Re: Forget ANWR, how about drilling in NPRA?

On Apr 30, 11:55=A0am, gjohn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

> So if we have a huge chunk of land with a "drill here" sign on it why
> do we need to open ANWR?

The ANPR has already been opened to oil leasing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Petroleum_Reserve=96Alaska
----
BLM divided the reserve into three planning areas: the Northeast (4.6
million acres of public land), the Northwest (8.8 million acres of
public land), and the South (9.2 million acres of public land). In
1998, after BLM had gone through a planning process for the Northeast
area, the Secretary of Interior signed a Record of Decision (ROD),
which opened 87 percent of this area to oil and gas leasing. BLM has
since leased almost 1,500,000 acres (6,100 km=B2) in the Northeast. A
ROD for the Northwest area was signed in 2004. In this area 2,300,000
acres (9,300 km=B2) have been leased. BLM began the planning process for
the South in 2005, but discontinued it in the summer of 2007 because
residents were concerned that extraction of oil and gas would harm
resources needed for subistence.
----

> Republicans, especially usenet Republicans, have never cared whether
> there was actually any oil under ANWR. They only cared about opposing
> environmentalists.

As I think I've mentioned before, I picked my nom de net because
lefties tend to think that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or
evil, and given the choice I'd rather be evil. We see this stupid/evil
worldview on display above.

Yeah, we want oil companies to spend billions on oil leases and
exploration because we want to annoy pony-tailed environmentalists.