Monday July 7, 2008, 9:07 pm
I hope they don't do this and ruin the wildlife refuge.

Tuesday July 8, 2008, 3:21 am
No it wouldn't, but people who are desperate for relief will grab at any straw. If people would only stop and think for a minute, they would realize that no benefits from drilling would be available for at least a decade, and drilling will despoil one of the last great open spaces we have...and when that's gone, along with the animals and plants, we will never ever have it again. And if I am not mistaken, there's not THAT much oil up there anyway!

Tuesday July 8, 2008, 7:56 am
The oil companies have developed less tha 20% of the leases they ALREADY have purchased. They have over ONE MILLION acres of lands thay could develop right now. If it was turely a matter of drilling us out of this problem - there is ample oportunity whithout drilling ANWR. ANWR would save us about two cents a gallen TWENTY years from now - that savngs could be readibly acheiveable TODAY if the oil companies reduced their obsine profits!

Tuesday July 8, 2008, 8:27 am
Companies begin quest for oil, gas off Florida

PENSACOLA, Fla. - Oil companies once viewed drilling in the deep waters off Florida as cost prohibitive. Politicians feared even the slightest sign of support would be career suicide.

No more. Record crude oil prices are fueling support for oil and natural gas exploration off the nation's shores. In Florida, movement was under way even before President Bush called on Congress last month to lift a federal moratorium that's barred new offshore drilling since 1981.
The early activity here stems from a 2006 Congressional compromise that allows drilling on 8.3 million acres more than 125 miles off the Panhandle — an area that had been covered by the moratorium, which was enacted out of environmental concerns. In exchange, the state got a no-drilling buffer along the rest of its beaches

Florida may turn out to be a prelude for other coastal states. If oil or natural gas deposits are found in the newly opened region, experts say it could further the push to explore other once-protected areas everywhere. It also could be a rallying point for critics, who say the new exploration isn't a license to expand exploration.

With gas topping $4 a gallon, recent polls show Americans, Floridians included, more supportive of drilling in protected areas. Some politicians — including Gov. Charlie Crist — have switched sides.

"We think the public is way out ahead of the politicians on these issues. People are more open to (offshore drilling) now," said Tom Moskitis, spokesman for the American Gas Association, a trade group.

At the same time, oil companies, driven by the record energy price, are more willing to risk $100 million or more to begin exploring new regions. The Interior Department estimates there could be 18 billion barrels of oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas beneath the 574 million acres of federal coastal waters that are now off-limits.

On and off
Drilling activity off the Florida Panhandle has started and sputtered for decades. Some companies had leases to drill off the Panhandle before the 1981 moratorium. They were grandfathered in when the moratorium passed because they were already actively exploring in their lease areas. They continued their activity off and on into the early 1990s.

In March, four companies — Australia-based BHP Billiton Petroleum Deepwater Inc., Houston-based Anadarko E&P Co., Shell Offshore Inc. and Italian oil and natural gas company Eni SpA — purchased leases on 36 Gulf of Mexico tracts under the 2006 compromise.

Jeb Bachmann, an analyst with New Orleans energy consultant Howard Wiel, said the four understand the shifting political and financial realities.

"It gives you an indication that some of these companies believe there is some light at the end of the tunnel," Bachmann said. "There is higher pricing and a belief that higher prices are going to ultimately drive some changes."

Independence Hub
Anadarko bought seven of the recently opened tracts south of Pensacola because of their proximity to its Independence Hub, a major natural gas field off Alabama that supplies 1.5 to 2 percent of the natural gas consumed in the U.S. every day, said Stuart Strive, the company's vice president of exploration for the eastern Gulf. The newly leased tracts are between 50 and 75 miles east of the Independence Hub.

But finding and producing natural gas in the new site will be expensive. Three-dimensional mapping of the ocean floor, which must happen before any drilling, could take up to two years, Strive said. If a promising site is found, engineers must drill up to three miles below the ocean surface to extract the oil or natural
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25534266/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25534266/page/2/

CONTINUED: Political mind changing

So we as a country are ready fr drilling? maybe if you support MCcain/Bush

But as we all now we all have the right to not vote we all the right to votefor MCain/Bush We all have the right to vote for Goofy Why would we vote for someone who is aganist drilling? UMM Because that would be Obama and as we all know he is new he is different he is someone who will fight But that would mean actually starting to work together and start solve our issues and then what would you people do then? Maybe stand up and keep your mind out of the gutter How hard is that?

Some of are fighting someof us just want the front page of the news anf some of us just love to make trouble

So please while you pushing Obamain the gutter and kicking him don't expect me to belive you are concerned about the enver. or this country If Bush/Clinton are not in power then A person like Obama just stepaside let this country go to the gutter Obama is fighting for you so the next time you kick him just remember the oil companies/MCcain/Bush/Rove are gonna do what they want BUT that would give you people something to talk about grabage which you all seem to love

So Michael before you pat your back wake up

Tuesday July 8, 2008, 8:52 am
Oil production can be achieved without ruining our environment. We must produce more oil in the U.S. The reality is that nothing is ready to replace oil without bankrupting the world. We need to conserve, we need alternatives, but we also need oil.

Tuesday July 8, 2008, 11:11 am
Mamabear writes:

"So Michael before you pat your back wake up"

Mambear, I do not believe that oil is an answer for the future. I'm very sorry if this does not fit your views and I am sorry that you are still angry at me because I am no longer an Obama supporter. People do have a right to choose and If my choice doesn't agree with yours then you need to grow up and get over it. You and I both know that this is what your ribbing me is about, so let's just nip this off at the bud right now.

Now back to the issue of oil drilling

Oil drilling will not yield much oil, if any, and certainly not enough to get us out of this energy crisis. Oil is dirty and destroys the environment.

It is time to look for new energy solutions that don't pollute the earth and are sustainable and eco-friendly. There's hydrogen, solar, wind, etc.

Tuesday July 8, 2008, 11:16 am
The following comes from a site in opposition to arctic drilling and the environmental impacts it would have.

"Drilling opponents claim that drilling in the artic refuge will have harsh impacts on the plant populations. Plant life inside of ANWR is very fragile due to the harsh winters, lack of nutrients and short warm seasons. In drilling were to occur inside of the ANWR region, damage would be caused to these plants. This damage would come from drilling equipment, pipeline structures and oil spills that would be a part of the oil exploration and drilling process. Once plant life is damaged, it will take decades for it to recover (http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic/fastfacts.asp). Oil proponents claim that new technologies such as multi directional drilling will limit the footprint that drilling will have in the region. However, multi directional drilling will not sufficiently reduce the environmental footprint because of the way the oil reservoirs are located in the region. ANWR’s oil reservoirs are numerous and scattered. This means that there would have to be many drilling sites established in order to tap into the many different oil reservoirs (www.defenders.org)."

http://www.unc.edu/~money/geography/anwr2.html

Tuesday July 8, 2008, 12:03 pm
Michael you did not read anythinhg I said So please do not talk to me I will not comment on your news any more You have made front page good for you you can tell anything you want And I would not believe it Because if you cared about the emvor., drilling etc you would get a mind of your own and stop playing games Michael have a great day At least read my post before you past your judgement I am not upset at you because you are not a Obama supporter You have the right to not vote you have the right to vote for MCcain/Bush You have to vote for goofy Put you will not tellme you are concerned about this Country Emviro.and all the other issues that we as a Country are faced with So I am not mad at you please get over your self it has nothing to with you

Tuesday July 8, 2008, 12:24 pm
Mambear writes:


I wasn't talking to you you are the one that commented on my story saying:

"So Michael Before you pat yourself on the back wake up"

I didn't say a word to you before YOU commented today.

You have made comments to me that others have witnessed in your criticism of me not supporting Obama. You act like he is the only choice and no one else can have an opinion.

"you can tell anything you want And I would not believe it Because if you cared about the emvor., drilling etc you would get a mind of your own"

I do have a mind of my own and I do care about the environment. I do my part to preserve the environment on a daily basis. I am also involved in helping to educate others in my neighborhood about the importance of recycling and trash collection. I don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk. I'm also involved with other activists and environmental groups such as Environment Colorado.

"and stop playing games Michael"

So just how am I playing games? You really need to grow up. You aren't making sense.

"I am not upset at you because you are not a Obama supporter You have the right to not vote you have the right to vote for MCcain/Bush"

I never said I was voting for John McCain. I do not support him; where did you get that idea from? I said I didn't support Obama. I never said I supported McCain; please show me where and when I said this.

"So I am not mad at you please get over your self it has nothing to with you"

Even if you were mad at me I wouldn't care. You're the one who has a chip on their shoulder, not me. You will please get a life and get a grip?

Tuesday July 8, 2008, 1:44 pm
Michael and Mamabear, I don't get what you two are arguing about! Anyway I might not vote in November if Obama keeps flip-flopping--and yes he is flip=flopping contrary to what he says, but under no circumstance would I ever vote for the kissa** McCain. I hope these greedy bastards do not get the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they have wanted it for years. It is not the solution and neither is opening our coastlines to drilling. I think Bush and company have manipulated these prices on purpose in order to try to get the refuge and our coasts, they are very dirty and sneaky people. And good for you Michael for not supporting Obama, I heard where some in Congress who are African American who were for Hillary are getting grief from the Obama supporters. That is not right or fair. I first was for Edwards, then Clinton and then Obama. I have nothing against him but I do think he undercut Clinton by knowing that he could win against a white woman because of the fact that sexism is much stronger and more accepted than racism in our country. Oh well, the primaries are over but if Obama keeps going towards the right I dont know if I will vote, and I have always voted. The point is he was no different then Hillary and would have voted for the war if he was in the senate at the time. He is a politician just like she is. I hope they stop this latest grab by the oil hogs to trash our environment and trash the Artic like they have done every other natural place. We need energy independence now before China and other third world countries grow larger and their is no turning back. We need these ecosystems and wildlife healthy to support biodiversity and keep the environment sustainable and healthy. There is a point when people should realize we are all dependent on these natural systems for our health and wellbeing and continuation as a species.

Tuesday July 8, 2008, 2:32 pm
Back to the Arctic....I believe we could leave this pristine area alone and do fine. It may be, however, that drilling off of our East and West coasts might become necessary, and I would rather see that (even though there is a chance of spills, but hello, we on the Gulf have learned to live with it) than Arctic drilling. We will do what has to be done, but I hope we go for the least destructive first!!! Thanks, Michael.

Tuesday July 8, 2008, 3:19 pm
How much of the current OIL produced in ALASKA, reaches the lower 48??
it may be LESS THAN 20% to the U.S.
so drilling the artic wilderness maybe for CHINA.
Read that US exports of expensive biofuels increased to europe where there are higher profits.
Look behind the smokescreens people.

Tuesday July 8, 2008, 3:23 pm
Shawn olsen writes:

"And good for you Michael for not supporting Obama, I heard where some in Congress who are African American who were for Hillary are getting grief from the Obama supporters."

Thank you Shawn.

"Back to the Arctic....I believe we could leave this pristine area alone and do fine. It may be, however, that drilling off of our East and West coasts might become necessary, and I would rather see that (even though there is a chance of spills, but hello, we on the Gulf have learned to live with it) than Arctic drilling. We will do what has to be done, but I hope we go for the least destructive first!!! Thanks, Michael."

Thanks for posting Louise and I am sorry that you, and Shawn had to witness this minor "disturbance".

My opinion is the there shouldn't be any drilling anywhere, personally. It's past the time to start looking for other alternative sources of energy. It can be done and it can work but It's going to take sacrifices from everyone to make it work. Oil is dirty, pollutes the environment and is not renewable. We need to look past the pump and into the future.

Wednesday July 9, 2008, 6:24 am
How much oil could the US save if they did something on fuel efficiency. Europe has a far better fuel efficiency. Europe also has much higher fuel prices then the US.
Jobs closer to home, smaller car, fuel efficient housing, etc... It's sad that the price mechanism works better then the rational mind, or the good morals.

Wednesday July 9, 2008, 12:25 pm
Dick Cheney and George Bush are trying to secure just a little bit more money for their friends and family before they are booted from office. They have enough as it is but it's a game to them - their legacy. What's good for the country has never entered into any of their decisions. They are self serving minions of the oil company. This is a farce based on a manipulation, based on greed and corruption.

Wednesday July 9, 2008, 3:27 pm
Right on Paul, you are dead on, my thoughts exactly. These crooks, witness the Fisa bill capitulation will do anything to get what they want, Bush and Cheney are criminals. And Michael you are also 100 percent right about drilling, and no drilling on our coastlines either, period.

Thursday July 10, 2008, 10:30 am
Congress has fought bitterly for years over whether to allow oil companies access to the Alaska refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, a habitat for seabirds, caribou, and polar bears. Oil company executives, called to Capitol Hill for a grilling over high oil prices, pointed to the untapped resources of ANWR and off the U.S. coastlines as evidence that Congress was as much to blame for the tight global supplies of crude as the petroleum industry.

Thursday July 10, 2008, 10:37 am
Did Cheney & his minions censor evidence that "the CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern." ? Evidence points to yes, because of fears of new laws on greenhoiuse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels.