|
|
|
|
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/25/2008 12:21:13 AM | Of course it had to happen - with the recent spike in gasoline prices, there's a renewed push in favor of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
May 22 2008
Here're the savings from Arctic drilling — 75 cents a barrel
By Erika Bolstad | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — If Congress were to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, crude oil prices would probably drop by an average of only 75 cents a barrel, according to Department of Energy projections issued Thursday.
The report, which was requested in December by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, found that oil production in the refuge "is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices."
But the report also finds that opening ANWR could have other benefits, particularly in Alaska, where tapping the resources in the Arctic refuge could extend the lifespan of the trans-Alaska pipeline. It estimates that if Congress agreed to open ANWR this year, Alaskan oil could hit the market in about 10 years.
"I'm coming away from it saying that this is yet another an indicator that opening ANWR is important to this country and to our energy future," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.
The report was unveiled Thursday by the Department of Energy's research arm, the Energy Information Administration and came a day after the Department of Interior said that 60 percent of federal lands that hold potential sources of natural gas and oil are closed to leasing.
It also comes in the midst of a renewed push by Alaska's congressional delegation to persuade their congressional colleagues to open a portion of ANWR to oil exploration. Opening the wildlife refuge is the centerpiece of recently unveiled House and Senate Republican energy plans, which focus on increasing domestic oil production in the face of record oil prices that, this week, exceeded $135 a barrel.
Stevens had no comment about the report, but did speak on the floor of the Senate Thursday in support of opening ANWR to drilling.
Wednesday, his House colleague, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, introduced legislation to open the refuge; it was co-sponsored by a former drilling opponent, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md. The Senate last week rejected a Republican energy plan that included opening up ANWR.
Even as Republicans have renewed their push, Democrats have warned that there just aren't the votes to open the wildlife refuge to drilling. Congress couldn't muster enough votes to open up the refuge when Republicans controlled the House and Senate. Democrats say it simply won't happen while they're in charge . . .
Having hosted a group of Gwich'in and Inupiat natives in my home - they were here to speak with native Hawaiians about their opposition to drilling in their homelands and forever changing the landscape on which their culture relies - my own sense about this issue goes beyond the environmental, political and economic ramifications that have been debated energetically from every direction.
To me, the question that lies at the heart of the issue is one of obliterating an entire culture simply so that a few people can make some profit and a few others get access to cheaper oil for a short period of time.
Even at peak production - which could take as long as 20 years - the estimates are that the oil from the refuge would provide only a year or two of supply. Why does this issue continue to be pushed so hard?
What do others think? | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/25/2008 12:38:12 AM | The US will not touch it untill all the oil from everywhere is gone so they can charge outrageous prices for it.
No of them care about the enviroment are you drinking? They care about profit. The enviromental surge only helps them "sit" on resources they WILL develope regardless how anyone feels about it when the time suits them.
If the government cared so much why haven't they listened? Grow your gardens plan to stay home more and enjoy time with family and friends. Cut back wherever possible to save "all" fuel and eat the fresh vege's grown from your garden.........That is what I will do. Smile change what you can and shake your head at the rest. | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/25/2008 4:18:49 AM | The oil industry's record of neglected safety and maintenance protocols on the Alaska pipeline gives a clear indication of how they would behave in ANWR. Repeated pipe failures and "deferred maintenance," sloppy record keeping, spills and fires and an appalling lack of oversight are the norm. I can appreciate the economic opportunity a major find would be, but the bozos running the show aren't capable of cleaning up their act.
I can only imagine what a disastrous mess they're going to make in Antarctica- fortunately, international treaties prohibit exploitation there for at least another 50 years. | |
|
| Are you all insane
Posted: 5/25/2008 4:44:54 AM | | Have you or anybody else ever been to ANWAR and who really ever goes there.........I am damn tired of a congress who does not care about the monmey coming out of my pocket for the sake of a few eskimos or a few caribou.........there is plenty of oil to get we just need to get it............we have been drilling in okla for over a hundred years.....I grew up in the oil patch there and that environment is thriving I don't buy the harm the environment crap......it is time to wake up America! | |
|
| Are you all insane
Posted: 5/25/2008 5:28:03 AM |
I am damn tired of a congress who does not care about the monmey coming out of my pocket for the sake of a few eskimos or a few caribou
Commodities speculators, our addiction to an unsustainable lifestyle and your president's foreign policy have way more to do with money coming out of your pocket than not drilling in ANWAR. | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/25/2008 8:06:12 AM | http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/05/25/like_your_$5_gas?page=2
Like Your $5 Gas?
By Kevin McCullough
Spending $60, $70, even $90 for a fill up at the gas station is fun right? When it comes to crippling, racist, and economically debilitating energy policy liberals have truly paralyzed America. And they seem proud of their efforts. In the left's refusal to allow us to seek new energy sources they are stunting a nation's economy, they are hurting the average family, and they are starving hungry children.
They also have the gall to do all of this under the guise of feigned outrage at oil companies in addition to self-superior Senate floor speeches where they rage against the administration. They also express abject resentment towards anyone who dares to mention the obvious - that it is their policies that put us in this mess to begin with and disallows our escape from it.
If you want a mere glimpse of their hypocrisy revisit Gore v. Bush. I'm not referring to the court case, but their living arrangements. Bush lives in a solar powered home designed for maximum conservation impact in his Crawford ranch. Al Gore's home has not been converted to solar power, and only a year ago was exposed for having toxic waste on his property that was actually polluting the local water supplies. But this simple comparison barely scratches the surface as to the left's energy scam.
The real pinch that you feel at the pump exists for multiple reasons. Nearly all of them the fault of liberals.
Repeatedly they criticize the administration for having to work with Middle Eastern nations that sell us oil, they mock us for having to beg Saudi princes to increase production, yet they refuse to do the things that would cause the Saudi's and other members of OPEC to lower prices naturally.
This last week the nation of Brazil discovered enough oil sitting only 130 miles off their coast to give them the equivalent of nineteen years worth of oil by their current usage standards. That's nineteen years that they don't have to purchase oil from anywhere else.
Presently in territories under US control we have oil reserves that could eclipse that number by possibly 20 to 30 times. We have the technology to go get it with almost zero impact to the surrounding environment. And in some places where we could go harvest it from - like the Alaskan wilderness, we would need less than 2% of the total territory to give us domestic oil production that would rival the output of what we purchase abroad and thus cause those suppliers to drop their prices. Off the shores of California, Florida, and other oceanside states further exploration could be had with no cost to the taxpayer and any reserves we would find would belong to the U.S. and thus allow us to control our own energy future. But liberals in Washington, the lobbyists who pay them well, and the far left environmentalist groups who are manipulating the public discussion would rather you not be able to pay your bills or even drive your car - than to give in and allow any expanded exploration to occur.
But finding the reserves is only part of the problem. Once the oil is in hand it must be refined, and since "crazy greenies" have prevented the construction of one single additional refinery in nearly a generation, the supply chain is unable to be processed and delivered effectively to help the prices stabilize at the pump. Additionally elected liberals like Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, and U.S. Senator Richard Durbin have worked in concert to see to it that Chicago area drivers now pay a 20% tax on every gallon of gas sold.
The Global Warming scare mongers have played their part as well. Now that more than 31,000 scientists have disputed nearly all of even the most basic claims made in Al Gore's hysterical work of fiction, "An Inconvenient Truth," we are starting to see up close the damage Gore's self-enriching scam has produced. His insistence upon alternative fuels, has created horrific realities which are making the development of fuel far more expensive, and starving orphans on the African continent simultaneously. He's also made tons of personal riches from his "carbon credits" company that has yet to prove how it is regenerating the climate.
When we realize that the amount of corn for example that has to be set aside for the minimum production of ethanol, and how that corn is no longer for food supplies there should exist outrage. When we discover the tons of corn required to make one tank of fuel, yet realize the same amount of corn could feed an African orphan who is presently dying of starvation for a full year that outrage should create a quake for justice that liberals can not escape.
And we haven't even begun to address the entire idea of nuclear energy expansion that could go across the continent heating, lighting, and keeping our homes safe at far lower costs. In places like Africa nuclear power would move villages that are barely surviving into healthy new conditions. Simply replacing the dung that some mothers are forced to cook with would guarantee a drop in the child mortality rate across much of the sub-Saharan portion of the continent. Yet for all of Barack Obama's insistence upon giving a condom to every person in Africa he seems utterly unmoved by the plight of children breathing the smoke of bovine excrement.
Some proponents of energy exploration have argued that we are running out of oil reserves. Yet any one who uses common sense wonders how that is so. Oil reserves are developed by the death and compression of carbon life-forms over the years. Forests, wildlife, marine life, and humans have not stopped dying - nor are they expected to anytime soon. Harvesting living energy supplies - like food - seems to be counter productive than harvesting energy supplies that in fact have already been "processed" naturally for our use. With our more advanced exploration capabilities we are also discovering that we are far - if it's even possible to be - from "running out of oil."
So what does it all mean?
Liberals have put into place legislation that restricts our ability to supply our energy needs for ourselves. They have prevented us from being able to refine the energy supply we obtain. They have prevented us from creating the most cost effective energy supply ever discovered (nuclear). And they appear more than happy to continue to tax the living daylights out of us on the energy we have to have in order to survive.
In short it is using dishonest messages to tax us more, taking the capital we earn for our families, to create a greater dependency on "them" to "solve our problems" for us. Can anyone say "backdoor Marxism?" Do you like your $5 per gallon gas?
Just do nothing... because letting the marxist left run our energy policy seems to be working out well for all of us!
Isn't it? | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/25/2008 8:18:05 AM | marxist left
We really need to be concerned for our environment--my concern is that an oil spill like the Exxon Valdez incident could occur in the Artic refuge, endangering the ecosystem there.
They discovered oil in the Dakotas. Drill there instead!! | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/25/2008 8:48:20 AM | Drill in the Dakotas and in Alaska, and along the coast...build some new refineries, some nuclear plants...what ever it takes is fine with me. Yes, we should be concerned about the environment but not let radicalism be our guide. I myself weep constantly over the Exxon Valdez...in fact I'm thinking about becoming a "cutter" right after I finshing writing this. I try not to think about the Earth itself oozing more oil and toxic gases on its own into the environment that all the nasty humans do.
Here's a thought...why don't we pump all the oil and gas out of the ground and stop the Earth from slowly poisoning us all with its own natural occuring releases of toxic gases and oil. | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/25/2008 9:02:21 AM | | ^^^Or, we could accept the limitations of the way we're doing things now, change our thinking and give the economic incentives that we presently give to big oil - to companies focused on the development of renewable and comparatively benign sources of energy like geothermic, hydrogen, solar and wind. | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/25/2008 9:23:34 AM | | Artful Codger- you're right on the nose. Are the oil companies doing business in the US doing a damn thing to help out the US citizens? Nope. How long ago was it that Exxon was cheering and patting themselves on the back for raking in record profits as consumers started feeling the pinch in their wallets every time they filled up? Not long ago at all. Therefore, we should take every last CENT of their incentives away and channel them into renewable energery. One way or another, we're going to run out of oil someday. Why not reduce dependence on it NOW instead of scrambling to do so in the future? | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/25/2008 9:46:33 AM | Opening it up does nothing to solve the problem, which is excessive and inefficient gas consumption. Drill those fields, and you only delay the inevitable - which is what American politicians and corporations have done for far too long.
Make cars with realistic gas mileage in todays world, and you equal or exceed all the oil that's in the Arctic.
I am not an expert on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I do not have an opinion on how much oil would actually be produced if ANWR is opened to development, and I do not know how much opening ANWR to development would harm the wildlife living there and the environment. But one thing seems clear—opening up the ANWR to oil production would not make a significant contribution to curtailing our growing dependence on oil imports. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently estimated that there are 2.4 billion barrels of "economically recoverable" oil under the ANWR tundra at an $18/bbl market price (1996 dollars) (Hayes 2000). If this amount of oil is produced over a 25-year period, additional oil production from ANWR would average 0.26 MBD. Even assuming twice as much economically recoverable oil as this USGS estimate (which would be consistent with a significantly higher world oil price), ANWR production would average only 0.53 MBD. Even with this optimistic level of production from ANWR, total domestic oil production in 2010 would still be less than in 1999 and oil imports would continue to rise during the next 20 years, based on other assumptions in the EIA Reference Case forecast.
We recommend increasing the current fuel economy standards by 60 percent to 44 mpg for cars and 33 mpg for light trucks by 2012, with further increases at the rate of 2.5 percent per year beyond this date. Car manufacturers will protest and say "it can't be done" or "it will cost a fortune," as they did when the original CAFE standards were debated. Policy makers in the Congress and Ford Administration enacted standards in 1975 in the face of industry opposition, and the car companies complied with these standards at reasonable cost (Greene 1999). The auto industry vigorously lobbied against tougher CAFE standards during the 1990s, and both the Administration and Congress succumbed to this pressure. Tougher standards are now long overdue and should be adopted before we face another oil price shock or crisis, considering "technological feasibility, economic practicability, and the need of the nation to conserve energy," as stated in the Energy Production and Conservation Act of 1975.
We estimate that the tougher fuel economy standards and complementary policies recommended above would reduce gasoline consumption by 1.5 MBD by 2010 and over 4.5 MBD by 2020. With this level of savings, oil import growth would be moderated during this decade and imports would then fall after 2010, based on other assumptions in the EIA Reference Case forecast. The potential oil savings far exceed the potential oil supply from opening the Arctic Refuge to exploration and development (see Figure 4). Tougher fuel economy standards and complementary policies could save consumers over $350 billion net (gasoline savings minus increased vehicle cost) through 2020 (Geller, Bernow, and Dougherty 1999). Tougher standards also would reduce emissions of hydrocarbons and other air pollutants. And new fuel economy standards would cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, thereby slowing global warming while saving consumers money.
TESTIMONY OF HOWARD GELLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
THE AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING OIL IMPORTS
April 12, 2000
http://www.aceee.org/tstimony/resource.htm
Over eight years later, and little done to really address the problem of inefficient cars. | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/25/2008 10:51:46 AM | With uninformed, ignorant bozos like Kevin McCullough pleading the case, ANWR will be safe from drilling for decades to come. Obviously he hasn't a clue about how petroleum was formed and how long it takes. We're burning up crude a lot faster than it takes for it to occur naturally; best estimate- we're burning oil 422 times faster than it was produced (hundreds of millions of years ago). Burn anything faster than it's produced and you eventually run out, something the "drill and burn" Bubbas don't seem to comprehend.
You couldn't have found a worse advocate or a worse argument for Arctic drilling. Where did you find this drivel?
Oh, and Nuke plants cost at least 15% more than coal plants to build and operate (many more multiple safety redundancies required than coal, and no, you don't want to compromise safety unless you want Chernobyl in your back yard- and it's going in your back yard, not mine). If the energy industry wanted them they would build them. They don't want them, yet. | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/25/2008 11:59:56 AM |
Have you or anybody else ever been to ANWAR and who really ever goes there.........I am damn tired of a congress who does not care about the monmey coming out of my pocket for the sake of a few eskimos or a few caribou.........there is plenty of oil to get we just need to get it............
This is, I guess, the attitude that is driving the push to drill in the Refuge, an attitude I am trying to understand.
If, as we have seen from numerous studies such as the Dept. of Energy study in the original post, and those referenced in Montreal Guy 's post, the oil that could be produced from the refuge would cause a negligible effect on gas prices and world oil supply, what could possibly be the justification to drill there, and not only risk devastating effects on one more of the planet's pristine environments, but at the same time wipe out an entire culture?
Just because we can?
Cool Dude, it's not just a "few eskimos" who live there and are dependent on its natural resources. There are about nine thousand Gwich'in people who currently make their home in the Arctic Refuge, on or near the migratory route of the Porcupine River Caribou Herd, and their entire lifestyle and religion are built around these caribou. The Gwich'in have made this area their home for some 20,000 years.
In answer to your question, I haven't been to the Arctic Refuge, but while my Gwich'in and Inupiat houseguests were here, I was fascinated and moved by their tales of their life and struggles to preserve their culture in the face of looming battle for their homeland by people sitting in far-away boardrooms trying to increase a bottom line. And they were genuinely puzzled about why so many Americans see them and their culture as dispensable and of no value . . . | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/25/2008 4:48:17 PM | Think about this for a moment.
Oil companies make profits through consumption, the more oil consumed - the better. If consumption drops, they stand to make a lot less as oil prices fall due to lessened demand.
Why do you think that you don't have the same energy efficient cars the rest of the world does, and why do you think things like the Carter Energy Plan (1977) were falling on deaf ears ?
The research from the Civil Society Institute, a not-for-profit think tank that focuses on energy and ecological issues, shows a growing “fuel-efficient car gap.”
CSI found that the number of vehicle models sold in the United States that achieve combined gas mileage of at least 40 miles per gallon actually has dropped from five in 2005 to just two in 2007 — the Honda Civic hybrid and the Toyota Prius hybrid.
Overseas, primarily in Europe, there are 113 vehicles for sale that get a combined 40 mpg, up from 86 in 2005. Combined gas mileage is the average of a vehicle’s city and highway mpg numbers.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that nearly two-thirds of the 113 highly fuel-efficient models that are unavailable to American consumers are either made by U.S.-based automobile manufacturers or by foreign manufacturers with substantial U.S. sales operations, such as Nissan and Toyota.
“These cars sold in Europe meet or exceed U.S. safety standards, so there is no reason why they shouldn’t be made available to U.S. consumers,” said CSI President Pam Solo.
“We have to face the unpleasant facts here: America is needlessly losing the race to develop the best fuel-efficient technology and then deliver it to the American consumer,” Solo said. “U.S. consumers say they are willing to buy these cars, so the big U.S. automakers are actually going backwards at a time when it’s possible to make cars that are more fuel efficient.”
A national poll conducted for CSI shows that millions of Americans would welcome the introduction of the fuel-efficient cars now being sold overseas. Nearly nine out of 10 respondents to the survey thought U.S. consumers should have access to these vehicles.
The poll also found that Americans want Congress to boost fuel efficiency standards. Four out of five respondents, including 86 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Republicans and independents, said that they would support “Congress taking the lead to achieve the highest possible fuel efficiency as quickly as possible” by raising the fuel-efficiency requirements for U.S. vehicles to achieve the goal of 40 mpg.
The research was released as the House Energy and Commerce Committee prepares for a hearing Wednesday to consider President Bush's proposal to adjust fuel efficiency standards.
Fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars have remained unchanged for two decades at 27.5 miles per gallon. The Bush administration recently revamped the rules for light trucks, creating a sliding mileage scale that is based on a vehicle’s size. Now Bush wants to assign a similar measure to passenger cars.
In general, cars are far more fuel-efficient in Europe, where gas is much more expensive. In Europe, cars on average get 40 mpg, compared with 20.4 mpg for U.S. cars.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344368/
So 66 % of those European cars are made by manufacturers with a US base, and the US market really wants high efficiency cars ?
European cars get double the average fuel mileage that American ones do ?
Anyone still think this is accidental ?
The problem isn't high fuel prices, it's horribly inefficient cars. | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/26/2008 3:06:24 AM | Does anyone think the Oil Companies are going to pump that oil right down here just to alleviate our high gas prices ?
No, they're going to sell it on the world open market for the highest price they can get.
Just because we let them drill in ANWR doesn't mean we get to be wasteful again. | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/26/2008 5:31:56 AM | Jesus did somebody just post an article that actually implied that oil was a renewable resource?
I weep for humanity that anybody takes this crap seriously. Oil formation takes freaking forever, and we extract huge amounts of oil every second from the ground. Where the hell does he think this oil is going to come from? How about he tests his little hypothesis and tries to drill in a well that was emptied out ten years ago, and see how much he pulls out. | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/26/2008 5:48:18 AM | Just look at the logic with increased efficiency for automobiles. Let's go overboard, and say American cars now had matched Europeans for efficiency, after thirty years of hard work at it - starting in 1978.
That $4.00 gas would be equal to $ 2.00 gas. Consumption would have dropped dramatically, in one of the nations that uses the most gas annually. That would have pretty much promised lower prices, as that occurred.
Now that 40 MPG is perhaps too high to realistically expect, but imagine even 30 MPG as a standard.
The idea that gas mileage hasn't changed in TWO DECADES , as a standard ? That just shows how sheltered Americans have really been. Drilling just gives the addict another fix, and allows him to continue his addiction a bit longer. | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/26/2008 6:11:08 AM | | I understand that the oil there is "heavy crude" and not the typilcal light sweet crude found in the lower 48.I also understand that our refineries aren't capable of refining heavy crude because of the high sulfur content in it.So even if ANWR were opened up, it wouldn't do us folks any good.The oil would exported to other countries (notably Japan )who have the refining capabilities to handle heavy crude.Replies welcomed.Thanks, James | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/26/2008 6:18:10 AM |
Now that 40 MPG is perhaps too high to realistically expect, but imagine even 30 MPG as a standard.
I won't accept that 40 mpg is too high to expect. It isn't that hard to achieve with higher drive ratios, more transmission gear ratios (6 and 7 speed transmissions), variable valve timing, "variable displacement," which should be standard on any V8 anyway, and a lot more small-displacement (under 1200cc) 4-cylinder turbo engines in lighter cars.
The idea that gas mileage hasn't changed in TWO DECADES , as a standard ? That just shows how sheltered Americans have really been. Drilling just gives the addict another fix, and allows him to continue his addiction a bit longer.
Thank Ronnie Reagan for that. He caved in to auto industry pressure to relax emissions and economy standards. Thank the car companies too, they saw that selling trucks and SUVs would be more profitable without those pesky standards.
But the biggest blame fits squarely on the American Consumer for "needing" snowmobiles, ATVs, boats and the SUVs to haul them.
Since I seem to have missed p1ssing off a few people, maybe I should suggest higher taxes on "recreational," off-road gasoline use; let's start with an extra $1/gallon... | |
|
| |
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/26/2008 3:58:16 PM | I think natives and natural habitats have been shit on since the White race entered Canada....why should greedy, grab-all-you-can oil corporations do any differently? They sure don't have David Suzuki working in their head offices.  | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/26/2008 3:59:02 PM | | I think natives and natural habitats have been shit on since the White race entered Canada....why should greedy, grab-all-you-can oil corporations do any differently? They sure don't have David Suzuki working in their head offices. | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/26/2008 3:59:19 PM | | I think natives and natural habitats have been shit on since the White race entered Canada....why should greedy, grab-all-you-can oil corporations do any differently? They sure don't have David Suzuki working in their head offices. | |
|
| Renewed call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Posted: 5/26/2008 3:59:25 PM |
Drill schmill.
I'm still trying to figure out who the gentleman wearing the red tie is.
Well, HI-Uncle, that comment is oh-so-enigmatic - to anyone but me . . . :smile:
Maybe we ought to take this over to the Tahitian Politics forum and talk about it there? | |
|
| |
|
|
Home
login 
