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

Skip to comments.

GOP will tie ANWR to Iraq
Washington Times ^ | 8/01/02 | Timothy Burn

Posted on 07/31/2002 11:25:52 PM PDT by kattracks

Edited on 07/12/2004 3:56:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Top Republican lawmakers this month will wage a last-ditch effort to link opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration to the increasing threat of war with Iraq.

Citing new reports that Iraq could be developing biological weapons, Republican lawmakers said yesterday they will press for passage of an energy bill that includes drilling in Alaska's ANWR as a matter of national security.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energylist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

1 posted on 07/31/2002 11:25:52 PM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I think the wackos are in real trouble. The fires in the west are exposing the stupidity of their position. Giving $$ to Uncle Saadddammnn because we can`t drill in ANWER helps our cause. We have to continue fighting these fools and maybe a few Republican Congressmen will join us.
2 posted on 07/31/2002 11:50:48 PM PDT by bybybill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bybybill
Saying that SUVs are passenger vehicles instead of trucks would save much more than ANWAR could ever produce and it would start to do it right away.

I'm not entirely against drilling ANWAR eventually but we should take Iraq and pump their oil until it runs out before we use our reserves.
3 posted on 07/31/2002 11:57:02 PM PDT by stalin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stalin
Agreed.

The priority in Alaska should be the National Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which was set aside for just this reason. I'd like to see the ANWR left untapped until it's our last oil. We've got to hold something back for the future.

4 posted on 08/01/2002 12:10:51 AM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bybybill; stalin
"Every year we decide not to produce this reserve for America is another year we send Saddam Hussein a $20 million check," said Rep. Billy Tauzin . . . . . . "What amazes me is this lack of a connection between all of this Iraqi stuff and the reality that we are importing somewhere between 800,000 and 1 million barrels a day from Iraq," said Mr. Murkowski . . .

Wow...knew the economy was weak but didn't know oil had dropped to under ten cents a barrel. Why hasn't this shown up at the pump?

5 posted on 08/01/2002 12:14:59 AM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Oil drilling in ANWR is simply common sense. That far north, especially in the wintertime, its a frozen wasteland. I can't fathom what beauty the enviro wackos could find in a literal hell on earth none of them will ever visit. God's cathedral it ain't.
6 posted on 08/01/2002 12:17:11 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stalin
SAYING SUVs are cows, or moon beams, or trucks will not change a thing. Come on , lets get real, we need the oil, they know how to get it and not harm the envinerment, and Sadddammnn is helped when we buy his oil.
7 posted on 08/01/2002 12:34:32 AM PDT by bybybill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bybybill
Huh. The liberals have already forgotten the greatest trangressor against the environment isn't President Bush, but Saddam! I mean have they already forgotten the deliberate oil spill environmental terrorism he unleashed in the Persian Gulf back in 1991? And they want us to import more oil from the REAL threat to Mother Nature and other living things...
8 posted on 08/01/2002 12:41:54 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I have no idea why Daschle and Lieberman have sworn to kill ANWR but I'm confident it has nothing to do with the environment.
9 posted on 08/01/2002 12:46:10 AM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LarryLied
Exactly. There hasn't been an oil spill on Alaska's North Slope since the pipeline there opened in 1976 and a fear of one in the ANWR can't be the real reason the Rats are opposed to drilling there.
10 posted on 08/01/2002 12:49:41 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Wish I had a clue but I don't. Lieberman said he would filibuster. If anyone in the Senate should want us to send less money to Saddam and the Saudis, Lieberman is the one. Or maybe Schumer but he is dead set against it too. Makes no sense.
11 posted on 08/01/2002 12:57:40 AM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LarryLied
Nope, it doesn't. After 911 much of the Rats' opposition to producing more of our energy supplies domestically is the one function of their opposition to President Bush's policies that are indeed incomprehensible.
12 posted on 08/01/2002 1:03:17 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

They've got something planned.
13 posted on 08/01/2002 1:09:06 AM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LarryLied
Yep, looking at it the other way we buy about $6 billion per year from Iraq. That can buy alot of nuc and biological research plus divisions of terrorists.

Godspeed, The Dilg

14 posted on 08/01/2002 1:26:18 AM PDT by thedilg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thedilg
I guess Tom Daschund and the enviro wackos think that's an investment in our nation's future.
15 posted on 08/01/2002 1:27:27 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: thedilg
Yep, looking at it the other way we buy about $6 billion per year from Iraq. That can buy alot of nuc and biological research plus divisions of terrorists.

From a small extra price at the pump we could cut off oil imports from Iraq tomorrow.

16 posted on 08/01/2002 4:35:33 AM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bybybill
calling SUVs what they are , passenger vehicles , will force an increase in overall gas milage which will save hundreds of times more then ANWAR could ever produce.
17 posted on 08/01/2002 6:38:36 AM PDT by stalin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
Good to hear from another pragmatic person on this site. It's not a matter of ideology. It's a matter of common sence. We shouldn't use our reserves as long as we can get somone elses relatively cheaply.

I don't mind drilling ANWAR some day when oil is $500 a barrel but to use up our recources now is foolish.
18 posted on 08/01/2002 6:44:01 AM PDT by stalin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Part of the problem is that Pubbies create straw man arguments. It will be 10 years before ANWR oil hits the market and because the price is set globally not nationally, it will have no effect on the price of oil. Conservative intellectuals, god bless them, unlike the left, feel uneasy about backing these arguements.

The Pubbies, if they were interested in winning instead of posturing would make it a states right issue; Alaska's right to decide for herself what to do with their land.

19 posted on 08/01/2002 6:49:59 AM PDT by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LarryLied
They've got something planned

Here's what Neal Boortz thinks they have planned, I agree. link is http://www.boortz.com/demsecrets.htm

THE DEMOCRATS' (SECRET) PLAN FOR AMERICA 

The Democrats have begun their campaign to frighten voters before the fall elections.  It's nothing but a replay of past elections, the only difference being that they seem to be starting the scare tactics a bit early this year.  I guess you can't blame them.  Nothing else has worked.  The tried to hand the Florida election problems on Bush.  No go.  Then it was the economy, and that didn't work either.  They gave a stab at the "Bush is stupid" routine, but Americans aren't buying it.  Enron looked worse for Clinton than it did for Republicans, so the Social Democrats had to give up on that one too.  So, it's time to go back to Democratic roots.  Try to scare the beejezus out of older voters.  It's worked in the past -- so it will surely work this time.

The ploy is simple.  Convince wrinkled citizens that the evil Republicans want to take away their Social Security.  It’s an old trick, tried and true.  The Democrats roll this one out every single election.  This time the point men are Richard Gephardt and Terry McAuliffe.  They're both telling voters that the evil Republicans have a "secret" plan to reduce Social Security benefits as soon as they are reelected. 

So .. now that the Democrats have opened this whole “secret plan” idea – what about the secret plans of the Democratic Socialists?  Just what legislative agenda does the Democrat Party plan to pursue if and when they gain control of the Senate, the House and the presidency?  Well, your Talkmaster has been watching these socialists for years, and taking notes.  Here are just some of the goodies the Social Democrat Party has in store for the people of America.  

Remove a majority of voters from responsibility for income taxes

This is the biggie – and they’ve made no attempt to hide their goals here.  The Democrats have been working on this plan for decades --- with no small amount of help from the cowardly Republicans.  The idea is simple.  Using “refundable” tax credits and deductions and such ideas as the fraudulent Earned Income Tax Credit the Democrats are working to shift the entire burden for the payment of federal income taxes onto a minority of US taxpayers.  Right now the top 50 percent of taxpayers pay almost 96 percent of the taxes.  The Democrats are close to their goal.  When the majority of voters have no federal income tax liability it will be almost impossible to pass any meaningful tax cuts – and further tax increases will be a piece of cake, especially if the taxes only affect those to be considered to be rich.  Through this ploy the Democrats plan to create a defeat-proof socialist congress. 

Shift Social Security and Medicare Taxes to the "Rich"

 Payroll taxes, as you know, are basically Social Security and Medicare taxes. The Democrats have almost achieved their goal of shielding the so-called "poor" from any income tax liability at all.  But --- the poor saps still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.  Democrats conveniently ignore the fact that these same people will get full Social Security and Medicare benefits when they reach  the magic age ... and those benefits must never be touched!  It's OK, though, to excuse these people from the responsibility of actually having to pay the premiums for these insurance and retirement benefits.  So ..... the next element of the Democrats' Secret Plan!  The elimination of payroll taxes for the poor! 

This is a plan that was put forth by Democrat Robert Reich on the Cutie-Pie and Holmes show on Fox News Channel on July 31, 2002.  The idea is to, as Reich puts it, "lift the tax burden off the poor" by eliminating payroll taxes on the first $15,000 of income.  Here's how you do it.  The Democrats pass a law which says that nobody has to pay any payroll taxes on the first $15,000 of their income.  Bingo -- the poor now have a completely free ride!  They are now life-long, dedicated Democratic voters.  But wait!  Isn't that going to cost the government money?  Are you kidding?  Of course it's not!  It's not going to cost the government money because they're simply going to raise the salary cap for Social Security taxes by enough to cover the lost revenues!  Right now the cap is around $88,000 on Social Security taxes.    To cover the shortfall Reich says they will just raise the salary cap by $15,000 ... to $103,000 a hear.  Reich forgets, though, that there is no cap on Medicare taxes, so raising the cap by $15,000 would not recover the Medicare taxes lost by excluding the first $15,000 in income.  In reality the Democrats would have to raise the salary cap by about $19,000.  They would just round it off to $20,000.

So, there you go.  Shifting the burden for the cost of Social Security and Medicare for low income earners onto high income earners.  The Democratic way.  

Massive increase in Social Security taxes

As we’ve said, Social Security is a mainstay when it comes to Democrat vote-buying.  Social Security was, is and always will be nothing more than a giant income redistribution scheme designed to create dependency on government and loyalty to the program’s protectors in congress.  The more money you pour into Social Security benefits, the more the wizened class loves you, depends on you and will be dedicated to keeping you in office.  The Democrats need massive new funding sources to pay expanded Social Security benefits --- but they must get that money without raising Social Security taxes on the middle and lower income groups.  The solution?  The Democrats have a “secret plan” to expand the wage base for Social Security taxes.  Right now you only pay these taxes on the first $88,000 or so of income.  Give the Democrats the power and watch that wage base jump to $100,000, $200,000 and beyond.  The eventual Democrat Party goal is to have people pay Social Security taxes on every penny they earn … no matter how much that is.   There will no comparable increase in benefits for the high income earners.  The extra money will be used to keep the Democratic middle and low-income constituency happy. 

End the home mortgage interest deduction

Democrats have been after this income tax deduction for decades.  They call it a "subsidy."  Now the more intelligent among us will clearly understand that allowing someone to keep more of the money that they earn can hardly be called a "subsidy." But we're talking about the more intelligent among us.  These people aren't likely to be voting for Democrats anyway!

As soon as the Democrats manage to gain control of the federal government they will move to eliminate this "subsidy for the rich."  They know that there will be little adverse political fallout.  After all -- the mortgage interest deduction is only valuable to people who actually pay income taxes AND who itemize their deductions.  Democrats have already succeeded in removing most of their core constituency from the income tax rolls --- so what is there to lose?  

When the Democrats ride into power you had better be prepared to kiss that mortgage interest deduction -- and a lot more of your money -- a fond farewell.

Socialized Medicine

They already tried this will Hillary Care.  It failed.  Democrats aren’t discouraged by failure.  They just try and try again until they finally get you to swallow the poison pill.  There are two basic reasons the Democrats are working so hard for complete government control of this huge segment of our economy.  One, of course, is power.  Health care comprises about 15% of our national economy.  If the government can seize control of this large a segment of our economy a giant step toward a socialist economy will have been achieved.  The second reason is control.  Think about it.  If you control a person’s access to healthcare … you effectively control that person.

Right now the Democrats have had to put their plans for socialized medicine on hold.  Those pesky Republicans in the House and the White House are making things tough.  Democrats have to be satisfied with just sitting up there in the Beltway blocking any efforts to introduce competition into the medical marketplace.

Democrats live in quaking fear of free market competition.  This was one of the reasons they worked so hard to defeat Bush’s economic stimulus plan.  There was a provision in that plan that would allow laid-off workers to go out into the marketplace to find health insurance.  They would then be allowed a tax credit to cover the cost of that health insurance premium.  Democrats wanted federal funds to be paid to employers to encourage employers to extend health insurance benefits to laid-off workers.  Democrats knew that if private individuals ventured into the free marketplace to find health insurance they might just find that free market competition could deliver a superior insurance product at a reduced price.

Tax your pension funds

This idea first received serious consideration in the early Clintonista years.  As soon as the Republicans took control of the Congress the idea disappeared.  Right now it’s being “secretly” incubated by Democrats to be hatched when they regain control.   The idea is simple.  There are trillions of dollars out there in various private pension and 401K plans.  All of these trillions of dollars are earning interest for (gasp!) private investors and individuals and not for the government!  To make matters worse – most of these private pension and 401K plans are owned by the evil, hated upper income earners. 

The “secret” plan?  A one-time 15% tax on the outstanding balance of all private pension and 401K retirement plans.  This money would be paid into the general fund of the federal government and used to fund various social programs for low and middle-income earners. 

Is this a dangerous plan for Democrats?  Not really.  The plan would take money chiefly from those who earn enough money to actually pay income taxes and contribute to pension plans.  These people do not make up the core of Democratic voters.

Tax your pension contributions also

After the Democrats levy their 15% tax on the outstanding balance of all pension and 401K plans, they intend to follow up with a tax on all future contributions to these plans.  The theory is that “rich” people shouldn’t be allowed to contribute that money to these plans tax free when “poor” people don’t have that opportunity. 

The Magic of Imputed Income

Imputed?  What does "imputed" mean?

One definition is to “credit.”  So, by imputed income, we mean that you are credited with income you didn’t necessarily earn. 

The goal is clear.  Democrats want to milk the high-achievers for as much money as they possibly can.  There are really only two ways Democrats can get more income tax out of you.  One way is to raise the tax rates.  At some point this is going to prove to be politically risky.  So, how else can they bleed you for more?  Even Democrats who have been to government schools can do simple math.  They know they can get more money out of you if that line on your income tax return that reads “taxable income” can be increased.  Forty percent of $120,000 is more than 40% of $90,000.  All you have to do is impute – credit – more income to the poor taxpaying high-achiever.

So --- here is the idea that the Clinton Administration was tossing around prior to the voter revolution of 1994.  They were going to impute – credit – extra income to people who own their own homes.  This was going to be done for two reasons.  First, to push more people into the higher income brackets where Clinton tax increases could reach them.  Second, to increase the amount of taxes actually collected from these people.   Here’s how Clinton's imputed income scheme was going to work:

Let’s say you own a home worth $250,000.  Your payments on that home are about $2,000 a month.  The government uses census data (there is a reason they ask all of those extra questions) to figure out what a $250,000 home in your neighborhood would rent for.  Let’s say it would rent for $3000 a month.  This means that  you could rent your home for $1000 a month more than your payments.  But you're not living in your home.  You’re living in it.  You must know that this just  isn’t fair to people who have to rent homes.  They don’t get the tax deductions you get.  They don’t own their own homes because, unlike you, they haven’t, as Dickie Gephardt likes to phrase it,  “won life’s lottery.”  

Well .. since you're so rich and since you own your own home, the Democrats would really like to get a little more money from you  to spend on those poor renters and people who aren’t as “fortunate” as you are.  This would all be in exchange of their votes, of course.

So … here is this element of the Democrats' secret plan for you and your bank account.  When you fill out your tax return you will have to consult certain tables and government data to determine what a home like yours would rent for in your neighborhood.  Using the example above, your home would rent for $3000.  You’re paying $2000 a month to your mortgage company.  You will be instructed to take the difference ($1000 a month) and multiply it by 12.  This gives you $12,000.  That’s your imputed income.  Add that to your other earnings to come up with your taxable income.  That adds up to more than $4,500 in additional income taxes if you're in the top tax bracket.  Hey, it's only fair ... you being rich and all.

Don’t gripe.  This is all for those needed government programs for the “less fortunate.”

By the way --- you should know that there is an imputed income bill in the Congress.  It’s about child support, not home mortgages.  If you’re a deadbeat dad who owes back child support you would, under this law, have to add the amount of your arrearage to your taxable income and pay taxes on it.  Fact is, you’ve already paid taxes on this income once.  The bill would just punish you for not forking it over to the ex wife by making you pay tax on it a second time.  Today, child support.  Tomorrow, that money you could be making if you would only rent your home instead of live in it.  

Economically Targeted Investments -- controlling your pension fund investments.

Here we are, right back at your pension funds and 401K funds again.  Again  --- there is so much money in these funds, trillions of dollars, that the Democrats just can't leave them alone.  All of this money just sitting there and not one penny of it is being used to buy votes for Democrats.  So --- here comes the idea of Economically Targeted Investments.  "ETIs" the Democrats call them, and they're a huge part of the Democrat "secret" agenda.  All they need is control in Washington.

Here's the deal.  The government grants various tax breaks to these retirement plans.  As you know, or as you should know, tax breaks are usually granted to force some individual or corporation to act and behave in some manner pleasing to government.  The Democrats plan to change the rules on pension and 401K accounts.  Instead of just investing these funds in stocks and bonds, fund managers will be required by the government to invest these funds in certain investments dictated by government -- by Democrats.  In this way the governments can fund some of their spending schemes, but without using government funds.  The Democrats will simply pass laws requiring fund managers to invest in corporations building low income housing; or companies who are hiring workers off welfare roles.  Other "allowed" investments will be in such things as environmental protection, waste recycling and other causes popular with the left. In short order the Democrats will have rules in place which state that these pension funds cannot be invested in companies that are "unfriendly" to unions.  To a Democrat ... any company with a non-union workforce is "unfriendly" to unions.  Corporations who have affirmative action programs will get the not.  Companies who hire and promote on merit will not.  

All of this will mean that the Democrats can claim credit for spending on some of their favorite programs without going to the taxpayers.  They can just, in effect, use pension money.  The end result, of course, is lower returns on pension fund investments -- and lower pension benefits to retirees.  That doesn't bother the Democrats, though.  The less money you have to retire on the more dependent on government you will be.

Force employers to pay for “family leave.”

Right now the Family Leave Act requires employers to give employees about 12 weeks of unpaid  “family leave” to take care of certain family events and emergencies, such as having a baby, illness, death or some other situation.  The key here is that the family leave is unpaid.  The Democrats want employers to continue to pay the employees while they take their extended vacation.  The Democrats “secret” plan is to begin with a law requiring payment of about one-half of the employee’s salary.  This will give Democratic candidates the opportunity to campaign in future years on the basis of increasing the percentage paid to those on family leave.   Paying people for not working --- a Democrat staple.

Seizure of property of those who flee Democratic tyranny

As Democrats work diligently for more control over our economy and increase levels of income redistribution many high-achieving Americans are making plans to run.  The greater the confiscation of wealth becomes the more people start looking for other countries in which to base their businesses.  Democrats have a “secret plan” to impose confiscatory taxes on any Americans who try to move their wealth or their business interests out of this country.

Government paid childcare for majority of voters

 The absolute last thing a Democrat would ever do would be to suggest to anyone that they shouldn’t have a baby they can’t afford to raise.  Democrats know that children are the absolute more important thing in the lives of millions of Americans.  They have been working for decades to impose ever more expensive rules and regulations on private child care agencies.  They have also been working to raise taxes to the point that it is difficult beyond reason to raise a child on the income of one working parent.  Thus … the necessity of child care.  If the government steps in and provides the funds for that child care then, to that extent, the parents become just that much more dependent on government … and Democrats.

Government control of all childhood education (indoctrination)

Democrats are the party of big government.  Democrats are more than thrilled with the increased propensity of many Americans to look to government for the solution to virtually all problems they face in their daily lives.  Democrats know that to teach people that they can expect the government to be there to solve all of their problems you have to start with the children.  Catholic schools can be expected to teach their students that Catholicism is good.  Jewish private schools are going to sing the praises of Judaism.  Christian schools will teach the children that Jesus is really cool.  Government schools?   Government schools will promote what?  Government!  Thus, Democrats see a clear need to keep as many children in government education programs as possible.  The “secret” plan?  Continue to work against any ideas that would make it easier for parents to remove their children from government schools.  This means working against such ideas as vouchers or tax credits to help parents afford the cost of private schools.  They will also work to add increased regulations to parents who make the decision to home school their children.

Government imposed limits on executive income

This one is really going to have to wait until Democrats have a solid control of the federal machine.  The Social Democrat party has plans to institute limits on executive compensation.  The idea is to impose confiscatory corporate income taxes on companies who pay their top executives more than X-times the compensation paid to the lowest-paid employees.   

Repealing the Second Amendment

Haven't you ever thought it a bit odd that leftists and Democrats are generally opposed to the concept of the private ownership of firearms, while conservatives and libertarians favor the idea?  Well, there's a reason.  Those who value and celebrate the worth of the individual and of individual freedom generally believe that the individual should be permitted to own and bear arms.  Those who put the power of government over and above the power of the individual would just as soon see the individual unarmed.  Armed individuals are, of course, a threat to tyranny.

Destroy talk radio

Democrats aren't fond of talk radio.  They know that Rush Limbaugh played a huge role in the voter revolution of 1994.  Leftists realize that almost all successful talk radio shows are hosted by people who do not share their political views.  They will try to neutralize talk radio through regulation.  Since Democrats love the "fair" word so much, they'll try to resurrect  something called the "Fairness Doctrine."  How would this law work?  Well, for example, a talk show host would not be allowed to voice opposition to a particular Democrat goal without finding some Democrat to go on the air to defend that goal.  Talk radio soared in listenership and popularity following the death of the Fairness Doctrine.  Democrats know that talk radio can once again be pushed into the radio background with new regulations that stifle conservative and libertarian voices.  Give them the power -- and it's time for me to retire.  You should be aware that at a recent meeting of the Democratic Party of Oregon a resolution was adopted to use the power of government and the "fairness doctrine" to reign in those horrible right wing talk show hosts.  

Wait!  There’s more

The above list is by no means complete.  Keep you eye on this page as we work to expose even more of the “secret plans” of America’s socialist party, the Democrats.

20 posted on 08/01/2002 7:23:51 AM PDT by RobFromGa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stalin
We shouldn't use our reserves as long as we can get somone elses relatively cheaply.

And be held hostage to the wishes of the mideast in the meantime? Why do you think Bush made the deal for the oil from Russia? To enable us NOT to be dependent on mideast oil. Being dependent means THEY control what we do.

If we wait on Anwar - when we need the oil - it will take 4 yrs. to get it. We need to get the wells drilled and then possibly cap them if we decide to keep as reserves.

The whole thing on ANWAR is merely the environmentalists trying to keep America weak and dependent. The democrats get a lot of support from the Saudis and the Saudis probably don't want us independent.

The whole ANWAR situation just shows what side the politicians are on. The side with the environmentalist socialists or the side of American lawmakers.

21 posted on 08/01/2002 7:28:35 AM PDT by ClancyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: *Energy_List
Index Bump
22 posted on 08/01/2002 8:09:49 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
If we wait on Anwar - when we need the oil - it will take 4 yrs. to get it. We need to get the wells drilled and then possibly cap them if we decide to keep as reserves.

I agree, we need to have the reserves available at a moments notice. Even if we choose to save our reserves for a tighter market, we can help keep the price reasonable from the mideast who desperately needs the cash and has nothing else to sell us (we have plenty of sand). If they get out of line, we threaten to use our own till they come to their (limited) senses.

If we do not get the apparatus in place to take oil from ANWR, we lose the opportunity to influence the market on the supply-side.

23 posted on 08/01/2002 8:33:58 AM PDT by RobFromGa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
we are not being heal hostage to the wishes of the middle east unless we choose to be. We should take Iraq and pump the oil to pay for the war and the occupation and keep oil prices down. ANWAR is a drop in the bucket.

Increasing efficiency standards is worth hundreds of ANWARs.
24 posted on 08/01/2002 12:37:07 PM PDT by stalin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa
Getting the aparatus in place to use ANWAR on short notice would be fine but the oil companies won't do that. They want to pump it now to increase their short term profit margins.

That's what all this Anwar debate is about. The oil companies want to make a quick buck. It's not aboout national security or we would increase efficiency standards and really make us more independent of the middle east. Oil independence is just the transparently politicaly correct excuse.

I don't blame the oil companies. Making a quick buck is their job and they are going to pull whatever political strings that they can to do that. The government is suposed to think of long term best interests of the nation not the short term best interests of the oil companies.

25 posted on 08/01/2002 12:47:12 PM PDT by stalin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: stalin
Who owns ANWR oil rights?
26 posted on 08/01/2002 1:53:08 PM PDT by RobFromGa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bybybill; goldstategop; ClancyJ; RobFromGa

ANWAR

Taken from the February issue of Oil & Gas Investor, page 11:

EIA estimates total US production at 5.78 million barrels of oil per day (BOD).
Shell Oil's Brutus offshore platform (Gulf) is expected to peak at 100,000 BOD this year. Production from the Mars, Troika, Ursa, Dianna-Hoover and Brutus offshore Gulf fields could account for 9.7% of total lower 48 oil production by fourth quarter 2003.

Alaska will produce 17.2% of total US production (including Gulf production) in 2003 with the addition of the Colville River, Aurora, Polaris and Borealis satellite fields located on the North Slope.

LET ME BE CLEAR: with TOTAL US production at 5.78 million BOD, the addition of modest ANWR estimates of 1 million BOD, is equal to 17.3% of TOTAL US PRODUCTION


ANWR Fact Sheets http://www.anwr.org/
ANWR Oil Estimates

Myths of ANWR

Arctic Shoreline

ANWR Wilderness

Arctic Oil Technology

Native Alaskans and Development

Jobs,Jobs, Jobs

Caribou in ANWR

Which is the Real ANWR?

National Security

Oil Exports

In 1998 the USGS did a study that concluded that there are between 5.7 billion to 16 Billion barrels of recoverable Oil in the "1002" Area of ANWR. That is a LOT of oil!

and it doesn’t even take into consideration the nearly 200 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas there (over 150 years supply at the current rate of use in the U.S.)

A little perspective on the size of ANWR development:


An exploration rig on the tundra and the absence of any wildlife in this region


Beautiful Spring day in this coastal plain

Coastal Plain
      spring                                             summer                                       winter

Only 2,000 acres out of 19.5 MILLION are even under consideration for drilling. And those 19.5 million acres are but a FRACTION of the total land mass of Alaska. Also, contrary to dire predictions of the devastating impact on wildlife that would occur when the pipeline in Prudhoe bay, the caribou herd there have actually grown to record numbers.



SITE MAP (background / technology)

http://www.anwr.org/sitemap.htm
FROM http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm

TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR

1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates in 1995 on bonus bids alone were $2.6 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1980 and 1994, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 25% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 1.4 million barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil too Costly The U.S. imports over 55% of the nation's needed petroleum. These oil imports cost more than $55.1 billion a year (this figure does not include the military costs of protecting that imported supply). These figures are rising and could exceed 65% by the year 2005.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) at Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3,000 to as high as 23,400 during the last 20 years of operation. In 1995, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd size was estimated to be 18,100 animals.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

RELATED ARTICLES
Bush Renews Campaign For Arctic Oil
Source: AP; Puublished: February 25, 2002;
Author: AP

Fresh from Asia ~ Bush bonks Daschle head with ANWR club
Source: Reuters / Whitehouse.gov; Published: February 23, 2002

Inupiat Views Ignored in ANWR Debate
Source: ANWR; Anchorage Times Editorial;
Author: Tara MacLean Sweeney

INUPIAT LEADER ASKS SENATORS TO . . .Visit ANWR
Source: Anchorage Daily News; Published: February 17, 2002
Voice of the Times

ANWR Showdown -- Liberal Caught Playing Loose With The Facts [My Title]
Source: The Fargo Forum and the Grand Forks Herald; Published: February 14, 2002;
Author: Chris Beachy; John Bluemle

Kerry and Lieberman ignore invitation from native villagers in ANWR
Source: USNewswire; Published February 13, 2002;
Author:| Village of Kaktovik Alaska

ANWR Survey
Source: City of Kaktovik, Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Web Page;
author: City of Kaktovik

Listening to Alaska
Source: National Driller; Published: September 27, 2001

ANWR and Oil
Source: Town Hall.com; Published April 11, 2001

Bush Is Right: Opening ANWR To Oil Exploration Would Help Consumers Without Hurting Environment
Source: The National Center for Public Policy Research; Published: January 23, 2001
Author: John Carlisle

Time To Permit Oil Drilling In the Arctic Refuge
Source: Heritage Foundation; Published: October 17, 1995
Author: John Shanahan

It has been mentioned that the caribou herd had over tripled near the pipeline!

Seems other species have flourished as well







27 posted on 08/01/2002 2:02:51 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
bump and thanks.
28 posted on 08/01/2002 2:11:45 PM PDT by RobFromGa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: stalin
Saying that SUVs are passenger vehicles instead of trucks would save much more than ANWAR could ever produce and it would start to do it right away.

The problem with this is auto companies would simply make the cars much lighter(apparently the most cost efficient method) which has proven to be dangerous. But I would like to see SUV's get better emissions and gas mileage through market forces.

I'm not entirely against drilling ANWAR eventually but we should take Iraq and pump their oil until it runs out before we use our reserves.

Why bother with occupying Iraq when Saudia Arabia has so much more oil ;-)

The thing with ANWR is it is going take at least 5 years before we see drop one of oil. Since there has been quite alot in advancing oil exploration conforming to environmental policy I really don't see a problem with this. Also don't forget that Bush has backed off drilling in the Gulf (to help his brother in FL) and there really hasn't been much new development on the CA coast in some time.

The above said, I am far from being a friend of oil companies as I think they conspire( much like OPEC) to effect pricing increase and other such BS. This is one area where I don the aluminum foil beanie.

29 posted on 08/01/2002 2:13:52 PM PDT by amused
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
National Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which was set aside for just this reason

The Naval Petroleum Reserve was set aside for WW I. Once that war was over, NPR was allowed to lapse. It was re-instated for WW II. The purpose is that the Navy might have enough coal and oil to power its ships.

It was never intended for domestic consumption. That should never be considered.

30 posted on 08/01/2002 2:18:43 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
The Naval Petroleum Reserve was set aside for WW I. Once that war was over, NPR was allowed to lapse. It was re- instated for WW II. The purpose is that the Navy might have enough coal and oil to power its ships.

Yes, but it was was renamed the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska and the other remaining Naval Petroleum Reserves are being sold off.

The National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska (NPRA)
In 1923, President Harding established the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 4. This area, approximately 37,000 square miles at the northern-most portion of Alaska, has been explored and mapped by the USGS since 1901. The U.S. Navy undertook the first modern oil-exploration program between 1944 - 1958, establishing the feasibility of using modern petroleum exploration and production methods under arctic conditions.

With the discovery of the largest oil field in North America, Prudhoe Bay in 1968, and the Arab oil embargo in 1974, the U.S. Navy established the next exploration program in the reserve. In 1975 the U.S. Navy signed a 5-year contract with the Husky Oil NPR Operations, Inc., to manage and supervise all aspects of the exploration program. In 1976, the petroleum reserve was renamed the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska, (NPRA) with the USGS given the lead responsibility for further research and exploration.
US Geologcal Survey

Profile of the Naval Petroleum Reserves
For much of the 20th century, the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves served as a contingency source of fuel for the Nation's military. Set aside in the early 1900s, these government-owned petroleum and oil shale properties were originally envisioned as a way to provide a reserve supply of crude oil to fuel U.S. naval vessels that once depended heavily on crude oil.

In the latter part of the century, however, military fuel needs changed, and the strategic value of the Reserves began to diminish. In the 1970s, as the Nation looked for ways to maximize its domestic oil supplies, the oil fields of the Reserves were opened up for commercial production.

Today the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve the national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900s.

As a result, in 1996 the largest of the Federal properties - the government's share of the Elk Hills field in California - was offered for commercial sale. On February 5, 1998, DOE completed its sale to Occidental Petroleum Corporation for $3.65 billion in the largest privatization of Federal property in the history of the United States.
Department of Energy.


31 posted on 08/01/2002 3:58:14 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LarryLied
. . .but I'm confident it has nothing to do with the environment.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with the environment. But it has everything to do with the far-Left enviroNazis and their contributions to these characters.

32 posted on 08/01/2002 4:04:37 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
And be held hostage to the wishes of the mideast in the meantime? Why do you think Bush made the deal for the oil from Russia? To enable us NOT to be dependent on mideast oil. Being dependent means THEY control what we do.

Two things:

A) They need us to buy their oil. Their economies depend on it. They no longer have huge saving to draw down. They could not afford another boycott. Nor are they threatening one. We are not hostage to the wishes of the mideast, at least not because any of them are threatening to shut off oil exports.

B) The supply from ANWR would not be enough to give us energy independence. It is not even enough to replace all the Persian Gulf oil.

33 posted on 08/01/2002 4:05:34 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Species8472; Miss Marple; Dog; Howlin; Molly Pitcher
ping
34 posted on 08/01/2002 4:08:53 PM PDT by kayak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
the government's share of the Elk Hills field in California - was offered for commercial sale

PET-4, as it was called when I arrived up here would imply PET-1, PET-2, PET-3 and who knows how many other PETs. If they will need this one in time of war, though, it would have to be a tough war, because it would take a very long time to start getting the oil out.

35 posted on 08/01/2002 4:11:32 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes; RightWhale
Despite what some on the left and the right say, the sale of Elk Hills was a great sucess. Taxpayers made out very well and a white elephant was taken off their backs. Not using our natural resources is simply misguided.
36 posted on 08/01/2002 4:13:57 PM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
If they will need this one in time of war, though, it would have to be a tough war, because it would take a very long time to start getting the oil out.

That may have been a factor in the decision to sell or transfer them. The navy no longer steams on 'bunker fuel,' essentialy crude oil. It requires refined products.

37 posted on 08/01/2002 4:22:51 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: stalin
Consider the PMPGF. That's the Personal Miles Per Gallon Factor as described by Joe Soucheray, local talk show host here in Minneapolis/St. Paul.

http://www.garagelogic.com/ Joe's website here.

Take your Chevy Suburban that gets 22 mpg on the highway. Put in eight people. Drive one mile. Your PMPGF is 176 mpg.

Take your average "speck" that gets 34 mpg on the highway.
Put in four people, (if they're under 5'2" in the back seat). Your PMPGF is 136 mpg.

You've got a bunch of stuff to haul. You've got to go 25 miles. In the Suburban you make one trip and burn 1.136 gallons of fuel. In the "speck", (I used a Ford Escort for comparison, FYI the Dodge Neon gets the same hwy mpg), again, you've got to go 25 miles but it takes you three trips. You burn 2.205 gallons of fuel.

Bottom line is that the dems would rather put our troops at risk by having them stationed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. to protect our interests than to put some caribou at risk. Once again, the animals are more important than people.

Another reason the dems don't want ANWR drilled is because it would be a huge boost to our economy. It would put thousands of people to work. We'd keep more of our money at home. The dems want us all dependent on the federal government for everything.

Drilling ANWR would help destroy their master plan. The master plan that includes the government owning/controlling everything and we work our butts off to pay for the privilege of using it.
38 posted on 08/01/2002 4:36:41 PM PDT by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: terilyn
Take your Chevy Suburban that gets 22 mpg on the highway.

Garbage in, garbage out.

City Mileage 14 mpg Highway Mileage 18 mpg

Suburban Info

Recall, too, that those estimates ar generally high, and that they are for an unloaded vehicle.
39 posted on 08/01/2002 5:38:38 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
So sorry. I posted the info for the two-wheel drive Suburban in error.

It was supposed to be funny, (the PMPGF).

And you're right, as long as we keep sending all that money to Iraq we will continue to have "Garbage in".

Drill ANWR!
40 posted on 08/01/2002 6:00:28 PM PDT by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: stalin
"We shouldn't use our reserves as long as we can get somone elses relatively cheaply."

Cheap is relative. Look at the big picture. How much do you think it costs on an annual basis to keep troops in the middle east to protect our oil interests?

41 posted on 08/01/2002 6:02:38 PM PDT by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: terilyn
So sorry. I posted the info for the two-wheel drive Suburban in error.

That is the mileage for the 2002 2WD model (older models got even lower mileage). The 2002 4WD gets 13 mpg City, 17 mpg Highway.

42 posted on 08/01/2002 6:10:36 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
Did a google search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=chevy+suburban+highway+mpg

and didn't click on the link. Twenty lashes.

So pick another SUV such as the Trailblazer here.

Like I said, it was supposed to be funny. Using your mileage makes it about a tie.

I don't know where you live, but there are a lot of areas of the country such as Colorado where a vehicle with a small engine just doesn't make it in the mountains. Believe me, I've tried and been stranded at midnight. No power.

The smaller engines also don't start worth crud here in MN in January. Everybody doesn't have a garage much less a heated one.

Maybe if Al the Bore Gore ever walks the talk I'll pay attention. The green VP that thinks we should all drive specks had his choice of the most gas efficient vehicle money could buy as VP. He chose a Cadillac Escalade.
43 posted on 08/01/2002 6:34:46 PM PDT by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Great post! Thanks for the facts.
44 posted on 08/01/2002 6:36:20 PM PDT by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
So I thought all this enviro stuff was about "Saving the Planet".

Last time I checked Alaska was on the same planet as Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

Why is it the enviro's are only worried about our little corner of the planet.

Reminds me of the people that walk their dogs three times a day so the crap isn't in their own back yard.
45 posted on 08/01/2002 6:40:00 PM PDT by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: terilyn
I don't know where you live, but there are a lot of areas of the country such as Colorado where a vehicle with a small engine just doesn't make it in the mountains. Believe me, I've tried and been stranded at midnight. No power.

I routinely drive my small car in the mountains, elevations ranging from 5,000' to 10,000'. No problems. Maybe the choice of small car matters.

Using your mileage makes it about a tie.

Yes, if both cars are fully loaded. I don't see a lot of Suburbans on the road with 8 people in them. I don't even see a lot of Suburbans with three people in them.

There certainly are reasons for having a larger vehicle. Purchasers make the choice and pay higher costs because of that. I just don't like it when those same purchasers complain about the high cost of gas and believe we need to open our refuges just so they can save a few bucks when they refill the tank.

46 posted on 08/01/2002 6:45:32 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: stalin
"Saying that SUVs are passenger vehicles instead of trucks would save much more than ANWAR could ever produce and it would start to do it right away."

You chose your screen name carefully, didn't you?

47 posted on 08/01/2002 6:45:34 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: terilyn
Last time I checked Alaska was on the same planet as Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Why is it the enviro's are only worried about our little corner of the planet.

Yes, and the environmental damage has already been done in Iraq and Arabia. There is a big difference between splling oil on an already oil-drenched wasteland, and spilling it on an untouched wildlife refuge (not that all that much gets spilled anymore).

Personally, I think that the environmental objections can be dealt with. But I still don't see any reason for tapping our last known large petroleum resevoir now. Every argument for doing so will be even more true in forty years. Better to use a wide variety of foreign sources now, and save our own for later.

48 posted on 08/01/2002 6:50:29 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
"There certainly are reasons for having a larger vehicle. Purchasers make the choice and pay higher costs because of that. I just don't like it when those same purchasers complain about the high cost of gas and believe we need to open our refuges just so they can save a few bucks when they refill the tank."

On this we can agree. Though it's pretty rare I hear an owner of a large vehicle complain about gas prices. It's usually the other way around.

Most people, in my experience, that choose to drive a large vehicle know what they're choosing and the cost that goes with it.

Although there is a trade off. One daughter has a Chevy Blazer and the other has an Acura Integra. Both are the same model year. The insurance on the Blazer is half what the Integra is. And the one driving the Blazer has had two accidents and is listed as the primary driver. (I am very glad she had a lot of vehicle around her when she hit the ice and then the fire hydrant).

49 posted on 08/01/2002 6:53:51 PM PDT by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: terilyn
Maybe if Al the Bore Gore ever walks the talk I'll pay attention. The green VP that thinks we should all drive specks had his choice of the most gas efficient vehicle money could buy as VP. He chose a Cadillac Escalade.

I'll grant you that Gore is a hypocrit (few politicians aren't).

But I think his purchase of a Cadillac may be an urban legend. I have found a legitimate newsclipping that Terry McAuliffe drives an Escalade, but only a couple of Letters to the Editor saying that Gore drives one. Anyone seen a photo of him behind the wheel? That would be priceless.

50 posted on 08/01/2002 7:16:07 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 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