Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arctic oil: Facts versus Fiction (ANWR)
Senator Frank Murkowski ^ | unknown

Posted on 10/17/2002 10:52:13 AM PDT by alaskanfan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
Unfortunately Senator Murkowski is currently engaged in a heated battle with Democrat Fran Ulmer for the Governor's mansion. The only reason this is unfortunate is because of the tremendous job he has done in D.C. I hope, if he wins, his replacement is as good as Mr. Murkowski.
1 posted on 10/17/2002 10:52:13 AM PDT by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cogitator
The legislation, introduced in the U.S. Senate to permit opening of the coastal plain, fully protects the environment.
2 posted on 10/17/2002 11:03:59 AM PDT by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan
There is something very fishy about the US and oil!! We have plenty of oil, yet we/they won't touch it. Why? There is all this Alaskan oil but why the opposition? Who has the clout to not touch Alaskan oil and keep us dependent on the perfidious Saudis?

The is plenty of oil off the coast of California. Again, who is keeping us from recovering it? And, there are immense quantities of oil off the west coast of Florida, near Tampa, in the Gulf of Mexico. Who is keeping us from recovering that?

Are the Saudis paying the US conservationists so we won't touch our oil and continue buying foreign oil? Do the US oil companies make more money by importing foreign oil and bribing the local nationals at the well head to only count every third barrell?

Why can't we get our own oil?

3 posted on 10/17/2002 11:08:08 AM PDT by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan
Mr. Bush needs to include this article in his speeches. He gave up the fight for Anwr drilling too quickly.
4 posted on 10/17/2002 11:09:43 AM PDT by CWRWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: *Energy_List
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
6 posted on 10/17/2002 11:18:12 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan
Any idea who his replacement will be?
7 posted on 10/17/2002 11:20:25 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
Because - long term, the oil is a precious resource. So it makes sense to consume the oil under the middle east today so that we here in the USA can keep our oil unused today so that it will be available tomorrow (e.g., for the next several centuries.) Note that petroleum has far more uses than just for cars and trucks.

Its a strategic resource...better to use up their resource than to use up our resource!

8 posted on 10/17/2002 11:24:38 AM PDT by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan
Did you ever wonder how oil was discovered on the North Slope in the first place?

Quite simply, it was easy due to the thousands of naturally occurring oil seeps (This is where the subsurface oil migrates to the surface and is expelled onto the ground) Local lakes come with a natural oil slick due to subsurface seeps. The Natives at Kaktovic have been harvesting and burning pieces of oil soaked tundra since pre-history. They have also taken advantage of an occasional easy meal when caribou get trapped in the mini tar pits near the coast. The land literally bleeds oil. I guarantee that Mother Nature has spread more oil contamination on the Alaskan North Slope than man's petroleum development ever will.

9 posted on 10/17/2002 11:25:05 AM PDT by Species8472
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
There is something very fishy about the US and oil!! We have plenty of oil, yet we/they won't touch it. Why? There is all this Alaskan oil but why the opposition? Who has the clout to not touch Alaskan oil and keep us dependent on the perfidious Saudis?

As the worlds largest petrochemical consumer this is more pertinent now than ever.

Why do we continue to send our petro dollars to a region that funds terrorists that are trying to destroy us?

I believe the answer is simple. The environmentalists are trying to destroy our nation and are complicit in these terrorist attacks. I'm just not certain whether the results of their actions are deliberate.

10 posted on 10/17/2002 11:25:11 AM PDT by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
The problem with U.S. oil is that it costs to much to extract it, refine it, and deliver it. Oil companies won't even think about ANWR unless oil is consistently trading at $30-$33 per barrel. Why bother drilling for oil there when you can get it from Mexico or Venezuela (or even Canada) for less than $20 per barrel?
11 posted on 10/17/2002 11:32:56 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Any idea who his replacement will be?

I heard that he was asked the other day and would not even disclose a short list until after the election.

I also read in this mornings paper that Ulmer is ahead in the race according to the latest poll. The only issues that I have heard Ulmer bring up in her campaign, is the necessity for a state income tax and how we can't afford to move the legislature to a part of the state where the common man can have access to them. With the backing of The Anchorage Daily Comrade in Alaska's largest population base (Anchorage), I'm afraid this socialist has a good chance of being our next governor.

12 posted on 10/17/2002 11:38:07 AM PDT by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan
Bookmarked and Bumped...
13 posted on 10/17/2002 11:47:32 AM PDT by tubebender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan
Murkowski wants to build new roads into the bush and open resources to development. Amazing how little resonance this issue has. People I work with are proud they will vote for Ulmer. Most are not aware that they always favor socialist issues and reject conservative points of view out of hand; they don't even think about it. Typical SUV soccer-mom liberals. Out of 200, there might be 20 who vote R with any regularity.
14 posted on 10/17/2002 11:49:39 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
It would be interesting to see how much money gets funnelled from Arab countries to eco groups in the US.
15 posted on 10/17/2002 11:51:12 AM PDT by KSCITYBOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
The problem with U.S. oil is that it costs to much to extract it, refine it, and deliver it.

Why are these costs so high?

IMO because of the endless government red tape that has been caused by environmental concerns. These combined with endless lawsuits brought by organizations such as greenpeace, raise the price of domestic production and infrastructure.

If the other oil producing nations were to face similar circumstances, our domestic oil would be more than economical. I do not see in the near future, any chance of an eco-terrorist telling any of the Saudi princes that they need to clean up their environment.

If we delay opening ANWR for too long, the infrastructure in nearby Prudhoe Bay will be deteriorated to the point of making the oil unrecoverable at $50 per bbl.

16 posted on 10/17/2002 11:53:22 AM PDT by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan
Look at it the other way around -- the cost of extracting oil in most other parts of the world is LOWER than in the U.S. The red tape and all that crap you mentioned plays a role, but I think the biggest factor is that the U.S. dollar is very strong against almost every foreign currency. Canadian oil companies get $45 per barrel in their currency when the price is at $30 ($US) per barrel.
17 posted on 10/17/2002 11:59:11 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
Are the Saudis paying the US conservationists so we won't touch our oil and continue buying foreign oil?

Consider the number of billions that OPEC oil makes for the OPEC countries. Consider that it would only take a few million to fully fund all the environmental groups. If you were a Saudi oil minister, would spending 1/10,000 of your oil revenue on US environmental groups strike you as a good investment?

18 posted on 10/17/2002 12:02:04 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
The simple fact is that oil accounts for far more than half of Alaska's gross product, and without future oil development Alaska's economy will sicken, forcing more and more Alaskans back onto the federal welfare dole.

Right where the Fran and the socialists would want us. More and more dependent year after year on big government for a handout. Combine that with the highest per capita rate of state government workers in the U.S. and you have a solid socialist voting base.

19 posted on 10/17/2002 12:04:17 PM PDT by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tacis; Grampa Dave
Do the Opekker Princes donate to the wacky lefty greens? I think they do. What *other* country with oil reserves is prevented by idiot wacky greens from developing them...I can't think of one. We're the only country with significant oil reserves that abstains from making them of use for its citizens...
20 posted on 10/17/2002 12:04:55 PM PDT by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson