Defending the Truth

I would like to hear opinions on the decision of this country's unfortunate leader, George W. Bush, to tap into our oil reserves in Alaska.

Why don't you explain the problems with drilling in Alaska rather than saying our unfortunate leader wants to tap in our oil reserves...

I havn't done any research yet, but I would say it's a step for progress because we don't have to depend too much on foreign oil.

Opinion Tuesday, April 12, 2005


U.S. can try to tap local oil reserves

2005-04-10 / Knight Ridder / By Lisa Murkowski

If someone told you that America could stop paying US$53 million a day for oil, start sending an average of nearly US$2 billion a year to the U.S. treasury and produce up to 1 million good-paying jobs without harming our environment, most Americans would say what are we waiting for?

Those are just some of the potential benefits from opening a tiny part of the Arctic coastal plain in Alaska to energy exploration. Besides the money and jobs, allowing oil exploration touching just 2,000 acres of the 19.6-million-acre refuge would help us find a secure supply of oil that will help reduce our dependence on OPEC, protect national security and promote energy independence....

But if Arctic oil development was going to harm the environment or wildlife, then I would agree opening it would not be worth the cost. But the vast majority of Alaskans, including Alaska's Eskimos who know it best, support ANWR's development because we know 21st-century technology guarantees the land's protection....

Environmentalists truly should welcome more domestic oil production, since America has the most stringent environmental laws. We risk the global environment when we press nations with lax regulations to provide us oil; and threaten our shorelines when we increasingly import crude oil on foreign-flagged tankers.

Clearly allowing more oil exploration in Alaska won't solve all our energy needs. We must promote alternative energy, greater fuel and power efficiency, and development of new technologies. But America also needs more American oil as part of any balanced solution.

you can read the rest here


http://www.etaiwannews.com/Opinion/2...1113101510.htm

After reading that article, makes all the sense you need.

Their are truly many benefits with some risks to drilling oil in Alaska, but I say go for it. I hope our fortunate leader George W. Bush will get the pass to drill in Alaska.

Maybe i'll take a risk and invest some money in mutual funds that deal with oil companies.

Of course in that article they barely talk about the risks.

What are you talking about. The risks are clearly listed in that article?! If you want to get further into a graphic view, Google "oil disaster" or something.

Do you understand how much we could benefit if we did not have to depend on foreign oil? Common sense.

Well...as it happens we will still be dependant on foreign oil, and when our alaskan reserve gets used up, we will be even more dependant on foreign oil, with no reserve....doesn't look like a very good picture down the road to me.

It looks like bush is going straight to the contingency plan when it comes to our energy crisis and not even looking for a possible answer that would mean the reduction of energy used by the United States.

The only way we can be "less dependant on foreign oil" is by using less oil.

Why was your first post as a reply attacking the way i posted?

Are we not allowed to simply ask for input without saying our position on the topic right away?

Yes you are right...doesn't look good if we use up all the oil in Alaska. But, how do you know how much oil is Alaska?

You are assuming that they will use up all the oil in Alaska and we will be dependent on foreign oil. This is a risk, not a fact.

Well. we will have to deal with the problem eventually, with that you must agree...also, Why doesn't Mr. Bush adress the real problem?

(the real problem is considered by me to be that our country is using up way too much oil)