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

Skip to comments.

Arctic oil: Facts versus Fiction (ANWR)
Senator Frank Murkowski ^ | unknown

Posted on 10/17/2002 10:52:13 AM PDT by alaskanfan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: alaskanfan
Our oil companies are all more than 50% Middle Eastern. Arco was the last of the domestic oil companies.
42 posted on 10/17/2002 1:48:45 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan
View an excellent ANWR flash movie. Click on the link in the upper right corner.
43 posted on 10/17/2002 2:01:19 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
That shouldn't have been Middle Eastern, that should have read, Our oil companies are all more than 50% foreign owned. I am not sure what percentage is Middle Eastern, but I do know that the oil companies would not benefit from any attempt to wean the US from OPEC oil.
44 posted on 10/17/2002 2:02:17 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Our oil companies are all more than 50% Middle Eastern. Arco was the last of the domestic oil companies.

Do you believe that those oil companies would have invested so heavily in the mid east if they had faced the same obstructions (government regulations and red tape and environmentalists lawsuits) there as they face domestically?

IMO it would not make sense. Through lawsuits, government regulation, and unreal demands from labor unions we have effectively exported the greatest portion of our manufacturing jobs.

The reason this effects Alaska more than other states is because we are so young, large and have had so little time to build adequate infrastructure, compounded by the restrictions that environmentalists in large metropolitan areas try to impose on any industry in our state related to natural resources.

45 posted on 10/17/2002 2:07:09 PM PDT by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Where would the mid east get the money for investment in our oil companies if we were allowed to produce domestically?
46 posted on 10/17/2002 2:10:04 PM PDT by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan
It is not the Middle East who have investments in our oil, it is our oil companies who have investments in the Middle East, as well as foreign being already more than 50% foreign owned.

We are talking about Global companies. Once a company goes global, there is no turning back. The oil companies don't want to see the US oil trade on a separate market from the Middle East, which is what would happen if we tried to go domestic.
47 posted on 10/17/2002 2:21:26 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan
Why do you think that BP did not support drilling in the ANWR?
48 posted on 10/17/2002 2:22:40 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: skull stomper
Have you heard her new ads crying, and whinning, about the ads run by S.A.F.E.? They are making her squirm, as they should.

No I haven't heard any of those adds. Could you tell me what they say?

I just can't stand the thought of her in the governor's mansion for the next four years and taking money out of my pocket to pay for the same failed state policies of the last eight years.

49 posted on 10/17/2002 2:26:25 PM PDT by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Why do you think that BP did not support drilling in the ANWR?

IMO they are tired of the fight against vacuous environMENTAL lawsuits and excess government permiting regulation. If you have other information, please tell us.

Do you work for BP?

50 posted on 10/17/2002 2:35:16 PM PDT by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Go Dub Go
I think we do drill for oil of the coast of California. At least there are oil platforms there, and they are lit up at night.

There is a moratorium on new oil drilling in California (offshore). Some of the lights are old platforms.

One problem with California is that it is actually ENVIRONMENTALLY unsound NOT TO DRILL?

Why?

Because of all the Earthquake faults, the oil seeps to the surface in the water, polluting the water. If one has ever walked the beaches in Ventura County, they may notice some black stuff on the bottom of their feet! This is oil polluting the environment because the STUPID environmentalists will not allow oil drilling.

If oil drilling is ever resumed off the coast of California, there needs to be additional measures to protect from damage from Earthquake to the casings -- but the hole probably could be "plugged" in such a case, and a new hole drilled.

Most recently, the offshore oil platforms in Louisiana/Texas/Mississippi have just been exposed to two huricanes with no oil loss because of the savage winds and huge tidal waves.

The Oil Companies have built platforms to withstand hurricanes, and they have proved they work find. Also, the wells can be shutin under the water, so there is no danger...

Equate ENVIRONMENTALISTS with AIR HEADS, LOW INTELLIGENCE PEOPLE, FRUIT CAKES (crazy people), and you will be on track.

51 posted on 10/17/2002 2:45:39 PM PDT by topher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
Fact: The truth is that the latest U.S. Geological Survey estimates are that the entire "1002 Area" contains up to16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. If found, this oil could replace all of our imports from Saudi Arabia for more than 30 years!

Current US reserves are only 29 Billion Barrels, so this might increase the oil reserves by 50%.

52 posted on 10/17/2002 2:47:41 PM PDT by topher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: topher; Species8472
Because of all the Earthquake faults, the oil seeps to the surface in the water, polluting the water. If one has ever walked the beaches in Ventura County, they may notice some black stuff on the bottom of their feet! This is oil polluting the environment because the STUPID environmentalists will not allow oil drilling.

Not just in California (see post #9). Although the seepage in Alaska is unrelated to earthquakes it is quite evident along the northern coastal plain.

My brother surveyed for LCMF in all the villages on the north coast in the mid 80s. He told me he was amazed at the naturally occuring oil on top of the tundra near villages from Kaktovik to Point Lay.

I don't believe the environMENTALists could convince the U.S. public that it is better for the wildlife if we leave this oil seepage on top of the tundra. Even Woody Harrelson Alec Baldwin Barabra Streisand Whoopie Goldberg Ted Danson (I give up)isn't dumb enough to believe that crock. (You try to name one!)

53 posted on 10/17/2002 4:09:29 PM PDT by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

Comment #54 Removed by Moderator

Comment #55 Removed by Moderator

To: skull stomper
Re:"You tell me,BP does not want to drill in ANWR,that BP would not, right now ,drill as fast as humanly possible, if the LAW would get out of the way?"

They will drill because they should, and will drill ANWR (thank god).
Here are some simple questions to help you along the path.

1) Is Alaska part of the United States? (yes)

2) Is the region (ANWR) in question part of a disputed territory ? (no)

3) Is there another country activly preventing us from developing our natural resources? (no)

4) Will the people who will live with this development in their own back yards actually want it in their back yards? (yes)

5) Does the rest of the state favor developing these resources ? (yes)

6) Does the rest of the country benifit from having a secured, reliable, and affordable energy source? (yes)

Then DRILL ANWR now!

56 posted on 10/17/2002 4:49:27 PM PDT by ChadGore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

Comment #57 Removed by Moderator

To: skull stomper
BP cannot drill in the ANWR because the gov't has placed a limit on the percentage of Alaskan crude that BP can own, so they do not want others to drill there, either. That's why they had to sell off the ARCO Alaska holdings to Phillips.
58 posted on 10/17/2002 7:16:26 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Eva
I noticed that this summer BP exploration pulled out of Alaska.

It would be nice for Alaska if BP would sell some of their leases to another company.

Have you heard anything about Phillips/Conoco's plans for NPRA this winter? I heard they had a bundle of cash for development and exploration.

59 posted on 10/17/2002 8:05:57 PM PDT by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
bump for common sense post #8
60 posted on 10/18/2002 12:53:34 AM PDT by sell_propaganda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 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