Information on ANWR

[Billy Wood]

See this link: http://www.talkroswell.com/index.php?pageid=anwr

[Alfdom]

Why not save time and go directly to source of this propaganda?

http://www.anwr.org/

[jsatterfield]

who ever votes NO please explain, Because it's a vote I just dont understand.

[kralspaces]

Someone must like paying $4 per gallon and probably looking forward to $5, then $6, $7, $8, $9 and eventually $10 like the Europeans are today.

I also favor coastal drilling in the Gulf and off CA. I just don’t have enough room in my truck bed for a wind mill or a mast.

[jsatterfield]

I recived this e-mail from an e-mail buddie that lives in roswell. this is what he had to say about ANWA..

Jack,

Several years ago, I and my wife spent several weeks in Alaska and we of course visited the Port of Valdez and other pieces of the petroleum producing infrastructure. In the course of these travels, I was made aware of the exportation of North Slope crude oil. Sometime later, I did some research and prepared a brief that gave credibility to what I had been told in Alaska.

I distributed my brief, in hopes of drawing some attention to the issue. I received some comments, some of which indicated surprise and disgust. Those members of Congress that originally voted against the bill were still opposed to it Others took the position that granting Congressional approval for exporting our domestically produced crude oil was in line with free market principles and therefore justified. Hardly! Those of us that believe in a free market system, also know that once government grants concessions to an industry or intervenes in any manner, other than minimal necessary and universal regulation, that industry will never again be competing in a free market environment. Once granted concessions, that company has an edge, otherwise they wouldn't have pursued such.

Numerous politicians like to mouth the "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" bit, and most of us agree, but we have to ask, how do we do that, when we export a chunk of our relatively inexpensive and domestically produced product and then pay a premium to import from the Middle East either through the Suez Canal or through the Mediterranean Sea and across the Atlantic.

Ironically, according to Alyeska's own data, production reached its peak in 1988, 7 years before the passage of Public Law 104-58 (Title 2). Now, thirteen years later, we are well down the backside of the bell curve and we hear a constant battle cry to drill ANWR. I have no problem with drilling and using that resource, but it is our resource and shouldn't be exported at the expense of the American people.

While I have no proof, I was told by an Alaska resident that foreign tankers were loading at Valdez in the late 70s' and early 80s', long before Public Law 104-58 (Title 2). Perhaps this law was nothing more than 'after the fact' politically inspired cover for having violated the original Trans Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act.

I know there is little any of us can do about this, so long after the fact, other than increase public awareness . We can, on an individual basis acknowledge the fact that there can be no honest discussions about the nations oil supply, as long as there are such credibility issues.

Dorsey

[Alfdom]

More straight talk.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/19/mccain-open-to-new-information-on-anwr/

[kralspaces]

Everything is a catch-22. I remember ARCO on the West Coast. There was a time when their gas prices were always a few pennies less than the competition. In fact I even had an ARCO gas card in the ‘70’s because their prices were always lower. How come? They had access to Alaska oil at their disposal and refined it in Long Beach. It was economically feasible at the time. I do remember that we were exporting oil back in the early ‘70’s (before Carter) because it was considered ‘EXCESS” at the time. But times are changing. I have no problem with selling excess on the world market, however, when the profits are so much higher selling to world markets then in the US, it’s understandable that oil companies try to leverage that market. Our $4 gas is still much less than Europe’s $10 gas. And now China and India’s economies are demanding more energy which affects supply and demand ratios. As I said, we are caught in the dilemma. There is one proven way to change that dilemma – more supply. That is simple Econ-101. Another term us old timers are familiar with is ‘guns and butter’ which was completely flipped upside down in the last 8 years. Maybe rations could be a way to increase supply.

In another thread on ‘Alternative Energy’ there has been discussion of the pros and cons of alternative energy. While I am personally in favor of developing other source of energy to generate electricity, we still need fossil fuel for our economy for many years to come. The country of Brazil is a good example of a country that went with ethanol back in the ‘70’s and built there economy around it and all the environmental problems that came with it. Now they have discovered oil off their coast and are going after it. Why? Brazil is a big country and they have lots of places to build wind mills, put up solar panels, develop nuclear plants, but they decided to invest in oil exploration. Why? I guess I am back to Econ-101 again.

Drill now, drill here and build some refineries. AND, let’s develop some serious alternative energy for the future.

[Alfdom]

This is an older article, but the debate about ANWR is far older.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/604zvaab.asp

[kralspaces]

Links without personal opinion is like a one liner and should be removed from the thread. Who cares what some reporter has to say, I would rather hear what you have to say (sound bite). Please explain your opinion as to why I should read it and what baring it has on the subject. I could care less about weather McCain is for or against ANWR or how many times he changes his mind for political expediency. The poll is about weather we should or should not drill in ANWR. In your own words please - Why?

[Alfdom]

The thread stems from a poll. The title is information on ANWR, so I will post links to information on the subject. I do not have to justify my opinion or even post my opinion. If one does not want to read the link, so be it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/604zvaab.asp

[kralspaces]

Fair enough. Enjoy posting your political links. If you truely wanted others to consider your view point, then you have to express them. I for one am not interested in what others have to say. I am interested in what people from Roswell have to say and will read the link source if their opinion is compeling.

[mfish]

Anyone who is against drilling ANWR has not been able to justify their position, other than to say the caribou might get harmed, or the beautiful, pristine nature of it all might be damaged.
And ... both of those arguments are a crock.
There's already infrastructure into the area of interest for exploration, the locals in the area need and want the jobs, and as far as the caribou (or whatever), history has proven they thrive around exploration activity.
As for the beauty? The area of interest is pretty much a barren wasteland, and to give you a better understanding of how much land mass would be involved, trot on out to one of the high school football fields. NOw, place a matchbook anywhere on the football field. That is a relative example of how much of ANWR is under consideration for exploration - the area of the matchbook compared to the football field.

It makes sense to drill ANWR - it made sense fifteen years ago and had we been developing the area when it was first put on the table, we'd be pumping the oil NOW.

[mfish]

Alfdom wrote: "Why not save time and go directly to source of this propaganda?" And then posted a link to www.ANWR.org

So I'm guessing, by calling the information presented that opened this thread "propaganda," you have issues with the prospects of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

Why?

Is ANWR a favorite vacation spot for you? Do you spend quality time along the barren shorelines of ANWR (where the exploration is proposed)? Are you jealous of Alaskans who get nice, generous automatic refunds from the state every year because of the oil production, and you don't think they deserve anymore? I'd be fascinated to hear why anyone is opposed to drilling this oil.

I watched a TV show recently where the host had pictures of the area of the proposed exploration area of ANWR and asked people if they could identify the area. Some said "Mars?" Some guessed "the Moon?" Most had no clue ...
And ALL were surprised when given the answer - because of the REAL propaganda that has circulated, showing misrepresented pictures of pristine wildnerness areas that will be exploited and destroyed - destroyed, I say! if the eeeeevil oil barons get their hands on the area ... THAT, is "pure D" propaganda.

There are areas of ANWR that are indeed pristine and beautiful, and harbor a tremendous amount of arctic wildlife. Those are NOT the areas of ANWR that are under consideration for exploration however.

Do you know there are producing oil wells a stone's throw from Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge? Has the presence of those wells inhibited anyone's enjoyment of that area, or the wildlife within the refuge? Did you even know they were there?

This has been one piece of the "oil independence" puzzle for a number of years. And had we been able to start working on extracting the oil fifteen plus years ago, we would be enjoying the end product NOW. But certain "liberals" and "moderates" have blocked this from happening - and it's a CRIMINAL SHAME that we as a country have not been able to responsibly utilize the resources within our grasp. One has to ask WHY there has been so much resistance to extracting the oil from this area - certainly not from Alaskans, who want this economic asset utilized in their area, but from folks who probably couldn't find the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on a map if their lives depended on it.

[Daisy]

Do you know there are producing oil wells a stone's throw from Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge? Has the presence of those wells inhibited anyone's enjoyment of that area, or the wildlife within the refuge? Did you even know they were there?

The presence of oil and gas wells does not harm or bother wildlife, cattle, or people, despite the REAL propaganda put forth by ignorant liberals and tree huggers. My husband has worked in the oil field for 27 years and talks about how much the cows love the shade and scratching their backs on the well heads. In fact, the cows sometimes open and close valves not having a clue they are creating a problem! The birds like to build nests up in the tank ladder platforms, on top of tanks and inside production units. The rattlesnakes, rats and rabbits live and have their little ones under meter houses and tanks. Antelope and deer greatly appreciate the shade from the oil tanks. I could go on, but suffice it to say that many critters live and thrive around oil and gas sites.

Drilling in ANWR is such a no brainer that I am totally confused as to why anyone in their right mind would be against it. I suppose many have decided to blindly believe and follow the foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics who say we are destroying our beautiful lands and killing all the precious wildlife. What a bunch of :censored2:!!!!

[Alfdom]

I have issues with people pretending they wrote something they did not.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/anwar.htm

[Daisy]

I have issues with people pretending they wrote something they did not.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/anwar.htm


I have no idea what that statement is referring too.

I do, however have a problem with the acronym ANWAR instead of ANWR. It bugs me.........there is no 'A' anywhere near where that last one is inserted. :no3:

[kralspaces]

I have issues with people pretending they wrote something they did not.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/anwar.htm

I have already posted that there are 5 hoax sites that I check to verify if a hoax is real or not. If more than one list the hoax as true, then it is probably not a hoax. I was only able to find one of these sites listing the ANWR email as a hoax. And even this sites only reference one sentence in the entire email as political mis-information.

"The part of the eRumor about Al Gore, Democrats, and gas prices is a political comment. We could not find an occasion when Al Gore advocated $5-per-gallon gasoline, but many environmentalists are in favor of steps that would reduce the use of fossil fuels. It's possible this is a reference to a speech he gave in the U.S. Senate on April 11, 1991 in which he voiced support of a National Academy of Sciences study. He said it, "rings the alarm bells again and tells us of the urgent need to take action now to combat global warming." Among the recommendations of the study was "restructuring energy prices to more accurately reflect environmental costs."

The rest of the email was not disputed and therefore must be true. None of the other hoax sites even bothered with it. If the hoax web sites start posting political statements, they won't have enough disk space to store all the information.

[Daisy]

I don't think the site information was being disputed - I think Alfdom was implying that people here were, in his words, 'pretending they wrote something they did not'. Roswell never said he wrote that information in the first place and that's why I said I had no idea what he was referring too. (The 'pretending they wrote...' statement was totally off base and out of line.) The ANWR email was posted as 'Information on ANWR' and that's what it was - accurate information, as a matter of fact.

[mfish]

Does that mean Alfdom will stop with the mundane "Yoda" quotes?

Perhaps "truthorfiction" put in the second "a" in "ANWR" because they don't know any better... or perhaps that in and of itself is a "fiction" they're propagating? Way to lend credibility to your own website ... :pinch:

[Billy Wood]

I see now that I have to explain my actions and decisions I make as to what pages I setup on TRC to some co-owners of this forum I didn't know I had.

Because Search Engines scan TRC 24 hours a day, I am hoping to get some hits for TRC from them. I setup the (ANWR) page because it is a very hot topic right now. The SE will index that page in their system.

If you read the complete page you will see the word (mfish) at the bottom of the page is a link, all you need to do is click on it.
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

YOU CAN START BY FORWARDING THIS LINK
( http://www.talkroswell.com/index.php?pageid=anwr )
TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW…
SO THAT THEY WILL KNOW THE TRUTH.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Source of Information: Email received from Talk Roswell Member " mfish (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/anwar.htm) "

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0 RC2

[Daisy]

There are NO co-owners of this forum, Roswell. It is yours alone and I think you have done an amazing job of putting it all together. The member who had issues with your opening post, seems to have issues with everything and everyone.......with life itself, it would seem.

I'm glad you pointed out your source for the information. I hadn't seen it before then. (always read the fine print ;) ) After reading the information, it never entered my mind, that you were claiming to have written it. In fact, I don't know where that one member pulled that assumption from..........I could guess, but I'll leave it at that.

It was a good and accurate source of information on ANWR (no second 'A') and has generated some good discussion among those of us who actually know how to have a discussion. Which doesn't mean it has to be only those of us who agree that drilling in ANWR is a good thing. If anyone would like to post an opinion against the drilling, please feel free to do so. BUT, we would like discussion, not mindless link copying and sarcastic, petty accusations.

Thanks, Roswell, for explaining your source, even when it was not necessary for you to do so. It is, after all, your Forum...........:smk2:

[mfish]

Just to keep the naysayers at bay, I indeed sent that e-mail to "Roswell" and he and I both thought it would make for an interesting thread and discussion.

I am NOT however, the "author" of said information, just in case anyone has need to go "wow" or something ...:pinch:

[Daisy]

If anyone would like to post an opinion against the drilling, please feel free to do so. BUT, we would like discussion, not mindless link copying and sarcastic, petty accusations.

I see someone else voted no to Drilling in ANWR - that makes 3 votes against the drilling and 8 votes for drilling. I sure would like those of you who are against it to explain your reasons why. It's difficult to have a back and forth discussion when those of us who are pro drilling are the only ones actually discussing it.

Jump right into the discussion...........we won't bite..........really!! :smk3:

[Dennis]

This is my first post so I thought I would give it a try.

First to dispel some misinformation. In the news recently, the State of Alaska is suing Exxon/Mobile for lack of development of some leases that they have been holding for 30 years. They have held leases at Point Thomson, which is between ANWR and Prudhoe bay. The area has already been explored and they know how much and where do drill for the oil and gas. BUT, Exxon has been setting on the leases and not developing them, WHY? It is not that far from the existing pipeline and it would be oil and gas to keep the line going for many years in the future.

Of course, this would mean no drilling in ANWR. Why drill and waste a pristine area when there is an area already explored and ready for development? Sort of makes you wonder what the big picture is about.

Of course, in doing some checking, about 80% of the Alaska oil goes to Asian markets so we can get our oil from the MIddle East, Private Enterprise at it's best.

I think we have a great opportunity to break the "oil addiction" that we are on. By developing different kinds of fuels, to go along with the oil we have; we can be energy independent and control our own Country again.

Just a thought.

[Daisy]

BUT, Exxon has been setting on the leases and not developing them, WHY? It is not that far from the existing pipeline and it would be oil and gas to keep the line going for many years in the future.

Thanks for posting, Dennis. I hadn't heard that first bit of information and find it very interesting. "Why" is a very good question........ Apparently, there is a lot of the big picture we don't know about. Anyone else have any idea?

Of course, in doing some checking, about 80% of the Alaska oil goes to Asian markets so we can get our oil from the MIddle East, Private Enterprise at it's best.

I didn't know that much of Alaskan oil went to the Asian markets. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

By developing different kinds of fuels, to go along with the oil we have; we can be energy independent and control our own Country again.

I totally agree that we should develope other kinds of fuel, but for now, it just isn't happening and oil is what we've got. AND we've got a lot of it right here in this country, so we could be energy independent if we would just stop being politically correct and start drilling here........NOW.

[Daisy]

This is an excerpt from an article by Ann Coulter called "You can't fuel all of the people all of the time". Had we drilled in ANWR six years ago, I'm guessing gas prices wouldn't be so high today. But, NO, some of our gov't reps listened to the environmentalists and here we are.... :no:

From the article......

Moreover, what was going on five years ago? Why didn't
anyone propose drilling back then?

Say, you know what we need? We need a class of people paid
to anticipate national crises and plan solutions in
advance. It would be such an important job, the taxpayers
would pay them salaries so they wouldn't have to worry
about making a living and could just sit around
anticipating crises.

If only we had had such a group -- let's call them
"elected representatives" -- they could have
proposed drilling five years ago!

But of course we do pay people to anticipate national
problems and propose solutions. Some of them -- we'll
call them Republicans -- did anticipate high gas prices and
propose solutions.

Six long years ago President Bush had the foresight to
demand that Congress allow drilling in a minuscule portion
of the Alaska's barren, uninhabitable Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In 2002, Bush, Tom DeLay and the
entire Republican Party were screaming from the rooftops:
Drill! Drill! Drill!

We'd be gushing oil now -- except the Democrats stopped
us from drilling.

Drilling on only 0.01 percent of ANWR's 19 million
acres was projected to produce about 10 billion barrels of
oil. From all domestic sources combined, we currently
produce about 1.8 billion barrels of oil per year. To a
layperson like myself, 10 billion barrels seems like a lot
of oil.

[Dennis]

I was doing some checking and found out that the Point Thomson area, in my previous post, has a known quanity that makes it the second largest field, next to Prudhoe Bay. Furthermore, it is next to the existing pipelines so building a "long" pipeline to get to the oil would not be necessary. For 30 years, Exxon/Mobile had the lease, and still has, and all the exploration has already been done, leases and permits let, etc. So I stand by my question, WHY WAS THIS NOT DEVELOPED??

From what I know, ANWR would be exploratory wells, and no production would be realized for 10 to 15 years (per the oil Companies).

It seems crazy to sit on known oil, but push to "rape and pillage" an area that is of questionable supplies. What is the agenda? There is more to this than we are being told.

As long as we listen to our drug supplier, the oil companies, we will NEVER break our addiction.

[Daisy]

So I stand by my question, WHY WAS THIS NOT DEVELOPED??

I agree with you that this is a question that needs to be answered. I have no clue where to find those answers, though.

It seems crazy to sit on known oil, but push to "rape and pillage" an area that is of questionable supplies.

"Rape and pillage"? Is that really how you feel about oil well drilling?

According to most articles I have read, it would be more like 5 to 10 years before oil is produced. And according to a 1987 Dept. of Interior report , "Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end." Also, a 1998 U.S. Geological Survey , " increased the estimate for technically recoverable mean crude oil resources".

Yes, it would be exploratory, but the potential gains are enormous.

[kralspaces]

I was doing some checking and found out that the Point Thomson area, in my previous post, has a known quanity that makes it the second largest field, next to Prudhoe Bay. Furthermore, it is next to the existing pipelines so building a "long" pipeline to get to the oil would not be necessary. For 30 years, Exxon/Mobile had the lease, and still has, and all the exploration has already been done, leases and permits let, etc. So I stand by my question, WHY WAS THIS NOT DEVELOPED??

From what I know, ANWR would be exploratory wells, and no production would be realized for 10 to 15 years (per the oil Companies).

It seems crazy to sit on known oil, but push to "rape and pillage" an area that is of questionable supplies. What is the agenda? There is more to this than we are being told.

As long as we listen to our drug supplier, the oil companies, we will NEVER break our addiction.

Dennis, first I would like to thank you for posting. It’s good to have sensible opposing points of view. I like to just do my own thinking and see if it makes sense to me. Here is what I have come up with.

Yes, the oil companies are sitting on a large deposit at Point Thomson and I believe that is their backup to Prudhoe Bay. If they tap it, they need to have another backup. I believe that they should tap it while having ANWR as there next backup. ANWR is not an unknown. The Navy drilled there back in the 50’s. With GPS, the data has been updated. There is a lot of oil there.

Regarding the pipe line… It has already out lived it life expectancy and needs to be replaced. Extending it to Point Thomson will add more demand on that pipe line. It will have to be replaced and that cost a lot of money. If the oil companies had some assurance that they would be getting more oil out of the region, they would invest in the replacement or build a secondary line which would be great as a backup if problems ever happened to either line. That is what the trains do – two lines so there is no stoppage.

As you can see, I am looking at this from a business investment stand point. Given that the oil companies do get the opportunity to drill in ANWR and offshore, the only legislation I would like to see is a requirement for the oil companies to come up with an economic alternative to fossil fuel for our future energy requirements (ie: Pickens wind farms in TX). Keep in mine, if the government forces the oil companies to develop the alternative, then the oil companies should be allowed to reap the rewards. That means the government can not later decide to break them up because they have a monopoly.

[Daisy]

I was with you until that last paragraph, kral.

Why on earth should oil companies be forced to come up with alternative fuels? They are in the oil business, for pete's sake! That would kinda be like the government telling you that they don't like the idea of having to restore houses, so.... they'll still allow you to do it, but they also want you to come up with a plan to build houses that will never need restoration. That just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[kralspaces]

To clarify: Apparently I forgot the 'if' or will it be 'when'. If the government puts demands on the oil companies to invest in alternatives, then they should be able to reap the rewards. That was my point. If the government forces the oil companies to invest in alternative energy then they can not complain when the oil companies become huge energy companies.

By the way, the government regulation regarding the restoration business is already a mess. I do not use any of their stupid programs. I work exclusively with private monies and NO government control over what I do. Besides they don't know 'dick' about restorations. That's my favorite line from OZ.

[Daisy]

I understood that you meant the oil companies should reap the rewards for alternative fuels. In my scenario, you, too, would reap the rewards for the never - need - restoration homes. My point is, why should the government force any company to come up with an alternative plan to what that company is now doing. My opinion is, that the government should not do that.

I bet the government regulation regarding restoration IS a mess. Most government regulations are - so why would you think it's okay for the government to force itself on oil companies, when you refuse to let it force itself on your business?

"Besides they don't know 'dick' about restorations." I like it and think it applies to just about any business and many other aspects of life.

[mfish]

If there's a profit to be made, no one will have to "force" anyone to invest in alternative energies.
Pickens feels he'll make a profit on his windmill farms, or he wouldn't be investing his money to build them. The man isn't all that altruistic in my opinion...
And that's been the on-going issue with any alternative energy source to this point - the profitability just wasn't there.

I suspect the rise in a barrel of oil may have as much to do with that as anything else, but that's the conspiratorial side of me coming out ...

Solar energy - not profitable. YET.
Wind energy - not profitable. YET.

You can't "own" the sun or the wind. But now that oil is going through the roof, the "equipment" and technology to make the sun and the wind work efficiently can indeed be owned and controled. That's the reason we left those energy sources at the beginning of the "Industrial Age" to begin with - they're not reliable, they can't be owned, and the technology to deliver the power was faulty, at best.

NO one will have to force anyone to invest in alternative energy sources as long as there's a buck to be made.

Kral - you wouldn't restore a house unless you could make a dollar, would you ...?

[kralspaces]

I guess I used the wrong word - force. I retract it. What the hell are government regulations then?

[Daisy]

I suppose I should make it clear that I am not opposed to the developement of alternative energies - as long as they are viable and reliable. Which none of them are as of now. I am, however, opposed to the government forcing oil companies (or any company) to develope those alternative energies. It can be done, and in the future may be done, without government control.

As of now, what we have is oil (which doesn't mean it's an addiction, by the way) and we need to extract that oil from our own ground for our own purposes.

[mfish]

Most government regulations are designed for consumer protection.

[Daisy]

Wow, thanks Dennis, kral, and mfish - this is great back and forth discussion and is what this forum is supposed to be all about. Differing opinions without anyone getting hot, bothered, or upset. :)

Now, back to the subject......except I don't have anything to say right now about ANWR......:pinch:

[ElRipper]

to do or not to do......anwr, most opinions sound like 'we' this and 'we' that.
Be careful now. Here 'we' go again, if we should do this and do that...who is 'we' ??? the government ? Right now the democratic congress with some republicans wants the government (Congress) to take over the adjutication of the oil business. Over my dead body. Are 'we' turning into a socialist country that fast ? So you folks who think 'we' should do this and 'we' that. The only way to get 'we' to do it., is to let the government (i.e. congress) to take over the oil industry. So to me...you folks who are saying 'we' should do this and 'we' should do that, are you implying the government should take over and rule the oil company's. Are you implying you are in favor of gov. ruling the judgment, money, trade, cost, budgeting of what you can and cannot have ? Like maybe ....oil ? Its not what 'we' should do, dont fall into that trap, stop being confused on what type of government you are supporting and pushing for? You are thinking one thing, but saying the opposite-no wonder we're screwed up ! What you really should see, is that is it 'they', the companies who are in business, who can drill, explore, build refineries, the government is not going to build any refineries. Whats it going to be called -Department of Refinery. Think about what youre saying, be realistic ! 'They' do what they' want to because 'they' operate in a free society. I used to think ANWR should be explored until i gathered some realistic data. If the companies want to drill, i say let them, Alaska has some of the most strick environmental laws, like drilling only in the winter when the ground is frozen, to help control leaks and spills. Some wildlife is dormant. Roads have to be built out of ice. Fine I will give them that. But im going to tell you, all the drilling and production we could do is not going to drop the price of gasoline.
'We' consume 45 times the amount of gasoline than the next country who falls in second. If that doesnt shock you - read it again, if you still dont see the unbelievable -have someone explain it to you. I have to correct Mfish, (no friction intended), ANWR is not a wasteland. The Permain basin is a wasteland. Just to name the least of things--ANWR is loaded with fresh soft water with clear streams and underground shallow water source. You see that around here anywhere ? Dont forget water will some day be more valuable than oil. Oh yeah, they also have more mosquitos than we do, now Im really jealous !
And ANWR is not a matchbook on a football field. The exploration parcel up for intentions is one twentyth (1/20) or 5 % of the total ANWR. Thats about a 33 yards by 33 yards. Thats a huge match box, we're talking guiness world records here. But regarding the exploration, the north slope was initially reported by the USGS to have 25 million bbls of oil. They have been producing there for about 40 years, and havn't made 12 M yet. Its declining rapidly. There's not near as much as they claimed. Enough to make the companies 'they' some money, but not a penny for those political heresayers like 'we' who like giving our opinions made of water soup.
Where did the ANWR plot get this 'tiny' reputation, because the land mass, being on the edge of Canada's producing oilfield is very small. Canada has an oilfield just a few miles across the border that dwarfts our ANWR lot. with thousands of wells. The subsurface geology looks way better and pinches out as it gets under US soil. The canadian's "theys' have drained the area like crazy. In fact 'we' all have already burned some of the ANWR's area gas in our tanks. Yes we have. Does that make you feel better ? We import lots of gasoline from canada. Lots.
So the ANWR is just sitting there with miniscule amounts of potential. No doubt. Sure, a 'they' wants it because 'they' can make some millions. It aint gonna knock a dent in our demand. If you think it will, you are believing in the stupid lobbyist again. They're salesman. They are taking the stupid americans to the bank on this one. The extreme liberials are taking one half of americans to the bank and pro profit takers are taking the other half. Using terms like, USA, duty, bring the price down (ha ha), our oil,...blah blah blah, 'our' oil ???? who's " 'we's' or 'they's' , whose oil is it. this argument is a debate that has not conclusion, its like a bicyle with no handle bar and no seat, with blind people trying to figure how to ride it. There is no argument. It just spins around and around -something to talk about. Drill the damn ANWR. the 'we's' are going to be terribly disappointed because it aint gonna bring the price of oil down. Yes I think we have a huge field off of San Fransico that ARCO discovered. HUGE ! but the californians said "no way no oil fields, get our out of here". Lots of discoverys still in the GULF, but its out further, we already burned up the easy stuff since the the 60's. So 'they' have to move further and further out, like in 1000 and 2000 ft of water. Well that cost more than those easy 200ft waters we normally had. Soooo, the cost goes up !!!!! Then they have to directionally drill to be more efficient to KEEP the cost down, and that cost more !! and you think this will help bring the cost down,, ha. You people are caught in an argument that doesnt hold any water on either side. You're fighting over an empty bag. Saudi arabia controls the oil in the world. They control the price. They could give a rats U now what about us or anyone else in the world, ...why they have muslims mosque in america to support, thats more important. Gasoline in saudi arabia is 15 cents a gallon. Hold on to Ur gold, when Israel hits Iran (for fkg with them), you think oil is high now...................U havent seen anything yet. The easist thing we could do is import it. It wouldnt be so bad if Congress would put tariffs and taxes on imports, which georgy tried, but congress said no way, they're our buddies. I give him credit for that. Our biggest problem that covers all of this, is our shrinking dollar, it controls everything, and not one candidate approaches it. We need to import things we need and dont have, and stop importing things we dont need, like plastic crap form China, and cheap car parts from Mexico. Tax the H__L out of this stuff. Make it non profitable for the importers. But americans are ignorant about this, gotta go to walmart and buy something from China. Who cares aobut our dollar anyway ? Get tough with imports and TAX all of it, except things we really need. The necessities like medicines, foods, etc. 'They' want to drill ANWR let em drill it, is it going to be a benefit to you? I doubt it ! I get tired of hearing this stuff maybe its because I am a petroleum engineer of 25 + years.

[kralspaces]

Elripper,

Thank you. You put a lot of energy into this post. With your background, what is your opinion about the most cost effective method to get more oil independence? There are new millionaires in North Dakota because they are drilling in their own back yards. Isn’t there still tons of oil under this country without having to go ‘North to Alaska’ and ‘On the Beach’?

[mfish]

"WE" ... meaning "we the people" - who have elected other people to represent us in government, who have hindered private and free enterprise through laws and regulations.

So when "we" is used, at least in my case, it is used as an inclusive for all Americans who still prefer the free enterprise society this country was built upon. Am "I" gong to go poke holes in Alaska, or anywhere else? Nope. But my fellow citizens have wanted to for decades, and the government has stopped them.

I stated in another post that "profit" is the motivator for developing alternative energy sources. It's also the main motivator for oil & gas exploration. In case, "profit" has pretty much driven the economy of this country since its inception.

When government gets involved, the profitability goes away for the most part (or is hoarded by the chosen few). That goes for regulations & limitations on where and why and how one can do something, to where and why and how one can sell something.

The more government we allow in our lives, the worse this whole energy issue is going to get.

[Daisy]

Wow, ElRipper, from a one line post in one thread to a small book here. ;)


If the companies want to drill, i say let them

That's what I'm saying - I'm not saying I want the government to take over the oil companies. I'm wanting it to allow the oil companies to drill where they want to drill.

who's " 'we's' or 'they's' , whose oil is it.

I'm pretty sure that when people say 'our' oil, they mean that oil found in this country belongs to this country.

So the ANWR is just sitting there with miniscule amounts of potential. It aint gonna knock a dent in our demand.

Every geological survey I have read says differently. No, we don't know for sure, but it's a good bet that there's lots of oil there. And no, recovering that oil won't lessen our demand, but will raise our supply. That's the whole point, isn't it? To increase our supply.........and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

I believe we have many big oil fields in this country (N.Dakota, Cal.,Alaska, offshore and others) I think they all should be drilled because I know the impact to those areas would be minimal and I strongly believe we should supply as much of our own oil as possible. And yes, I still think that more supply will bring down the price of oil and gasoline.

[ElRipper]

Well I am a pretty ignorant person even after doing my homework. I do know that ANWR is a national park, or wildlife preservation, Its a small plot. Its like wanting to drill in yellowstone, the titons, lincoln national forrest, the pearl river refuge, the redlands, off the white beaches in the panhandle of Florida. Have you seen the beaches in Ft lauderdale. No where in the United States-not even hawaii has beaches this pristine, its a rarity thats for certain. If one gathers before and after pictures of the Lousiana coast line from the pre 60's to present, you will see two different beaches and water color. Of course, lousiana has a lot of major ocean going traffic, stirring all kinds of trash and oil and mud up. Brown and root is just one of hundreds ship building yards as well as offshore rigs. These yards are huge, almost scarry. These rigs are laying down while in construction and one leg is large enough to drive a truck into. I am getting blah blah again....The ship traffic in the delta area is like automobile traffic in LA. Just massive. The water is gunked up now.......
To kralspace, Yes there is a lot of oil in the ground in the lower 48. When a formation is pumped (some flow) until depleated it has recovered about 25 % of the oil in the formation. The other 75 % is not coming out. Formations are tight rock, like your sidewalk. Oil oozes out. Thats when they go to water flooding, called secondary. Thats when the oil companies purchase huge water rights and pump million upon millions of fresh water into formations pushing the oil out. That accomplishes two things, it brings another 10 - 15 % of the oil and destroys enough water that could be used for more important things like .........drinking !! Then there is tertiary or third, it is when CO2 gas is pumped thru the formation, going into smaller holes and spaces to push even more oil out. So over the years -maybe we might get 45 -50 % of the oil out of the rock. Some formations more, some less. But this is a strong average. Gas is different ! Sometimes there is both gas and oil. "they" can get it out but it has to be economical feasible. There has to be some recoverable cost involved. Yep. There is oil there, but can we get it all out. NO ! So you see, at What Cost ? do we want it, do we need it, can we do it ? Yep we can do it if the money is there, but should we be doing it. Should we be destroying VAST amounts of drinking water ? "We" the people and government never tell you about the destruction of your water source. What is more important, making money on sales of oil, driving your car, or drinking water? Do you see where some environmentalist come from? They're not all stupid as the far right talk shows make you think. They make you think they are stupid and you think 'I dont want to be labled stupid so i will take a stand against those ideas', but you're being stupid for not thinking this our rationally. I can bet that "we" here in the talk roswell are all conservationist. We like the outdoors, we dont leave trash when we go camping, or dump our oil mountains streams or leave plastic bags blowing on the trees in a camp ground, dumping our sewer where there is water drainoff. We like the ducks, snow geese, migrating birds, foxes, wolves all the critters,at the bosque. Even if we hunt for meat, we still have respect for the critters and drinking water out there. We all (but not everyone) have a certain respect for the outdoors, most of us really love it - dont you ??? Now does that mean your part liberal or a crazy tree hugger ? So what, some people have a little love for the planet, some people have a lot more. Some are wackos, but so are some of the right wing, they're way out there also..... Dont lean all the way to one side thats the irrational. But this problem of solving our problem is a lot more sophisticated and takes some real insight. It takes some real facts, knowledge is power. The first thing I would do is make the facts about how politicians and our existing laws are working KNOWN to the public. A few know, but we all want someone else to take care of it. We cant get everyone to push in the same direction. Thats part of our problem. Our administration and congress suck. (i.e. not necessarily Bush. but all of them) if we need anyone in the white house right now it needs to be somone who understands the oilfields !!! Not a wanna be, Obama dont know **** about energy, neither does Bill Richardson and he was head of the dept of energy one time. Hes been alligning with the Islam church last few years. Thats his new buddies, they have lots of money. :ph34r2: I hate to ramble because im sure someone is saying shut the f..k up. But one ting I can pass on ,is regarding Federal and State lands, leases cover alot of land. When a well is drilled and is producible, it is given a proration space. This space is regulated by the state whether is on state or federal land. The most a well can get on a lease is 320 acres. 1/2 a square mile. usual gas wells. a oil well can only get 40 acres, 1/16 of a square mile. This falls under the Mineral leasing act of 1920. !!!!1920!! It is time to change that law. Because if an operator drills one well on a 3000 acres lease, given a spacing unit of 320 acres, it holds the entire 3000 acres. No one can drill on other parts of that lease unless the lessee gives them premission. He usually will b/c he gets a piece of the pie. BUT, if the lessee is an oil company, no one is going on that lease, guaranteed. So now we got all this land that can be explored on but will sit there as long as one well is pumping 1 bbl a month. That is not even accountable, but thats the law and his rights. :nerves: We have got to change the lease laws to release these areas to willing explorors. That would be my first move. Yaddy yaddy yaddy.........sorry folks .....rambling on'''' some one tell me to sit down and shut up !!!:locked:

[kralspaces]

Sorry Elripper, I can't tell you to shutup. You have already exposed me to some additional perspectives. I am sure there are more things to think about also. Keep up the posting. I'm trying to find out more about Ken Fromm, the 'deep throat' guy that Williams referenced. I am also doing some research on the ANDERSON CONNECTION.

[mfish]

You've probably heard this already. But it's yet another testiment to what we have available to us if we'll just allow the exploration. It may not bring down prices, but it can keep up with the demand, at least for a few more years while alternate sources are developed:


An estimated 90 billion barrels of undiscovered but technically recoverable oil - three years of world consumption - lie north of the Arctic Circle, the U.S. Geological Survey reports.

While the oil, along with vast quantities of natural gas, will be extremely difficult to tap, the promise is enough to make the frozen north the new, and maybe last, frontier for world energy producers.

Undiscovered oil and gas are thought to be present based on geology and probability. If they're further confirmed, they become reserves.
Currently, the five nations that border the Arctic - the U.S., Russia, Denmark, Canada and Norway - have their eyes on what geologists say is about a quarter of the world's undiscovered but technically recoverable oil, natural gas and natural-gas liquids.

According to the new survey, the Arctic Alaskan Province, which includes offshore seabeds, has the greatest potential for undiscovered oil, an estimated 30 billion barrels.

Mark Myers, director of the U.S. Geological Survey, said this week that he hoped the new estimates would contribute to future energy decisions.


Geologist Donald Gautier, who led the study, added, "In our judgment, (the Arctic Alaska Province) is the most obvious place to look for oil north of the Arctic Circle right now."

While Arctic Alaska has the greatest undiscovered energy potential, other big stocks are thought to lie in the Amerasia Basin north of the two continents and east of Greenland.

[jsatterfield]

Gull Island buzz: 200 years of oil from Alaska’s North Slope?

http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/690171677.shtml

This information I found on a Petroleum news web site I copied one part of the story that I found the most interesting; I just didn’t understand why all of a sudden one well would have been so top secret. You decide Fact OR Fiction.

Barker said that the drilling results were extremely confidential at the time of drilling — the critical data display instrumentation was even covered, to prevent unauthorized viewing of data. “We ran it as a very tight hole,” he said. “… There was no information that got out of there.”

In fact, the electric well logs were taken off the North Slope in a very secure manner and were unlikely to have even been seen in ARCO’s North Slope camp, Barker said.

[kralspaces]

Isn't this what Lindsey Williams was referring to in his video.

What does Gull Island and Roswell have in common?

[jsatterfield]

Isn't this what Lindsey Williams was referring to in his video.

What does Gull Island and Roswell have in common?

So does this not lend even more creditably to the Lindsey Williams story? Even this Geologist guy Peter Baker stated that there was secret information kept from public and employees knowledge on well sites drilled on Gull Island. If it sounds like a duck and Quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

[jsatterfield]

What does Gull Island and Roswell have in common?[/QUOTE]

Ok Karl, I forgot to ask What does Gull Island and Roswell have in common. I can't wait for this one.:nerves:

[jsatterfield]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation

The Bakken Formation, initially described by geologist J.W. Nordquist in 1953,[1] is a rock unit from the Late Devonian to Early Mississippian age occupying about 200,000 square miles (520,000 km²) of the subsurface of the Williston Basin, covering parts of Montana, North Dakota, and Saskatchewan.

Oil production estimates

The greatest Bakken oil production comes from Elm Coulee Oil Field, Richland County, Montana, where production began in 2000 and is expected to ultimately total 270 million barrels. In 2007, production from Elm Coulee averaged 53,000 barrels per day — more than the entire state of Montana a few years earlier.[13]

New interest developed in 2007 when EOG Resources out of Houston, Texas reported that a single well it had drilled into an oil-rich layer of shale below Parshall, North Dakota was anticipated to produce 700,000 barrels of oil [14]. This, combined with other factors, including an oil-drilling tax break enacted by the state of North Dakota in 2007,[15] shifted attention in the Bakken from Montana to the North Dakota side. The number of wells drilling the North Dakota Bakken jumped from 300 in 2006[16] to 457 in 2007.[17] Those same sources show oil production in the North Dakota Bakken increasing 229%, from 2.2 million barrels in 2006 to 7.4 million barrels in 2007.

There is plenty of oil in the United States, Now if we could get the Do nothing democrats’ and all the lame brain liberals back to work, and get them to start putting the American people’s interest first instead of Big business Just maybe some people would think that America was a great place to live. JMO

[Dennis]

In reply to where the blame lies; it appears that you are looking in the wrong direction. Instead of blaming Congress and Liberals, maybe you should look at the oil companies. You know, the ones holding leases with known reserves on millions of acres, with permits to start developing the fields, making record quarterly profits, and NO investments in the future.

I have heard it before, give the oil company big tax breaks so they can drill for more oil. Somehow record BILLIONS monthly is never enough profit.

The oil companies do not want to drill. Why lower the price if more oil was available? The world is in balance right now with supply and demand being even. BIG OIL does not want to upset the market. Just give everyone a "feel good" soundbite and do nothing, that is how it is and how it always will be in the foreseeable future. Make it sound like something will be done, and after the election, nothing will happen.

[jsatterfield]

Let's see. They're called OIL COMPANIES for a reason. They find, drill for, and deliver OIL. Some, like British Petroleum HAVE made the business decision to branch out and develop new sources of energy, but in the United States of America, should the government be dictating to private businesses what they spend their money on?

2. Is it, comrade? Glad you think so. If Obama is elected, and follows through with taking oil profits, do you think it will STOP with oil profits? Their profit margin is only 7-11%. Why take a chunk of Microsofts much larger profit margin? Or the cell phone industry or hoteliers? The markup on diamonds is up to 1000%...isn't that obscene? As for whether or not states and/or "working families" have the right to the profits oil companies have made, I guess that depends on whether you adhere to the U.S. Constitution or the Communist Manifesto.

3. If these money making oil companies are so bad because they make money, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must be positively angelic for running their businesses into the ground and having to be bailed out by the government? IndyMac and Bear Stearns, truly saintly. Miserable failures, who required bailouts with taxpayer dollars seem to completely escape the ire of the democrat/liberal whining machine. Those who succeed at what they're doing and prosper, are vilified. Well, СЧАСТЛИВЫЙ СЛУЧАЙ, comrade.

For this, I refer you to yesterday's article on the evil oil companies...who, from 1977-2004 made over $643 billion in profits! But, during that time span, their disgusting "corporate welfare" situation allowed them to pay a paltry $1.343 TRILLION in state and federal taxes. What a free ride.

Thank you Glenn Beck
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/13431/

[Dennis]

It is not "profit" that is bad, after all that is why everyone is in business, to make a profit. It is their saying "we need bigger tax breaks so we can develop more oil" when they have no intention of doing any developing. After all, the bottom line and stockholders are what is most important.

Oil companies are in business for OIL. They have no real intention in developing anything else. It is like telling the drug dealers that they have to open up rehab centers, you don't want to kill your market demand that you created.

[Daisy]

Oil companies are in business for OIL. They have no real intention in developing anything else.

Exactly, and there is no reason for the oil companies to develope anything else - that's why they are called OIL companies. We need other companies to start developing alternative forms of energy - then in 50 years or so, people can start complaining about THEIR profits.

It is their saying "we need bigger tax breaks so we can develop more oil" when they have no intention of doing any developing.

When have the oil companies said that, because everything I've read says they are ready to go and wanting to drill. As far as tax breaks, I think we ALL need a break from the disgusting amount of taxes we pay. I do NOT think the gov't has any right to force itself on private business and should get the heck out of it.

[saw]

By 1981 after the fuel shortage in the mid 1970's the number of of active drilling rigs in the US was 4530. By 1999 because of the cheap crude prices from OPEC there was only 588 rigs operating in the US. Rigs were being cut up for scap metal. The drilling business was on it's back and about done for because the price of crude was so low that there wasn't any investors.

Today because of the high price of oil there is 1932 drilling rigs in operation in the US. In all of the world there is 3436 rigs operating at this time.

[ljeffay]

I would like to discuss the best solutions to our energy problem rather than get caught up in political run-arounds, but there seems to be a recurring chorus in this thread that is extremely pro free market/private business and anti-big bad government.

My question to these people is what is private about the oil companies? The main product they are selling, oil, comes from public sources, that is oil that is owned by you and me, we the people. Isn't that what this thread is all about, whether we the people who are represented by the government, should allow private companies to drill on public land and sell that publicly owned commodity? How has this simple point been missed?

Multiple people on this thread have expressed a desire for the big bad government to stay out of the business of these private oil companies, but it is the private oil companies that are wanting access to public land, our land, which by it's very nature has to be managed by some entity which in our case at ANWR is our set of representatives in the federal government.

Why are people paying attention to what the oil companies are saying with a blind eye to what they are doing? According to the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Thirty-one million of the 45.5 million acres of public lands that have been leased out are not currently being produced. Likewise, there are 33 million acres in the Outer Continental Shelf that are under lease yet no drilling has begun. This is because the stock prices of the oil companies increase just by having more leased land. They don't have to do any drilling to make money, that is how the market works. The oil companies spend so much time and money lobbying and creating a media war for more access to public land, because just by having sole access to the land through a lease, the price of their stocks increase. I agree with ElRipper that the law that allows companies to hold so much land and only drill one well needs to be changed. I would go further and say that until, say 90% of the previously approved and leased land is actively being used, then the federal government shouldn't even consider opening up protected lands like ANWR.

Though this is all a moot point when it comes to actually lowering the price at the pumps, because like elripper pointed out, domestic oil production is tidbits compared to the amount we currently use and importing foreign oil is a reality that we Americans are going to have to accept and contend with for as long as we use oil for energy.

This is why I disagree with elripper's notion that we need someone that knows the oil fields in the white house. We need someone who understands world economics and has the sensibility, international appeal, and charisma to use America's position in the world to secure beneficial sources of energy without making enemies with the entire world. Despite our successes in the past, as our current president has demonstrated, the world is changing, and we cannot count on bombing our way to prosperity. If we get someone who only knows the military, how can we expect a different direction? McCain will certainly spend too much time micromanaging the iraq clusterf**k, rather than looking at the big picture and a new direction for America, because that is all he knows, he is a one trick pony. Obama has proven that he is a solid thinker that can think on his feet and has the mass appeal that will be necessary to begin to rebuild America's rapport with the rest of the world. Sheesh, I am continually floored by his growing popularity even in Chaves County, which seems to be the world's last bastion of Bush lovers.

[Daisy]

My question to these people is what is private about the oil companies?

Umm, the COMPANIES themselves are privately owned. Sure, they lease public land - could YOU go out on that public land and retrieve the oil from it. Nope, and neither could I.

....importing foreign oil is a reality that we Americans are going to have to accept and contend with for as long as we use oil for energy.

As long as Obama and his fan club believe that, nothing will be done to fix the situation. There is enough oil here to take care of most of our needs IF the gov't will lift the bans and let the PRIVATE companies get on with it. AND if we keep that oil produced here in this country. At the same time, other PRIVATE companies need to research and refine all the other alternatives.

Obama has proven that he is a solid thinker that can think on his feet and has the mass appeal that will be necessary to begin to rebuild America's rapport with the rest of the world. Sheesh, I am continually floored by his growing popularity......

This is off topic, but I want the President of this country to have a heck of a lot more than mass appeal and charisma. Hitler had that, too. Experience would be a good thing, but also no friendships with shady, racist, corrupt characters would be nice, as well. As for his popularity, you might want to go check out the latest polls. He's slipping as people begin to see what he really is and stands for. Here are some at Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/)

[mfish]

I've never placed "building rapport with the rest of the world" high on my to-do list, either.

Seems to me that the "rest of the world" could work on building their rapport with us - taking our BILLIONS of dollars in foreign aid, while condemning us as a nation, refusing to show support of human rights issues, and burning our flag publicly with one hand, while holding out the other hand for more of our money has never set real well with me. I for one, think we need to have a real "heart to heart" chat with all the countries we give foreign aid to (that's a long list), and start setting some guidelines as to what they need to do to expect that aid to continue. I think we could pare that list down considerably, as use the savings to do some good here in our own country.

Now, as to the oil companies. Daisy is correct. Private companies LEASE federal and state lands to extract natural resources, because the government is not in the extraction business. That would be called "nationalizing" the extraction industry - free markets and governments do not have nationalized industries. Socialist and totalitarian governments have nationalized resource extraction, and other industry for that matter. China comes to mind, Lybia, Venezuela, Iran, Russia - those are examples of countries that like to nationalize their mineral extraction.
Those private companies pay significant overrides to the government when they start extracting those resources, too, which puts revenue into the government coffers.

[ElRipper]

Time for a visit once again. Been a while. I dont understand the order of these post. it jumps from aug 07 to july 08 to jan 07 to blah blah, how do you follow this stuff ? I get notices in the email that a reply was made to a topic, then i look for the replay and its dated 3 months ago , but i just received the notification today.......too smart for me I guess.

What i can tell you is : the estimated oil resevoirs by the USGS are never correct. They have always been way off. Especially in Alaska. But dont forget there is an estimated "recoverable" and estimated "in place". Once again, no one is going to extract 100 %, not 90%, not 75, 60 or 50 %. With years of pushing you might get 35 to 45 % if you're lucky. The great amounts of production comes out in the beginning, going great guns, then after some time it starts to decline, like pouring tea from a pitcher. or better -squeezing water from a sponge. The USGS publically reported that 45 million bbls of oil were availalbe in the North Slope. Since the sixties we have cummulated about 12 1/2 million bbls. Not bad, supported the pipeline !!! But look at the difference of what their "fancy" report made public some 45 years ago and what actually is happening. Far cry.

In regards to leffey (sorry, i forgot the correct name), creating an alliance
for economics, good commerce, buddies and etc. with foriegn countries is right under your nose. In fact we have gone overboard with it. You see, Saudi Arabia the largest oil producer and almost the richest country and citizens in the world is the "deal" our presidents have kissed up to for decades. Saudi Arabia, head of OPEC, controls 80 % of our foreign trade on oil. The control us, and we protect them. Yes, sorry to inform you, but the presidents from Carter through now are protecting them form the other middle eastern contries. They have no army to speak of, They use ours, Hate to surprise you, but part of the going into Iraq was b/c King adallah is scared to death of Hussein. He is scared to death of all the surrounding countries. And we also rely on the stabilization of Saudi Arabia. Can you imagine a civil war there and the refineries caving in. I can ! But most of us are not aware of the situation or reality of how things operate there, not to mention Islamic religion control of everything, No one has rights in SA. Most of the citizens want the regime to fall apart ! Its a democratic, voting nation. But you dare not vote for anyone other the King. Thats a reality !!! They have the oil they have control of world oil (most of it), our white house protects their society -no matter how evil or corupt it is, no matter how hurtful to our economics, dependancy or request to bomb some poor soul for their protection. Think back to the first desert storm. Hussein went to collapse Kuwait. We helped Kuwait, that is the major port for ALL of Saudi Arabia export of oil. Kuwait told us "thank you for protecting us". Saudi Arabia said, "get over here now and stop Hussein or we will not sell the world any oil". And who went prouncing down there after that demand. We did ! 90% of the Muslim community in the eastern world hates Saudi Arabia, and once reason they hate us is for protecting the evil oil king. We should let the next coup march right in, F**em ! This entire game actually keeps the price of oil down ! Can you imagine cutting off 90% of the worlds oil retailer. You think the price of oil is high now !? The desert storm just bought some time-thats all ! King Adallah wants us to beat back the irrational and unstable middle easterners. Israel is a total different situation, but is strongly woven into this tapestry.

Therefore, our negotiations with Foriegn Oil subsidies is in full force and the party is drinking champange like crazy. Its festive time in the foreign relations department dealing with OIL ! Yes it is. Do you like what your white house is doing, and this isnt a BUSH thing ! It started with Carter. Quit blaming our current goverment for getting us into this, it is our current government thats needs to get us out of this. It is either foreign dependency or astronomical oil prices. 200$ a bbl is nothing! If we loose the OPEC oil, you better have a room full of bullets. Should we keep prrotecting the King and keep our oil coming to us, which keeps the price of oil down.................thats right..down. It is a fact and a reality, Yes we have to bomb someone to keep our life line to oil and energy dependency, or start walking. Are you walking or utilizing an internal combustible engine going places to buy imported junk from china. Solar and wind power ?? thats nice, there is no power in it compared to gas run engines or coal. Environmentalist pay their lobbyist to vote against it, and against drilling offshore California, offshore Florida, ANWR, burning coal to produce electricity, cant do this cant do that, "we must give up our freedom" is what they are really saying ! Our power, our inovation, our accomplishments, our success, has taken over the minds of the left. This democrat left them. I dont hear people complain about how much profit State Farm, Merril Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Insurance, Cypress Medical, Merck, or other monstrous corporation's stock are goin up, how much profit they made last year, McDonalds, Master Card.....the list goes on and on. Its a political gimmick !!! To conclude, Obama knows what to say to get your attention. BUt what has he done ! Name one thing ! Anyone reading this Please Name One thing ! He talks the talk, "shut the borders, no more free trade,... plus... air up your tires to save energy". sheeeesh !! "I will do everything I can to help American Islam", have you noticed how quite the Islams are right now ?????? They are laying Looooooooooooooooooooooooow.....any nudge at all, could hurt his chances to be elected !! Dont you see that ! Dont be fooled !!! McCain aint no big prize either, but at least he has been beat up and worked his way up ! ANd maybe Pralin will be a good thing, ,I dont know, But Obama was campaining in the Gaza strip for crying our loud, the left media wouldnt dare expose that to us, he has so much muslim support its scary ! Wake Up !!! Should we elect Obama because hes a minority. I know you can get financial aid for college, a job with the federal government, get into any university, obtain an easy loan, sue the government if you a minority, but I didnt know you could get elected president of the USA for being a minority !! What a country !!:)

[kralspaces]

elripper, you will get a email notice if someone votes in the poll, even without a posted comment. Roswell needs to fix this, if it is possible. In the mean time, just look at the email and if there is no comment, just ignore it. As for the dates, some threads/post are joined/merged and that sometimes creates weird sequencing.

My only suggestion is to stay current. In other words, get addicted like the rest of us.

As for ANWR, maybe 16 years of Sarah Palin at the helm will produce some oil from that place.

[mfish]

“Congress returns... for an abbreviated session, with energy being the number one issue on the agenda. Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner, spent the August recess pushing for Congress to enact an ‘all of the above’ package to increase energy supplies and lower gasoline prices, and they will continue to do so. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, clearly thrown off balance by public opinion polls showing that a decisive majority of the electorate agrees with the Republicans on drilling, have a different, irresponsible agenda: running out the clock and preventing a straight up-or-down vote on drilling. But to do this successfully, they will have to continue their strategy of pretending to support compromise, while loading up energy legislation with poison pills that will make expanded drilling impossible... In the House, the Democratic leadership will offer a ‘compromise’ plan to allow drilling more than 100 miles from shore. (Which presumably means that if the next Prudhoe Bay is discovered 25 miles off the coast of Virginia or 50 miles from North Carolina, consumers should just shut up and be happy with oil from Mexico, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela instead.)” —The Washington Times

[Daisy]

It's a no brainer.......unless you enjoy our dependency on foreign oil. :pinch:

Domestic Oil (http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=MlfmvwxxgHM)

[Zoidberg]

Here's a simple argument against drilling up there:

What are you going to do in 50 years, when we still need oil, but are importing 95% of it?

If we had not drill, baby, drilled our huge-*** reserves out in the 20th century, selling them for <$10/barrel and exporting them worldwide, we'd be in far less of a mess today.

$10 was cheap. $100 was dear. Let's leave that inheritance in the ground and strike it rich when we're paying $1000 in 50 years.

Americans used to save their money.. it was the fashionable thing to do. You never knew when a rainy day would come around. We've been lucky. We haven't had a rainy day in 50 years.

How many of you think that running up every source of credit you have to keep up with the Joneses (who are doing the same) is the smart thing to do? Then why apply this same mentality toward every oil deposit we can get our borrow-baby-borrowing little hands on?

By Xmas, we'll have largely forgotten about gas prices. We'll be more concerned with the economy at large. Take a look at today's Dow and tell me I'm wrong.

[Daisy]

What are you going to do in 50 years, when we still need oil, but are importing 95% of it?

The man said we should still work on the other forms of energy, as well. Right here, right now, oil is what we have and we have a lot of it.


Let's leave that inheritance in the ground and strike it rich when we're paying $1000 in 50 years.

It doesn't have to be 'either, or'. In 50 years time, we will most likely have figured out alternative fuels - we're close now, but haven't quite got there, yet.

How many of you think that running up every source of credit you have to keep up with the Joneses (who are doing the same) is the smart thing to do? Then why apply this same mentality toward every oil deposit we can get our borrow-baby-borrowing little hands on?

My answer to the first question is, I owe money to no one. I'm very proud of that fact, too. :D

My answer to the second question is, I and many others don't like being totally dependent on countries who don't even like us and would be happy to help bring us down. We have the technology, we have the expertise and we have a helluva lot of product to extract for our own usage.

I believe mfish posted something about some scientists stating that oil isn't actually from 'fossils' and may be renewable. It makes sense that all of this oil did not come only from that source. Interesting, huh?

[Zoidberg]

The man said we should still work on the other forms of energy, as well. Right here, right now, oil is what we have and we have a lot of it.

A lot of it? Really? Well, what have people all been in an uproar about then? We shouldn't need to drill anywhere if we have a lot of it..


My answer to the first question is, I owe money to no one. I'm very proud of that fact, too.


Oh, but you do. You owe taxes. Your government owes money by running deficits. Your economy owes money by running deficits. Just because you have no control of it doesn't mean you owe no one money. :ohwell:


My answer to the second question is, I and many others don't like being totally dependent on countries who don't even like us and would be happy to help bring us down. We have the technology, we have the expertise and we have a helluva lot of product to extract for our own usage.

I don't know the conversion rate from helluva lots to millions of barrels per day, but I'd love to see your math on that. All the math I've seen paints a dramatically different picture. :no1: I'd be especially impressed if you quoted actual oil company or government estimates.

I believe mfish posted something about some scientists stating that oil isn't actually from 'fossils' and may be renewable. It makes sense that all of this oil did not come only from that source. Interesting, huh?

Interesting, yes. But good luck filling up your tank with that. :naughty:

[Daisy]

A lot of it? Really? Well, what have people all been in an uproar about then? We shouldn't need to drill anywhere if we have a lot of it..

Umm, in the ground............:pinch:


Oh, but you do. You owe taxes.

As of this very minute, I owe no taxes..........I'm caught up till next year. ;)

I don't know the conversion rate from helluva lots to millions of barrels per day

Really, I learned that in grade school - one helluva lot equals.......

I'd be especially impressed if you quoted actual oil company or government estimates.

If I'm remembering right, the estimates were posted somewhere in this thread. I have looked up a lot of info on this, awhile back, and am not interested in doing it again. Of course, there are a lot of contradicting statistics - we decide which we want to go with. Kinda like Global Warming - we can go with Al Gore and his bought and paid for scientists, or with independent scientists.

Interesting, yes. But good luck filling up your tank with that.

Nah, I'm gonna fill my tank with gas after we drill here, drill now........:smk3:

[Swadlo]

Here's a simple argument against drilling up there:

What are you going to do in 50 years, when we still need oil, but are importing 95% of it?

If we had not drill, baby, drilled our huge-*** reserves out in the 20th century, selling them for <$10/barrel and exporting them worldwide, we'd be in far less of a mess today.

$10 was cheap. $100 was dear. Let's leave that inheritance in the ground and strike it rich when we're paying $1000 in 50 years.

Americans used to save their money.. it was the fashionable thing to do. You never knew when a rainy day would come around. We've been lucky. We haven't had a rainy day in 50 years.

How many of you think that running up every source of credit you have to keep up with the Joneses (who are doing the same) is the smart thing to do? Then why apply this same mentality toward every oil deposit we can get our borrow-baby-borrowing little hands on?

By Xmas, we'll have largely forgotten about gas prices. We'll be more concerned with the economy at large. Take a look at today's Dow and tell me I'm wrong.


bigspoon2
You have given me the answer to all my problems.

1. I max out all my credit cards and get in debt to my eyeballs.

2. I jump on the obama band wagon while holding my hand out.

3. obama takes bigspoon2's money to pay my bills.

4. I'm happy, bigspoon2 is happy, obama is happy.

5. In a short time I can start all over again.and repeat the process.

6. Socialism at it finest,

7. When bigspoon2 runs out of money, I can get Daisey's or mfish's. Because you know #@** well obama is not going to give me any of his money,

The more I look at this, the more it appeals to me.

What do Y'all think? If you like this idea run down and vote the Democratic ticket.


Just my opinion
Swadlo