Let’s see if we get this straight. Continue to pay outrageous prices at the pump, the revenue of which goes overseas to help fund Islamicist “outreach” programs, raise taxes on and continue to regulate against oil companies to discourage domestic oil production creating more upward pressure on the price of oil, and plunge face first into a universal program to burn food instead of oil to meet our energy demands. Now, that’s an energy policy we can all get behind!
Exit question: If drilling in Prudhoe Bay Alaska is O.K., then why isn’t drilling in ANWR?
Story here.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Its obvious we're missing the point.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Because the debate is not about drilling in ANWAR. It's not about "not building oil refineries because of the environment" It's not about "fears of nuclear meltdown" or unsightly windmills, it's about knocking this damn country down a peg, and liberal white friggin guilt. Who do we think we are anyway? How can we prosper when so many suffer?
Facetiously yours,
Pissed off 'Dawg
Ah, yes. The GOP/Big Business energy panacea: ANWAR. The promise of curing all our energy ills with the proverbial drop in the bucket... 20 years from now.
The answer to the question posed is this: Because it's a REFUGE! Federally-designated, as a matter of fact.
It's the same answer to the question, "Why can't we build this energy line through the middle of your pristine state park?"
Answer: Because it's not supposed to be put there.
Thank god there's no oil under Yosemite Valley. Or wait, maybe there is... Let's throw some exploratory rigs in there and stake some claims. Why not? They're doing it on the rim of the Grand Canyon for uranium claims.
Where does it all stop? We drain the Everglades for water. We dropped a dam in the middle of Yosemite and drowned the second Yosemite Valley. Do we need to stick a pipeline through Yellowstone for the steam from the geysers and vents? How about a water pipeline direct from the base of Mt. Rainier National Park's glaciers to California? How about if we strip-mine Great Smoky Mountains National Park for coal? Why not? Big Business is already literally blowing the tops off half the mountains in the Appalachians for coal in a model of "efficiency". What's a few mountain tops more for the Almighty Dollar?
Does everything have to be a money-making venture for the already rich which will have no long-term solution to a systemic problem?
Sometimes, people do things for the long-haul good rather than the short-term gain.
You seem, BwD, many years ago some wise men got together and said, "Holy Sh*t! We're paving over just about everything. If we keep this up, there isn't hardly a spot on American soil that won't be touched. We might want to think about preserving some areas so that nature can be how it was intended."
Thus was born the idea of landmarks, preserves, parks, monuments, etc.
By the time ANWAR's pitiful amount of oil is tapped and ready for market in 20 years, I should hope that this nation would be WELL on its way to powering things in alternative ways. If it's not, doubtless we'll have Big Oil's legislative games and GOP pocket lining to blame. And doubtless that "bonanza" of oil pined for by the fat-walleted set will give them a nice little windfall -- and America enough oil to last about 4 months.
Whoopee.
You say you want to stop sending money to nation-states that mean us ill-will? Try what used to be known as a "little American ingenuity".
There are alternatives to wasting the last bit of wilderness we have. Why not develop them? Why not put all that time, money and effort we'd use to ransack ANWAR and instead put it into something clean and renewable and, oh, not in the MIDDLE OF A REFUGE!
These protected places are so few and far between. Why is that Big Business and it's GOP beneficiaries seem to look at them as targets rather than places that should be left alone?
That dot in the middle of ANWAR in the middle of Alaska might look innocuous enough for building something. But if, in addition to the arguments made above, we also understand that it is smack-dab in the middle of the migration pattern of elk, etc, that is used by them to get from feeding grounds to birthing grounds, then we must conclude that it is either a) really dumb to have a facility for Big Business built there, or b) ridiculous to have refuge.
I'll accept the notion that Big Business is attempting something dumb, greedy, and short-sighted any day of the week.
No, Dawg and BWD, nobody in the environmental movement is "trying to knock this country down a peg". We're trying to save what was once left of it.
- Mongo Muir
"money making venture"...? Funny... After filling my gas tank a couple days ago, I was thinking it would be a "money saving venture."
Yosemite Valley...? Seen it. Magnificent place. ANWR...? Seen some pictures... not impressed. Face it, Mongo, its the "politics of cute." We kill fish and pigs for food, not dolphins and dogs. When you finally get up to ANWR and take some pictures, that place will still be just pictures to 99.999999% of the rest of us.
And try a "little American ingenuity"...? precisely why with advancements like articulating/telescopic drilling, the footprint stays small and which will have zero effect on the migratory patterns of wildlife that you don't seem quite as concerened with when there's a border fence to be built.
And why does this have to be a GOP thing? You don't think those lions of the Left have the taint of Big Oil in their portfolios? Please. They ARE rich enough to afford their pathetic moralizing and grandstanding while they stick it to the rest of us.
As I said in a previous post, if we had acted on this 15-20 years ago, when this first became national discussion, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
My Dear Mr Lloyd,
Allow me to retort;
Let’s not set up ANWAR as some cure-all for energy, or the GOP hangs all it’s energy solutions on such a notion. Let’s look at it for what it is; part of our natural reserves that we can explore, and could have explored long ago, except for… 20 years could be now.
Okay, it’s a refuge, but just because it’s federally designated, doesn’t make it sacrosanct. The war in Iraq was also federally designated, slavery was federally designated, income tax was federally designated, and do we need to go further? Just because we put morons in charge of our federal government, does not make them brilliant people.
So let’s agree the argument that because the. …(Oh, the written word cannot add my sarcasm…) “Federal government” has designated this land as a refuge, has credible merit.
That being said, as a conservative, I wish to conserve our natural habitat. At the same time, we need to explore our natural resources. I believe we can achieve a balance, but not with you people (dems and reps) stroking each other’s constituencies.
Let’s start with the Alaska pipeline? HMMMMM?! How about the doom and gloom over that project? Where is the environment wacko choir singing 20 years later on that one/ vis a vis the benefit? Oh, the tundra, Oh the animal migration, ….Oh, the bul*&%t.
Yes Mongo Lloyd, it’s the same question, It IS supposed to be there, WE (humans) are part of the environment.
You really want to preserve Yosemite Valley? Holy Sh&t Batman, I was just there. Let’s stop the millions of Asian tourists, roads, campers, and you, FRIGGIN MONGO, from visiting. Do you really have any sane expectation of these parks being pristine? We are “man” and we conquer our environment. How did you get to Yellowstone, did you walk? (Mongo…..YOU DIDN’T WALK?) If you didn’t, you are party to the problem as you see it.
So let’s not fool ourselves, we have already polluted Yosemite with Mongo’s presence, the Grand Canyon with Mongo’s presence, and I would agree that some of this is worthwhile, so that Mongo can enjoy God’s creation, wonder and magnificence, it is not a reason to deny the treasures held for mankind within these visual wonders.
We cannot find a balance?
This is the moronic message of which you cling: “We can’t have balance” …then Mongo, shut the hell up, bicycle your way to Yosemite on…. Oh, sorry, no roads……enjoy yourself, because, other than that, you’re a hypocritical bitch! You have already plundered that “pristine” valley. Thanks Mongo, nice trip.
Does a bear s&%t in the woods? NO.. he craps on the black top walk-way in Yosemite, and I have a picture to prove it. I’ll send it to Dean so you can see what you and your kind did to Yosemite.
So now you want to put your guilt on some spec of nowhere, that….thank God your kind (I saw what YOUR kind did to Yosemite) will never have the chance to see. And the creative genius of mankind in your humble opinion will not find a way to preserve the environment.
So get off the guilt trip and be part of the solution. This doesn’t mean drilling/ not drilling in ANWAR. We can find a balance in all our solutions. Get on board with that! Let’s work on ourselves, and start pointing our fingers at national polluters like China, or oceanic rapists like Japan.
Next; Already rich? Aren’t these corporations owned by stockholders? People who want to own a part of the American Dream? Glad to have you lump them all in, Mr. Lloyd, nice, “already rich”, very nice. Hope your 401k is pristine.
Then, the logic: your telling me, oil companies would rape this land, spend millions of dollars to drill and move oil for to last only four months. No, Mongo, you said, “enough oil to last four months” …really!? (BwD readers, he really said it) Do you have a clue as to how inhospitable this land is? Really.. you wrote it down, these greedy corps would spend the dough for four months worth of oil..AND I’m supposed to take you serious.
So, Mr. Lloyd, in conclusion, until I see you putting on your backpack and tearing up the pavement in Yosemite, I will find your objection to drilling in ANWAR a little bit reactionary and unfounded. I may not find it ridiculous to have a refuge, but I do find it hypocritical to have millions of tourists and miles of pavement in Yosemite and Yellowstone, and we can’t find balance in ANWAR. Until you pull your head out, and smell what your shoveling, I can’t take you serious.
Let’s find balance and real solutions. Let’s work on being conservators of our environment without blowing smoke up our ass or finding America as the “bad guy” Let’s not use “bad science” to be good stewards of our environment. Let’s find incentive to encourage business to reflect our better nature. Let’s quit empowering the political processes to evoke conflict rather than resolution.
Damnit Dean, you beat up Mongo as I was on my rant.
...uhhh, I don't think I was one doing the beating-up.
Strangely, I believe I've taken the vast majority of my trips to Yosemite via carpool. Once there, I only ride the shuttle buses or, more likely, am on the trail walking to my destination. And, just as likely while I'm there, I am stuffing various bits of trash I come across into my pockets and backpack. So in the great Mongo Carbon Footprint Impact on Yosemite, I go out of my way to keep it to a minimum. More to the point, I'm not drilling for oil there.
I also reject the "remoteness" argument. If Yellowstone is located where ANWAR is, does it then become drilling-eligible? A place's location doesn't give it any less of a must-protect status. In fact, in ANWAR's case, it gives it more so due to the fact that wildlife needs that area to do its thing.
The border fence issue is the exception to the rule, as was explained in my piece: that stopping the flow of illegal aliens would protect America's natural resources and would by leaps and bounds do more good in helping the environment than hurting it.
Bear poop on the road. I'll just let that one stand on its own. Sometimes I wonder what other goodies of our American system you'd do away with, Dawg, but that's a whole other discussion. Yosemite is federally-designated, too. In fact, not only is it a national park, 90% of it is federally-designated wilderness, and you aren't allowed to move a rock or twig in that situation unless you want Uncle Sam's friendly guys in the broad-rimmed hats to take a big bite out of your wallet. And when I go there, I obey all federally-mandated laws, leave no trace, and make sure I go above and beyond -- both in the valley and out in the wilderness.
Want to know why all those tourists are there: 1) They came to see a PROTECTED resource, and 2) Big business ships them in (Xanterra, tour companies, etc) after they get GOP lawmakers to make the protected areas more "busienss-friendly". Thank goodness they limit it to the valley, which is 5% of the actual park. Can't have too many of those "asian tourists" in the backcountry.
If you were in the 5% that is Yosemite Valley, Dawg, with all those tourists, and it bothered you that much, than think of the little dot on BwD's map inside of ANWAR and just think how all that industrial activity would bother the elk, caribou and everything else in the middle of their birthing grounds when they are acting upon thousands of years of instinct in going to those areas. You saw the developed area of Yosemite, and were disturbed. The wildlife would have to see the developed area of ANWAR, and they'd be disturbed. The difference is you can go home and write angrily about poop on the road. They have to live with it.
Indeed, you got one thing right, Dawg: "Balance". In areas not designated wilderness, parks, reserves, etc, explore away! (That's what God made holes like Texas and Oklahoma for.)
But not inside. Parks, etc, are to be left alone when it comes to commercial exploits.
Want to strike an even greater balance? Seriously put the effort into developing renewable energy. If we had done THAT 20 years ago, we wouldn't even be having this argument.
And, if nothing else (such as little inconveniences like federal protection) sways you, try this: The American people don't want drilling in ANWAR! By huge numbers. Repeatedly.
So if we're not for saving God's creation, or for following the rule of law, or for following the will of the American people, are we supposed to just drill away whenever and wherever because Dawg and the "great not-so-silent minority" want to?
- Mongo the Preservatia-Bitch
As a matter of fact, 70-75% of Alaskans do want to drill in ANWR. But they can be forgiven this transgression - all they're after is like, jobs, a better economy, etc. Greedy little bitches.
Dean the Federalist
Mongo,
Thank you for a serious rebut. Touché
My point with the bear poop was satirical. I took a photo, because, that late in the season (Thanksgiving) to see evidence of bears of any kind gave me pause in a threefold way. 1) It was steaming, and at 6am that was a little scary, 2) it was past his bedtime, and 3)C'mon, on the black top pedestrian path… and not in the woods? That's funny.
But you have found a balance to having blacktop roads, buses, and more camera-toting tourists than I have EVER seen in my life, in Yosemite. You have found a way to pave over 5% of Yosemite, and Mongo, I was there, and I could argue this is not balance either. Your “carbon footprint” is seen in the very asphalt on which you walk. That portion of paving upon which you walk, is only there by your desire. Just as the emissions of the vehicle you carpooled to get there. Why can't we have a balance with Anwr?
Sure I love the rule of law, but I don’t believe in the law when the law is only there because the American people have been lied to. By people like you who say, we can have a balance in Yosemite with 5% blacktop, because it suits my liberal needs, but want to demigog the rich evil republicans for drilling in Anwr. (By the way, did you check your 401k portfolio to make sure you’re not a beneficiary?)
You demigog this by lying about the amount of oil there. Do you really believe these greedy rich oil companies would spend this kind of money to drill in some of the most inhospitable areas of the world to get four months worth of revenue? That doesn’t even pass the smell test. Yet you and your like have made the “amount of oil there”, a saleable part of your argument. So how can I take you serious?
Similarly you demigog this by over-stating the impact to wildlife. Why do you do this? It helps your cause, because the dopey-eyed Americans love their caribou, and liberal white guilt sets in. If there is an impact to the wildlife, I will cede it requires acknowledgement, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves or overstate the position. Let’s find balance.
So I can’t trust you because you lie to me. I am on board with being a conservator. But when the rule of law is built on phony premise, I call “foul” !!!! ….. Irrespective of your good intentions. At some point, I begin to wonder about your intentions.
I look at man-made global warming with the same distrust. Do You know how I know it's BS? Just because you and your like scream so damn hard to claim “consensus”. That there is no argument, or that these people are not “true” scientists.
It reminds me of the Evolution Vs Creation Science debate. Morons on both sides.
I am totally on your side to reduce pollution, and I believe fighting the war on terror begins with de-funding our enemies. But you piss me off when you disregard geologic activity, wind patterns, and solar activity and won’t even consider them in the mix,nope.... just us evil GOP corporations building our towers.
Liar and a bitch all in one day. I must be hitting my public oratory stride.
Well, OK. To further this fine example of public discourse straight out of Lincoln-Douglas-Jerry Springer... Let's go with the "11 billion barrels" estimate provided in the source material provided by BwD via link in the original post (An OpEd piece to be sure, but I suppose a source nonetheless. But I digress...)
Do you know what the chances of there being 11 billion barrels at ANWR? 5%. That's right, a five percent chance of there being even that much. Much more likely, 95%, is an estimate of there being only 4.3 billion barrels there. America uses 20M barrels/day. That's about 230 days worth of oil if my arithmetic is correct (Somebody with a calculator can verify that). 7 1/2 months. Is it my original off-the-cuff 4 months? No (My god, I am a liar!). But is that enough to want to plow through one of the birthing grounds of one of the last pristine places in America? Not a friggin' chance.
If it's balance you seek, look due west of ANWR. When you think of the Alaska Shelf, you've already got ANWR's oil productive mirror image at Prudhoe Bay. Balance achieved. One spot you are producing, the other you are protecting.
The other prong of my argument is why put all that effort into something that lasts 7 months when you can put it instead into something that is renewable and clean? (And how is that "disregarding wind, solar, and geothermal"? Are these things only to be found in protected places?)
Yosemite again? I think that the Powers-That-Be have recognized man's negative footprint in that area for years -- if not decades. When the 1996 100 year flood went through and wiped out a significant portion of man-made items, they decided to implement much-overdue changes to reduce man's imprint on the valley: The Yosemite Plan. As a result, essentially everything on the eastern end of the valley floor is being moved to the western end in an effort to restore the portion of the valley nearest Half Dome. I can do another 9 paragraphs on Yosemite Plan alone, but point conceded when you are suggesting the less impact man has on such places, the better.
As for my lying about this, that, and the other thing (including global warming, apparently): It says something to me that on the very day we debate this in such a mature, stately manner, that George W. Bush's own interior department has put the polar bear that resides along the Alaska Shelf on the endangered list due to -- ta dah! -- shrinking sea ice. Numbers are estimated to be reduced to 1/3 by the time the middle of this century rolls around.
Don't worry, though. It's just one more animal we can do without for us gullible dopey-eyed Americans of the white-liberal guilt pursuasion.
- "Lying Liars and The Lies They Lie About" Mongo
Didn't I apologize for the "bitch" comment? Sorry again, must've hit a nerve..............but,
"The scientific community, oil industry and government geologists ALL generally believe that the oil and gas resource potential for ANWR to be very high. They all agree that ANWR ranks as a major petroleum province that could contribute significantly to the nation's energy supplies in the early 21st century when production from other areas, including Prudhoe Bay, has significantly declined."
See, you don’t have consensus. I pulled this off the very first site I Googled, first paragraph. Should I believe it?
You completely miss my point. If the evil moneygrubbers could only produce oil for 4 months, why would they drill, knowing the costs? It doesn't make sense.
As far as "global warming" I don't trust Bush either. We can put polar bears on the endangered species list, but what does that really accomplish? Mongo, I am a big fan of the polar bear. And it has survived ice age and warming prior to this recent climate change. I observe another “feel good” measure.
My biggest problem with this mentality is logic and blame. You never addressed why the global warming crowd doesn't include solar activity, act in their argument. And never addressed the logic of moneygrubbers spending billions for a four-month return.
It’s like the home schooling issue, you parse your words, but you never really answer the question. I asked you, “What would you do?” No response, just what you would HAVE others do. I ask, “Where is the logic of drilling for such limited resources, when these corporations are so greedy” Never answered. Why doesn’t the global warming crowd present effects of solar, geologic and wind changes in their presentation? It makes them suspect. I may be redundant in the question, but it’s only because you won’t answer.
Mongo, you obviously have more information on this than I. But I look at some of the crap conspiracy theories about “Bush’s involvement with Bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks” that my kids want to show me. I approach it with the same logic. I don’t need to see the engineer’s proof to tell me its crap. I look at the amount of people that hate the George Bush, and know, if this crap had any merit, he would be strung up. C’mon, please, the media, the Dems, even your’s truly.
In the meantime, I will reduce my carbon footprint for the right reasons: I want to be a good steward of God’s gift. But make no mistake about it; I believe we can do this without becoming a third world country. Just as I believe we can enjoy Yosemite with limited footprint, I believe we can explore options in Anwr without bs’ing the public.
Alright, you're getting into fields way off the reservation. Bin Laden and Bush and 9/11 have what to do with ANWR exactly?
Hey, if I'm a souless oil company and can pump out 4.3 billion barrels at what will probably be around $7/gallon by the time production rolls around in 20 years, I take that $30,000,000,000 and run to the bank. No incentive? Are you kidding? That's friggin' layup.
As for polar bears... Yes, they have lived with up and downs in climate change (and here's the key phrase...) over the centuries. Given time, you can take the species homosapien that originated in the frying pan of Africa and have his descendants sitting on a sheet of ice on a lake in northernmost Norway in mid-winter, dropping a line through ice waiting to catch a fish, and saying, "Gee, it's certainly a pretty day out" at minus 30.
When you take a polar bear and melt the ice out from under it in two decades flat, though... well, I hope you like zoos. Because you aren't going to be likely to find them anywhere else.
As for your pulled source quote, can that thing get any more vague? I give you hard numbers and you come up with that? That's all ya got? It's actually really beautiful. I'm going to quote it just to join in:
"The scientific community, oil industry and government geologists ALL generally believe that the oil and gas resource potential for ANWR to be very high. They all agree that ANWR ranks as a major petroleum province that could contribute significantly to the nation's energy supplies in the early 21st century when production from other areas, including Prudhoe Bay, has significantly declined."
They "ALL" agree, do they? Wow! That is amazing stuff! The thought of all those folks coming together is just enough to bring tears to my eyes.
And where could we find such an incredible Kumbaya-Kodak-Moment? Ah, www.anwr.org. Of course! From the same school of thought that brought you the slogan "Fox News: Fair and Balanced" comes www.anwr.org -- an even-handed source if there ever was one. Launched by the pro-drilling organization Arctic Power, anwr.org is the perfect place to go for quotes and other amazing information on how "everyone agrees" that sticking wells in the middle of a wildlife refuge is for the benefit of all -- right down to the pictures of the two cute little eskimo children holding hands.
Ya really got me!
- Mongo Yukon Cornelius
Let's start with this, " Hey, if I'm a souless oil company and can pump out 4.3 billion barrels at what will probably be around $7/gallon by the time production rolls around in 20 years, I take that $30,000,000,000 and run to the bank. No incentive? Are you kidding? That's friggin' layup."
You are telling me, the payoff for exlploration, drilling, set-up mobilization, shipping, is offset by four months of oil.....really? I mean....really. My Bush/ binladin metaphor was merely an illustration.
Ok, so you have bought into the evil oil industry spending the billions to get billions, because they are so greedy. I can't,,Mongo, I..just ..cant. It doesn't make sense on it's face. If there was long range payoff, (which I think there is) and it was acknowleged, I could use your argument for "is it worth it" But to try to make the case that $7 gal is worth it for whatever future prediction you deem fits your agenda, I don't buy it. If the cost of gas is 7gal, then the cost of production has risen.
And now you say it would take 20 years, (look above Mongo, your said 20 years) to make this kind of money in (previous post) 4 months. So how am I supposed to keep a straight face?
You never addressed why the global warming crown doesn't factor changing wind patterns, geologic changes, and solar activity? Why is it, "it's just us"?
So I'm a skeptic, and I'm sure you will lump me in with some crowd as I do you. But man, your cred has no merit with the 20 years with all the costs vs the four month production. You can call it a 'lay-up" but 20 years vs four months of production..... really?
Post a Comment