Let's hear it for honesty....
...it's so rare these days.
Mar is right, the "footprint the size of LAX" is so inaccurate that is can only be characterized as wilfully dishonest.
Here's an analogy: suppose you had a nice half acre house lot (21,780 sq ft). a local business approached you to lease 100 sq feet for advertising. you think, no problem, a 10 foot by 10 foot square on which they can put up a sign, I can live with that. When you come home, you discover they have taken 100, 1 ft X 1 ft. squares scattered all across your yard and erected a lighted sign on each one. Oh yeah, and the power lines are strung between each one of them forming a network of signs and wires across your entire lot ... suddenly the 100 sq ft doesn't seem quite so unobtrusive does it?
Do the same with the "footprint the size of LAX". Break it up into parcels a couple hundred feet on a side. You'll get quite a few from a "footprint the size of LAX". Now start scattering them across the landscape, spaced about a half mile apart or so. hook em all up with pipelines ... Now how big is the oil field?
The "other side" isn't any better. Thier propaganda is illustrated with photos from the Arctic alpine portion of ANWR, a hauntingly beautiful landscape, in my opinion. All but the lowest of cretins would cringe to imagine drilling rigs in those photos. The thing is, the drilling isn't going to take place there, it's going to take place in the coastal plain, a flat, mosquito ridden, swampy flatland. In the winter, you can't tell where the land ends and the ocean begins. It's not nearly as photogenic as the Canning River valley, so they don't show photos of it. Yes, I've been there, on the ground, swatting the mosquitoes and wading through the swamps. It's not real pretty.
So who ya gonna believe? Like mar, I haven't made up my mind one way of the other. The trouble is, how do you decide. Neither side can be trusted to be honest. How much oil is there? the "pro's" have one number, the "anti's" have another. Both sides are dishonest, who do you believe? What is it really going to do to the Porcupine Caribou herd? The pro's say nothing, the anti's say it will annhilate it. Both sides are dishonest, who do you believe?
That's the trouble with so many debates, not just the ANWR debate. It becomes virtually impossible to penetrate the multiple layers of lies upon lies.
as for urflyingme?!, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just repeating the "footprint the sixe of LAX" lie because, out of ignorance, you allowed yourself to be duped, not because you, yourself, are being wilfully dishonest.
Here's some guideline for sharpening your powers of discrimination. Consider how dishonest you *know* the "anti's" to be. Reflect on how they rely on lies, distortions and misrepresentations to serve thier cause. Got it? OK, now, realize that the "pros" are every bit as dishonest as the antis. You can't trust either to give you accurate information.
You said, regarding OPEC and ANWR "we wouldn't have to worry about it. " OK what does that mean? Sounds to me like more meaningless rehetoric. Tell you what, here's a way you can redeem yourself. Quantify "we wouldn't have to worry about it. " Do some research. Gather the various estimates of the oil underneath ANWR Get the numbers form the Sierra Club, get the numbers form the Oil Comapny PR departments, get the numbers from the US Department of energy, Get the numbers from the US Department of Energy 10 years ago (same raw data, different political agenda, trust no-one) Now take all those various estimates and compare them to our oil consumption numbers. Find out just how long and to what degree the oil under ANWR will reduce our dependence on OPEC oil. Post those numbers, complete with the raw data and sources and references.
What's it really going to do, best case scenario, worst case scenario. Based on who's estimates? How much will it reduce our dependence on foreign oil? 1%? 5%? 30%? 70%?. For how long? 6 months? 3 years? 20 years? for perpetuity?
If it was going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 70% for 50 years, I'd be more than happy to have them drill there. If it was 1% for 6 months, I'd lean toward just leaving it alone.
So which is it? You dig those numbers out and present them in a credible, verifiable format, I'll tip my hat to you..... or, you can just rely on meaningless rehetoric like "we wouldn't have to worry about it" The choice is yours.
Note: I really haven't made up my mind which side I'm on. I have fairly strong feelings both ways, but have not yet chosen. I am however thouroughly disgusted by the lies and rhetoric which both sides are continually spouting.
