Has there not yet been a thread about the opening of Alaska to drilling?

Kind of an accurate statement - it's what inspired me to try and find a thread on this in the 1st place.

Congress can redeem itself by passing emergency regulations that require NASCAR to use non-petroleum based fuels from now on.

Alaskans get an annual dividend of around a grand a year because of the oil..(you just have to live in Alaska for a year, pay taxes and all that.) If Bush starts depleting the source of Alaskans' dividends, wouldn't the dividend shrink eventually for each, making Alaskans quite upset?

Or did Bush come up with a plan to recoup Alaskans for this dividend loss, if there will be one? Given how Bush-friendly Alaska is, I figure the pros outweight the cons for Alaskans in general?

I guess I need to talk to someone in the oil business to understand all of this.

Surely this source is being depleted with every single barrel that comes out of the ground, whichever part of Alaska it's being pumped out of?

And there apparently has!

ANWR is a symbolic goal, and little else. if the repubs can get a victory by drilling in that rinky-dink little spot that's been heavily contested for years, they can drill ANYwhere.

ok, found a BBC thing about it:

Correspondents say there is not much interest among the oil companies in drilling in the refuge, as its economic potential no longer seems promising.

However, some Republicans see the plan as a political manoeuvre which could open the way for other environmentally controversial projects such as drilling off Florida or California....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4355871.stm

and from the CS Monitor:

So why are President Bush, the Alaska delegation, and others pushing this controversial proposal? Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney - both former oil men - see it as an important part of the effort to reduce US dependence on foreign oil. Unlike politicians in California and Florida, including the President's brother Gov. Jeb Bush, who resist unsightly oil rigs off their coasts, the Alaska congressional delegation is all for drilling in a remote part of their state. If nothing else, ANWR symbolically focuses the broader debate over natural resource extraction in wild areas around the country.

I'm describing reality, not negotiating based on science fiction, but I'd be happy to move the goalposts if you'd like. "Substantial" refers to more than 6 months, extracted over 10 years.

WTF is a "“Ann-Wahr�"?

"Ann-wahr" as translated by Blackberry

I wasn't aware of any other potential sources on non-protected land up there. Do you have a source or is that hypothetical?

we're already drilling in non-protected parts of the North Slope, 30 miles away.

Cariboubama

http://arcticjournal.com/press-releases/1438/us-approves-shells-arctic-drilling-lease

"Environmentalists are hailing the Obama administration for removing the Atlantic coast from the list of areas approved for offshore drilling—but they aren’t too happy with other parts of the five-year plan released Tuesday.

They charge that the plan’s 13 new oil and gas leases in the Arctic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico will undercut America’s commitments to slash its carbon emissions under the Paris climate accord and endanger wildlife and coastal communities...."

http://www.alternet.org/environment/obama-administration-puts-arctic-offshore-oil-drilling-back-play