Captain Compassion wrote:

Europe's ANWR
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 9/5/2006

Energy: Europe likes to lecture America about consuming too much
fossil fuel. But it has its sights set on new oil and gas deposits in
the Arctic - as should we.

European politicians went apoplectic when President Bush made it clear
early in his presidency that he rejected the Kyoto Protocol to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions. But if the only responsible long-term energy
policy for the industrialized world is to wean ourselves off fossil
fuels, why does Europe now have its eye on oil and natural gas in the
northern Barents Sea?

Answer: It was hit by the reality of the global marketplace.

No, the world has been hit by oil market price manipulation - not "the
reality of the global marketplace" ; the demand for oil has not doubled
over the last five years.. but the prices certainly have.

Yes, Kyoto is a bust. Europe violated its own pollution limits the last
two years.
Red China and Hindia don't even have limits.

Russia cut off natural gas to Europe last winter, causing widespread
shortages and higher prices. Since Russia isn't too interested in
playing ball, the EU finds itself scurrying for alternatives. Solar
panels and windmills suddenly don't look so attractive.

Just as the US is dependent upon unreliable or inimical oil sources, so
also does Europe has come to rely on russian sources.. And russia is
nothing better than the soviet union was. The same KGB goons are back
in charge again - with the same expansionist goals as before.

Instead, they're looking to the Arctic, which makes perfect sense.

Hardly. The effort to switch sourcing from an unreliable russia to a
very reliable Norway is the impetus. Additionally very robust projects
reducing EU reliance upon oil are underway. Wind and solar electric
generation are light years ahead of the US - as is the joint European
Fusion project. Finally, the EU has mandated a 10% bio-fuel component
of its transport fuel supply. Some countries will achieve a 40%
bio-fuel level by 2010.

We
should be doing the same, using the resources available in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. Here are some reasons:

· The Arctic region is home to a quarter of the earth's hydrocarbons.

I doubt that contention.

· The Interior Department estimates that ANWR has the potential to
provide 9 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil.

Big Whoop..
The recent Gulf discovery is estimated to contain 20 Billion barrels.

And the western Colorado oil shales have been estimated to contain 30
TRILLION barrels of oil.

That's right.. 30 TRILLION. We don't even need ANWR. We don't need
anything or anybody - other than Colorado.

"We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources. But
the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when our
forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are
exhausted, when the soils have still further impoverished and washed
into the streams, polluting the rivers, denuding the fields and
obstructing navigation."

"it is also vandalism wantonly to destroy or to permit the destruction
of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a cliff, a forest, or a
species of mammal or bird. Here in the United States we turn our rivers
and streams into sewers and dumping-grounds, we pollute the air, we
destroy forests, and exterminate fishes, birds and mammals -- not to
speak of vulgarizing charming landscapes with hideous advertisements.
But at last it looks as if our people were awakening." - THEODORE
ROOSEVELT

Only problem is there is no working pipeline to get it here...ask BP.

As usual...

ROFLMAO!

"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:f2osf2p2fcmmtl0593abmd6o9n616iuuc8@4ax.com...

Europe's ANWR
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 9/5/2006

Energy: Europe likes to lecture America about consuming too much
fossil fuel. But it has its sights set on new oil and gas deposits in
the Arctic - as should we.

European politicians went apoplectic when President Bush made it clear
early in his presidency that he rejected the Kyoto Protocol to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions. But if the only responsible long-term energy
policy for the industrialized world is to wean ourselves off fossil
fuels, why does Europe now have its eye on oil and natural gas in the
northern Barents Sea?

Answer: It was hit by the reality of the global marketplace.

The EU energy commissioner, Andris Piebalgs, recently met in Brussels,
Belgium, with his Norwegian counterpart, Odd Roger Enoksen, minister
of petroleum and energy. Norway is not an EU member, and the talks
focused on adjusting for the EU's less-than-favorable energy relations
with Russia.

Russia cut off natural gas to Europe last winter, causing widespread
shortages and higher prices. Since Russia isn't too interested in
playing ball, the EU finds itself scurrying for alternatives. Solar
panels and windmills suddenly don't look so attractive.

Norway currently supplies a quarter of the natural gas used by the
union's 25 member states, and the supposedly green-friendly EU has in
the past asked Norway to increase its exploration in the Barents Sea
to augment production. Norway has resisted over fears of environmental
consequences. Norway is already set to boost its capacity
substantially, with the new Sleipner-Easington pipeline opening this
fall to bring offshore gas to Britain.

If Europeans were serious about their environmentalist rhetoric, so
often directed at the U.S., they'd be using the Russian cutoff as the
opportunity for a major, rapid shift to greener energy sources. But of
course they can't do this in the short term, just as we can't. The
alternatives to fossil fuels are simply too expensive right now.

Instead, they're looking to the Arctic, which makes perfect sense. We
should be doing the same, using the resources available in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. Here are some reasons:

. The Arctic region is home to a quarter of the earth's hydrocarbons.

. The Interior Department estimates that ANWR has the potential to
provide 9 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil.

. Less than 2,000 acres of the refuge's 17.5 million acres would be
used.

. Previous Arctic oil and gas exploration has not had a negative
impact on area wildlife.

. Most Alaskans - including the Eskimos, who would be directly
affected - favor ANWR development.

It took Russia's wake-up call last winter to make the European Union
get serious about a real-world solution to its energy woes. What will
it take to make congressional Democrats get serious and stop blocking
access to the treasure trove waiting for us up North?



--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde

"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.

"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net