http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-e...-news2.13s.html

Anyone doubting the reliability of the above article should Google ND oil.

Questions for debate:

Will this oil discovery reverse our national deficient and bring fuel prices down across America (and possibly the world)?

Will such news hamper alternative energy innovations?

Will this oil discovery reverse our national deficient and bring fuel prices down across America (and possibly the world)?

Will such news hamper alternative energy innovations?

Not exactly a discovery, old news in fact (1950s -1970s). The main reason it has never really been pushed at is that it is not exactly a bonanza type find. The conditions the oil is in make it difficult to extract amounts that would be considered worth the cost. However since we are desperate for oil it is exactly places like Bakken and the shale fields found in Canada that have come into interest. They are often difficult to "drill" and require newer technologies to effectively get a good solid ROI.
The biggest questions on Bakken are because of the nature of the find. The shale has very poor porosity--why they use hydraulic fracturing techniques to try and increase oil recovery-- It is harder to actually extract a significant amount of oil. Remember that the potential amount of oil that is IN the Bakken is a useless number next to the percentage of oil that is actually recoverable. The porosity of the majority of the Bakken is very poor and its permeability is about as bad. Really good porosity (for example) is found in places like Saudi and the Gulf of Mexico, about 20 - 30 percent. The Bakken is at best considered 10 percent in a few sweet spots.

It will be exploited of course because any source of oil is crucial now. Will it have any impact on the future of Alt Energy? None?
Its effect on ?deficient? Did you mean deficit? No, fuel prices down? Its hasn't had that effect yet--it is being drilled now-- so I don't see how it would have any effect later.

Questions for debate:

Will this oil discovery reverse our national deficient and bring fuel prices down across America (and possibly the world)?
Yes but only if we take advantage of it. To date with Dems in control – nearly nothing has happened to increase our oil supplies from in country sources. The reverse is true as Shumer and others tell us that Alaska is not worth the effort etc. To date the Dems have approved or pushed no new refineries, or allowed for any new off shore drilling, approved maybe one nuke plant.

“now that initial progress has foundered as Washington policymakers have been consumed with the debate over the Iraq war. Not a single priority on the Democrats' agenda has been enacted, and some in the party are growing nervous that the "do nothing" tag they slapped on Republicans last year could come back to haunt them.
“The House's relatively simple energy bill faces a similar fate. The Senate has in mind a much larger bill that would ease bringing alternative fuels to market, regulate oil and gas futures trading, raise vehicle and appliance efficiency standards, and reform federal royalty payments to finance new energy technologies.
The voters seem to have noticed the stall. An ABC News-Washington Post poll last month found that 73 percent of Americans believe Congress has done "not too much" or "nothing at all." A memo from the Democratic polling firm Democracy Corps warned last month that the stalemate between Congress and Bush over the war spending bill has knocked down the favorable ratings of Congress and the Democrats by three percentage points and has taken a greater toll on the public's hope for a productive Congress.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7050402262.html

Will such news hamper alternative energy innovations?

Unlikely since the oil is harder to get and will be more expensive than all wind generated energy and some solar as that technology expands.

Of course with wind projects like Cape Wind being held up by hypocrites like Ted Kennedy I am pessimistic that wind energy – the lowest cost of all, will ever get off the ground here. And even if it does it will take a generation or more.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=47987

Ya, it's all about congress not wanting the oil

Did you read his post?

It is not finanically or scientifically or economically feasible at this time to extract the oil.

Even saudi arabia has declining fields, and their last big find is still years away from the science needed to extract it.

Is it the democratic congress and Ted Kennedy that is keeping our nice "allies" in Saudi Arabia from extracting that oil?

They are spending billions on trying to get that field Ted- and it has a much larger potential yield than the Bakken find, and presents almost identicle challenges. Yet, they haven't exploited it even though they know it has been there since the 50s as well.

It is just science and cost that keeps exploitations from happening Ted.

I read the post. At 100+/barrel it is worth it.

“The problem has been how to get that oil out of the ground. It's not a pool you drill down to because this oil is in the rocks. But new technology makes it easier to collect that oil.

The USGS study says with todays technology, about 4 billion barrels of oil can be pumped from the Bakken formation.
In an interview provided by USGS, scientist Brenda Pierce put the North Dakota oil in context.
"Of the current USGS estimates, this is the largest oil accumulation in the lower 48," Pierce says. "It is also the largest continuous type of oil accumulation that we have ever assessed."

Still Alaska has more and your Dem buddies CR will never let us get it.
“By comparison, the 4 billion barrels in North Dakota represent less than half the oil in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge which has an estimated 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil.”

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/w...08/04/10/ndoil/


No CR but Teddy is and will be with the environmentalists who stop us in Alaska, ND, offshore and wind projects like the one here in MA he has held up for 7 years. The Dems flap their gums but you know nothing will get done. Some of their buddies will get big earmark and directed money and 10 years from now we will be where we are today – nowhere.

Let's not get too hopeful about these Bakken Oil Formation deposits until significant economic recovery is well established. After all, the formation has been know and studied since the 1950s. The run up in oil prices certainly makes a lot of techniques of recovery more feasible. That's why we're seeing production from Alberta tar sands and a new look at western oil shales. The fundamental questions, besides the economic ones, that should be asked of all non conventional sources are: What is the energy in to energy out ratio? And, the related question, what is the total carbon footprint of recovering and consuming the resource?

A couple of other cites regarding the Bakken Oil Formation:

Wikipedia

PDF Paper

Will this oil discovery reverse our national deficient and bring fuel prices down across America (and possibly the world)?

It might reduce the size of our trade deficit but would have very little effect on the current account deficit absent some large taxes on the recovered oil.

Will such news hamper alternative energy innovations?

A large new source of conventional oil might shift the focus from alternatives for liquid fuels to alternatives for electricity production. Even a short term substitution of oil for coal in electricity generation would buy some time for better solutions to the climate change crisis since burning oil doesn't produce as much carbon as burning coal. I'm not holding my breath, however, since I'm skeptical about both the cost of production and the total resource recoverable.

Will this oil discovery reverse our national deficient and bring fuel prices down across America (and possibly the world)?

No it will not. Quoting from the Oil Drum



Also remember shale type deposits are expensive to produce. The depth of the south half of the Bakken is on the deeper side meaning it will take high prices to finance such a project. This play would not be feasable on prices sub 100 dollars a barrel. It would be smarter to drill in the shallower half in Saskatchewan.

Will such news hamper alternative energy innovations?

No, this is not on the same scale as Kashagan, the last true giant find. Kashagan won't come online until 2011 at the earliest. We'll have fun just getting to that point. Also, King Abdullah's announcement to conserve new finds for Saudi's growing population moved the market in dramatic fashion. The world's biggest producer has officially stated, "flat out production is no longer in effect".

I'm be more concerned with the greenies rather than the ubiquitous big oil phantom opposing new development, it is environmental groups and the bureaucratic lawsuits they can sling that are the immediate problem.

Now we are seeing the genius of Bush's policies! His actions have pushed the price of oil so high that we can now profitably extract this muck and become energy independent, solving all of our Middle East problems.

.....And all this time, I thought he was stupid.

Well certainly the use of our own oil rather than coal will not only cut the deficit and make us more independent of foreign oil but also reduce carbon emissions – for those who still buy the GW “crisis” nonsense. Wind would be even better along with nuclear.

But sadly after blaming Bush for all the ills of the world – we have the Dems in Congress and we have discovered that their promises to “rule” and “get things done” have come to nearly nothing in the energy area. (or any other area - except earmark giveaways)

Both parties have stupidly rewarded the farmers with the ethanol boondoggle and done little else – while fools like Teddy Kennedy stop major wind projects like Cape Wind.

Looks like the “new boss” is worse than the “old boss”

You keep wanting to connect this somehow to the dems or something there Ted= but it doesn't even have a political component right now- because it is just not recoverable right now.

Sometimes it is just good ol' science that is to blame I suppose.

You know, Bush had it right...we NEED an energy policy. The Clintonistas had no vision for anything, had we developed what we have in the US to develop we wouldn't be in the pickle we are today. These same idiots in Congress were saying it takes too long, MANY YEARS ago, and these things would be chugging out oil now. No foresite AT ALL is killing us. We have the likes of Al Bore preaching to us how to live yes he consumes more energy by a hungred fold than GW Bush on his ranch. Conservation will only get us so far. No one wants Windmills by their houses (Kennedy), wants nuclear power stations, the list goes on and on. Reality is this, we HAVE to make more energy to keep up with demand. Putting corn into Ethenol STUPID...as we can see now with soaring food costs. I would also suggest having a SINGLE blend of gas for the entire country rather than multiple blends that do nothing but drive prices up for no good reason.

Correct. The Dems (esp the left wing of the party) are owned by the environmental lobby. We have no real energy policy except idiots saying lets TAX the oil companies “windfall” profits. Stupid ideas like this is all we hear and meanwhile the Congress does squat. So we will wait for the new president to tell us the “alternative” energy we are funding is decades away, regardless of how much we spend now, and we need more oil, gas, coal……………………. Gee but we knew that 30 years ago.

So, to stay on topic a bit ted- let's go over some facts-

this "huge" domestic find is very, very old news- dating back to the 50s.

And has never been exploited- why Ted?

Also- I am not all that concerned about the "enviromental lobby"-

Do you seriously think that the "enviromental lobby" is more powerful than the Oil lobby Ted? That the "enviromental lobby" has more resources, combined, all of them, than say, oh, one mid sized oil company Ted?

How many Senators have been arrested and jailed for accepting bribes from the "envirmental lobby" Ted?

Now- how many lawmakers have been arrested for bribery related to extraction-exploitation industries Ted? I am looking in Abramof's direction at this point- oops, and BP, VECO and the entire republican delegation from Alaska, not to mention the entire republican leadership at the state level in Alaska?

Guess what Ted- not ONE democrat in Alaska got busted for taking bribes from the oil companies Ted- oh, and what were they bribing the republicans for? To keep them from paying taxes Ted.

Whenever "enviromental lobby" starts buying senators and lawmakers wholesale like the oil industry does Ted, I will join your position.

But until then, we need to keep them a bit poorer so they don't have so much pocket money for bribes, eh?

Because we didn’t have the horizontal drilling available today.

This about this – if Clinton had not vetoed the drilling in Alaska, as the idiots in Congress are doing now, TOADY we would be getting a 1,000,000 barrels a day from it. At $ 120 each that’s 120 million a day = 43 BILLION $ a year. And yes we could use the money.


No drilling in Alaska, or off shore – you figure it out CR. Any good reason we should not exploit our own damn OIL CR. Any stupid damn reason we are still tied to the #%^&*&& Middle East CR. No damn new refineries CR. Wake up man.



“U.S. Senate opposition to legislation that would speed up the permitting process for oil refineries, for example, comes in part from an impression that oil companies aren't interested in increasing refinery capacity in the United States”

Meanwhile, the oil industry has expanded production capacity at existing refineries over the past decade, adding the equivalent of a medium-size refinery each year. This has helped bolster energy security. However, no major new refineries have been built in the U.S. since 1975, and among the reasons for this is difficulty in getting local approval for permits due to not-in-my-backyard sentiments and restrictive regulations.

If we don't fix the problem, we're going to get more situations like the one encountered by Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma, an independent refiner. The company has been trying to build a new refinery for eight years, and progress has been slow. It is still hobbled by a complex permitting process involving federal, state and local requirements, which are often overlapping and redundant. Even if all of the necessary permits can be obtained, the company does not expect the refinery to begin operating until the end of this decade.”

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=730865

“Against the backdrop of a late afternoon sun and the ocean's blue surf, leaders of several local environmentalist groups urged residents to call on Congress to stop efforts to lift a 25-year-old moratorium on offshore oil drilling.”
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/08/01...4_407_31_06.txt

“North America leads the world in the number of oil drilling platforms -- about 3,100.

But the number of drilling platforms has been on the decline in recent years, partly due to concern over the impact oil and gas drilling has on marine life.
Oil and gas leasing and drilling are prohibited on most of the outer continental shelf, excluding the Gulf of Mexico and some waters off Alaska. The shelf is the area off the U.S. coast that is submerged in relatively shallow water at gradually increasing depths, generally up to about 600 feet below sea level.
President Clinton signed an order Friday extending a ban on most offshore oil drilling for 10 years and permanently protecting national marine sanctuaries from oil and gas drilling.”

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9806/12/of...g.pm/index.html

Uh Ted- most Alaskans are all for opening ANWR and a couple other wells.

However- you get some wierd beliefs at how big these fields are.

Right now, Alaskan oil accounts for 7% of American production, without ANWR online. Or rather- I believe that it PEAKED at 7%- it is in decline right now.


Do you agree with those figures Ted?

Do you really think Alaskans who work day to day in this field believe that ANWR has the equivilent of four Prudhoe bays?

Hey- we would all be estatic if that were true Ted- but we are pretty happy you guys are buying into that line- cool- works for us!

IN fact, among petroleum types- it is a pretty good running joke.

"49-ers"-

There are actually more hopeful spots, with better possible yields, far, far west of ANWR completely. But those are all about technology. The permitting process is all that is needed for those finds, if they are truly economically feasible.

Hey- but keep hope alive Ted- if we are to open ANWR ever- we will need alot of gullible people believing it will have some kind of big effect on global prices or anything like that.

We have seen these optimistic thoughts in the "extraction" industries before Ted- this gold rush thingy to start with.

Again Ted- how many large scandals involving large bribes to lawmakers does the Sierra Club have to date? Um, How many do the other companies have? How many senators have gone to jail for selling thier votes to big oil there Tedster?

Will this oil discovery reverse our national deficient and bring fuel prices down across America (and possibly the world)?

Absolutely not. The US has to get accustomed to paying premium prices on oil-based fuels. Back in the 1970s, the huge V-8 guzzlers suddenly got cheap as dirt, and that's going to happen again. Already the sales of small cars with 30+ mpg has gone up, while the sale of massive SUVs and trucks has gone down. It's better to pay around $40 (10 gallons at $4.00 per gallon) for a fill-up than around $100 (25 gallons).

Will such news hamper alternative energy innovations?

Nope. Alternative energy is coming inevitably because just as $100 a barrel oil spurs the exploitation of oil shales, so does it spur the development of alternatives.

Just remember: The sun has enough energy to keep us going for millions, perhaps billions, of years. Fossil fuel has been exploited for only a couple hundred, and we're running out. The inside of the earth is full of energy too, in the form of heat. Between the two we have this problem licked.

But old money still holds sway over people. However, the immediate hit at the gas pump sways stronger.

Maybe it doesn't make a difference if you're rich enough.

So is there another powerful lobby that is keeping the U.S. dependent on Middle east oil? I can guess at least one you havent mentioned that would have a keen interest in keeping the U.S. dependent on middle east oil and permanently involved there and it has a proven support from a large swathe of congress and the senate. Can you?

You do realize we get most of our oil from Canada, Russia, Mexico and Venuzuela, right?

http://www.lookoutmtn.com/Documents/Source..._Oil_Supply.pdf

If you notice- during the Clinton administration- we grew LESS dependent on foriegn oil AND diversified where we did buy our oil?

In 2000, the US produced 353.5 barrels of oil, Saudi Arabia 441 billion barrels of oil, 323 billion for Russia,

Saudi Arabia may be the single largest producer- but it is not the only producer, not by a long shot, and we still get over half our oil from this side of the hemisphere.

Our R/P ratio has held steady for 50 years at between 8-12, better than all but the biggest oil producing countries, such as Saudi, Canada, Russia and Venezuela.

Right now- it is the oil companies themselves that are the main obstacles to decreasing energy dependence- they are sitting on a multi-trillion cubic feet natural gas reserve trying to drive the price up- hoarding in other words.

If you want less energy dependence- a major tax on the oil companies for NOT pumping out the oil and gas are warranted.

There is some movemet in the Alaskan legislature right now to do just that- a 10 million dollar a day tax for sitting on those reserves and NOT producing them.

Enviromentalists make GREAT scapegoat- but they just don't have the stroke to really screw things up the way the oil companies do.

You want less dependence on foriegn oil- write your senator and force legislation to force the oil companies to stop sitting on enough natural gas to fuel the whole nation- no new drilling, no exploration- it is just sitting there, waiting for someone to pump it out of the ground.

Hey 43 BILLION a year we give to foreigners could be in our pockets. And all the moron Nancy Pelosi can say is NO drilling – anywhere. How stupid is that.



Not just ANWAR silly – ND, offshore, gulf etc. We have lots of oil - we need to get it so we are not owned by OPEC damit.

So whats your solution CR – Obama’s “alternative” energy will solve out problems?

My solution is to stop allowing oil producers from sitting on natural gas fields without exploiting them, and for reform in to big oil itself, first. Discuss everythign else second.

Like I said- we have enough natural gas right now in the US to really, really see a drop in foriegn dependency- but we allow the oil companies to sit on it.

Fix that first- then lets talk after we see the new numbers.

The oil producers are not sitting on natural gas, the environmentalists lobby have full support from Democrats that use several blocking moves to ensure natural gas remains high. Natural gas is over $11 and the environmentalist want to keep it there, they want to make it higher by reducing coal fired electric production increasing demand on the limited natural gas supply. The idea is to make electricity and auto fuel so high that it supports green development. Either show some links that show NG is being held or look dumb in public. Read this link http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/...vow-no-new.html

Not to worry about ANWAR since McCain is a tree hugger too, but he does support NG and domestic safe drilling.

Zack- there is not a single envirmental group one with any ability to stop an Alaskan Natural gas pipeline- even the eviro impact statements are ridiculously easy for this one- because we plan on using the same pipeline corridor. We have a bidder from trans-canada that meets AGIEA - Alaskan law- requirements to build the pipeline- they want it to terminate somewhere around Detroit I believe- the ONLY obstacle to natural gas in the trillions of cubic feet flowing right to your home is Exxon- literally. They hold the leases and are refusing to sell it- that is why there is a pretty big movement here to start taxing them for non-exploitation- twice bills have been introduced (in the formerly corrupt houses) that would tax the oil companies 10million dollars per day for sitting on the gas up on the slope.

Literally the only thing keeping your heat bills high is the oil companies- there is no way, in any way, shape or form, that the enviro lobby can stop an alaskan gas pipeline from the slope- only the oil companies can do that. Because no new drilling needs to happen, they only thing that needs to be done is to build a pipeline and a liquification plant- that is all- the gas is just sitting there, while Exxon and Conoco Phillips hoards it.

Again- Alaskan geologists call ALL Alaskan oil fields "medium size oil fields on giant natural gas fields" there is enough natural gas under our oil fields to supply the whole nation with heating and electrical needs- maybe not for your car- but enought o heat your house and run your physical plants!

www.adn.com

do a search on the local papers site and type in "natural gas"- it rarely goes a week at a time without a story on this one.

You are lost in space. The big users of oil cannot change easily or cheaply to gas. Millions of homes have no access to gas. – and even if they wanted to it would take time.

Meanwhile we are doing nothing to use our own resources as the Dems twiddle their thumbs in Congress. Alternatives are decades away and may never happen with the NIMBY effect that includes idiots like Teddy Kennedy.

I'm also frustrated by the blockage of AK LNG but it isn't the oil companies it is the environmental lobby. I watched the debate in the US Senate and it was the Democratic Party that blocked it. Google the words ... democrats block LNG ... and pick any link to get your answer as to why the oil companies do not proceed on the pipe line.

In the major 48 states are numerous NG capped wells that are being blocked by the environmental lobby, the Democrats have even expanded national parks to prevent the use of NG reserves using numerous tactics that make it a litigation nightmare for oil producers.

You got it right. And this is the real danger in electing a Dem President on top of the do nothing liberal Dem Congress. They are too in bed with the left wing wacko environmentalists and will oppose anything to get us to energy independents.

Sure they will reward their supporters with billions in “alternative energy” contracts – most of which will either never go anywhere or never reach the scale that it will actually help us in the next 10-25 years.

Are you kidding me? That is what you guys get from all that? It is not even a national issue- it is a state issue-

I can't believe you guys are dumb enough to actually buy that crap- heck, even here, where using the word "liberal" or "enviromentalist" is a fighting word- no one places blame on the enviros for the gas pipeline- once again- go to ADN, and just type in the "gas pipeline" search- and you can find reams of info on it- and it has NOTHING to do with the enviro lobby- they have no clout here- what can they do- the oil companies are the only roadblock to you guys getting natural gas from Alaska- period.

new exploration- there is some room for debate on the enviro lobby- but the gas issue? That is 100% a oil company hang up- oil is worth more- so they pump th natural gas back into the ground to extract the oil. Heck, even Microsoft has made noises about opening a "server farm" up there, with the cold temps allowing the cooling of the 'puters, and sitting on a fuel source worth centuries of power there at the source.

I guess the oil companies have deflected the blame pretty well.

http://www.aksuperstation.com/news/business/18016584.html

A development proposal by oil companies in the midst of litigation over a rich cache of oil and gas on the North Slope has been rejected by the state of Alaska. The plan, said Tom Irwin of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), "does not serve the state's best interests."

31-years ago ExxonMobil, BP and Chevron won the rights to drill at Point Thomson, however they have not yet produced any oil or gas from the tracts.In late 2006 the state moved to reclaim the leases in order to grant them to other companies who could move forward with development. However the state was ordered by a judge to discuss alternative proposals.

Further litigation will be required due to the rejection of the ExxonMobil proposal. This could also create uncertainty for a proposed gas pipeline project out of the North Slope.

As a proposed solution to the dispute, $1.2-billion is requested by the proposal for the purpose of gas recycling and a condensate production project.


Everything you need to know about Alaska's "stranded" gas but were afraid to ask- note that the protagonists here are the oil companies and the state- NOT enviromentalists:

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/agia/

State issue yes, but on the national front the Democratic Party welcomed LNG laden ships and the port centers to distribute the LNG as potential equivalent to nuclear bombs as terrorists targets. It makes no sense for the oil companies to ship LNG if no port in the lower 48 will allow them to dock. To function the NG must be transformed to LNG and upon arrival returned to NG. The Democrats simply said no, not in our back yard. I would think that facilities could be constructed on offshore islands and piped to the mainland but the discussion was ended in the Senate. The Democratic No Energy Energy Bill still lingers and they refuse to bring it up in this political season because Republicans will rub their noses in the high energy prices they can so easily point out to the public as it is discussed.

You did happen do note that Exxon has been sitting on one field for 31 years? 31 years- ya, they have every permit they need- they are just hoarding- refusing to develope it-

bottom line is Zack- we need to jack up the oil companies a bit before we worry about all that other stuff.

And Zack- you do realize your initial topic starter "major domestic find" is not even a poltical or media issue? That we are talking the discovery was in the 1950s, kinda old news?

We ALREADY HAVE an end user Zack- in fact, they filled out the bid paperwork- they already have a pipeline system they wish to tap into- in other words- they just want to run the pipeline to Calgary- and distribute from there- to lucrative markets that ALREADY have infrastructure in place.

It is much easier to take on and scapegoat the wrong folks in this issue Zack- but hey- works for we alaskans- if you buy enough of that crap- eventually- we will get what we want.

Turnabout is fair play though- considering someone managed to label ANWR as 'the Serengeti of the north"- which would be far better off named "the mosquito breeding sanctuary of the north"

Will this oil discovery reverse our national deficient and bring fuel prices down across America (and possibly the world)?
Major find? Er, no. As others have noted, this is hardly news, or a “discovery”. With oil prices so high, greed drives companies to look at formerly unprofitable wells or other oil sources with fresh eyes. New technology and high oil prices make it economically feasible to tap formerly too-costly sources.

It’s happening all over the place in my neck of the woods.


(As you might imagine, homeowners are none too happy about having those “grasshoppers” screech and groan to life once more.)

And it is also happening all over the country – the ND oil field is not some “super-solution” to the oil crisis.
Tennessee
Texas
Pennsylvania

Will such news hamper alternative energy innovations?

Doubtful. The amounts of oil eked out of these sources won’t do anything in the short term to relieve the high cost of fuel. It’s a stopgap measure that will put a few dollars in a few oil company pockets, while new sources of energy still must be found. When the major oil companies are touting their interest in alternative energy sources, you have to know that is the case.

Exactly correct. No one has been “sitting on oil” as CR maintains, it has been unprofitable to bring it up.

Now if we could just drill where we know lots of oil exists – like off shore CA/west coast and in the gulf and Atlantic we could just be well on out way to independence. We could even use some of the TAX money the government gets from oil revenue for alternative energy. Naa – makes too much sense for Nancy P.

Actually- in this field- they have been doing just that Ted- sitting on it, only to use it as leverage for other concessions on other fields. The field they are sitting on has no technological or economic barriers at all from getting that oil out of there. They are simply hoarding.

In fact, the reason they were allowed to do this in the first place was that no one 31 years ago thought that the oil companies would do something like just sit on an oil field and not do anything with it- our leases now have 10 year return clauses for non-developement- you have 10 years to show some serious progress in developing, or you lose it, and don't get your money back.

31 years Ted is how long they sat on it- for no good reason other than "we can sit on this and not develope it if you don't kiss our butts"-

The oil industry is fundamentally corrupt and run by corrupt men Ted, sooner we reform and work on that- the sooner we can actually get some developement going.

BTW- Todays headline in ADN

http://www.adn.com/fbi/story/400889.html

A federal judge sentenced former Wasilla state Rep. Vic Kohring to 3½ years in prison Thursday for taking bribes in a scheme to keep Alaska oil taxes down.

Certainly it was not economical until the last couple of years.

And the fact remains we would have 1,000,000 barrels a day from ANWAR if Bill had not vetoed the bill in 1995. We have failed miserably and to try to “blame” oil companies for this is ludicrous.

Why shouldn't I blame oil companies when they are sitting on already tapped fields, right now, that need 0 permitting to start pumping oil?

Again- you have failed to come up with an enviromental group that has wholesale bought and owned groups of republican (or, democrat) politicians.

When we start having bribes for votes scandals involving enviromental groups, I will change my mind. When oil companies start pumping from already discovered fields that have oil in them right now, I would change my mind.

Nonsense. Please post more than your opinion – like references, articles, PROOF.




“Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, the Mr. Magoo of American politics, stumbled onto the truth last week. He discovered the law of supply and demand. "We want to put [more oil] on the market to increase supply and lower prices," Reid said. "With oil and gas prices continuing to break record highs every day, much more needs to be done."

Indeed it does. But Reid won't allow it. His understanding of economics only extends to matters in which he might embarrass President Bush. The oil he wants on the market is the oil the administration is buying for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), now nearly full. Reid got his way. The administration now plans to stop oil shipments to the SPR next month.

Beyond that, Reid and his party are committed to suppressing increased oil production in this country, as they wait for that magical day when fossil fuels are no longer needed to supply the nation's energy needs.

That day may come in 50, 60, 70 years--or never. In the meantime, America needs oil, and the good news is we're awash in the stuff. If the oil reserves miles off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and in federally owned lands in the West and Alaska were tapped, our dependence on foreign oil could begin to be reversed. In 10 years, half of America's oil could be produced at home (up from 40 percent), with more coming from increased exports from Canada.”

But there's a problem: Eighty-five percent of the untapped domestic sources of oil have been put off-limits. There's a federally mandated moratorium on drilling offshore, and huge roadblocks to exploiting the oil on the vast federal lands have been erected.

"What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears, strong prejudice against oil companies and sheer stupidity," wrote Robert Samuelson recently. Lifting the moratorium requires action by Congress and the White House. So don't hold your breath. The Democratic Congress is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environmental lobby, which regards oil exploration, much less drilling, as a sin against nature.http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/104oiivq.asp

um, you asking for proof is like Rosie O'Donnel asking Twiggy to go on a diet.

Even though I have posted this for you now- 3 times and counting- I will cut you a break, this last time, and post it for you again-

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/118699

Monday morning, Exxon and its partners began their formal case for holding onto the undeveloped oil and gas fields at Point Thomson. A state judge ruled that this hearing is required before the state can take back the leases for failing to develop them since the first discovery in 1977.

Exxon has reneged on the developement on the Port thompson field 23 times, for 31 years now, and the state is trying to get the leases back. We are sueing Exxon for refusing to develope a field it has been sitting on for 31 years now- it got the leases in 1977. That is before there was ANY organized enviromental movement of any consequence in the US that could stop Alaskan developement.