"Fantastic news! Late last night, after months of intense pressure from millions of pro-environment activists like you, the House leadership dropped its plan to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of the budget bill.

In the end, they were forced to retreat after some 22 courageous Republican Congressmen stood their ground and promised to vote against their own party's budget if it sacrificed America's greatest wildlife refuge. With every single Democrat also opposing the budget, the leadership blinked.

It was the kind of showdown at high noon that restores one's faith both in democracy and the sanctity of America's natural heritage.

Make no mistake: we must now remain vigilant. Senate and House negotiators could still revive the Arctic drilling provision when they hammer out a final budget measure next month (the Senate version of the budget includes Arctic drilling).

If that happens, we'll be calling on you to shore up Republican moderates in the House who have promised to oppose and defeat any such last-ditch ploy to sneak Arctic drilling into the final budget legislation.

But last night's development is a stunning setback for President Bush, for Congressional leaders, and for the oil lobby -- all of whom vowed that 2005 would be the year they finally pried the Arctic Refuge out of the clenched hands of the American people.

And it is a huge -- and I mean HUGE -- victory for all of us in the environmental community.

Just one year ago, Washington insiders were saying that Arctic drilling was a done deal. President Bush was claiming a post-election mandate to industrialize the Arctic Refuge, and the pro-oil contingent of the Republican Party had just tightened its majority grip on both houses of Congress. You couldn't find a pundit anywhere who would give us a wisp of a chance.

But millions of people like you did the impossible! Petition by petition, phone call by phone call, contribution by contribution, you helped us turn the tide in one of the toughest uphill political battles of the past decade.

Although this battle may not be over, yesterday was a red letter day for the Arctic Refuge -- the greatest day since it was first protected by Congress 25 years ago -- but it is much more than that, too. It is a triumph for America.

November 9, 2005 was the day that nature prevailed over corporate greed, that beauty triumphed over a dead-end energy plan. It was the day we reminded Washington that preserving wilderness is a core American value
-- and that we intend to keep it that way.

I know we can count on your help next month if Senate and House leaders dare to bring Arctic drilling back to the floor for a vote."

Sincerely,

John H. Adams
NRDC Action Fund

Just a little good news for those who care about the enviroment.

That is good news, but i think eventually the drilling will go ahead it's only a matter of time!!!!!

How is this a good thing?

The psychological impact on the world oil markets alone justify opening up that small parcel of land in the ANWR. This is a bad thing. And in blocking this, they have obstructed the congress from cutting oover $50 Billion from the budget.

No, no, Calabrio, you don't understand. This is perfect for Deville and his libwack friends. This way they get to appease their envirowack friends while at the same time bashing the President for high gas prices and dependence on foreign oil.

By the way, that story is falsified spin. The reason the 22 Republicans stood up against the bill is because the leadership f-ed up and erased some spending cuts from the bill, which gutted the true intent of the bill, which was to improve fiscal responsibility.

By the way, that story is falsified spin. The reason the 22 Republicans stood up against the bill is because the leadership f-ed up and erased some spending cuts from the bill, which gutted the true intent of the bill, which was to improve fiscal responsibility.

Wait wait... LOL... wait... So the leadership f-ed up and removed spending cuts from the bill, but left in the biggest national debate?

Sounds to me like the leadership isn't really concerned with how much the American public spends each year, rather they're more concerned that the arctic national wildlife refuge sits on top of billions of dollars they'd be quickly able to take advantage of for themselves and their cronies...

LOL

Thanks for the peek in to the conservative leadership's thought process

No, no, Calabrio, you don't understand. This is perfect for Deville and his libwack friends. This way they get to appease their envirowack friends while at the same time bashing the President for high gas prices and dependence on foreign oil.

By the way, that story is falsified spin. The reason the 22 Republicans stood up against the bill is because the leadership f-ed up and erased some spending cuts from the bill, which gutted the true intent of the bill, which was to improve fiscal responsibility.


Lol... I truly think you you go against any issue if it has any sort of liberalness to it.

By the way, if we were to drill every last drop out of there we would still be dependant on foreign oil. Not that you care, but we would.

F#$% the enviroment, after all, we won't have to live in the cesspool we make, our grand kid's will. Good attitude Fossten.

Sounds to me like the leadership isn't really concerned with how much the American public spends each year, rather they're more concerned that the arctic national wildlife refuge sits on top of billions of dollars they'd be quickly able to take advantage of for themselves and their cronies.

Exactly

i dont understand why taking the oil would be such a problem
all they have to do is just drill in certain areas y not take the oil im gettin tired of these crazy gas prices

The issue goes back to your complete lack of economic understanding.

The idea isn't to rely entirely upon the ANWR to meet all of the oil needs in this country. The idea is to increase production which would then cause the global price to drop. And, in an emergency, it would provide an source of energy.

The enviromental impact of this move is miniscule. Despite being demonized by the anti-capitalist enviromentalists, no one intends to drill in lush populated forests or disturbing some densely populated landscape. We're talking about the tundra.. It's a friggin' wasteland. In addition, it's only a tiny piece of that vast wasteland that would have to be developed.

These people who oppose drilling here are hypocrits. When gas is cheap, they complain that it's too inexpense and encourages wasteful behavior. When fuel is expensive, they use it as a political club to attack the President with. When ideas are presented that will result in lower fuel prices, they oppose them. There's no solution unless we can build a wind mill powered Honda in the near future.

Build refineries.
Increase drilling.
These are necessary to address the short term problems.
And provide tax incentives to companies working to develop alternative fuels.
Long term strategies are ten years into the future, at best.

Oh, look... those are some of the elements of the BUSH energy plan.

i dont understand why taking the oil would be such a problem
all they have to do is just drill in certain areas y not take the oil im gettin tired of these crazy gas prices

The primary concern is that taking oil out of the ground is not a clean process. Even forgetting very public very visible accidents like the Valdez oil spill, and the Alaskan oil pipeline rupture, just the basic process of oil drilling pollutes the environment around the site quite a bit. Oil drilling releases toxins in to the atmosphere and puts them in to the local ecology. The local ecology is what environmentalists are concerned about though. Much of this area is a unique environment in the world...duplicated no where else, with unique flora and fauna that can not be found anywhere else. Every time humans have gone to an area of the planet and significantly changed the environment, we've found out later that it was a bad idea, either for the world as a whole or, in an even more ironic twist, locally for whatever we were trying to accomplish in the first place (i.e. mudslides in california because of deforestation and placing homes in bad areas, or the changes to the ecosystems of many of the northeast's rivers due to industrial waste/damming and the resulting toxic food supply).

It's a messy process and rather than tap in to another oil supply we should leave nature unspoiled and find an alternate source of fuel.

Not to mention the fact that drilling the arctic would not affect oil prices in the least.

The only thing that would benefit this country is to find an alternate fuel source (like bio diesel) and sell our oil to countries like China.

I love liberals. Let's go steal everyone else's oil in the world instead of using our own. Now I need to add the term selfish to the liberal dictionary.

Selfish hypocrites = liberals.

http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm
TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are 4.2 billion dollars.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 943,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2004 the US imported an average of 58% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $150 billion in oil imports and over $170 billion including refined petroleum products. That¹s $19.9 million dollars an hour! Including defence costs the number would be nearly a trillion dollars.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

Just a little good news for those who care about the enviroment.

Save the Arctic Ground Squirrel. Look at him. He is soooo cute. How can he survive with all the oil rushing thru that pipe over his hole?

Please donate to: Save the Squirrel. Call 1-800-LIB-ERAL. Do it now before it is too late.

I love liberals. Let's go steal everyone else's oil in the world instead of using our own. Now I need to add the term selfish to the liberal dictionary.

Selfish hypocrites = liberals.



What?

Is that directed at me?

Because I don't see anything about stealing oil from anywhere else in my side of the argument

What?

Is that directed at me?

Because I don't see anything about stealing oil from anywhere else in my side of the argumentNot directed at you. I do not condone nor contribute to personal attacks.

What I love about liberalism is the cause and effect.

Like Brin and Page from Google. Here are some fine liberals and environmentalists who drive, of all things, Toyota hybrids. They even give employees $5000 a pop to buy these cars. Life is so good. See, we are helping the environment.

But then the hypocrite that lurks in all liberals surfaces its selfish head. The boys run out and buy a 767 airliner. I don't even mind the $50 million plus they are spending 'fixing' it up. What bother me is the amount of 'fuel' these two will now consume ~ to satisfy their selfish needs. They could have simply hopped on a plane that was already going where they needed to go, BUT NO, they have to go when and where THEY want.

I posted this as a little insight into the mind of the selfish hypocrite.

Save the Arctic Ground Squirrel. Look at him. He is soooo cute. How can he survive with all the oil rushing thru that pipe over his hole?

Please donate to: Save the Squirrel. Call 1-800-LIB-ERAL. Do it now before it is too late.

Ya, f*&% the animals, f*&% the enviroment & f*&% the future. Like I said, we won't have to deal with the mess we make, future generations will. F*&% the future generations too! Funny, if you think about it, thats a form of 'Taxation without representation'. We make the mess, their going to have to pay to fix it.

If everything you posted where true, it isn't a terrible plan. But do you really think when they start drilling they will be content with only taking just a little? Don't worry though, it will happen eventually and it won't just be a small amount of drilling. That entire region will slowly turn into a toxic dump; pollution has a way of spreading.

But then the hypocrite that lurks in all liberals surfaces its selfish head. The boys run out and buy a 767 airliner. I don't even mind the $50 million plus they are spending 'fixing' it up. What bother me is the amount of 'fuel' these two will now consume ~ to satisfy their selfish needs. They could have simply hopped on a plane that was already going where they needed to go, BUT NO, they have to go when and where THEY want.

You mean people shouldn't have what they can afford? Watch it, you're gonna turn Fossten on you for such communistic ideas.

It's interesting how so many people are opposed to any degree of energy independence. On a forum where we all own large V8 automobiles of all places.

If you don't support drilling in the middle of nowhere, where do you support?
Offshore? Where else?

You can't have your cake and eat it to. If you want to have some degree of energy independence and inexpensive fuel, then you have to support the means necessary to drill and refine it.

This is the hypocracy of the socialist enviromentalist left. They oppose drilling for more petroleum. And they oppose nuclear power. They also oppose the use of the bio-diesel. They pretend the energy needs of the country can be met with windmills and solar panels. Too bad that's a fairy tale.

You mean people shouldn't have what they can afford? Watch it, you're gonna turn Fossten on you for such communistic ideas.

I'm sure MonsterMark supports the right of those guys to buy whatever ridiculous jet plane they want. But to condemn the rest of us for not buying those ridiculous Prius cars is the height of hypocracy.

If you want to be some kind of enlightened enviromentalist, you really should live the life all the time. "Do as I say, not as I do." And a 767 is about as extreme an example as anyone could possibly think of.

You can drill into every inch of this planet, but the price at the pump for a gallon of gas will not go down in a significant way. Do you really think Exxon (or any oil comp) will say "Hey, we have a huge surplus of oil now, let’s lower the price.” Do you really think they care more for you than their profits? Only way to be dependant from foreign energy sources is to invest into alternative fuels. That or go invade an oil rich country and claim complete sovereignty. Maybe we could annex Iraq?

If you want to be some kind of enlightened enviromentalist, you really should live the life all the time. "Do as I say, not as I do." And a 767 is about as extreme an example as anyone could possibly think of.

You're absolutely right on that part. I have no idea what the google guys said, but if they are being hypocrites, then F them. As far as the 'Do as I say, not as I do', im with you there, there are plenty of examples of that going on, most religious people for one.

Honest answer to the letter...

My species didn't claw it's way to the top of the food chain to tiptoe around mother nature. We can drill there and do it responsibly. We don't have to wipe out mother nature to take advantage of the resources available in the ANWR. By our mere presence on this planet we impact the environment. Everything we do and touch requires some sort of resource from this planet. What should we do...go back to living in caves? How about you turn your car and walk yourself to and fro if your so bloody concerned about mankinds inevitable destruction of Earth.

There are plans to make underwater "wavemills" that would harness the power of oceanic currents...but I suppose that would be a bad idea too since a few friggin plankton and a turtle might get shook up.


...oh but look at the google ad on the bottom of the page. Your stance is supported by Barbara Boxer...nuff said.

Honest answer to the letter...

My species didn't claw it's way to the top of the food chain to tiptoe around mother nature. We can drill there and do it responsibly. We don't have to wipe out mother nature to take advantage of the resources available in the ANWR. By our mere presence on this planet we impact the environment. Everything we do and touch requires some sort of resource from this planet. What should we do...go back to living in caves? How about you turn your car and walk yourself to and fro if your so bloody concerned about mankinds inevitable destruction of Earth.

There are plans to make underwater "wavemills" that would harness the power of oceanic currents...but I suppose that would be a bad idea too since a few friggin plankton and a turtle might get shook up.


...oh but look at the google ad on the bottom of the page. Your stance is supported by Barbara Boxer...nuff said.

Becareful when mentioning any kind of 'evolution' theory, it's touchy in here.

I agree with you that we do not have to wipe out mother nature to claim resources, unfortunately, doing it the clean way cost some extra money and the oil companies don't want their profit margins messed with. It's cheaper to do it the dirty way, if you don't believe me, look around at world wide polution problem we face.

Lol... I truly think you you go against any issue if it has any sort of liberalness to it.

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT.


By the way, if we were to drill every last drop out of there we would still be dependant on foreign oil. Not that you care, but we would.

Don't you mean, not that YOU care? It's supposedly your lib leaders in Washington who are complaining about the oil prices and our foreign dependency.


F#$% the enviroment, after all, we won't have to live in the cesspool we make, our grand kid's will. Good attitude Fossten.

You make this reckless statement knowing NOTHING about environmental issues with regard to oil. You're just spouting talking points. If you want to debate the environment versus production, LET'S GET IT ON. I CAN'T WAIT.

You mean people shouldn't have what they can afford? Watch it, you're gonna turn Fossten on you for such communistic ideas.

Despite your 'personal reference', I understand what Bryan is doing. He's pointing out hypocrisy, not condemning luxury. And he's doing it in a way that is sarcastic, using the absurd typical liberal tactic of criticizing wealth to illustrate absurdity at the same time. Quite brilliant, actually, and not surprising that it went over your head, nor is it surprising that you'd offer up a response far less brilliant than his.

That was lame David.

You're absolutely right on that part. I have no idea what the google guys said, but if they are being hypocrites, then F them. As far as the 'Do as I say, not as I do', im with you there, there are plenty of examples of that going on, most religious people for one.

You know, the bias towards religious people is really tiresome.

While there are certainly good people who aren't spirtual, and bad people who are. MOST people who are faithful TRY very hard to do the right thing. And to relentless assault them is a pretty lame thing to do.

Are the people who run the Salvation Army all hypocrits? Are the people in the Church Outreach programs running soup kitchens and shelters hyocrits? Are the missionaries tending to AIDS infected little children with distended bellies bad too?

I can think of dozens of religious based charity organizations out there doing good deeds every single day. You tell me the name of the devotely atheistic organization that's doing the same work.

Enough with the digs. It's an adhominem attack that you throw out for no reason. Stay on topic. This is about the fuel. Natural resources. Petroleum.

Despite your 'personal reference', I understand what Bryan is doing. He's pointing out hypocrisy, not condemning luxury. And he's doing it in a way that is sarcastic, using the absurd typical liberal tactic of criticizing wealth to illustrate absurdity at the same time. Quite brilliant, actually, and not surprising that it went over your head, nor is it surprising that you'd offer up a response far less brilliant than his.


Waaa.. Personal attack, I really don't mind, but when it comes from the master of crying about being personnally attacked, it is a bit annoying, ya know? My sarcastic remark obviously went over you head. I wasn't serious, but I'm not surprised you didn't get it.

You know, the bias towards religious people is really tiresome

I feel the same way about the bias towards non-religious people or people who have different religious views. It should really stop as a whole.

Agreed, back to topic.

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT..


Partisan.

"Just another cow, follow the herd."


YOU Don't you mean, not that YOU care? It's supposedly your lib leaders in Washington who are complaining about the oil prices and our foreign dependency..

No, that's not what I meant.


You make this reckless statement knowing NOTHING about environmental issues with regard to oil. You're just spouting talking points. If you want to debate the environment versus production, LET'S GET IT ON. I CAN'T WAIT.

What I DO know is... If we keep going at it like we are, our own pollution will be our downfall. People need breathable air and drinkable water to survive. Fortunately for you though, you (or I) won't be around for that, our great grandkids will and they're the one's that will have to deal with it. I understand that the demand for oil is increasing, but do you understand that pollution will reach critical levels?

Partisan.

"Just another cow, follow the herd."




See, you THINK you're insulting me by name-calling, but actually I'm proud to be a LEADER in conservatism.

You, on the other hand, would probably be ashamed to admit that you are a liberal, which is clear to the rest of us.

See, you THINK you're insulting me by name-calling, but actually I'm proud to be a LEADER in conservatism.

You, on the other hand, would probably be ashamed to admit that you are a liberal, which is clear to the rest of us.

The only thing you're a leader of is your own deluded thought processes. Why don't you get down off your high horse and get a brain

Drill that place til it looks like swiss cheese


heres a drawing I made to show you a small price for a huge price cut

blah blah blah...personal attacks...blah blah blah...no substantive argument whatsoever...blah blah blah...

You possess nothing but the sheer inability to refute my statements, so you make yourself look bad by resorting to your bread-and-butter 5th-grade-level insults.

:sleep:

Anyone who opposes drilling in Alaska is simply anti-American and anti-business. Why aren't you pollution-whining hypocrites worried about the pollution caused by the Arab nations as they drill and drill? No comment about that. Oh, America is the only nation not allowed to drill.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

unless you ride a bike to work everyday, rain or shine. then dont complain, wait making bikes causes alot of pollution, so unless you walk to work bare foot dont complain about drilling

See, you THINK you're insulting me by name-calling, but actually I'm proud to be a LEADER in conservatism.

You, on the other hand, would probably be ashamed to admit that you are a liberal, which is clear to the rest of us.

LOL... Saying partisan isn't name calling... I'm just stating out your blind one-sidedness.

Liberal? Ok, depends what you think makes a liberal... If not blindly following your leaders and caring for more than just yourself makes me a liberal, than I'm a liberal.

The same people who want to prevent ANWR drilling in Alaska also want a $250 million bridge for an Alaskan town of 50 people.

Your leaders want government waste and dependence on foreign oil. If you're following that lead, YOU'RE the one who's blind, and you don't even know why.

Anyone who opposes drilling in Alaska is simply anti-American and anti-business. Why aren't you pollution-whining hypocrites worried about the pollution caused by the Arab nations as they drill and drill? No comment about that. Oh, America is the only nation not allowed to drill.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Well...I guess you got me there with your superior intellect Pinky. I am Anti American and Anti Business.

Oh and yeah I hate all the pollution arab nations are causing to a sea that is to saline to support life and the largest patch of arid, also almost completely incapable of supporting life, land in the entire world.

Well...I guess you got me there with your superior intellect Pinky. I am Anti American and Anti Business.

Oh and yeah I hate all the pollution arab nations are causing to a sea that is to saline to support life and the largest patch of arid, also almost completely incapable of supporting life, land in the entire world.

Ah, but you make Calabrio's point for him. Can you please explain how a 100-yard patch of tundra in ANWR is SO LARGE AND LIFE-SUPPORTING?

It won't just be a 100 yard patch they drill into, and pollution spreads. But it's a futile arguement, eventually they will drill and that 'lifeless tundra' will truly become lifeless. The irony will be when it does happen, the price at the pump still won't go down significantly.

It won't just be a 100 yard patch they drill into, and pollution spreads. But it's a futile arguement, eventually they will drill and that 'lifeless tundra' will truly become lifeless. The irony will be when it does happen, the price at the pump still won't go down significantly.

Your arguments are based on unfounded generalizations bordering on a non sequitur. The number of oil disasters in the U.S. is insignificant compared to what you are asserting will ALWAYS happen. For every example you use, I can come up with a counter-example.

It's your libwack leaders in Congress that want you and I to live in a state of fear, but there's no need.

Here, check this out:


Preventing Disasters by Design

A New Tool for Evaluating Oil Tanker Performance

Say the words Exxon Valdez to almost anyone over the age of 18, and you're sure to evoke the same memories of oil-soaked loons, cormorants, otters, and seals struggling along the shore and in the frigid water.

People everywhere were moved by the tragedy, including Congress. Not long after the tanker ran aground, spilling more than 11 million gallons of crude oil into the Prince William Sound, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was passed, requiring, among other things, that all oil tankers traveling in U.S. waters be equipped with double hulls. And, because most countries conduct trade -- or would like to conduct trade -- with the United States, the double hull quickly became the de facto standard worldwide for tanker designs.

The legislation seems to have accomplished what Congress intended. According to a 1996 National Research Council study, not only were there no accidents even one-tenth the magnitude of the Valdez in the five years that followed, but the amount of oil spilled from vessels -- and the number of spills of more than 100 gallons -- also declined.

Despite these results, some groups would like to see the standards revisited. They argue that new and innovative designs could meet or surpass the performance of the double hull. Currently, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency responsible for improving safety and minimizing pollution in international shipping, has approved two alternative designs deemed to be as effective as the double hull in preventing oil spills. But tankers with these designs may never be built as long as the United States will only permit double-hull tankers to call on its ports.

The 1990 law made provisions for addressing these concerns. It directed the U.S. Coast Guard to look for alternative designs that could perform as well as or better than the double hull in preventing oil spills. However, there has been no systematic way to evaluate how one ship design would perform over another in a grounding or collision.

A National Research Council report offers a new method by which oil tanker designs can be compared for the amount of environmental damage they would cause if involved in an accident. By predicting how a tanker would perform -- before the tanker has even been built -- the method could give rise to innovative designs that are less costly and give equal or better environmental protection than current fleets provide.

The new methodology assesses a ship's chances of causing an oil spill by analyzing three features: the amount of structural damage to the ship if a specific collision or grounding occurred, and the resulting spillage; the environmental consequences of the spill, including physical measures such as the thickness and area of oil in the water and the extent of shoreline damage; and how ships of similar size but different design would compare in the same imaginary incident.

NOAA scientist assesses oil penetration after Exxon Valdez spill (photo courtesy NOAA) One of the most important points of the methodology -- and counterintuitive to what most people would guess -- is that the environmental consequence is not directly related to the amount of oil that is spilled. Small spills were found to cause a disproportionately higher amount of environmental damage, gallon for gallon, than one would expect. Once the environment has been heavily damaged, the relative harm done by extra oil diminishes. For this reason, a tanker design that may result in many small spills would be less desirable than one that could cause a few large ones, according to the report.

In addition to continued testing and refining of the methodology, the Coast Guard should establish a procedure by which innovative designs can be submitted for their consideration, the report says. They should also encourage the IMO to adopt the methodology so that tankers worldwide can be uniformly evaluated. -- Jennifer Wenger

http://infocusmagazine.org/1.2/tankers.html

Fossten, I know the enviroment doesn't have to be made into a complete wasteland in the extraction of oil. But doing things the clean way cost a lot more money and the oil companies do not like their profit margins messed with. Can we agree that making the most amount of money possible is their biggest concern? They will wait, bide their time and do things the good old fashioned cheap way.

Fossten, I know the enviroment doesn't have to be made into a complete wasteland in the extraction of oil. But doing things the clean way cost a lot more money and the oil companies do not like their profit margins messed with. Can we agree that making the most amount of money possible is their biggest concern? They will wait, bide their time and do things the good old fashioned cheap way.
Your argument is not relevant to reality here. The latest vote prevented the oil companies from even doing it the clean way! Your leaders don't want it done at all!

We can't agree on the definition of 'making the most amount of money possible," so the answer is no. I know what you mean by that sentence, and it's different than what I would mean.

The fact is that if there were a larger supply of oil and gas available to us we would see lower prices and less dependence upon foreign oil. What do the Democrats have against that? Oh, that's right, they would have less control over their constituents because they couldn't demagogue Republicans over this issue anymore!

Your argument is not relevant to reality here. The latest vote prevented the oil companies from even doing it the clean way! Your leaders don't want it done at all!

We can't agree on the definition of 'making the most amount of money possible," so the answer is no. I know what you mean by that sentence, and it's different than what I would mean.

The fact is that if there were a larger supply of oil and gas available to us we would see lower prices and less dependence upon foreign oil. What do the Democrats have against that? Oh, that's right, they would have less control over their constituents because they couldn't demagogue Republicans over this issue anymore!

Then we can't agree, no shocker there... Since you 'know' what I mean, I'm going to assume what you mean and why we can't agree.

You believe that the BIG OIL companies do not have their profits at the forefront of their minds and they are very concerned with the consumer (us). You also believe that drilling the Artic would be environmentally friendly and the huge surplus of oil would lower prices (significantly) and would lower our dependency of foreign oil.

I do not agree with those five assumptions. They only way to really find out who's correct would be when the drilling begins and we're still paying top dollar for gas and America still has a strong interest in the middle east. Or the opposite.

Then we can't agree, no shocker there... Since you 'know' what I mean, I'm going to assume what you mean and why we can't agree.

You believe that the BIG OIL companies do not have their profits at the forefront of their minds and they are very concerned with the consumer (us). You also believe that drilling the Artic would be environmentally friendly and the huge surplus of oil would lower prices (significantly) and would lower our dependency of foreign oil.

I do not agree with those five assumptions. They only way to really find out who's correct would be when the drilling begins and we're still paying top dollar for gas and America still has a strong interest in the middle east. Or the opposite.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. Classic.

Let's try an exercise: From now on, you just say what YOU think, and I'll just say what I think.

I'll start:

Oil companies have to answer to their stockholders. That means that they are required to maximize profits. My argument is and has always been, since when is that a crime?

Drilling in ANWR would not be environmentally UNfriendly.

Increasing the supply of oil WOULD drive down prices. Anybody who's taken Econ 101 knows that.

By the way, we are no longer paying 'top dollar' for gas, despite your 'begging the question' flawed assumption. My local station is down to $1.99 per gallon.

Oh and yeah I hate all the pollution arab nations are causing to a sea that is to saline to support life and the largest patch of arid, also almost completely incapable of supporting life, land in the entire world.I'm just curious.

What is oil made from?

Is it mostly comprised of fossils and plants?

Plants require sunlight and water to do their thing. Some plants grow in sea water, but most require fresh of brackish water to thrive.

Where am I going with this? Good question.

Please explain how all that oil got under these Arab nations as they are lifeless as you describe?.

Additionally, how did all that oil get up there in that frozen tundra?

Hummm.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. Classic.

Let's try an exercise: From now on, you just say what YOU think, and I'll just say what I think.

I'll start:

Oil companies have to answer to their stockholders. That means that they are required to maximize profits. My argument is and has always been, since when is that a crime?

Drilling in ANWR would not be environmentally UNfriendly.

Increasing the supply of oil WOULD drive down prices. Anybody who's taken Econ 101 knows that.

By the way, we are no longer paying 'top dollar' for gas, despite your 'begging the question' flawed assumption. My local station is down to $1.99 per gallon.

<sign> I said I could assume, not that you said these actual words.

Correct, it is not a crime to make a buck, but it is a crime to make a buck in an unethical way. How you do think they 'maximize'? They don't do it by having a high overhead and selling it at rock bottom prices.

Drilling in of itself is environmentally unfriendly, but it can be kept to a minimum, depending on techniques and location.

Increasing supply SHOULD drive down prices. Doesn't guarantee. But it's a futile debate, you don't believe the oil companies gouge us.

I wasn't begging the question, it was a 'What if' we drilled and what you pay now doesn't relate with that question. They haven't drilled, so we don't know what would happen for certain.

Your local station may have a price of $1.99, unfortunately the rest of the country doesn't. Prices still vary. The best I can get is 2.51 for 87 octane at a non top-tier station. They gouge were they can, my opinion.

(Maybe we should take a poll and people can state how much they are paying for Reg & Super according to location.)

Your local station may have a price of $1.99, unfortunately the rest of the country doesn't. Prices still vary. The best I can get is 2.51 for 87 octane at a non top-tier station. They gouge were they can, my opinion.

(Maybe we should take a poll and people can state how much they are paying for Reg & Super according to location.)

You're forgetting to take into account the obvious: The state you live in has a different tax level on gas than my state. That and closeness to a distribution line makes a big difference. I live in Kentucky, not too far from Ashland, which is a major distributor of gasoline. But even in my own city the price can vary as much as 20 cents per gallon from pump to pump. How does big oil have anything to do with that? Location has a lot to do with it, and so does demand, but Exxon does not.

You assume in your statement that the oil companies are gouging, which begs the question.
You've all but acknowledged that you really don't have any idea how the oil companies do their accounting, yet you readily accuse them of gouging. You don't take into account supply, demand, location, stockholders, costs, dividends, or taxes, yet you KNOW they are gouging. That logic is known as oversimplification.

hmmm...oversimplification...like saying supply and demand accounts for oil prices...

You do love the taste of your own feet don't you....

I'm just curious.

What is oil made from?

Is it mostly comprised of fossils and plants?

Plants require sunlight and water to do their thing. Some plants grow in sea water, but most require fresh of brackish water to thrive.

Where am I going with this? Good question.

Please explain how all that oil got under these Arab nations as they are lifeless as you describe?.

Additionally, how did all that oil get up there in that frozen tundra?

Hummm.

I'm not quite seeing what your point is, but let's clear one thing up first.

The assumption that fossil fuels come from decayed bio matter, is increasingly found to be a false theory. The long strands of carbon and hydrogen can be found throughout our planet and most likely oil deposits are just large groupings of those particular types of hydro-carbons.

Another thing. Over the planet's history Arabia and the Arctic have not always been in the same climactic conditions they exist in now. Plate-tectonics and global climate change have placed Arabia in the center of one of the most arid sections of climate we have, and areas without water do not support life. The Arctic on the other hand has lots of water, and a lot of different types of plant and animal life that have learned to take advantage of the water there. The Arctic is far from the barren land you and fossten made it out to be.

You're forgetting to take into account the obvious: The state you live in has a different tax level on gas than my state. That and closeness to a distribution line makes a big difference. I live in Kentucky, not too far from Ashland, which is a major distributor of gasoline. But even in my own city the price can vary as much as 20 cents per gallon from pump to pump. How does big oil have anything to do with that? Location has a lot to do with it, and so does demand, but Exxon does not.

You assume in your statement that the oil companies are gouging, which begs the question.
You've all but acknowledged that you really don't have any idea how the oil companies do their accounting, yet you readily accuse them of gouging. You don't take into account supply, demand, location, stockholders, costs, dividends, or taxes, yet you KNOW they are gouging. That logic is known as oversimplification.


Here's some food for thought... Jersey, they're still paying higher for gas than states that are miles and miles away from a refinery, so it's safe to say 'location has a lot to do with it' isn't always true.

Lol.. You're right, I acknowledged it, I know nothing oh wise one. You say they have a duty to maximize profits, yet you refuse to even acknowledge even the possibility that they do this unethically (gouging). Maybe you're right, the BIG OIL is our friend and they care deeply about us, I just don't see it. If you think that, I have a magic elixer to sell you, it cures any and every problem. Multi billion dollar corporations don't get to that status by being the 'nice guy'.

Another thing. Over the planet's history Arabia and the Arctic have not always been in the same climactic conditions they exist in now. Plate-tectonics and global climate change have placed Arabia in the center of one of the most arid sections of climate we have, and areas without water do not support life. The Arctic on the other hand has lots of water, and a lot of different types of plant and animal life that have learned to take advantage of the water there. The Arctic is far from the barren land you and fossten made it out to be.

So what? We drill in Texas too, and that's a densely populated state with lots of water.

You're distracting from the real issue, which is whether or not a tiny piece of land should be drilled for oil, and whether or not it could be done in an environmentally friendly way.

If the Arctic is such a wonderful, lush, paradise, then why don't you go live there?

Oh, by the way, you misquoted me again.


hmmm...oversimplification...like saying supply and demand accounts for oil prices...

You do love the taste of your own feet don't you....

Here's what I actually said:


You don't take into account supply, demand, location, stockholders, costs, dividends, or taxes, yet you KNOW they are gouging.

You do love the taste of your own words don't you...

I would invite all anti ANWR drilling groups to please come here and take a look for themselves at what they so oppose. It appears alot of misinformation is spread around by the likes of these groups. Truth be told Prudhoe Bay oilfields are as eco-friendly as oil production can be. Please do not try to link us with the dirtier oil producing parts of the country. We take great pride in preserving Alaska for future generations. We love the nature and great beauty of our state and have great distrust in residents of other states that have polluted and robbed their homeland of its resources but somehow know how we Alaskans should proceed.

Drill that place til it looks like swiss cheese


heres a drawing I made to show you a small price for a huge price cut


Is that a reindeer?
http://www.maurylaws.com/images/rudy.jpg:biggrin:

Here's some food for thought... Jersey, they're still paying higher for gas than states that are miles and miles away from a refinery, so it's safe to say 'location has a lot to do with it' isn't always true.

Lol.. You're right, I acknowledged it, I know nothing oh wise one. You say they have a duty to maximize profits, yet you refuse to even acknowledge even the possibility that they do this unethically (gouging). Maybe you're right, the BIG OIL is our friend and they care deeply about us, I just don't see it. If you think that, I have a magic elixer to sell you, it cures any and every problem. Multi billion dollar corporations don't get to that status by being the 'nice guy'.

There was gasoline supply, even at higher prices. In the former gasoline crunches, there was rationing and very long lines to get gas.

Which option do you prefer? Maybe they should do it for free? -lol-

So what? We drill in Texas too, and that's a densely populated state with lots of water.

You're distracting from the real issue, which is whether or not a tiny piece of land should be drilled for oil, and whether or not it could be done in an environmentally friendly way.
I'm not making a point, other than to discuss points Bryan brought up...so...I guess it's really Bryan that is "distracting from the real issue"

If the Arctic is such a wonderful, lush, paradise, then why don't you go live there?
Because I don't like the cold...

Oh, by the way, you misquoted me again.

For one thing, your loose definition of the word "misquoted" is humorous. I didn't quote you at all...but if you want to know what I'm referring to read this thread: http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=14693

Specifically when you said:
The main reason prices are so high is supply/demand and taxation. You think the oil companies won't have higher costs as a result of this shortage? There was a temporary spike due to the lack of supply versus constant demand, and it's going back down.

And also I refer to that same thread when Calabrio said:
What's important to note is that fuel prices are going down.
Supply has increased. (refineries and platforms are back online)
Demand has fallen. (higher prices encouraged more Americans to change driving habits and in some cases, even buy more efficient vehicles.)
Prices are dropping.

Economics isn't nearly as complicated as people want to think. Supply and demand is actually very simple and logical.

And you concurred with the statement by saying:
You'd think, but with these guys, I don't know...



You do love the taste of your own words don't you...

I found a 5-year-old article which articulates the debate over ANWR pretty clearly:

Drilling Won't Make It Less of a Refuge

Senator Frank H. Murkowski (AK)
Washington Post Editorial

December 10, 2000 - During the presidential campaign, few issues were as starkly debated as the fate of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. George W. Bush said thatexploration for oil and gas should be allowed there, while Al Gore said it should be forbidden.

In September, former Interior Department lawyer Dennis Drabelle argued in an Outlook article that President Clinton should act to protect the refuge further. Here, Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) argues the case for allowing exploration to proceed.

Few people have visited the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Yet many environmental activists, along with Vice President Gore, are adamant that no oil or gas exploration should ever take place there.

They have been pressing President Clinton to designate the refuge as a national monument before he leaves office. They want this action even though Congress, under the 1980 legislation establishing the ANWR, is specifically given the responsibility for determining the future status of the coastal plain. Environmentalists often call this area "America's last true wilderness." Let's take a closer look.

All told, the ANWR consists of 19 million acres. Congress has put 8 million acres into formal wilderness status and designated 9.5 million acres as wildlife refuge. Those 17.5 million acres form a protected enclave almost as large as the state of South Carolina. It can never be developed, nor should it be.

In its wisdom, however, Congress set aside the remaining 1.5 million acres of the coastal plain for potential exploration and development because of its oil and gas. Before any exploration could occur, additional legislation had to be passed by Congress. That happened in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed the bill because, he said, the coastal plain was the biological heart of the ANWR and exploration or development would ruin the "pristine" area.

One should ask what his definition of "pristine" is. The coastal plain is host to a village of about 260 Inupiat natives on their 92,000 acres of land. The village of Kaktovik has housing, schools, stores, boats, an airstrip, power lines and a variety of other modern-day facilities, including an oil well. The U.S. military's Barter Island Distant Early Warning System radar site is also on the plain's shoreline.

Most of the residents of Kaktovik favor drilling in the coastal plain, as do more than 70 percent of Alaskans, according to recent polls. (A national survey conducted by the Christian Science Monitor in October showed that Americans support oil production in the ANWR, by a 54 to 36 percent margin.)

There are several other reasons the coastal plain is distinct from the rest of the ANWR. It is not part of the hills and mountains of the Brooks Range, where the environmentalists take their beautiful photos of the ANWR. It is a flat, treeless, almost featureless plain in northeastern Alaska that extends from the Brooks Range northward to the Beaufort Sea. There are times on the coastal plain when exposing human flesh to the elements would ensure death. The temperature can drop to -40 degrees Fahrenheit in January. Few animals can thrive in those temperatures.

Only five species of birds, some polar bears (who den on the Beaufort Sea pack ice) and lemmings (who burrow beneath the snow-pack) remain during the winter months. There are 56 days of total darkness during the year, and almost nine months of harsh winter.

The spring thaw comes in late May or early June. This increases the bird count and brings back the arctic fox and, most significantly, the Porcupine caribou. While only a portion of the caribou herd shows up each year, many environmental activists refer to the coastal plain as their traditional calving grounds. The females endure the conditions of the tundra for protection against most predators and for the cotton grass that will help to fatten their offspring.

The caribou travel to the coastal plain from Canada, passing near 89 dry wells drilled by the Canadian government and crossing Canada's Dempster Highway--all of which seems to be development that does not hinder theirmigration or survival.

Our only experiment with oil fields and caribou has taken place nearby on Alaska's North Slope in Prudhoe Bay. The Central Arctic caribou herd that inhabits part of Prudhoe Bay has grown from 6,000 in 1978 to 19,700 today, according to the most recent estimates by state and federal wildlife agencies.

In fact, there is some evidence that the caribou use un-vegetated and elevated sites such as river bars, mud flats, dunes, gravel pads and roads in the existing oil fields as relief habitat from mosquitoes and from oestrid flies that attack their nostrils. The 1995 legislation vetoed by President Clinton would have given the secretary of Interior the power to stop development and exploration during the summer months if there were any threat to the caribou.

Environmentalists also worry about the polar bear, though most biologists will tell you that the bears rarely den on land in this region, preferring the arctic ice. Alaska's polar bear population is healthy and unthreatened. The Marine Mammals Protection Act takes care of the polar bear in the existing oil fields--and would do the same on the coastal plain.

What do these protections mean to the oil workers in Prudhoe Bay? They are not allowed to harm a polar bear. There are steel cages around many of the doors of the facilities in Prudhoe. That way, workers can look off into the distance for bears before they venture out. No polar bear has been injured or killed as a result of extracting oil in Prudhoe Bay.

In fact, there are no listed endangered species on the North Slope or in the coastal plain. Alaskans have always trod lightly on the land and have honored the animals as a source of sustenance.

Those who would develop the coastal plain, including the oil companies, maintain they can do it on about 2,000 acres or less. Exploration and development is done in the harsh winter months, which allows the use of ice airstrips, ice roads and ice platforms. It is done when no caribou are present.

If the well is dry, it is capped. When the ice melts in late spring, there is little remaining evidence of the work--and minimal impact on the land.

The environmentalists say the trade-off isn't good enough to justify the development. In other words, they don't think there's enough oil there to warrant the exploration.

The U.S. Geological Survey and the federal government's Energy Information Administration estimate that there are possibly 16 billion barrels of oil beneath the surface in the coastal plain. Even at the low end--with about 3.2 billion barrels--the field would be the second-largest ever discovered in the United States.

The first is Prudhoe Bay, which was estimatedin 1968 to hold 9 billion barrels of oil, but which has produced nearly 13 billion barrels--or 20 to 25 percent of the oil produced in this nation for the last 23 years. If there were 16 billion barrels in the coastal plain, it would substitute for what we would otherwise have to import from Saudi Arabia for the next 30 years.

Will development of the coastal plain make us independent of foreign oil? No, but it can make us less dependent. My initial goal in current legislation is to take us from 58 percent dependence to less than 50 percent, through oil and gas development, conservation and renewable energy sources. Development of ANWR is not the only answer.

I applaud the development of alternative and renewable energy sources. But today this nation relies on conventional sources of energy for 96 percent of its power. We need a bridge to the energy future, and that bridge won't be built by ignoring the problem or accepting the rhetoric from the environmentalists.

Vice President Gore, on his campaign Web site, mentions a list of animals in ANWR that would be endangered by drilling, including Dall sheep and moose. But the coastal plain is not their habitat, and it would be rare to see either there: Dall sheep live in the mountains, and the moose live in the foothills.

The extreme environmentalists maintain that the coastal plain is the last 5 percent of the Arctic coastline that is not being drilled. That is nonsense. Only 14 percent of the entire 1,100-mile Arctic coastal plain is open to oil exploration.

The question is, do we develop 2,000 acres out of 19 million and still protect the caribou, the polar bear and all other species? Or do we keep our heads buried in the snow-pack along with the lemmings, Gore and Clinton?

Frank Murkowski is chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Here's something I found interesting:

I may be mistaken, but I think they're doing the opposite thing. GM is getting rid of workers, while Ford's corporate culture is getting rid of middle managers.

Ford's plan makes much more sense overall, because if GM were to hit a sudden demand increase they'd have to operate at a loss if they were unable to produce cars to keep up with demand, either that or they'd lower the amount of interest because their price point would go skyrocketing. Ford's plan keeps the production expandability while getting rid of excessive management...much better.

Apparently Raveneyes understands how supply and demand can affect prices.

Here's something I found interesting:

Apparently Raveneyes understands how supply and demand can affect prices.

Absolutely I know how it *can* affect prices, however I'm not simple minded enough to think that it is the *only* thing that affects prices.

Absolutely I know how it *can* affect prices, however I'm not simple minded enough to think that it is the *only* thing that affects prices.

Oh, good, I'm glad we can agree on that. Carry on.

Oh, good, I'm glad we can agree on that. Carry on.

Well actually...I don't think we can...you seem to think that it is the *only* way the economics of big oil is changed.

The main reason prices are so high is supply/demand and taxation. You think the oil companies won't have higher costs as a result of this shortage? There was a temporary spike due to the lack of supply versus constant demand, and it's going back down.

What's important to note is that fuel prices are going down.
Supply has increased. (refineries and platforms are back online)
Demand has fallen. (higher prices encouraged more Americans to change driving habits and in some cases, even buy more efficient vehicles.)
Prices are dropping.

Economics isn't nearly as complicated as people want to think. Supply and demand is actually very simple and logical.
You'd think, but with these guys, I don't know...

You do love the taste of your own words don't you...

RaVeneyez:
You keep speaking of the evil oil company and their wicked ways to make a buck. Whats new? If enviromental issues are of concern I think its better to have a Sierra Club (or New Jersey citizens for protecting Alaska from Alaskans) You decide... In our backyard than thousands of miles away. You would be pleasantly surprised how Prudhoe oil fields are run. Have you seen them? (not the Denali as portrayed on the Sierra and Greenpeace sites).

RaVeneyez:
You keep speaking of the evil oil company and their wicked ways to make a buck. Whats new? If enviromental issues are of concern I think its better to have a Sierra Club (or New Jersey citizens for protecting Alaska from Alaskans) You decide... In our backyard than thousands of miles away. You would be pleasantly surprised how Prudhoe oil fields are run. Have you seen them? (not the Denali as portrayed on the Sierra and Greenpeace sites).

Ok, for one lower case r and an s not a z

as far as the rest of it goes:

"I don't know what the F(_)C& you just said, Little Kid, but you're special man, you reached out, and you touch a brother's heart." - Pumpkin Escobar

Well actually...I don't think we can...you seem to think that it is the *only* way the economics of big oil is changed.

You misquoted me YET AGAIN. I said "main reason" - (obviously - at least to halfway intelligent people - referring to this particular situation which, by the way, is rapidly achieving equilibrium as supply increases and prices FALL) not "only reason."

And you attributed Calabrio's quote to me?!?

You are losing it.

Go home and study economics, then report back to me.