General Discussion

Blue_In_AK

(46,436 posts)

8. Absolutely not,

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 02:38 PM

Jul 2015

and I'm so sick of this state being exploited by the oil companies. Shell's record with this project is abysmal, and someone needs to shut them down permanently. The fact is Alaska doesn't even get any financial benefit from offshore drilling, unlike Louisiana and the Gulf states, so we get none of the benefits but all the risk.

Old article, but relevant
http://www.adn.com/article/will-offshore-oil-development-alaskas-arctic-make-state-rich-dont-count-it

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Anyone prepared to defend the admin's go ahead on Arctic drilling? [View all] G_j Jul 2015 OP

Nope Hydra Jul 2015 #1

The corporations DEMANDED it. immoderate Jul 2015 #2

no Mojorabbit Jul 2015 #3

I HEAR you on the wolf issue!! G_j Jul 2015 #5

This is an infuriating one. rwsanders Jul 2015 #16

thank you G_j Jul 2015 #45

NO. Nor the TPP. Triana Jul 2015 #4

No! Nor TPP! haikugal Jul 2015 #6

This is yet another example... Oilwellian Jul 2015 #7

You think Jeb/Scott wouldn't do even more drilling? lark Jul 2015 #13

Maybe it is time for the 3rd way folks to cave and admit it isn't working. Bernie could coast to rwsanders Jul 2015 #18

Absolutely not, Blue_In_AK Jul 2015 #8

Hmm. Crickets from the usual fans. nt truebluegreen Jul 2015 #9

Oh gosh, I hate to spoil your stereotype. I don't approve. Hekate Jul 2015 #10

Lead by example: crickets Ned Flanders Jul 2015 #28

Oh gosh, I'm way ahead of you truebluegreen Jul 2015 #37

Why is the question for me. He's a lame duck, he doesn't need poitical capital at this point. jalan48 Jul 2015 #11

Getting his take. lark Jul 2015 #14

I had the same feeling though a fellow DUer was quite offended when I voiced it the other day. jalan48 Jul 2015 #15

It's exactly *because* he's a lame duck. Marr Jul 2015 #25

because he's a corporate conservative? Doctor_J Jul 2015 #35

LOL-well, I was hoping he would be an environmentally friendly one. jalan48 Jul 2015 #36

Not here. lark Jul 2015 #12

Not me. City Lights Jul 2015 #17

Hows this? A Simple Game Jul 2015 #19

No and I'm heartsick. eom. Cleita Jul 2015 #20

Oh please, what is the point even discussing it? Sen. Walter Sobchak Jul 2015 #21

The fact that if all the oil dried up overnight that probably 4-5 BILLION people ... brett_jv Jul 2015 #27

They are committing to delaying the use of multiple alternatives. dougolat Jul 2015 #32

That's because fossil fuels ARE Bad! Oil is BAD! truebluegreen Jul 2015 #38

No. Nae. Never. hifiguy Jul 2015 #22

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jul 2015 #23

I FOUGHT HARD against the "Moderate Republicans" policies back in the 80s. bvar22 Jul 2015 #34

Whose State Department former Presidential candidate head was responsible for initializing this? marble falls Jul 2015 #24

Clearly, this is Bush's fault... hughee99 Jul 2015 #26

Arctic drilling is a really BAD idea. PatrickforO Jul 2015 #29

To play the devil's advocate, here, how many of the people opposed don't drive a car? Warren DeMontague Jul 2015 #30

Unless everything in your home was personally acquired by hand and produced by hand, MerryBlooms Jul 2015 #39

Still, the larger problem is fossil fuels in general. And as long as we're all using them, they need Warren DeMontague Jul 2015 #41

I was using your/you in the collective... MerryBlooms Jul 2015 #43

I know this one! A troll paid by Exxon/Mobil. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2015 #31

No, because it's a monumentally stupid idea. NuclearDem Jul 2015 #33

What could possibly go wrong drilling in the harshest environment on Earth? neverforget Jul 2015 #40

I'll pass, it's indefensible. CanonRay Jul 2015 #42

No AuntPatsy Jul 2015 #44

Not publicly. raouldukelives Jul 2015 #46