That'll teach those librul assholes... Take my congress from me, will they?

On Friday, more than 30 people representing fishermen, native Alaskans and conservationists wrote Bush urging him not to lift the ban.

* * * *

Wow. 30 people? Weighed against--what?--over 10,000 new jobs, 200 million barrels of oil, and increasing our annual natural gas production by 1/4. Hmmmm. This is a toughie.

"...over 10,000 new jobs"

Source?

"200 million barrels of oil"

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

"...and increasing our annual natural gas production by 1/4."

Source?

Hans

Yeah let's suck the United States Dry thereby not having any reserve for when we REALLY need it. Like a bloody Kid with His Piggy Bank breaking it open cause He just can't wait to spend it. (Rolls Eyes)

Larry

The source is the article, Hans. If you move your cursor (the arrow) around the page, and you move it to the title ("Bush May Lift . . .), your arrow turns into a white hand. Click your mouse, then read the article that pops up.

The Minerals Management Service said in its August proposal that reopening energy development in the basin's federal waters, extending between three miles and 200 miles offshore, could produce $7.7 billion in oil and gas production and up to 11,500 jobs.

Some 200 million barrels of crude oil, about what the U.S. imports every 16 days, are thought to be there. The agency estimates the region could yield 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas _ a quarter of all U.S. annual production.

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


* * * *

You mean, like, digging for oil, and finding it?

Dumbya "MAY" lift Alaskan drilling ban?

This admin is of the oilcos
by the oilcos
and fer the oilcos

That's like saying salmon "may" return to their spawning grounds years after year.

Actually, ironically, the more true the one statement is, the less true the other.

Bad forestry practices over the years have virtually wiped out over 2/3rds of the original breeding streams up the west coast from Van city right up the Alaskan panhandle.

And RiR sees nothing but dollar signs as usual.

* deep sigh *

Why don't they ever haff drilling bans at the dentist office?

Be Well.

I live in AK and the feelings are mixed but lean in favor of drilling. Frankly if the truth were told the Righty-tirities have been hiding behind the skirts of the greenies regarding Alaskan oil which until Bushfucker screwed things up in the middle east (and just about everywhere else the US gets sweet crude oil) all of a sudden it looks better ... almost profitable. Prior until now there just wasn't enough return for the amount of work to harvest the oil.

At current usage rates it will increase oil coffers about 2%.

As a lame duck, a lame brain and just months away from treason charges, Bush has nothing to loose by completing his wealth redistribution plan. To date, he has conducted the largest such plan in world history, in an attempt to transfer all wealth into the hands of the fewest number of people. By stripping what remains of America's oil reserves before being arrested, charged and imprisoned, this administration can make certain that they complete the task they were hired to do. Why would anyone think these criminals would do anything different? Have they behaved legally, morally, justly or with prudence in the last 12 years? Really. This story isn't news; its proof of the truth of everything we've been saying about them, all along.

Another example of a Christian leader gone wild. This President is insane and absolutely refuses to see lower cost alternatives for energy. If we want cheaper and cleaner alternatives we should get it from Brazil and life the embargo this President put in that. If the Oil companies cannot compete in the open market with Brazil, they should suffer the conseqences . The oil companies needs free market incentives finding more economic and clear fuel.

And this is a shock because . . . . ?

Spud,
I worked for Calif. Fish and Game in the early 90's in Weaverville Calif..
My job was to help on a 10 year study of the Salmon returns in the Trinity river.
The Study started in 85 and ended was supposed to end in 95. The Government pulled our funding in 93 and that was the end of the study and my job.
It was clear by the info that we had gathered that the numbers were dropping every year. The numbers weren't dropping in a small way eather. It was very very obvious that the salmon numbers were way down from the first years of the study to the last year of the study.
I would like to see what they are now. That was over 15 years ago.

oops...13 years ago...

Welcome to the Resistance (Der Widerstand)! You believe in freedom, justice, equality, and your country, and you can't be converted to the the dark side.

Breakdown: your Blind Patriotism levels are borderline unhealthy, but you show such a love of people from everywhere and a natural resistance to brainwashing, you would probably focus your energy to fight the Fuehrer with furor, so to speak.

Conclusion: born and raised in Germany in the early 1930's, you would have taken up ARMS against the oppressors. Or even your friends' oppressors. Congratulations!

Less than 5% of all test takers earn a spot in the Resistance!

on topic:

Instead of spending all this money on finding new places to get oil, why aren't we finding new ways to generate energy? Perhaps building safer nuclear power plants...

Salmon? I like salmon. I eat it at least twice a week. It's so plentiful that it's one of the cheapest fish on the market.

The article posted above by DATA discusses the question of saving a particular habit and concludes with the following:

Saving these fish would result in great costs that may exceed the value that is generated from the program.

I would agree with that conclusion.

"the question of saving a particular habit(sic)"

ROFL

I thought it was "so plentiful"?
Got any Atlantic Cod?

I don't particularly like Atlantic Cod, it doesn't hold together well in some recipes. I prefer Halibut or Grouper for a "white" fish.

"You mean, like, digging for oil, and finding it?

Posted by rightisright at 2006-12-03 12:09

RisR - So we "snort" our way through 200 million barrels of oil (16 days) and 5 trillion cf of natural gas (3 months)..... then what?

I know that Alaska's fossil fuel reserves are like a "bright shiny object" to the petro industry's crows, but we have got to develop a farther reaching game plan.
Maybe it would be strategic to leave as much of our oil/gas reserves in the ground as possible for other future applications, and develop other sources of energy before dire consequences breath heavily down our collective necks.

Salmon? I like salmon. I eat it at least twice a week. It's so plentiful that it's one of the cheapest fish on the market.

Posted by Redman at 2006-12-03 09:48 AM | Reply |

If it's at all cheap you are eating farmed salmon, which contains questionable matter from water pollution and the feed and antibiotics fed to the fish.

Their study, which appears in this week's (Jan. 9) Science, is the most comprehensive analysis to date of salmon toxin concentrations."

Posted by DATA at 2006-12-03 02:51 PM |

--- I had seen this study earlier. Between this issue and the depletion of fisheries, I find the prospect of diminishing sources of seafood to be downright depressing.

"I find the prospect of diminishing sources of seafood to be downright depressing."

Oh well. I still have some perch in the stock tank.

No let's outsource our energy needs entirely to OPEC. Let them pollute their countries. Why should we be reasonable?

"If it's at all cheap you are eating farmed salmon, which contains questionable matter from water pollution and the feed and antibiotics fed to the fish."

Yum.

I hear there's twenty years of oil in the Canadian oil-sands. At the $60 a barrel price it's being successfully extracted. I don't know how environmentally damaging it is, but less so than this region of Alaska I would bet.

Electric cars, hemp, metglass, photovoltaic plastics, even ethanol would eliminate an amount of "oil dependency", but also forego adding more pollutants. I wasn't aware that the Trade Secrets Act prohibited the American population from knowing that after Ford removed it's manufacturing plants from the United States it set up shop in Syria. One emailer on Lou Dobbs wrote akin to "every time we go to the pumps we are fueling terrorist interests".

ahyes.......drill a well or two and all of a sudden there's no fish to eat and animals will die by the hundreds wiping out entire species........

yeah of course it will.....

and what about the bill to drill offshore on east and west coasts? the one that congress is too afraid to vote on?
and then bitch about the price of gas at the pump........

get a horse.

Strategically, the best thing to do for American interests is to leave oil in American ground until we absolutely must take it out. Let the Saudi's run out of their oil first. This would be the patriotic course. But then Bush has never been patriotic towards American interests. He is of the rich, for the rich, and put there by the rich. And the Oil Cos are just one of his clients.

Please don't get me wrong. I think Bush really means well, but Bush sincerely believes that rich people are the backbone of America. This is the plantation mentality that he espouses. The rest of us are just the hired help. And in the case of our military, they are all just cannon fodder.

If he lets his clients get this oil, it will be good for profits, and good for gas prices. But it won't for a second be in the best strategic interests of America.

Prius04 wrote,

"If he lets his clients get this oil, it will be good for profits, and good for gas prices. But it won't for a second be in the best strategic interests of America."


How could having more domestic oil not be in the best strategic interest of the United States?

MRHAPPY,

Did you read my whole post?

Leaving the oil in the ground NOW, will mean it will be available LATER. Taking it out of the ground now means the Arab oil stays in their ground longer, so that they have it longer. If the USA then runs out, and the Arabs still have tons in the ground, that is not in the best interest of the American people.

And by LATER, I mean when Arab oil is mostly gone.

What would be in the best strategic interest for the USA NOW, would be to stop using Arab oil. Not by using more of our own, but by using less overall. We have the technology NOW to do that, we simply lack the leadership. My car gets 50MPG and every light bulb in my house is low energy use compared to incandescent, and my home is super insulated.

Again, we have the technology now, we just lack the leadership. Right now we have leadership that believes corporate interests are the same as America's interests.

Prius04,

I agree it is better to use less oil now and in the future. My only reasoning about tapping Alaska is to be prepared because of the possibility of supply interruption from the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela, etc. Yes there is an awful lot more we can do to prevent oil from being used as a tactical weapon against us.
I also use compact flourescent bulbs in my home because I don't like giving my money away unless I want to.

MrHappy-
It's refreshing that both you and the President now speak openly about our true interests in Iraq. Oh....but we were talking about your money...

How could having more domestic oil not be in the best strategic interest of the United States?

It's not "ours". It would be sold on the global market just like all the other oil. To claim that it is "ours" is just as stupid as claiming that Exxon is "ours".

...oh, but you do that, and don't even wonder about it, Mr Happy.

Mr Happy-
Do you think that that the corporation that sticks its straw into ANWAR will send its oil to your gas tank out of patriotism and the desire to be free of foreign oil?

Are you truly that stupid? (I'm really just curious....are you that stupid?)

ANWAR might be domestic oil while it's still in the ground but it won't remain that way once it's pumped.

This reminds me of the hype we were fed back in the 60's about the Alaskan Pipe Line reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It was and still is being sold on the world market and scant little of it ever makes it to our domestic market.

I would expect the same for any oil coming from ANWAR which, by questionable coincidence, is the same group who are waiting for Iraqi oil reserves to be privatized. Exxon-Mobil, Shell and British Petroleum being the chief movers and shakers of course.

One would have to be a gullible fool to think ANWAR's reserves would be used for America's consumption.

Boyd, I am not aware of any domesticly produced oil that is sold overseas but maybe you could shed some light on the subject for us?

Which companies? Sold to what countries? How much is Sold? Links please?

BLT,
"get a horse."
I finally agree with something you said!

There is no, none, zero, nada alturism involved in drilling in ANWAR.

It's all about money, money and mo' money.

According to a 2004 report by the Energy Information Administration, the oil flowing from the North Slope to Valdez through the Alaskan Pipeline is due to decrease by half by 2025.

Without the (Anwar) development, oil flowing from the North Slope would fall to 500,000 barrels a day ~ half it's current level ~ by 2025 and approach levels at which the pipeline may no longer be economical to operate.

The pipeline is owned by: British Petroleum, Exxon, Mobile, Hess, Phillips and Unocal.

The source is the article, Hans. If you move your cursor (the arrow) around the page, and you move it to the title ("Bush May Lift . . .), your arrow turns into a white hand. Click your mouse, then read the article that pops up.

Posted by rightisright at 2006-12-03 12:07 AM |


Lmao!

Instead of spending all this money on finding new places to get oil, why aren't we finding new ways to generate energy? Perhaps building safer nuclear power plants...

Posted by Axiom at 2006-12-03 07:51 AM |

No OIL, no NUKES, No Coal. GEt with the program! Save the TIT mouse!

The article posted above by DATA discusses the question of saving a particular habit and concludes with the following:

Saving these fish would result in great costs that may exceed the value that is generated from the program.

I would agree with that conclusion.

Posted by Redman at 2006-12-03 10:57 AM


Lmao!

"If it's at all cheap you are eating farmed salmon, which contains questionable matter from water pollution and the feed and antibiotics fed to the fish."

Yum.

Posted by Lisa at 2006-12-03 06:03 PM |

Almost sounds like the beef, pork and poultry you eat.

Ever hear of herbicides or pesticides? Can't feed the numbers being fed now without them.

Don't believe me? Take a ride through Amish country in July or August and pick an ear.