quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

One?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/20/politics/20DRIL.html

WASHINGTON, March 19 — The Senate narrowly voted against drilling for oil in the Alaskan wildlife refuge today, dealing a crippling blow to the central element of the Bush administration's energy plan.

The vote, 52 to 48, came after the hardest-fought lobbying campaign yet in the Congressional session, setting environmental groups, who said oil production would destroy an unspoiled wilderness, against Alaskan business interests, who said the oil was necessary for jobs and energy independence. Until the final moments, neither side was certain of victory, and the decision came down to two Republicans — Senators Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Gordon H. Smith of Oregon — whose opposition to drilling was not final until the floor vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/washington/26energy.html

By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
Published: May 26, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 25 — With gasoline prices around $3 a gallon as the Memorial Day weekend approaches, the House again voted Thursday to approve drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

It was at least the 12th time that the House had voted to allow energy exploration in a small piece of the preserve's 19 million acres along the northern coastal plain of Alaska. The final tally was 225 to 201, with 27 Democrats joining the majority and 30 Republicans voting against.

You claim republicans want more drilling, and yet in the last article they are voting against it.

Be honest, they want deep water drilling... and only that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

We aren't going to develop vast new sources in the U.S. just yet. Why would we? World oil is much cheaper.

When oil prices in time climb, then extracting all that oil from harder to reach and through more expensive processes will be economical. We'll also have a larger share of the world marker (unless other untapped sources are then tapped as well).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Nonsense. There are entire industries around them today.

Hell, my new home design doesn't need oil at all. In fact, it barely needs heat at all. A small windmill easily produces an electricity surplus. In an era of rapidly rising rates, what's not to like?

My entire yard is lit with solar lights that cost a couple dollars each.

The only holdback is an entrenched petrochemicals industry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I live near several commercial windmills, and know several people holding leases.

Each windmill costs half a million--and pays for itself every six months. So they're investing in more of them. Know why?

Home windmills aren't as common, but the dozen people I know who have them swear by them. These, I'll grant, are more of a long term investment. But as electricity rates climb...the time gets shorter.

Petrochemicals are invested in large commercial farms. Guess why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Your original point is indefensible as well, the mere act of drilling for oil does not "destroy the environment"

quote:


I think it was done to get some of the oil speculators out of the market - they are the ones who have been driving the price of oil up through the roof.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Your original point is indefensible as well, the mere act of drilling for oil does not "destroy the environment"

Another data point, near to you no less, against your claim.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14005251

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Are you arguing that the environment was "destroyed" there,  forever?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Your original point is indefensible as well, the mere act of drilling for oil does not "destroy the environment"

Another data point, near to you no less, against your claim.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14005251

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:


I think it was done to get some of the oil speculators out of the market - they are the ones who have been driving the price of oil up through the roof.

Right on the money. It was a well planned economic hit on the speculators.

Ray Learsy knows more about oil and it's pricing than anyone you'll find lurking on any board on the internet and he called a a success.

This corner pointed out time and again that the SPR was a powerful tool unused and abused by the administration. That a release from the SPR, no matter its dimension, would send the oil speculators to the hills. And so it came to pass. Today the administration announced the release of 30 million bbls of oil, less than two days of U.S. consumption and the price immediately collapsed by near $5 a barrel. With U.S. consumption running near 20 million bbls/day that's a reduction of $100,000,000/day going from the pockets of American consumers into the sticky hands of oil interests.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Are you arguing that the environment was "destroyed" there,  forever?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Your original point is indefensible as well, the mere act of drilling for oil does not "destroy the environment"

Another data point, near to you no less, against your claim.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14005251

It may return to some semblance of what it should be, in several thousand years maybe, or it may be that it will never return to the original state.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

It may return to some semblance of what it should be, in several thousand years maybe, or it may be that it will never return to the original state.