Replies

Oil also seeps to the surface for the last 30 years due to a wreck off the coast. Just because it happens in nature does not make it a good thing, nor does it legitimize it. It still kills wildlife, wildlife which has already been decimated by decades of overfishing.

That said, I would be open to ANWR drilling *if* it can be proven before hand that we will get a long lasting supply of oil out of there and it will actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil. So far many pundits and talking heads say it will but I've yet to see any facts and figures to back up the rhetoric. I would also like to see ANWR tied to increasing fuel economy. If we're going to increase supply, let's go further and make that supply more efficiently used.

Any oil we get out of ANWR will reduce our foreign imports. I don't know why you need any proof of that. It's inherently obvious.

Nobody can prove that we'll get a drop of oil out of ANWR. In order to find that out, it's necessary to drill wills to see what is there. It took seven dry holes in a row before an eighth well finally discovered oil in Prudhoe Bay in 1968.

You want to tie exploration there with increased fuel mileage requirements. Those can be tied politically, but not logically. Either proposal should stand or fall on its own merits.

That said, I would be open to ANWR drilling *if* it can be proven before hand that we will get a long lasting supply of oil out of there and it will actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Even the most generous estimates of ANWR oil reserves don't cause a significant decreased reduction on our dependence on foreign oil imports, due to declining oil production in the "Lower 48".

Facing the United States' oil supply problems: Would opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Coastal Plain really make a difference?

"I've yet to see any facts and figures to back up the rhetoric"

How do you expect to GET any facts and figures if geological surveyors aren't allowed to conduct their diagnostic tests?

Right now, we only know that the geological structure of that ridge is highly favorable for oil deposits.

Do you think ANY oil company will drill in an area that they know to be dry or of low potential? What's wrong with you people? Yeah, Texaco's number one corporate priority, their ultimate strategy to increase shareholder value, their best use of corporate resources is to make life miserable for some Arctic caribou. Just to hassle the beasts, populate the tropical ANWR and piss off goofy kids with body piercings.

Let's see what's up there. That's all. The envirotwerps won't even accept that.

ANWR has already been drilled and the oil structures are proven. The local native association allowed Chevron to drill one exploratory well in the mid 1980s. For over a decade the results of that one exploratory well were the best kept secret in the oil industry. Why do you think the oil companies want to drill there, because of the scenery? In todays lucrative oil market these companies cannot afford to drill a dry hole.