It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama seeks bigger wilderness designation in Alaska refuge

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
The only thing Obama is doing is setting himself up for is to become Al Gore junior.

And making millions off scamming people.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Look, if you live in the lower 48 states you probably have a very wrong perception of what this place looks like.

It looks like this:


Not like this:


They are both in "ANWR" but the first picture is where any actual drilling would take place. The amount of land they would need would be like putting a postage stamp down on a regulation sized football field. They use direction and horizontal drilling techniques to get to the oil these days.

The place is flat, brown, muddy, ugly and filled with mosquitoes in the summer. In the winter its a frozen windswept hell. In fact, most of the production and movement of vehicles and gear is done in the winter. Ice roads are constructed to preserve the tundra. Extreme measures are taken up there to prevent damage to the ecosystem. How do I know this?

I've worked up there.

Take it from someone who's actually spent some time on the North Slope. The caribou have thrived since oil production has taken off. The oil companies even built ramps over the pipelines to help the caribou migrate. What do the caribou do? They walk under the pipes as if they aren't even there.

Every time you park a vehicle you jump out and throw containment pads underneath the engine block and axles. This is to protect the ground in the rare event your vehicle leaks even a single drop of coolant or oil.

People have been fired for dumping out their coffee. Yes, you read that correctly.

Perhaps we don't NEED the oil, but to lock up such a god-forsaken, ugly and frankly desolate place forever seems like some kind of political retribution to the people of Alaska.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Alaska doesn't want a shopping mall there.

Look at our economy. I can't blame Alaska for being concerned with 20 million acres of resource rich land. They're already cut off from the rest of us. The natural resources in the land and tourists are really all they have. It's not like the state government is planning to turn Alaska into a desert. That wouldn't be in their best interest.
edit on 26-1-2015 by JessicaRabbitTx because: (no reason given)


I think we can trust Alaska to take care of their environment. It's the only reason people visit there.
edit on 26-1-2015 by JessicaRabbitTx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Hey, he's a politician. What do you expect? At least you can say he cares about OUR environment. No?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Maybe, but as long as it saves a forest or two from being torn down, I have nothing against it.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

There are no trees. Just mosquitoes and the occasional mangy caribou. It's dreadfully ugly. The winters are even worse. Flat, white, wind chills down into -50 with zero visibility. It's not a nice place, certainly not a place you'd ever want to visit or go camping. Trust me, I've worked up in those parts.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Is it true the caribou spend the winter under the pipelines where it's warm? And I've read in the summer it's swampy and filled with so many flies unprotected skin is eaten.

More government power grabs, he's not doing this to protect the environment.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He cares about the environment? obama hasn't let the engines on Air Force One cool for more then a day before he takes off on another trip. How is that caring for the environment?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: JessicaRabbitTx
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Alaska doesn't want a shopping mall there.


I know that. I wasn't being literal there.


Look at our economy. I can't blame Alaska for being concerned with 20 million acres of resource rich land. They're already cut off from the rest of us. The natural resources in the land and tourists are really all they have. It's not like the state government is planning to turn Alaska into a desert. That wouldn't be in their best interest.


This economy? Fracking — A New Bubble for a New Year

I'm pretty sure that Alaska wants that land to build oil fields. After all, the chief complaint behind the federal government seizing the land is that it ties up tons of natural resources. Well most of those natural resources are oil, but even then, the mining of any natural resource destroys the environment.


I think we can trust Alaska to take care of their environment. It's the only reason people visit there.


Can we? Then why are they so upset that they cannot use these natural resources now? If Alaska cared about its environment like you said, then they should be ok with setting aside the land not to be touched, no?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

MystikMushroom pointed out how they actually care for the environment while taking that oil. This whole insanity is him playing his part in tying up land, preventing America from becoming independent. Just because there's a D after his name doesn't mean he cares about the land.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Fine whatever. Carry on with your hate Obama-fest. I'm done defending him.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He's as hated as any other politician. He should not be immune to any and all criticism because he's a democrat or anything else they push down our throats. He's a puppet and only serves his superiors. Deny ignorance and realize he's a puppet who does not represent the people's interests.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

You must be mistaken. Obama isn't my hero. I don't like him any more than any other politician. But I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt sometimes instead of hating everything they do. But, like I said, I'm not fan, so I'm dropping it.

I'm not a Democrat.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fine drop it. He's not doing anything good for the people here. Let's tie up land so no one can use it, and no oil can be extracted to benefit the economy. We'll say it's for environmental reasons, green, land, caribou, they'll love it. Cccchrist..



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

Hey, he's a politician. What do you expect? At least you can say he cares about OUR environment. No?


Well then you agree with the op.

The only thing he cares about is Obama.

Like all 'good' little narcissistic sociopath's.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Why are you still trying to make a combatant out of me? I don't care anymore. Here, read this article about the oil industry these days (I posted it earlier in the thread):

Fracking — A New Bubble for a New Year


Another year is under way, and we are in the midst of yet another central bank-induced credit bubble. This time, the culprit is shaping up to be the oil and gas industry. Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” has seen a marked rise in usage in the United States over the last six years. It represented a new and innovative way to extract hydrocarbons from rock formations deep underground. Many may be tempted to say that the emergence of fracking, as well as the jobs it has created, is further evidence of the free market at work. However, as David Stockman makes clear in this excellent article, the fracking bubble would never have materialized if not for artificially low interest rates instituted by the Federal Reserve in the advent of the 2007–2009 financial crisis.

Oil and natural gas exploration and extraction via hydraulic fracturing is a highly capital-intensive venture. Given that the shelf life of a typical oil well is only two years, these firms need to establish new ones as maintaining existing wells proves too expensive. If not for the six years of Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) and several rounds of Quantitative Easing (QE) from the Federal Reserve, many of these upstart wildcatting firms would not be able to sustain the cost of exploration and extraction. Having record low borrowing costs has led to massive increases in production, and an influx of new jobs in the field due to economies of scale. In fact, a large percentage of the job gains we have seen since 2008 have been in the fracking industry.

The situation bears strong similarities to the inflating of the housing bubble from 2002–2007. Overproduction due to expectations of increasing demand because of the false impression of a strong economy, a large spike in job growth in the sector that will surely reverse as the bubble bursts, and companies (oil and gas wildcatters in place of homebuilders) issuing large sums of debt to fund their seemingly profitable ventures. However, just as in the case with the housing bubble, this boom was not induced by market fundamentals and an increased demand to feed this increase in supply. Firms, able to see energy as an indispensable sector just as housing, began directing their resources there and had no reason to believe oil prices would crash (sound familiar?).

Now companies and media outlets are scrambling to discover what the break-even oil prices are, because as the price continues to fall so does the collateral underpinning the large sums of bank debt. It is also worth mentioning that these oil and gas companies comprise approximately 17 percent of the overall high-yield debt market. This is a debt market for businesses with shorter track records of debt service and lower credit ratings, and offers slightly higher interest rates than standard investment-grade corporate bond markets in order to compensate the investor for heightened risk of default. A wave of defaults from these fracking companies would lead to ripples in the overall high-yield debt market, contributing to a market sell-off in the asset class that drives bond prices down sharply and inversely raises borrowing costs for other firms in the junk bond space.

Given the tentative strategy of the Federal Reserve in raising the benchmark interest rate, a sudden and unexpected increase in borrowing costs for businesses in the high-yield debt space is a serious cause for concern. The potential damage could be severe, as many of those bubble-created jobs would be in jeopardy. Whatever the result, the slowly unwinding fracking bubble should serve as a stark reminder about the importance of the Austrian business cycle theory. Years of QE and ZIRP have recreated an asset bubble in our economy with tremendous implications, and as the specific asset class may continue to change the same underlying problem of malinvestment and misallocation of resources will persist if central bankers do not change course.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ah I see you're still holding that sack. Know what's funny about fracking? NY state won't allow it because it would create jobs, economic benefits for people, higher quality of life. Under the guise of environmentalism they hurt our economy.

Once again your aim's off, bad shot.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Ok. That's nice. Have fun with your discussion. I put out my piece, then gave you some Libertarian evidence that fracking isn't all that it is cracked up to be for our economy and you side with the pro-government side that corporate subsidies should continue. So I will leave the thread now.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

Maybe, but as long as it saves a forest or two from being torn down, I have nothing against it.


Obama isn't protecting a single forest with this move, nor does he actually care. He's nothing but a guy who reads stuff from a teleprompter. He doesn't care about you, the environment or anything else.

By the way, do some research about the area. There is absolutely nothing there, and the are that would be used for drilling would be about the size of a small airport.

And whoever brought up Agenda 21 is spot on. It couldn't be more transparent.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Have a nice day then! And I'm not surprised you sided with the environmentalists who refuse to allow any economic betterment for this country.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join