« [Other candidate's name here] Stole The Election Open Thread | Main | Alberto Gonzales: "Strong, Principled Leadership." »

November 10, 2004


In my mind, I've already privatized the refuge. And I've distributed the land to the taxpayers. My little bit is right in the middle of the drilling area.

I haven't given permission for the drilling. And neither have some of the contiguous property owners, though I realize others have.

So, no, they can't have it. And they can't have right-away.

But it will be stolen.

But a question, nor for you Edward, but projected into the slightly hooter (I mean "hotter", but the inadvertent misspelling is funnier) ether:

If the Arctic ice shelf melts as seems to be happening, and if (I use this word only to be open-minded in the face of scientific consensus) fossil fuels have contributed to this phenomenen, are we dealing with tragedy or comedy if we drill for those now accessible additional deposits and use them and spill more stuff into the atmosphere, which will cause more melting, etc?

Because if the results of this are not tragedy, then they must be some sort of broad comedy. So, will it be O.K. if a cackle and guffaw when stuff happens?

Or will that be politically incorrect?

There is never just one question.

That's a good question John, but it requires a separate context to do it justice.

The argument for drilling in ANWR is that we are NOT going to conserve or cut back our consumption, and that any efforts to curb the effects of consuming that oil on global warming will need to come from new technology or other as yet unavailable sources.

The argument for dilling in ANWR is that the 19% chance of extracting enough to provide 4% of our nations needs is a risk worth chucking the concept of a Wildlife Refuge out the window.

Did you know, however, that only after oil is above $25 / barrel, is drilling in ANWR profitable...that efforts to lower the price of oil below that actually work against the viability of drilling there? That only by keeping the price at $25 / barrel or higher does it make any sense at all?

Of course the price is nearly twice that now, so it's a mute question, but it wasn't when Bush first suggested it. Back then, he either was counting on the price staying above that mark, or he expected some as yet unavailable technology for extracting it more cheaply to emerge.

mute = moot (I'll never get that one)

At last, I will sail the Northwest Passage.

That's O.K.

Sometimes my questions should be muted, especially the ones that have been mooted.

Sounds like a mooty blues revival in here.

By the way, Edward, I will permit "dilling" on my ANWAR tract, but no drilling.


That's code for I spilled grape juice on my keyboard and wiped it up with my sleeve.

Now, look, could you people pipe down so I can get some work done.

Back to thread.

At last, I will sail the Northwest Passage.

Yeah, but your reward for having waited will be a Starbuck's and a Super K-Mart waiting to fulfill your needs at the Caribou Head Mall. And don't forget to save some extra Spanish gold to spend at the ANWR Northcoast Casino and Resorts. I hear their Legends of the Ice Roads spectcular is a must-see.

I wonder what the temperature in Crawford, Texas will be when there are beach front resorts on the Arctic. Oh well, at least we really don't have to worry much about the effect on the wildlife up there, because they are all short timers now. Too bad caribou can't vote.

Sounds like a mooty blues revival in here.

Ugh, now my moot ring is turning black...

Perhaps we should save it until we really need it.

When Americans haven't hardly begun trying to economize, it's nowhere near time to drill in ANWR. When Hummers and escalades are still selling, it's not time to drill in ANWR.

(Note: never mind any moral condemnation of Hummers and Escalade drivers. The point is that the market viability of such vehicles is a strong signal that oil is still cheap. If oil is cheap, it's not time to drill in ANWR. If the day comes when those vehicles are being sent, unsold, from the sales lot to the scrap heap, because gas is too expensive - that's when it's time to drill in ANWR.)

The time to develop it will be when China starts eying ANWR for a hostile takeover.

Call it the Really, Really, Really Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

you're my kind of conservationist, Jon H.

America ...integrity....funny stuff these days.

Colorado just established a record in drilling this year. No doubt the same is true for the rest of the Rocky Mountain West. So don't these fuckers have enough for now?

I have never understood the drill America first gang. Why not drain Saudi Arabia first, not to mention Iraq.

Much of Wyoming is being destroyed by methane gas drilling. It would seem that we've focused so much on ANWR that we have sacrificed much of the West. Kerry even indicated that drilling would be unrestrained in his campaign, the only exception being ANWR.

In short, ANWR has diverted us from the fact that the West has become a national sacrifice area.

Yes, we should not drill in ANWR. But it does not appear that the Democrats, much less the Republicans or Bush care about the rest of the country or planet for that matter.

We will not sacrifice one job to combat global warming. But we will sacrifice a whole region for a few more years of that poison that is destroying the planet.

We are indeed an evil race and will be destroyed in time.

I say let 'em drill in AK.

They're a red state; let 'em wallow in the mess they'll create. It's apparent they've forgotten the lessons of the Exxon Valdez. Let 'em self-inflict another eco-tragedy.

tom: posting rules prohibit profanity. This isn't just because we're squeamish, or even because we don't like what not having this rule might mean in heated political discussions, but because some of us read this at work, behind content filters.

Reference 'Green Facade': There are Power plants operating today, which were supposed to be phased out in 1990. Bush gave them a new lease on life during the California energy shortage. They are still running, and neither Republican or Democrat says a word. Drilling in Alaska will be the cheapest possible to get the Oil, you can trust George W. for this fact even if the habitat is as full of life as a nuclear waste facility. lgl

Ugh, now my moot ring is turning black

cause here you come on your broom
my moot ring's turning brown
you will begin to feel it soon
you're tossing your seeds around

We will not sacrifice one job to combat global warming. But we will sacrifice a whole region for a few more years of that poison that is destroying the planet.

That "poison" puts food on your table and a roof over your head. Are you volunteering to give up your job?

Drilling in ANWR seems pointless and destructive to me, but give me a break.

We are indeed an evil race and will be destroyed in time.

Then who cares?

Well, Arafat actually has died. You don't hve to update the other thread's title anymore.

An interesting, but telling anecdote about drilling in ANWR, from the NY Times a couple of years ago.

It was possible to explore for oil in ANWR without doing extensive permanent damage to the permafrost. The companies doing the exploring built ice roads over the ground as soon as it got cold enough. These roads were several feet thick, and protected the ground from the trucks, cranes, and other drilling equipment. Once summer came, you couldn't tell that anybody had been there.

Note, though, that telling word "was" at the beginning of the previous paragraph. Just 15 years ago, when this exploration started, they could start building the ice roads in November. At that date, it was consistently cold enough to build the ice roads. After a few years, though, the companies noticed that they really had to wait until December. Then January, then February. Finally, now, it *never* gets cold enough, long enough, to build the ice roads.

Thad Beier

Given how marginally economical the drilling would be, I've long been skeptical that proponents are taking that position because of pragmatic or economic reasons. I think for many, compromising the integrity of the Wildlife Refuge idea is exactly the point. It's a symbolic triumph over the idea of public land and valuing the environment.

I think for many, compromising the integrity of the Wildlife Refuge idea is exactly the point. It's a symbolic triumph over the idea of public land and valuing the environment.

That had never occurred to me.

It makes sense, given how some conservatives view "property rights" (especially when they're in a position to acquire more property).

What a pathetic commentary on our national character.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad