Should high gas prices cause Congress to open ANWAR?, page 2

reply to post by Animal

---

Man, you got them Democrat/Enviro-whacko talking pts down pat.

1st of all, if the land currently leased was worth a crud, don't you think with oil going for over $125 a barrel, the oil companies would be all over it? Either you think the oil companies are greedy or you don't, which is it?

What is this about madating that oil companies start investing in alternative fuels? Isn't that like asking Chick-filet to invest in Burger King? Let the next Bill Gates discover an alternative, don't force the oil companies to do it.

ANWR drilling was vetoed by Bill Clinton 10 years ago. So the stupid statement "We won't see any benefits for 10 years" (which it won't take that long) is stupid. I guess Dems/Envir-whackos don't care about our future either.

reply to post by jamie83

---

This is why we should NOT drill in ANWR.

I like this quote it highlights one aspect of this issue quite well:

"Oil corporations are trying to take control of as much land now during the oil-friendly Bush administration years, but are holding off on drilling until the price of oil soars to $200 or $300 a barrel so they can make even greater profits," said Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a New York Democrat and a sponsor of the drilling bill. link

[edit on 21-6-2008 by Animal]

Originally posted by RRconservative
reply to post by Animal

---

Man, you got them Democrat/Enviro-whacko talking pts down pat.

You know I would really appreciate it if you did not begin your comments directed toward me with an insult, we really could have a much more productive conversation.

1st of all, if the land currently leased was worth a crud, don't you think with oil going for over $125 a barrel, the oil companies would be all over it? Either you think the oil companies are greedy or you don't, which is it?

This is simply a lame duck argument. Why would an oil company spend money on an oil lease that was worthless? They wouldn't. My guess is that they want to get CONTROL of more oil leases as the resource becomes more and more scarce, sitting on their reserves until the price maxes out as we pass peak oil.

What is this about madating that oil companies start investing in alternative fuels? Isn't that like asking Chick-filet to invest in Burger King? Let the next Bill Gates discover an alternative, don't force the oil companies to do it.

If you would pay attention to exactly what I am saying you would realize I said NOTHING about oil companies funding Alternative Energy. Possibly I simply was not clear enough, but based on what IO remember you should be able to see that fairly clearly. What I did say was that we (USA) should stop subsidizing the industry, weaning it off the PEOPLES money and put that money into appropriate technologies such as 'Alternative Energy'.

ANWR drilling was vetoed by Bill Clinton 10 years ago. So the stupid statement "We won't see any benefits for 10 years" (which it won't take that long) is stupid. I guess Dems/Envir-whackos don't care about our future either.

Good I hope Obama does the same and forces change rather than enabling stagnation that drags our country down. It is long past time the USA invent its next Golden Age. We can invest in developing the technologies of tomorrow for the benfit of everyone, deny it all you want this change is inevitable.

Also Ia m once again perturbed at your closing with an insult as well. Perhaps a few hours spent perusing the internet for information on manners and etiquette would do you some good.

reply to post by plumranch

---

You might find this interesting.

75% of all land in Alaska is Federally owned.

Federal government royalty rate (onshore) is 1/8

If Oil companies can get a more favorable royalty rate somewhere else, they have no interest in Anwar. Would you pay more royalty for a product when you could get it elsewhere cheaper? Would you increase the supply in the market at additional expense to yourself in return for lowering the market price (and profitability) of your product?

Of course not. Oil companies hold Anwar over our head but really have no desire to drill it. Politicians want it drilled because Federal royalties is Federal Revenue.

reply to post by Exmar

---

Thanks Exmar,

Good point.

I guess my response is that we don't have to worry about whether the oil companies would or wouldn't drill in ANWAR because Bill Clinton vetoed the ANWAR bill in 1996 and Congress hasn't had the political courage to vote on another bill since then. We Alaskans thought the oil companies would jump at the chance to drill in ANWAR since it is just down the patch from the north slope fields and the pipeline and there is tremendous potential there.

There may be wisdom in what you say. Do you by any chance know what kind of cut the government gets for oil drilled at other domestic sites? Seems to me that the north slope deal is similar to the 1/8. In fact the 1/8 doesn't sound like a bad deal to me...

reply to post by jamie83

---

Is there any reason NOT to drill in ANWAR?

No rational reason. All the environmental concerns have been met except for paper work.

All Americans are being harmed by high gasoline prices. Especially the poor. One of my lower income employees can't afford gas for her 50 mile commute. She can't afford to drive to work any more and may have to accept a lower paying job closer to where she lives. Kind of scarey!

I was out recreating this weekend and here in Alaska where there are usually lots of boats, RVs, and airplanes out enjoying the summer weekend there were only a few. What I'm saying is that you have to practically be a rich guy to afford to go out and recreate with gas prices like this!

reply to post by solo32_98

---

Now if a car manufacturer was charged a carbon tax for every gas vehicle that gets shipped and sold in a province or state, how long before we start seeing more environmentally friendly vehicles?

Hi Solo,

Nice thought but. Either way it is you who is punished by the tax. The manufacturer simply passes on the tax to the consumer...you. What else can they do? You wanted the car (or other motor vehicle) to drive so you bought it from the manufacturer. You probably wanted the big motor and a few more gas guzzling options. Is that the manufacturer's fault?

And Bush was correct to rescend Carter's tax. Any punitive tax is simply passed on to the consumer in an upside down way, ie. the poor are hurt more than the rich.

I'm sorry about your high gas prices but it sounds like your government is doing exactly the wrong thing with its taxing policy.

reply to post by plumranch

---

Hey Plum.
Currently no government is talking about "incentives" to vehicle manufacturers. If governments demanded taxes for every gas engine imported into their jurisdiction, could they not offer that money back to the manufacturer for every hybrid or electric vehicle sold? Some progressive, positive way to get the manufacturers off their asses and developing better technology.

I am personally against drilling in ANWR. I spent 16 years in the north, traveled extensively in Alaska and Yukon, worked, lived and played with the first nations people. They are particularly susceptible to oil drilling as their lives are dependent on the caribou populations which calf their young on the north slope. Oil drilling and transporting will decimate the caribou population and quite likely the First Nations, also.

I would suggest that we all spend a wee bit of time educating ourselves about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And ask ourselves what things would be like if it weren't there, if it were opened to trucks and drills and pipelines and tankers and speculators and rigs. Sounds like Texas. Personally, I believe we are all much richer with maintaining the refuge as a natural heritage, a unique ecosystem which benefits our long term health and prosperity.

reply to post by solo32_98

---

I am personally against drilling in ANWR. I spent 16 years in the north, traveled extensively in Alaska and Yukon, worked, lived and played with the first nations people. They are particularly susceptible to oil drilling as their lives are dependent on the caribou populations which calf their young on the north slope. Oil drilling and transporting will decimate the caribou population and quite likely the First Nations, also.

Hi Solo,

My wife and I have both been to the North Slope many times and I have seen ANWAR from the air. Few people actually go there as it is a coastal swampland somewhat uninhabitable. Indians don't actually live there either.

You take the view that the north slope indians and others will not benifit or even will be hurt by development. I see that as the paternalistic european vs. indian viewpoint. We have employment, cars and nice houses but we want you to live up there on the north slope in primative villages with nothing much to do but hunt caribou, etc. I think the indians would benifit and especially the younger ones would welcome the improvement in their living standards that petroleum development would bring.

I've never heard that the caribou (and wildlife in general) would be hurt by the drilling processes. In fact just the opposite has happened with pretty much accross the board benifit to all species except some birds that have been impacted because of increase in preditors like foxes. The wildlife enjoy the roads and drilling pads as the rest of the area is swamp or wetland. The caribou go to the roads and pads to rest, do their calving, and run from preditors.

I heard one of the presidential candidates say he wouldn't want to develope ANWAR any more than develope the Grand Canyon. The implication is that ANWAR is beautiful and thus too nice for oil pads.
However, ANWAR is a coastal swamp, ie. mile after mile of flat wet tundra. The only topography is an occasional river bed or a pingo (a natural frost hump). Nothing to enjoy there except the mosquitoes!

reply to post by Pellevoisin

---

the problem with the gas prices is the devaluation of the dollar which has been engineered by the Bush/Cheney goons with the complicity of the Democratic and Republican members of Congress.

The do nothing Democrats (esp. Bill Clinton) can be blamed for the US not drilling for the last 20 years. But the devaluation has more to do with Katrina and the mortgage collapse. Our poor quality investments has caused money to flee from the US and foreigners to sell their dollars.

But this has nothing to do with drilling or not drilling in ANWAR.

Supply of oil has a direct effect on oil price in spite of what Nancy Pelosi and others say. Did you notice that the price of oil dropped $4 today? That is because the Saudi's have promised to increase the supply and because both Bush and McCain are committed to opening off shore drilling and maybe ANWAR. Once the US shows its committment to increasing supply and lowering prices, it will happen. Econ 101.

You in the States don't even have the refining infrastructure to handle gasoline/petrol production.

A committment to build more refineries is something that McCain mentioned recently and was noticably missing from Obamas speaches.

McCain also mentioned a big committment to nuclear, solar, wind and other alternative energies. Great news finally!

reply to post by plumranch

---

The wild spending of the Bush/Cheney years with regard to foreign entanglements are far more significant contributors to the destruction of the US dollar far more so than either Katrina costs or the sub-prime mortgage debacle.

In broader scope, the U.S. dollar's devaluation has been engineered and executed with precision by both the Federal Reserve Bank and the Executive of your government.

And said devaluation has been given a bit of encouragement by Dick Cheney converting US$10 million of his personal fortune into Euros not to mention his building a home in Dubai. Taking such decisions, a vice-president can make a world deeply concerned about the longterm outlook for the USA itself and its economy.

reply to post by Pellevoisin

---

Hi Pell,

Here is what an oil exec is saying about increasing refinery production:

More importantly, though, while the number of refineries has fallen since 1986, U.S. refining capacity has increased by 25 percent. That's what Cohen refers to as "creep." That is, refining technology has improved, allowing refiners to operate more efficiently.

There is no reason to think we need to increase the number of refineries when the ones we have can increase their production.

This comes from: Building New Refineries

Makes sense to me. I see no reason why we need to build new refineries when the ones we have can just increase their capacity.

The Peak Oil Lie: Oil is NOT going to run out
  Posted 6 days ago with 9 member flags

Oil\'s tipping point has passed
  Posted 9 days ago with 3 member flags

Why The US Will Never Be \'Energy Independent\'
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags

Worldometers: Oil officially ends November 9 2053 ( 9/11 )
  Posted 14 days ago with 2 member flags

Strange sounds being heard in Canadian North caused by ground re-settling from oil field mining
  Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: