Re: Forget ANWR, how about drilling in NPRA?

On Apr 30, 6:11 pm, Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 4:57 pm, gjohn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
> >   For example, notice that the entire point of this post was
> > completely ignored by Republican here (i.e. what about NPRA? Why isn't
> > the Bush Administration pu****ng to drill in a place with known oil
> > reserves and no real opposition to drilling there? Why aren't
> > Republicans in general pu****ng to drill there?).
>
> Well, there you go. NPRA _is_ being drilled, as anyone with
> 30 seconds and google could confirm.

 I'm going to point out three critical words here that Ernst will
simply ignore.
>
> 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.
> ---

 In other words, unlike ANWR, there is no real effort because there is
no real political opposition.
>
> >   Hence the reason why I ignore replies from Stevie and Ernst - they
> > simply don't have anything to say worth reading.
>
> Uh huh.
>
> Given the choice between constructing an elaborate theory that
> involves conservatives doing thing just for the sake of being Evil,

"elaborate theory"? Are you joking?
"Evil"? Is that what I was saying?

   I guess if that is what you want to believe then that is what you
will believe.

> and actually investing a minimal amount of work in uncovering a few
> facts, you'll opt for the former.
>
> Excuse me, I have to go wax my moustache so I can properly twirl it
> when the occasion presents itself. (Pretty much always.)

 Like I said, score some political points but ignore the facts.
It's tiresome.