| Author |
Message |
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
 Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:16 pm Senate blocks attempt to allow drilling in Alaska refuge |
|
| Quote: | Senate blocks attempt to allow drilling in Alaska refuge
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate blocked oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, rejecting a must-pass defense spending bill where supporters positioned the quarter-century-old environmental issue to garner broader support.
Drilling backers fell four votes short of getting the required 60 votes to avoid a threatened filibuster of the defense measure over the oil drilling issue. Senate leaders were expected to withdraw the legislation so it could be reworked without the refuge language. The vote was 56-44.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was among those who for procedural reasons cast a "no" vote, so that he could bring the drilling issue up for another vote.
The vote was a stinging defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who for years has waged an intense fight to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He had thought this time he would finally get his wish.
Stevens called the refuge's oil vital to national security and bemoaned repeated attempts over the years by opponents using the filibuster to kill drilling proposals.
Democrats, conversely, accused Stevens of holding hostage a military spending bill that includes money to support troops in Iraq and $29 billion for victims of Hurricane Katrina.
"Our military is being held hostage by this issue, Arctic drilling," fumed Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader. The Nevada Democrat said the Senate could move quickly to pass the defense bill once the refuge issue was resolved.
"We all agree we want money for our troops. ... This is not about the troops," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, a strong critic of letting oil development disturb the refuge in northeastern Alaska.
During the vote, a grim-faced Stevens, 82, who had fought to open the refuge to drilling since 1980 and is the most senior Republican in the Senate, sat midway back in the chamber, watching his colleagues. When it became apparent that he had lost, he briefly talked with Frist, presumably over what move should be taken next. He briefly shook his head, a signal of his disappointment.
"We need ... to open up the small area of the coastal plain [of the refuge] for oil exploration and development," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. She called making the oil available a matter of national security by reducing U.S. reliance on oil imports.
Senators determined to protect the refuge from development found it difficult to oppose the politically popular defense bill, which has money for troops in Iraq, relief for Katrina hurricane victims and help for low-income families to pay energy bills.
"Destroying this wilderness will do very little to reduce energy costs nor does it do very much for oil independence," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California.
A decade ago a Republican-led Congress used a parliamentary maneuver to get an ANWR bill successfully past a filibuster, only to have it vetoed by President Clinton. This time President Bush has made ANWR drilling one of his top priorities and is eager to sign a bill.
Drilling opponents long have argued that ANWR's oil should not be exploited because of the coastal plain's fragile ecosystem and its wildlife. While the region looks bleak during its long winters and oil can be seen seeping from some of its rock formations, the coastal strip also is the calving ground for caribou and home to polar bears, musk oxen, and the annual influx of millions of migratory birds.
Drilling proponents say modern techniques can extract the oil without damaging the environment.
The House passed the $454 billion defense spending bill earlier this week, 308-106, with scores of lawmakers who previously opposed refuge drilling voting for the legislation.
The bill includes $29 billion for Katrina hurricane relief, $2 billion in emergency funding for low-income families pay high heating bills this winter as well as money for troops in Iraq. Stevens' provision would funnel 80 percent of the proceeds from Arctic refuge oil lease sales to hurricane relief and 5 percent for the energy assistance program.
The legislation anticipates about $5 billion in federal revenue bonus bids from oil leases, the first of which must be issued within 22 months and the second package in 2010. Half of the lease proceeds and future royalties from oil production would go to Alaska.
Alaska relies heavily on proceeds from oil production, a revenue stream that has been in steady decline as the vast Prudhoe Bay oil fields to the west of ANWR become less productive.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. |
Great news for the environment
Last edited by CJ Cregg on Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:26 pm |
|
There's nothing there. I hope this passes. We need to start drilling in Alaska. We need energy independence, and this is part of it. We can't keep relying on Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for oil. We have to do what we can on our own. I hope this passes. We need it. Besides, there's nothing there anyways, AND it's one of the purposes Jimmy Carter set aside the area in the first place.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Mikado
Commander
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 439
Location: *sigh* California. *grumble.*
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:15 pm |
|
There is too something there. - And the coastal part is biological one of the most important parts of the refuge. Drilling would not be a good thing, even if we need it. Killing the plants is a bad idea, they filter our air.
| Quote: | The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge protects the most spectacular array of arctic plants, wildlife, and land forms in the world. Designed to embrace the range of the great Porcupine caribou herd, the Arctic is also home to free-roaming herds of muskox, Dall sheep, packs of wolves, and such solitary species as wolverines and polar and grizzly bears. Why this concentration? Well, even though the refuge is immense, the habitats are actually extremely compressed. The highest mountain lies just 50 miles from the sea coast. In between range the lower peaks, glacial valleys, foothills, and the fabled coastal plain.
The coastal plain comprises the smallest part of the refuge, but it is biologically the most important. This 25-mile wide strip of of tundra is the birthing ground of not only the caribou but also polar bears, grizzlies, Arctic wolves, and the highly endangered shaggy musk ox. |
That's just from the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, the one they were talking about drilling. It is just one of the national wildlife refuges in Alaska. There are around sixteen other refuges, unless I counted wrong.
I don't personally think endangering the lives of all of those animals is going to do us much good in the long run. Nor the destroying of vegetation.
Information From:
http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_nwr/ak_arcti.htm - About the Artic Refuge.
http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_nwr/ak.htm - List of Alaska's Refuges.
-------signature-------
Hi, I'm Mikado.
Because it makes me giggle.
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:18 pm |
|
I'm liking the senate.
Seriously though, drilling in Alaska would be a disaster. Sacrificing unique, rare wildlife for the gain of profits and fuel is so repulsive to me and obviously, to others. After the oil is burnt, and the land is marred, what then will be left?
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:40 pm |
|
For all the effort they put into getting cheaper oil, I wish they would work more on just developing another energy source.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:18 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | | For all the effort they put into getting cheaper oil, I wish they would work more on just developing another energy source. |
I agree. But we need to have a temporary solution as well. And allowing for us to actually do things ourselves in the short-run as well is important. Using up some area with hardly anything there is not a big deal. Drill in Alaska AND put more efforts towards energy resources. We need both.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:44 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | | For all the effort they put into getting cheaper oil, I wish they would work more on just developing another energy source. |
Exactly. Americans are so concerned about cheap gas. How about more efficient cars? Make the gas we have last longer. In my mind that would be a much better long term solution than drilling in Alaska. Besides, the bill was rejected, if I read correctly 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:11 pm |
|
Here's what I think:
The government gives incentives and rewards to research organizations and businesses who research, develop, and institute new fuel technologies, and we start to move in that direction.
We should also consider and work on drilling for oil in other places (such as Alaska and my state of Colorado) and creating a few more refinaries for the present time as well, so as to decrease our dependency on foreign oil.
I don't want to have to obey Saudi Arabia, OPEC, and all them any longer, and I don't think that we'd get new technologies developed and instituted quick enough to not try to find other sources of oil. And therefore that's why I think we should do both those things: start putting CLEAR focus on research, development, and institutions of new fuel and energy technologies and, for the time being, also drill in other places in the US and create a few more refinaries.
I think that it's even more important in this day and age that we decrease our dependency on foreign oil, and therefore we need to develop new technologies--to help the environment, decrease our dependency on foreign oil, and be ready for when we run out of fossil fuels--to do this, but in the temporary run we also need to get oil in other places and create more refinaries. Did you know that our debt to Saudi Arabia (and China) is HUGE and is expanding? We have to decrease that, and we can't let it get larger. That's why I think that those two things need to happen.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:11 pm |
|
I think the notion of "lets destroy a beautiful environment because we need oil" is wrong.
Its like if the Lumber Industry needs more wood should we let them cut down half of forest in Oregon? Well no...
In more response to this issue I think we need to one find other sources of power besides oil like hydro, and wind technologies. Plus oil drilling that region won't help with the oil crisis because it would still take up to 10-15years just to get a pipeline set up. The Congress did the right thing which was to save the environment.
We shouldn't destroy the envinronment because the world demands more oil...
No to OIL DRILLING!
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:46 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | I agree. But we need to have a temporary solution as well. And allowing for us to actually do things ourselves in the short-run as well is important. Using up some area with hardly anything there is not a big deal. Drill in Alaska AND put more efforts towards energy resources. We need both. |
How long would it take us to set up everything to drill in Alaska? Long enough that it wouldn't matter anyway.
We need to stop relying on oil altogether, not just move where we get it from. That's like an addict switching dealers because the new one's cheaper. It doesn't solve the problem, it just creates a temporary solution.
It doesn't matter anyway, it's been stopped.
| Quote: | US Senate Rejects Oil Drilling in Alaska Wildlife Refuge
By VOA News
21 December 2005
The U.S. Senate has narrowly rejected a measure to allow oil exploration in the Alaskan wildlife refuge - effectively tying up the nearly $450 billion defense budget.
Republicans had hoped to win passage by making the oil drilling issue part of a popular defense spending bill that has money for troops in Iraq and relief for victims of Hurricane Katrina - the storm that hit the U.S. earlier this year.
Democrats accused Republican Senator Ted Stevens of the U.S. state of Alaska of holding the defense bill hostage to push through a measure allowing oil drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge.
In a statement, Senate Democratic minority leader Harry Reid said the Senate could move quickly to pass the defense bill once the controversial Alaska drilling measure had been resolved.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush continues to support oil drilling in the Alaska wilderness.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-12-21-voa86.cfm |
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:18 pm |
|
We need both a temporary solution and a long-term solution. As I said in my last post, we need to decrease our dependency on foreign oil in the short term by utilizing our resources at home. However, in the long-term we need to start REALLY working on finding alternative sources of fuel, for a number of reasons. That's why I say both. I say give incentives and rewards to businesses and research organizations that research and implement alternative sources of fuel. On the other hand I think that because that will take some time, and we cannot continue to depend on Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and what have you for oil, solely, we have to utilize our resources at home. That includes going to an arctic wasteland and drilling there and even coming to my state of Colorado and drilling a little, where oil has been found. We should also increase our number of refinaries by two or so. This way we can work with both the temporary needs and the long-term needs.
I mean, looking at it reasonably, can we simply count on alternative fuels coming along in the next five years and continue to rely on others for oil? No, I don't think so. I think that is entirely unreasonable. That's why I think we need to do both things, not just one or the other, because simply drilling for oil and creating new refinaries will only help the problem for a short time, like a band-aid, and not help us for the future and also working on new energy sources only isn't going to help either, because that's only gonna work in the long-term when we have to think of the short term as well.
That's why I come to this position of really cracking down on both. Feel free to disagree. Both sides have good arguments. I just happen to think that mine is the more effective method, considering the facts that are layed before us. But that's just me.
(Btw, I'm not happy about the Senate's decision here.)
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:25 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | We need both a temporary solution and a long-term solution. As I said in my last post, we need to decrease our dependency on foreign oil in the short term by utilizing our resources at home. However, in the long-term we need to start REALLY working on finding alternative sources of fuel, for a number of reasons. That's why I say both. I say give incentives and rewards to businesses and research organizations that research and implement alternative sources of fuel. On the other hand I think that because that will take some time, and we cannot continue to depend on Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and what have you for oil, solely, we have to utilize our resources at home. That includes going to an arctic wasteland and drilling there and even coming to my state of Colorado and drilling a little, where oil has been found. We should also increase our number of refinaries by two or so. This way we can work with both the temporary needs and the long-term needs.
I mean, looking at it reasonably, can we simply count on alternative fuels coming along in the next five years and continue to rely on others for oil? No, I don't think so. I think that is entirely unreasonable. That's why I think we need to do both things, not just one or the other, because simply drilling for oil and creating new refinaries will only help the problem for a short time, like a band-aid, and not help us for the future and also working on new energy sources only isn't going to help either, because that's only gonna work in the long-term when we have to think of the short term as well.
That's why I come to this position of really cracking down on both. Feel free to disagree. Both sides have good arguments. I just happen to think that mine is the more effective method, considering the facts that are layed before us. But that's just me.
(Btw, I'm not happy about the Senate's decision here.) |
The U.S. Government needs to start implementing the new types of energy available instead of spending years and years just studying it. 
Don't you understand that without a good environment, the world would'nt survive.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:36 pm |
|
I fail to see how this SMALL area in Alaska really has much value and how we couldn't live without it. I just don't see it.
And we do have alternative fuels, and we should institute them, but they aren't enough and as workable as those that could be developed. Therefore I still stand by my opinions, although I do submit to you that America should institute those new fuel sources as well and make them more wide-spread. But that's not as helpful in the short-term. We need to do all those things, because the fact is, the technology that we have now isn't enough to go wide-spread and everything and won't work right now. We need to use those technologies, plus utilize our resources in this country right now (natural), AND research and develop more more efficient, reliable, and better fuel sources than we have now.
Feel free to disagree. Your arguments are valid; I just happen to disagree with them, judging from the facts and how I see them.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:57 pm |
|
You mean besides the endangered creatures living there, The animal population that will be move or killed, and the time it will take to set everything up, drill, find the oil pocket then pipe all the oil out?
Think outside the box for a bit. We have other alternatives. Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Tidal and Hydro-electric power to name a few. It's time to put these to use and stop sitting on the technology.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:05 pm |
|
Hasn't this been pounded enough?
Fact: The area in question is a tiny fraction of the land area of Alaska.
Fact: If someone leans hard enough on them, the drillers CAN do their job without "destroying the environment".
Fact: Oil is not just used for energy. It is a raw material for many industries. So even if we come up with some magical new energy source, we still need oil.
Fact: The energy companies are not going to give up on oil until something new justifies not only a lower cost in the market, but pays for the new infrastructure needed and pays off the old one.
Fact: ONE energy company lobbyist can out-vote the rest of us combined. Sad but true. So don't expect the government to come to our aid.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:33 pm |
|
VERY good points, webtaz. And by the way--the caribou seem to like oil drilling, as their numbers increase with it 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Thu Dec 22, 2005 6:09 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | Hasn't this been pounded enough?
Fact: The area in question is a tiny fraction of the land area of Alaska.
|
So because it is a tiny fraction land that the animals in the area don't matter and we don't need respect them... so lets just build the oil pipeline because we can.
You people shouldn't support the oil companies. They are the most corrupted corporations in the world.
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Thu Dec 22, 2005 6:34 pm |
|
I'm glad the senate did something right all they got to do now is pass same sex marriages and other stuff than this world would be alot better.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:17 am |
|
| borgslayer wrote: | | webtaz99 wrote: | Hasn't this been pounded enough?
Fact: The area in question is a tiny fraction of the land area of Alaska.
|
So because it is a tiny fraction land that the animals in the area don't matter and we don't need respect them... so lets just build the oil pipeline because we can.
You people shouldn't support the oil companies. They are the most corrupted corporations in the world. |
I don't support the oil companies (well, I buy gasoline, plastic, medicines, tires, and lots of other oil-derived stuff, so I do support them economically).
My point is that this drilling program would not "destroy the environment" or "ruin the wilderness" of Alaska as the environmental extremists claim. At the same time, it's pointless to think that the oil companies are suddenly going to decide to give up on oil, when their very existence is based on it.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:32 pm |
|
I have a question, how long would it take us to set up that area to be able to drill it? Is the time required to do that less than if we began to mandate more fuel efficient cars? How about begining to wean Americans off of using so much oil? Not the companies, but normal Americans. That stikes me as being a much more effective solution.
| webtaz99 wrote: | | Fact: If someone leans hard enough on them, the drillers CAN do their job without "destroying the environment". |
But will someone lean on them hard enough? Probably not.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:10 pm |
|
Well, it'll take a heck of a long time for Americans to get off oil and gasoline. I mean, think of how many hundreds of millions of Americans drive cars. It's veeeeery difficult to get them all to adjust, and so we need to have more supply for that. That's my argument for the one question.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:23 pm |
|
| TrekkieMage wrote: | I have a question, how long would it take us to set up that area to be able to drill it? Is the time required to do that less than if we began to mandate more fuel efficient cars? How about begining to wean Americans off of using so much oil? Not the companies, but normal Americans. That stikes me as being a much more effective solution.
| webtaz99 wrote: | | Fact: If someone leans hard enough on them, the drillers CAN do their job without "destroying the environment". |
But will someone lean on them hard enough? Probably not. |
The government HAS mandated more efficient cars, and continually demands more efficiency. That's why cars are cheap snap-together plastic toys now. Hybrids get better mileage, but cost much more. And if you can't afford one, it doesn't matter how much you want to save the Earth.
Most people don't know it, but modern production gasoline engines are very close to being as efficient as they possibly can be. The newest designs attempt to ensure that the gasoline vapors between the piston and cylinder wall just above the rings gets burned.
The sad truth is that although most people are willing to do some things to be more "efficient", they draw the line at anything that makes their life harder or more complicated. Try asking 10 people you know that drive to take the bus.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:35 am |
|
Do the Animals vote, pay taxes, work, buy gas?
Let's be realistic here, say you're in the African jungle, a Lion isn't going to hesitate to kill you if you're in his way. All he cares about is bringing home your corpse to his pride for the night's meal.
Fact is, we need gas; It's the same people who criticize Bush because of the high gas prices, who typically, also criticize Bush for wanting to drill in AK to solve part of that problem. There's a lot more oil up there than you may have been led to believe.
It's some of the most desolate, useless land on Earth. If they wanted to drill in downtown New York, I might oppose it, but this isn't otherwise useable land, it's tundra.
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:56 am |
|
Its only useless because "people cannot live in it" but animals can live in it so why don't we always have to destroy the animal habitat?
Look when you get hundreds or even thousands of worked out people building a pipeline some of the workers will ultimately start killing animals for food in the cold.
If everyone followed the Republican way we would have little forest left and fewer animals on land or sea.
The way I see it is you guys are saying "Who cares about the animals they don't matter only humans matter" or "We need wood so lets start cutting down the forest so we have more paper" or "We need more oil so lets drill for more instead looking for other sources"
We seriously shouldn't be obessed about oil. We can find the way to find another source of cleaner energy. Humans are smart enough to know that we can't rely on oil forever because oil is not infinite.
Drilling for oil in Alaska is a disaster, people who will do the drilling will lose their lives to the bitter cold. The environment will be harmed. It will take forever to set-up and cost American tax payer billions of dollars. Gas prices will rise or stay the same for 20 years or more. Drilling that region won't help with the gas crisis.
Drilling that region won't help with the gas crisis.
Drilling that region won't help with the gas crisis.
Drilling that region won't help with the gas crisis.
Drilling that region won't help with the gas crisis.
Drilling that region won't help with the gas crisis.Drilling that region won't help with the gas crisis.
You guys understand now? 
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:39 am |
|
No I don't understand; your misguided opinion has no factual base.
Watch this:
Drilling that region will help with the gas crisis.
Drilling that region will help with the gas crisis.
Drilling that region will help with the gas crisis.
Drilling that region will help with the gas crisis.
Drilling that region will help with the gas crisis.Drilling that region will help with the gas crisis.
Wow, that really made my argument.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
