"bush's Alaskan Oil Solution"

Email this topic to a friend Printer-friendly version of this topic Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)		Locked thread - Read only  Previous Topic | Next Topic
Conferences Environment/Energy (Protected)
Original message

republicon (Guest) (8 posts) Jan-20-01, 11:05 PM (ET) "bush's Alaskan Oil Solution" Many reaonable conservationist have expressed concern that oil drilling in Alaska will eventually lead to catastophic spills. george jr. bush feels he has solved this problem. First he's noted that Alaska is higher on the map than California. So his plan is to dig oil canals from Alaska to California to let the oil flow naturally down hill. But the real beauty in this plan he feels is the fact that the oil never leaves the ground. He asks " How could we ever have an oil spill if the oil never leaves the ground"?   Top

Table of Contents

Subject     Author     Message Date     ID    RE: bush's Alaskan Oil Solution Treehugger Jan-25-01 2    RE: bush's Alaskan Oil Solution RFal 01/25/2001 3        RE: bush's Alaskan Oil Solution Treehugger 01/25/2001 4            RE: bush's Alaskan Oil Solution RFal 01/25/2001 5  RE: bush's Alaskan Oil Solution TruDem Jan-25-01 6    RE: bush's Alaskan Oil Solution Treehugger 01/25/2001 7        RE: Treehugger TruDem 01/25/2001 8            No problem, sorry for having a stick up my ass on that one Treehugger 01/25/2001 9                RE: No problem, sorry for having a stick up my ass on that one gbaker 01/25/2001 10                    Why didn't they think before they deregulated? Treehugger 01/26/2001 11                        Deregulated? gbaker 01/26/2001 12                            ANWR NaderRaider 01/26/2001 13                                Our country is owned by big oil companies Treehugger 01/27/2001 14                                Electric vehicles??????????? brianidaho 01/27/2001 15                                    Electric Vehicles NaderRaider 01/27/2001 19                                    read a history book DemsUnite 01/28/2001 21                                Missed the Hybrid part brianidaho 01/27/2001 16                                    An Excellent Web Site for ANWR Treehugger 01/27/2001 17                                        ANWR Oil Figures Treehugger 01/27/2001 18                                        Thank for the links jerryfisher 05/02/2001 22                                    Sorry About that. NaderRaider 01/27/2001 20  A look at the Bush Administration policy on the environment jerryfisher May-02-01 23

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

Treehugger (224 posts) Jan-25-01, 00:50 AM (ET) 2. "RE: bush's Alaskan Oil Solution" 1) Is he serious? 2) Er, the act of digging canals would in no way disturb the ecosystems? I wasn't even thinking about the potential for oil spills, I was more concerned about the disturbance caused by tearing everything up to get to the oil and the human presence. 3) I'd have to look at a map, but I'm pretty sure that it's not a straight downhill shot from Alaska to California. 4) Has anyone consulted our Northern neighbors on this one? One figure I'm interested in is what the oil yield would be. I've always read that ANWR's oil yield was not very significant. I thought it could only provide 2% of the US's oil for 5 years or something like that. If someone out there knows of a realistic estimate, I'd like to know. I'll look around too.   Top

RFal (26 posts) Jan-25-01, 00:57 AM (ET) 3. "RE: bush's Alaskan Oil Solution" "4) Has anyone consulted our Northern neighbors on this one?" Are you expecting Canada to stand up to us? I say that if they try anything, we revise manifest destiny and seize Canada. Heck, there are alot of Liberals in Ontario, that should be a good reason for you all to want Canada to be the 51st state.   Top

Treehugger (224 posts) Jan-25-01, 01:46 AM (ET) 4. "RE: bush's Alaskan Oil Solution" Er, I just thought it might be nice to consult them. No sense arguing wid ya, you wouldn't understand.   Top

RFal (26 posts) Jan-25-01, 04:36 PM (ET) 5. "RE: bush's Alaskan Oil Solution" Ehh.. screw Canada. We beat the British and they didn't want to do the same. Plus.. we have a more direct system for our leader than they do. If we had a Prime Minister system, a Dem would have been in the White House from 1955 to 1995. Plus.. if those fucking greedy OPEC bastards want to screw us, who are you to tell us that we can't use a bit of our own oil?   Top

TruDem (25 posts) Jan-25-01, 04:46 PM (ET) 6. "RE: bush's Alaskan Oil Solution" Ahhhh...DUH... No, he's not serious! God! It's a joke. A very funny one, but a joke none-the-less. Get it? AHHH... duhhh... "Is he serious?" Yeah, he is serious, Bush really believes that the California is a straight down hill shot from Alaska.   Top

Treehugger (224 posts) Jan-25-01, 04:56 PM (ET) 7. "RE: bush's Alaskan Oil Solution" LAST EDITED ON Jan-25-01 AT 05:15 PM (EST) Christ, excuse the hell out of me, ok? I don't know any of you people well enough yet to know whether you're being sarcastic or not. Bush is such a god damned stupid ass that I wouldn't doubt anything.   Top

TruDem (25 posts) Jan-25-01, 05:24 PM (ET) 8. "RE: Treehugger" Sorry for being so harsh.   Top

Treehugger (224 posts) Jan-25-01, 05:43 PM (ET) 9. "No problem, sorry for having a stick up my ass on that one" OK, I'm recovered. The irony is that I get in trouble all the time for being too sarcastic, it's just tough to judge anything yet on this forum. We're all a little hypersensitive these days I think. I'm just kind of disappointed that my policical hero, (he really is, I'm not being sarcastic) Clinton didn't go ahead and protect ANWR, so I'm a little more uptight on that issue one than I am on others. Bush and his cronies are waiting to rip it to hell. Wha, apologizing? You must be a TrueDem to do that. Sorry for having a stick up my ass on that one, guess it fits my moniker.   Top

gbaker (39 posts) Jan-25-01, 08:52 PM (ET) 10. "RE: No problem, sorry for having a stick up my ass on that one" > >I'm just kind of disappointed that >my policical hero, (he really >is, I'm not being sarcastic) >Clinton didn't go ahead and >protect ANWR, so I'm a >little more uptight on that >issue one than I am >on others. Bush and >his cronies are waiting to >rip it to hell. > What is the solution to the CA problem? Seems Alaskan oil would be helpful.   Top

Treehugger (224 posts) Jan-26-01, 00:39 AM (ET) 11. "Why didn't they think before they deregulated?" I wouldn't pretend to know what the solution to the California oil problem is, but I don't believe that the bit o' oil up there in Alaska is it. I would still like to know what the exact figure is, but for all the damage it would do, I do recall hearing that the supply of oil up there in Alaska is negligible. If anyone can give a real estimate on that from a reliable source I'd appreciate it. I don't know what they were thinking when they deregulated under Pete Wilson's admin. All of the analysts are saying that they just didn't deregulate "right" (whatever that means). There went his Wilson's presidential aspirations, thank goodness. If Gray Davis can help fix this mess, maybe he'll jump in in 2004. I would vote for him.   Top

gbaker (39 posts) Jan-26-01, 08:06 AM (ET) 12. "Deregulated?" <<I wouldn't pretend to know what the solution to the California oil problem is, but I don't believe that the bit o' oil up there in Alaska is it. I would still like to know what the exact figure is, but for all the damage it would do, I do recall hearing that the supply of oil up there in Alaska is negligible. If anyone can give a real estimate on that from a reliable source I'd appreciate it.>> Well if it's a small amount I wouldn't expect the oil companies to be interested in it. <<I don't know what they were thinking when they deregulated under Pete Wilson's admin. All of the analysts are saying that they just didn't deregulate "right" (whatever that means). There went his Wilson's presidential aspirations, thank goodness. If Gray Davis can help fix this mess, maybe he'll jump in 2004. I would vote for him.>> Unless Davis can fix it the blame will attach to him. Seems to be the way people vote. Of course most people have short memories an 2004 is a long way off. Apparently the media shouldn't even call it deregulation - it was called restructuring back in 96. If the power company can't raise their rates it still sounds like regulation. It will be fun to watch.   Top

NaderRaider (16 posts) Jan-26-01, 10:04 PM (ET) 13. "ANWR" I have one solution instead of drilling and spending money in Alaska for a miniscule amount of Oil. You take the money that would be spent on drilling in Alaska and you give it to car companies(please don't bring up lobby issues here)such as Honda, Toyota and the American three. Give this money to them so they can develop a way to create cars that use electricity to run. I drive a honda hybrid and get about 70mpg and i only buy gas once every 6-8 weeks. We need cars that don't use as much gas and than maybe ANWR would not be an issue.   Top

Treehugger (224 posts) Jan-27-01, 00:19 AM (ET) 14. "Our country is owned by big oil companies" I wish that would happen, it seems so logical. Unfortunately I'm convinced that the big oil companies own our country. Case in point, the whole California thing. Gray Davis asked this new guy some people refer to as president (Bush or something) for help in their energy crisis. He said that "was California's problem". Well, turns out that one of the big oil companies cashing in on California donated a HUGE chunk to the Bush campaign (no surprise there). Personally, I think one state's crisis is the country's crisis. Anything for a buck. Sorry, that's a little off topic. We have the technology for this, we have for years. It's all about MONEY--MONEY MONEY MONEY. Of course I'm preaching to the choir here. I'll tell you about Arizona's fiasco sometime. Gawd, this state is Bush-like in its idiocy. Thank you Raider for doing your part. I did not realize just how efficient those vehicles are!!   Top

brianidaho (7 posts) Jan-27-01, 02:06 AM (ET) 15. "Electric vehicles???????????" Tell that to the Calfornians dealing with rolling blackouts. Electric vehicles just don't seem like such a bright idea right now. Energy is never "free", and any time it is converted from one form to another (electrical to chemical (batteries) to electrical to mechanical) you loose efficiency at each iteration. With electric vehicles that you now have several hundred pounds of batteries to lug around, and that those batteries have a finite life and all kinds of nasty chemicals to dispose of, a cost typically much higher than a gas vehicle. A product looking for a buyer. I honestly don't know, but is GM still making the EV1? The Alaskan Refuge is a area of several million acres as I recall, and is bigger than some states (OK, the little piss-ant ones on the East coast. Responsible development of this resource would be a start in meeting our demand for oil. The lack of responsible development of a energy policy is pounding CA right now. The various power producers have been stating for 20 years that the demand for power is outpacing generation capability. The politicians and some of the misguided "environmentalists" have successfully stopped power plant production and tied down construction with trivial litigation to the point that new power plant construction is nearly non-existant. A number of these same crowds are clammering for demolition of some of the major dams on the Columbia river. And this generation capacity would be replaced with what? Coal plants? Natural gas powered gas-turbine generators? Nukes? A bunch of friggin windmills? Or maybe hook up all those exercise bikes and stairmasters to generators? These problems aren't simple, but the head in the sand mentality of thinking that these items will be magically "taken care of" without some type of development is foolhardy. Don't take this as a attack on all environmentalists-I'm a hunter, fisherman and occasional backpacker and like a pristine environment as well as the next person. There are responsible environmental groups out there that have done a tremendous amount of good by purchasing and protecting specific areas (The Nature Conservacy (SP), Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Ducks Unlimited come to mind). Bri   Top

NaderRaider (16 posts) Jan-27-01, 08:02 PM (ET) 19. "Electric Vehicles" I am a californian and I understand that the electric car siuation would be bad for us at the moment. But I believe the situation out here will resolved way before consumers can get there hands on less expensive electric cars. California will make it through this situation fine. The only thing we have to fear is if the super bowl will get blacked out here because of how many people will be watching the game. I only drive an electric car to save on gas prices. This car is almost paying for itself. I've read up on ANWR. IF they drill there I'm gonna up there from my warm comfortable Southern California house and chain myself to a tree if our government starts drilling there. I"m not a tree hugger....repeat I'm not a tree hugger.   Top

DemsUnite (629 posts) Jan-28-01, 09:43 PM (ET) 21. "read a history book" Uh, Brian? If it weren't for some of those "piss-ant" east coast states, we'd all be bowing to Her Majesty the Queen. Furthermore, there are many people (including myself) who believe that Alaska is our very last chance at preserving something that is disappearing at an alarming rate: unadulterated, pristine wilderness. Once it's gone, it's gone forever. In the span of about 200 years, we have managed to destroy an enormous amount of unique ecosystems, marvelous wildlife (some of which are gone, FOREVER) and ancient civilizations to boot. All in the name of "progress." I don't see how anybody could argue that we need oil so badly that we should even chance furthering this trend. Take lots of pictures when you're out hunting/fishing/backpacking, Brian. You're going to need them to show your grandkids (and their grandkids) when they ask, "What did you see when you were out there?"   Top

brianidaho (7 posts) Jan-27-01, 02:14 AM (ET) 16. "Missed the Hybrid part" OK NR, I should have re-read the last line of your post, Hybrid vehicles have the potential to minimize the negatives of both conventional fossil fuel and electric vehicles. How do you like yours? The technology requirements are involved, but the technology is improving rapidly. The only comment here is, let private industry develop the vehicle that the consumer wants, as Honda has with your car. Government control of industry, especially in the area of R & D is a great way to pi$$ away a bunch of taxpayer (read my!) money. Look at the various pentagon procurement disasters. Had the industry been more free to focus R & D dollars on consumer desires, rather than foolish government mandates, we might have the vehicle of your dreams now.   Top

Treehugger (224 posts) Jan-27-01, 02:47 PM (ET) 17. "An Excellent Web Site for ANWR" LAST EDITED ON Jan-27-01 AT 02:58 PM (EST) PLEASE, PLEASE visit these sites. I started to cut and paste quotes from them, but there are just too many. http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/ (Presents both sides of the issue) http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/anwrdebate.html (In case you do not want to navigate the entire site, some critical links) http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/refinfo.html#section2 (The Refuge's homepage)   Top

Treehugger (224 posts) Jan-27-01, 03:40 PM (ET) 18. "ANWR Oil Figures" Sorry to post again. (If you look under the "Activist Forum?" thread under the "Forum Ideas" area, you will see that someone is expressing their annoyance at my posting so much, so I am going to tone it down. He apparently thought he was being cute when he called me a slut. I don't care if he's a damn Democrat, as a woman I didn't appreciate it, even jokingly.) Anyway, I feel this is critical enough to post: "Americans use 19 million barrels of oil each day, or 7 billion barrels of oil per year. There is a 50% chance of finding a 9 month's supply of oil in the 1002 Area, at $24 per barrel." The 1002 Area is the area in question. It is the part of the original Range that was not designated Wilderness according to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act ("ANILCA", passed in 1980). The name stems from Section 1002 of ANILCA, which outlined additional information that would be needed before Congress could designate the area as Wilderness, or permit oil development. Source: http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/issues1.html#section2   Top

jerryfisher (34 posts) May-02-01, 02:08 PM (ET) 22. "Thank for the links" Do you have any others? I'm just putting a web site together Regards Jerry http://home.rochester.rr.com/jerryfisher/environment.htm   Top

NaderRaider (16 posts) Jan-27-01, 08:05 PM (ET) 20. "Sorry About that." I'm sorry I got a little excited about government intervention in helping with the enviornment. God forbid George would think. I understand you. YOur tax dollars should not be paid to something everyone will use. I think if people will use these cars thought that they should get tax breaks on the car price.   Top

jerryfisher (34 posts) May-02-01, 02:17 PM (ET) 23. "A look at the Bush Administration policy on the environment" In the NYTimes 5/1/01, was the following quote. "The aim here is efficiency, not austerity. Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."- VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY Even though it is clear that conservation can reduce energy consumption by 30-40% he calls it "not a sufficient basis for a sound comprehensive energy policy." The vice president's comments were delivered to the annual meeting of The Associated Press in Toronto. Just one example of conservation vs. increasing supply that the Bush administration is proposing and is not proposing NOT PROPOSED: That raising average fuel use by cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2010 would result in oil savings of 1.5 million barrels a day by that time. PROPOSED INSTEAD: Drill in the Alaskan refuge. The United States Geological Survey estimates that this would probably produce 580,000 barrels a day later this decade. Coal, Mr. Cheney said, has been neglected. It is the United States' "most plentiful source of affordable energy." He said people, who sought to phase out its use, largely because they considered it a major source of air pollution, "deny reality." PROPOSED: Rolling back environmental rules that inhibit the burning of coal. Encouraging the construction of pipelines and refineries. And the list goes on. Lois Corbett, executive director of the Toronto Energy Alliance, said: "I'd hate to think we'll have to throw up a huge iron curtain to keep American smog and acid rain on the American side. Clean-coal technology is an oxymoron. It's a dirty fuel." Cheney said alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power may provide an important part of the country's energy strategy in the years to come but that it is premature to rely on them now. He failed to note that the administration has proposed cutting funding for solar energy by 53%. They are again headed in the wrong direction. This policy will make for dirty air, more oil spills, less protection of our land. We need a plan to meet our energy needs, and will protect our air and land resources. Who is out there "making noise"? Write the newspaper, congress, talk to you family and friends. We need to do something. I just started a new site on the issue. Environmental Policy http://home.rochester.rr.com/jerryfisher/environment.htm Let me know if you have any ideas for the site. Thanks Regards, Jerry Fisher These are my other sites. Tax cut questions http://home.rochester.rr.com/jerryfisher/ Estate tax site http://home.rochester.rr.com/jerryfisher/ESTATETAX.htm Tax cut myths http://home.rochester.rr.com/jerryfisher/myths.htm   Top

Unlock | Archive | Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Select another forum Lobby Hot Topics (Conference)   |--General Discussion Forum (Protected)   |--Latest Breaking News (Protected)   |--Articles (Protected)   |--Activism (Protected)   |--2002 and 2004 (Protected)   |--George W. Bush (Protected)   |--The Dirt (Protected) Issues (Conference)   |--Civil Rights/Civil Liberties (Protected)   |--Economic Issues (Protected)   |--Education (Protected)   |--Environment/Energy (Protected)   |--Foreign Policy/Defense (Protected)   |--Health/Social Policy (Protected)   |--Justice/Public Safety (Protected)   |--Reproductive Rights (Protected) The Underground (Conference)   |--Frequently Asked Questions (Protected)   |--Suggestion Box (Protected)   |--The Underground (Private)