ANWR drilling no solution to gasoline costs, Kerry says

adn.com ^ | March 31, 2004 | LIZ RUSKIN

[KQQL]

WASHINGTON -- While blaming President Bush for the high price of gasoline, his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, on Tuesday reiterated his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, saying it is no solution.

"We deserve an administration that doesn't fake it to the American people and pretend that somehow by drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge we can deal with the problems of America," Kerry, D-Mass., told university students in San Diego. "We can't provide the supply of oil America needs from the Alaska wildlife refuge or from any other source in the United States, because we only have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves."

[KQQL]

@

[Shermy]

Yeah, but it could help.

OPECKerry strikes again!

[Argus]

When Kerry is President, of course, we will be getting lots of free oil from the dictatorships that have already endorsed him - Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia...

[AFPhys]

Kerry thinks the solution is to make the cost of gas high enough so it will be cost efficient to burn ketchup.

He's also going to tell OPEC where to shove it... but I'm not sure where he is planning to get oil from then.

[BenLurkin]

It it is good for America, then John F'n Qairi and the democrat party are going to be against it.

[N. Theknow]

Kerry doesn't want drilling in ANWR to reduce dependence on foreign oil but he wants to release the strategic oil reserves (to bring down gasoline prices) which are foreign oil.

ANWR = enough oil to run the country for several decades.

Strategic oil reserves = enough oil to run the country for a week or two.

[Army Air Corps]

OPEC = Organisation of Petroleum Extorting Countries

[repentant_pundit]

Ditto !!

[RightWhale]

ANWR is not so significant beyond keeping the State of Alaska's budget afloat a couple more years, but there is enough oil to be developed profitably.

[Dane]

OPECKerry strikes again!

And this was doubted how?

[HarryCaul]

It could help, but really not very substantially.

Really, the only long term solution to our dependency on foreign sources of energy is to develop non-fossil fuel sources. As dirty as the phrase "alternative energy" is to many conservatives, it's a basic national security issue. We *have* to pull away from this dependency on nations that don't like us, and while ANWR would help, it's not a solution in itself by any means.

[Integrityrocks]

"Tax and spend is the enemy of job creation,"

FINALLY!!! A substantial SOUND BIT that people will understand. We gotta use this.!!!

[marron]

Shut off domestic drilling and complain about foreign oil. Its the perfect policy.

[ErnBatavia]

Kerry, D-Mass., told university students in San Diego.

...Spewing his crap on safe turf again, I see.

[RightWhale]

ANWR = enough oil to run the country for several decades

It's months, not decades. We're still going off the cliff in 3-13 years. 3-12.5 years without ANWR.

[Army Air Corps]

Yep, and ANWR is just ONE source in the US. Its main advantage is that it is on land; lower exploration costs and shorter timetable to access the crude. We have a s#@*load of oil off shore, but it takes time and significantly money to get get to it. ANWR is also a significant source of natural gas...

[Army Air Corps]

Folks, ignore the hyperlink in my previous post. The FR system mistook my altered explitive for an e-mail address.

[RightWhale]

ANWR is also a significant source of natural gas...

It is. The Alaska North Slope Natural Gas Pipeline project is dead again. The developer withdrew his application.

[Army Air Corps]

Yes! Let's also keep in mind the number of wells in the US that went dormant due to excessive costs related to federal regs. In the Permain Basin there are wells that are not being exploited due to the prohibitive costs associated with exploration and exploitation. Petroleum exploration has become capital intensive over the years due, in large part, to federal actions.