If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Congress SHOOTS DOWN global warming and oil company tax bills
bang-bang
now, let's get back to DRILLING FOR MORE OIL IN USA ! |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Congress SHOOTS DOWN global warming and oil company tax bills
On Jun 11, 7:21*am, trippin-2-8-track wrote:
bang-bang now, let's get back to DRILLING FOR MORE OIL IN USA ! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Congress SHOOTS DOWN global warming and oil company tax bills
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:21:38 -0700 (PDT), paranoid delusional low IQ
idiot Charles M. Nudo, Jr., Drums, PA, posing this time as trippin-2-8-track wrote: bang-bang now, let's get back to DRILLING FOR MORE OIL IN USA ! snip Will never happen, and this will cement the fortunes of the Democrats in November. Congress didn't "shoot down" the bill, the Republicans blocked it because the Dems didn't have the 60 votes necessary for cloture...as IF you know anything about that. Once 7 or 8 more Republicans get thrown out of office in November, they will no longer be a force in the Senate. They're already floor ornaments in the House, and will be more so after November. Drilling in Alaska (at best, a 6 mo supply of poor grade crude that will take FIVE YEARS to reach market at best estimate) will require a majority in the Senate and the House, and there is no conceivable way that's going to ever happen now. Go drill your nose some more, Noodles...and call a psychiatrist. Those delusions of yours are getting stronger, fed by listening to drug addicts on AM radio every day. The solution is to get on the fast track on renewables and ****can oil. See what McCain said yesterday? "Gasoline will be over $4 a gallon and probably go higher." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
DeserTBoB SHOOTS DOWN Charlie Nudo's schizophrenic fantasy world
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:22:23 -0700 (PDT), trippin-2-8-track
wrote: On Jun 11, 7:21*am, trippin-2-8-track wrote: bang-bang now, let's get back to DRILLING FOR MORE OIL IN USA ! snip Let's get back to having Charlie Nudo's Google accounts shut down for TOS violations. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
DeserTBoB SHOOTS DOWN Charlie Nudo's schizophrenic fantasy world
On Jun 11, 12:45*pm, DeserTBoB wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:22:23 -0700 (PDT), trippin-2-8-track wrote: On Jun 11, 7:21*am, trippin-2-8-track wrote: bang-bang now, let's get back to DRILLING FOR MORE OIL IN USA ! snip Let's get back to having Charlie Nudo's Google accounts shut down for TOS violations. how 'bout you getting back to a job after sucking SSI fraudulently for 15 years ? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Congress SHOOTS DOWN global warming and oil company tax bills
On Jun 11, 12:44*pm, DeserTBoB wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:21:38 -0700 (PDT), paranoid delusional low IQ idiot Charles M. Nudo, Jr., Drums, PA, posing this time as trippin-2-8-track wrote: bang-bang now, let's get back to DRILLING FOR MORE OIL IN USA ! snip Will never happen, and this will cement the fortunes of the Democrats in November. *Congress didn't "shoot down" the bill, the Republicans blocked it because the Dems didn't have the 60 votes necessary for cloture...as IF you know anything about that. *Once 7 or 8 more Republicans get thrown out of office in November, they will no longer be a force in the Senate. *They're already floor ornaments in the House, and will be more so after November. Drilling in Alaska (at best, a 6 mo supply of poor grade crude that will take FIVE YEARS to reach market at best estimate) will require a majority in the Senate and the House, and there is no conceivable way that's going to ever happen now. Go drill your nose some more, Noodles...and call a psychiatrist. Those delusions of yours are getting stronger, fed by listening to drug addicts on AM radio every day. The solution is to get on the fast track on renewables and ****can oil. *See what McCain said yesterday? *"Gasoline will be over $4 a gallon and probably go higher." ANWR holds a 30 year supply of oil at current useage rates. whether or not it's worth getting from a profit standpoint, is not your decision to make |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
WHY WE MUST DRILL IN ANWR
TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity. 2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are $4.2 billion. Royalty and tax estimates for the life of the 10-02 fields were estimated by the Office of Management and Budget from $152-237 billion. 3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain. 4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union. 5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. 6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 731,000 barrels a day. 7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total would be nearly a trillion dollars. 8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas. 9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller. 10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain. In general, the Republicans, Alaskans, some unions that see job gains, and some native tribes that will profit from the drilling have come out in favor . Numbers are bandied about - those for drilling say that there is 30 years-worth of Saudi imports of oil available, and that drilling will enhance the national security and lessen dependence on imported oil (especially from the volatile Middle East.) http://www.time.com/time/columnist/w...170983,00.html Some Shaky Figures on ANWR Drilling Monday, Aug. 13, 2001 By DOUGLAS WALLER Article Congress loves to play fast and loose with numbers, particularly when one side or the other is using them to justify a bill. Two such cases came earlier this month, when the House approved oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There are a total of 19 million acres in the refuge, and in 1980 Congress set aside 1.5 million of them along a strip of the refuge's northern Arctic Ocean coast for possible oil exploration. Oil companies and Alaska's congressional delegation have been anxious ever since to start drilling there. The oil companies believe 5 to 16 billion barrels of oil could be recovered there, while Alaskans are eager for the revenue that exploration would generate for their state. Environmentalists and most congressional Democrats have resisted drilling in the area because the required network of oil platforms, pipelines, roads and support facilities, not to mention the threat of foul spills, would play havoc on wildlife. The coastal plain, for example, is a calving home for some 129,000 caribou. With U.S production at nearly a 50-year low and oil reserves in this country shrinking, George Bush has made ANWR's development a key part of his energy package. The House finally decided to approve drilling in the refuge, largely on the promise of two important numbers. First, to calm moderates in his party, Republican Congressman John Sununu of New Hampshire tacked an amendment to the energy bill limiting the drilling to just 2,000 of the 1.5 million acres along the coast plain. Then, the Teamsters muscled 36 Democrats into voting for the drilling, claiming it would create over 700,000 jobs. Wow! An oil field only one-fifth the size of Washington's Dulles International Airport that'd provide more jobs than there are working men and women in Wyoming and Rhode Island? And would lower the nation's unemployment rate by a half percent? Sounds too good to be true. It may be. Turns out the 2,000 acres don't have to be contiguous and only the space of the equipment touching the ground is counted. Each drilling platform can take up as little as 10 acres. The pipelines are above ground. For space purposes, the amendment counts only the ground touched by the stanchions holding up the pipe. Road widths also are conveniently left out of the space limit. "It's a complete sham," complains Allen Mattison, a spokesman for the Sierra Club which opposes drilling. "It's like a fishing net. If you count just the space of the string's width, that's small. But if you open up a fishing net and count the area it covers, that's much larger." Environmentalists complain that the House limit ends up allowing oil companies to spread out over practically the entire 1.5 million acres. As for the 700,000 jobs, that number comes from an 11-year-old study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute that economists complain wildly inflates the employment potential. "It's just absurd," says Eban Goodstein, an economist at Lewis and Clark College, who predicts the real job growth will be less than one-tenth that number. But the oil industry is sticking by the figures. "We're confident we can develop the resources that are at ANWR without an impact on the wildlife that lives there," insists Mark Rubin, general manager for exploration and production with the American Petroleum Institute. For his part, Sununu complains that it wouldn't matter what number he had put in his amendment. Drilling opponents "don't support any disturbance of any land for any economic activity related to energy in the 19 million acres of ANWR," he says. "They think that 2,000 acres is too much. They think 200 acres is too much and they think two acres would be too much." Democrats who control the Senate vow that legislation permitting ANWR drilling will never see the light of day in that chamber. The oil industry and the Teamsters, however, hope they can change some minds once more — with the same numbers that worked in the House. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
WHY WE MUST DRILL IN ANWR
"trippin-2-8-track" wrote in message TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR 1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity. 2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are $4.2 billion. Royalty and tax estimates for the life of the 10-02 fields were estimated by the Office of Management and Budget from $152-237 billion. 3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain. 4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union. 5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. 6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 731,000 barrels a day. 7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total would be nearly a trillion dollars. 8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas. 9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller. 10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain. In general, the Republicans, Alaskans, some unions that see job gains, and some native tribes that will profit from the drilling have come out in favor . Numbers are bandied about - those for drilling say that there is 30 years-worth of Saudi imports of oil available, and that drilling will enhance the national security and lessen dependence on imported oil (especially from the volatile Middle East.) http://www.time.com/time/columnist/w...170983,00.html Some Shaky Figures on ANWR Drilling Monday, Aug. 13, 2001 By DOUGLAS WALLER Article Congress loves to play fast and loose with numbers, particularly when one side or the other is using them to justify a bill. Two such cases came earlier this month, when the House approved oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There are a total of 19 million acres in the refuge, and in 1980 Congress set aside 1.5 million of them along a strip of the refuge's northern Arctic Ocean coast for possible oil exploration. Oil companies and Alaska's congressional delegation have been anxious ever since to start drilling there. The oil companies believe 5 to 16 billion barrels of oil could be recovered there, while Alaskans are eager for the revenue that exploration would generate for their state. Environmentalists and most congressional Democrats have resisted drilling in the area because the required network of oil platforms, pipelines, roads and support facilities, not to mention the threat of foul spills, would play havoc on wildlife. The coastal plain, for example, is a calving home for some 129,000 caribou. With U.S production at nearly a 50-year low and oil reserves in this country shrinking, George Bush has made ANWR's development a key part of his energy package. The House finally decided to approve drilling in the refuge, largely on the promise of two important numbers. First, to calm moderates in his party, Republican Congressman John Sununu of New Hampshire tacked an amendment to the energy bill limiting the drilling to just 2,000 of the 1.5 million acres along the coast plain. Then, the Teamsters muscled 36 Democrats into voting for the drilling, claiming it would create over 700,000 jobs. Wow! An oil field only one-fifth the size of Washington's Dulles International Airport that'd provide more jobs than there are working men and women in Wyoming and Rhode Island? And would lower the nation's unemployment rate by a half percent? Sounds too good to be true. It may be. Turns out the 2,000 acres don't have to be contiguous and only the space of the equipment touching the ground is counted. Each drilling platform can take up as little as 10 acres. The pipelines are above ground. For space purposes, the amendment counts only the ground touched by the stanchions holding up the pipe. Road widths also are conveniently left out of the space limit. "It's a complete sham," complains Allen Mattison, a spokesman for the Sierra Club which opposes drilling. "It's like a fishing net. If you count just the space of the string's width, that's small. But if you open up a fishing net and count the area it covers, that's much larger." Environmentalists complain that the House limit ends up allowing oil companies to spread out over practically the entire 1.5 million acres. As for the 700,000 jobs, that number comes from an 11-year-old study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute that economists complain wildly inflates the employment potential. "It's just absurd," says Eban Goodstein, an economist at Lewis and Clark College, who predicts the real job growth will be less than one-tenth that number. But the oil industry is sticking by the figures. "We're confident we can develop the resources that are at ANWR without an impact on the wildlife that lives there," insists Mark Rubin, general manager for exploration and production with the American Petroleum Institute. For his part, Sununu complains that it wouldn't matter what number he had put in his amendment. Drilling opponents "don't support any disturbance of any land for any economic activity related to energy in the 19 million acres of ANWR," he says. "They think that 2,000 acres is too much. They think 200 acres is too much and they think two acres would be too much." Democrats who control the Senate vow that legislation permitting ANWR drilling will never see the light of day in that chamber. The oil industry and the Teamsters, however, hope they can change some minds once more — with the same numbers that worked in the House. Why do republicans block drilling in ANWR and other places in America? While the republicans had majority control of both the house and senate they insisted on voting against drilling in ANWR. Why do they now try to blame the democrats for blocking opening ANWR for so long? If ANWR was opened years ago we might not have the high prices we have today. When will the right stop lying and distorting their real agenda of wanting Americans to pay more for oil and gas? Drilling in Alaska, a Priority for Bush, Fails in the Senate By DAVID FIRESTONE Published: March 20, 2003 The vote, 52 to 48, Why did this bill get defeated when republicans could have passed it in 2003 when the right was in control of both branches of the government? Why is the right the party of lies, deception and obstruction? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9659C8B 63 "Republican leaders had expressed hope that their takeover of the Senate this year would change the chamber's long-standing opposition to oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but eight Republicans sided with most Democrats against drilling, while five Democrats supported it." Why do republicans continue to block drilling in ANWR to this day? Republicans want America to pay higher prices at the pumps. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
WHY WE MUST DRILL IN ANWR
Republican Liar wrote:
"trippin-2-8-track" wrote in message TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR 1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity. 2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are $4.2 billion. Royalty and tax estimates for the life of the 10-02 fields were estimated by the Office of Management and Budget from $152-237 billion. 3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain. 4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union. 5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. 6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 731,000 barrels a day. 7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total would be nearly a trillion dollars. 8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas. 9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller. 10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain. In general, the Republicans, Alaskans, some unions that see job gains, and some native tribes that will profit from the drilling have come out in favor . Numbers are bandied about - those for drilling say that there is 30 years-worth of Saudi imports of oil available, and that drilling will enhance the national security and lessen dependence on imported oil (especially from the volatile Middle East.) http://www.time.com/time/columnist/w...170983,00.html Some Shaky Figures on ANWR Drilling Monday, Aug. 13, 2001 By DOUGLAS WALLER Article Congress loves to play fast and loose with numbers, particularly when one side or the other is using them to justify a bill. Two such cases came earlier this month, when the House approved oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There are a total of 19 million acres in the refuge, and in 1980 Congress set aside 1.5 million of them along a strip of the refuge's northern Arctic Ocean coast for possible oil exploration. Oil companies and Alaska's congressional delegation have been anxious ever since to start drilling there. The oil companies believe 5 to 16 billion barrels of oil could be recovered there, while Alaskans are eager for the revenue that exploration would generate for their state. Environmentalists and most congressional Democrats have resisted drilling in the area because the required network of oil platforms, pipelines, roads and support facilities, not to mention the threat of foul spills, would play havoc on wildlife. The coastal plain, for example, is a calving home for some 129,000 caribou. With U.S production at nearly a 50-year low and oil reserves in this country shrinking, George Bush has made ANWR's development a key part of his energy package. The House finally decided to approve drilling in the refuge, largely on the promise of two important numbers. First, to calm moderates in his party, Republican Congressman John Sununu of New Hampshire tacked an amendment to the energy bill limiting the drilling to just 2,000 of the 1.5 million acres along the coast plain. Then, the Teamsters muscled 36 Democrats into voting for the drilling, claiming it would create over 700,000 jobs. Wow! An oil field only one-fifth the size of Washington's Dulles International Airport that'd provide more jobs than there are working men and women in Wyoming and Rhode Island? And would lower the nation's unemployment rate by a half percent? Sounds too good to be true. It may be. Turns out the 2,000 acres don't have to be contiguous and only the space of the equipment touching the ground is counted. Each drilling platform can take up as little as 10 acres. The pipelines are above ground. For space purposes, the amendment counts only the ground touched by the stanchions holding up the pipe. Road widths also are conveniently left out of the space limit. "It's a complete sham," complains Allen Mattison, a spokesman for the Sierra Club which opposes drilling. "It's like a fishing net. If you count just the space of the string's width, that's small. But if you open up a fishing net and count the area it covers, that's much larger." Environmentalists complain that the House limit ends up allowing oil companies to spread out over practically the entire 1.5 million acres. As for the 700,000 jobs, that number comes from an 11-year-old study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute that economists complain wildly inflates the employment potential. "It's just absurd," says Eban Goodstein, an economist at Lewis and Clark College, who predicts the real job growth will be less than one-tenth that number. But the oil industry is sticking by the figures. "We're confident we can develop the resources that are at ANWR without an impact on the wildlife that lives there," insists Mark Rubin, general manager for exploration and production with the American Petroleum Institute. For his part, Sununu complains that it wouldn't matter what number he had put in his amendment. Drilling opponents "don't support any disturbance of any land for any economic activity related to energy in the 19 million acres of ANWR," he says. "They think that 2,000 acres is too much. They think 200 acres is too much and they think two acres would be too much." Democrats who control the Senate vow that legislation permitting ANWR drilling will never see the light of day in that chamber. The oil industry and the Teamsters, however, hope they can change some minds once more — with the same numbers that worked in the House. Why do republicans block drilling in ANWR and other places in America? While the republicans had majority control of both the house and senate they insisted on voting against drilling in ANWR. Why do they now try to blame the democrats for blocking opening ANWR for so long? If ANWR was opened years ago we might not have the high prices we have today. When will the right stop lying and distorting their real agenda of wanting Americans to pay more for oil and gas? Drilling in Alaska, a Priority for Bush, Fails in the Senate By DAVID FIRESTONE Published: March 20, 2003 The vote, 52 to 48, Why did this bill get defeated when republicans could have passed it in 2003 when the right was in control of both branches of the government? Why is the right the party of lies, deception and obstruction? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9659C8B 63 "Republican leaders had expressed hope that their takeover of the Senate this year would change the chamber's long-standing opposition to oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but eight Republicans sided with most Democrats against drilling, while five Democrats supported it." Why do republicans continue to block drilling in ANWR to this day? Republicans want America to pay higher prices at the pumps. Any truth to this? http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...74697167011147 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
WHY WE MUST DRILL IN ANWR
"Shintaro" wrote in message Republican Liar wrote: "trippin-2-8-track" wrote in message TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR 1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity. 2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are $4.2 billion. Royalty and tax estimates for the life of the 10-02 fields were estimated by the Office of Management and Budget from $152-237 billion. 3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain. 4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union. 5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. 6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 731,000 barrels a day. 7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total would be nearly a trillion dollars. 8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas. 9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller. 10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain. In general, the Republicans, Alaskans, some unions that see job gains, and some native tribes that will profit from the drilling have come out in favor . Numbers are bandied about - those for drilling say that there is 30 years-worth of Saudi imports of oil available, and that drilling will enhance the national security and lessen dependence on imported oil (especially from the volatile Middle East.) http://www.time.com/time/columnist/w...170983,00.html Some Shaky Figures on ANWR Drilling Monday, Aug. 13, 2001 By DOUGLAS WALLER Article Congress loves to play fast and loose with numbers, particularly when one side or the other is using them to justify a bill. Two such cases came earlier this month, when the House approved oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There are a total of 19 million acres in the refuge, and in 1980 Congress set aside 1.5 million of them along a strip of the refuge's northern Arctic Ocean coast for possible oil exploration. Oil companies and Alaska's congressional delegation have been anxious ever since to start drilling there. The oil companies believe 5 to 16 billion barrels of oil could be recovered there, while Alaskans are eager for the revenue that exploration would generate for their state. Environmentalists and most congressional Democrats have resisted drilling in the area because the required network of oil platforms, pipelines, roads and support facilities, not to mention the threat of foul spills, would play havoc on wildlife. The coastal plain, for example, is a calving home for some 129,000 caribou. With U.S production at nearly a 50-year low and oil reserves in this country shrinking, George Bush has made ANWR's development a key part of his energy package. The House finally decided to approve drilling in the refuge, largely on the promise of two important numbers. First, to calm moderates in his party, Republican Congressman John Sununu of New Hampshire tacked an amendment to the energy bill limiting the drilling to just 2,000 of the 1.5 million acres along the coast plain. Then, the Teamsters muscled 36 Democrats into voting for the drilling, claiming it would create over 700,000 jobs. Wow! An oil field only one-fifth the size of Washington's Dulles International Airport that'd provide more jobs than there are working men and women in Wyoming and Rhode Island? And would lower the nation's unemployment rate by a half percent? Sounds too good to be true. It may be. Turns out the 2,000 acres don't have to be contiguous and only the space of the equipment touching the ground is counted. Each drilling platform can take up as little as 10 acres. The pipelines are above ground. For space purposes, the amendment counts only the ground touched by the stanchions holding up the pipe. Road widths also are conveniently left out of the space limit. "It's a complete sham," complains Allen Mattison, a spokesman for the Sierra Club which opposes drilling. "It's like a fishing net. If you count just the space of the string's width, that's small. But if you open up a fishing net and count the area it covers, that's much larger." Environmentalists complain that the House limit ends up allowing oil companies to spread out over practically the entire 1.5 million acres. As for the 700,000 jobs, that number comes from an 11-year-old study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute that economists complain wildly inflates the employment potential. "It's just absurd," says Eban Goodstein, an economist at Lewis and Clark College, who predicts the real job growth will be less than one-tenth that number. But the oil industry is sticking by the figures. "We're confident we can develop the resources that are at ANWR without an impact on the wildlife that lives there," insists Mark Rubin, general manager for exploration and production with the American Petroleum Institute. For his part, Sununu complains that it wouldn't matter what number he had put in his amendment. Drilling opponents "don't support any disturbance of any land for any economic activity related to energy in the 19 million acres of ANWR," he says. "They think that 2,000 acres is too much. They think 200 acres is too much and they think two acres would be too much." Democrats who control the Senate vow that legislation permitting ANWR drilling will never see the light of day in that chamber. The oil industry and the Teamsters, however, hope they can change some minds once more — with the same numbers that worked in the House. Why do republicans block drilling in ANWR and other places in America? While the republicans had majority control of both the house and senate they insisted on voting against drilling in ANWR. Why do they now try to blame the democrats for blocking opening ANWR for so long? If ANWR was opened years ago we might not have the high prices we have today. When will the right stop lying and distorting their real agenda of wanting Americans to pay more for oil and gas? Drilling in Alaska, a Priority for Bush, Fails in the Senate By DAVID FIRESTONE Published: March 20, 2003 The vote, 52 to 48, Why did this bill get defeated when republicans could have passed it in 2003 when the right was in control of both branches of the government? Why is the right the party of lies, deception and obstruction? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9659C8B 63 "Republican leaders had expressed hope that their takeover of the Senate this year would change the chamber's long-standing opposition to oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but eight Republicans sided with most Democrats against drilling, while five Democrats supported it." Why do republicans continue to block drilling in ANWR to this day? Republicans want America to pay higher prices at the pumps. Any truth to this? http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...74697167011147 What he says might be true. Nothing would surprise me. He sounds like any other speaker that talks about just about every big controversy from cigarette smoking to 911. I remember stories 50 years ago about a carburetor that would give you 100 mpg. The story was that the auto industry bought them out preventing them from being marketed. Even if the price of gas was $1.00 per gal. would that be a good thing? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Global warming: It's HEEEEEERE.... | DeserTBoB | 8 Track Tapes | 94 | August 15th 06 03:21 PM |
Global Warming (addition) | Victor Manta | General Discussion | 0 | June 25th 04 10:39 AM |