NationStates Jolt Archive

...The same measure failed in the Senate in 2003 after passing in the House. This year, after winning four new seats in the Senate and four more years for President Bush, Republicans are feeling optimistic about the chances of legislation to open up about 1.5 million acres of the Alaska wilderness to drilling.

Bush described the proposal as environmentally inconsequential -- he told Wednesday's audience that drilling would be confined to 2,000 acres, roughly the size of the Columbus, Ohio, airport -- with the potential to produce up to a million barrels of oil a day.

...

Kerry characterized the president's plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a "phony, absolutely fraudulent offering,'' which vastly overstates the potential to reduce gas prices or the nation's reliance on foreign oil. Source (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/11/MNGG4BNVOD1.DTL) So what does everyone think about drilling in Alaska? Should it be allowed, or should Alaska be protected and kept in reserve? Did the war in Iraq have any effect on this decision in your opinion?

I don't think it's worth it, not for six months worth of oil. And I wish the administration would invest more in research into alternative energy sources.

It isn't worth it. Instead of handing oil companies a welfare check, how about we slip some of that money to those that are working on alternate fuel sources.. It will take years to actually get to the oil that is in ANWR, anyway.. and yes, it will be about 6 months worth. Not worth it at all.

The quagmire in Iraq has nothing to do with my decision. We shouldn't be there and we shouldn't be drilling in Alaska.

I say we do both, protect it AND drill. Every less barrel we buy from third world wackos is another step in the right direction.

I'm a member of the "We'll keep it for when everyone else runs out" club. And then, because we'll be switched off of oil, we'll be able to sell it at exorbitant prices to other nations that haven't made such prudent decisions.

We should drill now, while it is still worth something.

And not just ANWAR, but also the Naval reserve and the Alaskan State reserves too.

If we wait to long, oil will be worth nothing, and then we will just look like dumb fucks.

(Not to mention that anwar=saudi imports for approx. 20 years).

Did the war in Iraq have any effect on this decision in your opinion?

Probably not. Most likely, the work of lobbyists.

Drill it. It's boost the local economy for the next 20 years at least. As for the 6 months thing, that's only if they pump out the max every day with no breaks, plus it depends on whose numbers you use. The 6 month figure is the low one.

Drill it. It's boost the local economy for the next 20 years at least. As for the 6 months thing, that's only if they pump out the max every day with no breaks, plus it depends on whose numbers you use. The 6 month figure is the low one.
The Colorado River could only provide about six months worth of water for America, so it really does not make any sense to allow LA to tap it for their water needs. I mean, really, what's the point? We should find a river big enough to supply water for the whole fuking country and then we can tap IT. Till then stay thirsty.

The Colorado River could only provide about six months worth of water for America, so it really does not make any sense to allow LA to tap it for their water needs. I mean, really, what's the point? We should find a river big enough to supply water for the whole fuking country and then we can tap IT. Till then stay thirsty.

Way to compare apples and oranges. There are alternative liquids for drinking.. and water is a replenishable resource.. oil is not and there are not, as of yet any alternatives to oil because we are too dependent on it and there are oil men in the white house that want to keep it that way.

A.) Who cares how much is in there? The oil companies will drill there if it is economical, anyhow.
B.) The environment there will not be damaged. There is technology to drill sideways and diagonally. Besides, the major oil firms are good about having clean extraction sites. For example, natural gas accompanies oil. The old practice was to burn it. Now, most either reinject it into the ground, or sell it for commercial use. Acsess roads are designed to disturb a minimum amount of wildlife, and they only go to established drilling sites. Experimental drilling sites are acsessed by helicopter. My favorite example is the Kutubu oil field in Papua New Guinea, run by CheveronTexaco. They are far more stringent there than what Port Moresby requires.

Way to compare apples and oranges. There are alternative liquids for drinking.. and water is a replenishable resource.. oil is not and there are not, as of yet any alternatives to oil because we are too dependent on it and there are oil men in the white house that want to keep it that way.
OK, You've piques my curiosity - what alternative to water is there for drinking that does not require water???

There IS a finite supply of water on the earth - and an even smaller amount of freshwater. A river also carries a finite amount of water every day.

Also, are you really so pathetic that you can't discuss anything without letting your hatred of Bush overcome your faculties?

Bush's rationale for drilling in Alaska is that it will lower gas prices. Wrong. Rising demand in India and China and inefficient refineries are the culprit for the high gas prices not a lack of supply.

Bush's rationale for drilling in Alaska is that it will lower gas prices. Wrong. Rising demand in India and China and inefficient refineries are the culprit for the high gas prices not a lack of supply.
Right! - and everyone knows that adding supply has no effect on price, since supply and demand have no relationship whatsoever to price. In fact, we should ust turn off ALL the oil wells in America. It won't affect price and then we can 'save' it for when we REALLY need it.

(sarcasm - for those unable to detect it)