BS!

Just our "government" trying another approach to raping the Atric.

Artic (!)

Perhaps 'Arctic'?

I like this proposal. It's foolish for us not to be producing this oil, and at least this way it will help support those technologies that will ultimately get us off of fossil hydrocarbon fuels.

I'd rather be drilling in ANWR than buying Saudi oil.

If they are willing to put $40B into renewables AND another $40B into the general fund, to reduce the deficit, I would consider the proposal.

I think it is a good idea but the incentives for innovation and production of domestic sources of energy, i.e. coal to liquids, biofuels, etc. would be useful sooner, rather than later. Despite the recent surge in oil prices, it is still relatively cheap. It would be in our best interest to do the innovation before the energy crunch really hits hard in 3 or 4 years.

And this bill will lead to free apple pie also. I'm not joklng; you can be sure the Washington State Apple Growers want a slice too. Hey, apples spoil. Pollution, research must be funded.

Toss in anti-gravity funding which may allow us to send that bad greenhouse gas into space.

If there is a reasonable amount of oil in the ANWR then drilling is OK by me.

But when Congress bundles ANWR, ethanol, solar, fuel cells, and other renewables in the same package it means lunch at the pig trough as each politican throws in useless goodies for big contributors.

When the founders wrote our Constitution they said that impeachable offenses included, "Bribery, Treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors"

Wonder what they would say about what is happening today?

I've long been sorry that they didn't limit politicians to one term in office.

Even if ANWR could provide a lot of oil (it can't!) without a massive environmental footprint (nope) in a wildlife refuge, it's still a bad bill.

Look at where the subsidies are going: coal and ethanol. Neither have much promise at long term gains. The solar stuff is good, but there's just not enough of it.

If they were taking $40B and putting it into solar, wind, biomass, and public transit, it might be worth the trade off. But, the reality is that they ain't doing that. It looks good on the surface, but its rotten inside.

There are other places in Alaska that should be drilled before spoiling the arctic wildlife reserve, such as the National Naval Petroleum Reserves which haven't been tapped either and don't have the extreme environmental considerations (high extraction costs) associated with drilling in a wildlife reserve. I have a feeling this is being done so that other environmentally sensitive sites will be easier to open in the future as the domino effect takes hold.

According to this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
ANWR at peak production (quite a short time) would lower US imports by 4% and lower the price per barrel by 50 cents. Is 50 cents worth the environmental damage? Personally I would pay an extra couple of dollars to keep the place pristine.

Remember 50 cents is lowering the present price per barrel by 0.7%

If the lease and royalty revenues are legislated away to motivate production (especially if crunch comes) this bill's funding will zero out.

You mean instead of paying $3.149, I would only have to pay $3.167!!!

WOW!

Lets all RAPE the Arctic!

Heck. Instead of paying $3.50 a gallon you would pay $3.48 (other things being equal). Are you willing to spoil the arctic to make 2 cents? Someone had better give me a better reason than that. The real justification is to enable US oil companies to make even more profits. While this may not be a bad thing in itself, I think they are making enough as it is without spoiling the arctic refuge.

OOPS!

$3.147 ...

Double OOPS!

$3.127 !!!

Everyone is willing to formulate an opinion on this bill based upon a 2+ year old MSNBC article? That estimate was based upon oil being $27/barrel, even though at the time the market price was $37. That suggests this analysis assumed the price of oil was going to go down from the levels at the time. Given how off that prediction was, I see very little validity to this article.

The market price of oil has just as much to do with perception than cold, hard facts. No one has a clue what Middle East oil reserves really are either. The botton line is that a slight decline in total US production (which will be more likely without drilling in ANWAR)is a BIG difference from the slight increase with this drilling, in terms of the market's perception. That doesn't even include the influence of the investments in energy alternatives that will come out of this.

As long as this bill clearly earmarks these revenues for both shorter term and longer term alternatives, it's in our best interest. Environmentally and economically.

Hey, I wish we wouldn't have to do this, but we've already made our boat. People are going to have to make compromises in certain areas, and in my humble opinion, this is not a bad tradeoff. Of course, there are a lot of contingencies, such as making sure this drilling is actually performed in an environmentally responsible way. I believe they can do that. In this information age, it's really tough for any corporation to get away with such misdeeds without the public becoming aware eventually. Given that this is a longer term proposition, even the evil oil corporations won't risk losing out on such revenue streams by being careless.

In terms of these funds not being totally devoted to non-fossil alternatives, that is also a compromise we'll have to make to get such a deal done. As no one has proven any one strategy to be the ultimate solution to our woes, it's in our best interest to promote anything that will improve our situation, nomatter what the degree of improvement or timeframe. We need short term, medium term and long term solutions. Market forces will almost definitely produce the winners in the end, and we'll be stronger as a country because of it.

Anything that includes coal and ethanol is not worth the tradeoff. That is not a tradeoff.

The world is running out of oil. Not the next generation, but the generation after that would appreciate it if we did not drain what little is left within the United States.

Oil is fungible. What little they are able to get out of the Arctic will do virtually nothing to free us from dependence upon Open and non Opec.

We might as well start now in doing everything humanly possible to wean ourselves from oil. Ethanol is clearly not the answer either. The world is burning. We must get off fossil fuels even if it requires that we cut our driving in half. We have been conditioned to believe that life cannot go on without the automobile. Well, civilization didn't begin with the automobile and it won't end without it.

We have not even begun to do what we can do to conserve. I refuse to support a bill that requires we drill in ANWR so that my next door neighbor can drive his 12 mpg SUV alone to work 60 miles away.

As t is saying, what we need isn't more oil, its less dependence on oil. An extremely short term increase in oil supply at the expense of the refuge just doesn't add up, except for the oil companies. More than the estimated peak production rate from ANWR (876,000 bd) could have been saved by 2025 if the NHTSA had simply raised fuel efficiency standards from 24 to 26 mpg by 2011 and applied it to all light trucks (saving 1 million bpd see http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/2006-Fuel-economy.html). "This would have met 20 percent of the president's target of cutting oil imports from the Middle East by 75 percent by 2025. Why didn't it happen?

Drilling in ANWR just exacerbates the problem while damaging the environment for the sake of oil company profit.

Increasing our domestic supplies of oil does not have to have anything to do with conservation. Yes, we should decrease our consumption. Sorry, we cannot address all of our issues on one single piece of legislation.

Why are you so convinced that ethanol cannot help? We've barely scratched the surface of it's potential. There has been very little incentive to do so until the events of the last year sent a chilling reminder to everyone. There are many promising developments in the area of ethanol. If you are one of the many individuals who are basing their opinions on the current state, that seems very short-sighted. Everyone always thinks they have a better idea, but there are many valid reasons why some of these don't take off. It's not just luck that ethanol is.

If you think new investments in domestically sourced clean coal technologies that could displace even some of our middle-east sourced oil are a bad decision, I emphatically disagree. This is obviously not a long-term, sustainable solution. It's a near term band aid that can slow down the bleeding.

Angelo,

When I saw “Anwar” in this title, I thought, Oh, Boy! This discussion’s going to get heated, as I’ve seen this topic generate some nasties. But not so much this time!

You said, “People are going to have to make compromises in certain areas”

Well stated! One of the virtues of this site is that people from the left, right, center, and don’t care about politics, are all encouraged to state their opinions. I learn a great deal from the variety of opinions/ facts/etc. at this site, and the only negative I’ve seen is when people become intolerant of other’s opinions.

Lucas,
“I’ve long been sorry that they didn’t limit politicians to one term”

Here, here!

The point is that there is no compelling reason to drill in ANWR if we conserve and develop renewables. This will happen if the price keeps rising and the government implements far sighted policy changes.

I am kind of tired to read ever-repeating urban legends.
The biggest oil polluter in US/Canada (way bigger then everything else combined) is leaking oil pan gaskets, happening right where most people and most portion of continental wild life live. Somehow not only humans, but even deer population is striving. That is not to say that I am trying to “get people out of their cars”, but merely pointing out that it is worth consideration to use better materials for gaskets and legislate to change old ones. Nowhere in civilized world parking lots, roads, and back alleys are stained with leaking engine oil.

The biggest oil reserves of the world are situated on continental shelf of Arctic Ocean. Small portion of Russian Arctic (North of West Siberia) and Norway are supplying oil in excess of Saudi Arabia, and these reserves are only lightly tapped. Make no mistake, this oil is particularly expensive. But somehow wild life is surviving in these regions. I do not even touch East Siberia and Far East Arctic regions of Russia, and Canadian and Alaskan Arctic. These waste land regions are so huge, that even if we will pure all extracted oil on the ground, for wild life it will have less effect then bird shot in elephant ass. Somehow we tolerate oil exploration in down town Los Angeles, near Mexican Gulf beaches, in Norway and North Sea, on city beaches of Baku, all over Texas, but are sure that it will destroy wasteland region comparable to US Mid West. Why New Jersey is still habitable? Why it is possible to live in New York city, where 10 million tons of oil is handled (on gas stations, for example) yearly? How it is possible to bath on Briton beach after German submarines onslaught of oil-ridden ships just outside New York harbor? How Romania survived oil contamination after allied bombers decimated it Ploesti oil industry?

Get real, folks. Spare no money to assure oil exploration is clean, and it will be clean. Way cleaner than US lawn mover fleet.

In taking advantage of a small portion of these enormous deposits of oil in the Artic, we are not encouraging increased consumption. I don't think the public is going to revert back to complete ignorance this time. I see this as shifting the supply chains of oil. Billions of dollars that are otherwise going to the Middle East, and doing us no good whatsover, would be diverted to investments that could ween us off of petroleum.

In conjunction with conservation and biofuels blended into our petroleum fuels, ANWAR could very well wind up supplying far more than 4% of our demand in the future. Those estimates were based on projected levels of consumption increasing at the astronomical rates they have been and no real encouraging sign that biofuels would be economically viable on a large scale. I think all previous assumptions on these areas are being reevaluated. Far too many of the 13 mpg vehicles will continue to be produced, but the public is finally starting to shift away from them. Statistics do not lie. Even if petroleum prices level off, most of the automobile industry has already made decisions to shift their strategies to increase their offerings of small and efficient vehicles. There is a market for them in the US these days.

Sometimes it takes a couple hard knocks on the head to get through to people, and the events of the past year and the pessimism that oil will ever go below $60/barrel have really lit a fire under people. I have faith when I see realistic propositions such as this. It might not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

did i read this right?
The biggest oil producer in Canada (way bigger then everything else combined) is leaking oil pan gaskets....
LOL

No.

Majeasy:

It is “oil polluter”, not “oil producer”. Just walk to the nearest parking lot of any store or mall in US/Canada and look for yourself. Then wipe a napkin over any car and take a look at this oil/dust gum. Pay attention that any minor bump or hole on the roads is visibly marked from afar by blackish drops of oil, shaken from cars. At the beginning of any rain, road surface is extremely slippery due to water/oil emulsion. Practically all windshields are coated with ugly shining glare of oily deposits, impairing vision at night, especially when you are lit from incoming car. You won’t believe what amount of oil is separated at stormwater oil separating wells, where equipped. Most of this oil is due to low-quality oil pan gaskets, universally used by most of car manufacturers, but other gaskets add to this amount too. This problem is practically unheard in Europe.

Increase CAFE standards to 40 MPG, and implement a heavy fuel tax with rebates for low-income people and drivers of efficient cars.

Subject all non-commercal vehicles with mileage below 20 MPG to an additional heavy consumption and carbon tax.

No additional oil-drilling would even be needed if this were done. And Americans would adapt to the new reality in a heartbeat.

Political suicide for whoever backs such a program, though.

Angelo said the public won't revert to ignorance. Who said they had already reverted away from igorance?

While there are environmental arguments for not drilling in ANWR, that wasn't my argument. If you are running out of a domestic resource, you don't stop running out by redoubling your efforts. The U.S. peaked in 1970 and has been going downhill since then. ANWR won't change that. If we are going to use oil, let's drain Saudi Arabia first since they are apparently imprudent enought for that to happen. The Kuwaitis, on the other hand, are apparently waking up to the fact that their oil is a finite resource and may soon begin to restrict output in accordance with that reality.

As for as oil leaks go,there is a big difference between oil leaks from oil pans dispersed over thousands of square miles and oil leaks concentrated in a small, environmentally sensitive place. If you were to dump a couple of millions of gallons of oil on my mountain property, I would hardly be consoled by the fact that this quanity is being dispersed all over America.

We can make a planned, orderly transition now that truly does something significant in the conservation area or we can use the sledge hammer approach and wait for the downward curve in oil production. Regardless, we need to think of ANWR as a possible reserve in the future for critical things like pharmaceuticals and other critical non fuel uses.

The push to ANWR is a diversionary tactic to make people feel like we can continue our addiction indefinitely, that all we need to do is drill more. Let's spend the next ten years doing something truly significant to cure our long term addiction, not wasting it by pursuing ultimately futile attempts to solve our problems with more supply.

If the increase in prices have lit such a fire upon people, why has our consumption increased by over 1% in the last year.

ANWR wouldn't come online for years. What do we do in the mean time? From what I see, take our SUVs on vacation to my mountain area in Colorado.

_t_,

i owe you one....
you changed the mind of one short sighted person, me

also, my wife was wrong....i can learn new tricks...

Andrey: "bird shot in elephant ass" ... that's funny

I find myself torn between a desire for Oil to run out so that we can get on with moving on to sustainable sources of energy and a fear of the pain of change. I think this legislation is a reflection of this conflict in the general population and legistlators in particular.

The ANWR issue is not about getting oil. It is the first step in eliminating all wildlife reserves. Just west of ANWR is the Naval Petroleum Reserve which doesn't have a single well. The question we should be asking Congress is not why ANWR but why not the Naval Petroleum Reserve? Could it be that they created a petroleum reserve that has no petroleum?

In the cost-benefit analysis of ANWR the thing I keep coming back to is the real benefit to the US public, which is proportionately small, and the benefit to the oil companies that keep pushing and pushing and pushing on this issue like Chinese H2O torture.

It has been pointed out so many times that at current consumption ANWR holds a few months of oil. This is a principle issue. The US Government is doing little to incentivize real efficiency and spending all its time crafting new riders to please its friends in big oil.

This trade they are proposing is transparently cynical in its attempts to appease environmentalists and energy security hawks, and I would suggest at the end of the day CTL and the dirtier, old-school technologies are going to get the lions share of funding while solar and biofuels are again left out in the cold.

Want oil from ANWR? Start with a $1/gal tax on gas, call it the Patriot Tax. Then take that money and put it into alt fuel and energy development (and gas subsidies for working poor people in real need). Time for US Consumers to wake up and stop looking for someone to drill for them to support their SUV and wanton driving addictions.

If we still need the oil desperately after that's been in place for a year or two, then we look at a plan that is actually fair (spreads out the oil wealth between companies, government, and trust fund with transparency) and low-impact as a last resort.

Why do we need new legislation. Keep the oil in the ground, let the prices rise, and there will be incentive for conservation and private industry to develop alternatives. Just as oil is a fungible, so are dollars, and I don't trust this trust fund to be spent for what it was intended any more than Social Security.

I tend to agree that this is simply a ploy to roll back enviromental protections. The two issues that conservatives keep pushing that make no sense to me are ANWAR and eliminating the Inheritance Tax. Neither has any real economic benefit, and neither has a visible constituency supporting them.

I have one idea for two car families. Leave the SUV in the garage and use the higher milage car for most things. Just that behavior change multiplied by millions of families will save more than ANWR and ethanol combined.

History of the Naval Petroleum Reserves:

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/npr/npr-90years.html

NPR Number 4, now called NPR Alaska, was created in 1923, explored through 1970s.

The NPR Production act of 1976 authorized exploration but not production at NPR Alaska.

Areas were leased, no production allowed, leases expired. Pressure continues to allow it. Interest is in areas adjacent to Prudhoe Bay.

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fukuyama/Oil_Exploration_North_Slope.html

Uugh,

Besides all the great points that have been made before, let's think about the revenue that would actually be generated. $40 billion over the LIFE of the reserve? What a pittiance, and how long would it take before any of that cash would work its way to actually generating research into alternative fuels? More likely then not the oil companies would find a way to hijack the money anyway.

Look, doubling the federal tax on gas/gallon to 36.6 cents/gallon would generate approximately $20 billion PER YEAR in revenue that could IMEDIATELY be used to fund an Apollo Project sized alternative energy and conservation endeavor that could radically change how we power our civilization if we implement it correctly.

The representatives proposal is an excelent bait and switch scheme - I don't think many of us are slow enough to fall for it. And by US I mean the overwhelming majority of the nation.

Peace,
Cosmo

Why couldn't we do this AND increase the federal tax? Increasing supply while decreasing demand is a win-win for consumers.

On the topic of increasing the federal tax on gasoline, how difficult would it be to implement this only for all non-commercial uses? Maybe some sort of tax rebate on the increase that commercial users could recoup when filing taxes every year? We wouldn't want to drive up the costs on everything and spur inflation by increasing this tax across the board. I don't think commercial users need any more incentive to minimize their consumption of petroleum these days. They are always looking at the bottom line. Non-commercial users tend to be driven by something else....

Think about the time lag. ANWR is said not to produce oil for 10 years after you begin. Royalties would not be paid until 10 years from now and even then not much. That would set renewables back 10 years. If you want to fund $20B now for renewables paid back by ANWR, maybe...read the fine print first.

That last point was a very good one....I agree, this would be much better if the deal was a lump sum that could be invested in research right now, with the royalties being used to pay down this "loan". Not a bad idea. Well, get it in the bill!

"As long as this bill clearly earmarks these revenues for both shorter term and longer term alternatives, it's in our best interest. Environmentally and economically."

Yes even today, there is a fool born every minute. How can drilling in ANWR be in our environmental best interest?
Sad you represent the majority..

"Yes even today, there is a fool born every minute. How can drilling in ANWR be in our environmental best interest?"

You have to look at the bigger picture. If this is a compromise that will pass through Congress and help fund investments in things such as cellulose ethanol, other types of biomass, solar, and fuel cells (I'm not a proponent of using them in transportation, by the way), then yes, I believe it will ultimately lessen our negative impact on the environment over the long run.

What would you suggest we do? I'm sure you have a thousand bright ideas like so many other self-proclaimed "environmentalists" that have little to no chance of getting off the ground floor over the short-term. The only way some of these ideas will get rolling is to compromise and find economically responsible solutions. I didn't want drilling in ANWR any more than anyone else, but we've dug a pretty big hole for ourselves. Additionally, there are so many more significant environmental issues that we need to concern ourselves with.

Yes even today, there is an ignorant, short-sighted jackass born every minute. Watch who you are calling a fool.

Of course I was referring to US Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) fool.
BTW ANWR is not a short term fix 10-20 years for 2% of our current consumption. And if you want to believe the oil co.s are going to do a clean job of it, look at what they did with drilling in our Gulf, occupation of Iraq and the Exxon Valdez!
Look at the big picture, it's called politics and may the oil lobby prevail now & suckers get a promise for later, duh.
People in the US must learn to conserve/sacrifice and not continue to rape the environment all around the world.

I've been questioning the idea for a while now that producing oil in ANWR is going to be some kind of environmental disaster.

Much like Andrey said up above...if oil production is so inherently damaging, why don't we see more evidence of it? In Alaska, for example...why don't we see images of the devastation caused by existing production on the North Slope? My guess is that it's because no such devastation exists, thus the environmental extremists have to resort to fearmongering.

More personally, much of my family is in Oklahoma. They started producing oil there in 1905, well before the idea of environmental controls arose, and they've produced billions of barrels since then. And yet...Oklahoma is lush, green, and fertile.

Most of the other objections to ANWR are silly, too. Production is only going to be about 2% of consumption? That's true of any field, as is the "there's only six months' oil there!" line. No one field is going to produce all we need.

The important thing is that we reduce overseas dependence. Even though we can't eliminate it, the smaller our level of imports are, the less damage there will be from a supply disruption.

Of course, we still have to deal with the demand side of the equation. But focusing *only* on demand is every bit as foolish as focusing only on supply. From a national security perspective, we have to do both.

From my perspective, the main reason we should not drill ANWAR is because a major paradigm shift needs to occur relative to our energy economy. So let us say we drill ANWAR. Does anyone really think that that is the end of it? That the fossil fuel industry will stop at that point and never need to drill in any other environmentally sensitive locations? The president already passed a bill to allow drilling in a National Park (monument? I'll double check) while everyone was distracted paying attention to ANWAR.

The point is, we need to morph from an energy intense society to a more conservation based one, and drilling every patch in the ground with at least some potential oil is perpetuating the same mentallity that has gotten in the mess we are in now.

Furthermore, from an energy security point of view, I think we should hold onto every reserve we've got for as long as possible. Peak oil is here folks, and the Kuwaiti's already have reassesed their estimated reserved to approximately half the previously assessed value. It wouldn't shock me that other "semi-corrupt" regemes throughout the world have over estimated their reserves as well. It make great goepolitical sense to maintain our potential reserves as long as possible. When the rest of the world is starving for oil, it would be great to know that in an emergency, we have a fall back position.

Anyway, if I were a congressman, I would be willing to drill ANWAR if and ONLY if it were acompianied by a bill that made dramatic changes in research an funding of alternative fuels, increased CAFE standards, helped consumers afford more energy efficient technologies, ala tax breaks etc, etc, etc. This bill would really have to be the first step in transforming our nation. I just do not see that bill in that light.

For those of you who think that drilling ANWAR is not so bad, I hope I have put forth a reasonable argument to that point of view.

Peace,
Cosmo

"And yet...Oklahoma is lush, green, and fertile."

Maybe take a closer look under your lush, green and fertile-dustbowl?.
http://www.odl.state.ok.us/usinfo/maps/dustbowl/index.htm

In March 2000 Koch Ind. was subject to the largest civil fine ever imposed under US federal environmental law. They were responsible for more than 300 oil spills in 6 states, primarily OK, TX and KS. I've driven thru Oklahoma, and while there are some nice spots, I just don't think it's a pristine ecosystem vis-a-vis the ANWR.

We can get significant funds for alt. energy now by asking oil companies to pay for their (ab)use of our public lands and adding a $.50/gal gas tax- of course this would require some politicians with a spine to implement...

Bonds are good vehicles for advance funding. Issue a renewables bond and pay it back with revenues from ANWR. This would fund renewables today. We may need to have cellulose ethanol in full production in 10 years, not just getting it started in 10 years.

FYI - The dust bowl was caused by drought. The act of drilling and extracting oil does not cause droughts.

And sure, there are going to be oil spills anywhere you produce oil - that's a given. But the idea that oil production is a precursor to environmental devastation just doesn't jibe with reality.

Assumption: The oil industry has been a good steward of important ecosystems.

As evidence of its 'good faith' the industry points to production in Louisiana. Louisiana's 3.5 million acres of coastal wetlands represent about 40 percent of all of the coastal wetlands in the continental United States. For more than half a century, oil companies have dredged canals through the wetlands in Louisiana. Canals disturb the natural hydrologic regime in the wetlands, preventing bayous from delivering water and sediments to the wetlands. Without these inputs, the wetlands lose the race against rising sea level. More than 25 square miles of wetlands are converted to open water each year. Since 1930, an area the size of Rhode Island has perished. If this loss continues, 20 towns will be underwater by 2050 and New Orleans will be an island at the hurricane-prone edge of the Gulf of Mexico.

This behavior was enabled by state regulatory agencies in Louisiana that rarely denied an application for a dredging permit, raising concern about the veracity of oversight in Alaska, a state that already has contributed millions to pro-development lobbying groups and where oil revenues finance 80 percent of the state's budget.

Estimates of current government subsides to the oil industry range from $2 to $35 billion per year. The Bush oil plan would shower the energy industry with an additional $20 billion. These additional subsidies are based on flawed economic, political, and environmental logic. But we should not be surprised. The president, vice president, and secretary of commerce are from the oil business, and the largest contributors to Bush political campaigns are from the energy industries. Such credential do no constitute a sound basis for economic 'busy work' in ANWR. The Bush plan would disturb one of the last great wildernesses on the planet for a flow of oil that will not significantly reduce our import dependence, will not tilt the world oil market in favor of U.S. consumers, and in the process actually will harm the economy.

excerpt from Cutler J. Cleveland and Robert K. Kaufmann -Professors in the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies and the Department of Geography at Boston University.

Some years ago I participated in environmental damage assessment from oil spills in Siberia. I’ll tell you – it is no fan matter. However, mineral oil is fully biodegradable, especially when exposed to air, and in couple of years revegetation of contaminated soil takes place. In that respect oil spill is comparable to small forest fire plus three years. Marine environment degrades oil contamination even faster. Rivers and brooks takes more time to recover, and ground water get contaminated for long time – decades. Overall, nature, and especially wild life (deer just do not eat and drink stuff with funny smell) recover from oil spills quite fast. Oil spill can damage small territory, but is incapable to “destroy” it permanently and has quite mild and short term effect on wild life.

sure it's no fan matter, but it sure fans a lot, and it ain't no fun either because it smells really bad, says the Worm Jigolo to the Queen ... and it is an extremely mild light weight opinion, answers Alice the blonde bombshell, that's not what real scientists who study Alaska and Exxon Valdez and publish in peer reviewed science journals are saying after ten years of study, not chair scientists mind you, things are not good there, new and more toxic chemicals are being found down the food chain, nothing like what y'all trying to sell here for whatever reason...go ahead and read the literature if you don't mind, why would you ?...alternatively, post a list of your papers in peer reviewed science journals...none ?

and now for something completely different, drilling in exchange for nature, huge natural habitat loss (any doubts about this?), ocean pollution, all time record species extinction in the entire fossil record(any doubts?), climate change, global warming (any doubts?), in sum, an entire planet down the drain, isn't that what the bullies have shamelessly been bullying all along for decades, their standard shameless bs mo ?

No more wars:

Do you have any idea now much CO2 you exhausted during writing this pearl?

DME developments in China:
Since DME has an advantage of decomposition at lower temperature than methane and LPG, R&D for hydrogen source for fuel cell has been carried out.

If you would like to know more on the latest DME developments, join us at upcoming North Asia DME / Methanol conference in Beijing, 27-28 June 2007, St Regis Hotel. The conference covers key areas which include:

DME productivity can be much higher especially if
country energy policies makes an effort comparable to
that invested in increasing supply.
By:
National Development Reform Commission NDRC
Ministry of Energy for Mongolia

Production of DME/ Methanol through biomass
gasification could potentially be commercialized
By:
Shandong University completed Pilot plant in Jinan and
will be sharing their experience.

Advances in conversion technologies are readily
available and offer exciting potential of DME as a
chemical feedstock
By: Kogas, Lurgi and Haldor Topsoe

Available project finance supports the investments
that DME/ Methanol can play a large energy supply role
By: International Finance Corporation

For more information: www.iceorganiser.com

gzpyrk chlr nvsepyqcz nialsv kuwsy qpmghxnl xgmtr

skqhbyeg ockzt luxjyvp oiyqcpva rqamusc dsglmi ezyo http://www.xuvefcrbq.shiu.com

skqhbyeg ockzt luxjyvp oiyqcpva rqamusc dsglmi ezyo http://www.xuvefcrbq.shiu.com

slpzg vgrtsf sxgcr xydzmp mjezi cobsti fjyntzp gharij smigap

Nice site. Thanks!!!
brick fireplace outdoor plan

Nice site. Thank you.
cast iron cookware set