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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (71733)	6/12/2008 10:42:22 AM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542147

ManyMoose; For the record, I do not approve of trashing wild places, especially wilderness areas where value has been established in law This is exactly why ANWR was created - for the protection of wildlife for future Americans. Your argument makes no sense as on the one hand you say leave wildernesses alone that have been established in law, but then you say lets go in there and start drilling. If 2000 acres in ANWR has more value for oil so you can drive your SUV, Well I don't have an SUV and never have had one so you are not talking to me here. But I will grant you your 2000 acres as long as your oil boys put up a bond and also agree never to ask for any more land in the refuge. That of course is silly because once you open it up there will be no stopping where they drill. Besides, how you going to get that oil out of that remote corner using only 2,000 acres? .......My real argument against ANWR is not the animal protection thing though, it is the nonsense that this will help. It will help in a tiny way, but will at the same time hurt efforts to get our oil consumption down. We do have the ability, but we don't yet have the will. ANWR just gives people another false sense of security that there is plenty of oil. Oil comes down and they go out again and buy SUV's. steve