U.S. OKs Expanded Oil Drilling in Alaska

[raildogg]

Another Petition to stop the greedy oil companies from destroying untouched land for hundreds of thousands of animals.

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: beyoku
U.S. OKs Expanded Oil Drilling in Alaska

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

To profit from this, invest in the corporations which will have the contracts to drill in Alaska. Also invest in the corporations that will be providing transportion of oil and gas to provide better infrastructure. There is money to be made in Bush's 2nd term!

 

[Engineer]

I think it's time for a different approach. Let them drill and hopefully, use the stuff up quicker. The quicker we can get rid of oil, the faster we can develope something that is renewable and lasting. Oil IS going to run out. Maybe SOONER is better than later? eh?


Maybe Halos is right, think like the masses and make as much as you can. Who cares about anything else as long as you can make the jack...

 

[MajorCaliber]

All you people that don't want to drill in Alaska, turn off your lights and computer now! Don't drive ever again!

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: MajorCaliber
All you people that don't want to drill in Alaska, turn off your lights and computer now! Don't drive ever again!

another person misled. ITS ONLY FOR 6 MONTHS! All people seem to agree on that

disturbing the life of hundreds of thousands of animals, ruining the land that has been untouched for billions of years is not worth it for 6 months of oil.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: MajorCaliber
All you people that don't want to drill in Alaska, turn off your lights and computer now! Don't drive ever again!

another person misled. ITS ONLY FOR 6 MONTHS! All people seem to agree on that

disturbing the life of hundreds of thousands of animals, ruining the land that has been untouched for billions of years is not worth it for 6 months of oil.

Misleading statement. SUch an oilfield would be open for years, if not decades.

ONce again, show proof any land or animals would be damaged. Also show any proof that current development has damaged any land or animals in alaska.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: MajorCaliber
All you people that don't want to drill in Alaska, turn off your lights and computer now! Don't drive ever again!

another person misled. ITS ONLY FOR 6 MONTHS! All people seem to agree on that

disturbing the life of hundreds of thousands of animals, ruining the land that has been untouched for billions of years is not worth it for 6 months of oil.

Misleading statement. SUch an oilfield would be open for years, if not decades.

ONce again, show proof any land or animals would be damaged. Also show any proof that current development has damaged any land or animals in alaska.

If you were shown proof, would it alter your opinion?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: MajorCaliber
All you people that don't want to drill in Alaska, turn off your lights and computer now! Don't drive ever again!

another person misled. ITS ONLY FOR 6 MONTHS! All people seem to agree on that

disturbing the life of hundreds of thousands of animals, ruining the land that has been untouched for billions of years is not worth it for 6 months of oil.

Misleading statement. SUch an oilfield would be open for years, if not decades.

ONce again, show proof any land or animals would be damaged. Also show any proof that current development has damaged any land or animals in alaska.

If you were shown proof, would it alter your opinion?

Yes it would. But it appears everyone is running away from offering such proof.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: MajorCaliber
All you people that don't want to drill in Alaska, turn off your lights and computer now! Don't drive ever again!

another person misled. ITS ONLY FOR 6 MONTHS! All people seem to agree on that

disturbing the life of hundreds of thousands of animals, ruining the land that has been untouched for billions of years is not worth it for 6 months of oil.

Misleading statement. SUch an oilfield would be open for years, if not decades.

ONce again, show proof any land or animals would be damaged. Also show any proof that current development has damaged any land or animals in alaska.

A US Government study said that drilling for oil there could harm many parts of the enviroment there. The roads and other things that will be built will be cause great disturbance to the caribou there.

The US Geological Study has concluded that drilling for oil there would have a very negative impact on the enviroment.

Of course, if you want to ignore intensive studies and believe in the propaganda of the oil companies and some of the Republican members of congress, then go ahead.

 

[raildogg]

Arctic oil drilling threatens Native Americans

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Arctic oil drilling threatens Native Americans

only carabou population has risen since oil development began in alaska....

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: MajorCaliber
All you people that don't want to drill in Alaska, turn off your lights and computer now! Don't drive ever again!

another person misled. ITS ONLY FOR 6 MONTHS! All people seem to agree on that

disturbing the life of hundreds of thousands of animals, ruining the land that has been untouched for billions of years is not worth it for 6 months of oil.

Misleading statement. SUch an oilfield would be open for years, if not decades.

ONce again, show proof any land or animals would be damaged. Also show any proof that current development has damaged any land or animals in alaska.

You're both right. There is enough Oil there to Supply the US for 6 months. However, it will take many years to pump it out.

Pumping it out now(or in the few years it'll take to setup the infrastructure) will barely be a blip on the statistical radar. It makes more sense to just build the infrastructure then cap the wells for sometime in the future.

 

[mwtgg]

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.....

raildogg made the claim, burden of proof is on him, not charrison.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

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.....

raildogg made the claim, burden of proof is on him, not charrison.

yeah read the entire thread first

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: mwtgg

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.....

raildogg made the claim, burden of proof is on him, not charrison.

yeah read the entire thread first

YOu still have not provided any credible proof yet.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: mwtgg

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.....

raildogg made the claim, burden of proof is on him, not charrison.

yeah read the entire thread first

YOu still have not provided any credible proof yet.

US Geological study. But of course you have your mind made up and nothing will change that. So you dont see it as proof.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: charrison
YOu still have not provided any credible proof yet.

US Geological study. But of course you have your mind made up and nothing will change that. So you dont see it as proof.

In March, just weeks before the Senate voted down an amendment that would have opened up part of the refuge to oil drilling, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released a 78-page wildlife assessment. The report says that the caribou could face substantial risk of decline under certain oil development scenarios for ANWR. A week later, at the request of the Department of the Interior, the USGS released another, two-page report that examined additional scenarios, under which the caribous? decline would be minimal. These reports launched the USGS and the caribou into a firestorm of criticism and concerns from both opponents and advocates of drilling ANWR.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: mwtgg

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.....

raildogg made the claim, burden of proof is on him, not charrison.

yeah read the entire thread first

YOu still have not provided any credible proof yet.

US Geological study. But of course you have your mind made up and nothing will change that. So you dont see it as proof.

Well the fact is, carabou population has increased sinced since oil fields have been developed in alaska. That is a fact.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: mwtgg

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.....

raildogg made the claim, burden of proof is on him, not charrison.

yeah read the entire thread first

YOu still have not provided any credible proof yet.

US Geological study. But of course you have your mind made up and nothing will change that. So you dont see it as proof.

Well the fact is, carabou population has increased sinced since oil fields have been developed in alaska. That is a fact.

there are other things to consider, along with the caribou. and just because they have increased in numbers doesnt mean they arent being disturbed

it lists other factors as well

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: mwtgg

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.....

raildogg made the claim, burden of proof is on him, not charrison.

yeah read the entire thread first

YOu still have not provided any credible proof yet.

US Geological study. But of course you have your mind made up and nothing will change that. So you dont see it as proof.

Well the fact is, carabou population has increased sinced since oil fields have been developed in alaska. That is a fact.

there are other things to consider, along with the caribou. and just because they have increased in numbers doesnt mean they arent being disturbed

it lists other factors as well

Yes, but in general the wildlife is left largely undisturbed as the oil feild footprint is relatively small.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: mwtgg

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.....

raildogg made the claim, burden of proof is on him, not charrison.

yeah read the entire thread first

YOu still have not provided any credible proof yet.

US Geological study. But of course you have your mind made up and nothing will change that. So you dont see it as proof.

Well the fact is, carabou population has increased sinced since oil fields have been developed in alaska. That is a fact.

Are they related in some way?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: mwtgg

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.....

raildogg made the claim, burden of proof is on him, not charrison.

yeah read the entire thread first

YOu still have not provided any credible proof yet.

US Geological study. But of course you have your mind made up and nothing will change that. So you dont see it as proof.

Well the fact is, carabou population has increased sinced since oil fields have been developed in alaska. That is a fact.

Are they related in some way?

I dont know if they are or not, but it is obviously not killing them off.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: mwtgg

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.....

raildogg made the claim, burden of proof is on him, not charrison.

yeah read the entire thread first

YOu still have not provided any credible proof yet.

US Geological study. But of course you have your mind made up and nothing will change that. So you dont see it as proof.

Well the fact is, carabou population has increased sinced since oil fields have been developed in alaska. That is a fact.

Are they related in some way?

I dont know if they are or not, but it is obviously not killing them off.

That might be because the wells are nowhere near the caribou?

Perhaps the Reserve is the cause?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: mwtgg

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.....

raildogg made the claim, burden of proof is on him, not charrison.

yeah read the entire thread first

YOu still have not provided any credible proof yet.

US Geological study. But of course you have your mind made up and nothing will change that. So you dont see it as proof.

Well the fact is, carabou population has increased sinced since oil fields have been developed in alaska. That is a fact.

Are they related in some way?

I dont know if they are or not, but it is obviously not killing them off.

That might be because the wells are nowhere near the caribou?

Quite possible, the footprint for drilling these days is very small.

Perhaps the Reserve is the cause?

One theory I have heard is is that the heat from the pipeline helps keep them warm in the winter. who knows?





they dont seem bothered here...

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: MajorCaliber
All you people that don't want to drill in Alaska, turn off your lights and computer now! Don't drive ever again!

You win the stupidity award. Permanently. Now go back into your hole and die.