Skip to comments.
Bartlett drops opposition to oil drilling in Arctic refuge
Baltimore Sun/AP ^
| May 22, 2008
| staff
Posted on 05/22/2008 12:13:35 PM PDT by saganite
Congressman Roscoe Bartlett says high oil prices have prompted him to drop his longtime opposition to oil and natural gas drilling in a national wildlife refuge in Alaska.
The Maryland Republican has co-sponsored a bill that would allow for oil and gas production on part of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: Maryland
KEYWORDS: 110th; anwr; congress; drilling; energy; environment; roscoebartlett
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 next last
To: saganite
. . . . eat his cake and have it too . . . .It's nice to see this phrase expressed correctly.
81
posted on
05/22/2008 1:39:25 PM PDT
by
pilipo
(I am officially a man without a country.)
To: HD1200
82
posted on
05/22/2008 1:40:24 PM PDT
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
To: HD1200
83
posted on
05/22/2008 1:40:46 PM PDT
by
Liberty Valance
(Keep a simple manner for a happy life)
To: thackney
Clearly, you are better informed than I.
I recalled that, back in the seventies, during the last "gasoline crisis", there were reports that a significant proportion of Alaskan production was going to Japan. That made some sense to me at the time...but, obviously, those reports were not factual.
My apologies for having muddied the issue.
84
posted on
05/22/2008 1:42:13 PM PDT
by
okie01
(THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
To: trumandogz
Or we cut oil consumption by 4% and we can have the market impact of ANWR tomorrow. How about doing both?
To: trumandogz
Or we cut oil consumption by 4% and we can have the market impact of ANWR tomorrow. How about doing both?
To: trumandogz
did you squint your eyes shut in self satisfaction while typing that?
87
posted on
05/22/2008 1:44:06 PM PDT
by
MrB
(You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
To: pabianice
Swell, Roscoe. But what do we do for the next 8-10 years until such oil reaches the consumer? Jackass! Congressman Steve King says it will take considerably less time than that. We must get started. Stop talking and start drilling.
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
I've seen drilling in Alaska. Except for the facility site, which is about a city block in size and pristine and clean as a surgery, there is little impact. That was years ago and we have improved since. The caribou and other wildlife thrive, drilling is ‘directional’ leaving the area environmentally untouched. Trucks use an ‘ice road’ to protect the fragile tundra, and when the ‘ice road’ melts, no more trucking. We love our environment and know how to do it right.
89
posted on
05/22/2008 1:47:21 PM PDT
by
ArmyTeach
(Live pure, speak true, right wrong and follow The King. (Tennyson))
To: HD1200
??? I don’t understand.
57 states = 114 senators.
114 - 51 dem and 5 pubs should leave us with 58 votes.
Where did I mess up?
90
posted on
05/22/2008 1:48:13 PM PDT
by
pilipo
(I am officially a man without a country.)
To: HD1200
That's cute.
As I said in an earlier reply, I have learned more on this thread alone about the pricing of oil, than I have learned in my almost 40 years of being on earth. Thanks to all for their great information.
That is why I love Free Republic! There is an expert out here for just about any subject. Now if you ever want to know about medical billing, ping me ;->
91
posted on
05/22/2008 1:49:00 PM PDT
by
codercpc
To: gimme1ibertee
The way the polar bear decision is being initially viewed is that it won’t matter where you are, even Arizona say, since the theory is that CO2 is responsible for destroying the sea ice ( GW ) you could be challenged on the basis that you’re producing more CO2 and thus imperiling the polar bear. This decision is an economy wrecker.
92
posted on
05/22/2008 1:52:04 PM PDT
by
saganite
To: okie01
No, in the seventies, before we ever started producing North Slope oil, it was threatened that the oil would go to Japan, but that never happened because to get the pipeline approved, congress required that it could not be exported.
Since then, the myth continued and twisted. All people had to do was look at a map.
It is 3,577 miles from Valdez, Alaska to Tokyo, Japan.
It is 1,274 miles from Valdez, Alaska to Anacortes, Washington. (largest Washington refineries)
IT is 2,253 miles from Valdez, Alaska to El Segundo, California (major refinery near Los Angeles)
http://www.findlocalweather.com/forecast.php?forecast=pass&pass=distances&dpp=0&pands1x=Valdez%2C+AK&pands2x=El+Segundo%2C+California&Find+distance=How+far+is+it%3F
93
posted on
05/22/2008 1:52:57 PM PDT
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
To: trumandogz
Isn’t that sweet. Who built that bike for you and transported it to the store you bought it at? If you were a true environmentalist you would walk to work. /s/
94
posted on
05/22/2008 1:53:58 PM PDT
by
saganite
To: cousair
Maybe they meant Pres. Martin Sheen. Now that would really stir things up.
95
posted on
05/22/2008 1:55:44 PM PDT
by
JZelle
To: saganite
A little late there, Congressman. If you'd have supported the idea awhile back, consumers might not be struggling with such high gas prices now.
You only have yourself and your fellow liberal nutcases to blame.
96
posted on
05/22/2008 1:56:54 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
To: trumandogz
Or we cut oil consumption by 4% and we can have the market impact of ANWR tomorrow.Oh golly, that means Al Gore will have to park his private jet, and the Kennedy's will have to put their yachts into storage.
97
posted on
05/22/2008 1:59:06 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
To: ArmyTeach
Good points. I should have mentioned the ice roads (I know about them from living in Canada's far north). If the development uses ice roads and barges for it's bulk resupply; and a pipeline to take the oil out; there will be negligible environmental costs.
To: codercpc
” ... but a caller into a radio show today suggested that since 80% of the domestic oil we produce in the US is actually exported to other countries ....”
That would be a caller who never saw this site:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/petroleum.html
Making policy on the basis of the opinions of uninformed talk-show callers is not a good idea.
To: Conservativegreatgrandma
Obviously, we should do do both.
100
posted on
05/22/2008 2:26:40 PM PDT
by
trumandogz
("He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and it worries me." Sen Cochran on McCain)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson