![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Living in conservativeland
This for some reason sparked a whole bunch of questions, some that I hadn't considered before but I believe are essential information.Oil needed now
To the Editor:
I have met both candidates for the 8th Congressional District; Republican Steve Greenberg and Congresswoman Melissa Bean. When asked his position on drilling, Greenberg was in complete support for drilling in ANWR and off the coasts of Florida and California. These areas are known to hold decades worth of oil and natural gas.
These reserves will give our nation the time needed to develop alternative energy resources.
Greenberg gave an answer that hit the nail on the head, drill now because that’s what is needed now for America.
I asked Congresswoman Bean her position on drilling in ANWR and off the coasts of Florida and California.
The congresswomen stated that she was not in favor of such drilling.
Bean stated that the oil companies already had 68 million acres leased form the government for exploration.
While this is true, the difference is that we already know that ANWR and the coastal areas off of Florida and California hold massive amounts of oil and natural gas that is needed now.
Bean does not understand our needs.
That is why I am supporting Greenberg for the 8th Congressional District.
John Brendel
Woodstock
- Do we really know that ANWR and the coastal areas referenced have "massive amounts" of oil?
- Do we know if the 68 million acres that the oil companies currently own or lease actually have any?
- How do we know this?
- Who did the study?
- Who paid for the study?
- If the government paid for the studies of the government owned lands (ANWR) shouldn't the oil companies compensate the government for ALL the expenses of those studies and the added worth of the acquired knowledge that there is oil?
- If the oil companies don't know if there is oil in the land that they own/lease, then why did they purchase it?
- If they don't know, then why don't they investigate to find out?
- If they know there is oil, then why not drill on it?
- If they know there is NOT, then why do they still own it, strictly as an investment?
Of course none of these can be addressed or expressed briefly and succintly in a catchy 3 second soundbite like
"Drill in ANWR now!"
But on the other hand, I haven't even heard mention of any of those other things, like IS there known oil in the land the oilco already own/lease? Who paid for the studies. And, possibly most important, should there be compensation? ANWR is gov't land, right? So shouldn't a private oilco compensate the gov't if they are drilling on and profitting from it?
The numbers from Iraq are really interesting, too. There was someone on NPR once talking about how, if you removed the security issues, the Iraqi oil deposits are some of the largest and easiest to reach in the world. The total dollar value of Iraq's oil is staggering, especially at today's prices. I used to really reject the whole war-for-oil idea as being a bit conspiratorial, but the more I read about the situation and what the Coalition Provisional Authority did, the more I'm inclined to believe oil had a lot to do with it.
I also heard (and have heard this before) that Exxon spends more money advertising how GREEN they are than they actually spend on being GREEN.
* http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fort
Exxon has been #1 in the Fortune 500 for a while, I think. They have more money than Jesus.
That reminds me of an old Gallagher joke about TV evangelist: "They tell you that God want you to send money. God doesn't want your money. If God want't your money ..... He'd TAKE IT!"
I also heard that Hussein was considering re-pegging his oil from the USDollar to the Euro, and that this would have had devastating effects on the US$ and US Economy (like what we have now but much worse). I don't know enough about world economy, but it sounds plausible.