Dubya says drill first, hunt what's left (again)

[BuzzH]

BHR,

Texas, middle east, your living room...all good places to have an oil rig...

Oh, and I always thought the reason for all that "diplomacy" Shrubs been spreading in Iraq, Iran, etc. would mean a continued flow of oil into the U.S.

Your attitude is typical of the brain washed right...who cares about conservation...mine the living crap out of everything. What an idiot. Have fun at FNAWS rubbing elbows with your oil baron buddies...you put sheep on the mountain for them, and they take them off...along with the habitat they need.

I'm beginning to think you and the cheese are twins...

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

Texas and Oklahoma are great places to drill and lay waste too. And most of those sandy countries in the Middle East. No sense in having all those soldiers in Iraq there for no purpose if we don't exploit the oilfields we conquered.

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

My question was for Oak. I notice you like to jump in and answer for him a lot. Let the Cub speak his own mind for once. Speaking of brainwashed, isn't it time to go watch your Michael Moore film fest for the 76th time? Then on to NPR followed by a night cap of a PBS wolf hugger show to finish out the evening. Too bad your man Bill Moyers retired. That must have crushed all 3 of his viewers.

 

[Oak]

What Kerry would have done or wouldn't have done doesn't matter. We elected Dubya, so he's the one to hold accountable. The information Dubya is using to form his opinions is the list of donors to his re-election campaign. How much oil do you think we could produce daily if we fully exploited our own resources? How long would it last? I'm sure it would be enough to get us by if everyone we import from stopped selling. If you think that's the reason for Dubya's push to put wells every 40 acres, you're not as smart as I thought (I guess you were right, Buzz).

It would be easier for me to list places I don't think we should be drilling: National parks, wildernesses, the Front in Montana, the Roan Plateau in CO, ANWR, critical big game winter range...to name a few. However, I don't think it should be done anywhere (except maybe Texas) the way Dubya's trying to do it. There's no reason to go like hell and tear the shit out of every last piece of winter range in the west. Slow down, use the best available technology, and listen to biologists as much as the economists.

Oak

 

[MattK]

Oak- bhr will have to disagree because you make too much sense.

 

[AKHighmark]

I'll ask this again....have any of you anti development dudes been tot hte North Slope oil fields. I never seem to get an answer. You sure seem dead set against ALL resource extraction. The oil companies are forced to use the most up to date, environmentally freindly processes. All we ever here from you is not in ALASKA. Take a trip to the field an see how much the Caribou herd has increased in size since production started in Prudhoe Bay. They sure seem to be dying off fast...

Why do you anti-everythings feel you can dictate how I support my family. This is just what you are trying to do with all your no development rhetoric.

 

[Oak]

Why do you anti-everythings feel you can dictate how I support my family.

I'm not "anti-everything", but I'll answer your question. Because it's my land you're doing it on.

Oak

 

[AKHighmark]

I'll ask again..........................................

Have you ever been to the North Slope Oil fields????????????????????/

 

[MattK]

AKHighmark- I am not here to dictate how you support your family. I don't know you or your family. You can support them anyway you wish. However, I do know what I want on my federal lands, owned by every citizen in the United States. I also know what these lands mean to me and my family. I shouldn't have to give up what these lands mean to me because you need to support your family. I believe there is a balance and if what you say is true and that pipeline only improves the environment, I'm glad. Skeptical, but glad. Some gas and oil exploration is fine, given the correct areas. The problem as I see it is they want it everywhere. Montana has seen the mining industry, the timber industry, trapping, and many other industries "rape and run". This state has been known for its colonial style economy. Get the natural resources cheap and sell it back at a high price and leave the mess for the state to clean up.

 

[AKHighmark]

Unlike what all the "sky is falling" people around here say, it is possible to develop oil and gas and still protect the environment.

 

[MattK]

Unlike what the extrative industries say, most could care less about the environment. It isn't done with the care that it should be on public lands.

 

[AKHighmark]

Have you seen any of the ALASKAN fields or is all your knowledge of the area from the Sierra club?

 

[Oak]

AKH, no I've never been to the oilfields in Alaska, and it doesn't really matter. Are there any places in the U.S. that you've never visited but believe should be protected? Why should I believe oil companies in AK are held to a higher standard than gas and oil companies in the lower 48? They're sure not required to use the best technology down here. How do you feel about the first article of this thread?

Oak

 

[BuzzH]

The funny thing about all this...you have BHR and Akhighmark, both screaming about all the anti-development people posting on these topics.

That isnt true, you need to READ whats being written.

Most people believe resources should be developed...just at a much slower rate and only if proper technology and biology are applied.

Also fair to note is that there is a big difference in how the development is done in AK and how its being done in WY, MT, UT, etc. The impacts are different as well.

Hey Akhighmark...when was the last time you saw a sage grouse, mule deer, pronghorn, mountain plover, elk, etc. etc. etc. hanging out in an oilfield on the slope? Do you need to build 3000 miles of roads for 9000 wells there? Is the transportation of noxious weeds a problem on the slope? How about pumping ground water laced with salts and amonia into streams? How are the water tables impacted by oil and gas development on the slope? Do the farmers/ranchers that live downstream of the oil fields on the slope watch their crops die from irrigating with high salinity water from wells? How are your aquatics effected from pumping well-water directly into a stream and killing everything for 5 miles downstream?

Using ONE species (caribou) as a catalyst to argue how wildlife is not impacted by oil and gas development is, to be blunt, pretty pathetic. Theres more and different considerations in the lower 48.

 

[guppie9]

I gotta back AKH on this one...if you are only getting your information from one source than you are not getting the whole story. The pictures you see of ANWR are not of the areas that they want to drill. I don't know how you fellas drill down south, but, in my opinion, the oil companies have been very responsible with the way they have drilled up here. And before anyone goes off about the Exxon Valdez spill, please keep in mind that was one drunk captain and that Exxon is paying for that mistake. (Something along the lines of $5 billion if I remember correctly)

Buzz-I am only speaking about Alaskan oil fields (as was AKH, I believe) I don't pretend to know the implications of drilling in the lower 48, but I do know how they do it up here, thus my objections over not allowing drilling in ANWR.

And no....I don't work for any oil companies.

 

[BuzzH]

guppie, I can agree with you on the alaskan oil fields. One of my best friends works on the slope and I've talked in length with him about how they do things there. Sounds more than just a bit different than how things are being done in WY, MT, etc.

The thing to keep in mind is the original article was focused on MT, CO, WY, etc.

Oil and gas development down here is ripping the shit out of critical wildlife habitat. Further, its being expedited by the GWB administration ever since, in a moment of brilliance, he signed the executive order on 18 May 2001. That order has taken things beyond responsible land/resource stewardship to a literal plundering of our resources, based not on science, but rather on politics and paying off oil and gas companies.

Wildlife will suffer from this poor policy.

 

[AKHighmark]

Buzz.....

Then get your legislature to regulate the oil companies the same way they do the Alaskan operations. If you agree that they do it the right way up here then why is it so bad to develop ANWR?

 

[BuzzH]

Akhighmark,

I'll tell you why I oppose it:

1. its in a national WILDLIFE refuge.
2. theres plenty of oil to be had abroad.
3. nothing is being done conservation wise to reduce oil demands.

Need some more? or is that enough?

Oh, and by the way, theres more to the issue than HOW its being done in the lower 48...see my post above guppie9's.

 

[AKHighmark]

Nope...don't need anymore of the same old story.

I read your post above guppies. Same as you have posted before.

The Refuge comment makes little sense since the wildlife populations have increased since start of oil production.

 

[ringer]

AKH-I have been to Alaska every year for the last 25 and it doesn't matter if it's Alaska or Arizona all these government welfare boys want is to tell you how to hunt, work and take a crap on THEIR land. I would love to see any of them walk into a bar in your state and start spouting their commie bile. I doubt if the boys just off the crab boats would be very gentle with them. They spend countless hours researching and posting the hugger articles and research on why you should do as they say and call you every name in the book when you call them out. Some of them even whine to their moderator mommies. Funny boys!