Re: Forget ANWR, how about drilling in NPRA?

On Apr 30, 7:57=EF=BF=BDpm, 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?).

---
http://www.wa****ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/29/AR2008042902=
394.html

It may surprise Americans to discover that the United States is
the third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We
could be producing more, but Congress has put large areas of
potential supply off-limits. These include the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts and parts of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. By
government estimates, these areas may contain 25 billion to 30
billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion barrels of proven
U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural
gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves).

What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears,
strong prejudice against oil companies and sheer stupidity.
Americans favor both "energy independence" and cheap fuel. They
deplore im****ts -- who wants to pay foreigners? -- but oppose more
production in the United States. Got it? The result is a "no-pain
energy agenda that sounds appealing but has no basis in reality,"
writes Robert Bryce in "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of
'Energy Independence.'" [...]
---

Go on, do. And then continue:

---
Members of Congress complain loudly about high oil profits ($40.6
billion for Exxon Mobil last year) but frustrate those companies'
desire to use those profits to explore and produce in the United
States. Getting access to oil elsewhere is increasingly difficult.
Governments own three-quarters or more of proven reserves.
Perversely, higher prices discourage other countries from
approving new projects. Flush with oil revenue, countries have
less need to expand production. Undersupply and high prices then
feed on each other.

But it's hard for the United States to complain that other
countries limit access to their reserves when we're doing the
same. If higher U.S. production reduced world prices, other
countries might expand production. What they couldn't get from
prices they'd try to get from greater sales.

On environmental grounds, the alternatives to more drilling are
usually worse. Subsidies for ethanol made from corn have increased
food prices and used scarce water, with few benefits. If oil is
im****ted, it's vulnerable to tanker spills. By contrast, local
production is probably safer. There were 4,000 platforms operating
in the Gulf of Mexico when hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit.
Despite extensive damage, there were no major spills, says Robbie
Diamond of Securing America's Future Energy, an advocacy group.
---

So what was your point, again?

> =EF=BF=BD Hence the reason why I ignore replies from Stevie and Ernst -
th=
ey
> simply don't have anything to say worth reading.

We'll keep that in mind every time you launch into a
content-free 'usenet Republican' diatribe.