There is enough oil in ANWR to supply the U.S.


If you have not seen the following (see link) maps and photographs before, it will be a revelation. We can be energy independent -- the screeching green extremists just don't want us to be. They apparently like endless middle east wars.

Two notes -

1) You have to cursor down to below the top black section to start reading the article.

2) No, I don't believe in UFO's. How I came to that website is that someone (in another state) on my e-mail "list" sent this to me some time ago. He sent the entire article to his list. Since I wanted to post a link only, I went to google and typed in the first sentence of the article, so as to find a link that I could post here.

No votes yet

Fascists, said with great precision that the oil there would last three years.
Fast forward 38 years and they're still pumping out Alaskan oil , at 300% the original estimate.
To believe a liberal about anything, is to put reality into abeyance .

Where is ANWR at , on the east side?

Oh, please stop with this "cornucopia" nonsense. The United States consumes about 19% of the world's oil production (yet we only have 4% of the world's population). There's only so much oil that can be extracted from all possible deposits at anything like our level of economic affordability. Whatever the ANWR produces will enter the world oil market, period, hence the idea that it will be reserved for domestic use and pricing is totally false.

I'm not saying not to drill. What oil companies do with their oil wells is none of my business and I'm certainly not going to stand in the way. But the idea of being "energy independent" is total nonsense. We consume too much oil and we show little inclination to become necessarily more efficient. People are clearly continuing taking long commutes in big vehicles. People are clearly consuming too many energy-intensive products and services. Pumping more oil out of the ANWR will only deplete our domestic reserves all the faster. As usual and very much like our government and personal finance trend, the problem is spending, not income. We spend too much, we use too much, and it's going to create domestic socio-economic catastrophes... not that our current Second Great Depression isn't one of those already.

It's being wall-papered over for now, but a day of reckoning is coming, yes.

But the blame-America-first line just doesn't hold water. It's a media cliche, which a thinking person should be able to see through at first glance.

The United States of America is called upon to finance, bail out, financially support... you name it... just about every nation on earth, with the possible exception of China. We send BILLIONS to the International Monetary Fund - a back door way created by globalists to send American taxpayer dollars to dictators and morons around the world. Free money to people around the globe - while we here in this country who EARN that money, are constantly told that our own tax dollars can't be spent on us. OUR MONEY CAN'T BE SPENT ON US - BECAUSE WE ARE BROKE - BECAUSE, BY THE WAY, WE ARE GIVING IT AWAY FREE TO NATIONS AROUND THE GLOBE.

Spend too much? Well, ok, yeah, we spend too much on ungrateful, lazy, welfare-sated other countries like Greece.. And most Americans are not even aware of how much of our tax money is right now going to Greece (through the IMF) - teeny tiny little Greece, for crying out loud. How much of the world's population does this crybaby country hold? And when has Greece helped another country financially? I mean, let's get real here. We bail out the ruble, the peso... yeah, we definitely SPENT TOO MUCH in those two cases.

America is going broke (well already is, in reality) because this unrealistic idea has taken root - especially since WWII, that we, the U.S. have the responsibility to fix every global problem every minute of every day, forever. And this country WILL collapse economically eventually, if we don't start taking care of the business of our own nation, with our own resources.

That is why "we use 20% of the worlds oil". IT TAKES OIL TO FEED THE WORLD
High oil prices will cause parts of the world to starve, if they aren't already.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

China is industrializing so fast that it now has the world's second largest economy. Currently, there is concern because China is slowing down so much that it's economy may have a growth rate of less than 8%! What would we give right now, if America's economy were growing at 7%?

I didn't vote for a Socialist either. I voted for Obama. China is the most socialist nation in the world. Are the two of us missing something here?

Every conveyance which uses the internal combustion engine can use an engine that runs on natural gas, a commodity that America has in abundance, and that is at historically low prices! Why are we not listening to a successful, free market entrepreneur who knows more about energy than almost anyone in America T. Boone Pickens? Why are we not converting to natural gas? And quickly!

LOL! Did you read the entire thing? The counter point of the article at the bottom total destroys the author. We don't need more oil, the US is producing so much gas and diesel we're exporting for the first time in decades, more oil won't solve anything.

I deliberately used a link that argues both sides. But primarily wanted to post the pictures, because there is more lying going on about oil, than just about anything else right now.

Go go google and type in just "oil is not a"... pause there and see what the first auto choice is. It's "oil is not a fossil fuel". There is a HUGE argument about this going on in the scientific community. Do you ever hear that from the mainstream media? Of course not. We hear "fossil fuel" so often, that the lie is simply accepted.

I've already posted the completely factual article [by Taibbi] explaining how Wall Street was successful in having a good depression-era regulation repealed, in order to legalize the oil futures gambling that is going on right now. I figured, even if some read that article, it wouldn't be understood by many. It involves economic matters, and out-and-out skulduggery... people don't like to think about things like that.

The president and congress most certainly CAN do something about oil prices. For starters, they can restore that old regulation. They act, instead, like we all just fell off the turnip truck, and our assignment is to go "Oh... OK... GOLLEE... if you say so.

The absolutely STUPIDEST argument about oil in this country is that we might as well not drill here or there or anywhere, because it won't do any good, it won't be enough. So we keep bowing before mideast camel jockeys, pleading with them not to hurt us? Yeah, that's been working real well.

Here is the dumbest quote from the "counterpoint":

“Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States,” the report states.

So some dufe writes a report with off-the-wall statements that he can't prove. In addition to which, the statement... "would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States".... THAT nutty statement could be made about ANY increase in domestic oil production anywhere in the country, and has no basis in fact in the first place. Because the screeching green extremists can't have it both ways. They can't say we are running out of oil around the globe (because it's made of "fossils"), and then say that China is consuming so much that production may not be able to keep up, AND THEN SAY that any new drilling and production in the U.S. will be offset automatically by lower production elsewhere. If the Chinese are buying all the oil they can get, why would there be "lower production".

The "greens" are freaking nuts. And anybody looking at the photos in the link provided can easily see how we have been lied to for years about ANWR.

You're insane, crazy, playing with half a deck...

You're really quoting from a web site that you have to scroll post the UFO stuff to make your point? Oil is a "fossil fuel"... and the science is pretty clear, what you are talking about is this -

Oil wells run dry all the time, Yemen is nearly out; Dubai is looking at only 20 more years at best. Oil isn’t “seeping” up from the mantle to refill their fields.

Oil production in the US doesn't really matter however. Even if you tap the United States’ three largest oil deposits: ANWR, Utica Shale, and the Bakken formation and you're looking at 10-20 billion barrels of oil. We use around 20 million barrels of oil per day so even if we tap out all the oil; we only have a 1000 day supply.

Currently the US is producing more oil than it has in a decade and our reliance on foreign oil is down. We’re using less gasoline as well and we’re become a major exporter of gasoline and diesel. So domestic production us, domestic consumption is down and prices keep going up, it must be the UFO doing it.

I already said that I chose that link because it showed arguments on both sides. You've seen my disclaimer regarding link choice. The truth about ANWR is right there in the pictures for anyone interested to see. And liberals JUST.CANT.STAND.IT! You haven't refuted anything factually - only repeated the "any increased production won't be enough" argument. Which is just plain silly.

Use that liberal argument in any other area of your life. Like this: Don't do anything to improve your situation in life, because it won't be "enough" to improve your situation "ENOUGH". Circular, goofball thinking.


Facts? I use real numbers; you link to a conspiracy site.

Why is "any increased production won't be enough" silly? Is the US producing more oil now than any time in the last decade? Was isn’t enough to affect the price of gasoline? You think the US pumping even more oil will lower gas. How? My point is based in reality not in ideology. If you note, I didn’t do don’t drill, I’m making the point, it won’t affect a thing.

It shouldn't surprise you she's quoted other conspiracy theories on here. Notably:

1) Obama wasn't born in the US
2) JFK Jr was assassinated


FarmerGal, you're ignoring one or two important points.

From GuestZero: Whatever the ANWR produces will enter the world oil market

Because the U.S. enjoys capitalism and free trade, all the oil that is recovered from any oil field is going to be sold on the open market. Because oil is a commodity (like gold, pork bellies or frozen concentrated orange juice) the price of oil will rise with demand, no matter how that demand is produced. Demand increases because people want to buy oil - they don't intend to make anything but money with it. They'll sell the oil when the price is high enough.

From SensorG: You think the US pumping even more oil will lower gas. How? My point is based in reality not in ideology. If you note, I didn’t do don’t drill, I’m making the point, it won’t affect a thing.

Exactly. I hear this argument so often I've learned to ignore it. People just don't get it.

Look FarmerGal, suppose GZ, SG and I have a company that manufacturers gas, diesel and oil. The price of gasoline is $3.79 per gallon at all other gas stations. How much will we sell our fuel for? $3.78; maybe $3.75 if we're feeling generous. How much does it cost us to manufacture? Two cents a gallon. So we make... I don't know, but we each have a mega-yacht, a private island and our own army. Once we drive our competitors out of business we'll increase our price to $15.89 per gallon - because we can, and because people will pay it.

And that's how the oil companies work, and that's why we all pay the price of a gallon of gas.

Now me, I don't want to see drilling in Alaska or anywhere else. I like wilderness and I hate oil drilling, but I'm mostly against this because I know that it won't help. Gas prices will not fall because of new oil wells or pipelines or anything. Gas prices will fall when two things happen:

1 - the price of crude oil drops to 1950s levels
2 - the government dictates price to the oil companies

You don't have to take my word for it; go look it up for yourself. Or you can ask SensorG or GZ. Ask McCaskey.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

OK...I'm a hypocrite. In April of 2001, I purchased stock in Exxon/Mobil. Guess why? I'm not an idiot. W became our selected (by the U.S. Supreme Court) president along with a majority of Republicans elected to Congress. I brilliantly surmised (I know this was a stretch at the time) that oil companies would do very well, and the largest of those companies is...? Since I purchased it, Exxon/Mobil has gone up 319.95% as of today. That pays for a LOT of gasoline! And Exxon/Mobil pays a decent dividend, (by current standards), too. Too bad I'm not a scion of an affluent family like the Bush family. (Do you think that just maybe a significant amount of W's "blind trust" while he was President was invested in oil companies?) I would have made millions, if I had millions to invest like W! I wonder how much Mitt and Newt (oops! Newt's third and current wife) made on oil company investments?

The giant oil companies and speculators drive up prices. I'm not against companies big, small, and in between, making profits. Our free market system makes it easier for me to make good investments. But when common folks are struggling, and so many are sinking, the enormous profits in the oil business are injurious to the overall economy. Would greater regulation cost me some money? Perhaps. But there are always other investments! And I believe in a "we" society. not a "me" society.

The oil companies are not the speculators. They are different.

The profit margin for the oil companies is 10%. That means to reap a profit of 6 mil a company must invest 60 mil.

Now the telecomm industry operates on a mean profit margin of 59% with the top line being 119% profit.

I'm all about taking action on oil speculation, they actually have a waiver from current commodity regulations that was granted in 1990. But the demonization of the oil companies is just too worn out at this point. Their profits are well earned and deserved for what they invest.


Perhaps the oil companies show a net profit of 10% AFTER they dole out tens or hundreds of millions in bonuses. Most corporate executives in the United States make enormous amounts of money compared to similar executives in Japan. Few, if any, CEOs in Japan make over $1 million per year. Junior executives at Exxon/Mobil make that much! And, even accounting for those enormous salaries and bonuses, I believe the oil companies' financial statements about as much as I believe Goldman-Sachs! As much as Exxon/Mobil and other giant oil firms make in profits, I know they're hiding other funds. I've been in business and I've been a treasurer. I know how some organizations can hide funds. My mother taught me better than to do such dastardly things, but I know how easy it is to do!

I don't disagree with you dale on the disparity between CEO's pay. I don't know about hiding funds, because I trust the SEC is doing it's job. But I believe we unfairly put this metric on certain industries while ignoring each other.

I use the Telcom industry because groups like Comcast Cable and AT&T routinely break their contracts with the American people while providing substandard service AND some have monopolies in several areas and yet we overlook them.

Lowering upper management pay will require massive changes. I am not against these if the changes are cultural, it's when the heavy hand of the government comes in to do it that we get unintended consequences and good ideas go very bad very quickly.


The problem is that the culture of over-compensation among private sector executives is so ingrained in America, that these giant companies can do anything they want with their enormous revenues. The American public blindly accepts the idea of $30, $100, $200 million or more per year CEOs. One of the financial companies that was bailed out in 2008 gave bonuses after the bailout of over $2 billion among over 1000 executives in their company! It was more than $1 million each. For what? For lying about their balance sheets? For going bankrupt? For obtaining our tax dollars? The idea that the private sector always gets it right and that government always gets it wrong is wrong-headed!

Both private businesses and government are made up of human beings. No magic happens which makes human beings act substantially differently when they work for goverment than when they work for a private company. Bureaucrats are bureaucrats! When a business gets too big, it often acts just like the federal government and functions just as ineffectively.

We no longer have to go back 70 or 80 years in time to see financial collapse brought about by business incompetence, greed, and outright fraud. If the federal government can't be used as a tool to balance the power of these businesses that are "too big to fail", then whatever can be done? Because the bottom line on this is that common folks suffer whenever America's "captains of industry" drop the ball!

I totally agree. This is an area where both the Tea Party and Occupy movements have common ground, if the two groups united to reevaluate the regulations and culturally push the country away from the current model.

It's not unlikely it has happened before. The Teddy Roosevelt Progressive party (later referred to as Rockefeller Republicans) was far different than the Woodrow Wilson progressives, but they both came to agree that there needed to be what TR called the Square Deal. Not anti-business platform but a reform plan that held businesses to a square deal with the public.


Whatever happened to those who wanted business to thrive without crushing the middle class? Too often the elected Republicans are too friendly to business interests and the elected Democrats are too tied to anti-business rhetoric. It's hard for moderates in either party to get into elected office.

And I'm very familiar with the "it's a commodity" argument. I have yet to see any comment or article by a "green" that doesn't frame the argument with that assertion, as if that is the end of the discussion. Taibbi's article explains that a push by Goldman Sachs for pension funds and other large investors to invest in oil futures.... "transformed oil FROM A PHYSICAL COMMODITY , rigidly subject to supply and demand INTO SOMETHING TO BET ON, like a stock."

You really are locked into an ideology yourself. I posted the Taibbi article earlier, and went back just now, and looked to see if you had commented on anything regarding that article. You did not. Dale Pertchek did, which I found interesting, but you had no comments. Here's the article, once again. It's well researched and easily refutes a good deal of your perspective [other than on drilling, which has strong vocal and scientific opinions on both sides, something you simply don't acknowledge, so can't help you there].

The article describes, among other things, how

"Oil futures in particular skyrocketed, as the price of a single barrel went from AROUND $60 IN THE MIDDLE OF 2007 TO A HIGH OF $147 IN THE SUMMER OF 2008. ,,,,,
In the six months before prices spiked, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the world oil supply ROSE FROM 85.24 MILLION BARRELS A DAY TO 85.72 MILLION. Over the same period, world oil DEMAND DROPPED FROM 86.82 million barrels a day to 86.07 million. Not only was the short-term supply of oil RISING, the DEMAND FOR IT WAS FALLING - which in classic economic terms, should have brought prices at the pump down."

At the end of Taibbi's 2010 article, he quotes Bart Stupak, who was still in congress then. Stupak opined that many in congress simply don't understand the problem. Just, in my opinion, as many regular citizens do not.

The President and/dor congress could re-instate the Depression-era law that would stop this speculative oil market gambling. So besides the drilling debate - which Taibbi calls "fierce exchanges of moronic irrelevancies" --


I don't entirely agree with Stupak on what congress does or doesn't understand, because this is currently being discussed (with no action of course) in the Senate, and I have heard Sherrod Brown make reference to it months ago (that futures gambling is hiking prices). They KNOW what the main problems are - but don't do anything. I am old enough to recall Jack Kennedy making the steel industry back down on ruinous price increases in the early 1960's. One of many reasons and facts that tell me something CAN be done. They JUST DON'T WANNA.

We are being lied to about oil, it's that simple.

But we can't negate the huge salaries and bonuses that literally thousands of executives at all levels receive regardless of their showing positive results from their work. I agree that by simple laws of supply and demand, oil prices should be much lower than they are. It's a matter of how much government regulation do we want and need.

liberals here like you have produces nothing worthy at all.
Especially, from them .

They cannot answer the simplest questions regarding economics, finances, capital formation, or anything that makes the World turn. Without stealing something another economic dunce / socialist has already said.

All they have is repetitious lies so often repeated, that in their strange World, it becomes true.
Added to that base empirical nothingness, comes the name calling and questioning your rationale ,intellect, and sanity. All losing replies in real debates !

They have only Toledo, as an example of great governance by the D's.They have to rely on it because Toledo, is what they all have voted for .
Any objective view of Toledo's one party rule, wouldn't, doesn't, and never could verify a thing they say !
All it does it to show that they are blind to reality and quite frankly, don't care at all about how lousy THEY have made things here !

When Goldman Sachs got this free pass called the "Bona Fide Hedging" exemption, that is one of the main reasons they are getting these "huge salaries and bonuses". I have had to re-read Taibbi's article 7 or 8 times, just in order to absorb this amazing - heretolfore pretty much secret from the public- information. I recommend the same to anyone wanting to know the exact truth about oil and oil futures gambling.

I'm not sure how to respond to a Dem and/or liberal who is making the 'too-much-regulation-is-bad' argument, which is generally a conservative argument, As the articles says, prior to these exemptions for (in my opinion) close to criminal organizations like Goldman Sachs: "As a result of CFTC's oversight, peace and harmony reigned in the commodities market for more than 50 years." (meaning from the Roosevelt administration to 1991, when GS snuck in and screwed things up). Like Taibbi writes, GS argued that Wall Street dealers who made big bets on oil prices also needed to hedge their risk, because, well, they stood to lose a lot too. Taibbi: "This was COMPLETE AND UTTER CRAP." He then explains WHY it was complete & utter crap.

I understand that if this gambling exemption is rescinded, your returns on your oil investments will not be as good. But consider this from the end of the article, regarding the pain this has inflicted on ordinary citizens:

"In what was by now a painfully familiar pattern, the oil-commodities melon hit the pavement hard in the summer of 2008, causing a massive loss of wealth; crude prices plunged from $147 to $33. Once again the big losers were ordinary people. The pensioners whose funds invested in this crap got massacred: CalPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, had $1.1 billion in commodities when the crash came. And the damage didn’t just come from oil. Soaring food prices driven by the commodities bubble led to catastrophes across the planet, forcing an estimated 100 million people into hunger and sparking food riots throughout the Third World."

I did NOT argue for less regulation. I merely pointed out that regulation must be done prudently, "It's a matter of how much government regulation do we want and need." Take care not to do too much interpretation from the actual words that are written by anyone.

I also stated in a separate comment above, "Would greater regulation cost me some money? Perhaps. But there are always other investments. And I believe in a we society not a me society." That last statement is one most Democrats believe, unlike most Republicans who believe the opposite.

Generally, Democrats are more willing to share in the suffering. Republicans take a "I've got mine; you get yours", attitude; that is, of course until they need help! When the giant financial firms went broke, the billionaire Republicans were lined up at the government trough! And who is getting most of their campaign contributions? Obama or Mitt? Hmmm...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.