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: Steve Lokness who wrote (71795)	6/12/2008 10:54:29 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542139

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. And this is the important argument, imo. It's a distraction from the longterm goal by thinking ANWR "solves" anything. Studies indicate that the caribou weren't harmed in any way, and the number of people who ever actually see ANWR is very very small- it's not exactly the Grand Canyon, which I think McCain drew some comparison to recently. Because I readily admit to knowing little about this stuff- maybe you can tell me- why are the Chinese allowed to drill 50 miles off our coasts, and yet Congress wouldn't allow us to drill 50-200 miles? I really don't understand any of that.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (71795)	6/12/2008 10:55:10 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542139

My real argument against ANWR is not the animal protection thing though, it is the nonsense that this will help. My fundamental question is how much money could the US government extract out of the oil industry for the rights to drill in ANWR. We are talking about over a trillion dollars worth of oil lying in the ground and there is a certaint point where the economics just swamp the environmental concerns. The cash provided by the sale of those rights could be put to any number of uses that would mean drilling would be a net positive for the overall environment of the planet. Slacker

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (71795)	6/12/2008 11:06:45 AM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542139

Your argument makes no sense, as you put it, because: 1) I did not say: lets go in there and start drilling. You said that. My previous post merely put the consequences of doing so in perspective. I don't have any oil boys, and I do not own any oil stocks. 2) once you open it up there will be no stopping where they drill. Congressional authorization is required, so this statement is 'silly,' as you put it. 3) The portion of ANWR where oil was found is NOT wilderness, and is set up for study of natural resources. The 1980 expansion of the refuge designated 1.5 million acres (6,070 km²) of the coastal plain as the 1002 area and mandated studies of the natural resources of this area, especially petroleum. en.wikipedia.org; 4) You accused me of having no understanding of wild areas. I'll put my experience on the ground in them and with management of them up against yours any day. As I understand it, the protocol for this thread specifies that issues are up for debate but personal attacks are not. You threw down the gauntlet on that, and I'm calling you on it. It would be nice if you got your facts straight, as that has been required of me. I guess you think you're doing your part by not owning an SUV. Congratulations on that. I don't either. Frankly nothing will be done about the conservation of oil until the price gets to where it hurts.