Alaska senators slam Democrats over energy plan
Published Saturday, May 17, 2008
WASHINGTON — Sens. Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski on Friday led Republicans in calling on the Senate’s Democratic majority to do more to address the nation’s growing energy crisis, as crude oil neared $128 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Stevens and Murkowski criticized Democrats for refusing to take steps to increase oil and natural gas production at home while Americans are growing increasingly frustrated with paying soaring gasoline prices at the pump. They and other Republicans want Congress to open new areas to drilling off the nation’s Pacific and Atlantic coastlines and in Alaska and to remove restrictions on tapping challenging oil shale deposits in Western states.
Senate GOP members held an energy forum on Friday to draw attention to their energy plan, saying Americans want to see action to reduce energy prices immediately.
“The huge cost of gasoline is eating away at our ability to have a normal life,” said New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Two-thirds of respondents in a new Washington Post-ABC poll said rising gasoline prices are a financial hardship. And 20 percent cited higher gasoline prices as the single most important economic issue facing the nation in this presidential election year.
Murkowski, who chaired the energy forum, said some rural communities in her home state are paying as much as $8.65 a gallon for regular unleaded gasoline.
“We all know families across the country are struggling with higher gas prices,” she said. “Americans want to know what we are doing to bring the cost of energy down.”
The national average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline on Friday was $3.79 — a 39 cent jump from the previous month and a 67-cent increase compared to a year ago, according to the American Automobile Association’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report. The average price of diesel was $4.32 a gallon.
In Fairbanks, the price of regular unleaded gasoline was as much as $4.03 a gallon. On Thursday, Alaska became the first state in the country to exceed the $4 per gallon mark, AAA said.
Democrats, who are offering their own plan for knocking down prices at the pump, rebuffed an attempt this week by Republicans to open parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf.
Democrats have consistently said the country can’t drill its way out of its energy problems. Instead, they propose taking tax breaks away from major oil companies and imposing a tax on windfall profits. The revenue would be invested in alternative energy development.
So far the only policy that’s risen above the partisan rancor is legislation to halt the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which adds about 70,000 barrels of oil a day to supply.
“That is something,” Murkowski said, “but not much given the ability of OPEC to wipe out that market increase through a tiny decrease in production.”
Lawmakers and economists disagree whether the move will have a noticeable affect on oil prices, since the United States consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil daily. Some 60 percent — 14 million barrels — of that oil is imported from overseas.
Republicans and Democrats are in something of a standoff over energy policy, with both sides blaming the other for the lack of action in the run up to November.
Murkowski said Congress needs to take a realistic approach to the problem by allowing development of a wide range of energy sources.
“We need a balanced energy plan,” she said. “One that provides incentives for development of renewable energy sources but also increases domestic production of traditional oil and gas.”
Last week, Republicans unveiled legislation that would allow individual coastal states to petition the federal government to lift the moratorium on drilling off their shores, while granting them a 37.5 percent share of federal royalties.
The bill would also open the coastal plain of ANWR, which could add up to 1 million barrels per day of crude oil to the nation’s supply. The state of Alaska would receive 50 percent of the federal royalties from ANWR production.
All together, the Republican plan could add as much as 24 billion barrels of oil and 100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to U.S. supply in the coming decade.
Stevens said opening ANWR — the largest untapped oil field in North America — would not only benefit the nation but would also provide badly needed additional oil for the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, which has seen its throughput decline from a peak of 2 million barrels a day to about 700,000 barrels a day.
Developing ANWR would spur exploration on the North Slope, leading to new discoveries and further boosting domestic oil and gas supplies, Stevens said.
“Most of all it will bring the oil and gas industry back to Alaska,” he said.
Democrats and environmental groups insist that oil from ANWR wouldn’t reach the market for a decade and would do nothing to reduce the current price of gasoline.
But Stevens argued oil from ANWR would already be on the market if former President Clinton had not vetoed it.
Stevens did acknowledge that it will take between six and 10 years to produce the first barrel of oil from ANWR, but he said oil and gas efforts in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas could likely be developed sooner.
Stevens is offering an olive branch to environmentalists in an effort to win broader support for opening ANWR by proposing that 25 percent of the federal royalties from the refuge be dedicated to renewable energy production. An additional one-eighth of the royalty revenue would go to North Slope communities impacted by the development.
With Democrats in charge of both chambers of Congress, Stevens said it wasn’t likely that legislation opening ANWR would be successful. But that could change, he said, especially if the public applies pressure.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
If you tax the oil companies more, and more, what would keep them from passing the cost on to captive consumers? Then what do we have, even higher fuel prices. Maybe the Dems need to think this one through a little bit more. Or better yet, just go do something that they're good at.
I'm stumped there too.
Those arrogent forked tongued Democrats doing the bidding of the earth worshiping whackos has succesufully stopped all oil drilling, all construction of oil refineries and nuclear power plants in the last 30 years! We now import 13% of our refined gas......Now, Those same dems want to do nothing to lower the price of gas, just increase the cost of our food with their disasterous ethynol policy by turning FOOD into deisel......This is insanity yet these bozos are in comtrol of both houses of congress! I want to sincerely thank all you idiots that keep voting these economic democrat traitors into office time and time and time again. I also want to sincerly thank the mainstream media for successfully demonizing the Republicans and giving the Godless socialist Demonicrats a pass
And I want to thank the short-sighted Republican clowns who gutted the major push in the late 70's for alternative energy, kissed the behind of the oil companies and the Saudis, refused to even change mandatory mpg standards for vehicles, and got us in the mess that we are in now. Not to mention mortgaging our country to China to pay for a war to secure that oil we need. And I want to thank right wing radio and TV for successfully partnering up with these clowns. I think it is time to give the God-soaked Republicans a pass.
Don't bet the farm that the Dems can reduce oil prices. Low supply and low prices aren't compatible with high demand. Econ 101.
Don't forget to thank the News-Miner for it's contribution to the "green" movement. The news in this rag is farther left than anything out of the lower '48.
If we have a shortage of oil, why did the oil companies turn the spicket down. There is still a lot of oil where we already have the wells not just Alaska but across Kansas and Texas. But to control the costs of oil they have reduced the flow. I think we need to take some of the tar out the crude and tar and feather all the politicians and take our country back from the carpet baggers.
All of you who are so anti democrats, do you really think that drilling in ANWR is going to make this problem go away. Don't call democrats the arrogant ones if you think this is the case. If you think that drilling with solve these energy problems you are selfish, plain and simple. It would solve the problem VERY SHORT TERM. Sure you'd be paying lower costs, but your kids and grandkids wouldn't even have a reserve to rely on. We should be looking for alternative sources of energy. Spend the money now so that the future won't find themselves in this situation! Grow up and have some maturity people. Just like our energy rebate checks: as much as I like having some extra money it was just a trick to get people to vote republican in the upcoming election. That "surplus" could have gone into research for alternative energy. This problem isn't going away with a little extra oil people. It'll be back and it'll be even worse.
How can it be a republican plot to buy votes? The democrats control both houses and passed the rebate legislation with a large margin. It seems more like more Beltway eyewash to bamboozle the public into thinking we can barrow and spend our way out of debt.
Yes, I accepted the check. I spent it on fuel oil to heat my house.
We will someday pump every drop but it is never going to be cheap and we'd best start reducing reliance. A simple fact is that there is not enough oil in the USA for us to be independent at our current use. This energy problem is the making of the energy giants who are not believers of free markets. They have used their power to influence (that's the mildest word) our leaders both Republican and Democrats.
The Republicans have been more directly the lap dogs and have become the Party of Borrow and Spend. I have not forgotten that quickly after assuming office Cheney had a secret energy summit with select corporations. That was the start of the rise in energy costs.
The Democrats have not had the courage to stand for their convictions. We should have never abandoned the conservation measures of the 1970's. Many studies have shown a greater gain from efficient appliances and vehicles than several ANWR's.
Dem. all think thinking green might solve all there problems. But thinking green two others have to leave the one on you left and right. Look at greenpeaces web site. Seems like a site that cares with radical ideas. That Native Alaskans have been doing for years, are the most consultative then they could ever wish to be. But still they believe to save the earth you'll have to be like the Jones. Exactly, like them..
Reminds me over something what's the words (oh yeah CULT!!!)
This quote from New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici (R) really says it all for me: “The huge cost of gasoline is eating away at our ability to have a normal life.”
What's happened is over time us Americans have thought that over-consumption on a grand scale was "normal." Guys like myself and others wrote about it and warned about it...but too few listened. Too few wanted to give up that "normal" life they'd grown accustomed to. The one where you drive an F-350 as a commuter vehicle and heat overly large homes in a subarctic environment with electricity and heating oil. The one where you leave all the contraptions and appliances that are "phantom loads" plugged in all the time, because by God that's just the way everyone else does it. The one where appliances and cars are sold not based on how efficient they are but on how many amps they suck and how much horsepower they have; the more the better apparently. The one where we don't plan for when the oil runs out or prices hit the ceiling. The one where we think we can drill our way out of these problems or give cash payments to companies and individuals so they can continue on with the same old same ol' thang.
What was "normal" is hopefully going to be seen in future as aberrant gluttony and waste. Only then will we get on the road where less is more, where less horsepower and less amps and more efficiency is the norm, instead of otherwise.
Selah,
Mark
Is living better a cult? Next question: what is living better? That's different for everyone and I'm glad we are all so different. There are, however, some common grounds.
For example we would all like to do whatever we wish but no one wishes to reap the negative results of another's sowing. If I decide to burn coal this winter (and of course I do not have an adequate stove to do that) do you mind being downwind. What are you going to do about it? Maybe burn some yourself in a barrel stove and pass the pollution to the next guy. What next a shootout between neighbors when a child gets sick.
We are able to destroy the world yet we should be able to live in the world if we take care. It is not a complicated concept. The scare tactic of loss of jobs is only fog designed to keep profits high and has no link to conservation. Plenty of high paying jobs have been lost to globalization, free trade, downsizing, recession, corporate greed, automation and plain stupidity.
A healthy world with healthy food, water, and air should be the first priority not 20%, 30% and higher profits for multinational corporations while you are lucky if your bank will pay interest above inflation. Large corporations have found it beneficial to themselves to obscure reality and demonize common sense.
I say we need to drill for oil in this country and stop depending so much on foreign oil period. By all means we need alternetive energy very soon. I dont know about you people but when i watch the president of the usa yes i know alot of us dont like W much but when he has to go to saudi arabia and ask for them to up production it makes me sick. Cause you know king whatever just loves saying NO to america i guarantee he and the rest of the world love seeing america in this situation. So if we drill in america and can produce a few hundred thousand extra barrels a day and cut back on dependency on saudi oil then do it. Its a shame we live in atleast in my opinion the best country going and we as a nation are struggling to fuel our homes and cars and there are old people that dont get their meds because gas and heating costs too much for them. That is just sad.
And how many times did you watch an Gore's movie a few to many times. I CO2 gases turning in flames and the devil rides the flames? LOL Really? A little spike in CO2 gases call you to freak? So trucks and cars do it all? Semi-trucks trains? How about fires that rage out of control for days. How much CO2 is made by them even thou that wouldn't be added into the equation. Because the only thing that matters if it's man made right. About 10 years ago the was an Acid Rain scare rain coming down and burn face right down to the bones. I'll think I'm really in trouble when that happens. Right Now I just stay away from Kool-Aid.
Partisan Politics. Wouldn't it be great if OUR Nation had some leaders that put the needs of WE THE PEOPLE ahead of their selfish personal interest of getting elected or re-elected?
Democrats and Republicans both are so blind with the self serving Party Politics that they can't seem to find the solutions that will make this Nation the country it could be.
All it might take is an Independent this year. Some one that might take us out of this bureaucratic nightmare caused by Gore,Bush,Chaney,Hillary,and Obama. I have to say it's really going to be the same no matter who you pick Al won't last a very long, because he's lies don't live past a couple years. Like the Internet he made and global earth burning won't. Bush, Chaney well they already made there money from all us. Halliburtion and Oil Reserve helping skyrocket cost. Hillary will promise everything but will fall way short of any promises like a more greener nation and health care. Obama would be more like a dictator that will have more clonies do the speaking for him to make everyone happy.
Drilling for oil is NOT going to solve ANY of our problems. Only utilizing alternative energy sources will. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge is NOT going to reduce gas prices - forget it! Murkowski and Stevens don't give a hoot for average Alaskans - they're in the pocket of the oil companies and just want to make the oil accessible to them to increase their wealth, not save us from high prices. It's a ploy. We need to accept that we screwed up royally in the 70s by not demanding that our politicians invest in alternative energy from renewable sources (not fossil fuels or nuclear) so now we are living with the consequences. Welcome to the life you get to live when you are ignorant, short-sighted, and self-centered. Its time to grow up now so that we can save the future for our children. Keep the fossils in the ground and use energy from wind, solar, tides, etc.
Rather than responding to the comments here, I'd like to respond to the article. Exxon has recently had the largest net after tax profits in the history of the universe. Maybe our economic thinking is a bit skewed and accepted economic theory contains some strange premises (and NO, please leave me out of the political name calling rants), because if one of the corporations on which we all depend for energy to live our lives is posting the largest net after tax profits in the history of the universe (well, ok, that's not a stretch: on all human-habitated planets we're aware of) and we're not allowed to be able to afford to heat our homes and buy groceries, something is very, very seriously wrong. Am I the only one who sees this little inconsistency?
"Obama would be more like a dictator" man where have you been for the last 7.5 years???
When you fill at the pump or fill you heating oil, you can than Bill Clinton for the price you pay. Our esteem dems can only look to today for solutions and not to the future.
And one word about Obama. From his book ‘Audacity of Hope’: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
Sounds lovely, doesn't it.
Reminds me of a saying i heard a few years ago "no matter who wins, the politicians get in"
What a shame Senator Stevens claim's it will take decades to get the oil from the coastal plain to market.
Seems he has forgot about the Badami field?, this field borders Anwar and has a pipeline that goes to Prudhoe Bay. Maybe his age is starting to play a factor, in the senators many responsibilities, as our representative?
Hey Charlie, I really miss those 100 octane loads out to Indian Mountain, with PAA"s N151...............Paul
Once again he who rules the world will control the world. OPEC with the aid of Muslim Nations will control the world, if nothing is done. Every step that America takes to reduce it's dependencies on OIL, increases CAFE standards, (more fuel efficient vehicles), increases emission standards (ie. Ultra low sulfur Diesel, which actually hinders our ability to save fuel, due to the fact of which I know first hand, my MPG has dropped 2-3 MPG before this new diesel fuel and it's killing the trucking industry) I used to get 22 MPG now I get about 19 MPG, but it's better for the environment, how when you need to burn more. But each time America takes steps to reduce, it gets hammered by with higher prices. So just continue to do nothing by not allowing more exploration and drilling and within 12 months we'll be paying $6.00 a gallon and other oil producing nations won't care but laugh as America's economy continues to collapse. Open ANWR and other areas now
Charles Bean....The actual quote from the book is from page 261 and is as follows: "Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
You Neo Cons love to rewrite history! You are funny!!YouMustBConfused
Nice try though...its called the internets!?
Seems easy enough to understand confusion is the underlying problem. Political, Social, And Financial. Spread enough even truth sounds like a lies. Only truth is isolated, hungry, and getting poorer so the plan it's not confusing it's called a GREENPEACE tomorrow and to bad no one else has been invited.
Even easier to find tho just youtube global warming hoax. If where all going to this need to really know who's involved. Then breathing air is leaving a CO2 footprint. This plan was in the making years ago then a devastating things happened to sent us into another pandemonium.
We need to drill for oil in Alaska, and if it wasn't for too many ding-a-ling Democrats, ANWR would be producing today, the pipeline would be full, and the cost of energy lower.
Those that think we all should live in cabins with wind powered electricity and wood stoves should go back where they came from.
I'm sure we'll get to the point where we tap into ANWR; matter of fact, we'll deplete ANWR to the point where it's no longer viable to pull another drop out of the ground, and we'll do the same to every other source of crude oil on the planet. We are addicted, friends, and addicts don't listen to reason. As addicts, we will go to extreme lengths to get our fix. We will ruin our environment; we will wage war; and we will cough up exorbitant sums of money to feed our habit. (Admit it--most of us drive as much on $4 gas in a period of recession as we did on $2 gas in a period of prosperity; and we are prepared to pay a lot more before we will make substantial changes to our driving habits...)
Don't look to any political party for the solution. What we need is a twelve-step program: Oil Abusers Anonymous. Come one, come all...
I'm so glad that we did'nt listen to the NEOCONS and BUSHCO. Just think, if we had; we would have sold all of ANWR's oil for $40.00 by now. Every day that we have not listened to the NEOCONS has been a savings for our future. Money in the bank.
democrats: trying to ruin the U.S. economy, cater to special interest groups, and just generally be a pain in the butt!!
tcub...keep up the good work? How are you doing? Better now than 8 years ago? Please tell us how it has been going during these Neocon days?
Current levels of petroleum consumption are not sustainable. Expect $8 per gallon...what is paid for petroleum in the majority of countries of the world.
The market determines the price of oil. ANWR oil will be TAP'd down to Valdez (just like the oil is now) and be sold to the highest bidders. Alaska Royalty oil will continue to be pulled out on route and sold (based on market prices) to the highest bidders.
ANWR will not solve anything. Sure it would benefit the Alaskan economy short term with jobs; but if it had been opened 10-years ago, we'd still be in this same situation.
As you sit in your car idling at the next stoplight, as you fly over Los Angeles at night for 45-minutes seeing the serpentine of headlights choking the freeways, as you buy a watermelon grown in Chile at Safeway on University; consider that these levels of consumption are simply not sustainable.
We need to be proactive about our future, rather than reactive. We need to run cars on hydrogen. We need to heat our homes with electricity from geothermal energy, wind, solar and good old H20. Our rivers could supply all the clean, sustainable energy we need.
Screw ANWR. It's NOT the answer.
Alaska’s two senators are not what I call outstanding. Stevens is the primary architect of the "great Alaska land grab" for the natives and Murkowski is a shadow of old dad who I think remains clueless to this day.
I wonder who is "really" paying for that $8.85/gallon fuel she is touting - working people are that's who - and you can thank her and Stevens as major players in that, not just the Dems.
You Must Be Confused. HA! Good name for you. I have done quite well, thanks for asking. Since you won't call me by my username (I assume you were talking to me), I guess i will just shorten your name to "confused". It seems to fit.
Nice = democrats: trying to ruin the U.S. economy, cater to special interest groups, and just generally be a pain in the butt!!
Yup, that really sums it up.
Nice work.
Please I need you to come out of that koolaid world you NEOCONS live in and see what is happening in the name of BUSHCO.
Wakeup, the bill of goods you got sold is not real.
CAN"TBEAR4"YA
LOL confused. Yeah you and your pals: Pelosi, Reid, Shumer, Kennedy, whatta bunch of losers. I could go on but it makes me ill to think of those anti-American creeps running the show. Next you are gonna tell me how smart Barack (57 states) Hussein Obama is!
Such confusion? Are you really trying to tell us that "Pelosi, Reid, Shumer, Kennedy" are the ones who got us here? Please tell me how you can ignore what BUSHCO has been doing to us for the last 7.5 years?
How do you do it?
Inquiring minds need to know?
Also, I love how afraid you are of BHO? Funny stuff! YouMustBConfused
Afraid? Are you kidding me? That is comic relief at it's finest. Although i sure as hell wouldn't want that idiot running MY country!
I am using my veg oil in disesl truck. It's called bio-diesel I am gonna to forget about high prices at gas station.
Yes fleabear you are afraid...it is very apparent that you have eaten the worm hook-line and non-thinker.
Again, Please tell me how you can ignore what BUSHCO has been doing to us for the last 7.5 years?
"my" country? Very nice, come on give some insight on how your brain works, let us see your wisdom for how you have totally ignored the NEOCONS and BUSHco running our country into the ground.
Calling your next president "idiot" might be a bad idea if he decides to continue the same tactics that BUSHco has put in place?
Thats is what I like about neocons, they never look at the future? Has it occured to you that a DEM Pres. House and Senate can pick up where Bushco left off. But dont worry, they are loosers so they wont stoop to those levels.
YouMustBConfused
loosers?? whatever you say
Come on back up your words??? Be a...well be a tbear!!
Sorry confused, only run power here for 4 hours a day, have to shut down. What are YOU doing to lessen your carbon footprint? HA HA
Run-away, Run-away!!! They always do.
Remeber people, I have the past 7.5 years to back me up on my position.
CNN Sunday Obama proved where he in on development he's behind the carbon crap credit what's that mean better get ready to get a windmill and solar panels. And it might be enough for you to work that old transistor radio you have in attic that grand dad gave you. That might be the only thing it would power. He's all behind the Global Warming Hoax. And where all will be taken for a wild ride.
"wild ride"!
I know what ride we have been on for the last 7.5 years...do you?
YouMustBConfused
YMBC---
You need some new material. Your name calling, Neo-con and Bushco, is stale and meaningless.
Let us take a look at the last 7.5 years. Tell me please, exactly how many successful terrorist attacks have occurred in the USA since 9/11? Do you think that that is an accident, or the terrorists are on a holiday?
The economy suffers right now. But if you are older than say 16 years old, you might understand that there are ups and downs in a capitalist economy. Mostly, the economic stats have been up during the Bush administration. Even with the costly war, economic indicators are not nearly as bad as the mainstream media reports. They love it when the public is agitated. For instance, the sub-prime mortgage crisis is completely out of focus. Less than 1% of mortgages are being bailed on, and many of those are speculators. First time home owners are buying, and getting good deals.
I am not poverty stricken, nor are the people that I know. Poverty exists, it existed yesterday, and it will exist tommorrow. But our poor live in better conditions than most people in the world.
We are in an energy crisis, but this too shall pass. And it seems as though you would blame Bush for too little energy or too much energy. That just dont make sense.
You seem to want to live in a Utopia, and if you cant then someone is to blame. I accept your opposition to the war in Iraq. I disagree with you, but we are free citizens. But you get so carried away in your hatred of all things Bush, that I believe that your tin foil hat will fall off.
Now go ahead and insult me.
No, I will wait to hear from you on day one of the Liburals taking over the White House. Then you and the Koolaid gang jumping on the "look at what the Dems have done to our country!!
Neocons scrub the past, ignore the present and create a false future. We are where we are because of BUSHco, dont hate the man for what he has pulled off. Just amazed at how easy you and the gang ignore how we got here. Ive been watching it for years...good luck with it.
YouMustBConfused
Just as I suspected...
"Tell me please, exactly how many successful terrorist attacks have occurred in the USA since 9/11?"
Oh, I don't know, about the same that occured BEFORE 9/11. Love Bush, hate Bush, it doesn't matter, but I am sick and tired of Bush/Republicans taking credit for a lack of terrorist attacks post-9/11. You know what, since I moved into my house 7 years ago, there has not been a single terrorist attack on my home. I guess I should run for President??
glacierles...4000 plus is the answer to the number on terrorist attacks. For every man and woman killed in IRAQ.
Do you actually believe what you just said, FrozenFish?
Is your opinion that extremist terrorism does not exist? And the USA is not the #1 target of jihadist extremist terrorists?
And if it does exist, just who do you think should get the credit for keeping it in check? Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Batman?
And actually, yes, more attacks occured before 9/11 than after. The original Twin Tower bombings come to mind. Not to mention attacks on our embassies in various parts of the world (embassies are considered sovereign). And the USS Cole.
You said "in the USA". Yes, the original twin towers bombing was on US soil (I had forgotten that one). So lets see...thats 1 terrorist attack for Bill Clinton(D) and 1 for G.W. Bush(R). Embassy bombings and the USS Cole are different animals. I could always bring up the marine barracks bombing during the Reagan(R) presidency. As YMBC said, damn near every death in Iraq has been a terrorist act. Like I said before, you don't have to love or hate GWB, but don't make him out to be our savior from terrorism. If you really think that patting down 80 year old women and confiscating their hand cream is protecting you from terrorists, you have a funny sense of safety.
Hey NoNuts: Talk about rewriting history, you do it the same day an article is written. If you watched the forum and/or read the quote, you might have understood that TS never said ANWR would take "decades." He said peak production would take at least 6-10 years; so if you have some idea how to get through permitting, exploratory drilling, and a zillion lawsuits faster than that, be my guest. Why don't you check how long Badami took until peak production. Stevens may be old but he obviously knows a great deal more about this subject than do you.
Failing to understand the realities and value of two of Alaska's greatest ever resources - i.e. both Stevens and ANWR - is a recurring theme in a lot of these posts by people who need to grow up.
AK77...that was funny!!!!! Oh Man, thanks, you made my night!! "two of Alaska's greatest ever resources - i.e. both Stevens and ANWR"!!!
OH MAN!! That is priceless!!
YouMustBConfused
autumnimprov - "Exxon has recently had the largest net after tax profits in the history of the universe."
As there are over 100 billion galaxies in the known universe I highly doubt if you have the appropiate data to make such a claim.
Think on the margin. Will drilling in ANWR solve all our problems? No. Will it increase supply and thus reduce relative prices while increasing revenue that could be used to fund alternative energy; yes.
Would Exxon use that increased revenue to fund alternative energy? Not on your life.
The Saudis just said they will pump 300,000 more barrels a day. That's close to the projected output of ANWR (and that would be only for ten years). After the announcement by the Saudis oil rose $4 a barrel. ????
Am I the only person not concerned about the price of fuel? Sure I would like it to be cheaper but that will not happen, EVER.
I want drilling to start everywhere possible in the country for one main reason. Why should we be buying oil from other places only for them to use that money to develope their nation. Seems like to me it would be a great thing if the money was put back into this country.
I'm thinking we should use up all of the oil on this planet as soon as possible. The sooner it is gone the sooner we can move onto another fuel source. It will happen, I think it is rather foolish to think the world we know is going to end once the dino oil is gone. We humans have more smarts than that.
As for the Rep/Dem pissing match here. Any of you are truely foolish if you think either side is looking out for yours or my best interest.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.