• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Cheaper Gas & Oil -or- Pristine Wildlife Preserve

Melensdad

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE APPROVES ANWR DRILLING

This week, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The committee voted 13-9 along party lines to authorize ANWR drilling and exploration, being offered as part of the Senate budget process. The same battle will be fought in the House Resources Committee next week, when members will conduct a markup on similar language for the House reconciliation bill.

The House has passed ANWR drilling in every major energy bill since 2001, including the comprehensive energy bill that passed in April. The ANWR provision was dropped in conference from the omnibus energy bill that became law in August.

Opponents are likely to challenge the inclusion of ANWR drilling in the budget bill, but Senate Energy Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) says the language was carefully drafted to withstand such a challenge. Rules allow policy provisions in a reconciliation bill that facilitate the savings goals of the bill, and the ANWR drilling proposal will generate revenue for the government. According to government estimates, royalties from oil and gas production in the region could reach $1 billion per year.

  • This could REDUCE our dependance on imported fuel.
  • This could IMPROVE our economy with lowered fuel costs providing more disposable income to consumers, lower transportation costs for food and durable goods, etc.
  • This could INCREASE our long term dependance on fossil fuel, since high fuel prices lead to researching alternative sources of power.
  • This could INCREASE the chance of polluting ANWR which is one of the few pristene places on the planet, but also a place that will only be seen by 0.01% of the human race.
So what is most important to us now and long term?
 
I've always been for drilling in ANWR.
The environmentalists complained about the pipeline which is a significantly larger eye sore than the drilling in ANWR.
As far as I know, the animals have learned not to bump their heads on the pipe and are co-existing just fine.

Loki2 - What's everyone saying up there? (Loki2 lives there)
 
bczoom said:
I've always been for drilling in ANWR.
The environmentalists complained about the pipeline which is a significantly larger eye sore than the drilling in ANWR.
As far as I know, the animals have learned not to bump their heads on the pipe and are co-existing just fine.

Loki2 - What's everyone saying up there? (Loki2 lives there)
Click to expand...


Most of us are for it. IF you remember when they wanted to build the Pipe Line, the Environmental studines all said that the Boo would not like it and it would cut off their migration route, and a bunch of other stuff. All of it proved wrong. The boo love the corridor. They graze it and go under the pipeline, wander around it and when the time is right they go and migrate to where ever it is they go. I know that they pass through here most years. We see about 15000 of them from the Porcupine Herd. The greenies just upped the cost of building the pipe line.
Drill Anwar. They are really good about being careful. Only real bad accident was the Exon Valdeze, and the damn captain was drunk. Oh yeah, some idiot shot a hole in the pipe and is now residing in jail.


Drill it, and drill it now. and screw the arabs! :a1: but this time lets keep the oil at home and not sell it to all the countries that don't like us. We do not have to feel guilty because we are a Power. Not evey one can be on top, and I like it there. So lets take care of ourselves for once. Want to build the slums back in New Orleans, use some of the foreign aid that we send to the French and the Germans, and the rest of the countries that do not back us. Kick the UN out of the US, and let someone else pick up that bill.
Use that money to educate our poor,so they can get a job, and get off the Tit. You want to be equal, they be equal, get an education, stop shooting each other, and get a real job.
Crap, now I sound like a ...................................................:2gunsfiri :1062: :1062: well guess what? I am!!!!!!!!!
 
Here is the latest update on drilling in ANWR:



ANWR DRILLING CLEARS ANOTHER HURDLE

The House Resources Committee approved language this week to be included in a House budget reconciliation bill that will open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas drilling and permit states to opt out of offshore drilling moratoriums.

The committee voted 24-16 on a mostly party-line basis to open ANWR to oil exploration, raising $2.4 billion over five years as part of the budget reconciliation process.

The 184-page committee bill will now go to the House Budget Committee, which will combine the work of several committees into titles of a single bill, with a floor vote expected in November.
 
It's really funny how the oil companies, mostly Exon posted the largest profit ever. In fact they beat out many companies that typically beat them out. I say drill and keep it here for us and us only. But also look for alternative ways.

murph
 
murph, I am in total agreement with your last 2 sentences. Keep it here . . . look for alteratives. Good advice, that is.
 
The Senate approved drilling for oil in ANWR. The House just killed it. And it wasn't even the Democrates who opposed the Republicans. It was the Republicans who shot themselves in their own foot.

Here is the story from FOXNEWS.COM. It is enough to make you sick:puke2:

House Drops Arctic Oil-Drilling Bill Provision

Thursday, November 10, 2005

foxnews_story.gif


WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders were forced to drop a proposal to open oil drilling in an Alaskan wilderness area to pick up needed votes to pass a deficit-reduction package.

But while Republicans compromised their drilling measure in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to appease party moderates on Thursday, no guarantee exists that the $54 billion deficit-reduction package will pass, sources told FOX News.

GOP leaders also agreed to drop a measure that would end a moratorium on offshore drilling on the continental shelf off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

Despite setbacks to Republicans, the ANWR measure could still be brought back up in the final version to be negotiated in a House-Senate conference. The Senate has passed a drilling measure in its budget bill.

Some lawmakers who supported the ANWR provision had threatened to vote against the deficit bill if the drilling measure were scrapped. Those lawmakers were steered to the conference committee to try to resurrect the ANWR bill.

Republicans needed the votes of about 15 northeastern GOP moderates who had long opposed the drilling measure. GOP leaders decided to compromise once they realized they couldn't pass the deficit bill without the support of moderates, sources told FOX News.

Last time the House passed ANWR drilling, it had the support of some Democrats, but because the measure is attached to deficit reduction and Democrats are unified against cutting spending, Republicans had to keep their caucus together in order to pass the legislation. They were unable to do so without the northeastern Republicans.

GOP leaders intend to bring the re-written deficit reduction bill to the House floor Thursday afternoon. But many of the moderates who forced the end of the drilling measure also oppose the deficit bill's provisions to curb Medicaid growth, change food stamp eligibility and trim student loan subsidies.

"I have to represent my district," said Rep. Tim Johnson, R-Ill., who represents farmers opposed to cuts in commodity payments as well as the University of Illinois campus, which is upset about cuts to student loans. "At this point, I am very, very skeptical."

Outlook for the bill's success is still unclear. The Senate last week passed a different version of the bill that would curb the automatic growth of federal spending by $35 billion through the end of the decade. But with Senate Republicans close to passing a tax cut bill in the Finance Committee, Democrats argue the deficit reduction plan is just a chance to cut spending in order to give breaks to the wealthy.

"Republican moderates are still being asked to walk the plank for a party that has alienated the American public by demanding tax cuts for those who don't need help by cutting education and health programs for those who do," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.

The House plan would cut more through social services. It will still grow much faster than inflation even after beneficiaries face increased co-payments and the likely loss of some benefits.

"We are not cutting Medicaid for those truly in need," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif.

Top Republicans such as Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, and Majority Leader Roy Blunt, R-Mo., worked into the night Wednesday refining the bill in an attempt to bring uneasy lawmakers on board. Florida Republicans were especially active, helping kill the offshore drilling plan and loosening proposed restrictions on food stamp benefits for legal immigrants.

​
 
This, along with the results of the off-year elections just prove that the Republicans have become nearly as clueless and disassociated from their constituents as the Democrats.
 
The House of Representatives just passed a bill to allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The provision was attached to a larger defense bill. It passed the house with slighly more than 300 votes.

Not sure if this will get through the US Senate. If it does, it will surely get the signature of the President.

It would likely be a few years before we saw any of that oil but there is supposed to be a huge supply up there.

Democrats and moderate Republicans have for years blocked drilling in ANWR, and its inclusion in the defense bill exposed that bill to a possible filibuster in the Senate that can only be broken with a 60-vote majority.

Democrats complained that they were being forced to accept ANWR drilling with their vote on military spending and hurricane relief.

Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record) of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, denounced the ANWR provision and another last-minute addition sought by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.: liability protection for vaccine makers in most circumstances, coupled with a compensation fund to individuals harmed by the shots they receive.

"There is something especially outrageous about the willingness of the majority party leadership to allow the Defense Department bill, in a time of war, to be held hostage to totally unrelated special interest items," Obey said.

GOP conservatives, disturbed that their party has overseen a surge in government spending and massive federal deficits, applauded a provision in the defense bill that would cut all discretionary federal programs, except those affecting veterans, by 1 percent in fiscal 2006, producing savings of $8.5 billion.

They also hoped to take home news of the $40 billion deficit-cutting bill, which will hardly make a dent in the nation's $8 trillion debt but would be the first time since 1997 that Congress has reined in the growth in spending on federal benefits programs.

"Tonight the Congress will renew our commitment to the principles of fiscal discipline and limited government that minted this majority," said Rep. Mike Pence (news, bio, voting record), R-Ind., who leads a group of House conservatives.

Republicans originally put the savings at $41.6 billion, but that figure was later reduced to $39.7 billion with restoration of Medicare payments for oxygen patients, a late concession to lawmakers with interests in the durable medical equipment industry.

Planned spending on Medicare was estimated to fall by $6.4 billion and Medicaid by $4.8 billion. Another $13 billion would be saved from student loan programs, in part by establishing a fixed 6.8 percent interest rate instead of maintaining lower variable rates.

The largest single savings in Medicare would reduce anticipated federal funding for the private HMOs established under 2003 Medicare legislation.

Officials said the changes to Medicaid include an attempt to make it harder for the elderly to transfer their assets to children or others in order to qualify for federal nursing home benefits.

Lawmakers had to abandon other measures that would have expanded the deficit-cutting package. They agreed, at a cost of $7.3 billion, to eliminate a scheduled 4.6 percent cut in physician payments under Medicare.

The House early Monday passed, on a 374-41 vote, a separate defense bill that sets Pentagon policy and authorizes military programs. Action on the bill was held up by resistance to an attempt by Republican leaders to attach language, eventually removed, to limit individual political donations to independent organizations, a source of financing that proved especially valuable to Democratic candidates in 2004.

The bill contains a 3.1 percent pay raise for military personnel, an increase in the death gratuity for the families of active duty personnel to $100,000 and an increase in the enlistment bonuses for active duty to $40,000.

​
 
Oh boy, this will bring the tree huggers out in droves. I'm all for getting ourselves away from the arab dependency we have now.

Dur
 
Durwood, the lovely Mrs_B and I were talking to a woman a couple weeks ago about ANWR. She is clearly a left leaner, but was not well educated and not well versed. Gas prices came up and I mentioned ANWR and she became very defensive about protecting it. I asked her if she had any clue how big it was??? She said not really, but she guessed it was about the size of one of the state parks we have in Indiana. I explained that it is larger than some of the STATES in the US and she was shocked. I asked her if she felt she could hide a few drilling rigs in the State of Indiana without it affecting too much. She said yes. I asked if she could hide a few hundred rigs, and she again said yes. I asked her if we ran a pipeling through the state if she felt that would be too intrusive to the ecosystem and she said no. I then asked her what the heck she was opposed to. She said she never considered it under those terms and she said she was now in favor of it.

It goes to show that even the ignorant can be educated and see the light.
 
That was well put Bob, but i believe some won't see the light no matter how you explain it to them. You know....save a whale/slaughter an unborn child mentality.

Dur
 
Well the problem is some people WON'T listen and learn. Some people are too stupid to listen. And some people will honestly listen and still object based on their personal belief in need to keep some areas of the world protected from human habitation and/or development.

I think MOST people are willing to strike some sort of logical balace.

But I also think that the oil companies better be good coroporate and enviornmental citizens. Let's be honest, the reason it is so difficult for industries to get permission to do things has a lot to do with past abuse and reckless treatment of the enviornment.
 
It is interesting that out of a land mass the size of a state, they are looking at developing 3.13 square miles. 2000 acres out of a total of 1,500,000 acres. Hmmm. Seem like an enviornmental catastrophe - NOT!
 
B_Skurka said:
It is interesting that out of a land mass the size of a state, they are looking at developing 3.13 square miles. 2000 acres out of a total of 1,500,000 acres. Hmmm. Seem like an enviornmental catastrophe - NOT!
Click to expand...

Is finding more oil really gonna help motivate the oil consumption industry to sticking to alternate energy. Nevermind what the drilling is going to do to Alaska. What is the continued use of oil going to do to our planet?


Anyone happen to know what the cost of a gallon of gas is in Norway? The world's third largest export of oil... I should add. I will tell you $6/gal. Most all of it is from taxes. All the taxes are going to the research and development of alternate energy. Bullshit you say?? Well Norway is also the cleanest energy nation in Europe.

This is putting your money where you mouth is. We don't have the balls to do anything like this in this country. Sin tax on alchool and cigarettes.. sure.. gas?? are you nuts?

The department of energy is taking notice. Not sure if anything will happen out of it.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/norenv.html
 
Last edited:
the statement that we are drilling in Alaska because as worried about relying on foreign nations in the middle east for oil is pure fiction designed by the oil company lobbists to please the oil companies and their stock holders.

Look at the top oil producers in the world and you will see few enemies of the US. And it has been this way for a very long time. If we were really worried about relying on foreign oil we would be spending a bunch more $$$$ on the development of alternate energy technology which does not use oil period. What are we doing? oh yea... we are working on it in the background.. while we drill for oil in Alaska....yeah right. Just how much money to we spend on R&D of alternate energy??? Anyone know??
If we don't do a full court press it will never happen.

Look to Norway for an example on a country truely worried about the use of oil. And they are the 3rd largest exporter of oil in the world. What is their motivation? Certainly not the same as ours.
 
Last edited:
OregonAlex said:
the statement that we are drilling in Alaska because as worried about relying on foreign nations in the middle east for oil is pure fiction designed by the oil company lobbists to please the oil companies and their stock holders.

Look at the top oil producers in the world and you will see few enemies of the US. And it has been this way for a very long time. If we were really worried about relying on foreign oil we would be spending a bunch more $$$$ on the development of alternate energy technology which does not use oil period. What are we doing? oh yea... we are working on it in the background.. while we drill for oil in Alaska....yeah right. Just how much money to we spend on R&D of alternate energy??? Anyone know??
If we don't do a full court press it will never happen.

Look to Norway for an example on a country truely worried about the use of oil. And they are the 3rd largest exporter of oil in the world. What is their motivation? Certainly not the same as ours.
Click to expand...

Any references that support your statements above that you would care to provide would be greatly appreciated by me, as I would like to make an informed educated comment!

Thank you ,
Dean
 
OregonAlex said:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2005-10-27-oil-invest-usat_x.htm
Click to expand...

I read it and see nothing more than an executive making a legal decision ! Numbers are important only when the full context of the intent and background are known by those reading the same with an equal amount of knowledge!!

Sure a profit of 10 Billion sounds like a lot to me and You I would suppose but to my grandson of 4 thinks he is doing well with out an income, by the same token he does not have risks/expenses/projected losses and has not a clue what profit means!! Much like most Americans!!

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR CORPORATIONS TO MAKE A PROFIT!! It belongs to the entity and it's shareholders!!!
One of which may very well be you!! And that's legal also!!

Dean
 
would you be surprised if I told you that I expected no less of a response from you? :applause:

I give up. Now where is that white flag icon?? :tiphat:

btw.. have you used or do you now currently go by the internet screen name of "Highbeam" on another internet forum site? Just curious... I am having some Deja Vu. Remember you are under oath. :nosee: :wall:
 
Last edited:
OregonAlex said:
would you be surprised if I told you that I expected no less of a response from you? :applause:

I give up. Now where is that white flag icon?? :tiphat:

btw.. have you used or do you now currently go by the internet screen name of "Highbeam" on another internet forum site? Just curious... I am having some Deja Vu. Remember you are under oath. :nosee: :wall:
Click to expand...

My name is and will remain my God given one Arch Dean (last name not used on the internet)!!No other name used!! Except in fun!!
While I read your post, hopefully as you implied it, including the couched sarcasim!! I found your wit and effort refreshing and admirable!!

Dean
 
Dean,

you surprised me.. I would have thought you would have ripped me a new one by now. you are alright... even if you don't wear your sandals and your hair down to your knees anymore . :tiphat:
 
OregonAlex said:
Dean,

you surprised me.. I would have thought you would have ripped me a new one by now. you are alright... even if you don't wear your sandals and your hair down to your knees anymore . :tiphat:
Click to expand...

You don't surprise me, my friend and this shouldn't surprise you to learn that I have never had long hair nor have I ever owned a pair of sandals!!

Dean
 
well I can't say that I have ever had long hair but I do wear sandals a lot... but that is not because I am trying to make a political statement. Just utilitarian up in these parts. nah... now that was no fun.. let me help make this more entertaining for you.

If I told you that I was a tree hugging flag burning homosexual draft dodger hippie that graduated from an ivy league school and made his fortune during the dot come days and has never worked a day in his life ........ would that push the right buttons?
:Peace::Peace::Peace::Peace::Peace::Peace::Peace::Peace::Peace::Peace:


please tell me that I am wrong about you... and that statement had no affect on your blood pressure.. still alive I hope??

also... why would you want to put this at the bottom of your signature??

"I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you!! ™"

Is there a message you want to express about how you feel about the majority of the population which is less intelligent that you. What is your motivation here with this statement?? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I simply "don't understand" your wit here. Can you "explain it to me." Granted that I may not "understand it" the first time.

Whatever happened to positive non offending uplifting and openminded signatures like "have a nice day"? or "everyday that goes by, the more I learn, the more I realize that I have soo much more to learn" or my favorite demonstration of wisdom and intelligence "live long, drink beer and don't forget to call your mom".
 
Last edited:
the message above can be taken two ways. Either you can
1. accept who we are, being from different worlds, generations and social beliefs and allow yourself to truely believe that there exist a large population of people who "justly" disagree with your believes AND who have the same right as you do to believe in whatever they want. Which is an acceptable to you, whatever those beliefs happen to be.
Or you can
2. go about the rest of your life being prejudice of others by how they look, their religious, political, socio-economic or sexual beliefs and pushing your beliefs onto others who fundementally disagree with you.. or thinking you are more intelligent then everyone else and have nothing to learn from anyone because you have been there and done that and "that's that's and the way it always has been and that is the way it always should be"

If you take the first point of view, then I am very open in contining with the debate in an openminded intelligent and LOGICAL fashion only because you want to truely understand the other point of view because it interests you and you truely want to have an intelligent debate so that you might understand the other point of view more then you do today. You also keep your responses relevent and have enough guts to call the the night black when it obviouisly so and not persist on calling it white simply out of emmotion with complete disregard for the other person's logical statements.


If you take the second point of view, and only want to have a debate so you can put others down to make yourself feel superior without any intention to keep on open mind, learn something, and respect for the other person's logically sound and factual statements, then this will be my last response to anything that you post to and have no interest in debating anything with you.

Simply disagreeing with someone which transcends logic, simply pisses me off and wastes my time. I don't enjoy engaging in a debate with someone who simply refuses to listen to reason and logic and just puts their blinders and hands up to their ears and says "na na na... I don't want to listen to or spend the energy to try to keep an open mind about anything you are saying.. na na na."

If I wanted an emmotional illogical debate with someone who wants to shove their beliefs down my throat and does not possess enough intelligence to progress the debate into a logical manor without emmotional bais and sure stubborn will, then I will go back and start a debate up with the Kioti maniacs back on TBN. Which ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

so all I want to know is are you gonna be doing option #1 or option #2.
Lets save each other a bunch of grief and settle this now. I will respect you if you go with #2, no hard feelings I can understand if #1 simply going against the grain too much. I just need to know where you stand.
 
Last edited:
I have asked the moderator to delete my last two posts in this discussion. After getting it out of my system and reading them back to myself I have realized that I am way out of line and a bit offensive. Sorry about that..

This is regrettable.. should have never have posted them.
If you read it before it is deleted, sorry about that..

-Alex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top