Why opposition to drilling for oil in the "Arctic National WildlifeRefuge" is ridiculous.

If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the

possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called

"environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and

laughable facts at:

http://home.att.net/~meditation/ANWR.html - with pictures, maps, and

info links

--- pasted below----

The costly symbolism of ANWR

The United States is in serious energy crisis today, in part because

of the triumph of symbolism over substance in the United States

Congress. Our political pundits have elevated the 19.6 million acre

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR (see map

http://www.sitnews.us/1105news/110505/110505_anwr_closeup.gif), into a

sacred mythical land that no man dare tread upon, least they spoil its

great natural beauty forever (picture of drilling area

http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/anwr05.JPG). In reality, any future

ANWR oil exploration would only take place in the desolate, treeless

area designated as "10-02," which represents just 8% of ANWR's land

area, and which encompasses the Coastal Plain north of the Sadlerochit

Mountains. Of that 8% of ANWR land, Federal law states that only

2,000 surface acres could ever be used for actual drilling purposes.

This 10-02 area was set aside specifically for oil and gas exploration

and is not legally defined as a "wilderness" or a "refuge." None of

Alaska's ANWR region is legally defined as a "park." We allow roads,

campgrounds, hundreds of toilets, hotels, and hoards of tourists to

violate the sanctity of Yellowstone (2.2 million acres) and Yosemite (.

76 million acres), which are both legally defined as "parks," but do

allow much needed oil drilling on just 2,000 acres of ANWR, which has

3.7 times the land area of the State of Massachusetts (5.3 million

acres).

Does any member of the United States Congress really believe that

drilling for oil on just 2,000 acres will destroy all wildlife and

vegetation, leaving behind nothing but a smoldering toxic wasteland?

Using directional drilling techniques, one single oil drilling station

can snake underground pipes out to 8 miles in all directions, so the

tiny footprint of oil recovery operations in ANWR would be

inconsequential to the local ecology. When the oil is gone and the

drilling equipment removed, any evidence that there was once oil

exploration at ANWR would soon vanish. Drilling in ANWR would be like

throwing a single peanut on the wall-to-wall carpet of a very large

living room floor; hardly a cataclysmic event.

Why are we paying Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia so much money for

imported oil when we could be producing that oil ourselves and giving

Americans high paying jobs in the process? Many of the same

environmentalists who oppose ANWR drilling support the construction of

giant solar energy arrays in the American Southwest, which would cover

thousands of acres in solar panels to produce electricity. Solar

panels on a roof are fine, but when you cover virgin land with them

you create a DEAD ZONE that will remain dead until the panels are

removed and the land has time to heal itself. Other environmentalists

support the building of thousands of wind turbines, which in addition

to being unsightly, are very effective bird and bat killing devices

that end the lives of thousands of our flying friends every year. Why

is damage done by solar and wind power schemes politically correct,

but benignly extracting oil from Alaska politically taboo?

The Congressional Research Service (see 76kb pdf

http://www.anwr.org/images/pdf/DonYoung_ANWR_Offset_Spending.pdf)

estimates that if oil recovery was allowed in the 10-02 area of ANWR,

it would be worth at least $94.8 billion in Federal income taxes and

$42.8 billion in royalties, totaling $138 billion. This study uses

the most conservative estimate of recoverable oil; 10.4 billion

barrels. The actual oil treasure could climb to well over 20 billion

barrels as new discoveries and improvements in oil drilling technology

increase the size of extractable reserves. Oil drilling is supported

by the Alaskan Native communities that live in ANWR, the State

Government of Alaska, and over 75% of Alaskan residents. Declaring a

huge area of land untouchable to oil recovery at a time of national

energy crisis is irresponsible energy policy. As long as so many

American political leaders place symbolism above substance, we will

never solve our strategic national energy problems.

Also see "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:

http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Christopher Calder

-----

Christopher Calder is an ordinary American citizen who does not own

any energy related stocks and does not work for any energy related

business. He supports the use of oil until synthetic fuels can be

manufactured through energy from truly "green" carbon free nuclear

power.

..

A six month supply and no guarantee that the oil would not be sold to

another country.

sfgeorge@paccbell.net (George Grapman) wrote in

news:cTbGj.5889$6H.3514@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:

> A six month supply and no guarantee that the oil would not be

> sold to another country.

Except for uses which require a specific grade or type of oil, all oil

is fungible, so any oil from ANWR sold to another market simply makes

that much oil available from other sources.

Every drop added to the global supply is another drop that's available

to everyone.

--

Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

Bert Hyman wrote:

> sfgeorge@paccbell.net (George Grapman) wrote in

> news:cTbGj.5889$6H.3514@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:

>

>> A six month supply and no guarantee that the oil would not be

>> sold to another country.

>

> Except for uses which require a specific grade or type of oil, all oil

> is fungible, so any oil from ANWR sold to another market simply makes

> that much oil available from other sources.

>

> Every drop added to the global supply is another drop that's available

> to everyone.

>

Again, a six month supply is a short term fix? Do you really think

drilling there will cause a drop in price?

sfgeorge@paccbell.net (George Grapman) wrote in

news:80cGj.30179$R84.16597@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

> Bert Hyman wrote:

>> sfgeorge@paccbell.net (George Grapman) wrote in

>> news:cTbGj.5889$6H.3514@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:

>>

>>> A six month supply and no guarantee that the oil would not be

>>> sold to another country.

>>

>> Except for uses which require a specific grade or type of oil, all

>> oil is fungible, so any oil from ANWR sold to another market simply

>> makes that much oil available from other sources.

>>

>> Every drop added to the global supply is another drop that's

>> available to everyone.

>>

> Again, a six month supply is a short term fix? Do you really

> think drilling there will cause a drop in price?

Did I say anything about price?

But, why are you so concerned about the potential economic costs to

the oil people? If the folks who drill, pump and sell oil think it's

worth their while to extract the oil in ANWR, why not let them waste

their own money?

Historically, the size of underground oil deposits have been

consistently underestimated.

--

Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

George Grapman wrote:

> Bert Hyman wrote:

>> sfgeorge@paccbell.net (George Grapman) wrote in

>> news:cTbGj.5889$6H.3514@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:

>>

>>> A six month supply and no guarantee that the oil would not be

>>> sold to another country.

>>

>> Except for uses which require a specific grade or type of oil, all

>> oil is fungible, so any oil from ANWR sold to another market simply

>> makes that much oil available from other sources.

>>

>> Every drop added to the global supply is another drop that's

>> available to everyone.

>>

> Again, a six month supply is a short term fix? Do you really think

> drilling there will cause a drop in price?

This study uses

the most conservative estimate of recoverable oil; 10.4 billion

barrels. The actual oil treasure could climb to well over 20 billion

barrels as new discoveries and improvements in oil drilling technology

increase the size of extractable reserves.

10-20 billion barrels is a 6-month supply?

--

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mar 25, 12:56 pm, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

> If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the

> possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife

> Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called

> "environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and

> laughable facts at:

>

> http://home.att.net/~meditation/ANWR.html- with pictures, maps, and

> info links

>

> --- pasted below----

>

> The costly symbolism of ANWR

>

> The United States is in serious energy crisis today, in part because

> of the triumph of symbolism over substance in the United States

> Congress. Our political pundits have elevated the 19.6 million acre

> Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR (see maphttp://www.sitnews.us/1105news/110505/110505_anwr_closeup.gif), into a

> sacred mythical land that no man dare tread upon, least they spoil its

> great natural beauty forever (picture of drilling areahttp://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/anwr05.JPG). In reality, any future

> ANWR oil exploration would only take place in the desolate, treeless

> area designated as "10-02," which represents just 8% of ANWR's land

> area, and which encompasses the Coastal Plain north of the Sadlerochit

> Mountains. Of that 8% of ANWR land, Federal law states that only

> 2,000 surface acres could ever be used for actual drilling purposes.

> This 10-02 area was set aside specifically for oil and gas exploration

> and is not legally defined as a "wilderness" or a "refuge." None of

> Alaska's ANWR region is legally defined as a "park." We allow roads,

> campgrounds, hundreds of toilets, hotels, and hoards of tourists to

> violate the sanctity of Yellowstone (2.2 million acres) and Yosemite (.

> 76 million acres), which are both legally defined as "parks," but do

> allow much needed oil drilling on just 2,000 acres of ANWR, which has

> 3.7 times the land area of the State of Massachusetts (5.3 million

> acres).

>

> Does any member of the United States Congress really believe that

> drilling for oil on just 2,000 acres will destroy all wildlife and

> vegetation, leaving behind nothing but a smoldering toxic wasteland?

> Using directional drilling techniques, one single oil drilling station

> can snake underground pipes out to 8 miles in all directions, so the

> tiny footprint of oil recovery operations in ANWR would be

> inconsequential to the local ecology. When the oil is gone and the

> drilling equipment removed, any evidence that there was once oil

> exploration at ANWR would soon vanish. Drilling in ANWR would be like

> throwing a single peanut on the wall-to-wall carpet of a very large

> living room floor; hardly a cataclysmic event.

>

> Why are we paying Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia so much money for

> imported oil when we could be producing that oil ourselves and giving

> Americans high paying jobs in the process? Many of the same

> environmentalists who oppose ANWR drilling support the construction of

> giant solar energy arrays in the American Southwest, which would cover

> thousands of acres in solar panels to produce electricity. Solar

> panels on a roof are fine, but when you cover virgin land with them

> you create a DEAD ZONE that will remain dead until the panels are

> removed and the land has time to heal itself. Other environmentalists

> support the building of thousands of wind turbines, which in addition

> to being unsightly, are very effective bird and bat killing devices

> that end the lives of thousands of our flying friends every year. Why

> is damage done by solar and wind power schemes politically correct,

> but benignly extracting oil from Alaska politically taboo?

>

> The Congressional Research Service (see 76kb pdfhttp://www.anwr.org/images/pdf/DonYoung_ANWR_Offset_Spending.pdf)

> estimates that if oil recovery was allowed in the 10-02 area of ANWR,

> it would be worth at least $94.8 billion in Federal income taxes and

> $42.8 billion in royalties, totaling $138 billion. This study uses

> the most conservative estimate of recoverable oil; 10.4 billion

> barrels. The actual oil treasure could climb to well over 20 billion

> barrels as new discoveries and improvements in oil drilling technology

> increase the size of extractable reserves. Oil drilling is supported

> by the Alaskan Native communities that live in ANWR, the State

> Government of Alaska, and over 75% of Alaskan residents. Declaring a

> huge area of land untouchable to oil recovery at a time of national

> energy crisis is irresponsible energy policy. As long as so many

> American political leaders place symbolism above substance, we will

> never solve our strategic national energy problems.

>

> Also see "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

>

> Christopher Calder

> -----

> Christopher Calder is an ordinary American citizen who does not own

> any energy related stocks and does not work for any energy related

> business. He supports the use of oil until synthetic fuels can be

> manufactured through energy from truly "green" carbon free nuclear

> power.

>

> .

Riighhttt, lets spend 10 years getting ready to extract a tiny bit of

oil that the Japanese will buy.

On Mar 25, 2:56 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:

> sfgeo...@paccbell.net (George Grapman) wrote innews:cTbGj.5889$6H.3514@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:

>

> > A six month supply and no guarantee that the oil would not be

> > sold to another country.

>

> Except for uses which require a specific grade or type of oil, all oil

> is fungible, so any oil from ANWR sold to another market simply makes

> that much oil available from other sources.

>

> Every drop added to the global supply is another drop that's available

> to everyone.

>

> --

> Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | b...@iphouse.com

Why spend our time trying to find a non-renewable resource that is

already causing problems. Why not spend our time and money developing

renewable resources? But that would take brain power and you don't

approve of using your brain, do you?

smskjc@mindspring.com (Kevin Cunningham) wrote in

news:fdd670b1-94c5-412b-b4e7-1601045bba6e@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> Why spend our time trying to find a non-renewable resource that is

> already causing problems.

Are you suggesting that it's impossible to do both? Besides, you and

your like-minded friends are free to spend your time and money

developing anything you care to.

> Why not spend our time and money developing renewable resources?

Are you seriously demanding that all work to support the world's

current needs be halted? What kind of monster are you?

> But that would take brain power and you don't approve of using your

> brain, do you?

You don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you?

--

Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

On Mar 25, 12:56 pm, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

> If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the

> possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife

> Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called

> "environmental lobby" for opposing it.

No they wouldn't. Most Americans want to protect the environment.

They also know ANWR contains only enough oil for a few months, and

it'd take years to bring it to market.

>See all the pertinent and

> laughable facts at:

>

> http://home.att.net/~meditation/ANWR.html- with pictures, maps, and

> info links

>

Sorry, I refuse to look at propaganda.

> --- pasted below----

>

> The costly symbolism of ANWR

>

> The United States is in serious energy crisis today, in part because

> of the triumph of symbolism over substance in the United States

> Congress. Our political pundits have elevated the 19.6 million acre

> Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR (see maphttp://www.sitnews.us/1105news/110505/110505_anwr_closeup.gif), into a

> sacred mythical land that no man dare tread upon, least they spoil its

> great natural beauty forever (picture of drilling areahttp://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/anwr05.JPG). In reality, any future

> ANWR oil exploration would only take place in the desolate, treeless

> area designated as "10-02," which represents just 8% of ANWR's land

> area, and which encompasses the Coastal Plain north of the Sadlerochit

> Mountains.

You are an idiot.

> Of that 8% of ANWR land, Federal law states that only

> 2,000 surface acres could ever be used for actual drilling purposes.

Yes, but it includes long stretches of drills, pipelines, etc. It's

not like a 2000-acre farm.

> This 10-02 area was set aside specifically for oil and gas exploration

> and is not legally defined as a "wilderness" or a "refuge."

Uh, what does the WR stand for?

>None of

> Alaska's ANWR region is legally defined as a "park."

It's a Wildlife Refuge.

>We allow roads,

> campgrounds, hundreds of toilets, hotels, and hoards of tourists to

> violate the sanctity of Yellowstone (2.2 million acres) and Yosemite (.

> 76 million acres), which are both legally defined as "parks," but do

> allow much needed oil drilling on just 2,000 acres of ANWR, which has

> 3.7 times the land area of the State of Massachusetts (5.3 million

> acres).

>

> Does any member of the United States Congress really believe that

> drilling for oil on just 2,000 acres will destroy all wildlife and

> vegetation, leaving behind nothing but a smoldering toxic wasteland?

Actually, yes.

> Using directional drilling techniques, one single oil drilling station

> can snake underground pipes out to 8 miles in all directions, so the

> tiny footprint of oil recovery operations in ANWR would be

> inconsequential to the local ecology. When the oil is gone and the

> drilling equipment removed, any evidence that there was once oil

> exploration at ANWR would soon vanish.

Yeah, tell that to the victims of oil spills in Alaska.

>Drilling in ANWR would be like

> throwing a single peanut on the wall-to-wall carpet of a very large

> living room floor; hardly a cataclysmic event.

>

And if you're stupid enough to believe this...

> Why are we paying Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia so much money for

> imported oil when we could be producing that oil ourselves and giving

> Americans high paying jobs in the process?

Oil is a world commodity.

>Many of the same

> environmentalists who oppose ANWR drilling support the construction of

> giant solar energy arrays in the American Southwest, which would cover

> thousands of acres in solar panels to produce electricity. Solar

> panels on a roof are fine, but when you cover virgin land with them

> you create a DEAD ZONE that will remain dead until the panels are

> removed and the land has time to heal itself. Other environmentalists

> support the building of thousands of wind turbines, which in addition

> to being unsightly, are very effective bird and bat killing devices

> that end the lives of thousands of our flying friends every year. Why

> is damage done by solar and wind power schemes politically correct,

> but benignly extracting oil from Alaska politically taboo?

>

Because it isn't benign, you doofus.

> The Congressional Research Service (see 76kb pdfhttp://www.anwr.org/images/pdf/DonYoung_ANWR_Offset_Spending.pdf)

> estimates that if oil recovery was allowed in the 10-02 area of ANWR,

> it would be worth at least $94.8 billion in Federal income taxes and

> $42.8 billion in royalties, totaling $138 billion.

It's all about money, huh? Why doesn't the Alaska delegation not

spend millions on bridges to nowhere then?

>This study uses

> the most conservative estimate of recoverable oil; 10.4 billion

> barrels. The actual oil treasure could climb to well over 20 billion

> barrels as new discoveries and improvements in oil drilling technology

> increase the size of extractable reserves. Oil drilling is supported

> by the Alaskan Native communities that live in ANWR,

Total, flat-out lie.

>the State

> Government of Alaska, and over 75% of Alaskan residents. Declaring a

> huge area of land untouchable to oil recovery at a time of national

> energy crisis is irresponsible energy policy. As long as so many

> American political leaders place symbolism above substance, we will

> never solve our strategic national energy problems.

>

Oil is a world commodity.

> Also see "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

>

See "Idiots lying".

> Christopher Calder

> -----

> Christopher Calder is an ordinary American citizen who does not own

> any energy related stocks and does not work for any energy related

> business. He supports the use of oil until synthetic fuels can be

> manufactured through energy from truly "green" carbon free nuclear

> power.

>

> .

Yeah, sure. Paid oil prostitute.

On Mar 25, 4:05 pm, HarryNadds <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > On Mar 25, 1:22 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > > On Mar 25, 11:56 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>

> > > wrote:

>

> > > > If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the

> > > > possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife

> > > > Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called

> > > > "environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and

> > > > laughable facts at:

>

> > > >http://home.att.net/~meditation/ANWR.html-withpictures, maps, and

> > > > info links

>

> > > > --- pasted below----

>

> > > > The costly symbolism of ANWR

>

> > > > The United States is in serious energy crisis today, in part because

> > > > of the triumph of symbolism over substance in the United States

> > > > Congress. Our political pundits have elevated the 19.6 million acre

> > > > Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR (see maphttp://www.sitnews.us/1105news/110505/110505_anwr_closeup.gif), into a

> > > > sacred mythical land that no man dare tread upon, least they spoil its

> > > > great natural beauty forever (picture of drilling areahttp://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/anwr05.JPG). In reality, any future

> > > > ANWR oil exploration would only take place in the desolate, treeless

> > > > area designated as "10-02," which represents just 8% of ANWR's land

> > > > area, and which encompasses the Coastal Plain north of the Sadlerochit

> > > > Mountains. Of that 8% of ANWR land, Federal law states that only

> > > > 2,000 surface acres could ever be used for actual drilling purposes.

> > > > This 10-02 area was set aside specifically for oil and gas exploration

> > > > and is not legally defined as a "wilderness" or a "refuge." None of

> > > > Alaska's ANWR region is legally defined as a "park." We allow roads,

> > > > campgrounds, hundreds of toilets, hotels, and hoards of tourists to

> > > > violate the sanctity of Yellowstone (2.2 million acres) and Yosemite (.

> > > > 76 million acres), which are both legally defined as "parks," but do

> > > > allow much needed oil drilling on just 2,000 acres of ANWR, which has

> > > > 3.7 times the land area of the State of Massachusetts (5.3 million

> > > > acres).

>

> > > > Does any member of the United States Congress really believe that

> > > > drilling for oil on just 2,000 acres will destroy all wildlife and

> > > > vegetation, leaving behind nothing but a smoldering toxic wasteland?

> > > > Using directional drilling techniques, one single oil drilling station

> > > > can snake underground pipes out to 8 miles in all directions, so the

> > > > tiny footprint of oil recovery operations in ANWR would be

> > > > inconsequential to the local ecology. When the oil is gone and the

> > > > drilling equipment removed, any evidence that there was once oil

> > > > exploration at ANWR would soon vanish. Drilling in ANWR would be like

> > > > throwing a single peanut on the wall-to-wall carpet of a very large

> > > > living room floor; hardly a cataclysmic event.

>

> > > > Why are we paying Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia so much money for

> > > > imported oil when we could be producing that oil ourselves and giving

> > > > Americans high paying jobs in the process? Many of the same

> > > > environmentalists who oppose ANWR drilling support the construction of

> > > > giant solar energy arrays in the American Southwest, which would cover

> > > > thousands of acres in solar panels to produce electricity. Solar

> > > > panels on a roof are fine, but when you cover virgin land with them

> > > > you create a DEAD ZONE that will remain dead until the panels are

> > > > removed and the land has time to heal itself. Other environmentalists

> > > > support the building of thousands of wind turbines, which in addition

> > > > to being unsightly, are very effective bird and bat killing devices

> > > > that end the lives of thousands of our flying friends every year. Why

> > > > is damage done by solar and wind power schemes politically correct,

> > > > but benignly extracting oil from Alaska politically taboo?

>

> > > > The Congressional Research Service (see 76kb pdfhttp://www.anwr.org/images/pdf/DonYoung_ANWR_Offset_Spending.pdf)

> > > > estimates that if oil recovery was allowed in the 10-02 area of ANWR,

> > > > it would be worth at least $94.8 billion in Federal income taxes and

> > > > $42.8 billion in royalties, totaling $138 billion. This study uses

> > > > the most conservative estimate of recoverable oil; 10.4 billion

> > > > barrels. The actual oil treasure could climb to well over 20 billion

> > > > barrels as new discoveries and improvements in oil drilling technology

> > > > increase the size of extractable reserves. Oil drilling is supported

> > > > by the Alaskan Native communities that live in ANWR, the State

> > > > Government of Alaska, and over 75% of Alaskan residents. Declaring a

> > > > huge area of land untouchable to oil recovery at a time of national

> > > > energy crisis is irresponsible energy policy. As long as so many

> > > > American political leaders place symbolism above substance, we will

> > > > never solve our strategic national energy problems.

>

> > > > Also see "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

>

> > > > Christopher Calder

> > > > -----

> > > > Christopher Calder is an ordinary American citizen who does not own

> > > > any energy related stocks and does not work for any energy related

> > > > business. He supports the use of oil until synthetic fuels can be

> > > > manufactured through energy from truly "green" carbon free nuclear

> > > > power.

>

> > > > .

>

> > > Well, if you think that doing anything other than stealing,

> > > destroying and killing is ridiculous -- as most American conservatives

> > > do -- then you would certainly think protecting the environment was

> > > ridiculous. After all, it doesn't involve stealing, killing or

> > > destroying. In fact, it would tend to discourage these, your

> > > favourite, indeed, your only activities.- Hide quoted text -

>

> > > - Show quoted text -

>

> > If Congress were to authorize drilling in the ANWR today, how long

> > would it be before oil is actually extracted?

>

> If they had authorised it ten years ago we'd be using it by now.

>

> > How, exactly, would oil production in ANWR make us less dependent on

> > foreign oil? In other words, what exporting country or countries could

> > we stop doing business with, given that the ANWR oil fiel represents a

> > tiny fraction of global reserves?

>

> We're not worried about "global reserves".The oil under ANWAR

> belongs to the U.S

Irrelevant. Less oil would be sent here from Mexico or Canada. And

the price is determined by the world market.

>

> > What effect would ANWR production have on the prices of gasoline, fuel

> > oil and diesel fuel?

>

Zero. Oil price is determined by the world market.

> It would make us less dependent on foreign oil

>

Yeah, Canada is so anti-American.

> > Who would benefit more from ANWR production - consumers or the oil

> > industry?- Hide quoted text -

>

> Who would be risking the billions it would take to drill for it?

> Btw,oil companies stock is owned by the public.If you have a 401K or

> own stocks you'd most likely profit from it.

>

> > - Show quoted text -

I could probably profit from drug dealers too, if I invested in their

activity.

On Mar 25, 3:19 pm, Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> On Mar 25, 2:56 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>

> > sfgeo...@paccbell.net (George Grapman) wrote innews:cTbGj.5889$6H.3514@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:

>

> > > A six month supply and no guarantee that the oil would not be

> > > sold to another country.

>

> > Except for uses which require a specific grade or type of oil, all oil

> > is fungible, so any oil from ANWR sold to another market simply makes

> > that much oil available from other sources.

>

> > Every drop added to the global supply is another drop that's available

> > to everyone.

>

> > --

> > Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | b...@iphouse.com

>

> Why spend our time trying to find a non-renewable resource that is

> already causing problems. Why not spend our time and money developing

> renewable resources?

Do you really believe that's not being done now, you insipid left-wing

retard?

> But that would take brain power and you don't

> approve of using your brain, do you?

Do you really believe that's not being done now, you insipid left-wing

retard?

Lloyd wrote:

> On Mar 25, 4:05 pm, HarryNadds <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>> On Mar 25, 1:22 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>> On Mar 25, 11:56 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>

>>>> wrote:

>>>>> If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the

>>>>> possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife

>>>>> Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called

>>>>> "environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and

>>>>> laughable facts at:

>>>>> http://home.att.net/~meditation/ANWR.html-withpictures, maps, and

>>>>> info links

>>>>> --- pasted below----

>>>>> The costly symbolism of ANWR

>>>>> The United States is in serious energy crisis today, in part because

>>>>> of the triumph of symbolism over substance in the United States

>>>>> Congress. Our political pundits have elevated the 19.6 million acre

>>>>> Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR (see maphttp://www.sitnews.us/1105news/110505/110505_anwr_closeup.gif), into a

>>>>> sacred mythical land that no man dare tread upon, least they spoil its

>>>>> great natural beauty forever (picture of drilling areahttp://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/anwr05.JPG). In reality, any future

>>>>> ANWR oil exploration would only take place in the desolate, treeless

>>>>> area designated as "10-02," which represents just 8% of ANWR's land

>>>>> area, and which encompasses the Coastal Plain north of the Sadlerochit

>>>>> Mountains. Of that 8% of ANWR land, Federal law states that only

>>>>> 2,000 surface acres could ever be used for actual drilling purposes.

>>>>> This 10-02 area was set aside specifically for oil and gas exploration

>>>>> and is not legally defined as a "wilderness" or a "refuge." None of

>>>>> Alaska's ANWR region is legally defined as a "park." We allow roads,

>>>>> campgrounds, hundreds of toilets, hotels, and hoards of tourists to

>>>>> violate the sanctity of Yellowstone (2.2 million acres) and Yosemite (.

>>>>> 76 million acres), which are both legally defined as "parks," but do

>>>>> allow much needed oil drilling on just 2,000 acres of ANWR, which has

>>>>> 3.7 times the land area of the State of Massachusetts (5.3 million

>>>>> acres).

>>>>> Does any member of the United States Congress really believe that

>>>>> drilling for oil on just 2,000 acres will destroy all wildlife and

>>>>> vegetation, leaving behind nothing but a smoldering toxic wasteland?

>>>>> Using directional drilling techniques, one single oil drilling station

>>>>> can snake underground pipes out to 8 miles in all directions, so the

>>>>> tiny footprint of oil recovery operations in ANWR would be

>>>>> inconsequential to the local ecology. When the oil is gone and the

>>>>> drilling equipment removed, any evidence that there was once oil

>>>>> exploration at ANWR would soon vanish. Drilling in ANWR would be like

>>>>> throwing a single peanut on the wall-to-wall carpet of a very large

>>>>> living room floor; hardly a cataclysmic event.

>>>>> Why are we paying Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia so much money for

>>>>> imported oil when we could be producing that oil ourselves and giving

>>>>> Americans high paying jobs in the process? Many of the same

>>>>> environmentalists who oppose ANWR drilling support the construction of

>>>>> giant solar energy arrays in the American Southwest, which would cover

>>>>> thousands of acres in solar panels to produce electricity. Solar

>>>>> panels on a roof are fine, but when you cover virgin land with them

>>>>> you create a DEAD ZONE that will remain dead until the panels are

>>>>> removed and the land has time to heal itself. Other environmentalists

>>>>> support the building of thousands of wind turbines, which in addition

>>>>> to being unsightly, are very effective bird and bat killing devices

>>>>> that end the lives of thousands of our flying friends every year. Why

>>>>> is damage done by solar and wind power schemes politically correct,

>>>>> but benignly extracting oil from Alaska politically taboo?

>>>>> The Congressional Research Service (see 76kb pdfhttp://www.anwr.org/images/pdf/DonYoung_ANWR_Offset_Spending.pdf)

>>>>> estimates that if oil recovery was allowed in the 10-02 area of ANWR,

>>>>> it would be worth at least $94.8 billion in Federal income taxes and

>>>>> $42.8 billion in royalties, totaling $138 billion. This study uses

>>>>> the most conservative estimate of recoverable oil; 10.4 billion

>>>>> barrels. The actual oil treasure could climb to well over 20 billion

>>>>> barrels as new discoveries and improvements in oil drilling technology

>>>>> increase the size of extractable reserves. Oil drilling is supported

>>>>> by the Alaskan Native communities that live in ANWR, the State

>>>>> Government of Alaska, and over 75% of Alaskan residents. Declaring a

>>>>> huge area of land untouchable to oil recovery at a time of national

>>>>> energy crisis is irresponsible energy policy. As long as so many

>>>>> American political leaders place symbolism above substance, we will

>>>>> never solve our strategic national energy problems.

>>>>> Also see "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

>>>>> Christopher Calder

>>>>> -----

>>>>> Christopher Calder is an ordinary American citizen who does not own

>>>>> any energy related stocks and does not work for any energy related

>>>>> business. He supports the use of oil until synthetic fuels can be

>>>>> manufactured through energy from truly "green" carbon free nuclear

>>>>> power.

>>>>> .

>>>> Well, if you think that doing anything other than stealing,

>>>> destroying and killing is ridiculous -- as most American conservatives

>>>> do -- then you would certainly think protecting the environment was

>>>> ridiculous. After all, it doesn't involve stealing, killing or

>>>> destroying. In fact, it would tend to discourage these, your

>>>> favourite, indeed, your only activities.- Hide quoted text -

>>>> - Show quoted text -

>>> If Congress were to authorize drilling in the ANWR today, how long

>>> would it be before oil is actually extracted?

>> If they had authorised it ten years ago we'd be using it by now.

>>

>>> How, exactly, would oil production in ANWR make us less dependent on

>>> foreign oil? In other words, what exporting country or countries could

>>> we stop doing business with, given that the ANWR oil fiel represents a

>>> tiny fraction of global reserves?

>> We're not worried about "global reserves".The oil under ANWAR

>> belongs to the U.S

>

> Irrelevant. Less oil would be sent here from Mexico or Canada. And

> the price is determined by the world market.

>

>>> What effect would ANWR production have on the prices of gasoline, fuel

>>> oil and diesel fuel?

>

> Zero. Oil price is determined by the world market.

>

>> It would make us less dependent on foreign oil

>>

> Yeah, Canada is so anti-American.

>

>>> Who would benefit more from ANWR production - consumers or the oil

>>> industry?- Hide quoted text -

>> Who would be risking the billions it would take to drill for it?

>> Btw,oil companies stock is owned by the public.If you have a 401K or

>> own stocks you'd most likely profit from it.

>>

>>> - Show quoted text -

> I could probably profit from drug dealers too, if I invested in their

> activity.

Just buy Merk or some other Drug producer.

George Grapman wrote:

> A six month supply and no guarantee that the oil would not be sold to

> another country.

Yea, I've seen Republicans in congress say they would do that.

Lloyd wrote:

>> We're not worried about "global reserves".The oil under ANWAR

>> belongs to the U.S

>

> Irrelevant. Less oil would be sent here from Mexico or Canada. And

> the price is determined by the world market.

>

>>

>>> What effect would ANWR production have on the prices of gasoline,

>>> fuel oil and diesel fuel?

>>

>

> Zero. Oil price is determined by the world market.

>

SUPPLY and demand aren't components of a market?

--

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com