US senate ready to open drilling in Alaska wildlife refuge

[godmare]

Originally posted by: Bluga
And they should start clear cutting the forest too.

Come again?

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Its going to destroy our entire continent.🙁

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: godmare

Originally posted by: Bluga
And they should start clear cutting the forest too.

Come again?

Shhh. We're responding to him with facts and figures and he's coming back with non-specific rhetoric.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Beau

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Sweet! Maybe gas prices will come down and I can buy that SUV afterall.

It will take 7 to 10 years before any oil is produced.

although the refuge oil won't to available for three to four years even if Congress gives the go-ahead

😉

osec.doc.gov
---
While the opening of the ANWR would not in and of itself solve U S . oil concerns, especially those related to foreign dependence, added resources would undoubtedly be significant. Yet,---' such a development program could take seven to ten years to implement (although industry optimists claim that a emergency effort could reduce the lag to three years) and would not free the United States ­from the cyclical energy supply dilemmas that keep recurring.
----

Every report I had seen on this has stated the seven to ten years of development time, even goverment reports.

 

[godmare]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Shhh. We're responding to him with facts and figures and he's coming back with non-specific rhetoric.

lol, guess I'm a little slow on the uptake today 🙂

 

[godmare]

Originally posted by: etech
osec.doc.gov
---
While the opening of the ANWR would not in and of itself solve U S . oil concerns, especially those related to foreign dependence, added resources would undoubtedly be significant. Yet,---' such a development program could take seven to ten years to implement (although industry optimists claim that a emergency effort could reduce the lag to three years) and would not free the United States ­from the cyclical energy supply dilemmas that keep recurring.
----

Every report I had seen on this has stated the seven to ten years of development time, even goverment reports.

Yes, but it's still a viable issue. Our fossil fuel issues are ongoing.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: etech
Every report I had seen on this has stated the seven to ten years of development time, even goverment reports.

Just because it takes time to develop is not a reason to develop it. If your city wants to build a subway or a light-rail or some other form of public transportation to alleviate traffic and pollution but it will take 10-15 years to build, do you not build it?

 

[DWray]

Yes, it may very well take 7-10 years for any oil to be produced. Forget the oil. Forget that it will reduce our dependence on foreign imports so we won't need to trade, "blood for oil". Forget the positive net change to our trade deficit. Jobs will be produced immediately! It has been estimated that opening up ANWR for oil drilling could produce over 700,000 jobs!!!

And that isn't just the guys in hardhats with wrenches. It's health care workers, teachers, government, food service, construction, transportation, etc.

If I'm the President with a lousy economy, and a situation presents itself where not only can I add tens of billions of dollars to federal budget, but also put hundreds of thousands of people to work without raising taxes? Just for opening up 2000 acres of land in a 20 million acre refuge? Why is there even a debate?!?!

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

save the snowy owls!

 

[Queasy]

On DWray's line of thinking: Top Ten Reasons to Drill in ANWR

 

[etech]

Uh guys, I support opening up ANWR and have for a long time.

The long development time is a good reason to start now IMHO. We don't know when we will need that resource available. We do know that if the process isn't started that it will be years before it is available.

 

[godmare]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
save the snowy owls!

What a vacuous statement, with rolling eyes to boot. if that's the most indightful comment you have for this thread, just move on.

 

[Pliablemoose]

The environmental arguments against production are BS, I worked for 2 major oil companies in the 70's & 80's & back then we were anal about not disturbing the environment.

You can't tell they've even been there when they're done.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The environmental arguments against production are BS, I worked for 2 major oil companies in the 70's & 80's & back then we were anal about not disturbing the environment.

You can't tell they've even been there when they're done.

Aww c'mon Pliable. Evvverybody knows that the oil company in the Steven Segal movie 'Fire Down Below' is exactly how every oil company conducts business. 😉

 

[desy]

The lies
It won't reduce dependance on foreign oil, there just isn't enough there.
It creates jobs, there isn't an unemployment problem in Alaska ,most people don't want to live there as it is too damn cold, and from the lower 48, you don't know what cold is.
There is no evironemnetal impact, sorry untrue, I'm not too worried about natures animals they will rebound but they are still cleaning up from the Exxon Valdez and up there would be worse due to the cold , things just don't break down quick enough and that is the real problem

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: DWray
Yes, it may very well take 7-10 years for any oil to be produced. Forget the oil. Forget that it will reduce our dependence on foreign imports so we won't need to trade, "blood for oil". Forget the positive net change to our trade deficit. Jobs will be produced immediately! It has been estimated that opening up ANWR for oil drilling could produce over 700,000 jobs!!!

And that isn't just the guys in hardhats with wrenches. It's health care workers, teachers, government, food service, construction, transportation, etc.

If I'm the President with a lousy economy, and a situation presents itself where not only can I add tens of billions of dollars to federal budget, but also put hundreds of thousands of people to work without raising taxes? Just for opening up 2000 acres of land in a 20 million acre refuge? Why is there even a debate?!?!

Because of morons like tscenter who sit afar in in chair from where any of this will be going on thinking he knows what is best for the country and alaska. Way to go tscenter, hope you're proud of yourself. 🙂

KK

 

[DWray]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The environmental arguments against production are BS, I worked for 2 major oil companies in the 70's & 80's & back then we were anal about not disturbing the environment.

You can't tell they've even been there when they're done.

I believe it 100%. They know that even the slightest damage done is going to be the leading story for weeks on every channel, newspaper & magazine. I would imagine the environment is even in better shape at most sites after they've been there.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The environmental arguments against production are BS, I worked for 2 major oil companies in the 70's & 80's & back then we were anal about not disturbing the environment.

You can't tell they've even been there when they're done.

Aww c'mon Pliable. Evvverybody knows that the oil company in the Steven Segal movie 'Fire Down Below' is exactly how every oil company conducts business. 😉

lol, i laughed out loud at that one!🙂

 

[Pliablemoose]

The vehicles they use in places like Alaska are like props from Sci Fi Movies.

I was in a helicoptor crew in the Colorado Rockies, and we flew fixed wing to the site in Wyoming... pretty trippy way to start the day, we'd all get stoned as hell before the rides, & drink on the aircraft...

Actually, upon reflection, I did piss on that indian burial mound🙁

 

[Ready]

if they drill for oil there, who does the oil belong to? The government?

 

[drewshin]

prudence says that if you have a shortage of something, you dont go out and try to get more of it, just so that you are more hard hit at the next shortage...you should slowly wean yourself and slow down consumption to a rate that is more manageable.

 

[tcsenter]

Because of morons like tscenter who sit afar in in chair from where any of this will be going on thinking he knows what is best for the country and alaska. Way to go tscenter, hope you're proud of yourself.

If this little chunk of tundra contained like 100+ billion barrels of oil, an amount which would take us more than a couple years to burn through all the Ford Valdez and Cadillac Titanic SUV's which get a whopping 3 miles per gallon LESS than a 60's era muscle car, I'd say let's have at it.

Most likely it contains contaminants and will be shipped off to Japan, like the rest of the oil we produce in the US.

It has been estimated that opening up ANWR for oil drilling could produce over 700,000 jobs!!!

For ten years or less, until the oil runs out.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: DWray

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The environmental arguments against production are BS, I worked for 2 major oil companies in the 70's & 80's & back then we were anal about not disturbing the environment.

You can't tell they've even been there when they're done.

I believe it 100%. They know that even the slightest damage done is going to be the leading story for weeks on every channel, newspaper & magazine. I would imagine the environment is even in better shape at most sites after they've been there.

I expect it would be all over the tv - but at the end of the day the "we need oil" arguement would win. I'm not as sure as you that it would have no effect. I can't imagine the environment neing "better shape" afterwards (whatever that means?).

Andy

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Because of morons like tscenter who sit afar in in chair from where any of this will be going on thinking he knows what is best for the country and alaska. Way to go tscenter, hope you're proud of yourself.

If this little chunk of tundra contained like 100+ billion barrels of oil, an amount which would take us more than a couple years to burn through all the Ford Valdez and Cadillac Titanic SUV's which get a whopping 3 miles per gallon LESS than a 60's era muscle car, I'd say let's have at it.

Most likely it contains contaminants and will be shipped off to Japan, like the rest of the oil we produce in the US.

It has been estimated that opening up ANWR for oil drilling could produce over 700,000 jobs!!!

For ten years or less, until the oil runs out.

contaminants? What cantaminants are you talking about?

Oil from Alaska in not now shipped to Japan IIRC.

Some natural gas is. It's time to build that pipeline from Alaska to the States.

 

[tcsenter]

The environmental arguments against production are BS, I worked for 2 major oil companies in the 70's & 80's & back then we were anal about not disturbing the environment.

Heh, they must have been located some where with high standards and effective enforcement of laws. Ever been to some place like...say...Venezuela and seen how 'anal' Mobil or Exxon is about not disturbing the environment?