IS DRILLING A SOLUTION?

The Republican congressmen are at it again: they are talking DRILLING IN
ALASKA'S WILDLIFE REFUGE FOR OIL.

It seems quite convenient for the big oil companies to press for oil
drilling in Alaska after stirring up this issue with their manipulative
move in raising the gas prices at the pump.

In fact the oil companies have been using their controls at the pumps to
manipulate politicians and consumers alike.

Tourism may see a slight impact if people cancel their travel plans because
of stiff increase in gas prices.

Meanwhile, the BBC News reports:

"Chevron has seen its first quarter profit jump 49% to $4bn (£2.2bn),
making it the latest oil company to cash in on soaring world energy prices.

Its revenues rose 32% on last year, also boosted by sales from Unocal, the
oil firm it bought in 2005.

Combined with rivals ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil, three of America's oil
giants have earned a combined $15.7bn during the first quarter of 2006."


I am not sure if sick pigs really have more value than these evil oil
executives whose bottomless greed has caused so much pain and suffering to
humanity, including their quest for oil in Iraq causing the loss of
thousands of innocent life - not mentioning disasterous enviornmental
impacts that comes in the package.

If the world hates terrorism, then it must make it a priority to elimiate
the threats imposed by the evil oil companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron.
Among the first positive: drive less and NEVER do business with ExxonMobil
and Chevron in any form. Your dollar to these evil scum will only advance
your own misery and limit your chance of survival.

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Is drilling a solution? The head of BP, interviewed in the CNN documentary,
"We Were Warned", said that the USA could drill its way completely into energy
independence if we would just do so. I'd call that a solution.

Dave Head

On 28 Apr 2006 23:36:40 GMT, Jackie > wrote:

>The Republican congressmen are at it again: they are talking DRILLING IN
>ALASKA'S WILDLIFE REFUGE FOR OIL.
>
>It seems quite convenient for the big oil companies to press for oil
>drilling in Alaska after stirring up this issue with their manipulative
>move in raising the gas prices at the pump.
>
>In fact the oil companies have been using their controls at the pumps to
>manipulate politicians and consumers alike.
>
>Tourism may see a slight impact if people cancel their travel plans because
>of stiff increase in gas prices.
>
>Meanwhile, the BBC News reports:
>
>"Chevron has seen its first quarter profit jump 49% to $4bn (£2.2bn),
>making it the latest oil company to cash in on soaring world energy prices.
>
>Its revenues rose 32% on last year, also boosted by sales from Unocal, the
>oil firm it bought in 2005.
>
>Combined with rivals ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil, three of America's oil
>giants have earned a combined $15.7bn during the first quarter of 2006."
>
>
>I am not sure if sick pigs really have more value than these evil oil
>executives whose bottomless greed has caused so much pain and suffering to
>humanity, including their quest for oil in Iraq causing the loss of
>thousands of innocent life - not mentioning disasterous enviornmental
>impacts that comes in the package.
>
>If the world hates terrorism, then it must make it a priority to elimiate
>the threats imposed by the evil oil companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron.
>Among the first positive: drive less and NEVER do business with ExxonMobil
>and Chevron in any form. Your dollar to these evil scum will only advance
>your own misery and limit your chance of survival.
>
>*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Jackie > wrote in
:

> The Republican congressmen are at it again: they are talking DRILLING
> IN ALASKA'S WILDLIFE REFUGE FOR OIL.

The part of ANWR they want to drill in is a barren wasteland.
The drill rigs will take up a miniscule portion of land area,and not
interfere with wildlife,JUST like the present drilling areas.
And they already have proven they can drill up there and be environmentally
sound.

snip rest of idiotic rant

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> Is drilling a solution? The head of BP, interviewed in the CNN documentary,
> "We Were Warned", said that the USA could drill its way completely into energy
> independence if we would just do so. I'd call that a solution.

I don't know about the USA being independent, but all of the americas
could easily get all the oil needed from within the americas. Cut the
middle east out entirely. There is no need to for oil from the middle
east. The problem is the way markets are structured and the addiction to
low extraction cost oil.

If we are willing to pay $40 a barrel, the americas could be flooded with
oil. But the investment doesn't happen because everyone is affraid those
arabs will flood the market with their low extraction cost oil and bring
the world price down to $30 a barrel. Meanwhile, it goes up to $75 a
barrel and of course with such low extraction costs, record profits
insue.

Jim Yanik > wrote:
>Jackie > wrote in
:
>
>> The Republican congressmen are at it again: they are talking DRILLING
>> IN ALASKA'S WILDLIFE REFUGE FOR OIL.
>
>The part of ANWR they want to drill in is a barren wasteland.

That is an absurdly ridiculous statement.

>The drill rigs will take up a miniscule portion of land area,and not

More false statements.

>interfere with wildlife,JUST like the present drilling areas.

We have 30+ years of biology studies, all funded by oil money and
all intended to find ways to increase oil production, which show
otherwise.

>And they already have proven they can drill up there and be environmentally
>sound.

Where is that proof?

I don't want to hear the Rush or some other idiot who writes
opinions without facts has said it is. I want you to point out
the actual proof. Show a study by scientist using field work done
on the North Slope that came up with data demonstrating what you
have claimed is fact.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Dave Head > wrote:
>Is drilling a solution? The head of BP, interviewed in the CNN documentary,
>"We Were Warned", said that the USA could drill its way completely into energy
>independence if we would just do so. I'd call that a solution.

I'd call it propaganda. It isn't true. But even if it were
true it could provide "energy independence" for only a very
short period of time, and then in 20-50 years we would be right
back in the same boat.

Regardless, it isn't true and BP is angling for the most profit
it can possibly make, nothing else.

>On 28 Apr 2006 23:36:40 GMT, Jackie > wrote:
>
>>The Republican congressmen are at it again: they are talking DRILLING IN
>>ALASKA'S WILDLIFE REFUGE FOR OIL.
>>
>>It seems quite convenient for the big oil companies to press for oil
>>drilling in Alaska after stirring up this issue with their manipulative
>>move in raising the gas prices at the pump.
>>
>>In fact the oil companies have been using their controls at the pumps to
>>manipulate politicians and consumers alike.

Keep in mind that the cost to produce a barrel of oil on the
North Slope is right at $10. Taxes get a varying percentage of
what is left (based on taxes implemented when the price was
averaging $24 a barrel), but at the current $70 per barrel
market value BP has just turned in the highest profit *ever*
reported.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

You ask: "IS DRILLING A SOLUTION?"

Well, I have yet to read of another way to extract petroleum from the
ground that doesn't involve punching a hole in the ground. But maybe
you have something to offer in it's place. If so I would sure like to
read it.

Also you say: "...threats imposed by the evil oil companies like
ExxonMobil and Chevron". Specifically which threats are those. You
really didn't provide and specifics in your rambling diatribe.

And, you say just those two companies of all the world oil producers
are "Evil". Because Evil is a very strong word with lots of peculiar
connotations please tell me exactly how those two companies are "Evil".


Finally, please tell me what the other oil companies are doing
differently from Exxon and Chevron that makes them apparently "Not
Evil". On the surface they seem to be doing the same thing. Punching
holes in the ground, extracting crude, refining it into various
products and selling them.

Surely you are not one of these simple-minded folks who believe that
not buying gasoline from Exxon and Chevron will have an impact on
current prices are you?



Jackie wrote:
> The Republican congressmen are at it again: they are talking DRILLING IN
> ALASKA'S WILDLIFE REFUGE FOR OIL.
>
> It seems quite convenient for the big oil companies to press for oil
> drilling in Alaska after stirring up this issue with their manipulative
> move in raising the gas prices at the pump.
>
> In fact the oil companies have been using their controls at the pumps to
> manipulate politicians and consumers alike.
>
> Tourism may see a slight impact if people cancel their travel plans because
> of stiff increase in gas prices.
>
> Meanwhile, the BBC News reports:
>
> "Chevron has seen its first quarter profit jump 49% to $4bn (£2.2bn),
> making it the latest oil company to cash in on soaring world energy prices.
>
> Its revenues rose 32% on last year, also boosted by sales from Unocal, the
> oil firm it bought in 2005.
>
> Combined with rivals ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil, three of America's oil
> giants have earned a combined $15.7bn during the first quarter of 2006."
>
>
> I am not sure if sick pigs really have more value than these evil oil
> executives whose bottomless greed has caused so much pain and suffering to
> humanity, including their quest for oil in Iraq causing the loss of
> thousands of innocent life - not mentioning disasterous enviornmental
> impacts that comes in the package.
>
> If the world hates terrorism, then it must make it a priority to elimiate
> the threats imposed by the evil oil companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron.
> Among the first positive: drive less and NEVER do business with ExxonMobil
> and Chevron in any form. Your dollar to these evil scum will only advance
> your own misery and limit your chance of survival.
>
> *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Jackie wrote:

> The Republican congressmen are at it again: they are talking DRILLING IN
> ALASKA'S WILDLIFE REFUGE FOR OIL.

You can be sure that Alaska will have its arse drilled out in the near
future, just like a lot of other environmentally sensitive regions.

Wildlife don't seem to need much oil, so it is not really an issue about
taking resources from them.

The odd spill here and there won't cause any planetary extinctions.

I don't you are going to win this one.

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 02:23:28 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote:
>>Is drilling a solution? The head of BP, interviewed in the CNN documentary,
>>"We Were Warned", said that the USA could drill its way completely into energy
>>independence if we would just do so. I'd call that a solution.
>
>I'd call it propaganda. It isn't true. But even if it were
>true it could provide "energy independence" for only a very
>short period of time, and then in 20-50 years we would be right
>back in the same boat.

In 20 - 50 years we might figure out nuclear fusion.

In 20 - 50 years, we will almost certainly have figured out how to extract the
shale oil cheaply.

In 20 - 50 years, we'll probably have cars that get 100 mpg or better.

>Regardless, it isn't true and BP is angling for the most profit
>it can possibly make, nothing else.

I think it is true, if we got off our asses and drilled all the places we know
that have oil - all the offshore areas, all the Alaskan fields, _everywhere_.
But environmentalists / democrats will prevent that, and we'll continue paying
the Mid-easterners $70 a barrel.

Dave Head

>
>>On 28 Apr 2006 23:36:40 GMT, Jackie > wrote:
>>
>>>The Republican congressmen are at it again: they are talking DRILLING IN
>>>ALASKA'S WILDLIFE REFUGE FOR OIL.
>>>
>>>It seems quite convenient for the big oil companies to press for oil
>>>drilling in Alaska after stirring up this issue with their manipulative
>>>move in raising the gas prices at the pump.
>>>
>>>In fact the oil companies have been using their controls at the pumps to
>>>manipulate politicians and consumers alike.
>
>Keep in mind that the cost to produce a barrel of oil on the
>North Slope is right at $10. Taxes get a varying percentage of
>what is left (based on taxes implemented when the price was
>averaging $24 a barrel), but at the current $70 per barrel
>market value BP has just turned in the highest profit *ever*
>reported.

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:52:41 GMT, ShazWozza >
wrote:

>Jackie wrote:
>
>> The Republican congressmen are at it again: they are talking DRILLING IN
>> ALASKA'S WILDLIFE REFUGE FOR OIL.
>
>You can be sure that Alaska will have its arse drilled out in the near
>future, just like a lot of other environmentally sensitive regions.

Environmentally sensitive region my ass. Its just another place that some
people have an idea that if it is changed in any way, that change is "damage".
NO, its not damage, its just change. They lied in the 60's when the oil
pipeline was being built, saying it would kill all the damn caribou. Hell, the
caribou stand close to it because it is warm, and there are now _more_ caribou
than there used to be. And, they're lying now - the ANWR drilling facility
would be about the size of Dulles airport, and the caribou would deviate their
activities a couple miles, and that would be that. No problem. Its just that
the environmentalists / democrats get their rocks off when they find they have
the power to stop something. They've been riding on a "high" ever since
getting the Viet Nam War stopped and bringing down the Nixon administration,
and now their mantra is to "stop everything". Hell, even the windmill power
generators aren't safe - they trying to stop some of those too. Idiots.

>Wildlife don't seem to need much oil, so it is not really an issue about
>taking resources from them.
>
>The odd spill here and there won't cause any planetary extinctions.
>
>I don't you are going to win this one.

They're not, but all the rest of use lose, when the lack of production
facilities leaves the USA defenseless in the face of the Mid-East enemy.

Dave Head