| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Maaxx" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2005 03:39:18 PM |
| Object: |
We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or left, you
can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49 vote in the Senate
to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal
Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and conservative Republicans to get
more excited than the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals by
watching their reaction to ANWR.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start tapping
into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take years to get
the crude flowing out of the ground. That means new jobs for Americans who
handle the drilling and build the pipeline to Alaska. It also means that
we're going to acquire more of the substance that powers our economy without
having to pay out our money to less than friendly countries like Saudi
Arabia & Venezuela. Best of all, the oil is in the absolute middle of
nowhere, so we don't have to inconvenience anyone to drill ANWR. To the
right, developing ANWR is all upside, all positive, an idea that is so
fantastic that they can hardly understand how any rational person could
oppose it.
On the other hand, liberals are enraged that it looks like we may be
drilling ANWR. Part of that is because of their free floating hostility to
the oil industry, but their real beef is that ANWR is such a remote area.
Conservatives may consider that a feature, but to liberals it's a bug. The
very fact that it's a godforsaken region that almost no one visits makes it
so rare and valuable to them that it's worth leaving billions of dollars
worth of oil in the ground and forsaking tens of thousands of jobs just in
case someone wants to ever see what the boonies are like in the future. Oh,
and we mustn't forget, they claim that the pipelines, roads, oilmen and
people going back and forth might -- and I say might because this is heavily
disputed -- disturb the animals. The fact that you could make the exact same
argument about every populated area in North America seems lost on them.
Now you tell me: who's looking out for everyday Americans on this issue?
Conservatives who want more jobs & oil for their fellow countrymen or
liberals who are concerned about future back-packing trips for an
infinitesimal percentage of the population and maybe happier caribou and
polar bears, maybe not. That's not a tough call.
.
|
|
| User: "ANWR Oil Worker Ready : Lets Roll Ready to drill ANWR@ Alaska .gov" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
18 Mar 2005 10:13:55 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or
left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49
vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and
conservative Republicans to get more excited than the kid in that Numa
Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals
by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term energy
strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend it ALL!"
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take
years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
That means new jobs for Americans who handle the drilling and build
the
pipeline to Alaska.
LOL! A few hundred jobs in a country the size of the US is nothing.
Who really will win are the oil companies.
Your point?
You are stupid for wanting to sell off what belongs to every American
just to make a few oil company execs even richer.
===================
So when did you crush your gas driven car and buy an electric one to
prevent Oil company executives from getting richer off your money?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
18 Mar 2005 11:26:55 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or
left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49
vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and
conservative Republicans to get more excited than the kid in that
Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals
by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term energy
strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend it ALL!"
Non sequitur. Try harder next time.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take
years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
And everybody else who uses oil. That includes you. Unless you want
everything you buy to get more expensive.
That means new jobs for Americans who handle the drilling and build
the pipeline to Alaska.
LOL! A few hundred jobs in a country the size of the US is nothing.
Who really will win are the oil companies.
Your point?
You are stupid for wanting to sell off what belongs to every American
just to make a few oil company execs even richer.
Sheesh. I don't know how much it really belongs to every American since
there isn't any access into ANWR. You make it sound like the government is
selling the whole wildlife reserve to oil companies. Stop sounding like a
typical raving liberal and think sensibly for a change. Less than .0001%
of ANWR will be open for development. 75% of Alaskans want to drill for
oil there. A potential of 750,000 jobs would be created. That's sounds
good to me.
So far you have made no real argument against drilling for oil in ANWR.
It also means that we're going to acquire more of the substance that
powers our economy without having to pay out our money to less than
friendly countries like Saudi Arabia & Venezuela. Best of all, the
oil is in the absolute middle of nowhere, so we don't have to
inconvenience anyone to drill ANWR. To the right, developing ANWR is
all upside, all positive, an idea that is so fantastic that they can
hardly understand how any rational person could oppose it.
Other than the risk of rendering a few species extinct for a little
oil that will have almost no effect on the economy.
Only an idiot liberal would make such a claim.
Typical right-wing bigotry.
Lack of rebuttal noted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
19 Mar 2005 01:25:10 AM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or
left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49
vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and
conservative Republicans to get more excited than the kid in that
Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals
by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term energy
strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend it ALL!"
Non sequitur. Try harder next time.
It's an analogy, halfwit.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take
years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
And everybody else who uses oil.
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm out a
wildlife refuge.
That means new jobs for Americans who handle the drilling and build
the pipeline to Alaska.
LOL! A few hundred jobs in a country the size of the US is nothing.
Who really will win are the oil companies.
Your point?
You are stupid for wanting to sell off what belongs to every American
just to make a few oil company execs even richer.
Sheesh. I don't know how much it really belongs to every American since
there isn't any access into ANWR.
1) Yes, there is.
2) Why does that make any difference?
You make it sound like the government is
selling the whole wildlife reserve to oil companies. Stop sounding like a
typical raving liberal and think sensibly for a change.
Stop sounding like a selfish right-wing idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
19 Mar 2005 10:18:15 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or
left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49
vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief
and conservative Republicans to get more excited than the kid in
that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and
liberals by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term energy
strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend it
ALL!"
Non sequitur. Try harder next time.
It's an analogy, halfwit.
A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground is
useless.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will
take years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
And everybody else who uses oil.
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm out a
wildlife refuge.
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would *not* be
out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
Of course you haven't supported your position of why drilling is a bad
idea, but that is typical of you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
19 Mar 2005 01:16:14 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or
left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49
vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief
and conservative Republicans to get more excited than the kid in
that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and
liberals by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term energy
strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend it
ALL!"
Non sequitur. Try harder next time.
It's an analogy, halfwit.
A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground is
useless.
Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become more
valuable over time.
And you cannot buy anything with money that's in the bank.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will
take years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
And everybody else who uses oil.
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm out a
wildlife refuge.
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would *not* be
out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Of course you haven't supported your position of why drilling is a bad
idea,
Maybe you should pull your head out of your ***** and read where I did
just that above.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
19 Mar 2005 04:45:39 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right
or left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The
51-49 vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash their teeth
in grief and conservative Republicans to get more excited than
the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and
liberals by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term energy
strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend it
ALL!"
Non sequitur. Try harder next time.
It's an analogy, halfwit.
A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground is
useless.
Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become more
valuable over time.
Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that would mean
paying more money for gas and just about everything else.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will
take years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
And everybody else who uses oil.
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm out a
wildlife refuge.
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would *not* be
out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of South
Carolina "no longer a wilderness." But that's just your screwed up logic.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy ANWR.
Of course you've been griping about how there aren't enough jobs and that
gas prices are too high but when it comes time to put your money where
your mouth is, it's obvious that you really don't care that much about
those things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
21 Mar 2005 04:13:40 AM |
|
|
In article <423cab93$0$29271$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right
or left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The
51-49 vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash their teeth
in grief and conservative Republicans to get more excited than
the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and
liberals by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term energy
strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend it
ALL!"
Non sequitur. Try harder next time.
It's an analogy, halfwit.
A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground is
useless.
Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become more
valuable over time.
Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that would mean
paying more money for gas and just about everything else.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will
take years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
And everybody else who uses oil.
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm out a
wildlife refuge.
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would *not* be
out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of South
Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
As you've been told, the rigs, roads, terminals, camps, pipelines, etc.,
would be spread out over a huge area.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy ANWR.
And if you're wrong, there's no going back. That's the same argument the
denialists are making with global warming; if they're wrong, it's too late
as well.
Of course you've been griping about how there aren't enough jobs and that
gas prices are too high but when it comes time to put your money where
your mouth is, it's obvious that you really don't care that much about
those things.
The ANWR oil wouldn't even be on line for 10+ years, so it's hardly a cure
for high gas prices.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Dykes" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
21 Mar 2005 09:48:11 AM |
|
|
In article <d1mo97$n6d$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd Parker <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:
In article <423cab93$0$29271$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right
or left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The
51-49 vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash their teeth
in grief and conservative Republicans to get more excited than
the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and
liberals by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term energy
strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend it
ALL!"
Non sequitur. Try harder next time.
It's an analogy, halfwit.
A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground is
useless.
Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become more
valuable over time.
Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that would mean
paying more money for gas and just about everything else.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will
take years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
And everybody else who uses oil.
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm out a
wildlife refuge.
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would *not* be
out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of South
Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
As you've been told, the rigs, roads, terminals, camps, pipelines, etc.,
would be spread out over a huge area.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy ANWR.
And if you're wrong, there's no going back. That's the same argument the
denialists are making with global warming; if they're wrong, it's too late
as well.
Of course you've been griping about how there aren't enough jobs and that
gas prices are too high but when it comes time to put your money where
your mouth is, it's obvious that you really don't care that much about
those things.
The ANWR oil wouldn't even be on line for 10+ years, so it's hardly a cure
for high gas prices.
I bet we can get the oil on the coast of Florida pumping in months to a year.
Simple conservation efforts have a payback immediatly.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
26 Mar 2005 08:43:37 PM |
|
|
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <423cab93$0$29271$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the
right
or left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR
everywhere. The
51-49 vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic
National
Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash their
teeth
in grief and conservative Republicans to get more excited
than
the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives
and
liberals by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's
natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term
energy
strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend
it
ALL!"
Non sequitur. Try harder next time.
It's an analogy, halfwit.
A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground
is
useless.
Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become
more
valuable over time.
Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that
would mean
paying more money for gas and just about everything else.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to
start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it
will
take years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
And everybody else who uses oil.
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in
lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm out a
wildlife refuge.
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be
out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in
the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South
Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
As you've been told, the rigs, roads, terminals, camps, pipelines,
etc.,
would be spread out over a huge area.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.
And if you're wrong, there's no going back. That's the same argument
the
denialists are making with global warming; if they're wrong, it's too
late
as well.
Of course you've been griping about how there aren't enough jobs and
that
gas prices are too high but when it comes time to put your money
where
your mouth is, it's obvious that you really don't care that much
about
those things.
The ANWR oil wouldn't even be on line for 10+ years, so it's hardly a
cure
for high gas prices.
Actually it is more like five years +.
It will create jobs, which is good
It will help us become less dependent on foreign oil, which is also
good
If maintained properly, monitored, it will not harm the wildlife. I am
all for inspections by all groups to make sure it is being built to
standards and operated safely.
Meanwhile, while we drill for oil, create jobs, and become less
dependent on foreign oil, I think we should continue to work towards
ways to become less dependent on oil all together.
Right now, there really is no other alternative but to explore and
drill for our own oil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jbohren" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
26 Mar 2005 08:57:11 PM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1111891417.934967.268100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <423cab93$0$29271$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the
right
or left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR
everywhere. The
51-49 vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic
National
Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash their
teeth
in grief and conservative Republicans to get more excited
than
the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives
and
liberals by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's
natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term
energy
strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better spend
it
ALL!"
Non sequitur. Try harder next time.
It's an analogy, halfwit.
A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the ground
is
useless.
Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to become
more
valuable over time.
Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that
would mean
paying more money for gas and just about everything else.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to
start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it
will
take years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
And everybody else who uses oil.
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result in
lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm out a
wildlife refuge.
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be
out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines in
the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South
Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
As you've been told, the rigs, roads, terminals, camps, pipelines,
etc.,
would be spread out over a huge area.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to destroy
ANWR.
And if you're wrong, there's no going back. That's the same argument
the
denialists are making with global warming; if they're wrong, it's too
late
as well.
Of course you've been griping about how there aren't enough jobs and
that
gas prices are too high but when it comes time to put your money
where
your mouth is, it's obvious that you really don't care that much
about
those things.
The ANWR oil wouldn't even be on line for 10+ years, so it's hardly a
cure
for high gas prices.
Actually it is more like five years +.
It will create jobs, which is good
It will help us become less dependent on foreign oil, which is also
good
If maintained properly, monitored, it will not harm the wildlife. I am
all for inspections by all groups to make sure it is being built to
standards and operated safely.
Meanwhile, while we drill for oil, create jobs, and become less
dependent on foreign oil, I think we should continue to work towards
ways to become less dependent on oil all together.
Right now, there really is no other alternative but to explore and
drill for our own oil.
Please cite your source for the 5 year timeline. ANWR isn't one big oil
pool. Its scattered oil fields. Figure in summer geologic surveys, winter
seismic surveys, exploration drilling, and then when an oilfield worth
drilling is found, add planning, permitting, and construction. 10 years and
probably 12 years minimum if ANWR was opened today.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 12:07:32 AM |
|
|
jbohren wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1111891417.934967.268100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article
<423cab93$0$29271$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on
the
right
or left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR
everywhere. The
51-49 vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic
National
Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash
their
teeth
in grief and conservative Republicans to get more
excited
than
the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives
and
liberals by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off
America's
natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term
energy
strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better
spend
it
ALL!"
Non sequitur. Try harder next time.
It's an analogy, halfwit.
A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the
ground
is
useless.
Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to
become
more
valuable over time.
Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that
would mean
paying more money for gas and just about everything else.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about
to
start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if
it
will
take years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
And everybody else who uses oil.
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result
in
lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm
out a
wildlife refuge.
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be
out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines
in
the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South
Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
As you've been told, the rigs, roads, terminals, camps, pipelines,
etc.,
would be spread out over a huge area.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to
destroy
ANWR.
And if you're wrong, there's no going back. That's the same
argument
the
denialists are making with global warming; if they're wrong, it's
too
late
as well.
Of course you've been griping about how there aren't enough jobs
and
that
gas prices are too high but when it comes time to put your money
where
your mouth is, it's obvious that you really don't care that much
about
those things.
The ANWR oil wouldn't even be on line for 10+ years, so it's
hardly a
cure
for high gas prices.
Actually it is more like five years +.
It will create jobs, which is good
It will help us become less dependent on foreign oil, which is also
good
If maintained properly, monitored, it will not harm the wildlife.
I am
all for inspections by all groups to make sure it is being built to
standards and operated safely.
Meanwhile, while we drill for oil, create jobs, and become less
dependent on foreign oil, I think we should continue to work
towards
ways to become less dependent on oil all together.
Right now, there really is no other alternative but to explore and
drill for our own oil.
Please cite your source for the 5 year timeline.
NBC News, a few days ago..sorry I don't have any specifics.
I noticed you had no cite for your sorce of 10 years +
ANWR isn't one big oil
pool. Its scattered oil fields.
There is enough oil there to sustain the U.S. for a long period. Jobs
will be created, fuel prices will stabalize, this will be a wake up
call to the Saudi's.
Figure in summer geologic surveys, winter
seismic surveys, exploration drilling, and then when an oilfield
worth
drilling is found, add planning, permitting, and construction. 10
years and
probably 12 years minimum if ANWR was opened today.
Note: No cites provided and yet you ask me for a cite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Me" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 02:23:34 PM |
|
|
In article <1111903652.734666.277080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
NBC News, a few days ago..sorry I don't have any specifics.
I noticed you had no cite for your sorce of 10 years +
and you actually believe these "Talking Heads"? NBC hasn't a CLUE
how much oil is under ANWAR, and neither does anyone else. It is
all based on very speculative surveys, done years ago, and with
ancient technology. Until it is EXPLORED, No one really knows,
and anyone who says they do KNOW, is just plain full of BS.....
Me
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 12:47:48 AM |
|
|
In article <1111903652.734666.277080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
jbohren wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1111891417.934967.268100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article
<423cab93$0$29271$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on
the
right
or left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR
everywhere. The
51-49 vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic
National
Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash
their
teeth
in grief and conservative Republicans to get more
excited
than
the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives
and
liberals by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off
America's
natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term
energy
strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better
spend
it
ALL!"
Non sequitur. Try harder next time.
It's an analogy, halfwit.
A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the
ground
is
useless.
Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to
become
more
valuable over time.
Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that
would mean
paying more money for gas and just about everything else.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about
to
start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if
it
will
take years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
And everybody else who uses oil.
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result
in
lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm
out a
wildlife refuge.
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be
out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines
in
the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South
Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
As you've been told, the rigs, roads, terminals, camps, pipelines,
etc.,
would be spread out over a huge area.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to
destroy
ANWR.
And if you're wrong, there's no going back. That's the same
argument
the
denialists are making with global warming; if they're wrong, it's
too
late
as well.
Of course you've been griping about how there aren't enough jobs
and
that
gas prices are too high but when it comes time to put your money
where
your mouth is, it's obvious that you really don't care that much
about
those things.
The ANWR oil wouldn't even be on line for 10+ years, so it's
hardly a
cure
for high gas prices.
Actually it is more like five years +.
It will create jobs, which is good
It will help us become less dependent on foreign oil, which is also
good
If maintained properly, monitored, it will not harm the wildlife.
I am
all for inspections by all groups to make sure it is being built to
standards and operated safely.
Meanwhile, while we drill for oil, create jobs, and become less
dependent on foreign oil, I think we should continue to work
towards
ways to become less dependent on oil all together.
Right now, there really is no other alternative but to explore and
drill for our own oil.
Please cite your source for the 5 year timeline.
NBC News, a few days ago..sorry I don't have any specifics.
I noticed you had no cite for your sorce of 10 years +
ANWR isn't one big oil
pool. Its scattered oil fields.
There is enough oil there to sustain the U.S. for a long period. Jobs
will be created, fuel prices will stabalize, this will be a wake up
call to the Saudi's.
Figure in summer geologic surveys, winter
seismic surveys, exploration drilling, and then when an oilfield
worth
drilling is found, add planning, permitting, and construction. 10
years and
probably 12 years minimum if ANWR was opened today.
Note: No cites provided and yet you ask me for a cite.
Osprey has bitched in the past how his gas prices need to be protected.
Sell the truck, *****. Sell the truck.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 12:26:04 AM |
|
|
jbohren wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1111891417.934967.268100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article
<423cab93$0$29271$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1htpt$kjp$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1gk4l$f1d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1g5jf$qnt$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on
the
right
or left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR
everywhere. The
51-49 vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic
National
Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash
their
teeth
in grief and conservative Republicans to get more
excited
than
the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives
and
liberals by watching their reaction to ANWR.
And about Republicans, who would rather sell off
America's
natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term
energy
strategy.
The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.
"Money isn't doing any good sitting in the bank. Better
spend
it
ALL!"
Non sequitur. Try harder next time.
It's an analogy, halfwit.
A false one. Money earns interest in the bank. Oil in the
ground
is
useless.
Oil in the ground also "earns interest" since it tends to
become
more
valuable over time.
Of course we don't want the oil to "earn interest" because that
would mean
paying more money for gas and just about everything else.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about
to
start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if
it
will
take years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.
Think of all the money to be made!
That's a good thing.
For oil companies.
And everybody else who uses oil.
Nope. Doesn't do anything for me. It's unlikely to result
in
lower
prices, which means more profits for oil companies and I'm
out a
wildlife refuge.
Of course you snipped the section which explained how we would
*not* be
out of a refuge why drilling is a good idea.
I snipped your *****. Putting drilling rigs and pipelines
in
the
wilderness means that it's no longer a wilderness.
Well, if you call a few oil rigs in a wildlife refuge the size of
South
Carolina "no longer a wilderness."
As you've been told, the rigs, roads, terminals, camps, pipelines,
etc.,
would be spread out over a huge area.
But that's just your screwed up logic.
Call it whatever you want but a few oil rigs isn't going to
destroy
ANWR.
And if you're wrong, there's no going back. That's the same
argument
the
denialists are making with global warming; if they're wrong, it's
too
late
as well.
Of course you've been griping about how there aren't enough jobs
and
that
gas prices are too high but when it comes time to put your money
where
your mouth is, it's obvious that you really don't care that much
about
those things.
The ANWR oil wouldn't even be on line for 10+ years, so it's
hardly a
cure
for high gas prices.
Actually it is more like five years +.
It will create jobs, which is good
It will help us become less dependent on foreign oil, which is also
good
If maintained properly, monitored, it will not harm the wildlife.
I am
all for inspections by all groups to make sure it is being built to
standards and operated safely.
Meanwhile, while we drill for oil, create jobs, and become less
dependent on foreign oil, I think we should continue to work
towards
ways to become less dependent on oil all together.
Right now, there really is no other alternative but to explore and
drill for our own oil.
Please cite your source for the 5 year timeline. ANWR isn't one big
oil
pool. Its scattered oil fields. Figure in summer geologic surveys,
winter
seismic surveys, exploration drilling, and then when an oilfield
worth
drilling is found, add planning, permitting, and construction. 10
years and
probably 12 years minimum if ANWR was opened today.
"Advocates like the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's
trade association, say the refuge sits atop enough oil to replace U.S.
imports from Saudi Arabia for two decades."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/bush.energy/
"The oilfields of Alaska produce enough oil to free the U.S. from
dependence upon foreign supplies. In February of 1993, the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas, came up with
estimates of Alaskan oil resources. The department certified that
proven reserves totaled 15.923 billion barrels of crude oil, and they
estimated potential reserves exceeding this figure that ranged from 3
to 20.4 billion additional barrels. With all this oil, why is the
United States so dependent upon Middle Eastern sources?"
http://www.liquidzine.com/news01.html
"Drilling proponents said tapping the refuge would lessen dependence on
foreign oil, help bring down energy prices, provide jobs and ease the
country's growing trade imbalance. They also argued that modern
technology would limit the area needed to drill in the arctic."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40670-2005Mar16.html
I will restate my claim of five years, I was off by two. They are
saying seven to 10 years..
If Congress approves the Alaskan drilling, oil industry officials said
it probably would take seven to 10 more years before oil begins flowing
from the ground. Oil production already occurs near the refuge on
Alaska's North Slope.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40670-2005Mar16.html
Now, there are some cites. Far more than what you were able to offer.
As you can see there is a need to drill and there are some positives
that can come out of this. And I will stand by my earlier comment.
Yes, I support the drilling. But I also support allowing all groups
who have an interest in this to watch it carefully and to ensure that
wildlife is being protected. Why not allow Sierra to monitor the
operation?
Last year in one of the courses I was taking in College, we had a young
man from Pardee Gas Company give us a speech on this very issue. He
showed us research that shows there is plenty of oil there to serve and
meet the demands of the United States. Fact is, we export a lot of the
oil up there now to other countries. Why? Why aren't we using it
ourselves?
Personally, I think we should be working harder to get off the
dependence on oil. I would like to see safer and cleaner methods. I
care a great deal for our environment and the wildlife, but I know that
at the present we do need the oil. So I support the drilling for oil
in Alaska, for now, to meet our needs. So in the future we can control
the prices of oil and gas. We should have NEVER allowed ourselves to
become so dependent on oil from OPEC.
I think this will open their eyes. We are the largest importer of oil,
with other countries on the rise. That is why oil and gas is so high
now, the demand is just too high.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jbohren" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 01:54:25 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1111904764.397473.207570@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
jbohren wrote:
snipped for brevity
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/bush.energy/
That article is a sales pitch and has some EXTREMELY optimistic numbers. I
suspect he got his figures from Arctic Power, a lobby group for oil
developement. The 2000 acre limit does NOT include roads, runways,
pipelines, etc. ANWR does not have a mammoth oilfield like Kuparuk or
Prudhoe Bay, but scattered oilfields. Connecting the drill pads is miles of
roads and pipeline.
If you want an unbiased source, go to the USGS website
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/
ANWR is also not going to increase the flow in the pipeline. Kuparuk and
Prudhoe Bay are in a yearly decline by about 100k barrels of oil per day.
In other words, new oilfields have to 100k barrels to the daily flow each
year just to make up the decline of these 2 oilfields.
http://www.liquidzine.com/news01.html
Those are old figures and those proven reserves are basically Kuparuk and
Prudhoe Bay.
They are correct about the gas reserves and gas is really the big ticket to
reducing US dependence on foreign energy sources.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40670-2005Mar16.html
I will restate my claim of five years, I was off by two. They are
saying seven to 10 years..
Re-read my post. I said 10 and more likely 12 years. Thats a hell of a
difference from 5 years
Hell, 7 to 10 is a big difference than 5 years..
I think 10 is being optimistic but do-able IF a decent oilfield is found and
the demarkation is done quickly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 02:04:56 AM |
|
|
jbohren wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1111904764.397473.207570@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
jbohren wrote:
snipped for brevity
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/bush.energy/
That article is a sales pitch and has some EXTREMELY optimistic
numbers. I
suspect he got his figures from Arctic Power, a lobby group for oil
developement. The 2000 acre limit does NOT include roads, runways,
pipelines, etc. ANWR does not have a mammoth oilfield like Kuparuk
or
Prudhoe Bay, but scattered oilfields. Connecting the drill pads is
miles of
roads and pipeline.
If you want an unbiased source, go to the USGS website
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/
ANWR is also not going to increase the flow in the pipeline. Kuparuk
and
Prudhoe Bay are in a yearly decline by about 100k barrels of oil per
day.
In other words, new oilfields have to 100k barrels to the daily flow
each
year just to make up the decline of these 2 oilfields.
http://www.liquidzine.com/news01.html
Those are old figures and those proven reserves are basically Kuparuk
and
Prudhoe Bay.
They are correct about the gas reserves and gas is really the big
ticket to
reducing US dependence on foreign energy sources.
Yes, it is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40670-2005Mar16.html
I will restate my claim of five years, I was off by two. They are
saying seven to 10 years..
Re-read my post. I said 10 and more likely 12 years. Thats a hell
of a
difference from 5 years
Re-read my post, I said 5 +
Hell, 7 to 10 is a big difference than 5 years..
I said 5 +
I think 10 is being optimistic but do-able IF a decent oilfield is
found and
the demarkation is done quickly.
Well, until someone else comes up with a better way to get less
dependent on foreign oil, the senate has done the right thing for now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 07:58:15 PM |
|
|
In article <1111910696.168166.146060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
jbohren wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1111904764.397473.207570@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
jbohren wrote:
snipped for brevity
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/bush.energy/
That article is a sales pitch and has some EXTREMELY optimistic
numbers. I
suspect he got his figures from Arctic Power, a lobby group for oil
developement. The 2000 acre limit does NOT include roads, runways,
pipelines, etc. ANWR does not have a mammoth oilfield like Kuparuk
or
Prudhoe Bay, but scattered oilfields. Connecting the drill pads is
miles of
roads and pipeline.
If you want an unbiased source, go to the USGS website
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/
ANWR is also not going to increase the flow in the pipeline. Kuparuk
and
Prudhoe Bay are in a yearly decline by about 100k barrels of oil per
day.
In other words, new oilfields have to 100k barrels to the daily flow
each
year just to make up the decline of these 2 oilfields.
http://www.liquidzine.com/news01.html
Those are old figures and those proven reserves are basically Kuparuk
and
Prudhoe Bay.
They are correct about the gas reserves and gas is really the big
ticket to
reducing US dependence on foreign energy sources.
Yes, it is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40670-2005Mar16.html
I will restate my claim of five years, I was off by two. They are
saying seven to 10 years..
Re-read my post. I said 10 and more likely 12 years. Thats a hell
of a
difference from 5 years
Re-read my post, I said 5 +
Osprey does things like this. It gives him a way out. It is like when
he talks about how Schiavo's husband may have abused her but ends with
"we don't know for sure." Do you think he teaches his children this
crap?
Hell, 7 to 10 is a big difference than 5 years..
I said 5 +
This is called, "Watch Osprey run..."
I think 10 is being optimistic but do-able IF a decent oilfield is
found and
the demarkation is done quickly.
Well, until someone else comes up with a better way to get less
dependent on foreign oil, the senate has done the right thing for now.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Me" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 02:19:44 PM |
|
|
In article <1111904764.397473.207570@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Fact is, we export a lot of the
oil up there now to other countries. Why? Why aren't we using it
ourselves?
the FACT is that NONE of the Alaskan Oil from the North Slope is exported
anywhere. It is all used domestically in West Coast and Gulf Coast
Refineries. Better you should research your facts before you spew you
stuff..........
Me who knows better.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 11:09:26 PM |
|
|
Me wrote:
In article <1111904764.397473.207570@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Fact is, we export a lot of the
oil up there now to other countries. Why? Why aren't we using it
ourselves?
the FACT is that NONE of the Alaskan Oil from the North Slope is
exported
anywhere. It is all used domestically in West Coast and Gulf Coast
Refineries. Better you should research your facts before you spew
you
stuff..........
Me who knows better.....
Oh, and since you are going to be doing some research and show me the
"facts", here is a little research I have done..:o) Enjoy
http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Natural/nrgen-25.cfm?&CFID=3D71783=
7&CFTOKEN=3D92081167
Summary
As a reaction to oil prices and supply concerns, several bills have
been introduced during 2000 which would ban the export of crude oil
produced on Alaska's North Slope. The export of the oil had been
prohibited by the 1973 law facilitating the construction of the
pipeline system now transporting oil to the ice-free, southern Alaska
port of Valdez. Subsequently, concerns about adverse effects on energy
security, supply and price were alleviated. In 1995, legislation was
enacted permitting export. Relatively small amounts - never more than
7% - of Alaskan crude have been sold to Korea, Japan and China. Korea
imports about half of this oil.
The Alaska crude export issue has become especially focused on the West
Coast, where gasoline prices are significantly higher than in the rest
of the nation. Concern exists that the exports - which might otherwise
be destined for the regional market - are not fully replaced by
imported crude during the current episode of short supply, and that may
have contributed to the region's higher fuel prices.
Ownership of Alaskan oil is changing. BP Amoco and Arco are planning to
merge, and as part of this transaction, Arco's one-third stake is being
sold to Philip's. This may change the dynamics of the market for
Alaskan crude and could lead to a change in sentiment at BP Amoco
(reportedly the only exporter) about selling crude abroad.
This report will be updated as legislative developments evolve or as
conditions in oil markets change.
Introduction
About 7% of crude oil production from the Alaska North Slope (ANS) is
currently exported to South Korea, Japan, and China. Tight supplies on
world oil markets and unfavorable public reaction to exporting domestic
oil during times of high prices and tight supply have focused
legislative attention on the Alaska exports. ANS exports had been
banned since construction of the trans-Alaska Pipeline System was
authorized in 1973, but an apparent glut of oil on the West Coast
persuaded Congress to lift the ban in 1995.
However, recent controversy over the effects of ANS crude exports has
resulted in the introduction of several bills to reinstate the ANS
export ban. These include:
=B7 S. 2275, Oil Supply Improvement Act - provides that no crude
transported over the pipeline right of way be exported.
=B7 H.R. 4007 - reimposes the prohibition on the export of Alaska
North Slope crude oil.
=B7 H.R. 4017 - to suspend exports of ANS crude until the President
determines the domestic economy is not experiencing a shortage of
foreign crude oil or an inflationary impact due to the demand for
foreign crude.
This report summarizes the history of the ANS export ban, the reasons
it was lifted, and the possible impact of reimposing the ban as
proposed by recent legislation.
Background
When the Arab Oil Embargo began in late 1973, oil development on
Alaska's North Slope had been stymied since the Prudhoe Bay discovery
in 1968 by lack of agreement on a pipeline destination. Two plans were
at loggerheads. One favored by many policy makers envisioned the oil
transiting Canada to a Chicago-area destination. Proponents of this
plan pointed out that the Midwest had no indigenous source of crude;
those opposing it cited the high cost of such a lengthy and expensive
pipeline construction project.
The other plan, which ultimately became the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System (TAPS) was to ship crude oil to the southern Alaska seaport of
Valdez, where it would be shipped to refiners by tanker. Proponents
cited large cost savings and the timeliness of the smaller construction
project. Opponents of this plan contended that TAPS sponsors' true
intent was to export North Slope crude, a contention vocally denied by
TAPS supporters. Exports, asserted Midwest destination proponents, were
counter to the principle that U.S. oil be used domestically, and remain
available for consumption in the U.S. as a matter of energy security.
Pipeline construction from Prudhoe Bay required transiting a route
where much of the right-of-way was on federal lands. Legislation was
required to end what had become a stalemate over the route. The Arab
Embargo brought a new sense of urgency to the debate. As a gasoline
shortage began to develop, a compromise - the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act
(P.L. 93-153) - was achieved. This right-of-way legislation enabled the
shorter pipeline to Valdez, with the proviso that crude transiting the
right-of-way that Congress granted would not be exported.
TAPS was completed in 1977 and initial oil shipments began to flow by
year-end. With continued oilfield development on the North Slope,
production climbed steadily for 10 years, peaking at 2.0 million
barrels per day (mbd) in 1988. In subsequent years, ANS output
declined, falling to 1.5 mbd in 1995 and continuing downward to current
flows of 1.05 mbd.
CRS-3 Much ANS crude reached California, which is the nation's
third-largest oil producer. During the mid-1990s, California produced
800,000 barrels per day (bd), an amount supplemented by another 100,000
bd from the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The combination of
California's indigenous production, ANS crude, and foreign oil imports
resulted in a California oil surplus. The local glut, which depressed
prices for both California and ANS producers, necessitated the shipment
of about 300,000 bd of crude through the Panama Canal to the U.S. Gulf
Coast and U.S. Virgin Islands.
Congress Lifts ANS Export Ban
The West Coast oil glut elicited persistent expressions of concern from
oil producers displeased with what they perceived as artificially
depressed prices. Early efforts to achieve remedial action failed to
establish traction until 1995, when low world oil prices, a relatively
benign level of oil imports (8.0 mbd - in contrast to a current level
of 9.7 mbd) and a supportive Department of Energy (DOE) coincided with
renewed legislative efforts in both Houses of Congress.
A June 1994 DOE study, Exporting Alaskan North Slope Crude Oil-Benefits
and Costs, found that exporting Alaska crude would increase producer
receipts for both California and Alaska oil. The increased producer
receipts would be the result of transportation savings realized by
avoiding a trip through the Panama Canal. Additionally, DOE predicted
larger producer revenues at the wellhead would result in 100,000 bd
more output from Alaska and California than would be the case with
continued export restriction.
Absent a conclusive case for the oil's being needed in the United
States, and with no measurable cost and substantial projected benefits,
bills in the House and Senate (H.R. 70 and S.395) passed by large
margins, 324-77 and 74-25 respectively. The Clinton Administration
supported ANS crude exports and the President signed P.L. 104-58 in
November 1995.
ANS exports totaling 36,000 bd began in 1996; they grew to 66,500 bd in
1997, dipped slightly to 52,900 in 1998 and rose to a high of 74,000 bd
in 1999. According to unpublished DOE figures, during 1999, Korea
(50%), Japan (36%) and China (12%) imported nearly all ANS exports. The
list of customers has remained the same since 1996.
At current levels, ANS exports amount to about 7% of North Slope
output. Viewed relative to total domestic consumption of 19.3 mbd,
these exports comprise less than one- half of one percent. Compared to
net petroleum imports of 9.7 mbd, they are the equivalent of
three-quarters of one percent. As an absolute quantity, these numbers
are not particularly significant. Nevertheless, ANS exports appear to
have become a focal point of legislative debate in the context of
current price and supply difficulties.
While the United States is a net importer of about 9.7 mbd of oil from
abroad, it also exports considerable oil in addition to ANS crude.
During 1999, nearly 900,000 bd were exported. A large percentage of
this was in the form of petroleum coke (28%), which is used in making
steel. Other exports are cross border exchanges of refined products, as
well as some crude, with Canada (13%) and Mexico (28%). Trade in
petroleum coke plus CRS-4 exports to Canada and Mexico account for 69%
of U.S. oil exports. On the other side of the Canada-Mexico trade
equation, these nations supply 15% and 13% respectively of total U.S.
petroleum imports.
Current Debate
Since 1995, Alaska oil production has fallen by about 0.5 mbd. The
output drop is larger than the West Coast surplus was in 1995, when it
was estimated at 300,000 bd. Indigenous California crude production has
declined about 10% since 1995. Moreover, output from the federal
offshore has remained constant. It appears as if there is no current
oversupply.
If the West Coast oil glut has disappeared because of falling
production and there is no persistent oversupply, exported oil is being
replaced by imported crude during a time when petroleum supply is tight
and prices have risen sharply. Gasoline prices in particular have risen
more on the West Coast than elsewhere in the nation. DOE reports that
as of March 20,2000, West Coast pump prices were $1.73 per gallon, 22
cents above the $1.51 national average. While pump prices -
particularly in California - have been higher than in the rest of the
country for the past few years because of local environmental
requirements and other factors, a differential this large is
extraordinary. Not surprisingly, the West Coast gasoline pricing
situation has resulted in consumer complaints and assertions that crude
exports are one cause.
Could the exported 74,000 bd be a causal factor contributing to the
West Coast gasoline price differential? While the oil exported
represents less than 3% of regional consumption - and is presumably
replaced by imports at equivalent prices - exports could currently be
contributing to the price disparity. Highly inelastic oil markets can
experience large price | | | | | | | | | | | |
