We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR

Science > Abortion > We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 3 of 18

Topic:	Science > Abortion
User:	"Maaxx"
Date:	17 Mar 2005 03:39:18 PM
Object:	We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR

If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or left, you
can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49 vote in the Senate
to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal
Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and conservative Republicans to get
more excited than the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals by
watching their reaction to ANWR.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start tapping
into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take years to get
the crude flowing out of the ground. That means new jobs for Americans who
handle the drilling and build the pipeline to Alaska. It also means that
we're going to acquire more of the substance that powers our economy without
having to pay out our money to less than friendly countries like Saudi
Arabia & Venezuela. Best of all, the oil is in the absolute middle of
nowhere, so we don't have to inconvenience anyone to drill ANWR. To the
right, developing ANWR is all upside, all positive, an idea that is so
fantastic that they can hardly understand how any rational person could
oppose it.
On the other hand, liberals are enraged that it looks like we may be
drilling ANWR. Part of that is because of their free floating hostility to
the oil industry, but their real beef is that ANWR is such a remote area.
Conservatives may consider that a feature, but to liberals it's a bug. The
very fact that it's a godforsaken region that almost no one visits makes it
so rare and valuable to them that it's worth leaving billions of dollars
worth of oil in the ground and forsaking tens of thousands of jobs just in
case someone wants to ever see what the boonies are like in the future. Oh,
and we mustn't forget, they claim that the pipelines, roads, oilmen and
people going back and forth might -- and I say might because this is heavily
disputed -- disturb the animals. The fact that you could make the exact same
argument about every populated area in North America seems lost on them.
Now you tell me: who's looking out for everyday Americans on this issue?
Conservatives who want more jobs & oil for their fellow countrymen or
liberals who are concerned about future back-packing trips for an
infinitesimal percentage of the population and maybe happier caribou and
polar bears, maybe not. That's not a tough call.
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	29 Mar 2005 01:00:54 AM

Robert Bolton wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1112044140.365724.180800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Floyd Davidson wrote:

....

I don't know if they are available online, but the State of
Alaska does in fact have records for the destination of *every*
tanker loaded at the Port of Valdez, and it can absolutely be
verified that all oil is shipped to US destinations. Hence it
is a *well known fact* in Alaska that no ANS crude is exported.

So why isn't the U.S. using the oil in Alaska now? Or are we? Why

are

we so dependent on foreign oil?

As Floyd said, the US is using all of the oil being pumped. Not all

of the oil

has been drilled, however. We're dependant on foreign oil because we

use twice

as much as we pump. We imported 11.8 billion barrels a day for 2004,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html
....

Last year, I listened to a speech given from a gentleman that works

for

a gas company. He showed us the figures that shows the U.S. does

have

enough oil that we can use that will support us for approximately

the

next 50 years. But, he also told us that when the oil is gone,

it's

gone.

These links say there are roughly 125 billion barrels recoverable and

proven

reserves of oil in the US. Let's say 150 billion. At 20 million

barrels a day

consumption, (our present consumption), that's 150,000/20/365= 20.5

years. My

guess is your speaker was saying our oil will last 50 years as long

as we keep

supplimenting it with imports. That doesn't count natural gas and

coal though.
That could very well be true. He may have just been referring to oil,
as far as in it's use for
gas. Of course, oil is used for many more things other than just gas.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/current/pdf/appg.pdf

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/current/pdf/table06.pdf

Total US ultimate recoverable = 105 billion barrels
Total World ultimate recoverable = 4,000 billion barrels

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/presentations/2000/long_term_supply/sld009.htm

Assuming politicians have read their own reports, they're being

dishonest when

they pretend we can become less dependant on foreign oil. Well,

there is one

way to become less dependant. We could control other oil producing

nations.
Or we could work on our technology and find other ways to produce
energy.
Let's face it, the big boys control this country. Meaning the oil
companies.
Not just the oil companies, but they are a major player. They don't
want us to find other
ways to produce energy unless they profit.

Robert

User: "Floyd Davidson"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	29 Mar 2005 12:43:30 AM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:

http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0425mal.PDF

There has been no change in status since then.

I don't know if they are available online, but the State of
Alaska does in fact have records for the destination of *every*
tanker loaded at the Port of Valdez, and it can absolutely be
verified that all oil is shipped to US destinations. Hence it
is a *well known fact* in Alaska that no ANS crude is exported.

So why isn't the U.S. using the oil in Alaska now? Or are we? Why are
we so dependent on foreign oil?

Robert Bolton gave some good figures showing the extend of
imports and domestic production.
As to Alaska crude, we certainly are using all that can be
produced.
Keep in mind that having 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil
left at Prudhoe and Kuparuk (the two largest producing fields on
the North Slope) doesn't mean that we can pump all of that out
fast enough to eliminate US dependence of foreign oil.
Currently the pipeline delivers about 990,000 barrels a day to
the West Coast market. Most of that comes from the two above
mentioned fields. In 1988 they were producing twice what they
are now, and that decline will continue for another 10-15 years
before essentially all of the oil is pumped out.
We have other known reserves in Alaska, some of which are being
pumped and some of which are not. For example, we know of at
least a couple of fields in the National Petroleum Reserve -
Alaska (NPRA), but they are too small themselves to warrant the
cost of production infrastructure at this time. That means it
just plain costs too much to build the roads, airports,
pipelines, etc for 2 billion barrels of oil! So the oil
companies know it is there, and wait. What the wait for are
lower costs... which will happen eventually, as other
developments make the roads and pipelines shorter. Likewise new
technologies, and of course the current price of oil, can all
affect whether a known field is produced.
And example of the above is the West Sak field, which is
actually a pool of oil in the same area as the massive Kuparuk
field, except it is at a much shallower depth... and is *thick*
(it's filled with sand, and is sitting just under the permafrost
layer), which until recently has made it impossible to tap.
But, just because 1) the production facilities for Kuparuk are
there, and 2) the price of oil is high, they are now working
very hard to produce oil from the West Sak field. So far it is
only producing something less than 50,000 barrels a day though,
but as they put more money into research and development, that
will almost certainly go up (hopefully by an order of
magnitude).
And you might ask, "So what?" Well, West Sak isn't a 1 or 2
billion barrel reservoir like those non-producing known reserves
in NPRA. West Sak is as big as Prudhoe Bay! That is, it is as
big as the most massive oil field ever produced in the US. And
it has been sitting there for 20 years... waiting.

I totally support the movement towards becoming less dependent on
foreign oil. I also support the movement to finding other means of
producing energy, such as solar, hydrogen, cars that use electric and
gas, and so forth.

Just keep them in perspective. ANWR, for example, isn't going
to do *anything* to help us become less dependent on foreign
oil. Conservation methods, such as more efficient road
vehicles, would be several times as effective.

Last year, I listened to a speech given from a gentleman that works for
a gas company. He showed us the figures that shows the U.S. does have
enough oil that we can use that will support us for approximately the
next 50 years. But, he also told us that when the oil is gone, it's
gone.

As you've stated it, that simply is *not* true. We may well
have that much oil, but we can't produce that much oil, at a
price that is competitive with foreign oil.
And, I am in no way convinced that we should do that even if we
could! Remember that if you see something wrong with being
dependent of foreign oil... that if we pump out *all* of our oil
we will then be *totally* dependent of foreign oil. Perhaps you
will be gone by then, and certainly I will, but I have no desire
to leave my grandchildren with that cross to bear when they are
my age.

I am by far not an expert in this field, and I never pretended to be.
So if you got something to correct my statements, I am more than
willing to read them. But if people are going to act like Barnes, me,
and so forth, I have better things to do.

Well, ... leopards aren't going to suddenly have tiger stripes!
Ignore the jerks and discuss it with more sensible and aware
people.
--
FloydL. Davidson <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	29 Mar 2005 05:55:17 AM

Floyd Davidson wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

So why isn't the U.S. using the oil in Alaska now? Or are we? Why

are

we so dependent on foreign oil?

Robert Bolton gave some good figures showing the extend of
imports and domestic production.

As to Alaska crude, we certainly are using all that can be
produced.

O.k., I was going off bad information. My fault for not researching it
more myself. You have prompted me to do more research and I appreciate
all this information you are providing. It is helpful and useful.

Keep in mind that having 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil
left at Prudhoe and Kuparuk (the two largest producing fields on
the North Slope) doesn't mean that we can pump all of that out
fast enough to eliminate US dependence of foreign oil.
Currently the pipeline delivers about 990,000 barrels a day to
the West Coast market. Most of that comes from the two above
mentioned fields. In 1988 they were producing twice what they
are now, and that decline will continue for another 10-15 years
before essentially all of the oil is pumped out.

We have other known reserves in Alaska, some of which are being
pumped and some of which are not. For example, we know of at
least a couple of fields in the National Petroleum Reserve -
Alaska (NPRA), but they are too small themselves to warrant the
cost of production infrastructure at this time. That means it
just plain costs too much to build the roads, airports,
pipelines, etc for 2 billion barrels of oil! So the oil
companies know it is there, and wait. What the wait for are
lower costs... which will happen eventually, as other
developments make the roads and pipelines shorter. Likewise new
technologies, and of course the current price of oil, can all
affect whether a known field is produced.

And example of the above is the West Sak field, which is
actually a pool of oil in the same area as the massive Kuparuk
field, except it is at a much shallower depth... and is *thick*
(it's filled with sand, and is sitting just under the permafrost
layer), which until recently has made it impossible to tap.
But, just because 1) the production facilities for Kuparuk are
there, and 2) the price of oil is high, they are now working
very hard to produce oil from the West Sak field. So far it is
only producing something less than 50,000 barrels a day though,
but as they put more money into research and development, that
will almost certainly go up (hopefully by an order of
magnitude).

And you might ask, "So what?" Well, West Sak isn't a 1 or 2
billion barrel reservoir like those non-producing known reserves
in NPRA. West Sak is as big as Prudhoe Bay! That is, it is as
big as the most massive oil field ever produced in the US. And
it has been sitting there for 20 years... waiting.

I totally support the movement towards becoming less dependent on
foreign oil. I also support the movement to finding other means of
producing energy, such as solar, hydrogen, cars that use electric

and

gas, and so forth.

What type of an impact do you expect our drilling more in Alaska, will
have on Opec?

Last year, I listened to a speech given from a gentleman that works

for

a gas company. He showed us the figures that shows the U.S. does

have

enough oil that we can use that will support us for approximately

the

next 50 years. But, he also told us that when the oil is gone, it's
gone.

As you've stated it, that simply is *not* true. We may well
have that much oil, but we can't produce that much oil, at a
price that is competitive with foreign oil.

And, I am in no way convinced that we should do that even if we
could! Remember that if you see something wrong with being
dependent of foreign oil... that if we pump out *all* of our oil
we will then be *totally* dependent of foreign oil. Perhaps you
will be gone by then, and certainly I will, but I have no desire
to leave my grandchildren with that cross to bear when they are
my age.

I am by far not an expert in this field, and I never pretended to

be.

So if you got something to correct my statements, I am more than
willing to read them. But if people are going to act like Barnes,

me,

and so forth, I have better things to do.

Well, ... leopards aren't going to suddenly have tiger stripes!
Ignore the jerks and discuss it with more sensible and aware
people.

Again, thanks. I really appreciated your responses and you have
corrected my error. I would like to learn more about this and I am
going to do some more research.

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

User: "Floyd Davidson"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	29 Mar 2005 06:39:43 AM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

What type of an impact do you expect our drilling more in Alaska, will
have on Opec?

We have reserves totaling 10's of billions of barrels, and
they have hundreds of billions of barrels.
Our drilling in Alaska can only have one effect, actually. If
we waste what we have now, when oil is cheap, and use it (for
example) to power SUV's... in 50-100 years when oil is a rare
commodity used only for essential products, such as plastics,
and not for fueling private vehicles, we won't have any of that
oil and those nice business partners of ours over in the Middle
East will have it *all*.
Nice future, eh?
--
FloydL. Davidson <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

User: "Osprey"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	29 Mar 2005 09:59:34 AM

"Floyd Davidson" <

> wrote in message
news:87mzsm39tc.fld@barrow.com...

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

What type of an impact do you expect our drilling more in Alaska, will
have on Opec?

We have reserves totaling 10's of billions of barrels, and
they have hundreds of billions of barrels.

Our drilling in Alaska can only have one effect, actually. If
we waste what we have now, when oil is cheap, and use it (for
example) to power SUV's... in 50-100 years when oil is a rare
commodity used only for essential products, such as plastics,
and not for fueling private vehicles, we won't have any of that
oil and those nice business partners of ours over in the Middle
East will have it *all*.

Nice future, eh?

Not promising that's for sure. Personally I don't own an SUV, but I can
understand the concern about so many people driving them. Sure, they are
nice and roomy, but expensive and not very economic. I personally don't
have a problem with someone who owns one, if she or he can afford to fill it
up.
Now, one day when I retire I am going to have my motorhome, and travel..:o)
Think in 20 years they will have a fuel economy motorhome?

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	29 Mar 2005 10:14:46 AM

In article <hu-dnZCXpt0X59TfRVn-iw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"Floyd Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
news:87mzsm39tc.fld@barrow.com...

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

What type of an impact do you expect our drilling more in Alaska, will
have on Opec?

We have reserves totaling 10's of billions of barrels, and
they have hundreds of billions of barrels.

Our drilling in Alaska can only have one effect, actually. If
we waste what we have now, when oil is cheap, and use it (for
example) to power SUV's... in 50-100 years when oil is a rare
commodity used only for essential products, such as plastics,
and not for fueling private vehicles, we won't have any of that
oil and those nice business partners of ours over in the Middle
East will have it *all*.

Nice future, eh?

And, of course, you don't realize that the person with the SUV causes
YOUR gas price to increase.

Now, one day when I retire I am going to have my motorhome, and travel..:o)
Think in 20 years they will have a fuel economy motorhome?

At twelve dollars a gallon a 6 MPG motor home will be a GREAT
investment.
.

User: "Osprey"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	29 Mar 2005 11:18:04 AM

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:290320050814464852%dbarnes@aol.com...

In article <hu-dnZCXpt0X59TfRVn-iw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"Floyd Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
news:87mzsm39tc.fld@barrow.com...

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

What type of an impact do you expect our drilling more in Alaska, will
have on Opec?

We have reserves totaling 10's of billions of barrels, and
they have hundreds of billions of barrels.

Our drilling in Alaska can only have one effect, actually. If
we waste what we have now, when oil is cheap, and use it (for
example) to power SUV's... in 50-100 years when oil is a rare
commodity used only for essential products, such as plastics,
and not for fueling private vehicles, we won't have any of that
oil and those nice business partners of ours over in the Middle
East will have it *all*.

Nice future, eh?

And, of course, you don't realize that the person with the SUV causes
YOUR gas price to increase.

Now, one day when I retire I am going to have my motorhome, and
travel..:o)
Think in 20 years they will have a fuel economy motorhome?

At twelve dollars a gallon a 6 MPG motor home will be a GREAT
investment.

For someone who said they long since stopped talking me..you sure do
contradict yourself.
Why don't you actually do what you say?
If all you are going to do is make up claims, lie, throw insults, then you
are looking like a fool and others are starting to see that. So why don't
you act like the lawyer you claim to be?
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	29 Mar 2005 09:21:29 PM

In article <xLWdnQC60oh_EdTfRVn-hw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:290320050814464852%dbarnes@aol.com...

In article <hu-dnZCXpt0X59TfRVn-iw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"Floyd Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
news:87mzsm39tc.fld@barrow.com...

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

What type of an impact do you expect our drilling more in Alaska, will
have on Opec?

We have reserves totaling 10's of billions of barrels, and
they have hundreds of billions of barrels.

Our drilling in Alaska can only have one effect, actually. If
we waste what we have now, when oil is cheap, and use it (for
example) to power SUV's... in 50-100 years when oil is a rare
commodity used only for essential products, such as plastics,
and not for fueling private vehicles, we won't have any of that
oil and those nice business partners of ours over in the Middle
East will have it *all*.

Nice future, eh?

And, of course, you don't realize that the person with the SUV causes
YOUR gas price to increase.

Now, one day when I retire I am going to have my motorhome, and
travel..:o)
Think in 20 years they will have a fuel economy motorhome?

At twelve dollars a gallon a 6 MPG motor home will be a GREAT
investment.

For someone who said they long since stopped talking me..you sure do
contradict yourself.

I never said that.

Why don't you actually do what you say?

I do.

If all you are going to do is make up claims, lie, throw insults, then you
are looking like a fool and others are starting to see that. So why don't
you act like the lawyer you claim to be?

OK. Lets see what you have. What to talk about ex post facto laws?
The rule against perpetuities? Maybe we could discuss the Fruit of the
Poisonous tree doctrine?
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	28 Mar 2005 09:41:57 PM

In article <1112044140.365724.180800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Floyd Davidson wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:

osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Me wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Fact is, we export a lot of the
oil up there now to other countries. Why? Why aren't we

using it

ourselves?

the FACT is that NONE of the Alaskan Oil from the North Slope is

exported

That part is true.

anywhere. It is all used domestically in West Coast and Gulf

Coast

Refineries. Better you should research your facts before you

spew

There is no longer any ANS being shipped to Gulf Coast
Refineries either. That was indeed happening when the pipeline
was delivering more than 2 million barrels of crude per day to
Valdez in the late 80's and early 90's. But today it is
hitting right at 990,000 bbls/day, and that isn't nearly enough
to supply even the West Coast refineries.

Tell you what, you show me a credible source that will say that

ALL the

oil drilled in Alaska is used domestically. And I will gladly

read the

source and if credible acknowledge it.

Show me the "facts"

Here you go, *****.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1084

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/byagency/doi1651.htm

You are sure an easy target. Dumb as a rock.

I'll grant that he is absolutely wrong,

I have no problem admitting I was wrong. And I don't mind people who
can provide the right sources that will correct an error. But when
people go and act like children and name calling, they will be ignored.

You sure have a lot of excuses for why you are such a coward.
.

User: "Me"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	28 Mar 2005 02:52:15 PM

In article <87vf7cgqia.fld@barrow.com>,
Floyd Davidson <floyd@barrow.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:

osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Me wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Fact is, we export a lot of the
oil up there now to other countries. Why? Why aren't we using it
ourselves?

the FACT is that NONE of the Alaskan Oil from the North Slope is

exported

That part is true.

anywhere. It is all used domestically in West Coast and Gulf Coast
Refineries. Better you should research your facts before you spew

Tell you what, you show me a credible source that will say that ALL the
oil drilled in Alaska is used domestically. And I will gladly read the
source and if credible acknowledge it.

Show me the "facts"

Here you go, *****.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1084

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/byagency/doi1651.htm

You are sure an easy target. Dumb as a rock.

I'll grant that he is absolutely wrong, but when it gets down to
dumb as a rock, I'd have to say that posting those two URLs to
support your point... is indicative of someone being dumb as a
rock! Neither of them proves your point or even comes close.

In fact, the cite that Osprey or some other idiot gave
supposedly supporting the idea that oil is exported, gives the
history up through 2000. Quoting huge portions of it to
demonstrate that oil was for a while exported does *not* prove
that oil is being exported from Alaska's North Slope. However,
that URL *did* indicated that Congress was poised to enact
another ban on exports.

That facts actually are that the oil industry promised Congress
that they would cease exports and would not restart without the
advice and consent of Congress.

No ANS crude has been exported since mid-2000, *and* if anyone
were caught exporting oil it could be expected that Congress
would *immediately* legislate a ban, which nobody wants to see
happen.

http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0425mal.PDF

There has been no change in status since then.

I don't know if they are available online, but the State of
Alaska does in fact have records for the destination of *every*
tanker loaded at the Port of Valdez, and it can absolutely be
verified that all oil is shipped to US destinations. Hence it
is a *well known fact* in Alaska that no ANS crude is exported.

Well hello Floyd, Hell has not frozen over, and the sun still rises
every morning, and we actually agree on something.....Maybe it is just
Eastertime...
Me who does enjoy chocolate bunny ears........
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	28 Mar 2005 09:41:57 PM

In article <87vf7cgqia.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd Davidson
<floyd@barrow.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:

osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Me wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Fact is, we export a lot of the
oil up there now to other countries. Why? Why aren't we using it
ourselves?

the FACT is that NONE of the Alaskan Oil from the North Slope is

exported

That part is true.

anywhere. It is all used domestically in West Coast and Gulf Coast
Refineries. Better you should research your facts before you spew

Here you go, *****.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1084

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/byagency/doi1651.htm

You are sure an easy target. Dumb as a rock.

Then you didn't read them.
The first paragraph says, "The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act
of 1973, while opening vast oil reserves around Prudhoe Bay for
production, effectively requires that Alaskan oil be consumed
domestically, not exported. As a result, petroleum development on the
Alaskan North Slope and in California has been greatly restrained."

In fact, the cite that Osprey or some other idiot gave
supposedly supporting the idea that oil is exported, gives the
history up through 2000. Quoting huge portions of it to
demonstrate that oil was for a while exported does *not* prove
that oil is being exported from Alaska's North Slope. However,
that URL *did* indicated that Congress was poised to enact
another ban on exports.

That facts actually are that the oil industry promised Congress
that they would cease exports and would not restart without the
advice and consent of Congress.

No ANS crude has been exported since mid-2000, *and* if anyone
were caught exporting oil it could be expected that Congress
would *immediately* legislate a ban, which nobody wants to see
happen.

http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0425mal.PDF

There has been no change in status since then.

I don't know if they are available online, but the State of
Alaska does in fact have records for the destination of *every*
tanker loaded at the Port of Valdez, and it can absolutely be
verified that all oil is shipped to US destinations. Hence it
is a *well known fact* in Alaska that no ANS crude is exported.

I don't really put much thought into what Osprey says.
.

User: "Floyd Davidson"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	29 Mar 2005 12:19:40 AM

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:

In article <87vf7cgqia.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd Davidson
<

> wrote:

Then you didn't read them.

I not only read them (and unlike you, understood what it said in
context), I read a few other things... such as _recent_ history.

The first paragraph says, "The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act
of 1973, while opening vast oil reserves around Prudhoe Bay for
production, effectively requires that Alaskan oil be consumed
domestically, not exported. As a result, petroleum development on the
Alaskan North Slope and in California has been greatly restrained."

So, just when was that written? You realize time marches on,
and Congress ammends laws on a regular basis. The whole point
of that article was explaining why Congres, *in* *1995*, a
decade ago, was considering proposals to remove the export ban.
Did you check to see if they did???? (Don't you suppose, that in
the context of this discussion, it would be about as dumb as a rock
*not* to check!)
The TAPS Authorization Act, as passed in 1973, banned the export
of Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude. In 1995 Congress recinded
that ban. From 1996 through 2000 there were some exports of ANS
to Asian countries, which totaled in the peak year (1999) some
7% of the ANS production.
So much for your recital of ancient history as if it were
somehow an effective law as of yesterday.
(An interesting sidelight though... most of the hype used to
convince Congress to remove the export ban was *false* in 1995.
If the ban had been removed in 1985... it would indeed have
prevented the "greatly restrained" petroleum development. But
by 1995 that was history, and the removal of the ban did
*nothing* of value to anyone other than the oil companies. What
it did for them was provide leverage to jack the prices of
petroleum products up in the California market!

In fact, the cite that Osprey or some other idiot gave
supposedly supporting the idea that oil is exported, gives the
history up through 2000. Quoting huge portions of it to

And if *you* had read what he cited, it would have been obvious
what the problem with your referenced material was.

http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0425mal.PDF

There has been no change in status since then.

I don't know if they are available online, but the State of
Alaska does in fact have records for the destination of *every*
tanker loaded at the Port of Valdez, and it can absolutely be
verified that all oil is shipped to US destinations. Hence it
is a *well known fact* in Alaska that no ANS crude is exported.

I don't really put much thought into what Osprey says.

You should try putting some thought into what *you* say, rather
than just providing a series of gratuitous insults and names,
Labeling what he actually does and says is reasonable, provided
you *prove* what it is. You are doing the opposite, claiming
what he says is not reliable because *he* fits some label.
That's nothing but an Ad Hominem, and worthless.
--
FloydL. Davidson <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	29 Mar 2005 10:11:47 AM

In article <871x9zc6tf.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd Davidson
<floyd@barrow.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:

In article <87vf7cgqia.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd Davidson
<floyd@barrow.com> wrote:

Then you didn't read them.

I not only read them (and unlike you, understood what it said in
context), I read a few other things... such as _recent_ history.

The statute is very recent.

Considering.

Did you check to see if they did???? (Don't you suppose, that in
the context of this discussion, it would be about as dumb as a rock
*not* to check!)

Of course I checked.

The TAPS Authorization Act, as passed in 1973, banned the export
of Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude. In 1995 Congress recinded
that ban. From 1996 through 2000 there were some exports of ANS
to Asian countries, which totaled in the peak year (1999) some
7% of the ANS production.

So much for your recital of ancient history as if it were
somehow an effective law as of yesterday.

(An interesting sidelight though... most of the hype used to
convince Congress to remove the export ban was *false* in 1995.
If the ban had been removed in 1985... it would indeed have
prevented the "greatly restrained" petroleum development. But
by 1995 that was history, and the removal of the ban did
*nothing* of value to anyone other than the oil companies. What
it did for them was provide leverage to jack the prices of
petroleum products up in the California market!

In fact, the cite that Osprey or some other idiot gave
supposedly supporting the idea that oil is exported, gives the
history up through 2000. Quoting huge portions of it to

And if *you* had read what he cited, it would have been obvious
what the problem with your referenced material was.

http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0425mal.PDF

<Yawn> It still doesn't happen.

There has been no change in status since then.

I don't know if they are available online, but the State of
Alaska does in fact have records for the destination of *every*
tanker loaded at the Port of Valdez, and it can absolutely be
verified that all oil is shipped to US destinations. Hence it
is a *well known fact* in Alaska that no ANS crude is exported.

I don't really put much thought into what Osprey says.

I have long since given up trying to talk to the boob. His answer to
everything is denial.
.

User: "Floyd Davidson"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	29 Mar 2005 10:41:42 AM

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:

In article <871x9zc6tf.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd Davidson
<

> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:

In article <87vf7cgqia.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd Davidson
<

> wrote:

Then you didn't read them.

I not only read them (and unlike you, understood what it said in
context), I read a few other things... such as _recent_ history.

The statute is very recent.

So... you didn't even read what you posted. The Act was
originally passed in late 1973, and amended in 1995 to remove
the restriction. The URL you provided did *not* contain any
portion of the Act which banned exports. The quote from your
other URL, shown below, was from just prior to the 1995
amendment, and references a section of the statue that 1) is not
quoted in your first URL, and 2) is no longer part of the law.
Hence your cited references did *not* support your statements.

Considering.

And enacted...

Did you check to see if they did???? (Don't you suppose, that in
the context of this discussion, it would be about as dumb as a rock
*not* to check!)

Of course I checked.

Are you saying that you knew what you posted was wrong, or that
you didn't do an adaquate job of checking?
....

And if *you* had read what he cited, it would have been obvious
what the problem with your referenced material was.

http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0425mal.PDF

<Yawn> It still doesn't happen.

What doesn't happen?
....

I don't really put much thought into what Osprey says.

I have long since given up trying to talk to the boob. His answer to
everything is denial.

Your descriptions reflect your actions more than his.
--
FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	19 Mar 2005 05:57:55 PM

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term energy
strategy.

The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.

"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend it
ALL!"

Non sequitur. Try harder next time.

It's an analogy, halfwit.

A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground is
useless.

Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become more
valuable over time.

Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that would mean
paying more money for gas and just about everything else.

Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will
take years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.

Think of all the money to be made!

That's a good thing.

For oil companies.

And everybody else who uses oil.

Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm out a
wildlife refuge.

Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would *not* be
out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.

I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.

Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of South
Carolina "no longer a wilderness."

How many oil rigs? Be specific.

But that's just your screwed up logic.

And your habitual dishonesty.

Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy ANWR.

Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Maaxx"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	19 Mar 2005 09:16:15 PM

(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1iea2$8au$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

(Ray Fischer) wrote:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's
natural resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term
energy strategy.

The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.

"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend it
ALL!"

Non sequitur. Try harder next time.

It's an analogy, halfwit.

A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground is
useless.

Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become more
valuable over time.

Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that would
mean paying more money for gas and just about everything else.

Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to
start tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if
it will take years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.

Think of all the money to be made!

That's a good thing.

For oil companies.

And everybody else who uses oil.

Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm out a
wildlife refuge.

Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would *not*
be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.

I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.

Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of South
Carolina "no longer a wilderness."

How many oil rigs? Be specific.

But that's just your screwed up logic.

And your habitual dishonesty.

Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.

Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".

Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.
.

User: "Lloyd Parker"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	21 Mar 2005 04:16:49 AM

In article <423ceaff$0$13897$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1iea2$8au$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's
natural resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term
energy strategy.

The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.

"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend it
ALL!"

Non sequitur. Try harder next time.

It's an analogy, halfwit.

A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground is
useless.

Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become more
valuable over time.

Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that would
mean paying more money for gas and just about everything else.

Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to
start tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if
it will take years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.

Think of all the money to be made!

That's a good thing.

For oil companies.

And everybody else who uses oil.

Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm out a
wildlife refuge.

Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would *not*
be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.

I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.

Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of South
Carolina "no longer a wilderness."

How many oil rigs? Be specific.

But that's just your screwed up logic.

And your habitual dishonesty.

Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.

Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".

Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.

If I built 10 drills on 190 acres and connect them with roads and
pipelines covering 10 acres, I've impacted a lot more than 200 acres.
.

User: "Al Dykes"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	20 Mar 2005 07:45:47 AM

In article <423ceaff$0$13897$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1iea2$8au$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's
natural resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term
energy strategy.

The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.

"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend it
ALL!"

Non sequitur. Try harder next time.

It's an analogy, halfwit.

A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground is
useless.

Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become more
valuable over time.

Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that would
mean paying more money for gas and just about everything else.

Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to
start tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if
it will take years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.

Think of all the money to be made!

That's a good thing.

For oil companies.

And everybody else who uses oil.

Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm out a
wildlife refuge.

Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would *not*
be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.

I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.

Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of South
Carolina "no longer a wilderness."

How many oil rigs? Be specific.

But that's just your screwed up logic.

And your habitual dishonesty.

Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.

Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".

Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.

The 2000 acre figure has been shown to be B.S. It doesn;t cover roads
and pipeline access.
Why don't we have a conservation paln AND drill off Jeb Bush's Florida
before we drill and build piplene in the high arctic ?
Conservation is far and a away the most economical way to make a
gallon of oil.
Give me one reason why we don't institute modest conservation ?
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.

User: "Maaxx"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	20 Mar 2005 04:11:56 PM

(Al Dykes) wrote in news:d1juqb$pc5$1@panix5.panix.com:

In article <423ceaff$0$13897$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1iea2$8au$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's
natural resources to oil companies than come up with a
long-term energy strategy.

The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.

"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend
it ALL!"

Non sequitur. Try harder next time.

It's an analogy, halfwit.

A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground is
useless.

Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become
more valuable over time.

Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that would
mean paying more money for gas and just about everything else.

Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to
start tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even
if it will take years to get the crude flowing out of the
ground.

Think of all the money to be made!

That's a good thing.

For oil companies.

And everybody else who uses oil.

Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in
lower prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm
out a wildlife refuge.

Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.

I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.

Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South Carolina "no longer a wilderness."

How many oil rigs? Be specific.

But that's just your screwed up logic.

And your habitual dishonesty.

Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.

Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".

Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.

The 2000 acre figure has been shown to be B.S. It doesn;t cover roads
and pipeline access.

Why don't we have a conservation paln AND drill off Jeb Bush's Florida
before we drill and build piplene in the high arctic ?

Conservation is far and a away the most economical way to make a
gallon of oil.

Give me one reason why we don't institute modest conservation ?

It would destroy the would economy.
.

User: "Lloyd Parker"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	21 Mar 2005 04:35:23 AM

In article <423df52c$0$13877$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote in news:d1juqb$pc5$1@panix5.panix.com:

In article <423ceaff$0$13897$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1iea2$8au$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's
natural resources to oil companies than come up with a
long-term energy strategy.

The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.

"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend
it ALL!"

Non sequitur. Try harder next time.

It's an analogy, halfwit.

A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground is
useless.

Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become
more valuable over time.

Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that would
mean paying more money for gas and just about everything else.

Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to
start tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even
if it will take years to get the crude flowing out of the
ground.

Think of all the money to be made!

That's a good thing.

For oil companies.

And everybody else who uses oil.

Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in
lower prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm
out a wildlife refuge.

Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.

I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.

Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South Carolina "no longer a wilderness."

How many oil rigs? Be specific.

But that's just your screwed up logic.

And your habitual dishonesty.

Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.

Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".

Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.

The 2000 acre figure has been shown to be B.S. It doesn;t cover roads
and pipeline access.

Why don't we have a conservation paln AND drill off Jeb Bush's Florida
before we drill and build piplene in the high arctic ?

Conservation is far and a away the most economical way to make a
gallon of oil.

Give me one reason why we don't institute modest conservation ?

It would destroy the would economy.

So if the US required vehicles to get the same fuel economy as they do in
Europe, it would destroy the economy? You really are dumb.
.

User: "Maaxx"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	21 Mar 2005 01:50:00 PM

(Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:d1mphu$n6d$21@puck.cc.emory.edu:

In article <423df52c$0$13877$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote in
news:d1juqb$pc5$1@panix5.panix.com:

In article <423ceaff$0$13897$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1iea2$8au$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's
natural resources to oil companies than come up with a
long-term energy strategy.

The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.

"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend
it ALL!"

Non sequitur. Try harder next time.

It's an analogy, halfwit.

A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground
is useless.

Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become
more valuable over time.

Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that
would mean paying more money for gas and just about everything
else.

Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to
start tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even
if it will take years to get the crude flowing out of the
ground.

Think of all the money to be made!

That's a good thing.

For oil companies.

And everybody else who uses oil.

Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in
lower prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm
out a wildlife refuge.

Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.

I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in
the wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.

Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South Carolina "no longer a wilderness."

How many oil rigs? Be specific.

But that's just your screwed up logic.

And your habitual dishonesty.

Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.

Unless you're lying and it's more than a "few".

Only 2000 acres out of 19.2 million acres can be developed.

The 2000 acre figure has been shown to be B.S. It doesn;t cover roads
and pipeline access.

Why don't we have a conservation paln AND drill off Jeb Bush's Florida
before we drill and build piplene in the high arctic ?

Conservation is far and a away the most economical way to make a
gallon of oil.

Give me one reason why we don't institute modest conservation ?

It would destroy the world economy.

So if the US required vehicles to get the same fuel economy as they do
in Europe, it would destroy the economy?

No, if gas prices keep rising it will destroy the economy.
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR	21 Mar 2005 07:00:04 PM

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Maaxx
<maaxx@xrs.net>
wrote
on 21 Mar 2005 19:50:00 GMT
<423f2568$0$13871$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>:

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:d1mphu$n6d$21@puck.cc.emory.edu:

In article <423df52c$0$13877$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote in
news:d1juqb$pc5$1@panix5.panix.com:

[snip for brevity]

Give me one reason why we don't institute modest conservation ?

It would destroy the world economy.

So if the US required vehicles to get the same fuel economy as they do
in Europe, it would destroy the economy?

No, if gas prices keep rising it will destroy the economy.

Actually, no. It will merely cause a readjustment of priorities.
A nasty readjustment, in many cases -- but the safeguards in
place for the Federal Reserve, among many others, should
cushion the blow. We've weathered two nasty shocks already
(2000 crash, 2001-09-11 terrorist disaster) to the economy,
and we've not gone under a la the Great Depression in the 30's,
although we're not exactly running balanced budgets, either.
(Not that we've run balanced budgets since the Vietnam War --
the Clinton surpluses were most definitely an anomaly.)
In any event, rising gas prices may force consumers to
do what all of the previous attempts of the goverment
failed to do: think about what they want in transport.
At $4 or even $5/gallon, that SUV doesn't look quite as
attractive as a gas-sipping Prius, Focus, or Insight -- <