No Arctic drilling

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 4/10/02 | Editorial staff

[Homer_J_Simpson]

I don't know about the polar bears, but I talked to my musk ox and he says "go for it."

[KnowYourEnemy]

I'm with Homer on this one. I stand nothing to gain from drilling in alaska. Why should some big oil buddies of Bush get rich, and Alaska suffers.

We should look into developing new forms of fuel, because in 80 or so years this planet's gonna be tapped out. And if that doesn't concern you, then think on our current Meast prediciment.

[RIGHT IN SEATTLE]

Drill deep

Drill fast

Drill often

Drill for America!

[RIGHT IN SEATTLE]

While looking for alternatives!

(forgot to add this)

[SGCOS]

10 years ago it was the same argument, "we won't pop a drop for 10 years."

How many jobs would drilling in ANWR provide?

[Wphile]

AND ALASKA SUFFERS!!!!??????

Oh, I guess that's why 75% of Alaskans WANT the drilling, including the native Inuits. Hmmmmm.

[Wphile]

Quite a bit which is why the Labor unions want it. Also, if you look back at the archives of the NYTs, they were major proponents of drilling in ANWR in the 80s!!

[onedoug]

The Chronicle's ed-board all walked or peddled to work today, I'm sure.

New fuels, eh? Find something that delivers the same bang for the buck as hydrocarbons, and rule the world.

I'm thinking....

[crz]

KnowYourEnemy...member since April 8th 2002. Stick around chump...and you'll get to know lots. Everyone will become your enemy with fruity retorts like that.

[A Navy Vet]

It's a friggin wasteland! Drill!

[KnowYourEnemy]

Drill Deep

Well that's part of the problem. The oil reserves are deep, so it's going to be difficult to reach them. Taxpayers $$$

Drill Fast

Another problem is the fact that it will probably be 10 years before we see any oil, so it doesn't matter how fast we drill.

Drill Often

Ya, this sucks too, cause there is estimated to be no more than a 6month supply of oil

Drill for America

I don't see how ruining one of the very last pristine areas of wilderness for 6months of oil, will benifit most Americans 10years from now. Don't you think if in the next 10 years we dedicate those funds to developing new fuel technologies we might be alittle better off, and finally severing our lifeline ties from the MiddleEast might be a plus.

[What Is Ain't]

Welcome, newbie. Come back when you learn how to spell - and think.

[zoyd]

I'm with Homer on this one. I stand nothing to gain from drilling in alaska. Why should some big oil buddies of Bush get rich, and Alaska suffers.

Every time your mommy drives you to school, "some big oil buddies of Bush get rich."

You DO stand something to gain from drilling in Alaska -- less dependency on the Middle East for our oil. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Might help solve some foreign policy negatives.

And how will 'Alaska suffer' from the billions of dollars of revenue that will make its way out of the ground? I'd say Alaska will do anything BUT suffer if we start gettin' the oil outta the ground.

Do you think the oil workers and lumberjacks think of themselves as 'suffering' for having good jobs?

Hey -- oil executives make money when people drive cars. Get over it. It's a fact of life. 99% of Americans think that driving their own car is preferable to walking, biking, and hiking your way around the Earth. The fact that you don't like someone making money on that truth says more about you than it does about those evil Bush-friends.

Living in Orange County, California, when I was a kid I could see probably 45-50 oil wells within 3 or 4 miles of my house. Somehow we managed to survive. Somehow, people went about their business, birds flew, squirrels dug, and things worked out just fine. In the process, that oil helped develop Orange County.

Oil isn't all bad, KTE. And those that deliver oil aren't evil incarnate. They're people looking to support their families, which is more productive than living in a tree to protest logging for 2 years.

[Dutch Boy]

We need to use a tactic from the left. Relentless pressure. Keep going after the oil until it's gone then move to another place. Oil keeps the economy running. No oil no wealth. Without wealth the poor starve.

[CyberCowboy777]

How will Alaska Suffer?

Should we buy oil from Saddam until the "Clean Fuel" is developed?

Do you know the Actual percentage of Land that will be used?

Do you have any facts or do you regularly state your opinion as fact with no backing?

[aruanan]

1. IT'S A HARMFUL illusion to think that tapping an Alaskan wildlife refuge will help this country's energy woes. 2. The oil remains far away, 3. costly to extract and 4. limited in quantity. 5. Drilling will be destructive to a unique and fragile region.

From the last to the first:

5. Drilling has already proved not to be destructive to a "unique and fragile region".
4. Anything physical is by nature limited in quantity.
3. Anything can be described in terms of cost. If one thing that is exactly the same as another thing costs more than the other thing, people will buy the other thing until it becomes so scarce that its cost increases or until the one thing becomes so plentiful (available for purchase) that its cost decreases. With oil, it can't become plentiful if it stays in the ground.
2. The oil in Alaska is "far away"? It's still a lot close than in Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Iraq and lies entirely in friendly territory.
1. A "wildlife refuge" is simply a matter of definition. The petroleum is an actual resource. One can take the oil and still have a wildlife refuge. Simply having the wildlife refuge won't produce any oil.

[Fish out of Water]

index bump

[zoyd]

The oil reserves are deep, so it's going to be difficult to reach them. Taxpayers $$$

There's no reason Texaco can't pay for drilling. In fact, I'd be VERY surprised if taxpayers paid dollar one for drilling. That's PRIVATE ENTERPRISE's job. Maybe that concept is a tough one for you.

The very idea that taxpayers would be screwed by drilling in ANWR proves your complete ignorance about economics, KTE.

[rohry]

We should look into developing new forms of fuel, because in 80 or so years this planet's gonna be tapped out.

I've been hearing this from you people on the left for 30 years. All the predictions from 1970 (Club of Rome, Daniel Yergin, Earth Day supporters, etc) predicted $60/barrel oil by 1990 and exhaustion of oil supplies by 2005. Solar power, wind power etc (in most cases) are not viable without huge subsidies by government (tax money). What "new forms of fuel" do you propose, burning wood? Or, how about whale oil. Go back to school and figure out some new lies.

[Mfkmmof4]

Would someone please tell me how they know it is only enough for 30 years?