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

[Guest Cat_in_awe]

Lloyd wrote:

> 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,

 

Cite? 10-20 billion barrels is a 'few months' supply?

 

 

 

--

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

[Guest Phil Hays]

Cat_in_awe wrote:

> Lloyd wrote:

>> 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,

>

> Cite? 10-20 billion barrels is a 'few months' supply?

 

USGS estimates 5,724 million barrels low, 10,360 million barrels mean, and

15,955 barrels high. That is 6 to 17 Billion, not 10-20 billion.

 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/

 

World oil consumption is 83 million barrels oil equivalent per day, in

2004.

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html

 

Mean value works out 125 days of oil, or four months at 2004 consumption

rates.

 

USA oil consumption is 21 million barrels oil per day, mean would be a

year and four months supply.

 

It wouldn't all be produced at once, a likely production flow would be

five years of increasing production followed by ten years of declining

production, followed by capping the wells as they would no longer produce

enough to be economic. Likely impact on the USA would be five years of

slower growth of oil imports, followed by ten years of faster growth of

imports. Or if imports are limited by world capacity, then five years of

slower price increases followed by ten years of faster price increases.

 

Offshore Florida is a larger resource, might be several years worth.

 

Yellowstone National Park (South east corner) might have a few days

to a few weeks worth.

 

What is after that? Got a plan B?

 

 

--

Phil Hays

[Guest Jerry Kraus]

On Mar 25, 2:38

[Guest John Black]

In article <eba38bc5-4d8a-4fbe-a768-40ec70a41455

@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, calderhome@yahoo.com says...

> 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

 

Correction. They would be very angry at the democrats in congress

because it is they who are blocking us from getting our own oil,

favoring dependency on Middle East oil.

 

John Black

 

--

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

[Guest George Grapman]

John Black wrote:

> In article <eba38bc5-4d8a-4fbe-a768-40ec70a41455

> @i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, calderhome@yahoo.com says...

>> 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

>

> Correction. They would be very angry at the democrats in congress

> because it is they who are blocking us from getting our own oil,

> favoring dependency on Middle East oil.

>

> John Black

>

And no guarantee that oil would not be sold overseas.

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/voices/200504/0421nat0.html

 

 

 

 

Proponents, such as Murkowski, of the drilling argue that there is a

bountiful supply of oil available. But according to a U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service Artic National Wildlife Refuge Report, opponents argue

that Murkowski is basing these statistics on a report by the United

States Geological Study (USGS) that there is only a 5 percent chance of

claims coming true. The USGS concluded that, given America's rate of

consumption, ANWR would in all likelihood only be a six-month supply of

oil, according to the report.

[Guest John B.]

On Mar 26, 11:55

[Guest Lloyd]

On Mar 26, 9:20 am, "Cat_in_awe" <rl3166...@excite.com> wrote:

> 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 fromhttp://www.teranews.com

 

Yes, and OPEC is the 500-pound gorilla that controls supply.

[Guest John B.]

On Mar 26, 1:53

[Guest Cat_in_awe]

Lloyd wrote:

> On Mar 26, 9:20 am, "Cat_in_awe" <rl3166...@excite.com> wrote:

>> 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 fromhttp://www.teranews.com

>

> Yes, and OPEC is the 500-pound gorilla that controls supply.

 

All the oil produced in Africa, the US, South America and the rest of the

world is controlled by OPEC?

 

 

 

--

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

[Guest Cat_in_awe]

George Grapman wrote:

> Proponents, such as Murkowski, of the drilling argue that there is a

> bountiful supply of oil available. But according to a U.S. Fish and

> Wildlife Service Artic National Wildlife Refuge Report, opponents

> argue that Murkowski is basing these statistics on a report by the

> United States Geological Study (USGS) that there is only a 5 percent

> chance of claims coming true. The USGS concluded that, given

> America's rate of consumption, ANWR would in all likelihood only be a

> six-month supply of oil, according to the report.

 

This oft-repeated statistic (six-month supply) is deceptive at best and

nearly a lie. IF we opened ANWR and extracted ALL the available crude, and

IF the US stopped using ANY other source of oil, that might be a 'six-month

supply'. But thinking that the field would only be operative for six months

and then depleted and closed is stupid. You can't get 10 BILLION barrels of

oil out in six months.

 

 

 

 

--

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

[Guest Bawana]

On Mar 26, 11:44 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"

<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:

> "mrbawana2u" <mrbawan...@gmail.com> wrote

>

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

> > retard?

>

> Certainly the rest of the world is developing alternative sources of

> Energy,

 

How is that working out, fucktard?

[Guest V-for-Vendicar]

"Cat_in_awe" <rl3166pls@excite.com> wrote

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

 

The world consumes about 100 million barrrels of oil per day. 10 days would

be a billion barrels, so 10 billion barrels represents 100 days of world

consumption.

 

20 billion = 200 days = roughly a 6 month supply.

 

And not knowing that, makes you a.........

 

MMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN

[Guest V-for-Vendicar]

"Kevin Cunningham" <smskjc@mindspring.com> wrote

> 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?

 

Because change is bad for big corporations. And AmeriKKKa is a Fascist state

that us run by Big Corporations.

[Guest V-for-Vendicar]

"mrbawana2u" <mrbawana2u@gmail.com> wrote

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

> retard?

 

Certainly the rest of the world is developing alternative sources of

Energy, while the U.S. has withdrawn from many international programs -

several this year alone.

 

Those programs include the ITER and the Clean Coal initiative.

 

Apparently Uncle Sam claimed he was broke and couldn't afford the several

million it wouild cost.

[Guest V-for-Vendicar]

<zacks@construction-imaging.com> wrote

> But the crux of the ANWR drilling is to IMPROVE our dependence on

> foreign oil, not just to shift things around.

 

Would the oil produced at ANWR be restricted for U.S. consumption or would

it be sold on the global market?

 

And if it's restricted for U.S. consumpiton, how will the producers be

bound so as they do not reduce sales of oil from their other production

facilities so as to make it <as if> anwar production was sold on the open

market?

[Guest V-for-Vendicar]

On Mar 25, 1:54 pm, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:

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

> another country.

 

 

"HarryNadds" <hoofhearted07@yahoo.com> wrote

> Proof ??

 

Tell us how ANWR oil would be restructed for sale only in the U.S.

 

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN

[Guest V-for-Vendicar]

"HarryNadds" <hoofhearted07@yahoo.com> wrote

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

 

No, you would be using 1/10th of the daily production now. The rest would

be going to other nations.

 

MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN

[Guest V-for-Vendicar]

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote

> And will remain so whether we drill in ANWR or not.

 

So anwr production will do nothing to alter prices. And do nothing to

reduce AmeriKKKan reliance on foreign oil.

 

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN

[Guest V-for-Vendicar]

"Cat_in_awe" <rl3166pls@excite.com> wrote

> Cite? 10-20 billion barrels is a 'few months' supply?

 

Yup. The world consumes about 100 million barrels of oil per day.

 

Apparently you don't know how to divide.

 

MMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNN

[Guest V-for-Vendicar]

"John Black" <jblack@texas.net> wrote

> Correction. They would be very angry at the democrats in congress

> because it is they who are blocking us from getting our own oil,

> favoring dependency on Middle East oil.

 

KKKonservative MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN

 

Canada is AmeriKKKa's leading supplier of Oil, and Intelligence.

[Guest monkey_cartman@yahoo.com]

John Black wrote:

> In article <eba38bc5-4d8a-4fbe-a768-40ec70a41455

> @i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, calderhome@yahoo.com says...

> > 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

>

> Correction. They would be very angry at the democrats in congress

> because it is they who are blocking us from getting our own oil,

> favoring dependency on Middle East oil.

>

> John Black

>

> --

 

Our oil, It's not like were taking about foreigners here, whatever the

case allowing the Republican government to do anything that controls

large amounts of resources is a tragically stupid thing to do.

[Guest V-for-Vendicar]

>> Certainly the rest of the world is developing alternative sources of

>> Energy,

 

 

"Bawana" <mrbawana2u@yahoo.com> wrote

> How is that working out, fucktard?

 

Quite well actually.

 

If you weren't such a MMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOONNNNNNNN

you would have known that.

[Guest John Black]

In article <df2cc52e-a8bc-46db-8768-352d6a8aca51@

2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, johnb505@gmail.com says...

> On Mar 26, 11:55

[Guest John B.]

On Mar 27, 12:51

[Guest Jerry Okamura]

"V-for-Vendicar" <Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message

news:lbBGj.45203$612.4126@read1.cgocable.net...

>

> "Kevin Cunningham" <smskjc@mindspring.com> wrote

>> 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?

>

> Because change is bad for big corporations. And AmeriKKKa is a Fascist

> state that us run by Big Corporations.

>

>

 

Why?