This is what all the media hype and drama is about, pretty damn silly, especially so when you finally figure out that taking the oil doesn't do any real damage to the area in the first place !


Anybody who thinks they are against drilling in ANWR for environmental reasons, should be able to study these pictures for a few minutes and deflate the issue..............

For those who are against the drilling for financial, or political reasons, I'm all ears and would like to understand your position.

Just because it's a large area we should drill? Now that's stupid. NO one knows for sure if it will do any damage or not. And finding out by doing it sounds real smart.


By the way, oil is a world commodity. It would be sold on the world market, there is no guarantee it will go to US markets.

I am going to throw my two cents in. Right now I have 3 tractors going at around 15 gallons a hour each .If I knew for sure that opening up more area in Alaska would help then I am all for it We also need more refineries . As a farmer and not only myself but all farmers we can not survive much longer face with these fuel prices So lets make it simple do you want food from other countries or open up Alaska

oregonian/sodfarmer- the problem isnt one of not enough refineries....the oil companies are shutting down refineries because they finally figured out that they make more money by producing less oil.......if you two voted for bush and i bet you both did if you voted....then you two are to blame for these prices.....look no further than the mirror for the reason for this........you helped elect an oil tycoon administration and now your paying for what you asked for.....and sorry the ole chinese and indian demand is to blame wont cut it either unless they all gave birth to billions on the day that bush got elected.........REPUBLICANS AFE TO BLAME........period..... you guys have spent 50 years securing this dependance on oil and blocked any attempt you could to research alternative energies or subsidize their research or design...........

im not for handing over any tax payer owned land to the oil companies that are allready gouging us....not even for lease....if you say your against welfare why do you support land welfare for the oil companies?????

the best estimates show that this oil would not reach the market for another ten years and it would be a minimum of $14/gallon

the issue is only to provide a distraction to their price gouging and to try and place a false blame on environmentalists for high fuel prices when environmentalist have really almost nothting to do with fuel prices at all.....

oregonian-how can you say your against welfare and be for giving away more welfare to the biggest cheats in the counry????????

i mean if you just made 400 million dollars last year and you think need more tax payer assistance!!!!!!!....all i have to say to you is .....get on the plane, we will drop you off in darfur sudan.....your new country

where on the map does it show the billions of dollars of lost revenue by hard working families due to the exxon valdez spill???????????????

If I'm not mistaken I believe farmers use heavily government subsidized diesel, that specially colored stuff, which is another form of welfare.

ANWR, what part of wildlife refuge don't you understand and why should the tax payer give billions to those whom are already heavily subsidized by the tax payer and, at the same time, ripping off the taxpayer just for a thimble full of oil that will do nothing to lower prices?
It's like turning over a national park to a timber company along with a few billion in tax payer dollars and then they export the timber to Japan.

exactly-another slight of hand trick....like when the timber companies sent billions of board feet to japan UN MILLED(where they waxed the logs and sank them to preserve them for when we run out of trees) and blamed the loss of mill work on the environmentalists

Good grief, I would hate to see you guys get excited !


1) I don't care who drills and pumps the oil(as long as American, duh), I don't think many regular Joes can get it done, so it will probably some bazillionaire.....who will try to make money doing it, which you might have heard is one of the things necessary to have an economy.........


2) There has been oil extracted and pumped out of that region for a long time, and I still can't figure out what the environmental harm is, if you guys catch your breath how about letting me in on it.......


3) It doesn't really matter who's car turns all that resource into poisonous fumes, putting more oil on the world market is going to be a tool for us to use politicly.......

4) We must have forgotten how to wage a Cold War, all we need to do is make the world believe that we are going to bring all the oil we can get to market, and prices would drop........

5) There is probably some good logic in just sitting on all that oil for use latter on, but let's face it, humans know and can learn other sources of energy, this may be the prime time to move it. You greenies might not realize it, but supply and demand works in your favor sometimes, right now in the Pacific N.W. extra large oldgrowth logs are not very valuable because most mills can't cut them, the old mills are wearing out and not worth rebuilding, that is a fact I learned at work from a timber company employee 10 years ago. Timber companies were targeting areas of small timber which had the most straggler oldgrowth (low grade-skipped over back in the day), mixed in to get their tree farms cleaned up while they could still sell the big ol' things...

I stole this from another forum, I hope I don't get in too much trouble....

This guy knows more about the topic than the rest of us combined so I thought we might review his opinion, and possibly comment......


<quote>
The Inupiat that live near Kaktovik and the rest of the NSB won't. As a matter of fact the native folk on the Slope have openly supportive of resource development in ANWR and the rest of the Slope. They benefit directly from it. They also have a stake in making sure that negative enviromental impacts are kept to a minimum as they also live a subsistence lifestyle that is dependent on the well being of the wildlife and food chain.
The Koyukon Athabascans whose corporations own drilling and support companies and provide jobs to their people are very much in favor of it too. It allows them to have good jobs with a schedule that lets them live in their communities and still maintain a traditional lifestyle.

The natives that have been opposed to resource development have been the Gwich'in from Arctic Village and Venetie acting as useful tools for the eco-nazis.

Both Arctic Village and Venetie have pursued policies for their people that are regressive. They'd prefer to go back to the stoneage.
They also have nothing to gain from the development themselves because the drilling won't be taking place on their lands. The eco-nazis know this and took advantage using these folks as their token aboriginal talking head mercenaries.
The arguement that development would disrupt the caribou herds is a hollow one at best and an outright lie at the worst. History shows that oil development has had a positive influence on the caribous herds.......the same herds they hunt. <quote>

P.S. I do not use the term eco-nazis, ever.

lupo, heh !

I don't think any "families" lost any money because of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.......

That was a horrible and tragic mess, but Uncle Sugar has a way of coating major screwups with money. More likely there are several local guys who got a big pile of money by renting their little fishing boats to the cleanup efforts. I was in a logging camp a few hundred miles south of Valdez, and there were guys quitting to go up there and stand around on the beach with a hose, they made bank, and didn't hardly have any effect except for the cameras.......

I need to clear up a few things here I voted for Kerry not Bush and second color fuel is off road diesel I do not pay road tax on it but it is OFF ROAD ONLY my trucks use on road diesel which I pay road tax on We have NO subsidized fuel never have had it

Oregonian,

I'm against drilling in ANWR primarily for political reasons. I have absolutely no trust in those who are pushing the deal. It's unfortunately that simple.

Personally, I think as a nation, we should develop the proposed site just enough to be able to extract the oil, and then leave it. My reasoning is that oil is also a strategic mineral, as well as the fuel that powers our economy. ANWR doesn't have enough oil to make a significant difference to the national economy, only to a few oil companies' economies. But that amount of oil could make a significant difference as a strategic mineral held in reserve. If I thought the b@stard politicians would persue that strategy, I'd support it. Be we all know they won't. They can't wait to give it, along with further subsidies, to their oil tycoon business friends. Well, they aren't my friends, and they aren't the friends of most Americans, so I want to do whatever I can to keep that oil in the ground for national interest strategic reasons. Bet you didn't think I was so patriotic, eh? The administration are traitors to the country as far as I'm concerned, and I don't want those who are trying to ruin the country to give away that oil.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Oregonian,

The environmentalists using the native tribes that don't have oil on their lands is no different than the developers using the native tribes that do have oil on their lands to help promote the deal. A scumbag by any other name is still a . . .

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g.;

I haven't spent a whole lot of time on this channel, and I haven't paid very much attention to who says what, so I must admit that I don't know enough about you to be surprized by what you said.

I do savvy the idea of hording our reserves to effectively weaponize them, but I don't think it's the best way to think about this for a couple reasons...

1) I think the process of getting the oil from the ground to a refinery is slow enough that it could easily be captured by an agressor before we could gain from holding it. I think strategic reserves need to be fairly liquid ...

2) I think our contries overall health/strength is more important than a couple of huge clubs in the closet...marketing our resources wisely should make our economy strong, it is up to us to something smart with that...

Scumbag is a strong word, but your comparison is without refute...

Oregonian,

I think you may have missed the part about ANWR oil not having a significant impact on the national economy.

Strategic reserves need to be liquid, yes, but not so for strategic resources. And with developed wellheads, and the existing Alaska pipeline, the oil wouldn't be long from refining.

Yes, scumbag is a strong word, which is why I use it sparingly and only for the most deserving.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g.;

Maybe we both missed the point.

If:
1) There has been developement in the area before, and it can be shown that environmental impacts will be either insignificant or below acceptable levels.

2) The volume of oil is insignificant from a global perspective.

3) The financial benefit to the U.S.economy is insignificant......

Then what is this topic doing on the front page, are we just biting at moving objects dangled by the media ?

O,

I made that other point that ANWR oil would be significant to Bush and Cheney's oil tycoon buddies. Certain well-to-do movers and shakers in the oil business see yet another opportunity to fleece the Americans that support them, and they are p!ssed that they're "losing out" on what doesn't even belong to them. That's why it's on the front page of the liberal media that is owned by the conservative wealthy. The answer to most questions about this sort of thing is usually found by "following the money."

All in my biased opinion, of course.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.