Artic Drilling Passed in the House

[preppyak]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/19/politics/19cnd-congress.html?ex=1292648400&en=fb477b42cf26af24&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Easing our dependence on foreign oil is central to our economic and national security, and this provision puts us on the right path," said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert.

So rather than research alternative methods, we just find a new place to drill. And what better way to make sure it passes than include it in a Hurrican Relief and War support bill. Anyone who opposes it is labeled as a hater of hurricane survivors and the troops.

"This is a dark day in the history of the American constitutional form of government," said Mr. Reid, who threatened to slow the Senate over the next few days and block any votes on nominations as Republicans try to wrap up the session before Christmas.

[splitsecond]

I say drill that fucker. I have said that for like 5 years.

[somethingyellow]

im still against drilling and will always be i find it pretty stupid to drill for oil in our wildlife refuge and destroying it when we should be spending money trying to better our technology for when oil finally runs out

[Dan Hollister]

OK guys, let's state the obvious a little bit.

1) We need oil. Plan and simple. Everything we use depends on oil. Why shouldn't we look for alternative fuels? We ARE looking for them. They just can't appear overnight; they take years to invent, and then even longer before they are cheap enough to sell to the public.

2) Nobody EVER wants us to drill. Where else are we going to drill? If we want foreign oil, the liberals go nuts about us going to war for oil or about how we're taking advantage of the resources of another nation. But then we try to get oil out of our own country, and nobody allows that, either. WHERE the HELL are we supposed to get it then?

Look guys, we are looking VERY VERY HARD for alternative fuels. And we're making a lot of progress. But look at how long we've been using oil - a couple CENTURIES now. An alternative is not going to pop up in a matter of months. It takes time to produce them.

Unless you want to pay $600 to fill up your car with hydrogen fuel cells (that's about how much it would cost to fill up if they released it today) then I suggest you support this drilling and wait. We WILL find better alternatives. They just aren't as easy - or as cheap - as you seem to think. But they are coming. Until they do, we need oil. End.

[somethingyellow]

OK guys, let's state the obvious a little bit.

1) We need oil. Plan and simple. Everything we use depends on oil. Why shouldn't we look for alternative fuels? We ARE looking for them. They just can't appear overnight; they take years to invent, and then even longer before they are cheap enough to sell to the public.

2) Where else are we going to drill? If we want foreign oil, the democrats go nuts about us going to war for oil. But then we try to get oil out of our own country, and it's shot down. Where the hell are we supposed to get it then?

Look guys, we are looking VERY VERY HARD for alternative fuels. But look at how long we've been using oil - a couple CENTURIES now. An alternative is not going to pop up in a matter of months. It takes time.

Unless you want to pay $600 to fill up your car with hydrogen fuel cells (that's about how much it would cost to fill up if they released it today) then I suggest you support this drilling and wait. We WILL find better alternatives. They just aren't as easy - or as cheap - as you seem to think.
are you sure we are looking very very hard? i think our president is barely trying to look in my opinion. i have read things that they have came up with some forms of technology. A lot of bushes money came from the oil industry so why would he try very very hard to go against that? if you care anything about our wildlife you would be against this

[Dan Hollister]

are you sure we are looking very very hard? i think our president is barely trying to look in my opinion. i have read things that they have came up with some forms of technology. A lot of bushes money came from the oil industry so why would he try very very hard to go against that? if you care anything about our wildlife you would be against this

You fail to use any facts, and are saying "I think" a lot and "I read this..." and you aren't actually saying anything factual. You also make assumptions about me.

I do care about our wildlife. Do not assume I don't; that was an extremely ignorant, black-and-white thing to say. But is the wildlife so important to you that you'd give up electricity, cars, lights, refrigerators, washers, dryers, the computer you're using, cell phones, the internet, and basically everything else that makes up our lifestyle, in order to help the environment?

We've been using oil for a couple centuries now. If we go drill for another 5 years, the environment is not going to be harmed significantly more than it has been for the last 200.

Also, yes, I am sure "we are looking very very hard", since I follow these things very closely, and I see new research and updates at least once or twice a week in this area.

Bush is "barely trying to look"? Our President is not responsible for inventing new technology. He is responsible for HOW WE USE technology that we have available to us, and responsible for ENCOURAGING us to continue innovating. He does both of these things. The administration supports looking for better sources of energy, and at the same time, they are making use of what we currently have - oil.

Oil may not be pretty. It may not be the safest or least dangerous thing around. But it's what we got, and what we'll have to deal with for another few years. It has nothing to do with environment or politics or foreign affairs. It has to do with the fact that as Americans, we have houses, cars, phones, computers, a stock market, the internet, and all these things that require oil to operate.

BOTTOM LINE: IT DOESN'T MATTER! I agree with you, we need to take care of the environment! But that doesn't matter. Our own survival comes first. And then in a matter of years, we'll be seeing new forms of alternative energy take off. Just not yet. Be patient.

[splitsecond]

Look up the facts on what ANWAR, I think people have a huge misconception about what it really is like there.

[siberianxkiss]

seriously no one is visting anwr and its just a VERY small area being drilled. even the locals are for it.

on the flip side though i hate how people think this will suddenly be the remedy for gas prices and the "oil crisis". its not going to be, it will have a very small effect, if any.

[Cal Smith]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/19/politics/19cnd-congress.html?ex=1292648400&en=fb477b42cf26af24&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss



So rather than research alternative methods, we just find a new place to drill. And what better way to make sure it passes than include it in a Hurrican Relief and War support bill. Anyone who opposes it is labeled as a hater of hurricane survivors and the troops.

Why do you assume based on this that they arent researching alternative energy methods?

[Cal Smith]

are you sure we are looking very very hard? i think our president is barely trying to look in my opinion. i have read things that they have came up with some forms of technology. A lot of bushes money came from the oil industry so why would he try very very hard to go against that? if you care anything about our wildlife you would be against this

Why? It's alright to have an opinion but when you have no reasons it's kind of pointless to read.
For example you could have pointed out how many saw his new energy bill as more reliance on oil and less on alternative fuels.

What his energy bill focused on was more refineries and more nuclear plants. Both we need for now and would help our current situation on prices and foreign oil. What it lacked was money for alternative fuels.

[Paul Tao]

the negatives outweight the potential positives, in my opinion.

[Cal Smith]

the negatives outweight the potential positives, in my opinion.

that's understandable if it's the case, but i think they should be able to fully find that out.

[somethingyellow]

You fail to use any facts, and are saying "I think" a lot and "I read this..." and you aren't actually saying anything factual. You also make assumptions about me.

I do care about our wildlife. Do not assume I don't; that was an extremely ignorant, black-and-white thing to say. But is the wildlife so important to you that you'd give up electricity, cars, lights, refrigerators, washers, dryers, the computer you're using, cell phones, the internet, and basically everything else that makes up our lifestyle, in order to help the environment?

We've been using oil for a couple centuries now. If we go drill for another 5 years, the environment is not going to be harmed significantly more than it has been for the last 200.

Also, yes, I am sure "we are looking very very hard", since I follow these things very closely, and I see new research and updates at least once or twice a week in this area.

Bush is "barely trying to look"? Our President is not responsible for inventing new technology. He is responsible for HOW WE USE technology that we have available to us, and responsible for ENCOURAGING us to continue innovating. He does both of these things. The administration supports looking for better sources of energy, and at the same time, they are making use of what we currently have - oil.

Oil may not be pretty. It may not be the safest or least dangerous thing around. But it's what we got, and what we'll have to deal with for another few years. It has nothing to do with environment or politics or foreign affairs. It has to do with the fact that as Americans, we have houses, cars, phones, computers, a stock market, the internet, and all these things that require oil to operate.

BOTTOM LINE: IT DOESN'T MATTER! I agree with you, we need to take care of the environment! But that doesn't matter. Our own survival comes first. And then in a matter of years, we'll be seeing new forms of alternative energy take off. Just not yet. Be patient. im sorry for making assumptions about you, i shouldnt have done that. Yes i didn't bring any actual facts because these are things i just remember from reading and a class i took last year. So it was fair for u to call me out on not using any facts but after re reading your first post I do not really see much facts in your arguments either and see mostly opinion. 1. Nobody ever wants us to drill seems like an opinion. 2.How do you know how hard we are looking for fuels that seems like another opinion. again i apologize for making that assumption

[Justin_stacy]

Why do you assume based on this that they arent researching alternative energy methods?

You fool, didn't you know that "drilling" now means a stop to all research........and how dare you assume that we can do both!

Nope, the only logical answer here is for us to continue to fuck ourselves royally by putting our stability in the hands of unfriendly neighbors and ideas that are at best 25 to 50 years away from being feasible….

[open mind]

drilling in anwr isn't going to insure survival or solve any of the problems with oil, it will fuck the enviorment up, effect alot of peoples subsistence lifestyles and cost taxpayers a shitload of cash, because as we all know the oil companies don't have any money to spare.
bush isn't exactly spending big bucks on alternative fuel research or really doing any sort of forward thinking concerning the eventual oil shortage.

[splitsecond]

drilling in anwr isn't going to insure survival or solve any of the problems with oil, it will fuck the enviorment up, effect alot of peoples subsistence lifestyles and cost taxpayers a shitload of cash, because as we all know the oil companies don't have any money to spare.
bush isn't exactly spending big bucks on alternative fuel research or really doing any sort of forward thinking concerning the eventual oil shortage.

The real issue is that there isnt a market for alt fuel yet - let alone an infrastructure in place to handle the fueling of alt fuel vehicles. It is going to be a very painful process, which no one really wants to go through until they have to.

It would actually be much easier to move away from oil as a resource for everything BUT cars. Heating oil? Come on, get out of the 19th century northeast!

[open mind]

there's a market and demand for alternatives to oil, just no supply.
i don't see why coal isn't used more, the technology is alot more advanced then it once was so it burns pretty cleanly, it's cheap, and we've got massive amounts of it.

[Dan Hollister]

there's a market and demand for alternatives to oil, just no supply.

That's BS. We have a supply of these fuels, such as hydrogen. We made it work. There are prototypes around that use it. There's just no demand for it. If we were to release hydrogen-powered cars TODAY, who would buy? Virtually noone. And plus it could cost like $900 to fill up the tank. Who would do that? Not even the richest of the rich would bother to do that.

There is no demand. Just because you think we should use alternative energy doesn't mean you would actually pay for it. Would you sell whatever vehicle you use now in a heartbeat in favor of something that cost twice as much, cost hundreds to fill up, and performed the same function? I think not. And nobody else would, either.

When the technologies mature so they are cheap enough, and when the public cares enough, it will be marketed.

[Paul Tao]

I'll post the article thingy I wrote about this issue months ago once I find it on my computer. I would just link to it but Jason deleted it ;)

[calebus]

I Think the government should stay out of it all together. This is not an issue that the government needs to deal with. You want the truth about why we havent moved to alternative fuel resources. Because it would destroy a lot of jobs, it would put countless buisnesses under and its gonna be one hell of a conversion. The biggest opposition to the switch is the industry. Do you think that car companies could simply switch every single car the make to run on hydrogen fuel overnight. What happens to everyone who works for a gas station or oil company. If the government would just leave the market alone it would run its natural course and it would evolve with the conditions. It will happen pretty soon without any government help. When people can make a profit off of these alternative fuels, that is when we will start to see them marketed and until then drilling for oil is a neccesary evil

[simonholmes]

[quote=Dan Hollister]OK guys, let's state the obvious a little bit.

1) We need oil. Plan and simple. Everything we use depends on oil. Why shouldn't we look for alternative fuels? We ARE looking for them. They just can't appear overnight; they take years to invent, and then even longer before they are cheap enough to sell to the public.



It also takes years for oil drilling...about ten years before any oil will be coming out of the arctic if they were to start now

[rocknrolleyes]

i agree with this guy:

simonholmes: pretty low of them to attach this...they will make billions off of oil leases, royalties, and bids but there wont be any oil coming out of there for about 10 years..the oil will last maybe a year...animal patterns will change...polar bear cubs and caribou calves will be abandoned and will die..there will be even more oil spills than there already is in the arctic which will cost millions or billions of dollars to clean up and oil drilling wouldnt have any effect on the price of gas at the pump and yes i researched this for a school report and have other information on this as well...go to www.oilonice.org (http://www.oilonice.org/) and check out the short video if you want to know anymore about it

(http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=103070&page=3)

[youcomebeforeyo]

The anti drilling campaign never had a chance. When oil starts running out worldwide every single area will be drilled. It's a matter of time.

[splitsecond]

I Think the government should stay out of it all together. This is not an issue that the government needs to deal with. You want the truth about why we havent moved to alternative fuel resources. Because it would destroy a lot of jobs, it would put countless buisnesses under and its gonna be one hell of a conversion. The biggest opposition to the switch is the industry. Do you think that car companies could simply switch every single car the make to run on hydrogen fuel overnight. What happens to everyone who works for a gas station or oil company. If the government would just leave the market alone it would run its natural course and it would evolve with the conditions. It will happen pretty soon without any government help. When people can make a profit off of these alternative fuels, that is when we will start to see them marketed and until then drilling for oil is a neccesary evil

Thats exactly correct. Its the same reason why we have not yet reformed the tax code - it will destroy an entire industry.

[gillianhsieh]

moral issues aside i don't know that it's really that feasible to drill in alaska anyway.

it would take 5-10 years to develop the field, geophysicists agree that there are only ~30 billion barrels, and even if you could extract all of it, the US uses 20 million barrels A DAY which means it would barely make a dent in our oil dependency considering that, unsupplemented, alaskan oil would last 2 years only. not to mention not all of the oil can be extracted, usually the most successful fields only get ~30-40% of the oil in the ground due to residue on rocks and stuff.

regardless of drilling in alaska, we still have to find some sort of alternative energy source. also i don't think it'd be difficult for americans to cut up to half of their energy expenditures, just turn off your lights when you leave the room, jeez, and turn down the heat and put on more clothes.

[gillianhsieh]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5794036.html

omg this is so dirty. so they didn't actually vote on ANWR, they voted on defense appropriations... ugh!

[Paul Tao]

blocked in the senate. stevens got screwed, hopefully now they'll take it out and let the bill pass w/o it.

[fromwithin]

Its more bullshit excuses from this administration. If we NEEDED oil so bad then explain how Exxon made $10 BILLION dollars PROFIT in 90 days around the time of the hurricane. Going into Iraq was supposed to make the gas prices go down as well, but that hasnt been shown one bit. Fact is, they could make gas prices $1.20 a gallon if they wanted to. They just know that there's a demand for oil and people will pay whatever they want to as evidenced when gas prices were as high as $5.90 a gallon in Georgia.


"The Senate today blocked oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, rejecting a must-pass defense spending bill onto which supporters had added the drilling measure. Drilling backers fell four votes short of getting the required 60 votes to avoid a threatened filibuster of the defense measure over the oil drilling issue. Senate leaders were expected to withdraw the legislation so it could be reworked without the refuge language."


I think this is hilarious and sad as well:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/21/patriot.act/index.html
Let us spy on you.....come on!!!!! Truth is though, it doesn't matter if these provisions have run out, the government has still spied on us for years and years.

[open mind]

That's BS. We have a supply of these fuels, such as hydrogen. We made it work. There are prototypes around that use it. There's just no demand for it. If we were to release hydrogen-powered cars TODAY, who would buy? Virtually noone. And plus it could cost like $900 to fill up the tank. Who would do that? Not even the richest of the rich would bother to do that.

There is no demand. Just because you think we should use alternative energy doesn't mean you would actually pay for it. Would you sell whatever vehicle you use now in a heartbeat in favor of something that cost twice as much, cost hundreds to fill up, and performed the same function? I think not. And nobody else would, either.

When the technologies mature so they are cheap enough, and when the public cares enough, it will be marketed.
there is a market for alternative fuels, it's not the consumers fault that nobody supplies the market with affordable alternatives.

[commatosa]

FUCK!!!!!! Why do republicans always seem to support oil drilling? If you honestly think there's nothing wrong with drilling in the fucking arctic wildlife refuge then you need to hold your head under water for a few hours. And if you honestly believe that we're constantly looking for alternative forms of fuel than you need to pull your head out of your ass. The oil industry rules the fucking world. Wars are fought over oil. It's a trillion dollar industry. You think those greedy mother fuckers are going to allow other people to come in and take their trillions of dollars away? No, they'll smother any threat to their humongous industry. The only way we're ever going to have alternative fuels is when we DO run out of oil. Until then we're going to keep plugging holes into the earth and polluting the atmosphere until either:

a) the ozone layer is gone
b) we run out of oil
c) or dumbfucks stop controlling the world

[Cal Smith]

FUCK!!!!!! Why do republicans always seem to support oil drilling? If you honestly think there's nothing wrong with drilling in the fucking arctic wildlife refuge then you need to hold your head under water for a few hours.

Do you use gas? If so you're really nothing more than hypocritical idiot.

[preppyak]

Do you use gas? If so you're really nothing more than hypocritical idiot.

Yeah, i use gas, and I know we need oil, but why get it from a place that won't sustain or actually yield any gain.

If I remember correctly, by the time we have built the roads and the fields to successfully drill for oil in ANWR, combined with the energy it takes to extract oil, we will have actually used more net energy than we can possibly gain from there.

I know we need to drill more, sadly, but ANWR is not the place for it.

And for people freaking out about ruining the environment, the actually percentage of ANWR destroyed is something like .01%, which is not neccesarily enough to cause concern. It's not the ecological side that makes this wrong, it's the lack of benefit we draw from it.

[Cal Smith]

Yeah, i use gas, and I know we need oil, but why get it from a place that won't sustain or actually yield any gain.

If I remember correctly, by the time we have built the roads and the fields to successfully drill for oil in ANWR, combined with the energy it takes to extract oil, we will have actually used more net energy than we can possibly gain from there.

I know we need to drill more, sadly, but ANWR is not the place for it.

And for people freaking out about ruining the environment, the actually percentage of ANWR destroyed is something like .01%, which is not neccesarily enough to cause concern. It's not the ecological side that makes this wrong, it's the lack of benefit we draw from it.

No one really knows how much oil is in there. I mean if what you said is correct it would only make sense not to do it. You're using estimates based upon people who don't want to drill, I've seen estimates from those who do that say there could be enough to supply us for 10 years i believe.

I simply think we should be able to find out how much and if it's not economical then dont do it.

[ActorInThisPlay]

ok first of all...Iceland is very close to having a full Hydrogen economy so it can be done. There are other power sources out there, but the Bush administration is doing little to nothing to try to get them developed to a point where we could actually use it.

"If we raise fuel efficiency economies by 2.7 miles per gallon, we can eliminate 100 percent of the imports from Iraq and Kuwait combined. If we raise fuel efficiency standards by 7.6 miles per gallon, we would yield more gasoline than we now import from the Persian Gulf. So that's the solution to our energy problems right now. You cannot drill your way out of an energy dependence that's in this country. We have less in our country. We have less than 2 percent of the global reserves of oil. We use 25 percent of the global reserves of oil. So, if we get every ounce of buried oil in this country out of the ground, it will have zero impact on our foreign oil dependence. The way that we need to reduce foreign oil dependence is through conservation efficiency, and by expanding our portfolio beyond fossil fuels."

just read what Robert Kennedy Jr. has to say about this stuff...it is very interesting.

"If it has 550,000 caribou in it, if it's the primary area for polar bear denning, the primary area for musk ox breeding, the primary area for arctic wolves and a number of other animals, and many of our bird species, would you call that a desolate wasteland?"

drilling into ANWR would greatly effect the animal populations that use that area as a home and as breeding grounds. Drilling in ANWR will not, I repeat WILL NOT, solve any of our energy problems.

[Dan Hollister]

Yeah, i use gas, and I know we need oil, but why get it from a place that won't sustain or actually yield any gain.

If I remember correctly, by the time we have built the roads and the fields to successfully drill for oil in ANWR, combined with the energy it takes to extract oil, we will have actually used more net energy than we can possibly gain from there.

I know we need to drill more, sadly, but ANWR is not the place for it.

And for people freaking out about ruining the environment, the actually percentage of ANWR destroyed is something like .01%, which is not neccesarily enough to cause concern. It's not the ecological side that makes this wrong, it's the lack of benefit we draw from it.

Because every time we try to get it from somewhere else (i.e. the Middle East) the democrats go insane and bitch about us taking advantage of other nations, raping their resources, killing innocent people for oil, etc. We would GLADLY get it from other places, the problem is there is ALWAYS ALWAYS opposition from the left, no matter where the oil is coming from.

And Rufio2028, we're not drilling to "solve problems" long-term, we're drilling just to get a little bit more oil than we have now to hold us over while we explore alternative energy. It doesn't happen overnight.

Oh, and by the way, Iceland is "close" to it, meaning it'll still be a good decade before they do. And plus, Iceland has less than 300,000 people living there, they are much poorer than we are, and they do not have anywhere NEAR the energy consumption needs we have. We're 300 MILLION people who use a lot of energy. It's not the same thing as 300,000 who don't drive much.

There are a lot of ways to harness electricity. That is not hte problem. The problem is producing it FAST enough, on a LARGE scale. For example, we have those freaking wind power plants. Those produce energy, why not use those? Because we don't have enough to provide power for 300 million people. Hydrogen will not work for us as it might for Iceland, for that reason. We need too much, too fast.

[Justin_stacy]

just read what Robert Kennedy Jr. has to say about this stuff...it is very interesting.

"If it has 550,000 caribou in it, if it's the primary area for polar bear denning, the primary area for musk ox breeding, the primary area for arctic wolves and a number of other animals, and many of our bird species, would you call that a desolate wasteland?"

drilling into ANWR would greatly effect the animal populations that use that area as a home and as breeding grounds. Drilling in ANWR will not, I repeat WILL NOT, solve any of our energy problems.


Ya, the words of an extremist tend to be pretty “interesting,” but normally they lack accountability. And the fact is your (his) examples (which are bloated, it's only 200,000 caribou) are for all of ANWR, all 19 million acres of it. Suspected oil fields represent only 1.5 million acres of the land or 8%. That means 92% of the land isn't even in consideration. So the vast majority of the land the caribou roam, or the polar den, or the musk bread or the artic wolves gather won't be touched by the hand of man. It’s odd that dope Kennedy didn't mention that part.

Of that 1.5 million acres being looked at a total of 2000 acres is all that will be directly effected (64% less then was used in Prudhoe Bay). Honestly, there are no rational reasons for us not to attempt to get this oil and gas if it can be done relatively safely and with a moderate impact to the environment/wildlife. The fact is we need the gas, we need the oil and a few extremist shouldn't stop us from attempting to get it. Alternative fuels are at best 25 to 50 years away from being completely reliable, and that's a long time to be continually dependent on the Muslim world for our security......and you are right it won't outright solve anything, but it will help us get out of this jam, and that alone is reason enough to drill where we know there is substantial amounts of oil.

[Justin_stacy]

I know we need to drill more, sadly, but ANWR is not the place for it.
.
where else then? enviromentalist will bitch no matter where we go, at least in Alaska 75% of the people want it.....

[open mind]

where else then? enviromentalist will bitch no matter where we go, at least in Alaska 75% of the people want it.....
25% of witch are in alaska because of oil companies. the other vast majority are in it because they don't believe they should pay a sales tax despite thier shortsightedness (in a perfect world i would like a vast pile of 18 year old virgins to play with my balls whilst being sucked off and engaging in anal sex in some statisticlly impossible position, alas reality hits me...................alaskans will have to pay for their government, and they will have to eventually pay atention to what they do, but since we are one of the last to join the group we have a hard time understanding the basic rules....................or maybe we're just greedy fucks................

[Dan Hollister]

Justin is right... the fact is we need oil, and no matter where we get it from, someone from the Left is going to get pissed off. We need to stop listening and start getting the damn oil!