Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Srexley who wrote (178182)	9/6/2001 1:01:35 PM
From: ThirdEye	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Srex: I know you didn't ask me, but....too bad. <gg> It's tough to boil that question down to a simple yes or no. But I'll give it a serious shot. I realize the ANWAR is a huge area and the proposed drilling area is quite small. I also accept that the oil companies do care about environmental impact up to a point, though they cannot be totally trusted. On the other hand, the contribution of this area to the overall domestic production is projected to be quite small. Nevertheless, reality forces us to accept that even incremental increases in domestic production delay somewhat the more difficult decisions about energy consumption that inevitably lie ahead. So I'm prepared to accept that ANWAR is going to get drilled. In a larger context, however, I do not trust the oil companies as far as I can throw them. I presume the ANWAR is just a small piece of a larger strategy to gain greater access to the north shore of Alaska and the Gulf Coast, perhaps even Northern California. It's offshore drilling that is a bigger issue environmentally anyway. In an even larger context, the Bush administration has already projected that domestic production is not going to keep up with demand, so either way you cut it we are going to be relying even more on foreign sources in the future. Whether ANWAR gets drilled or not is not really going to make much difference when it comes to exerting diplomatic or even military pressure abroad or looking the other way as the oil companies rape another third world nation for their oil while propping up corrupt politicians who kill their own people who get in the way(see west Africa). So ANWAR is but a small chip. So it falls. So what. But if the oil companies think it's a domino, they got another thing coming.

To: Srexley who wrote (178182)	9/6/2001 3:14:12 PM
From: Mr. Whist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I thought Third Eye's analysis of Anwar was well-reasoned and right on target. This fight appears to me to be as much symbolic as practical (at least for the Republicans). The ultimate energy answer for the U.S. must be conservation, wise use of resources and ensuring a steady supply of oil from the Middle East. Anwar, frankly,is not high on my list of priorities. I'm much more concerned about eroding workers' rights, the continuing, steady slide of the S&P 500 and lack of anything resembling an economic game plan from the Bush administration. I'm looking for economic direction from the Bush administration, not more nonsense of how the recent tax cut is going to pump new life into the economy.