Cal Thomas promotes bike commuting

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

r15757@aol.com wrote:

> A host of int'l oil companies will 'get' the oil on US territory, and
> Americans will have the privilege of paying one hundred-whatever
> dollars per barrell for it just like they would for any other oil. And
> it won't have any signficant effect on our overall energy dilemma.
> Idiots.

It's not about the limited amount of oil under the ANWR, it's about
setting a precedent for drilling in delicate areas.

On 2008-05-15, Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:

>> On May 14, 3:30 pm, John Thompson <j...@vector.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
>>
>>> But that's not the reason why they want to drill in the ANWR. There's
>>> good money to be made pumping that oil and they want to get it before
>>> somebody else does.

> Exactly wrong, of course. It's U.S. territory, so no one else will "get
> it"

Except the fact that the companies waiting in line to drill there have
no concern over national boundaries. British Petroleum, Royal Dutch
Shell, etc. The fact that the ANWR is US territory doesn't make a whit
of difference, except in the task of selling notion to the American
public. Just wait, if it ever happens I'll bet that they even try to
convince the US government to pick up the tab for building the
infrastructure to support the project, notwithstanding the fact that
they're pulling in billions of dollars of windfall profits from the high
oil prices.


> BTW, Congress approved exploring/drilling in Alaska back in the '90s, but
> Bill Clinton vetoed it. The U.S. would be getting a /lot/ of oil from there
> today if not for that.

But there's not "a lot of oil" to pump out of there. Just a few years
worth. The issue we should be concentrating on is moving beyond a
fossil-fuel based energy economy, not wasting time and effort trying to
postpone the inevitable.

> Bill "more supply, more jobs, lower prices...can't have that!"

Yet somehow we managed to have both more jobs and lower prices while
Clinton was in office. And a balanced budget!

--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

On 2008-05-15, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> John Thompson wrote:
>>
>> But that's not the reason why they want to drill in the ANWR. There's
>> good money to be made pumping that oil and they want to get it before
>> somebody else does.
>
> Who else is going to get the oil on U.S. territory?

Multinational oil companies, with no lasting commitment to any specfic
country.

>> Do remember that the people telling us that drilling in the ANWR will
>> help solve our energy problems are the same people who told us that
>> we invaded Iraq because of the "virtual certainty" that Saddam had
>> weapons of mass destruction, and for the same reason.

> And they knew (and know) that neither of those was true. They have their
> reasons for doing what they're doing though.

Yup: "there's good money to be made pumping that oil." Holds true for
both Iraq and ANWR.


--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)