PTS Posted March 15, 2005 Posted March 15, 2005 LA Times Story - Closer To Getting Home Made Oil? "The drilling lobby knows they can't sell off the Arctic refuge if they have an open, honest debate," said Sen. John F. Kerry, a leading opponent of the drilling. A big :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: to you Johny boy! I really don't understand the libs on this one. Oursourcing is bad, but depending on foreign oil is good? Just goes to show you way the terrorists love guys like John Kerry. Opening up ANWR creates jobs in America and will help drop gas prices. Why wouldn't we do it? At the very least, it send a big FU to OPEC saying we'll start looking for our own oil.
Alaska Darin Posted March 15, 2005 Posted March 15, 2005 Which is why the Dems use filibustering to keep it closed - because they want open and honest debate. A couple of their hippy senators were whining on the floor last week about logging in the Tongas and drilling in ANWR. One of them was from Conneticut. I wonder if she understands that ANWR is larger than her entire state and the footprint of the drilling pad is about the same size as her state's largest airport? Probably not. Yeah, Senator. We'd much rather have foriegn flagged carriers dragging billions of gallons of oil across the ocean every year than drill in a desolate arctic enviroment that only a wacko would call "pristine."
nobody Posted March 15, 2005 Posted March 15, 2005 Drilling the Alaska oil is only a very short term answer. The world's consumption of oil is increasing dramatically due to 3rd world countries and china. The world's supply of oil will begin to decrease in the relatively near future. Rather then say trying to spend billions to get people to Mars - I'd rather see that money spent on creating new energy sources.
SilverNRed Posted March 15, 2005 Posted March 15, 2005 Which is why the Dems use filibustering to keep it closed - because they want open and honest debate. A couple of their hippy senators were whining on the floor last week about logging in the Tongas and drilling in ANWR. One of them was from Conneticut. I wonder if she understands that ANWR is larger than her entire state and the footprint of the drilling pad is about the same size as her state's largest airport? Probably not. Yeah, Senator. We'd much rather have foriegn flagged carriers dragging billions of gallons of oil across the ocean every year than drill in a desolate arctic enviroment that only a wacko would call "pristine." 275312[/snapback] Every time CNN.com has a story on ANWR they show a big picture of a lake with caraboo (?) and beautiful mountains in the background - the implication being that all of it would be parking lot if we let the 'eeeeevil' oil companies in. Drilling stations are marvels of engineering. If we can safely build drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, we can do it in Alaska without destroying any wildlife.
Alaska Darin Posted March 15, 2005 Posted March 15, 2005 Every time CNN.com has a story on ANWR they show a big picture of a lake with caraboo (?) and beautiful mountains in the background - the implication being that all of it would be parking lot if we let the 'eeeeevil' oil companies in. Drilling stations are marvels of engineering. If we can safely build drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, we can do it in Alaska without destroying any wildlife. 275322[/snapback] What's funny is the majority of the time they show ANWR, it's actually Denali - which is a few hundred miles from the real location. ANWR is one of the most desolate places on this planet and spends more than 9 months a year frozen SOLID. It's also no surprise that when they actually show it, it's always on one of the 2 or 3 decent weather days per year that they have there. The laws of the state are such that no exploration can even BEGIN unless the ambient temp is -20F or COLDER. How many caribou you figure are out running around at that point? Answer: None. One more little factoid: The caribou population is HIGHER in Prudhoe Bay today than before exploration began (from 5K before drilling to over 27K now). Facts suck.
PTS Posted March 15, 2005 Author Posted March 15, 2005 One more little factoid: The caribou population is HIGHER in Prudhoe Bay today than before exploration began (from 5K before drilling to over 27K now). Facts suck. 275366[/snapback] Facts are nothing but a right wing conspiracy tool.
KD in CA Posted March 15, 2005 Posted March 15, 2005 Which is why the Dems use filibustering to keep it closed - because they want open and honest debate. A couple of their hippy senators were whining on the floor last week about logging in the Tongas and drilling in ANWR. One of them was from Conneticut. I wonder if she understands that ANWR is larger than her entire state and the footprint of the drilling pad is about the same size as her state's largest airport? Probably not. Yeah, Senator. We'd much rather have foriegn flagged carriers dragging billions of gallons of oil across the ocean every year than drill in a desolate arctic enviroment that only a wacko would call "pristine." 275312[/snapback] We don't have a female Senator. Unless you meant Chris Dodd. He's pretty close.
Alaska Darin Posted March 15, 2005 Posted March 15, 2005 We don't have a female Senator. Unless you meant Chris Dodd. He's pretty close. 275587[/snapback] Actually, the woman from CT was a House Rep (though she could have passed as the mother for SNL's "Pat"). The guy who was with her was a Senator from some other New England state. The whole time I was thinking that Ted Stevens and Don Young ought to put out some leftislation to block some crap in their states, just to return the favor.
KD in CA Posted March 15, 2005 Posted March 15, 2005 Actually, the woman from CT was a House Rep (though she could have passed as the mother for SNL's "Pat"). The guy who was with her was a Senator from some other New England state. The whole time I was thinking that Ted Stevens and Don Young ought to put out some leftislation to block some crap in their states, just to return the favor. 275808[/snapback] Ah, that must be Rosa DeLauro, one of the heroes of the limousine liberal crowd in New Haven and the eastern shoreline (remember the portrayal of Katharine Hepburn's family in The Aviator....they would have been big fans). I'm sure she knows a lot about the Alaskan wilderness.
Alaska Darin Posted March 15, 2005 Posted March 15, 2005 I'm sure she knows a lot about the Alaskan wilderness. 275825[/snapback] Yeah. She looked pretty versed. She might even know what ANWR stands for.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 Rather then say trying to spend billions to get people to Mars - I'd rather see that money spent on creating new energy sources. 275319[/snapback] And spending money on space exploration never results in other benefits? Talk about thinking in the short term...
TheMadCap Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 I can't see how the small volume of oil we could get from ANWR would help when most of our oil comes from overseas, and we are dependant on the whims of OPEC's prices. Want a better solution? STOP BUYING SUVs.
nobody Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 And spending money on space exploration never results in other benefits? Talk about thinking in the short term... Yeah, I forgot we are all using flying cars already. I'm not saying don't spend any money on space exploration - I'm all in favor of it. But solving the world's dependency on oil is NOT thinking short term.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 Yeah, I forgot we are all using flying cars already. I'm not saying don't spend any money on space exploration - I'm all in favor of it. But solving the world's dependency on oil is NOT thinking short term. 276863[/snapback] I have in my posession an interessting study in PDF format on future energy solutions and their relationship to nanotechnologies. I'll post it as an attachement and let all you limp-wristed linguini-spined liberals marvel in amazement at just exactly WHO sponsored the study. NanoReport.pdf
nobody Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 I have in my posession an interessting study in PDF format on future energy solutions and their relationship to nanotechnologies. I'll post it as an attachement and let all you limp-wristed linguini-spined liberals marvel in amazement at just exactly WHO sponsored the study. 276866[/snapback] Thanks for the report. Nothing amazing there to me (though I'm not a limp-wristed linguini-spined liberal.) I don't care who comes up with the solution - be it the oil companies, the department of defense, nasa, whoever. As long as it is a real long-term solution. And it would be even better if it saves us money in the end!
Rubes Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 I have in my posession an interessting study in PDF format on future energy solutions and their relationship to nanotechnologies. I'll post it as an attachement and let all you limp-wristed linguini-spined liberals marvel in amazement at just exactly WHO sponsored the study. 276866[/snapback] So let me get this straight... The limp-wristed linguini-spined liberals are, in fact, liberals (at least some of them) because they support the transition from an oil-centric economy to one based on more environmentally-friendly energy sources, potentially slowing global warming while at the same time further diversifying our energy portfolio and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The Baker Institute for Foreign Policy sponsors (along with, interestingly, the support of some guy named Dr. Trash, the poor guy) an academic conference at Rice University which, principally, addresses the need for new technologies that can aid the development of cheaper, more efficient, and environmentally sound energy supplies, which would potentially slow global warming while at the same time reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I may be reading this incorrectly, but your interpretation of this is that the limp-wristed linguini-spined liberals should be shocked into embarassment that such a humiliating thing could possibly happen? Or, perhaps, could it be that some firm-wristed, titanium-spined anti-liberals are coming around to the idea that some limp-wristed linguini-spined liberal-supported causes are actually not so satanic after all?
Fan in San Diego Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 Drilling the Alaska oil is only a very short term answer. The world's consumption of oil is increasing dramatically due to 3rd world countries and china. The world's supply of oil will begin to decrease in the relatively near future. Rather then say trying to spend billions to get people to Mars - I'd rather see that money spent on creating new energy sources. 275319[/snapback] You are correct sir. My opinion as well. Hydrogen fuel cells seem like the ticket to me.
TheMadCap Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 You are correct sir. My opinion as well. Hydrogen fuel cells seem like the ticket to me. 277145[/snapback] Very promising, IF they can get them to work properly...
Wacka Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 You are correct sir. My opinion as well. Hydrogen fuel cells seem like the ticket to me. 277145[/snapback] The only problem is tht the generation of hydrogen uses more oil/coal (in energy production for the plant) than making gasoline does. Making hydrogen currently uses more resources and produces more polution!
VABills Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 Yeah lets ignore the fact that hydrogen is dangerous as hell to handle.
Recommended Posts