Showdown Vote Approaches on Arctic Drilling

[IUBillsFan]

My POINT was, if you had bothered to read the credits for funding of the study, such eeeeeeeevil organizations as Halliburton, Shell Oil and other luminaries of the oil biz actually PAID for this study.

 

If we were to believe all the liberal pantywaists out there, Halliburton is at the root of ALL the world's evils. Yet here they are, sponsoring studies into oil alternatives. Oh, the juicy irony.

278062[/snapback]

 

As well they should...They know that someday we will need an alternative. These companies already have a fuel delivery system in place...My guess is it is easier to modify that system then to build a new one especially if they are part of the research.

 

How you get the "new" energy to the consumer cheaply and easily has to be factored into the equation.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Ah Joe, you always keep things interesting.

 

Well obviously I did read the credits (given the whole Dr. Trash thing) but that's okay if you want to assume otherwise, as this seems to be one of your strong points. I did read that oil companies made up a large portion, if not most, of the sponsors for this conference, as was the James Baker III Institute, not much of a liberal-backed organization itself.

 

I'm not sure who I'm supposed to be paying attention to now, the limp-wristed linuigini-spined liberals or the liberal pantywaists, but it's entertaining enough so I'll just rely on you to keep me up to speed.

 

And by the way, if you had read it yourself, you would know that this was not a study, it was the report from a two-day conference and discussion held at Rice University. The conference was sponsored by numerous oil companies. Some of the speakers did cite research that has been done. I didn't read and cross-reference all 131 pages, so I imagine some of that research has been done by these companies, but I don't know for sure. It's probably reasonable to assume that, but that's besides the point since you did already.

 

As to the report, if it's irony you want to call it, then clearly irony is not one of your strong suits.

 

You want irony? If we were to believe everything you say, then it's liberal ideals that are the root of all the world's evils. The fact that a conservative Republican-backed conglomerate like Halliburton is leading the push toward the very liberal concept of alternative, environmentally-conscious energy sources to reduce our dependence on oil (foreign oil in particular) should be irony enough in your own mind to rattle that conservative conscience of yours.

 

As for me, I find little irony in it. The report you so graciously provided eloquently spells out enough of our energy situation to dissolve any of the irony you seem to find in this. The reality is that we are headed for some tough times if we continue to depend so heavily on oil as we currently do. In order to transform this country from one that is so concentratedly oil-centric to one that is more diversified absolutely requires the contribution of those companies currently heavily invested in our energy infrastructure. We need to head in that direction, and those companies that refuse to jump in and contribute will be left behind. Irony? Not really. These companies know that they need to be involved in the process in order to maintain their roles as leaders in the energy industry, and so they can continue to be financially successful in this changing marketplace.

 

Rather than being stunned into submission by the irony of it all, I'm sure the limp-wristed, er, I mean, liberal pantywaists are more likely welcoming with smiles the idea that Big Oil is beginning to sound serious about concepts that have long existed in the realm of the liberals...and heretofore dismissed as such.

278609[/snapback]

 

 

Talk about having your cake and eating it too. One one hand you have eeeeeevil, world-dominating Halliburton. On the other, you have socially-conscious alterna-fuel Halliburton.

 

Which is it Rubes? Or is it both, since in the world of the liberal there are no absolutes?

 

<sarcasm>

 

Oh, my, I only wish I had the depth and breadth of your wisdom. Maybe then I too could opine on the wonders of homosexual marraige, AIDS funding and taxes for the rich. I could plumb the depths of the idea that personal accountability is unimportant or the thought that capitalism is inherently evil.

 

Yes, maybe I could philosophize about how much better the world would be if only those nasty, evil rich people would pay for health insurance for the poor. Maybe I too could then understand how taxation betters peoples' lives.

 

Sign me up for the Nader campaign!!

 

</sarcasm>

 

Now that I got that out of my system, perhaps you can make up your mind. Is Halliburton the driving force behind American global hegemony or is it a company with a conscience? Seems to me it can't be both. Enlighten me, Rubes. Grant me a pearl of your infinite wisdom.

[Rubes]

Talk about having your cake and eating it too. One one hand you have eeeeeevil, world-dominating Halliburton. On the other, you have socially-conscious alterna-fuel Halliburton.

 

Which is it Rubes? Or is it both, since in the world of the liberal there are no absolutes?

 

<sarcasm>

 

Oh, my, I only wish I had the depth and breadth of your wisdom. Maybe then I too could opine on the wonders of homosexual marraige, AIDS funding and taxes for the rich. I could plumb the depths of the idea that personal accountability is unimportant or the thought that capitalism is inherently evil.

 

Yes, maybe I could philosophize about how much better the world would be if only those nasty, evil rich people would pay for health insurance for the poor. Maybe I too could then understand how taxation betters peoples' lives.

 

Sign me up for the Nader campaign!!

 

</sarcasm>

 

Now that I got that out of my system, perhaps you can make up your mind. Is Halliburton the driving force behind American global hegemony or is it a company with a conscience? Seems to me it can't be both. Enlighten me, Rubes. Grant me a pearl of your infinite wisdom.

278748[/snapback]

 

 

Well Joe, to the best of my recollection I have never discussed on this board any of my views on Halliburton. In fact, I can't remember discussing much about AIDS funding, taxes on the rich, health insurance for the poor, capitalism, or any other issue you bring up here except gay marriage, although I could be wrong. (Edit: I do recall the earlier discussion about personal accountability.) But I don't recall ever referring to Halliburton as something evil, or anything else for that matter.

 

If nothing else, however, you are consistent, giving in yet again to that wonderful impulse of assumption, and one can only presume that this is because of my particular views on the completely unrelated subject of gay marriage.

 

Should I assume that you have assumed my stance on the ANWR debate as well? Oh that's right, I believe in gay marriage so, naturally, I must support whatever stance those God-hating limp-wristed linguini-spined liberals support. Or is it the liberal pantywaists? I can't keep track. But who cares, right? Nobody could possibly support one liberal issue and take a different stance on another. And if they do, it must mean they just can't make up their mind.

 

Unfortunately, for most people the world is neither black nor white, as it so conveniently seems to be in yours.

 

I presented my views on the oil companies that sponsored that conference, and why it is perfectly reasonable to believe, and even expect, that they would have a strong interest in the subject. Seems like a decent argument to me. I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary, but somehow you think this is a contradiction.

 

I have no mind to be made on this matter, as you would suggest, since I have never before stated any particular view on Halliburton, positive or negative, that conflicts with what I have said here. You may be assuming my view on Halliburton, and in your mind this creates an imaginary conflict, but I'll leave it to you to resolve that conflict on your own since I'm certain you can do a bang-up job assuming what my arguments and positions are anyway.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Well Joe, to the best of my recollection I have never discussed on this board any of my views on Halliburton. In fact, I can't remember discussing much about AIDS funding, taxes on the rich, health insurance for the poor, capitalism, or any other issue you bring up here except gay marriage, although I could be wrong. (Edit: I do recall the earlier discussion about personal accountability.) But I don't recall ever referring to Halliburton as something evil, or anything else for that matter.

 

If nothing else, however, you are consistent, giving in yet again to that wonderful impulse of assumption, and one can only presume that this is because of my particular views on the completely unrelated subject of gay marriage.

 

Should I assume that you have assumed my stance on the ANWR debate as well? Oh that's right, I believe in gay marriage so, naturally, I must support whatever stance those God-hating limp-wristed linguini-spined liberals support. Or is it the liberal pantywaists? I can't keep track. But who cares, right? Nobody could possibly support one liberal issue and take a different stance on another. And if they do, it must mean they just can't make up their mind.

 

Unfortunately, for most people the world is neither black nor white, as it so conveniently seems to be in yours.

 

I presented my views on the oil companies that sponsored that conference, and why it is perfectly reasonable to believe, and even expect, that they would have a strong interest in the subject. Seems like a decent argument to me. I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary, but somehow you think this is a contradiction.

 

I have no mind to be made on this matter, as you would suggest, since I have never before stated any particular view on Halliburton, positive or negative, that conflicts with what I have said here. You may be assuming my view on Halliburton, and in your mind this creates an imaginary conflict, but I'll leave it to you to resolve that conflict on your own since I'm certain you can do a bang-up job assuming what my arguments and positions are anyway.

278790[/snapback]

 

 

Well then Rubes, what exactly IS your position on Halliburton?

[nobody]

Mine too.  But until we do...

278638[/snapback]

 

 

So, AD, I hear that the Eskimos are none to happy about increasing the current area that is open to oil. They don't mind ANWR being opened up but they do mind expanding the National Petroleum Reserve.

[Rubes]

Well then Rubes, what exactly IS your position on Halliburton?

278952[/snapback]

 

So now I have to have a position on Halliburton.

 

Honestly, Joe, I don't know a hell of a lot about Halliburton. I'm not even certain exactly what they do, although it seems to be a lot of different things. I've heard what everybody else has in the media, most of it in the time leading up to the election, and that has mostly been in the realm of innuendo. There has certainly been plenty of suggestion of impropriety on the part of the company, but I doubt we'll ever really know for sure.

 

Am I suspicious that Halliburton probably used their connections with the vice president to position themselves to great financial advantage? Of course I'm suspicious of that. That kind of thing, I'm sure, goes on all the time. But I also know that those are just suspicions, and it's a hell of a lot better to base a position on facts rather than suspicions. If I wanted to do that, I'd have to do a lot more homework, and I'm just not interested enough. That's why I don't go around screaming "Halliburton evil!" like so many of those liberal pantywaists you see.

[Alaska Darin]

So, AD, I hear that the Eskimos are none to happy about increasing the current area that is open to oil.  They don't mind ANWR being opened up but they do mind expanding the National Petroleum Reserve.

279321[/snapback]

I haven't seen much locally about the Native Alaskans (we don't call them Eskimos) complaining about the full opening fo NPR-A. I question the decision to completely open the region.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

So now I have to have a position on Halliburton.

 

Honestly, Joe, I don't know a hell of a lot about Halliburton. I'm not even certain exactly what they do, although it seems to be a lot of different things. I've heard what everybody else has in the media, most of it in the time leading up to the election, and that has mostly been in the realm of innuendo. There has certainly been plenty of suggestion of impropriety on the part of the company, but I doubt we'll ever really know for sure.

 

Am I suspicious that Halliburton probably used their connections with the vice president to position themselves to great financial advantage? Of course I'm suspicious of that. That kind of thing, I'm sure, goes on all the time. But I also know that those are just suspicions, and it's a hell of a lot better to base a position on facts rather than suspicions. If I wanted to do that, I'd have to do a lot more homework, and I'm just not interested enough. That's why I don't go around screaming "Halliburton evil!" like so many of those liberal pantywaists you see.

279365[/snapback]

 

Well, gentlemen, I think we've found a scientific anomaly:

 

A liberal with a brain.

[billfan63]

Yeah, let's compare the drilling/exploration technology and oversight from 50 years ago.  VERY valid.

 

I guess it's perfectly acceptable to drill elsewhere in the world and then transport it across the most diverse ecosystem on this planet, all the while ignoring the fact that despots and even more corrupt regimes who care even less about the environment will be in control.  Think the hippy environmentalists have a big voice in the Middle East or the Soviet Union? 

 

As far as your "pads, runways, roads (roads?  that's actually funny - when they're made of ICE) and pipelines" being removed, that shows how shallow your argument is.  The area they will use in ANWR is about the same size an the airport here in Anchorage.  The "reserve" (I have to laugh everytime they call one of the most desolate places on this planet a "reserve") is virtually the same size as SOUTH CAROLINA.

 

I just love when people who couldn't pick out ANWR on a map if we cut Alaska in half espouse their ignorance so publically.  Yeah, it's probably not gonna be alot of oil (not that anyone but the actual oil companies who did the tests know for sure) - but it's gonna be a BUTTLOAD of natural gas and will create a ton of jobs here and mean billions to our economy.

 

Screw all you GD hypocritical NIMBY hippies.

277372[/snapback]

Talk about valid, AD say a "buttload" of natural gas is under the ANWR! Good enough for me.

You have a 2000 acre airport in Achorage. Dam!

Is there any impact from North Slope drilling? Thats current

Beside's creating jobs and adding money to the state of Alaska, it will also assure the those "free" money checks of $1,100 to Alaskan citizens will keep rolling in and maybe even increase, it's all good. right?

[Rubes]

Well, gentlemen, I think we've found a scientific anomaly:

 

A liberal with a brain.

279453[/snapback]

 

 

 

Nice, I'll take that. Now, if we could just find a conservative with one, we'll be getting somewhere!

 

[Alaska Darin]

Talk about valid, AD say a "buttload" of natural gas is under the ANWR!  Good enough for me.

I thought I'd use a term you'd understand. Estimates are between 33 and 100 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas. The low end of that would fill the country's entire need for a year, the upper end 4 years. If that gas pipeline is built, they will also be able to get the 31 TRILLION cubic feet of NG currently untapped in Prudhoe.

 

You have a 2000 acre airport in Achorage. Dam!

Actually, I was wrong. The airport here is 4,700 acres. UAA Report

 

Is there any impact from North Slope drilling? Thats current

Be more specific. There is significantly less impact in Alaska than there are in other parts of the world. Not that that would matter to you. Do you have a "diaper" under your car when you park it? They do in all the drilling areas in Alaska.

 

Beside's creating jobs and adding money to the state of Alaska, it will also assure the those "free" money checks of $1,100 to Alaskan citizens will keep rolling in and maybe even increase, it's all good. right?

279460[/snapback]

Yeah, it's only going to create jobs in Alaska. Because all of our industry is completely self contained. We make everything we need right here, from heavy industrial equipment all the way down to little bitty nuts and bolts. We don't bring anything in at all for such endeavors. You're informed.

 

You know so little about this subject that it's almost not worth the effort to make a fool of you. Almost.

[billfan63]

I thought I'd use a term you'd understand.  Estimates are between 33 and 100 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas.  The low end of that would fill the country's entire need for a year, the upper end 4 years.  If that gas pipeline is built, they will also be able to get the 31 TRILLION cubic feet of NG currently untapped in Prudhoe.

Actually, I was wrong.  The airport here is 4,700 acres.  UAA Report

Be more specific.  There is significantly less impact in Alaska than there are in other parts of the world.  Not that that would matter to you.  Do you have a "diaper" under your car when you park it?  They do in all the drilling areas in Alaska.

Yeah, it's only going to create jobs in Alaska.  Because all of our industry is completely self contained.  We make everything we need right here, from heavy industrial equipment all the way down to little bitty nuts and bolts.  We don't bring anything in at all for such endeavors.  You're informed. 

 

You know so little about this subject that it's almost not worth the effort to make a fool of you.  Almost.

279543[/snapback]

Been on spring break break for the past few weeks, thanks for the response you have proven once again your brillance. Do you have a clue of which you speak?

[Alaska Darin]

Been on spring break break for the past few weeks, thanks for the response you have proven once again your brillance. Do you have a clue of which you speak?

286732[/snapback]

Oh look, another post of nothing.

 

You were away on spring break? That explains alot. Take over the world now, while your arrogance allows you to still think you know everything.

 

Go ahead and educate me, then. I can hardly wait. I'm pretty sure of all the posters who have EVER been at TBD, I'm the only one who's ever actually been to the Coastal Plain. It's also likely that I'm the only one who's ever been to Prudhoe or any of the other North Slope fields/villages.

 

But feel free to tell me how much more you know than I do. This is going to be a hoot.

[Like A Mofo]

Oh look, another post of nothing. 

 

You were away on spring break?  That explains alot.  Take over the world now, while your arrogance allows you to still think you know everything.

 

Go ahead and educate me, then.  I can hardly wait.  I'm pretty sure of all the posters who have EVER been at TBD, I'm the only one who's ever actually been to the Coastal Plain.  It's also likely that I'm the only one who's ever been to Prudhoe or any of the other North Slope fields/villages.

 

But feel free to tell me how much more you know than I do.  This is going to be a hoot.

286742[/snapback]

 

 

AD I just have a question I skimmed through this thread and I honestly do not know that much about this subject and I figured you would know this to clarify: So if we start drilling for oil at ANWAR, we would have enough for the entire USA to consume for 4 years? Or is it longer/shorter?

[KD in CA]

Been on spring break break for the past few weeks, thanks for the response you have proven once again your brillance. Do you have a clue of which you speak?

286732[/snapback]

 

Quality rebuttal to his argument. You must have been captain of the debate team in school.

[Alaska Darin]

Quality rebuttal to his argument.  You must have been captain of the debate team in school.

287214[/snapback]

As well as first chair, finger painting ensemble.

[nobody]

AD I just have a question I skimmed through this thread and I honestly do not know that much about this subject and I figured you would know this to clarify:  So if we start drilling for oil at ANWAR, we would have enough for the entire USA to consume for 4 years?  Or is it longer/shorter?

286921[/snapback]

 

In terms of oil - Production capacity is much less so the supply will last much longer then compared to total current usage.

 

I'd guess in terms of natural gas the same holds true.

 

 

The numbers I've seen:

ANWR - total about 10.8 billon barrels

 

will be able to produce 1 million barrels per day