View Single Post
  #10  
Old June 12th 08, 01:37 PM posted to alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.collecting.8-track-tapes
Republican Liar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default WHY WE MUST DRILL IN ANWR



"Shintaro" wrote in message

Republican Liar wrote:
"trippin-2-8-track" wrote in
message

TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration
Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of
ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining
17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain
permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil
is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5
million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected.
That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would
be affected by production activity.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal
revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from
bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes.
Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of
Management and Budget and the Department of Interior
for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are
$4.2 billion. Royalty and tax estimates for the life of
the 10-02 fields were estimated by the Office of
Management and Budget from $152-237 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR
jobs are estimated to be created by development of the
Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope
oil field development and production activity
contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy,
directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The
Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for
the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil
and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of
Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of
recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil
fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of
it's domestic production and since 1988 this production
has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in
1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been
declining to a current level of 731,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an
average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up
to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil
imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our
economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil,
and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the
total would be nearly a trillion dollars.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development
and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's
arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd
(CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from
3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The
arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and
bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly
reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If
Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be
1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor
exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically
elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional
delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25
years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal
Plain of ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and
near ANWR support onshore oil development on the
Coastal Plain.
In general, the Republicans, Alaskans, some unions that
see job gains, and some native tribes that will profit
from the drilling have come out in favor . Numbers are
bandied about - those for drilling say that there is 30
years-worth of Saudi imports of oil available, and that
drilling will enhance the national security and lessen
dependence on imported oil (especially from the volatile
Middle East.)

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/w...170983,00.html

Some Shaky Figures on ANWR Drilling

Monday, Aug. 13, 2001 By DOUGLAS WALLER Article

Congress loves to play fast and loose with numbers,
particularly when one side or the other is using them to
justify a bill. Two such cases came earlier this month,
when the House approved oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. There are a total of 19
million acres in the refuge, and in 1980 Congress set
aside 1.5 million of them along a strip of the refuge's
northern Arctic Ocean coast for possible oil
exploration. Oil companies and Alaska's congressional
delegation have been anxious ever since to start
drilling there. The oil companies believe 5 to 16
billion barrels of oil could be recovered there, while
Alaskans are eager for the revenue that exploration
would generate for their state. Environmentalists and
most congressional Democrats have resisted drilling in
the area because the required network of oil platforms,
pipelines, roads and support facilities, not to mention
the threat of foul spills, would play havoc on
wildlife. The coastal plain, for example, is a calving
home for some 129,000 caribou.
With U.S production at nearly a 50-year low and oil
reserves in this country shrinking, George Bush has made
ANWR's development a key part of his energy package. The
House finally decided to approve drilling in the refuge,
largely on the promise of two important numbers. First,
to calm moderates in his party, Republican Congressman
John Sununu of New Hampshire tacked an amendment to the
energy bill limiting the drilling to just 2,000 of the
1.5 million acres along the coast plain. Then, the
Teamsters muscled 36 Democrats into voting for the
drilling, claiming it would create over 700,000 jobs.

Wow! An oil field only one-fifth the size of
Washington's Dulles International Airport that'd
provide more jobs than there are working men and women
in Wyoming and Rhode Island? And would lower the
nation's unemployment rate by a half percent? Sounds
too good to be true.
It may be. Turns out the 2,000 acres don't have to be
contiguous and only the space of the equipment touching
the ground is counted. Each drilling platform can take
up as little as 10 acres. The pipelines are above
ground. For space purposes, the amendment counts only
the ground touched by the stanchions holding up the
pipe. Road widths also are conveniently left out of the
space limit. "It's a complete sham," complains Allen
Mattison, a spokesman for the Sierra Club which opposes
drilling. "It's like a fishing net. If you count just
the space of the string's width, that's small. But if
you open up a fishing net and count the area it covers,
that's much larger." Environmentalists complain that
the House limit ends up allowing oil companies to
spread out over practically the entire 1.5 million
acres.
As for the 700,000 jobs, that number comes from an
11-year-old study commissioned by the American Petroleum
Institute that economists complain wildly inflates the
employment potential. "It's just absurd," says Eban
Goodstein, an economist at Lewis and Clark College, who
predicts the real job growth will be less than one-tenth
that number.

But the oil industry is sticking by the figures. "We're
confident we can develop the resources that are at ANWR
without an impact on the wildlife that lives there,"
insists Mark Rubin, general manager for exploration and
production with the American Petroleum Institute. For
his part, Sununu complains that it wouldn't matter what
number he had put in his amendment. Drilling opponents
"don't support any disturbance of any land for any
economic activity related to energy in the 19 million
acres of ANWR," he says. "They think that 2,000 acres is
too much. They think 200 acres is too much and they
think two acres would be too much."

Democrats who control the Senate vow that legislation
permitting ANWR drilling will never see the light of day
in that chamber. The oil industry and the Teamsters,
however, hope they can change some minds once more —
with the same numbers that worked in the House.


Why do republicans block drilling in ANWR and other
places in America? While the republicans had majority
control of both the house and senate they insisted on
voting against drilling in ANWR. Why do they now try to
blame the democrats for blocking opening ANWR for so
long? If ANWR was opened years ago we might not have the
high prices we have today. When will the right stop
lying and distorting their real agenda of wanting
Americans to pay more for oil and gas?
Drilling in Alaska, a Priority for Bush, Fails in the
Senate By DAVID FIRESTONE
Published: March 20, 2003

The vote, 52 to 48,

Why did this bill get defeated when republicans could
have passed it in 2003 when the right was in control of
both branches of the government?

Why is the right the party of lies, deception and
obstruction?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9659C8B 63

"Republican leaders had expressed hope that their
takeover of the Senate this year would change the
chamber's long-standing opposition to oil production in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but eight
Republicans sided with most Democrats against drilling,
while five Democrats supported it."
Why do republicans continue to block drilling in ANWR
to this day?
Republicans want America to pay higher prices at the
pumps.


Any truth to this?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...74697167011147


What he says might be true. Nothing would surprise me. He sounds like any
other speaker that talks about just about every big controversy from
cigarette smoking to 911. I remember stories 50 years ago about a
carburetor that would give you 100 mpg. The story was that the auto industry
bought them out preventing them from being marketed. Even if the price of
gas was $1.00 per gal. would that be a good thing?




Ads