Posted on 02/28/2002 12:54:45 AM PST by kattracks
No, no, they also have mosquitos big enough to stand flat-footed and . . . Never mind. :)
Wright, I'll have you notice the polar bear dens designated by green dots, and the carabou density in the proposed drilling area.
Like I said before, I'm not against drilling. It would just be nice if we can do it with as minimal damage as possible. Relax guys.
Those two sentences are completely in opposition to each other. The oil companies are the ones buying oil from Saudi Arabia.
The fastest and most effective way of reducing or eliminating our dependence on Persian Gulf oil would be to cut back consumption. There is no way that the ANWR can provide enough to even replace the Persian Gulf oil.
That place is already trashed. Would you prefer to keep spilling oil in an already oil-saturated foreign land, or start spilling it in a pristine part of the US?
I agree. All the oil in the earth that can be practically removed will be removed at some time and in some way. Proponents of drilling say that modern drilling techniques are far superior to those of even 10 years ago. Great. Think how much better they will be in another 10 years. Let's wait until then.
Why is that asinine? If these animals like warmth and/or warmth increases their fertility, then warmth (from whatever source) can conceivably help them thrive. Right? I don't understand your objection.
Why is Cutting Back On Consumption necessarily "faster" or "more effective" than Increasing Production? I suppose that in an extreme way you are correct. If we reduced our Consumption to 0 then we would immediately reduce our dependence on Persian Gulf oil. But, I don't think that's what we want to do.
There is no way that the ANWR can provide enough to even replace the Persian Gulf oil.
This is true, but I don't see how it is relevant. Why must we "replace" the Persian Gulf oil? I'd settle for giving it some competition, lowering prices, reducing their ability to blackmail us, etc.
Also, since your goal now seems to be to "replace" Persian Gulf oil, can we assume that you would favor opening ALL federally-owned lands to drilling, WHEREVER it is deemed that oil might be present?
Would you prefer to keep spilling oil in an already oil-saturated foreign land, or start spilling it in a pristine part of the US?
Who said anything about "spilling" oil? Try to keep up. We want the oil, because we use it for our economy. We don't want to "spill" it.
Also, please define "pristine". Then kindly explain to us all why it is of the utmost importance that lands remain in this mythical "pristine" state for some reason. After all it seems to me that the bottom of a volcano is "pristine". Ditto for a mudslide.
And, same goes for godforsaken frozen tundra. All of the above are "pristine", as far as I can tell. Why should we care?
Oil is important to sustain our lives and for our prosperity. It exists in underground deposits. Why not go get it? Because you have a quasi-religious attachment to land which is "pristine"? Silly, childish, dumb.
It is faster because we can make reductions in consumption more quickly than we can add new production. It is more effective because we can make a bigger difference with reduced consumption than with increased production. In addition, moving to more efficient vehicles will have a lasting effect.
Why must we "replace" the Persian Gulf oil? I'd settle for giving it some competition, lowering prices, reducing their ability to blackmail us, etc.
I was responding to a post that suggested reducing or eliminating our dependence on Persian Gulf oil, which most of us think is a good idea. It already has plenty of competition. If the prices were any lower domestic production would drop, because we have higher production costs (especially in Alaska). The Arabs will always be able to hold back oil, if they are willing to stop getting paid for it. They aren't in a position to lose the revenue.
We don't want to "spill" it.
No we don't. But it happens anyway. It is an inevitable part of drilling, pumping, and shipping oil.
Oil is important to sustain our lives and for our prosperity. It exists in underground deposits. Why not go get it? Because you have a quasi-religious attachment to land which is "pristine"? Silly, childish, dumb.
Of course we should get it. And we will. As I posted here, in time we will get all the oil that is humanly possible to extract. But how and when are matters for economic and government policy.
For one thing, we can shut down our economy fairly quickly by destructive government policy, but it takes a few years to clear the hurdles (bureaucratic, personnel, production..) required to start drilling for oil. Ok, I think I get it. And the reason we should do this, when there is oil in the ground just waiting to be gotten, is....?
It is more effective because we can make a bigger difference with reduced consumption than with increased production.
Pretty vague statement. We can "make a bigger difference" reducing our consumption by .0000001% than if we increased our production 1000000%? I don't think so.
It really depends on the extent to which we do these things, now, doesn't it? Of course by being vague enough you can gloss over that fact.
In addition, moving to more efficient vehicles will have a lasting effect.
Can't argue with that. Feel free to buy yourself a more efficient vehicle. (What's that? You want to force me to as well?)
Feel free to invent a more efficient vehicle. (What's that? You don't know how?)
If the prices were any lower domestic production would drop, because we have higher production costs (especially in Alaska).
Why is that hmmm? Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that some people have a quasi-religious attachment to "pristine" pieces of frozen tundra.
[spilling oil] But it happens anyway. It is an inevitable part of drilling, pumping, and shipping oil.
True. That's life. What are ya gonna do? Never drill for oil? I guess we also shouldn't grow wheat cuz the fields might burn....?
As I posted here, in time we will get all the oil that is humanly possible to extract. But how and when are matters for economic and government policy.
Economic policy, of course. Why government policy?
P.S. Still waiting for your definition of "pristine" and explanation why land must remain in this "pristine" state....
As usual they were wrong.
Same if we drill in the ANWAR. Watch what the greenie wacko's predict and rest assured the opposite will happen.
Since there is oil under it, obviously it wasn't a perma-frost wasteland when "God Made It."
It's not about replacing Persian Gulf Oil. The article, is the first I have seen in the popular press that correctly stated the reason.
"There is only one world market for crude oil, and the last barrel produced sets the price for all of them."
Finally, someone in Mainstream land understands the pricing mechanism of a commodity market.
As a cartel, OPEC does not decide the price of oil. They decide how much they will pump and the market sets the price. The more oil on the market, the lower the price.
I would also like to see more emphasis on alternative fuel sources.
I'll also get a big boat to pull, so that the SUV can be justified.
Let us hope.
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.