Quote:
Originally Posted by Americano
I think most issues with even a hint of controversy are going to be tabled until after the general election. Those politicians up for reelection/election are fully occupied with preening their appearances and formulating the lies/deceptions they'll run on.
If ANWR had the potential volume to affect supply/pricing it would be a hot political item. As it is, only oil companies and Alaskans stand to benefit from developing ANWR.
When thinking about what the Saud King said, no more new wells, leave some for our children, and the certainty of peak oil now or in the near future, that's not a bad thought.
|
I think you are probably right, that it wont get much place real quick this year unfortunately. As for the politicians up for re-election, 2 of 3 of our congressional delegation is up for re-election this year. Both are under heavy fire and are not only facing the toughest political opponents so far in thier careers, It is a real potential they could receive indictments.
As for it benefiting only Alaskans, that is bogus. There would be billions in royalties and taxes paid to the feds due to that. But also, it is more than just ANWR. The adjacent field outside of ANWR is called Point Thompson. It is going to be resold soon probably and coincide with an Alaska Natural Gasline"denali line" is what its being called. There is also 36TCF of natural gas there. Enough natural gas to heat the midwest for a generation apparently.
So the US can add more money to the treasuries of sketchy allies in the mid east. Or it can develop the energy infastructure that will make some difference at the same time as improving our domestic output and wealth. I wonder how many people who say no to ANWR also get thier panties in a wad over all that extra federal dollars that go to AK.