A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » 8 Track Tapes
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Congress SHOOTS DOWN global warming and oil company tax bills



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 11th 08, 12:21 PM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes
trippin-2-8-track
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 365
Default Congress SHOOTS DOWN global warming and oil company tax bills

bang-bang

now, let's get back to DRILLING FOR MORE OIL IN USA !
Ads
  #2  
Old June 11th 08, 12:22 PM posted to alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.collecting.8-track-tapes
trippin-2-8-track
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 365
Default Congress SHOOTS DOWN global warming and oil company tax bills

On Jun 11, 7:21*am, trippin-2-8-track wrote:
bang-bang

now, let's get back to DRILLING FOR MORE OIL IN USA !


  #3  
Old June 11th 08, 05:44 PM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes
DeserTBoB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,541
Default Congress SHOOTS DOWN global warming and oil company tax bills

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:21:38 -0700 (PDT), paranoid delusional low IQ
idiot Charles M. Nudo, Jr., Drums, PA, posing this time as
trippin-2-8-track wrote:

bang-bang

now, let's get back to DRILLING FOR MORE OIL IN USA ! snip


Will never happen, and this will cement the fortunes of the Democrats
in November. Congress didn't "shoot down" the bill, the Republicans
blocked it because the Dems didn't have the 60 votes necessary for
cloture...as IF you know anything about that. Once 7 or 8 more
Republicans get thrown out of office in November, they will no longer
be a force in the Senate. They're already floor ornaments in the
House, and will be more so after November.

Drilling in Alaska (at best, a 6 mo supply of poor grade crude that
will take FIVE YEARS to reach market at best estimate) will require a
majority in the Senate and the House, and there is no conceivable way
that's going to ever happen now.

Go drill your nose some more, Noodles...and call a psychiatrist. Those
delusions of yours are getting stronger, fed by listening to drug
addicts on AM radio every day.

The solution is to get on the fast track on renewables and ****can
oil. See what McCain said yesterday? "Gasoline will be over $4 a
gallon and probably go higher."
  #4  
Old June 11th 08, 05:45 PM posted to alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.collecting.8-track-tapes
DeserTBoB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,541
Default DeserTBoB SHOOTS DOWN Charlie Nudo's schizophrenic fantasy world

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:22:23 -0700 (PDT), trippin-2-8-track
wrote:

On Jun 11, 7:21*am, trippin-2-8-track wrote:
bang-bang

now, let's get back to DRILLING FOR MORE OIL IN USA ! snip


Let's get back to having Charlie Nudo's Google accounts shut down for
TOS violations.
  #5  
Old June 12th 08, 12:08 PM posted to alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.collecting.8-track-tapes
trippin-2-8-track
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 365
Default DeserTBoB SHOOTS DOWN Charlie Nudo's schizophrenic fantasy world

On Jun 11, 12:45*pm, DeserTBoB wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:22:23 -0700 (PDT), trippin-2-8-track

wrote:
On Jun 11, 7:21*am, trippin-2-8-track wrote:
bang-bang


now, let's get back to DRILLING FOR MORE OIL IN USA ! snip


Let's get back to having Charlie Nudo's Google accounts shut down for
TOS violations.




how 'bout you getting back to a job after sucking SSI fraudulently for
15 years ?
  #6  
Old June 12th 08, 12:12 PM posted to alt.collecting.8-track-tapes
trippin-2-8-track
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 365
Default Congress SHOOTS DOWN global warming and oil company tax bills

On Jun 11, 12:44*pm, DeserTBoB wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:21:38 -0700 (PDT), paranoid delusional low IQ
idiot Charles M. Nudo, Jr., Drums, PA, posing this time as

trippin-2-8-track wrote:
bang-bang


now, let's get back to DRILLING FOR MORE OIL IN USA ! snip


Will never happen, and this will cement the fortunes of the Democrats
in November. *Congress didn't "shoot down" the bill, the Republicans
blocked it because the Dems didn't have the 60 votes necessary for
cloture...as IF you know anything about that. *Once 7 or 8 more
Republicans get thrown out of office in November, they will no longer
be a force in the Senate. *They're already floor ornaments in the
House, and will be more so after November.

Drilling in Alaska (at best, a 6 mo supply of poor grade crude that
will take FIVE YEARS to reach market at best estimate) will require a
majority in the Senate and the House, and there is no conceivable way
that's going to ever happen now.

Go drill your nose some more, Noodles...and call a psychiatrist. Those
delusions of yours are getting stronger, fed by listening to drug
addicts on AM radio every day.

The solution is to get on the fast track on renewables and ****can
oil. *See what McCain said yesterday? *"Gasoline will be over $4 a
gallon and probably go higher."





ANWR holds a 30 year supply of oil at current useage rates.

whether or not it's worth getting from a profit standpoint, is not
your decision to make
  #7  
Old June 12th 08, 12:20 PM posted to alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.collecting.8-track-tapes
trippin-2-8-track
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 365
Default WHY WE MUST DRILL IN ANWR

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. Royalty and tax
estimates for the life of the 10-02 fields were estimated by the
Office of Management and Budget from $152-237 billion.

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 731,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an average of 60%
of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over
$330 billion in oil imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out
of our economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and
the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total 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 democratically elected Alaska State
Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over
the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain
of ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support
onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

In general, the Republicans, Alaskans, some unions that see job gains,
and some native tribes that will profit from the drilling have come
out in favor . Numbers are bandied about - those for drilling say
that there is 30 years-worth of Saudi imports of oil available, and
that drilling will enhance the national security and lessen dependence
on imported oil (especially from the volatile Middle East.)

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/w...170983,00.html

Some Shaky Figures on ANWR Drilling

Monday, Aug. 13, 2001 By DOUGLAS WALLER Article

Congress loves to play fast and loose with numbers, particularly when
one side or the other is using them to justify a bill. Two such cases
came earlier this month, when the House approved oil drilling in
Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There are a total of 19
million acres in the refuge, and in 1980 Congress set aside 1.5
million of them along a strip of the refuge's northern Arctic Ocean
coast for possible oil exploration. Oil companies and Alaska's
congressional delegation have been anxious ever since to start
drilling there. The oil companies believe 5 to 16 billion barrels of
oil could be recovered there, while Alaskans are eager for the revenue
that exploration would generate for their state. Environmentalists and
most congressional Democrats have resisted drilling in the area
because the required network of oil platforms, pipelines, roads and
support facilities, not to mention the threat of foul spills, would
play havoc on wildlife. The coastal plain, for example, is a calving
home for some 129,000 caribou.

With U.S production at nearly a 50-year low and oil reserves in this
country shrinking, George Bush has made ANWR's development a key part
of his energy package. The House finally decided to approve drilling
in the refuge, largely on the promise of two important numbers. First,
to calm moderates in his party, Republican Congressman John Sununu of
New Hampshire tacked an amendment to the energy bill limiting the
drilling to just 2,000 of the 1.5 million acres along the coast plain.
Then, the Teamsters muscled 36 Democrats into voting for the drilling,
claiming it would create over 700,000 jobs.

Wow! An oil field only one-fifth the size of Washington's Dulles
International Airport that'd provide more jobs than there are working
men and women in Wyoming and Rhode Island? And would lower the
nation's unemployment rate by a half percent? Sounds too good to be
true.

It may be. Turns out the 2,000 acres don't have to be contiguous and
only the space of the equipment touching the ground is counted. Each
drilling platform can take up as little as 10 acres. The pipelines are
above ground. For space purposes, the amendment counts only the ground
touched by the stanchions holding up the pipe. Road widths also are
conveniently left out of the space limit. "It's a complete sham,"
complains Allen Mattison, a spokesman for the Sierra Club which
opposes drilling. "It's like a fishing net. If you count just the
space of the string's width, that's small. But if you open up a
fishing net and count the area it covers, that's much larger."
Environmentalists complain that the House limit ends up allowing oil
companies to spread out over practically the entire 1.5 million
acres.

As for the 700,000 jobs, that number comes from an 11-year-old study
commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute that economists
complain wildly inflates the employment potential. "It's just absurd,"
says Eban Goodstein, an economist at Lewis and Clark College, who
predicts the real job growth will be less than one-tenth that number.

But the oil industry is sticking by the figures. "We're confident we
can develop the resources that are at ANWR without an impact on the
wildlife that lives there," insists Mark Rubin, general manager for
exploration and production with the American Petroleum Institute. For
his part, Sununu complains that it wouldn't matter what number he had
put in his amendment. Drilling opponents "don't support any
disturbance of any land for any economic activity related to energy in
the 19 million acres of ANWR," he says. "They think that 2,000 acres
is too much. They think 200 acres is too much and they think two acres
would be too much."

Democrats who control the Senate vow that legislation permitting ANWR
drilling will never see the light of day in that chamber. The oil
industry and the Teamsters, however, hope they can change some minds
once more — with the same numbers that worked in the House.

  #8  
Old June 12th 08, 12:46 PM posted to alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.collecting.8-track-tapes
Republican Liar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default WHY WE MUST DRILL IN ANWR



"trippin-2-8-track" wrote in
message

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.
Royalty and tax estimates for the life of the 10-02
fields were estimated by the Office of Management and
Budget from $152-237 billion.

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 731,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an
average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to
64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports.
That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy!
Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the
costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total 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 democratically
elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional
delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years
have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of
ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR
support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

In general, the Republicans, Alaskans, some unions that
see job gains, and some native tribes that will profit
from the drilling have come out in favor . Numbers are
bandied about - those for drilling say that there is 30
years-worth of Saudi imports of oil available, and that
drilling will enhance the national security and lessen
dependence on imported oil (especially from the volatile
Middle East.)

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/w...170983,00.html

Some Shaky Figures on ANWR Drilling

Monday, Aug. 13, 2001 By DOUGLAS WALLER Article

Congress loves to play fast and loose with numbers,
particularly when one side or the other is using them to
justify a bill. Two such cases came earlier this month,
when the House approved oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. There are a total of 19 million
acres in the refuge, and in 1980 Congress set aside 1.5
million of them along a strip of the refuge's northern
Arctic Ocean coast for possible oil exploration. Oil
companies and Alaska's congressional delegation have been
anxious ever since to start drilling there. The oil
companies believe 5 to 16 billion barrels of oil could be
recovered there, while Alaskans are eager for the revenue
that exploration would generate for their state.
Environmentalists and most congressional Democrats have
resisted drilling in the area because the required
network of oil platforms, pipelines, roads and support
facilities, not to mention the threat of foul spills,
would play havoc on wildlife. The coastal plain, for
example, is a calving home for some 129,000 caribou.

With U.S production at nearly a 50-year low and oil
reserves in this country shrinking, George Bush has made
ANWR's development a key part of his energy package. The
House finally decided to approve drilling in the refuge,
largely on the promise of two important numbers. First,
to calm moderates in his party, Republican Congressman
John Sununu of New Hampshire tacked an amendment to the
energy bill limiting the drilling to just 2,000 of the
1.5 million acres along the coast plain. Then, the
Teamsters muscled 36 Democrats into voting for the
drilling, claiming it would create over 700,000 jobs.

Wow! An oil field only one-fifth the size of Washington's
Dulles International Airport that'd provide more jobs
than there are working men and women in Wyoming and Rhode
Island? And would lower the nation's unemployment rate by
a half percent? Sounds too good to be true.

It may be. Turns out the 2,000 acres don't have to be
contiguous and only the space of the equipment touching
the ground is counted. Each drilling platform can take up
as little as 10 acres. The pipelines are above ground.
For space purposes, the amendment counts only the ground
touched by the stanchions holding up the pipe. Road
widths also are conveniently left out of the space limit.
"It's a complete sham," complains Allen Mattison, a
spokesman for the Sierra Club which opposes drilling.
"It's like a fishing net. If you count just the space of
the string's width, that's small. But if you open up a
fishing net and count the area it covers, that's much
larger." Environmentalists complain that the House limit
ends up allowing oil companies to spread out over
practically the entire 1.5 million acres.

As for the 700,000 jobs, that number comes from an
11-year-old study commissioned by the American Petroleum
Institute that economists complain wildly inflates the
employment potential. "It's just absurd," says Eban
Goodstein, an economist at Lewis and Clark College, who
predicts the real job growth will be less than one-tenth
that number.

But the oil industry is sticking by the figures. "We're
confident we can develop the resources that are at ANWR
without an impact on the wildlife that lives there,"
insists Mark Rubin, general manager for exploration and
production with the American Petroleum Institute. For his
part, Sununu complains that it wouldn't matter what
number he had put in his amendment. Drilling opponents
"don't support any disturbance of any land for any
economic activity related to energy in the 19 million
acres of ANWR," he says. "They think that 2,000 acres is
too much. They think 200 acres is too much and they think
two acres would be too much."

Democrats who control the Senate vow that legislation
permitting ANWR drilling will never see the light of day
in that chamber. The oil industry and the Teamsters,
however, hope they can change some minds once more — with
the same numbers that worked in the House.


Why do republicans block drilling in ANWR and other places in America? While
the republicans had majority control of both the house and senate they
insisted on voting against drilling in ANWR. Why do they now try to blame
the democrats for blocking opening ANWR for so long? If ANWR was opened
years ago we might not have the high prices we have today. When will the
right stop lying and distorting their real agenda of wanting Americans to
pay more for oil and gas?

Drilling in Alaska, a Priority for Bush, Fails in the Senate
By DAVID FIRESTONE
Published: March 20, 2003

The vote, 52 to 48,

Why did this bill get defeated when republicans could have passed it in
2003 when the right was in control of both branches of the government?


Why is the right the party of lies, deception and obstruction?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9659C8B 63

"Republican leaders had expressed hope that their takeover of the Senate
this year would change the chamber's long-standing opposition to oil
production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but eight Republicans
sided with most Democrats against drilling, while five Democrats supported
it."

Why do republicans continue to block drilling in ANWR to this day?

Republicans want America to pay higher prices at the pumps.


  #9  
Old June 12th 08, 01:01 PM posted to alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.collecting.8-track-tapes
Shintaro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default WHY WE MUST DRILL IN ANWR

Republican Liar wrote:
"trippin-2-8-track" wrote in
message

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.
Royalty and tax estimates for the life of the 10-02
fields were estimated by the Office of Management and
Budget from $152-237 billion.

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 731,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an
average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to
64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports.
That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy!
Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the
costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total 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 democratically
elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional
delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years
have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of
ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR
support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

In general, the Republicans, Alaskans, some unions that
see job gains, and some native tribes that will profit
from the drilling have come out in favor . Numbers are
bandied about - those for drilling say that there is 30
years-worth of Saudi imports of oil available, and that
drilling will enhance the national security and lessen
dependence on imported oil (especially from the volatile
Middle East.)

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/w...170983,00.html

Some Shaky Figures on ANWR Drilling

Monday, Aug. 13, 2001 By DOUGLAS WALLER Article

Congress loves to play fast and loose with numbers,
particularly when one side or the other is using them to
justify a bill. Two such cases came earlier this month,
when the House approved oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. There are a total of 19 million
acres in the refuge, and in 1980 Congress set aside 1.5
million of them along a strip of the refuge's northern
Arctic Ocean coast for possible oil exploration. Oil
companies and Alaska's congressional delegation have been
anxious ever since to start drilling there. The oil
companies believe 5 to 16 billion barrels of oil could be
recovered there, while Alaskans are eager for the revenue
that exploration would generate for their state.
Environmentalists and most congressional Democrats have
resisted drilling in the area because the required
network of oil platforms, pipelines, roads and support
facilities, not to mention the threat of foul spills,
would play havoc on wildlife. The coastal plain, for
example, is a calving home for some 129,000 caribou.

With U.S production at nearly a 50-year low and oil
reserves in this country shrinking, George Bush has made
ANWR's development a key part of his energy package. The
House finally decided to approve drilling in the refuge,
largely on the promise of two important numbers. First,
to calm moderates in his party, Republican Congressman
John Sununu of New Hampshire tacked an amendment to the
energy bill limiting the drilling to just 2,000 of the
1.5 million acres along the coast plain. Then, the
Teamsters muscled 36 Democrats into voting for the
drilling, claiming it would create over 700,000 jobs.

Wow! An oil field only one-fifth the size of Washington's
Dulles International Airport that'd provide more jobs
than there are working men and women in Wyoming and Rhode
Island? And would lower the nation's unemployment rate by
a half percent? Sounds too good to be true.

It may be. Turns out the 2,000 acres don't have to be
contiguous and only the space of the equipment touching
the ground is counted. Each drilling platform can take up
as little as 10 acres. The pipelines are above ground.
For space purposes, the amendment counts only the ground
touched by the stanchions holding up the pipe. Road
widths also are conveniently left out of the space limit.
"It's a complete sham," complains Allen Mattison, a
spokesman for the Sierra Club which opposes drilling.
"It's like a fishing net. If you count just the space of
the string's width, that's small. But if you open up a
fishing net and count the area it covers, that's much
larger." Environmentalists complain that the House limit
ends up allowing oil companies to spread out over
practically the entire 1.5 million acres.

As for the 700,000 jobs, that number comes from an
11-year-old study commissioned by the American Petroleum
Institute that economists complain wildly inflates the
employment potential. "It's just absurd," says Eban
Goodstein, an economist at Lewis and Clark College, who
predicts the real job growth will be less than one-tenth
that number.

But the oil industry is sticking by the figures. "We're
confident we can develop the resources that are at ANWR
without an impact on the wildlife that lives there,"
insists Mark Rubin, general manager for exploration and
production with the American Petroleum Institute. For his
part, Sununu complains that it wouldn't matter what
number he had put in his amendment. Drilling opponents
"don't support any disturbance of any land for any
economic activity related to energy in the 19 million
acres of ANWR," he says. "They think that 2,000 acres is
too much. They think 200 acres is too much and they think
two acres would be too much."

Democrats who control the Senate vow that legislation
permitting ANWR drilling will never see the light of day
in that chamber. The oil industry and the Teamsters,
however, hope they can change some minds once more — with
the same numbers that worked in the House.


Why do republicans block drilling in ANWR and other places in America? While
the republicans had majority control of both the house and senate they
insisted on voting against drilling in ANWR. Why do they now try to blame
the democrats for blocking opening ANWR for so long? If ANWR was opened
years ago we might not have the high prices we have today. When will the
right stop lying and distorting their real agenda of wanting Americans to
pay more for oil and gas?

Drilling in Alaska, a Priority for Bush, Fails in the Senate
By DAVID FIRESTONE
Published: March 20, 2003

The vote, 52 to 48,

Why did this bill get defeated when republicans could have passed it in
2003 when the right was in control of both branches of the government?


Why is the right the party of lies, deception and obstruction?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9659C8B 63

"Republican leaders had expressed hope that their takeover of the Senate
this year would change the chamber's long-standing opposition to oil
production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but eight Republicans
sided with most Democrats against drilling, while five Democrats supported
it."

Why do republicans continue to block drilling in ANWR to this day?

Republicans want America to pay higher prices at the pumps.



Any truth to this?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...74697167011147

  #10  
Old June 12th 08, 01:37 PM posted to alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.collecting.8-track-tapes
Republican Liar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default WHY WE MUST DRILL IN ANWR



"Shintaro" wrote in message

Republican Liar wrote:
"trippin-2-8-track" wrote in
message

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. Royalty and tax estimates for the life of
the 10-02 fields were estimated by the Office of
Management and Budget from $152-237 billion.

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 731,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an
average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up
to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil
imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our
economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil,
and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the
total 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 democratically
elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional
delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25
years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal
Plain of ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and
near ANWR support onshore oil development on the
Coastal Plain.
In general, the Republicans, Alaskans, some unions that
see job gains, and some native tribes that will profit
from the drilling have come out in favor . Numbers are
bandied about - those for drilling say that there is 30
years-worth of Saudi imports of oil available, and that
drilling will enhance the national security and lessen
dependence on imported oil (especially from the volatile
Middle East.)

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/w...170983,00.html

Some Shaky Figures on ANWR Drilling

Monday, Aug. 13, 2001 By DOUGLAS WALLER Article

Congress loves to play fast and loose with numbers,
particularly when one side or the other is using them to
justify a bill. Two such cases came earlier this month,
when the House approved oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. There are a total of 19
million acres in the refuge, and in 1980 Congress set
aside 1.5 million of them along a strip of the refuge's
northern Arctic Ocean coast for possible oil
exploration. Oil companies and Alaska's congressional
delegation have been anxious ever since to start
drilling there. The oil companies believe 5 to 16
billion barrels of oil could be recovered there, while
Alaskans are eager for the revenue that exploration
would generate for their state. Environmentalists and
most congressional Democrats have resisted drilling in
the area because the required network of oil platforms,
pipelines, roads and support facilities, not to mention
the threat of foul spills, would play havoc on
wildlife. The coastal plain, for example, is a calving
home for some 129,000 caribou.
With U.S production at nearly a 50-year low and oil
reserves in this country shrinking, George Bush has made
ANWR's development a key part of his energy package. The
House finally decided to approve drilling in the refuge,
largely on the promise of two important numbers. First,
to calm moderates in his party, Republican Congressman
John Sununu of New Hampshire tacked an amendment to the
energy bill limiting the drilling to just 2,000 of the
1.5 million acres along the coast plain. Then, the
Teamsters muscled 36 Democrats into voting for the
drilling, claiming it would create over 700,000 jobs.

Wow! An oil field only one-fifth the size of
Washington's Dulles International Airport that'd
provide more jobs than there are working men and women
in Wyoming and Rhode Island? And would lower the
nation's unemployment rate by a half percent? Sounds
too good to be true.
It may be. Turns out the 2,000 acres don't have to be
contiguous and only the space of the equipment touching
the ground is counted. Each drilling platform can take
up as little as 10 acres. The pipelines are above
ground. For space purposes, the amendment counts only
the ground touched by the stanchions holding up the
pipe. Road widths also are conveniently left out of the
space limit. "It's a complete sham," complains Allen
Mattison, a spokesman for the Sierra Club which opposes
drilling. "It's like a fishing net. If you count just
the space of the string's width, that's small. But if
you open up a fishing net and count the area it covers,
that's much larger." Environmentalists complain that
the House limit ends up allowing oil companies to
spread out over practically the entire 1.5 million
acres.
As for the 700,000 jobs, that number comes from an
11-year-old study commissioned by the American Petroleum
Institute that economists complain wildly inflates the
employment potential. "It's just absurd," says Eban
Goodstein, an economist at Lewis and Clark College, who
predicts the real job growth will be less than one-tenth
that number.

But the oil industry is sticking by the figures. "We're
confident we can develop the resources that are at ANWR
without an impact on the wildlife that lives there,"
insists Mark Rubin, general manager for exploration and
production with the American Petroleum Institute. For
his part, Sununu complains that it wouldn't matter what
number he had put in his amendment. Drilling opponents
"don't support any disturbance of any land for any
economic activity related to energy in the 19 million
acres of ANWR," he says. "They think that 2,000 acres is
too much. They think 200 acres is too much and they
think two acres would be too much."

Democrats who control the Senate vow that legislation
permitting ANWR drilling will never see the light of day
in that chamber. The oil industry and the Teamsters,
however, hope they can change some minds once more —
with the same numbers that worked in the House.


Why do republicans block drilling in ANWR and other
places in America? While the republicans had majority
control of both the house and senate they insisted on
voting against drilling in ANWR. Why do they now try to
blame the democrats for blocking opening ANWR for so
long? If ANWR was opened years ago we might not have the
high prices we have today. When will the right stop
lying and distorting their real agenda of wanting
Americans to pay more for oil and gas?
Drilling in Alaska, a Priority for Bush, Fails in the
Senate By DAVID FIRESTONE
Published: March 20, 2003

The vote, 52 to 48,

Why did this bill get defeated when republicans could
have passed it in 2003 when the right was in control of
both branches of the government?

Why is the right the party of lies, deception and
obstruction?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9659C8B 63

"Republican leaders had expressed hope that their
takeover of the Senate this year would change the
chamber's long-standing opposition to oil production in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but eight
Republicans sided with most Democrats against drilling,
while five Democrats supported it."
Why do republicans continue to block drilling in ANWR
to this day?
Republicans want America to pay higher prices at the
pumps.


Any truth to this?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...74697167011147


What he says might be true. Nothing would surprise me. He sounds like any
other speaker that talks about just about every big controversy from
cigarette smoking to 911. I remember stories 50 years ago about a
carburetor that would give you 100 mpg. The story was that the auto industry
bought them out preventing them from being marketed. Even if the price of
gas was $1.00 per gal. would that be a good thing?




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Global warming: It's HEEEEEERE.... DeserTBoB 8 Track Tapes 94 August 15th 06 03:21 PM
Global Warming (addition) Victor Manta General Discussion 0 June 25th 04 10:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.