http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/02/alaska.drilling.ap/index.html
Hey, it's only a few sea lions, whales and some fish, what is that compared to a couple of weeks worth of oil. I mean,come on, how do you expect George and Dick to make a living if they don't help out the poor and impoverished oil companies. You can read the rest of the article by clicking on the link.
| Quote: |
| WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush is deciding whether to lift a ban on oil and gas drilling in federal waters off Alaska's Bristol Bay, home to endangered whales and sea lions and the world's largest sockeye salmon run |
. Let's face facts: We need oil. I'm all for animal rights, but I am also for human rights. In my opinion, the less money we give to the terrorists in the middle east for their oil, the better.
There's a thing called compromise that could work well here. Drilling can be done with minimal effects on the environment.
| Soulfire wrote: |
Let's face facts: We need oil. I'm all for animal rights, but I am also for human rights. In my opinion, the less money we give to the terrorists in the middle east for their oil, the better.
There's a thing called compromise that could work well here. Drilling can be done with minimal effects on the environment. |
at this time
all the governments in middle east except iran and syria have very good relationship with usa.
i think this is the reason of terrorism.
you call them terrorist.
if they are terrorist why you have such a good relationship.Sorry if I agree, but reducing the USA's dependence on foreign oil should be a higher priority for the government than protecting a few critters in the unlikely event of an accident.
| Quote: |
all the governments in middle east except iran and syria have very good relationship with usa.
i think this is the reason of terrorism.
you call them terrorist.
if they are terrorist why you have such a good relationship. |
Good relationships? 
Hardly.
Tolerable is more like it, and that's BARELY tolerable.I come from a state that is attempting to both reduce its dependence on foreign oil, and refrain from hurting the environment as much as economically feasible. Unfortunately we can't agree on a solution, and will probably bicker about it for much longer than needed...
I must, however agree that reducing dependence on foreign oil is very important now. Especially considering strained relations with many Middle Eastern countries (who happen to need us to buy their oil so that they can retain power off of the oil profits) and our friendly neighbor to the South (Hugo and his buddies)...
| Montressor wrote: |
I come from a state that is attempting to both reduce its dependence on foreign oil, and refrain from hurting the environment as much as economically feasible. Unfortunately we can't agree on a solution, and will probably bicker about it for much longer than needed...
I must, however agree that reducing dependence on foreign oil is very important now. Especially considering strained relations with many Middle Eastern countries (who happen to need us to buy their oil so that they can retain power off of the oil profits) and our friendly neighbor to the South (Hugo and his buddies)... |
Word is there's more oil in North America than in all of the ME. 
yeah, and a lot of it is in the form of shale (in Canada), which is less economical to get at then liquid oil. There's also the possible oil deposits off of the coast of California, but who cares about that stuff...
| Montressor wrote: |
| yeah, and a lot of it is in the form of shale (in Canada), which is less economical to get at then liquid oil. There's also the possible oil deposits off of the coast of California, but who cares about that stuff... |
Well, when the US and China use up all the oil in the ME, EVERYONE will care.
And just because it's hard to get to now doesn't mean it will be when we need it. I'm guessing steady oil prices over 90.00 a barrel will prompt removal of the oil here in Colorado and in Canada.The USA's largest supplier of oil: Mexico, followed by Canada.
If I remember correctly, the statistic is that less than 10% of the USA's oil comes from the middle east.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
The USA's largest supplier of oil: Mexico, followed by Canada.
If I remember correctly, the statistic is that less than 10% of the USA's oil comes from the middle east. |
Yeah, but for the last 3 years we've been getting all Iraq's oil!
just kidding
| ocalhoun wrote: |
The USA's largest supplier of oil: Mexico, followed by Canada.
If I remember correctly, the statistic is that less than 10% of the USA's oil comes from the middle east. |
Less than 12% came from the Middle East when the 1973 oil crisis hit. Why then did oil prices soar? Because gasoline is a relatively inelastic product. A little reduction in supply results in a drastic increase in cost, because of the fact that you cannot easily stop buying oil. People must still run their cars to get to work, and the only reductions result in cutbacks (people riding mass transit or carpooling, or even taking fewer trips). It takes a very large increase in cost to force people to take these steps and make up for the reduced supply.Well isn't this a obvious one? if the US doesnt drill, then it has to import oil from an volatile region. So do the math and see!
| alkady wrote: |
| Well isn't this a obvious one? if the US doesnt drill, then it has to import oil from an volatile region. So do the math and see! |
Nice false choice. There's another one you left out. Reduce dependence on foreign oil by reducing dependence on all oil. By reducing consumption (by offering more incentives for mass transit and carpooling, developing more alternative energies etc) you reduce the amount of oil that has to be imported to cover our "deficit" spending of oil. | diverden wrote: |
| Bush: last chance to reward the oil companies. |
Why do y'all blame our President for everything? Surely he's not the only person pushing for this to happen...
