Budget Bill Passage Delayed over Arctic Oil Drilling

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by BudWiser, Dec 20, 2005.

  1. BudWiser

    BudWiser New Member

    Jul 17, 2000
    Falls Church, VA
  2. LiverpoolFanatic

    Liverpool FC, Philadelphia Union
    Feb 19, 2000
    Lancaster, PA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's an incredibly fragile eco-system. Bio-diversity is imperative for a healthy planet to sustain life of any kind. We're already destroying habitats right left and center for big business.

    There isn't that much oil there to begin with from what I understand--but I am not a petrochemical engineer, and it would take a long time to develop. It would do next to nothing to reduce our dependence on foriegn oil. The money spent to develop ANWR would be better spent on developing nojn-fossil fuel alternatives.
     
  3. speedcake

    speedcake Member

    Dec 2, 1999
    Tampa
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Instead of putting more money into serious research towards finding viable alternatives to oil and thusly ending our dependancy on Middle Eastern dictators/kings, we're going to open up one of the last unspoiled tracts of wilderness left on the planet for the equivelant of a few drops of oil on the scale of decades.

    Yeah, there are reasons we shouldn't do this other than wildlife.
     
  4. CrewDust

    CrewDust Member

    May 6, 1999
    Columbus, Ohio
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Also, the Alaskan Pipe Line is getting old an in need of replacement, it probably doesn't have much excess capacity left.
     
  5. Malaga CF fan

    Malaga CF fan Member

    Apr 19, 2000
    Fairfax, VA
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not to mention, this is a disgusting political move by Ted Stevens (R-AK) in an effort to force his fellow Senators who have opposed the drilling to vote for it, because it's within a Department of Defense Spending appropriation. Voting against it would delay important programs like Hurricane Katrina relief aid, military funding for troops overseas, etc....

    Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Springfield is about to be hit by a meteor. They clip to a scene in Congress where a bill to save Springfield by launching a missile to intercept the meteor is on the floor of Congress. The bill is about to pass when a lawmaker tacks a rider onto the bill to "fund the perverted arts." The bill doesn't pass and Springfield is left to fend for itself. Funny how parody strikes so close to real life sometimes.

    Our system of government is bankrupt if crap like this can filter through. May burning hot coals pile on top of Sen. Stevens head.
     
  6. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Spot on. I heard Stevens speech on the floor while listening to NPR yesterday. What a stammering idiot. You can tell from his voice that even considering that this may not be a good idea is a personal affront to him.
     
  7. Dammit!

    Dammit! Member

    Apr 14, 2004
    Mickey Mouse Land
    Hold a second. This would allow PRIVATE companies to explore for oil, right?

    The government isn't going to be spending money looking for oil, is it?

    Any idea what effect it would have on the ecosystem?
     
  8. Autogolazo

    Autogolazo BigSoccer Supporter

    Feb 19, 2000
    Bombay Beach, CA
    Infrastructure, my friend. Federal and state governments will have to build the roads, etc.

    The land is public and federal to begin with--it doesn't belong to Alaska, Ted Stevens or Exxon-Mobil.

    ANWR is the last major unspoiled wilderness in the United States.

    Party of Teddy Roosevelt, eh? Teddy Roosevelt would be spinning in his grave to see these crooks try to sabotage the environment in the name of what (by all accounts) is a limited amount of oil.

    And this doesn't even begin to explain how ANWR got tacked on to the defense dept. budget bill, which in itself is a political charade.
     
  9. Dammit!

    Dammit! Member

    Apr 14, 2004
    Mickey Mouse Land
    So, Mr. Oil Explorer wll come along and say "I want a road built from here to there" and the Feds will hop to? That doesn't make any sense.

    And what accounts say that there is a small amount of oil?
     
  10. YankHibee

    YankHibee Member+

    Mar 28, 2005
    indianapolis

    Nobody said it makes sense, I guess that is sorta the point. All accounts have said that there is not enough oil to really make a difference. Enough to give a brief kick to economy, sure, but not enough to really affect much else.
     
  11. speedcake

    speedcake Member

    Dec 2, 1999
    Tampa
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes, they will. Just watch.
     
  12. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    Dammit is right, the oil developers will be responsible for building their own infrastructure, including a tie-in to the trans-Alaska pipeline (which I believe is seeing less and less oil from Prudhow bay). Alaska and the feds are keen on it because it will mean buttloads of tax and lease dollars. The oil developers are keen on it because, even though it's way out in the middle of nowhere, it's still a better bet than some unstable place like Nigeria.

    The development is a minor footprint in a frozen wasteland that none of these liberals will ever get close to. They're being total phonies about this pristine wilderness business.

    And until they drill a bunch of serious exploration wells, they won't know exactly how much is there. But the argument that "it's not Saudi Arabia so don't drill" is bizarre. There's no more low hanging fruit, so let's quit, huh?
     
  13. MattR

    MattR Member+

    Jun 14, 2003
    Reston
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't know that the idea of saving on of the last wilderness areas in the country (and this really is true since BushCo sold the timber rights of most of Montana to lumber companies) is a bad idea.

    And the real problem us "whiny liberals" have with the oil exploration is (1) what if we really need it someday and (2) can't we spend that time and money investigating alternatives to fossil fuels?

    You know it's bad news when the OIL COMPANIES pay for advertisements asking people to conserve oil.

    It's like if McDonalds said, "are you sure you want to supersize that? It's probably not good for you."
     
  14. MattR

    MattR Member+

    Jun 14, 2003
    Reston
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Now that argument is out of the way, what about the Republican pathetic excuse for a party? They have a majority, and they still can't pass the ANWR drilling bill on their watch, without sneaking it in, at the last minute, at midnight, into a completely unrelated funding bill for the WOT and WOL (War on Louisiana).

    Basically, the party that spouts on about an 'up or down vote' for judicial nominees doesn't bother to take into consideration the whole voting for something on its merits when its merits aren't that impressive.

    I hate the politicians. But I hate republicans more.
     
  15. Dammit!

    Dammit! Member

    Apr 14, 2004
    Mickey Mouse Land
    THe part I'm not getting is the #2. What of our money will be spent on drilling instead of investigating alternatives?

    Okay, I lied, I don't get #1 either. Does oil have an expiration date or something?

    PS. Hate clouds judgment. Didn't you learn anything from Yoda?
     
  16. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    If you say "we" you must be an oil company, because that's who's spending the time and money on ANWR.

    Or if by "we" you mean liberal handwringing phonies, you're free to invest your money in companies purporting to solve the problem of alternative fuels. Mel Brennan even touted one here in this forum, a scam to generate power by compressing air and then expanding it. That would be very appropriate, political phonies teaming up with technology phonies.

    Go ahead and follow Mel's lead, he even claims to have taken a chemistry class or two.
     
  17. speedcake

    speedcake Member

    Dec 2, 1999
    Tampa
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    right. Anyone concerned with preserving the wilderness, especially when doing otherwise is 100% uneccesary, automatically makes them phony liberal.

    I mean, what kind of rediculous argumentation is that, anyway?
     
  18. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    As for your argument, I'd call it garden-variety ridiculous.

    Being concerned about preserving wilderness is fine. Claiming that development in ANWR damages wilderness significantly or that development is 100% unnecessary is what makes it phony liberal stuff.
     
  19. speedcake

    speedcake Member

    Dec 2, 1999
    Tampa
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Um, it is 100% unnecessary and development could potentially threaten the wilderness.

    Sorry that ingredient didn't make it into your koolaid.
     
  20. entropy

    entropy Member

    Aug 31, 2000
    District of Calamity
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  21. MattR

    MattR Member+

    Jun 14, 2003
    Reston
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Okay, you win. maybe we SHOULD drill in ANWR.

    If that's true, then let the congress vote on it. Let them debate the pros and cons, get with the lobbyists and hear from the constituents, and put it to a vote.

    Oh, they've done that? A few different times? And it keeps getting voted down?

    Well then, I suppose we'll just have to try to sneak it as a rider to a totally unrelated bill when nobody is looking.
     
  22. YankHibee

    YankHibee Member+

    Mar 28, 2005
    indianapolis
  23. Dammit!

    Dammit! Member

    Apr 14, 2004
    Mickey Mouse Land
    Now, I'm with you.
     
  24. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    Actually, it isn't stupid or phony to save the resource for later, when it may be more valuable. It's claims that this is trivial stuff or that the frozen wasteland is some kind of eden that get me bilious.
     
  25. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    I'm all for drilling in ANWR provided we employ serious conservation measures and dramatically increase investments in alternative energy.
     

Share This Page