Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1 A Time to Drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    A Time to Drill

    In a remarkably short time the public has changed from supporters of environmentalism to advocates of drilling for oil and natural gas in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and/or in the ocean. For the first time since the 1970s liberals in both parties have found themselves responding to significant demands for drilling. Their responses are meant to confuse the electorate in order to turn public opinion back to their position on the environment.

    Toward that end liberals have come up with two mantras which we hear on every talk show, in every press conference and in every speech addressing the high cost of gasoline. The first mantra is that it will take at least 10, maybe 30 years before we see a drop of oil coming from the ground at the aforementioned sites. The second mantra is that greedy oil companies already have 86 million acres of leases provided by the Federal Government. They only want more leases to satisfy their greed.

    On the first point, correspondent Ken Wood pointed out that Larry Kudlow recently featured on his television show James T. Hackett, President and CEO of Anadarko Petroleum Company.

    Whereas some liberals are saying it could take 30 years for the oil to be available, Hackett said it would take two or three years, depending upon where the oil was drilled.

    Indeed, I saw one oil exploration expert on Fox News Channel who said that if the right equipment were available it would take only one year to get the first oil since the oil companies know exactly where the oil is located in the outer Continental Shelf.

    One oil shale expert told proponents of drilling in the House of Representatives that the first 800 million barrels of oil from shale could be available in two or three years. The remaining estimated two trillion barrels of oil from shale would take longer to have ready because they would be more difficult to extricate. But the initial 800 million barrels would help the U.S. economy.

    On the second point, I received two different answers. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who used to be in the oil business, said the reason oil companies are not drilling on the 86 million acres is that there is no substantial oil available on those lands to make drilling economically viable.

    He said the government only permits exploration on those leased lands, so oil companies have explored them and found that they would produce little. The second answer came from Hackett. He said the Federal Government is, in effect, guilty of fraud. They accept the lease money and the annual rents but have refused to grant permission to drill there. He implied that some oil had been found that would be worthwhile to extract but since they cannot drill the consumer sees no benefits. Either way, to accuse oil companies of greed is an unfounded assertion.

    Neither liberal argument can be sustained if pro-drilling forces launch a campaign to educate the public. Thus far they have done an inadequate job explaining the real answers to these leftist fallacies.

    I am told by people from around the country who respond to my commentaries that Americans do not want to talk about anything other than the high cost of gasoline. Not Iraq. Not healthcare.

    Not even change, whatever that means. The only topic these days is $4 to $5-per-gallon gasoline.


    That being the case, pro-drilling Members of the House and Senate should issue special orders on the chamber floors.

    They would be seen on prime time television and possibly would be picked up by the mainstream networks. They should hold daily press conferences.

    They should appear on national talk shows and talk radio every day. Each Senator should appear on local talk radio in his state and each House Member should do the same with talk radio in his district.

    They should arrange for editorial board meetings with national and local newspapers.

    They should organize volunteers to go door-to-door to ensure that everyone knows each side of the issue and which position would be best for the American economy and American consumers. snip


    http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage...c88f9bc97a&t=c
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    193
    Estimates I read suggested ANWR would only be enough to run the USA for 3 years if it was all we used. Lts say we take and use 1/3 of our required oil from ANWR thats still only 9 years supply. We need more than ANWR, a lot more than ANWR. All this shale oil in the rockies should be the goal, ANWR is a supplement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member ConJinx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    310
    If we could just get the gov't out of the way and allow all forms of energy to be produced by good ole fashion capitalism, there would be a 0% unemployment rate and we would be flush with cash. Just like the foreign gov'ts are currently doing with our cash. Look into the building projects underway just in the middle east alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member MrsSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by Aklover View Post
    Estimates I read suggested ANWR would only be enough to run the USA for 3 years if it was all we used. Lts say we take and use 1/3 of our required oil from ANWR thats still only 9 years supply. We need more than ANWR, a lot more than ANWR. All this shale oil in the rockies should be the goal, ANWR is a supplement.
    As soon as approval to drill is granted, oil prices will fall.
    -
    -
    -

    In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

    Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Aklover View Post
    Estimates I read suggested ANWR would only be enough to run the USA for 3 years if it was all we used. Lts say we take and use 1/3 of our required oil from ANWR thats still only 9 years supply. We need more than ANWR, a lot more than ANWR. All this shale oil in the rockies should be the goal, ANWR is a supplement.
    Drilling the Eastern part of the gulf of Florida and suck the oil from the Cuban shoals before the Chinese slant drill it makes sense to me !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by MrsSmith View Post
    As soon as approval to drill is granted, oil prices will fall.

    A whole lot of money can be made in the speculating/futures market in the 2-5 years it takes the oil companies to start extraction/production, don't bank on a dramatic immediate price fall.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Aklover View Post
    A whole lot of money can be made in the speculating/futures market in the 2-5 years it takes the oil companies to start extraction/production, don't bank on a dramatic immediate price fall.
    A lot of money will be made by those SHORTING the market for oil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member MrsSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,391
    I have to wonder how many of our Dim senators are making cash in the fluctuating market right now. They are judging the knife-edge of leftist support, pushing their own profits as far as they can, before lifting the ban on drilling.
    -
    -
    -

    In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

    Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •