by Plantagenet » Sat 15 Jan 2011, 14:15:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hawkcreek', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', ' ')Its too bad the democrats won't let Alaska develop ANWR.....

... the oil companies on the slope ... don't believe that any big new fields will be economical to develop in the future -
Yes.
Thats because the democrats won't let Alaska develop ANWR.
by bratticus » Sat 15 Jan 2011, 16:59:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bratticus', '9')% or 15% ?
WSJ: 9%
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]
Alaska Pipeline Closes Drop in Production by BP, Others Threatens to Push Oil Toward $100 a Barrel ... Total production on the North Slope is around 630,000 barrels a day—about 9% of total domestic U.S. output.
Marketwatch: 15%
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]
BP shares fall on Alaska pipeline shutdown North Shore producers forced to suspend 95% of production ... The shut pipeline carries around 15% of U.S. domestic oil production. Crude-oil futures moved higher.
Crude futures recover, move back toward $89 mark. I think I figured this out. It's 15% of output but 9% of consumption.
by Hawkcreek » Sun 16 Jan 2011, 15:09:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hawkcreek', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', ' ')Its too bad the democrats won't let Alaska develop ANWR.....

... the oil companies on the slope ... don't believe that any big new fields will be economical to develop in the future -
Yes.
Thats because the democrats won't let Alaska develop ANWR.
And W wouldn't let them develop it either during his 6 years of total control of all branches of the government??
Sure --
by Plantagenet » Sun 16 Jan 2011, 17:45:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hawkcreek', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 't')he democrats won't let Alaska develop ANWR
And W wouldn't let them develop it either...Sure --
You don't understand how the government works.
W supported opening ANWR but the democrats filibustered to death every attempt to get a law through Congress to open it during his administration, just as they've blocked, filibustered, and vetoed every effort to open ANWR though the last 30+ years..
Why deny the truth? The democrats won't let Alaska develop ANWR.

by Hawkcreek » Sun 16 Jan 2011, 18:50:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hawkcreek', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 't')he democrats won't let Alaska develop ANWR
And W wouldn't let them develop it either...Sure --
You don't understand how the government works.
W supported opening ANWR but the democrats filibustered to death every attempt to get a law through Congress to open it during his administration, just as they've blocked, filibustered, and vetoed every effort to open ANWR though the last 30+ years..
Why deny the truth? The democrats won't let Alaska develop ANWR.
I do understand how the government works. The only noteworthy filibuster took place when a senator tried to reopen the drilling for ANWR by hooking that into a defense appropriations bill. That was filibustered, and rightly so. The typical methods of discussion and approval of a motion should be used, not trying to sneak it in via another spending bill.
Yes, opening ANWR couldn't be done using the normal tactics, which if you believe in the Democratic process, should be ok, even with hardcore conservatives.
Of course, those who refuse to admit that our country is owned by our corporate masters, or that both the Democrats and Republicians leaders are worthless crap, will not agree with me, because I do believe that both sides are worthless crap-bags (except maybe for Ron Paul).
by Plantagenet » Sun 16 Jan 2011, 19:30:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hawkcreek', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 't')he democrats won't let Alaska develop ANWR
I do believe that both sides are worthless crap-bags (except maybe for Ron Paul).
That doesn't change the fact that it is the democrats who, for 30+ years, have blocked every legislative attempt to open ANWR.

by Hawkcreek » Sun 16 Jan 2011, 19:58:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hawkcreek', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 't')he democrats won't let Alaska develop ANWR
I do believe that both sides are worthless crap-bags (except maybe for Ron Paul).
That doesn't change the fact that it is the democrats who, for 30+ years, have blocked every effort to open ANWR.

That doesn't change the TRUTH that it is the democratic process that has blocked efforts to open ANWR.
Republicians like it when things go their way, and bitch about it when democracy goes against their wishes.
And they are still blind to the real reasons for things being so screwed up. Playing a continual chorus of "Hooray for our side" , and not realizing that you are just playing into the hands of the ones who would rather have you pissed at the democrats rather than the real dirtbags in control.
How's that been working out for you?
by Plantagenet » Sun 16 Jan 2011, 20:24:20
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hawkcreek', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', ' ')the democrats, for 30+ years, have blocked every effort to open ANWR.

it is the democratic process that has blocked efforts to open ANWR.
The historical record is clear. The democrats oppose opening ANWR and they've successfully blocked it for 30 years.
by TheDude » Mon 17 Jan 2011, 09:34:56
Your local Fish and Wildlife begs to differ:
Arctic Refuge: Oil and Gas Issues$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lthough technological advances in oil and gas exploration and development have reduced some of the harmful environmental effects associated with those activities, oil and gas development remains an intrusive industrial process.
For the record, I do agree that some exploration of ANWR would be worthwhile. Dunno about building artificial islands but it seems like some onshore extended wells couldn't do any harm, seeing's how they're drilling the crap out of the North Slope anyway. If you look at a map wells going 8 miles in could cover a fair amount of the edges. But the fact no one's moving on this idea suggests to me that it either isn't economical from the companies' perspective, or is verboten under the guidelines of the Refuge in the first place. Or maybe the lack of modern seismic scares them off. Or they think that, even if they could justify some exploratory wells, they know they'd never be able to lay pipe to extract the oil in the first place, so fuggget about it, as they say on the Sopranos.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
-

TheDude
- Expert

-
- Posts: 4896
- Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
-
by bratticus » Mon 17 Jan 2011, 13:37:31
Obviously all the decent reporters are off today leaving only ones that write like this:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]
Alyeska Completes Repair of Trans Alaska Oil PipelineJanuary 17, 2011, 10:56 AM EST
By Rachel Graham and Yee Kai Pin
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. said it has completed repairs on its Trans Alaska Pipeline, which carries 11 percent of U.S. crude production.
So not 9% or 15% this time but 11%.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')epairs were completed at 3:40 a.m. local time, Michael Levshakoff, a spokesman for Alyeska said by phone from Anchorage, declining to say when the link would resume flows.
Who's local time? If you meant AKST would it have been hard to print that?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he leak probably occurred at Pump Station 1, according to Alyeska.
ORLY?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he operator intends to resume flows through the line “early” today local time, according to a situation report issued by the Unified Command in Fairbanks, Alaska, which was formed in response to the leak and includes Alyeska, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.