Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ANWR drilling no solution to gasoline costs, Kerry says
adn.com ^ | March 31, 2004 | LIZ RUSKIN

Posted on 03/31/2004 11:41:20 AM PST by KQQL

Edited on 07/07/2004 4:49:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last
To: Army Air Corps
The paperwork process for the North Slope Gas Pipeline was estimated to take 5 years. Then they order pipe and it would be at least another 2 years after the pipe arrives from Japan or wherever. Figure 10 years until gas flows.
51 posted on 03/31/2004 12:22:10 PM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
There are IDLE oil wells in Olney/Lawrenceville/Robinson, Ill. The refinery there was finally dismantled and sold to a third world country. They started going idle in the early 80's. A few are still seen pumping slowly, but most are idle.
52 posted on 03/31/2004 12:23:06 PM PST by GailA (Kerry I'm for the death penalty for terrorist, but I'll declare a moratorium on the death penalty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
Let's also keep in mind the number of wells in the US that went dormant due to excessive costs related to federal regs

Nobody really wants to hear this, it sounds too much like the truth /sarcasm
53 posted on 03/31/2004 12:23:14 PM PST by Iron Matron (Civil Disobedience? It's not just for liberals anymore!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Yep, we should have had such plants in operation five years ago. The amount of coal that the US still has could be converted to enough oil to be petroleum-based demand well into the next century and beyond. Personally, I like the promise of biofuel. It makes use of much our existing infrastructure and motor vehicles would need minor conversions. Nothing like GROWING your own fuel to allow us to thumb our noses at OPEC; they can't eat oil...
54 posted on 03/31/2004 12:23:19 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Communism failed because people like to own stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CollegeRepublican
According to Peak Oil, even if they start building enough plants now to make a difference, we are going to be in a period of such high oil prices that we'll crash and burn anyway. The plants needed to be constructed 20 years ago when we could afford it.
55 posted on 03/31/2004 12:24:47 PM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: KQQL; Shermy
There are a couple of things to remember. First is that strong prices are a pain at the pump, but they encourage drilling. Most new oil is not in OPEC territory, which means that OPEC loses market share by pushing prices up.

There is new oil coming on stream every day. The Chad pipeline just finished, which represents a chunk of production coming; the Ecuadorian pipeline just finished which represents another chunk of production. The Caspian production is steadily rising and yet another pipeline is underway, Iraqi production is going up, all over Africa and Latin America new production is coming on stream. Russian production is up about 10% for the year. OPEC has little control over prices in the long run.

Second is that the key to energy independence is to have a multiplicity of sources. We already have that, and the situation is improving looking ahead. OPEC can jack the prices in the short term in hopes of affecting the elections, but long term they can only pump, or not pump and see themselves replaced by other oil sources.

Gore used to promote the idea of $3 a gallon gasoline in the hopes of encouraging alternative energy sources. His hope was to see the money going into government coffers, of course. But the effect is the same as the price rises due to market conditions. Higher fuel costs encourage alternatives. It encourages drillers to punch new wells, it encourages people to shift to smaller vehicles, with no need of a mandate from Washington. And it encourages people working on new technology to push ahead.

If you are interested in job growth, all of the above puts people to work, and people in my area are running themselves into the ground working overtime as they clean out old wells and punch new ones. People have to learn to stop fearing Arabs with oil. When they say they are cutting production by 2 million barrels a day what they mean is that Venezuela can't even produce its quota due to political problems, and there is a lot of new non-OPEC oil coming on stream, and they are losing market share. Thats what it means. And the picture isn't getting any better for them.
56 posted on 03/31/2004 12:25:23 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend; All
I will add some relevant info relating to this here:

-Sticker Shock-$3 a gallon gas? Some links--

57 posted on 03/31/2004 12:25:55 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
On the Quinn in the Morning show this morning, at the very end, he took a call from a geological scientist aligned with the oil industry and he (the scientist) said that we are banned from drilling all along the East coast and the Gulf.

Canada, he further mentioned, drills up to the US line in Lake Erie for gas, but is forbidden to take oil if it's there ... they have to plug it.

If the EPA can stop our drilling and acquiring our own oil, we are then forced to get foreign oil ... subjecting ourselves to OPEC and the resulting gas prices.

Socialists must become extinct!
58 posted on 03/31/2004 12:25:59 PM PST by knarf (A place where anyone can learn anything ... especially that which promotes clear thinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
"Hmmm, the oil that we used in WWII must have appeared by magic"




Big Oil is using the "secret formula" that converts salt water into sweet Texas Crude but only when our "Illuminati" masters deem necessary to use it.

(sarcasm off)
59 posted on 03/31/2004 12:26:09 PM PST by RedMonqey (Its is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
we should have had such plants in operation five years ago

We'll have a big problem, but developing countries such as China will need more and more and more, and it won't be there. China will be in a big hurt, even worse than us.

60 posted on 03/31/2004 12:27:32 PM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Too bad the Bush people don't have the moxey to nail Kerry with this....
61 posted on 03/31/2004 12:31:34 PM PST by Spirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
BTTT!!!!!!
62 posted on 03/31/2004 12:31:34 PM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan
"It could help, but really not very substantially.

Because.....? "

Because, relative to our long term needs, it's not a large source. Not to mention that it's not like it's free. There is a cost involved, and that cost isn't substantially less than sources we have now.

"Our nation contains much land under which is oil, that we're not getting. Can you explain why not?"

Sure. It's not true. Well, maybe true, if you have a different definiton of "much" than I do.

"...and people like you say "no, that's not gonna work". ????"

Which I said where?

I said it's not a substantial long term solution, and it's not.

Note that I didn't say don't do it.

It's not a hard distinction to make, if you try.





63 posted on 03/31/2004 12:32:13 PM PST by HarryCaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I have a friend (a geologist) that just retired from J.R. McDermott. He said that the surveys he studied show far more oil than you allude to. Until a test well is drilled, it's anyone's guess. Bottom line.....lets find out!

LLS
64 posted on 03/31/2004 12:33:09 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (We point out Kerry's record and the facts, and they just THINK it's attack politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
China is already taking oil from Kazakhstan by rail, and looking at building a pipeline. Meanwhile they are negotiating another pipeline from Siberia. Feeding oil to China is going to be a big project for someone.

But the oil is there. And they are investing in Kazakh fields.

As for synfuels, the technology works, the South Africans built two huge facilities to produce oil back in the glory days. The problem is that its expensive. But the higher oil goes in price, the less the difference. Higher oil prices help make alternative technologies feasible. But mostly it just brings new oilfields on line and it all evens out.
65 posted on 03/31/2004 12:37:24 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: knarf
You are on the right track. I have an uncle who is a reservoir engineer for an independent oil company and he explained much of our dependence on foreign oil along these terms: We do have pools that are available, but only accessible when technology improves; fed regs limit our ability to dvelop these technologies on our own soil; the fed regs push domestic costs to the point that it is cheaper for an oil company to build tankers and infrastructure overseas to ship oil to the US. My uncle's company is working on making the most efficient use of US pools that already have wells. Heck, they have discovered new pools linked to existing pools.
66 posted on 03/31/2004 12:37:44 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Communism failed because people like to own stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: HarryCaul
We will abandon petroleum as an energy source ONLY when another source is:

1. Economical to produce
2. Equal to or more reliable than oil.
3. Simple enough for the average person to operate and a safely.
4. Produces as much horsepower as does the internal combustion engine

None of the alternative energy supplies can match/surpasse oil in these characteristics.


Until then, short of putting a gun to the consumer's head, we will continue to use oil.


67 posted on 03/31/2004 12:37:55 PM PST by RedMonqey (Its is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
"We can't provide the supply of oil America needs from the Alaska wildlife refuge or from any other source in the United States, because we only have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves."

So John F'em Ke(rr)y's idea is to wait until that's the last oil on Earth before thinking about (and ultimately rejecting) the notion of tapping into it? Or, is it to enrich a bunch of murderous Islamists? Either way, bad idea, Ketchup Boy.

68 posted on 03/31/2004 12:41:13 PM PST by steveegg (Radical Islam has more in common with Islamic populations than the mainstream media has with America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
"Nothing like GROWING your own fuel to allow us to thumb our noses at OPEC; they can't eat oil."

I like that ideal but at the rate we are losing farm acrage to development, it may come to late to make much of a difference.
69 posted on 03/31/2004 12:41:29 PM PST by RedMonqey (Its is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
(CNSNews.com) - Teamsters union chief James Hoffa Jr. has left both environmentalists and free-market advocates confused after declaring that Democratic front-runner John Kerry would "drill like never before" for oil and gas if elected president.

Hoffa made the comments during a Feb. 17 segment on Hardball with Chris Matthews . Matthews had asked Hoffa why the union chose to endorse the Massachusetts senator even though Kerry opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

"Well, we talked about that," Hoffa responded. "He says, look, I am against ANWR, but I am going to put that pipeline in and we're going to drill like never before."

The union supports drilling in ANWR and the creation of a natural gas pipeline that could stretch from Alaska to Chicago. Neither plan draws much support from Kerry's environmentalist base, however.

[snip]

70 posted on 03/31/2004 12:42:00 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer (The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
It's months, not decades.

ONLY if it's the only place we get oil.

71 posted on 03/31/2004 12:42:31 PM PST by steveegg (Radical Islam has more in common with Islamic populations than the mainstream media has with America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
It's months, not decades. We're still going off the cliff in 3-13 years. 3-12.5 years without ANWR.

Where are you getting your information on decades.

This is what I have found.

MAKING THE CASE FOR ANWR DEVELOPMENT
Too Much Imported Oil: Bad for the Economy

As domestic oil production continued its decline, the U.S. imported 60% of its petroleum needs in 2001. These oil imports cost more than $100 billion and robbed tens of thousands of steady, high-paying jobs from American workers.

More than 20,000 foreign supertankers (most single-hulled) offloaded oil at east, west and gulf coast refineries last year; they carry from 700,000 to 1.2 million barrels a day from Iraq alone. Foreign oil is produced and shipped under less strict environmental standards than domestic oil. Alaska’s oil fields are the cleanest in the world, second to none.

Through shortsighted actions, Congress and federal agencies have banned oil activity from more than 300 million acres of federal land onshore and more than 460 million acres offshore in the past 20 years. An estimated 67% of oil reserves and 40% of natural gas reserves are on federal lands in America’s western states.

Eighty-eight percent of the energy for America’s transportation, industry, government and residential needs comes from oil, gas and coal. No combination of conservation, technology or alternatives can come close to replacing these fossil fuels. It will take years for research, testing, permitting, construction, and distribution systems for replacement alternatives to be realized. When alternative energy sources become practical and economical, Americans will use them. Until then, fossil fuels must be relied upon.

Today’s domestic oil production comes from more than 150,000 wells scattered throughout the country; they average 15 barrels a day. There have been no new major discoveries in the 48 contiguous states in thirty years. As the U.S. population increases, the nation must either produce more or import more. Alaska’s Arctic is the most promising area for the largest supply with the smallest physical impact.

The U.S. economy benefits from domestic production when new construction, service, manufacturing, and engineering jobs are created. These jobs occur in all 50 states. A national impact study by Wharton Econometrics estimates total employment at full production in ANWR to be 735,000 jobs. Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes.

Alaska’s Experience as an Energy Supplier

Discovery of the gigantic Prudhoe Bay oilfield was announced in July 1968, the largest deposit ever found in North America. (Environmentalists called it a "few months’ supply.") Nine years, 7.7 billion dollars, and 1,347 government permits later, Americans cheered as oil began flowing through the 800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.

Since July 1977, the pipeline has carried more than 13 billion barrels of oil from Alaska’s North Slope. During that time Alaska oil has supplied 20% of domestic production, amounting to nearly a $300 billion offset to the national trade deficit. Natural gas, produced with the oil, continues to be reinjected pending studies to determine feasibility of a pipeline to U.S. markets. Prudhoe Bay gas reserves are 30.9 trillion cubic feet.

Today the Alaska oil pipeline carries less than half its capacity; thus the search continues for new supply to keep it operating. (Without it, the entire system must eventually be decommissioned and removed.) The coastal plain of ANWR, 60 miles east of Prudhoe Bay and with similar geology, is America’s most prospective area for another giant oil field.

Studies of the ANWR coastal plain indicate it may contain between 6 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil (between 11.6 and 31.5 billion barrels in-place). With enhanced recovery technology, ANWR oil could provide an additional 30 to 50 years of reliable supply. Natural gas, produced with the oil, could be reinjected or added to a new gas pipeline originating in Prudhoe Bay.

Petroleum development at Prudhoe Bay has not negatively affected wildlife. For instance, the Central Arctic caribou herd is at home with pipeline facilities and has grown from 3,000 to as high as 27,100 in the last 20 years. Drilling activity in ANWR would be limited to winter months when wildlife does not frequent the coastal plain.

Constantly improving technology has greatly reduced the footprint of Arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, facility designs show the footprint would be 64% smaller.

72 posted on 03/31/2004 12:44:14 PM PST by N. Theknow (John Kerry is nothing more than Ted Kennedy without a dead girl in the car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
KERRY'S SOLUTION:
STAY DEPENDENT ON MIDDLE EAST SHEIKS!

73 posted on 03/31/2004 12:46:34 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat (I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedMonqey
Currently, i live in a farming/petroleum community. The farmers here don't care if they sell a few acres because technology (biotech, chemistry, etc) allows them to generate more per acre than they ever have in the past. Soybeans grow rather quickly and you can grow tons and tons of the stuff per acre. Also, we still have enormous amounts of farmland. If we were still using 1920s farming technology, I would be worried. We are using technologies that allow an acre of land to be five times, or more, productive than it was a generation ago.
74 posted on 03/31/2004 12:48:04 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Communism failed because people like to own stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Paulie
Well, he HAS been in touch with foreign leaders who want him to win. A wink and a nod.
75 posted on 03/31/2004 12:48:55 PM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: HarryCaul
Because, relative to our long term needs, it's not a large source.

That doesn't mean it "won't help substantially".

A 10% raise in your salary will help substantially, I would assume. However, "relative to your long term needs" it's not very much. Relative to the national GDP it's even less. Relative to the national GDP summed over 100 years it's even less than that.... You can play this game forver if you keep dividing by larger and larger numbers....

Where the heck did this idea come from that unless an oil-source will Power The Entire Nation For A Century (or however long), we *shouldn't get the oil from there*? Truly bizarre.

[why we're not getting oil] Sure. It's not true. Well, maybe true, if you have a different definiton of "much" than I do.

Apparently I do. To you, anything less than Will Power The Nation For A Century, is "not much". I'm talking more realistically.

On the flip side, if the reserves in, say, ANWR, are really "not much", I gotta wonder why the opposition to drilling there. Ok fine it's a teeny tiny amount under a teeny tiny patch of land. Who could possibly object to allowing some foolish company to start drilling there then?

I said it's not a substantial long term solution, and it's not. Note that I didn't say don't do it. It's not a hard distinction to make, if you try.

Good, then we both agree, let's do it.

Sorry for my confusion, caused by the fact that into a discussion about Whether we should drill in ANWR, you brought up this stuff about it not being a long-term solution. That made it seem like you were disagreeing (because otherwise, it's a complete non sequitur). So I guess I don't know why you brought in this extraneous issue of whether it's a "long term solution" into the discussion. No one was claiming it was in the first place. What people are saying is, Let's open ANWR (and other places like it) to drilling.

76 posted on 03/31/2004 12:49:47 PM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
They’re not the only ones disgusted.
I’m disgusted too!

I’m disgusted with our spineless Congress’ constant capitulation to the tree-hugging snail-darter-loving whale-kissing spotted-owl-petting SUV-burning nutbags in this country.

(There, now I feel better)
77 posted on 03/31/2004 12:52:28 PM PST by tractorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: knarf
For the next few years we can use the military if necessary to secure oil/gas reservoirs. After that, though, there won't be any areas to occupy that have enough resources to be worth the trouble.
78 posted on 03/31/2004 12:59:44 PM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow
Not only that, but the DemocRATS opposition to Anwar cost the Teamsters and other unions ove 10,000 jobs. Yet they support the RATS! go figure.
79 posted on 03/31/2004 1:00:28 PM PST by stubernx98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan
"So I guess I don't know why you brought in this extraneous issue of whether it's a "long term solution" into the discussion. "

It's not extraneous. See the title of the thread.

80 posted on 03/31/2004 1:01:01 PM PST by HarryCaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: marron
Higher oil prices help make alternative technologies feasible.

Oil has been cheap so far, even now. That's the problem with alternative energy. It just costs more. When oil costs that much, we'll already be in trouble.

81 posted on 03/31/2004 1:01:45 PM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: HarryCaul
It's not extraneous. See the title of the thread.

The title of the thread makes no mention of what you're implicitly talking about (i.e. long term solution to our national energy supply). It talks about gasoline costs.

Are you asserting that allowing drilling in more domestic sources would have no effect on gasoline costs?

82 posted on 03/31/2004 1:04:01 PM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow
When we were building the pads at Prudhoe we excavated the Sag River riverbed in the winter. It was 40 below and we ran the equipment under lightplants day and night. In the spring when the river was flowing again, it just filled up the borrow pits no problem. The roads were built while everything was frozen the same way. Ecological impact was nil. When the animals came out in the spring, they didn't seem to notice any difference at all.
83 posted on 03/31/2004 1:06:54 PM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow
Where are you getting your information

First of all, I'm here in Alaska and info dribbles in from all sides. We don't have any use for hype. The other thing is the Peak Oil theory, which might be interesting, and it is after all only a theory. Search on Peak Oil. The theory seems preposterous at first, but if you follow some of the links you might find something of interest.

84 posted on 03/31/2004 1:10:11 PM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Kerry: Supply has nothing to do with price. Everything you know about economics is wrong.
85 posted on 03/31/2004 1:12:05 PM PST by bondjamesbond (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Donaeus
bttt
86 posted on 03/31/2004 1:25:11 PM PST by Donaeus ( Change the world, not en mass, but by planting freedom in one heart/mind at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

ANWR ANYONE?


87 posted on 03/31/2004 1:33:48 PM PST by KQQL (@)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan
I would assert ANWR would have no appreciable affect on gasoline prices, sure. Perhaps a tiny effect, if any, in the short run, but next to none in the long run.

It's just not that big a percentage to add to the overall flow.

It's worth doing, but it's not any sort of solution to gasoline prices.

88 posted on 03/31/2004 1:34:23 PM PST by HarryCaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

I BET IF RUSSIA STILL OWNED AK< THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY DUG UP ANWR FOR OIL and GAS.

89 posted on 03/31/2004 1:42:06 PM PST by KQQL (@)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Those polygon shapes are characteristic of permafrost. It would be difficult to damage them in winter, but in summer the vegetative layer can be compressed leading to loss of thermal insulation and next thing you know your wheel tracks sink into a bog.
90 posted on 03/31/2004 1:46:03 PM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
Oil and fuels can be made from anything.
Oil is a renewable resource.
http://www.kantor.com/useful/oil.pdf
91 posted on 03/31/2004 1:48:00 PM PST by Chewbacca (I think I will stay single. Getting married is just so 'gay'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
YO KERRY !


92 posted on 03/31/2004 1:48:27 PM PST by KQQL (@)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Mr. Kerry, drilling in Anwar is a lot better solution to the 'problem' of gas prices than crying on your knees to the Saudis.
93 posted on 03/31/2004 1:49:47 PM PST by MEGoody (Kerry - isn't that a girl's name? (Conan O'Brian))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
I'd say those who oppose developing ANWR's resources are the same who opposed Alaska's coal development back when Alaska had just been purchased. Alaska's development was frozen in the late 1800s and remains frozen for the most part unless it is the existing industrialists who will get the action.
94 posted on 03/31/2004 1:54:46 PM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Don't you know Kerry will never fight a war for oil...

95 posted on 03/31/2004 1:57:41 PM PST by KQQL (@)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
ANWR IS A SOLUTION!More drilling in other areas and the construction of new refineries are needed.It is time to to run rough shod over the environmentalists.IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY AN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO GET THIS GOING IS NEEDED!!
96 posted on 03/31/2004 2:11:32 PM PST by INSENSITIVE GUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
LOL!! Only months is we only used oil from ANWR all at once. But that's not it at all. ANWR can suppliment the US oil needs for decades. Add up to 735,000 jobs as well not to mention 27% of the total US oil reserves is in ANWR. These Commie liberal appeasers made the same arguments about Prudhoe Bay. They were wrong then and they are wrong again now. This is typical liberalism. Hate america, hate business, hate prosperity, hate self reliance, and hate humanity.
97 posted on 03/31/2004 2:27:48 PM PST by Sorcerer3 (For the life of me I just can't understand why they hate me at democraticunderground.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Granted America may not be Saudi Arabia, but is what is wrong with drilling for more oil? I don't think John F. Seinfeld really understands what makes America great.
98 posted on 03/31/2004 2:29:32 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
There are a lot of folks who can't understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in America.

Well, there's a very simple answer. Nobody bothered to check the oil.

We just didn't know we were getting low. The reason for that is purely geographical.

All our oil is in Alaska, Texas, California, and Oklahoma.

But all our dipsticks are in Washington, DC.

I'm not sure but there may be a spelling error in the last sentence.

99 posted on 03/31/2004 2:38:54 PM PST by B4Ranch (Most Of Us Are Wasting Rights Other Men Fought and Died For!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sorcerer3
Add up to 735,000 jobs

That's hype, not permanent jobs. We built the TransAlaska Pipeline with 4000 people over 2 years and there other tasks afterwards leading up to completion in a few more years that didn't have so many workers. Granted that there were a lot of jobs, but most jobs lasted a couple of weeks. Add in the steel workers in Asia that made the pipe itself and the ship workers that brought it over and the truckers that carried it all up and down Alaska and it still won't add up to the hype.

100 posted on 03/31/2004 2:39:10 PM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson