free oil , why are we hurting the environment ?

Those guys do relocation work to, no? Honestly though, why relocate them when they have a perfect place to be fruitful and multiply?Cause I'm for putting a bunch of big, honkin' oil rigs up there, yee-haw! Drill, baby drill !!!!

No because I wouldn't send them to the middle east in the first place and I would bring them back home if they are. I would also give them training in the renewable energy sector. Maybe have them do a little farming work, manufacturing solar panels, putting up win windmills....you know, turn them all to into Army Core of Engineers types.

So you'd turn Marines into engineers and scientists in the field of renewable energy? Good luck with that.

I don't like the wars in the middle east either, but if we could drill for our own oil right here in the United States and cut down on imported oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other shitstorms near Mesopotamia, I don't see how any clear-thinking, rational human being could be against that.

This isn't the 23rd century, and we aren't anywhere close to engines that run on warp technology, antimatter or gravity. So you and I, our children and maybe even their children can forget about replacing the internal combustion engine anytime soon. The bottom line is that we can get our own honey right here without seeking out swarming beehives halfway around the world and save lives in the process.

Considering oil is a finite resource, I would think part of the reason we look elsewhere for it is cause we know it will eventually run out, and our tanks and jets don't run on corn. We are getting as much as we can elsewhere so we will have a stock pile when the time comes. But that might be just a paranoid comment. haha.

If you truly want to support in house drilling, support companies that take their oil from the U.S. such as Hess. In the long run it will be more environmentally sound. Personally I am against off-shore drilling (mostly for selfish reasons), as for ANWR it would barely supply enough oil for 6 months of U.S. consumption. However, the fact remains that known oil reserves will last less than 70 years (subject to a 2% increase a year in usage). We need to find an alternative and support developing it, whether it is to protest oil drilling or willingly pay more for a new technology so that it continues to develop.

LOL...ANWR stands for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and they do have wolves living there in need of protection from people like you who want to "drill baby drill." This is where charities in the business of "helping to preserve their habitat" come into the picture and so I wonder what is meant by "slick."


Funny story, usage of the initialism ANWR is preferred to using Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it sounds friendlier and does not make one sound cruel and callous.
Yes , because the Wolves would hold there ground and we would drill right through there hearts and kill them . Do you have any idea how small of an area would actually be impacted ?

Slingin Sammy touched on it, Dmek -- and let me chime in... We are nowhere near a replacement for the internal combustion engine, (you and I will not see it in our lifetimes) and like it or not, we are still dependent on fossil fuels and will be for a long time to come.

Faced with this reality, would you rather see wildlife temporarily displaced with more offshore drilling and in places like ANWR if it meant that we would no longer have to send our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen to the middle east to fight and die to ensure the free flow of oil?

You should watch the documentary "Who killed the electric car?" In the late 90s there was an efficient electric car (not a hybrid) with no ICE. It was killed off for numerous reasons.

Yes , because the Wolves would hold there ground and we would drill right through there hearts and kill them . Do you have any idea how small of an area would actually be impacted ?

Just make sure we can still use their fur for coats please!! ;)

You should watch the documentary "Who killed the electric car?" In the late 90s there was an efficient electric car (not a hybrid) with no ICE. It was killed off for numerous reasons.

I haven't seen that film, and I will check it out -- but let me guess; it's basically a conspiracy between the auto makers and oil company executives scheming to remove the production of a car that doesn't require gasoline as a way to keep the oil companies in business?

Is the film trying to tell us that there was a perfectly efficient all-electric vehicle that would have revolutionized the auto industry and could have completely eliminated the need to extract fossil fuels forever?

Let's think about this -- if there were such a car that was so productive, so efficient, so inexpensive, that it would have enabled GM to leap ahead of the technological innovations of the rest of the world's automakers -- why would they deliberately ball it up and throw it in the garbage? For nothing more than a favor to the oil companies?

I love a good conspiracy as much as anyone, but to believe that General Motors willingly walked away from such a visionary, pioneering vehicle that would have turned the automotive world on its head, it's a little too much to take. If there was a way that they would have made a lot of money at it, trust me, they would have built it. There was a reason it didn't go anywhere -- it just wasn't going to be profitable, which means that not nearly as many people would have bought into it as the filmmaker would have us believe.

It does have a conspiracy in it, but I also think it does a good job blaming the consumer, as the LA Times reporter who won the Pulitzer for the story states "GM would sell you a car that ran on pig shit if they thought it would sell." For a documentary throwing the blame I do think it does a good job of showing most sides. You are correct if you ran a company and could sell 25,000 models and make $2,000 a piece or could sell 500,000 models and make $4,000 a piece as CEO what are you going to do?

You should watch the documentary "Who killed the electric car?" In the late 90s there was an efficient electric car (not a hybrid) with no ICE. It was killed off for numerous reasons.

Well if they could build a car in the 90's that was an efficient car whats stopping them from producing this car in 2009?