Saturday, May 17, 2008

Bush: Saudi Oil Boost Does Nothing

Really? How hypocritical... the 300,000 a day from the Saudis does nothing to help, yet that potential 1 million a day from ANWAR is worth ruining one of our last natural habitats?

What a silly man... what a silly argument.

Looking forward to January...


Denarii said...

I am very sick of the left/libs lieing. I hope I get these facts all correct but a study was done. With current tech of today, the Oil companies would and hve been doing last damage to Alaska and the East Coast and the West coast then the Tourist do.

To save animal habitats - you lefties should be stopping tourist and bringing the oil companies in.

I heard this arguement given to someone and thye said that Alaska could not afford to stop tourists but from my understanding Alaska gets far more in tax reveune from Oil that Tourist.

Also the habitats that was so called destoried before from Alaska drilling have been back to be much better.

Dino - please do me a favor - stop reprinting the left's lies.

I am sick of this country was most of the reps/dems are rich and make policys that screw the middle class and the poor and pat themselves on the back for doing a good job.

Dinosaur Trader said...


The environment isn't a "left/right" issue.

Fox won't tell you that though.

I'm not publishing some political views on the environment. I'm publishing MY views on the environment.

Don't expect it to stop.

However, I agree that both the Dems and the Republicans suck and that the people get caught in the crossfire all the time.


Anonymous said...

Here are some fun facts to offset DT's emotional rants.

Top ten reasons to support ANWR development

1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration
Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That's less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury
Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are $4.2 billion. Royalty and tax estimates for the life of the 10-02 fields were estimated by the Office of Management and Budget from $152-237 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created
Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact
Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery
The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline
The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 731,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly
In 2007, the US imported an average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total would be nearly a trillion dollars.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals
Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

9. Arctic Technology
Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support
More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

Anonymous said...

Stick to your guns dt, I am glad you are a concerned citizen of the earth.

Signed, Okie repug

Anonymous said...

Ya know boys, it doesn't have to be one or the other, it is possible to protect the environment while also extracting and using natural resources to benefit our country.

This zero sum thinking is one of the reasons our country doesn't have, and will never have, a reasonable and effective energy policy.

Broker A said...

Fuck Earth.

Denarii said...

DT - screw the left and screw the right - ok.

So people who will not understand what the true is make the claim that the previous drilling destoried the habitat there. Studies have proven that to be false.

The claim you are making is if we drill up there again - we will ruin the habitat. If we did not ruin the habitat before why would big oil ruin this time. So I believe this is a lie or will be proven to be a lie if it big oil is ever drills there.

Then if you are so concerned about the habitats in Alaska - stop the tourists.

So DT please just speak your true position - you are against more drilling in USA period. And that you want gas prices to go up as fast a possible so that we get off of Crude Oil as a means of energy - instead of this Habitat BS.

Dinosaur Trader said...


Yes, both. However, I strongly dispute the whole idea that the oil drilling has no effect on the environment. It's simply not BS.

Which propaganda do you want to believe? The propaganda put out by the industry that makes BILLIONS every year and has a vested economic interest in the project or the propaganda put out by people who are simply arguing for the protection of wildlife and a cleaner future?

My point is that oil is old. The right wingers like to complain about our "dependence" on oil and our relations with the middle east, yet their policies only make that dependence more necessary.

Anyone driving an SUV just continues to boost the demand for oil. Truth.

Meanwhile, in another decade, we'll be dependent on buying our solar panels and the like from other countries, since we're not taking the lead in developing the new technologies that are the future.

Will any of you argue that OIL is the FUTURE?

Seriously, it's not 1987 anymore. Let's get back to doing what we do best, LEAD.

Okay, on to communion #2... gotta love May...


Anonymous said...

Will any of you argue that OIL is the FUTURE?

We'll be burning oil in large quantities for at least another 100 years, possibly longer.

Is oil the future? No one knows what the future holds DT, but there are abundant oil supplies in the ground just waiting to be tapped.

We need oil, we have it, and the North Slope oil fields have proven that oil can be extracted without destroying the wildlife. So, we might as well take it while alternatives are being developed.

No harm, no foul.

If you are going to oppose ANWR drilling because of your perceived threat to the environment, then prove that the North Slope development has destroyed the environment. You can't because wildlife populations have grown significantly since the oil fields have been developed.

Finally, to claim that oil drilling on 2,000 of ANWR's 19.6 million acres will "ruin it" is simply a ludicrous statement. The Earth, and the wildlife that inhabit it, are not as fragile as you seem to believe.

There is nothing wrong with stating we need to invest in developing viable alternatives DT, in fact I agree we need to push ahead in that area, but using emotion-laden arguments devoid of facts while trotting out the leftwing's big oil boogeyman is nothing more than unconvincing agitprop.

Dinosaur Trader said...

We need oil, we have it, and the North Slope oil fields have proven that oil can be extracted without destroying the wildlife.

Really? Who proved that? Big Oil? Good source. Again, don't they have everything to gain by "proving that?" Read this...

But let's get back to the point of this post... if 300,000 won't help us much, why would a potential million help?

Finally, if I was being emotional, I would have already de-blogrolled you and Denarii, for ganging up on my ass on a weekend when I haven't been around to defend myself. :)


Anonymous said...

Finally, if I was being emotional, I would have already de-blogrolled you and Denarii, for ganging up on my ass on a weekend when I haven't been around to defend myself. :)

Not our fault you chose this weekend to get all holy roller on us! We just take the opportunities as they arise.

Maybe you need an iPhone to keep up? I hear they are coming out with a new 3G model soon. :)

Denarii said...

A bigger longer Caribou than the one that was in the article you found -

Denarii said...

I know this one was done by the oil companies but I love the picture anyway -

Broker A said...

Humans are retards.

JakeGint said...

What a complete hypocrite. He gets on people for driving SUV's but he thinks we should continue to import from the Middle East over using our own plentiful supplies. Our stuff is light sweet crude (the good stuff) too, so less of it makes more gas.

You must really support the troops, Dino. Oh, that's right I forgot... my bad.

Dinosaur Trader said...


You're blind.