McCain: Obama wrong on Iraq, Afghanistan

[Byrdie714]

How is drilling for oil in a small part of the area going to destroy the last beautiful Alaskan wildlife?

Small part? It's not a small part of Alaska. The area in size is equilavent of North Carolina to Florida.

Besides we should utilize the wells that we have already placed in the Dakotas, Texas, E. Montana before exploring different areas. Secondly if we do drill for oil in ANWR and there is a disaster--it would affect more than one ecosystem (tundra, mountain, water ecosystems) whereas if we drill from North Dakota, only one ecosystem (land) is affected.

 

[Jiro]

How is drilling for oil in a small part of the area going to destroy the last beautiful Alaskan wildlife?

Well - we know there is bound to be some disaster - a rupture in an incredibly long pipeline or oil factory explosion or etc. Once the accident happens - it's too late to save the last pristine wildlife. It is unrepairable and gone forever because it is incredibly sensitive to any damage and outside factors.

 

[Jiro]

See? You really don't care about environment and wildlife animals so much, not gonna discuss with you more.

Not worth to drilling in AK, it wastes of our money and I hope that senators wouldn't pass to lift it.

Check my pst in other thread for more info.
http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/53760-pandering-big-oil.html#post1011296

no no don't diss Reba. She is objective and practical like me. In my previous post - I stated that I'd support ANWR drilling if it would make our gas price drops by even $1.00... or even $2.00 (which is quite significant) and produce at least 1/4th of Middle Eastern oil.

Funny thing is.... we all cry about these beautiful nature in Alaska because it's so beautiful in pictures and tv but the irony is..... i bet you 99.999% of us have never seen it with our own eyes in our lifetime so why do we care about it if we're never gonna see it in person? funny, huh?

 

[Jiro]

I do understand how do you feeling. Are you panic about Earth will screw up? Do you have any hope for earth to keep alive as longer? Did you know Earth is very very eldest about a million years old? I heard on news about baby polar bears got burn in their paws by wildfire in California's zoo. Did you hear it? That's poor of baby! I am trying to find a news at online but can't find it.

The middle of Antarctica's South Pole have Votsk of Russia. I am trying to find a weather for currently. It's not available now. Are you worrying about Earth will be end? I found it in the USA is number ONE of Greenhouse Gas Risk! You sent me a link of Wikipedia.

Earth is not wither away because of our damaging activity. It's the survival of humanity at stake. It's just that I don't want to see our remnants of civilization to be destroyed by our foolish mistakes. For example - maybe 100+ years later... NYC will be gone because of rising sea level. So we better do our best to make our civilization last for a long long time!

 

[Jiro]

Do you drive to work everyday? A lot of us can not afford high gas prices, soon enough it could reach up to 10 dollars a gallon, something oughta be done about it...

I think this is good that gas price is up. This means we need to change our lazy wasteful way of life. This means urban planning will revolve around "green-friendly" lifestyle. More/better/efficient/faster mass transit, less traffic jam, more people will occupy empty lands (mid-west, in-land states, etc.) which will reduce the overcrowding issue on coastal zones, so on....

This is for good - a positive change in our life!

 

[Reba]

I do not see anything in links that Obama and his supporters criticizing McCain for being old?

For starters, in your link:

"When Mr. Obama, 46, earlier this month said Mr. McCain was 'losing his bearings' for suggesting the terrorist group, Hamas, favored Mr. Obama, the McCain campaign issued an angry statement.

“'He used the words ‘losing his bearings’ intentionally, a not-particularly-clever way of raising John McCain’s age as an issue,'” said Mark Salter, a senior McCain aide."

I only want to say that there're good links, you provided because Obama criticizing positive for his people and country but I do not see anything that Obama belittle and negative McCain's name... but just like against with agree/disagree.

How is Obama "positive" when those links showed that he "criticized" and "slammed" McCain?

OIC--if Obama criticizes McCain, that's positive; if McCain criticizes Obama, that's negative.

Be careful dear--your bias is showing.

I didn't know that you have the problem with my misspelling...

It's disrespectful to misspell people's names, especially three times in a row.

 

[Reba]

I still do not see that Obama personally made negative toward McCain...

Maybe this will help you understand:

We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.

It is important to focus on what Senator Obama is attempting to do here: He is trying desperately to delegitimize the discussion of issues that raise legitimate questions about his judgment and preparedness to be President of the United States.

Through their actions and words, Senator Obama and his supporters have made clear that ANY criticism on ANY issue -- from his desire to raise taxes on millions of small investors to his radical plans to sit down face-to-face with Iranian President Ahmadinejad – constitute negative, personal attacks.

Power Line: Help me, Senator Obama, I've fallen and I can't get up

 

[Reba]

See? You really don't care about environment and wildlife animals so much, not gonna discuss with you more.

Not worth to drilling in AK, it wastes of our money and I hope that senators wouldn't pass to lift it.

Check my pst in other thread for more info.
http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/53760-pandering-big-oil.html#post1011296

I do care about the environment and wild animals but you haven't proven to me that drilling in the ANWR will destroy all that environment and animals.

 

[Reba]

It make no difference either he has an experience or not. Like what Pacman said... Terrorists could be SMART than him and also Experts as well.

:jaw:

 

[Reba]

What? You seems don't care about it and think about money is important.

I'm explaining about drilling in offshore or AK isn't answer, that what I got educated by my hearing friend that who studied in economic and some of environment, it will not make gas price goes down and keep google up whatever you want, it's your choice to believe or not.

It might not effect current prices right away but we have to look into the future and not be so short-sighted.

Do you want to wait to start new drilling and refining after the last drop of oil is gone? It's not just the cost of oil, it's the availability. Suppose foreign providers decide to quit sending oil to the USA? Where will we get our oil if the old wells dry up? We can't wait until the last minute to find new sources of oil. We need to be ready.

You have gotta deal with high gas price, I had gave an some suggest in several month ago (such as getting economy car like Civic) and it doesn't meet your exception, even I can't help but just better to focus on other energy source or alternative fuel would very helpful to cut the energy cost for transportation.

Of course we should all do everything that we can to conserve our resources. But driving a Civic is not a solution for the overall problem. Not everyone can drive a Civic. Manufacturing can't replace their petroleum products with Civics. Planes can't be replaced by Civics. Goods can't be delivered by 18-wheel Civics. We still need oil for many products and processes.

 

[Reba]

Small part? It's not a small part of Alaska. The area in size is equilavent of North Carolina to Florida.

Alaska has 365 million acres.
Alaska has 300 million acres that are public lands.
ANWR is 19 million acres.
The area proposed for oil exploration is 1.75 million acres (an area a little larger than Delaware).

Besides we should utilize the wells that we have already placed in the Dakotas, Texas, E. Montana before exploring different areas.

I have no problem with using all available wells.

Secondly if we do drill for oil in ANWR and there is a disaster--it would affect more than one ecosystem (tundra, mountain, water ecosystems) whereas if we drill from North Dakota, only one ecosystem (land) is affected.

There have been no "disasters" from current Alaskan or Canadian drilling.

The residents of North Dakota may take issue with you.


Another viewpoint:

Opening ANWR: Long Overdue
by Ben Lieberman
March 17, 2005
WebMemo #692

Good Energy Policy

The Prudhoe Bay experience also presents strong evidence that drilling can be done with only a modest impact on the environment. Decades of drilling on a scale much larger than that envisioned in ANWR have not harmed the porcupine caribou herds near Prudhoe Bay or caused any of the other environmental problems that were predicted. Thirty years makes a difference, too. Drilling in ANWR would be done with much better environmental safeguards than were available in the 1970s. And today’s technology is far more environmentally friendly than that available 30 years ago.

ANWR is the largest single untapped source of American oil. The US Geological Survey estimates that it contains 5.7 to16 billion barrels of recoverable crude oil. Assuming the middle of this range, ANWR could provide nearly a million barrels per day, every day it is in operation, for several decades. This drilling would occur on only 2,000 acres of ANWR’s 19 million acre expanse and only during the time of year when the ground is frozen.

If Prudhoe Bay is any guide, ANWR probably contains more oil than is currently estimated. Prudhoe Bay has provided several billion barrels above initial predictions and is still producing today, years longer than expected. As with ANWR, Prudhoe Bay had its opponents at the time it was commissioned, but without its oil, gas prices today would be even higher.

With oil currently at $55 per barrel—an inflation-adjusted level not seen since the early 1980s—public support for opening ANWR is also stronger than in the past. Supporters should remember, though, that ANWR drilling is a long-term project, not a short-term solution. It will take at least seven years of work before the first barrel becomes available, and so ANWR will not affect current oil and gasoline prices. On the other hand, had President Clinton not vetoed an ANWR proposal in 1995, we would have that oil today.

Conclusion

ANWR alone will not dramatically bring down the global price of oil, but it will help more than any other single measure within the federal government’s control. Perhaps more importantly, it would signal a real shift in Washington’s approach to energy. For the past decade or more, the federal government has been a hindrance rather than a help in expanding America’s domestic energy supply. Opening ANWR would be the federal government’s first major pro-energy measure in many years and would be a real sign that Washington is finally ready to start addressing the nation’s future energy needs.

Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Opening ANWR: Long Overdue

 

[Reba]

Well - we know there is bound to be some disaster - a rupture in an incredibly long pipeline or oil factory explosion or etc. Once the accident happens - it's too late to save the last pristine wildlife. It is unrepairable and gone forever because it is incredibly sensitive to any damage and outside factors.

Such a major accident hasn't yet happened at any Canadian or Alaskan drilling or pipeline sites.

Actually, the earth can repair itself. Look at the sites where there were large volcanic explosions or wildfires or major earthquakes or floods. Within a few years, vegetation and animals return.

I'm not saying that's an excuse for recklessness or greed. We should still be safety conscious and environmentally aware. But we don't need to let caution freeze us in our tracks.

 

[Byrdie714]

Then I suggest that they start drilling off the South Carolina coast.

Besides several endangered species reside at ANWR....

 

[Byrdie714]

Such a major accident hasn't yet happened at any Canadian or Alaskan drilling or pipeline sites.

Actually, the earth can repair itself. Look at the sites where there were large volcanic explosions or wildfires or major earthquakes or floods. Within a few years, vegetation and animals return.

I'm not saying that's an excuse for recklessness or greed. We should still be safety conscious and environmentally aware. But we don't need to let caution freeze us in our tracks.

Remember Exxon Valdez?

 

[Byrdie714]

Besides why is T Boone Pickens against oil drilling and himself is an oil big wig?

PickensPlan

 

[Reba]

Then I suggest that they start drilling off the South Carolina coast.

Besides several endangered species reside at ANWR....

If there's oil there, why not?

What proof do you have that exploring and drilling at ANWR would destroy endangered species?

 

[Tousi]

Remember Exxon Valdez?

That happened out at sea, not at inland drilling sites.

 

[Foxrac]

I do care about the environment and wild animals but you haven't proven to me that drilling in the ANWR will destroy all that environment and animals.

Like Byrdie said, remember about Exxon Valdez, if future oil is mega spill in ANWR then it would be VERY ruin for environment and more wildlife animals would be in threaten life, also CO2 would increase as affect ice and tundra, it would be VERY long and more expensive to clean up.

 

[Foxrac]

It might not effect current prices right away but we have to look into the future and not be so short-sighted.

Do you want to wait to start new drilling and refining after the last drop of oil is gone? It's not just the cost of oil, it's the availability. Suppose foreign providers decide to quit sending oil to the USA? Where will we get our oil if the old wells dry up? We can't wait until the last minute to find new sources of oil. We need to be ready.



Of course we should all do everything that we can to conserve our resources. But driving a Civic is not a solution for the overall problem. Not everyone can drive a Civic. Manufacturing can't replace their petroleum products with Civics. Planes can't be replaced by Civics. Goods can't be delivered by 18-wheel Civics. We still need oil for many products and processes.

Short answer is NO! Oil reserve in USA is very low when compare to Canada and Saudi Arabia, if we are completely or majority of replace the import oil then it would be lasts for less than 5 years then we would return to import oil again, however foreign countries, such as Canada is strong allies with USA then we get would increase of percent on import oil from Canada or some countries that's support USA if in case when some other countries like Saudi Arabia to stop import us but doubt it would be happen in anytime. You need check this link about reserved oil.
Oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You misread about my 2nd quote, I'm TALKING about YOU, not others, I just asked you a suggest like get Civic or any car that has best gas mileage, it's for YOU!!! I'm not talking about farmers, business or others, even look at Europe, that alot worse and you must be happy about not live in Europe or outside of USA with expensive gas price.

 

[Reba]

Remember Exxon Valdez?

That wasn't a pipeline "disaster."

I tried looking up Prince William Sound sites that could show how the "disaster" looks today; all I can find is glacier boat tours, wildlife tours, fishing trips, and other tourism related sites for the area. Apparently the animals, sea life, sparkling waters, ice, and tourists have recovered since Exxon Valdez.