Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
The oil companies already don't drill on the places they have rights to drill.  Why should we open up sensitive environmental areas for them to wreck, just so they can send the oil to China?  The extremist right wing tenor of this site is disturbing.  Drilling is not the answer.  The math just doesn't work.

Only if you use "funny" math.

I've already addressed the reason why they're not drilling in places they already own.  Either there's no oil, or it is not cost effective to drill there.  What other explanation is there?  Oh, yeah.  the conspiracy theory.  They're all in cahoots to drive the price of oil up so they can ruin the world economy, they can get filthy rich and screw all of us.

Today's technologies provide extensive protections for the environment.  More oil seeps into the oceans from the ocean floor than has been spilled from off-shore drilling in decades.

ANWAR is about as environmentally sensitive as the moon.  There is drilling in the North Slopes going on less than 20 miles away and the place is a wasteland, not a pristine wilderness full of wildlife.

Congress needs to pass a ban on the export of all domestic oil and oil by-products.

I love how some people - normally those on the left - use terms like "oil companies" like they are some sort of curse word. The oil companies make less per $ of sales than almost any other industry due to taxes, regulations, and other factors. They are not anymore or less "evil" than any other type of company. Companies exist to make money and when they do it usually means lots of good jobs for people.

I have seen photos of the "coastal plain" of ANWR where the proposed drilling would occur and it does indeed look like a wasteland and like others have pointed out the north slope drilling is nearby and has been ongoing for many years with no ill effects on local wildlife. The feverish rhetoric of the left on this issue is (and has been) completely overwrought. It also seems worth mentioning that only a tiny portion of ANWR would be opened to drilling so it would barely be noticeable.

I'm also going to speculate that gardibolt is probably an avid consumer of gasoline in his daily life which makes his bile toward the "oil companies" kind of odd since he's a customer! I could be wrong about that I freely admit but I've seen enough self-righteous environmentalists driving SUVs to feel somewhat confident in my guess.

It's also kind of ironic that people living in the most prosperous country on earth - that got that way through cheap energy fueling strong economic growth - are now against the very thing that enables their comfortable lifestyles.

I also tend to chuckle when lefties refer to open and honest debate of an issue as "extremist right wing tenor". There are both lefties, righties, and everything in between on this site (and people who fit that range of general criteria have posted in this very thread) and for the most part we are able to debate the political issues that are raised with good humor and reasonable level of courtesy.

For the record I don't think being concerned about the environment is "extremist" - unfettered companies can act recklessly and some degree of government oversight and regulation is clearly appropriate in the case of oil exploration and drilling but taking the position of no drilling anywhere anytime is definitely an inflexible position.

In a relate note I read a recent LA Times editorial from a left leaning columnist who pointed out that California is one of the world's largest importers and consumers of oil - yet is also one of the more liberal states that is most opposed to further oil exploration. The columnist suggested that California should attempt to produce more of what is uses given its heavy use of oil.

Brian

Quoting bbursiek:

Quote:
For the record I don't think being concerned about the environment is "extremist" - unfettered companies can act recklessly and some degree of government oversight and regulation is clearly appropriate in the case of oil exploration and drilling but taking the position of no drilling anywhere anytime is definitely an inflexible position.

I don't think being concerned about the environment is "extremist" either. 

However, when someone talks about the right-wing "extremist" tenor of this site being disturbing and that if "sensitive environmental areas" are opened up "for [oil companies] to wreck" I feel they are the ones with "extremist" views that should be countered.  There are extremists on both sides of this issue and they routinely color the truth to suit their personal views.

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
Why should we open up sensitive environmental areas for them to wreck, just so they can send the oil to China?

IF you think ANWAR is a "sensitive environmental area" you are evidently you are not aware of what is actually there and have drunk liberaly of the extremist left wing's Kool-Aid. 

The US purchased the land at ANWAR specificially to drill for oil.  There is nothing there but barren, icy rock -- no vegetation, no animals, nothing.  There is nothing there to "wreck."  It's not the beautiful, pristine wilderness that the the extremist left wing wants people to belive it is.

You are wrong on every count.

Try learning the facts sometime.

First, it's ANWR, which stands for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"Wildlife Refuge" as in a refuge for wildlife.  war has nothing to do with it.

from the US Fish & Wildlife - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge website:

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=75600

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -
Renowned for its wildlife, Arctic Refuge is inhabited by 45 species of land and marine mammals, ranging from the pygmy shrew to the bowhead whale. Best known are the polar, grizzly, and black bear; wolf, wolverine, Dall sheep, moose, muskox, and the animal that has come to symbolize the area's wildness, the free-roaming caribou. Thirty-six species of fish occur in Arctic Refuge waters, and 180 species of birds have been observed on the refuge.

Eight million acres of the Arctic Refuge are designated Wilderness, and three rivers (Sheenjek, Wind, and Ivishak) are designated Wild Rivers. Two areas of the refuge are designated Research Natural Areas. Because of distinctive scenic and scientific features, several rivers, valleys, canyons, lakes, and a rock mesa have been recommended as National Natural Landmarks.

Perhaps the most unique feature of the refuge is that large-scale ecological and evolutionary processes continue here, free of human control or manipulation. A prominent reason for establishment of the Arctic Refuge was the fact that this single protected area encompasses an unbroken continuum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems. Here, one can traverse the boreal forest of the Porcupine River plateau, wander north up the rolling tiaga uplands, cross the rugged, glacier-capped Brooks Range, and follow any number of rivers across the tundra coastal plain to the lagoons, estuaries, and barrier islands of the Beaufort Seas coast, all without encountering an artifact of civilization.




The refuge was initially established in 1960 as the Arctic National Wildlife Range, but was expanded and renamed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980. It wasn't until 1986, however, that the oil-related issues now surrounding the area began. At this time, oil exploration geologists working for Chevron, Inc. drilled a hole three miles into the ground. What is at the bottom of this hole, known as KIC-1, remains even today a secret of Chrevron and British Petroleum. The issue contents of KIC-1, however, is of vital importance in today's ANWR-drilling controversy, and will probably play a role in determining whether oil drilling is allowed or not.

In any event, in the late 1980s, oil companies began lobbying to drill up the refuge; and they were supported by western congressmen such as Alaska's Don Young, Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski. They were beginning to get their way on the issue when the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill occurred, causing plans for ANWR drilling to be scrapped for the time being.


You may have heard of the exploits of Young, Stevens and Murkowski. If not, here's a recent summary:

Federal investigation of Don Young -

On July 24, 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported that Young was under federal investigation for possibly taking bribes, illegal gratuities or unreported gifts from VECO Corporation, an Anchorage-based company. The top two executives of that company have already pleaded guilty to bribing members of the Alaska legislature. The Journal said a Veco executive held fundraisers called "the Pig Roast" for Young every August for ten years. Between 1996 and 2006, Young received $157,000 from Veco employees and its political action committee. In the first half of 2007, Young spent more than $250,000 of campaign contributions for legal fees.

Indictment of Ted Stevens:

On July 29, 2008 Stevens was indicted by a federal grand jury on seven counts of falsely reporting gifts. The charges relate to renovations to his home and to more than $250,000 worth of gifts he has allegedly received from VECO Corporation. The indictment followed a lengthy investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for possible corruption based on his relationship with Bill Allen, an oil service company executive, who has pleaded guilty to bribing Alaskan legislators, including Stevens' son, former State Senator Ben Stevens. The IRS and the FBI had searched Stevens' home in Alaska on July 30, 2007. On July 31, 2008 Stevens pled not guilty to the charges in a federal district court, and he requested that the trial be done before the 2008 election.


and finally, infamous former Senator and former Gov Frank Murkowski -

Upon his inauguration, he resigned his Senate seat and appointed his daughter, Lisa Murkowski, the Majority Leader-designate of the Alaska House of Representatives, in his place. This led his opponents to accuse him of nepotism; as a result, a ballot measure passed in 2004 stripped governors of the power to appoint U.S. Senators, making Alaska one of only three states to do so.

Toward the end of his administration he brokered a deal for a gas pipeline that was never considered, in final form, by the legislature. Murkowski threatened to sign the deal without legislative approval, but the legislature successfully brought a lawsuit to enjoin him from doing so.

Governor Murkowski ran for re-election in 2006, but came in third behind former Wasilla mayor, now Governor, Sarah Palin and Fairbanks businessman John Binkley in the Republican primary election on August 22, 2006 (Palin winning with 51% and Binkley taking second with 30% to Murkowski's 19%).[2] Most polls had predicted this result.

On March 4, 2008, Murkowski's former chief-of-staff, Jim Clark, pleaded guilty to one felony count of conspiracy after federal investigators discovered Clark had asked oil-field company Veco to illegally pay $68,550 on polls for Murkowski's failed 2006 re-election campaign. Murkowski, Clark's indictment noted, was the only candidate who supported an oil tax and gas pipeline plan that Veco backed. Murkowski has not been charged in the Alaska political corruption probe.

Alaska governor Frank Murkowski rated the most unpopular governor in entire country
The Alaska Report - 9/25/06

Battling Butler,

I think you were way off base in claiming Ken (kdh1949) is "wrong on every count". The acronym ANWR -- has been, at least in my experience, phonetically pronounced "Anne-War" so it's very nitpicky to jump on Ken about that. Furthermore Ken is right on target in his response to your rant by pointing out that the area where the proposed drilling would occur is a barren wasteland known as the coastal plain.

Also here is a photo of the refuge: http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/realanwr-page1.pdf

Also here is a map of the refuge highlighting the coastal plain: 

http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf

Here are some pro-drilling reasoning from ANWR.org.

Quote:
TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are $4.2 billion.  Royalty and tax estimates for the life of the 10-02 fields were estimated by the Office of Management and Budget from  $152-237 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 731,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy!  Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total would be nearly a trillion dollars.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals 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.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR.  The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

I hope this helps give some of those hyperventilating about the "destroying" this "pristine wilderness" a little perspective.

Brian

Battling Butler - Gold star for a very nice post

KDH1949 - BANG (just kidding) you accuse Battling Butler of reporting one side but fail to offer, a counter to his one side. At least factually rebut his comments, I for one would enjoy reading what you accuse him of leaving out. No red star, Ricos' computer does not show a button for red stars.

Judge Brian - Shouldn't the defense, top 10 reasons for not drilling, be posted for an informed decision? ANWR.org is just as biased, as Architecture 2030 if not more. Right left


Seems like were making a big deal (mountain/mole hill, look at the graph post #1 again) about something that will have very little impact on our society; which could impact the region for centuries. The high cost of oil did what Kennedy, Gore, Pelosi, & Huffington, could not accomplish, to change habits of Americans. High oil cost improved the dismal (So. Cal) usage of mass transit, made the electric car & plugins a reality, curbed or lessened our consumption, etc etc.  Let's first improve what we already have, before we bring in heavy equipment, & rape a pristine area. Rape probably too strong a word here.

Take Care
Rico

Quoting Rico:

Quote:
KDH1949 - BANG (just kidding) you accuse Battling Butler of reporting one side but fail to offer, a counter to his one side. At least factually rebut his comments, I for one would enjoy reading what you accuse him of leaving out. No red star, Ricos' computer does not show a button for red stars.

I already pointed out what he was omitting -- the fact that the area which is under consideration for drilling is a very small piece of the whole of the ANWAR.  And that it was in the barren part of the ANWAR.  That is easily proven, as bbursiek shows with the links in his message.  Note the size of the tiny red square on the map.  It's the are under consideration for drilling -- and is to scale compared to the vast expanse of the total ANWR.

Read the material bbursiek provided links to.  It fairly presents the other side of the issue and refutes much of what Battling Butler reported.

Quoting Rico:

Quote:
KDH1949 - You had no idea that Judge Brian would come along after you & make the points you accuse. Battling Butler of missing. Therefore if your going to accuse of pointing  to only one side, you should give examples, of the other side for the reader. You should not rely on others to come along & point out what you fail to speak of.

Quote:
It fairly presents the other side of the issue and refutes much of what Battling Butler reported.

Not 'fairly', but from there biased point of view, they state there beliefs. For the time being our efforts can be 'better put to use' by not drilling in the ANWR, & exploring other alternatives. The huge undertaking required, to market ANWR oil, with large consequences likely, for the small amount of oil, at this time seems foolish. The energy & dollars to extract ANWR would better put to use, improving gas engines, meeting CAFE standards, alternate transportation etc. This project is dollar foolish & penny wise.

Take Care
Rico

Check out the definition of the word 'scotoma' HERE