? for only 6 months of oil, it is not worth it. It contains the caribou, moose, wolves, foxes grizzly bears and polar bears and a whole lot of other animals. If they get the opportunity to drill there, other untouched areas around it are at danger.

Spoken like a true left wing environut.


of that 19million acres only about 2000 acres would be needed to do the developement. Care so show me what damage has been done to alaska with current oil developement.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg
I never supported drilling for oil in Alaska. The quantity of oil is not enough to justify destroying the land for many many animals who live there. This is where Bush is definately wrong. I have more to add, later.

Proof that the land will be destroyed.

crickets....

Proof that the drilling will NOT harm the environment there?

crickets.....

I only have to point to current development that has and is occuring in alaska.