So what business are you in exactly?

Boo -

If you think the Colorado front range is crowded, you haven't lived on the coast in California or the cities in the East.

If you think Alaska is nicely uncrowded, the quickest way to change that is to add money incentives for moving there.

Careful what you ask for - you might just get it.

fuck i would have to start a farm in mybackyard so i dont have to pay such high prices

Boo, I'm an Alaskan also.

First off, simply because there will be a "large' Influx of oil, you must realize does not effect your PFD. The money given to you in a PFD is investments the fund makes. The fund is invested 100% into the market, and what you get every year is not oil revenue. It's revenue from the investments the fund makes. You can dig around the .gov sites about the PFD and find that information if you want to look for it. You may be already aware of it, I don't know.

An influx of oil might affect the market in a positive manner, however, the repercussions of a huge oil in-flux and then nothing, will have serious econmical issues down the road in Alaska. I.E, the late 70's when people were renting hallways because apartments were so insansly priced.

Secondly, you live in Alaska. Where you live, I don't know. I live in Anchorage, I have a good job, I pay my taxes, you pay your taxes. You and I both know there will be a state tax, or a sales tax. ANWR has no effect on this, simply because our wonderful politicians in this state are as greedy as the rest. They WILL take the PFD at some point, they will also mandate a state or sales tax. You know that, I know that.

ANWR will open, at some point. There is nothing any of us can do about it. I'm rather optimistic about the enviromental impact there. I hunt on the Brooks Range for Caribou, I worked for BP In the early 90's during the layoffs. I didn't work up on the slope, but I have been there. The heards still come, the polar bears still thrive. The heards in the brooks range, you simply can't imagine how HUGE they are. I'm more worried about long term econmical impact after the influx or oil is over.

I'm still for drilling in ANWR.

That isn't the right way to go about it. The way cali is doing it is right. They are imposing extra taxes on these polluting, low mileage behemoths.

I sure notice a lot of missing information, like the following. First the history:

Under ANILCA, much of the Refuge was designated as wilderness area, but NOT the coastal plain of ANWR. Rather, the Act set the coastal plain area aside for future consideration of the development of its vast oil resources. Current legislation calls for responsible development on no more than 2000 acres of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain. That's 0.01% of ANWR's total acreage of 19.6 million. The remaining 99.9% would remain off limits to development.

Plus (I wish I'd written this myself):

http://www.perspectives.com/forums/forum4/32472.html

It would go a long way toward convincing me otherwise if I saw Teddy Kennedy ride a bike to work, too.

You get more interesting all the time. In the past, you've said, "Whites face discrimination? I don't care."

"The rich are being shafted? I don't care."

Now you don't care about Alaskans.

However, I'm sure you'd have a hissy fit if a Republican "didn't care" about the homeless, or gay midgets, or whatever cause you're espousing these days.

What, someone is homeless in California? Why don't they just move to Arkansas?

The only thing I can't figure out is whether or not you know your stance is hypocritical.

these quantities mean nothing. I'm much more interested in what this "stat" means by "affected." Does this count the roads in and out or the number of people working and living on this "affected" land. I'm reminded of the last election map with the red and blue counties so often bantered about by the right, as if our democracy was based on the control of unpopulated stretches of land. I understand Americans are poor with geography, but seriously.
Surely this must be tax revenue as we all know that this oil will be sold to the more profitable Chinese market to help build their industry. Interesting to see conservatives tout federal tax revenues as a positive.
Since 95% of the northern coast of Alaska is already available for drilling we can expect the impact of drilling in ANWR to be paltry in comparison.
Oh I can just feel the roulette wheel spinning right to our number! By all accounts it's foolhardy to expect some miracle buried in the soil of ANWR.
No clue what "north slope" refers to. Shouldn't this serve as warning as to how limited our oil resources are? Not a call for more expansive drilling, but one for technological innovation.
ANWR stands for Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Each American is entitled to their share of our national parks and reserves upon birth. This decision is not one to be made by Alaskans only.
Wow an additional 735,000 people introduced to the area with relatively no environmental impact? Think of all the jobs we could create by clearcutting Yosemite! Lets dam the grand canyon! "More jobs" has been the calling card for virtually every environmental travesty in our nations history.
If this oil were destined for American consumption, which it's not, it would do little to meet the need for 20 million barrels per day
Classic misdirection, completely irrelevant. Saudi Arabia still has much much more oil under their soil than the U.S.
ANWR will be drops in the bucket.
I'm not sure of the wisdom of selling our natural resources to build the economy of China. Chinese industry has left the U.S. in the dust over the past 15 years. What is the end result? Better start offering Mandarin in the high schools.
Bullshit-o-meter is off the charts on this one. Are we supposed to believe that oil prospecting has a positive impact on wildlife? Look at the wonders it's done for Prince William sound...
Okay that's actually a good thing. What would the footprint be if it weren't built at all?
Conservation is not solely a partisan issue. How can many Americans be opposed to oil prospecting in ANWR? Perhaps because it will do nothing to aleve our oil supply woes, will not change the price we pay for gas, and is not worth tampering with our largest patch of undisturbed wilderness so fatass fucks can continue to have the convenience of taking the SUV out for another solo midnight run to Taco Bell. Please let me know what "national security considerations" are caused by the continued inactivity of oil prospectors in ANWR, I'm at a loss there.
I agree that Schumer's plan is just as short-sighted as ANWR drilling.

OK, I've read (ie - skimmed) this thread and am ready to weigh in!

As far as drilling in ANWR, I would normally say go for it, but I am not convinced that drilling there does anything to solve the current crisis, which I think many of us would agree is the soaring price of gasoline. And my erstwhile senior Senator from NY, Charles Schumer, offering up the National Strategic Reserve is just foolish. That won't do a thing either.

What I think we need to do is get NEW REFINERIES online ASAP. How we do it...incentives offerend through Bush's energyu bill, free market, government intervention...I don't care, just get it done. More refineries would be able to take any increase in supply, like oil from ANWR, and increase the amount of gasoline available in the US.

Of course, we'd have to trust Big Oil to not ship that gas offshore for sale in other countries. I seem to remember some news stories last year that brought just such practices to light. I may be a republican, but I don't trust Big Oil any farther than I can launch a stream of urine.

Regardless, the real issue is our dependence on oil. Just think of what will happen when oil REALLY become scarce. What will happen to the price of plastics and other products that are petroleum-based? That makes me nervous...

My city is in the middle of of a big brou-ha-ha on whether to build a new coal-generation electric plant, because ours is close to 50 years old. While I support the proposal, I would have much rather seen us float the idea of a pebble-bed nuclear facility. It wouldn't have been enough to replace what our needs were, but as I understand it, they are modular, and new reactors may be added to accommodate need.

If were President, I would whole-heartedly support a big research push into renewable energy sources...say $80 billion? I would also support research into these new nuclear energy reactors, and try to redeuce the red tape to encourage their construction in the US. Hell, doesn't Europe get a lot of their energy from nuke plants?

Of course, once I instituted these programs, you would find me dead in the Rose Garden, the knife in my back covered in fingerprints of Light Sweet Crude.

Okay, I'll phrase it differently. We're talking about using .01% of the ANWR. The agreement signed by Jimmy Carter permitted the use of much more in return for doubling the size of it in 1977.


It would be helpful if you would justify your assertion that we're going to sell this oil to China.


Wouldn't it be easier just to say you don't understand geological surveys?


If you're not familiar with the North Slope and Prudhoe Bay, the depth of your knowledge on the subject is highly suspect, as well.


The point is that Alaskans have been able to observe the results of oil drilling in their state, and 75% of them don't think it's too bad. Therefore, the decision shouldn't be made solely by pasty New York "environmentalists," either.


Easy to say, as long as it's not YOUR job. But it might be, considering the influence the supply of oil has on our economy.

Oh, and comparing .01% of the ANWR to "clearcutting Yosemite" is exactly the kind of environmental extremism that works against your position.


NO matter how many times you say it, it's still not true.


It was posted in the (forlorn) hope that you would UNDERSTAND that the dire predictions of wildlife being wiped out were, as you would say, "off the bullshit-o-meter charts."

By the way, oil prospecting had nothing to do with the damage to Prince William Sound. Your reasoning is like blaming American Airlines for 9/11.


Perhaps someone with more patience than I would like to jump in now. The national security implications are so basic that it's annoying to be asked for them.

I'm in favor of drilling in ANWR, but I think two things should be attached to allowing it, namely that companies that want to pump oil out of there be forced to build more refineries and that more funds are given toward developing alternate energy sources. One of the gas price problems is that there's a huge bottleneck at the point of actually refining oil. Our oil supply isn't as low as prices would indicate, but there's not enough refining capacity. And I've slowly been being convinced about the importance of getting off using oil as our primary energy source. I think that if we were able to find other energy sources, it would greatly help develop more self-sufficiency and put America less at the will of OPEC.

It also varies from year to year and everything in Alaska costs more than the lower 48 about a 1000 more every year so stop being envious.

I say this Drill and find oil and gas

Re: National Security-an extra one million barrels per day found (hypothetically in ANWR) will not eliminate the need for the U.S. to import oil from volatile nations in South America and the Mid-East.

We don't need shit. We have the technology RIGHT NOW to completely convert from oil and we also have the ability to completely sustain ourselves from foreign sources of energy. Whether it's solar, wind, hydrogen, the list goes on. It's because that oil hungry bastard in the white house won't do anything about it because big oil is his main contributor. Plain and simple.

Your right the technology is there for the most part the only drawback being cost. And I really don't think it would matter if Bush was in the Whitehouse or not we would still be depending on oil and we will be for a long while to come, once again due to cost of alternative fuels.

On another note, anyone else feel we was being held hostage over the ANWR crap. Did anyone else notice the minute the bill went through Congress that oil began to come down even though it has little to no effect on the present oil market? Don't you think it's rather odd we never had any issues with refining until the pressure was on and the ANWR bill was about to come up for a vote? I may be paranoid but I think we all got screwed on this deal.

Of course we're being screwed. We're allowing private entities to reap a major profit from our public national resources. Even the pittance Alaskans might receive in wages or hush money will pale in comparison to big oil's profits.

When it comes to renewable energy sources and environmental destruction concepts of cost and value quickly become irrelevent. How much will global warming "cost?" What is the value of clean air and water?

I honestly see no difference between the plan to prospect in ANWR and suggestions to tap our strategic oil reserve. Isn't the hypothetical oil in ANWR also a strategic reserve?

How many jobs could be created be connecting our cities with highspeed rail lines? With the high cost of renewable energy comes high paying jobs to engineer and maintain those energy sources. We're only stuck with foreign oil as long as we elect leaders who see no alternatives.

You're exactly right. Being a lifelong Alaskan, that dividend every year does pretty much amount up to "hush" money. "As long as I get my dividend check and it's fat, then the gov't can do whatever the hell they want" they always say every October. I'm sorry to say but I think that the majority of Alaskans are either stupid or weak, maybe both. No one wants to do anything to take us off this Saudi oil spigot. When the oil really runs out however, we'll all be screwed. One reason being that China wil pass us in pretty much everything economical while we're on our knees begging for energy, and the other is that it'l be very easy for China to become number one becasue our economy will already be at a screeching halt.

Ummm, I would think that if oil output diminishes, the Chinese economy will be pretty hard hit as well. Of course, they may well have much more in the way of nuclear plants, and therefore be better situated to handle such a development.

If not, however, I would think that they would not be able to maintain their 9% annual growth.

Drill it, but I would also like to see a law put into place requiring all non-emergency/military/law enforcement government automobiles be powered by alternative fuel sources.

spread that f***er's legs WIDE. We need that oil. And who gives a crap about a few thousand acres of popsickle? It's not like it's a mangrove swamp or something....

If I wasn't accustomed to your "style" moosenose I would think this was satire. Do you really think introducing rape imagery will help your cause?

It will help his cause if he is trying to convince the 'rapist' vote. Otherwise, he is doing a wonderful job of oversimplifying his argument and alienating his readers.

Leave the legs alone. We don't need that oil. A lot of people 'give a crap' about that land.

Have you ever been to the area in question? Hell, for that matter, have you ever been up to your ass in alligators in a mangrove swamp???

There are people who are "buying property" on the MOON. As the saying goes: "A fool and his money are soon partying."

As for the environmental argument: I refer you to Denis Leary's "No cure for cancer" performance. He said it far better than I can...

The 'W' and 'R' in ANWR stand for wildlife refuge. It's not just up there for shits and giggles, it has a reason. It's purpose is to allow species (many endangered by oil driling and development) to thrive and multiply. Much as it is our responsibility not to blow up the planet, it is our responsibility not to commit knowing murder of entire species. This helps to undo the damage we have inflicted. What pro-drillers want is to ruin this wildlife refuge in order tyo extract a fuel that poisons the air and environment. Thats two wrongs for those who are counting. What is the benifit for this wrong? A tiny little drop in a global bucket that will have basically no effect on our oil reserves.
This has nothing to do with that. When and if man starts to colonize the galaxy, I might be therte to sign up. As for the moon? I'd say we'd be better off starting at Mars. This is of course a different conversation.
He was being ironic. He's ironic a lot, actually. There is irony in the name of the performance even.

So, you're not so much opposed to drilling in ANWR, you're opposed to fossil fuel driven power, right? I suspect that if that "tiny drop in the global bucket" was the drop keeping your family from freezing to death in the winter, you MIGHT change your mind. You say it's our responsibility to not knowingly kill entire species. I'd disagree with you. There are some species that SHOULD be exterminated. Mosquitos and fleas come to mind, simply because they can and routinely do transmit disease.

I dunno...the part when he's talking about representing angry gun-toting meat-eating people seems pretty straight-forward to me...