The oil companies are about to get what they have so artfully been working to gain all along – the right to drill just about anywhere they darn well please. The price of gas has driven the American public to squeal like stuck hogs. And the squeals are being heard in Washington, D.C. by a bunch of Congressional members who do not have the guts to stand up to their own constituencies let alone the giant, monopolistic oil companies.
And the oil companies will reap the benefits of their market manipulation by gaining access to lands that they really don’t need. The oil barons and their companies are out to prove a point and proving it is almost within their grasp. I imagine behind their corporate boardroom doors, they are grinning from ear to ear and snickering about how pain at the gas pump has turned into their fondest dream – access to ANWR and the coastal areas off our shores.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)
ANWR has become the battleground that will determine who controls the energy future of the United States. While many members of the public and of Congress are now asking themselves why not ANWR, I find myself asking just the opposite. WHY ANWR?
Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported the following:
The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.
The report also states:
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 opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.
Photo Credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
All this battle for something that will help very little in the big picture according to the government’s own Energy Information Administration.
Photo Credit: http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
What the public also isn’t told is that 95% of Alaska’s oil rich North Slope is already open to oil exploration or drilling. The refuge coastal plain is the only area along Alaska’s Arctic coast protected from oil drilling.
Because there has been little petroleum drilling or exploration in ANWR, there is little first-hand knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the region. The USGS oil resource estimates are based largely on the geologic conditions that exist in the neighboring State lands. Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR. Thus, the potential ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are uncertain.
Historically, oil has been afflicted with the control of monopolists, and today is no different. From the late nineteenth century days of John D. Rockefeller, and his Standard Oil monopoly, to the emergence of the “Seven Sisters” oligopoly, made up of Standard Oil, Shell, BP, Texaco, Mobil, Gulf and Socal, to the rise of OPEC representing the major producing countries, the “free market” price of oil has been a mirage.
So, why the desire to open up ANWR and drill? Simple. The oil companies are flexing their greedy muscles and see ANWR as the ultimate challenge. Despite regular energy crises over the decades, Americans have been unwilling to change habits. The oil companies are banking – literally – on the pattern remaining uninterrupted. After all, it is much easier to convince ourselves that all we have to do is drill for more oil and all our problems will be solved. And with the added assistance of two oil toadies – Bush and Cheney – in the White House, what could be easier?
Folks, they are called “oil” companies for a reason – they are not called alternative energy companies. So, as the battle rages over ANWR and coastal regions, Americans must truly decide whether to chart a new course based on serious conservation and use of alternative energy sources or whether to stay on the same slippery slope of oil consumption being pushed by the deceitful tactics of big oil.
BERRY STREET BEACON 
Great post, Charlotte!
Thanks, Robert. I got an email the other day that addressed how small the area was and why were environmentalists and others making such a fuss about it.
That got me to thinking that if the area is so insignificant, why is big oil so bent on getting to it?
The more I thought about and am still thinking about it, the madder I get.
I believe – and I am sure there are many out there who won’t agree – that the oil companies have made this their focal point to show that they can get whatever they want. The coastal areas are also important to them, but it really seems like ANWR is the end all and be all to the oil companies.
See you Saturday at the Peace Rally!
I enjoyed reading your post, but I fear that your view of the “Big Bad Oil Companies” is a bit jaded. America has an energy need and until it can be fulfilled totally by alternative energy sources, oil will still be needed. Oil campanies supply that need, along with employing millions of Americans. Some of them (Shell and Chevron most notably) are also leading the way on alternative energy sources, reorganizing themselves to be energy companies instead of oil companies. I don’t beleive the oil companies have it out for Americans; the fact they want to increase our domestic output, keeping jobs stateside, disproves this. Even John D Rockefeller always said that the reason he first created the Standard trust was to stop fluctuations in the lighting oil market of the late 1800’s so all Americans would be able to buy oil.
Ken: I see the massive advertizing being done by the oil companies is paying off.
What good old John D. Rockefeller didn’t say was he “wanted to stop fluctations in the lighting oil market so he could sell all Americans oil”!
The “Big Bad Oil Companies” are making so much money the CEOs of some of them can’t even tell Congress how much the make a year.
Trooper –
I’ll 2cnd your comment about the massive advertising blitz by the major oil companies currently bombarding the cable television channels.
If I see one more commercial brought to you by the “green friendly” Oil and Natural Gas Companies regarding how great their companies are and how they are working hard for you the consumer – I’m gonna hurl.
Trooper:
I feel that most Americans, such as yourself, are just looking for someone to blame. Yes, O&G companies are making record profits, but if you look at their profit margins in relation to investment, their earnings are around 7-8%, which is right around average for US industries. Profits can only tell you how big the industry is. The costs and profit involved in O&G is just at a different pricing level from other industries. The Pharmacuetical industry makes around 18% and the tobacco industry makes 21% profit margins. (Data from the US Census Bureau) Who is really ripping us off?
I didn’t get this info from the commercials, I’m just trying to be well informed and take a pragmatic approach to the issues at hand.
The issues are supply and demand. Demand can be handled by people changing their lifestyles to reduce their carbon footprint and seeking out alternative fuels. Supply can be solved by increased domestic drilling and production. This means ANWR, the Atlantic, North Sea, and the Florida coast.
Lets see, who makes more on a barrel of oil the Oil companies or the US government?
Who is the first lady speaker of the house to see oil prices at there highest levels ever.
What party promised, if given congress, it would bring down prices?
If I cant afford 5.00 gas, how can I afford this new clean energy car?
And Charlotte as we have spoken before–You are truely ignorant in your stating that Oil companies are minipulating oil prices. You even agreed that speculators were a huge part of it and said Bush had nothing to do with it. Now in your blog you though old Georgie under the bus.
Again, when dealing with commodities, speculators have a huge impact. Why does the price of corn go down when it only rains in Chicago. Because they are speculating that rain will follow elsewhere. No crop harvested, no rain in sight and the futures are going mad.
This is an itelleculy dishonest as it comes–
It is also nice that lay people on oil discovery and exploration know that this area is not worth it.
This topic is a little too real to have your liberal feelings get hurt over a few acres. Fords sales of the F150 is down nearly half compared to a year ago. A nice liberal like yourself says–great we are getting our point across on oil dependancy. The men who are laid off because of the lack of oil say my family is going hungry and I cant afford a freakin Electric car. Did you know Ford is laying off people. Did you know GM is also. Did you know Toyota was 21% down on sales? This affects everyone- not just the pickup and suv guys.
Did you know Ethenol is causing 8 dollar corn. Food will be too costly soon for the people the libs are supposed to protect. All for a false fuel.
In 1996 Clinton said no drilling, we would now be getting the oil from this.
So while people are losing jobs under the current situation, you libs go ahead and feel good about blaming the oil companies. But if I remember right your home is heated with natural gas and your car runs on 89 octane fuel. So quit quit protecting anwr and start protecting Americans who cant afford fuel (kind of hard situation for a lib).
And one more thing, Do big govt dems reap benefits of high gas prices. Remember tax and spend. Remember–make the American people dependent on big govt (Social Security, Govt schools, Welfare, Medicade. etc) All a part of the big plan for the San Franfreako lib in charge.
Ice-ironman:
I don’t know – who does make more on a barrel of oil? Can you give me the breakdown?
Speculators could be working for the oil companies, couldn’t they? How do we know that the oil companies haven’t employed speculators to do just what they are doing – driving up the price of oil, thus causing the public to cry out for more drilling in places such as ANWR and the coastal areas.
I think the ignorance in this is that there are people out there who think the oil companies have no impact by what they do. All markets are subject to manipulation – that is why we have anti-trust laws. Why can’t we find gas stations that vary in price more than a penny (if that) for a gallon of gasoline? They keep the prices the same all the time so there isn’t any real competition among the lot.
If you haven’t already, check out the following site. It is the government’s own website. I think you will be surprised at the information contained in it.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/
As far as lay people not knowing anything about ANWR and what is there – it is the experts at the EIA (above) who have said this, and they are not lay people.
The few acres that you refer to are insignificant in the scheme of things, so why not leave ANWR alone? It is simply a way for the oil companies to get their way. No one knows what is there, the EIA says even if there is oil, it won’t make much difference.
And as to people losing their jobs – yes that is a tragedy, but there are a number of factions responsible for the loss of jobs in the industry. The automobile industry CEOs and their management teams are responsible for part of it. We started having oil issues and crises 30 and 40 years ago, but the auto companies simply decided not to pay any attention. And, the American people also failed to take note. We kept demanding automobiles that were gas guzzlers, and the auto companies kept making them.
I remember the oil embargo of 1973 and 1974. This is the 35th anniversary of the embargo. See the following website:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/dr/96057.htm
Now it is time to pay the piper, and, unfortunately, it is the American worker who will pay for the automobile industry’s and the public’s refusal to change habits.
I know the impact the shift to ethanol production is having on corn. I did a post a while ago on that issue. As I said, not much of a choice – food or fuel.
I use 87 octane not 89, and my home is heated by natural gas. But I guess I don’t see the point of how I heat my home or what octane I use.
Again, your last comment as to Dems reaping the benefits of high gas prices – what benefits? It seems to me the oil companies have already acknowledged they are making the highest profits in their histories. Sounds to me like they are the ones reaping the benefits.
With BP, Exxon-Mobil, and Shell reporting record profits, the Tax Foundation reminds us in its latest Fiscal Fact that the biggest beneficiaries of gasoline sales are federal and state governments, not the oil industry:
High gas prices and strong oil company earnings have generated a rash of new tax proposals in recent months. Some lawmakers have called for new “windfall profits” taxes—similar to the one signed into federal law in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter—that would tax the profits of major oil companies at a rate of 50%. Meanwhile, many commentators have voiced support for the idea of increasing gas taxes to keep the price of gasoline at post-Katrina highs, thereby reducing gas consumption. However, often ignored in this debate is the fact that oil industry profits are highly cyclical, making them just as prone to “busts” as to “booms.” Additionally, tax collections on the production and import of gasoline by state and federal governments are already near historic highs. In fact, in recent decades governments have collected far more revenue from gasoline taxes than the largest U.S. oil companies have collectively earned in domestic profits….
[F]ederal and state taxes on gasoline production and imports have been climbing steadily since the late 1970s and now total roughly $58.4 billion. Due in part to substantial hikes in the federal gasoline excise tax in 1983, 1990, and 1993, annual tax revenues have continued to grow. Since 1977, governments collected more than $1.34 trillion, after adjusting for inflation, in gasoline tax revenues—more than twice the amount of domestic profits earned by major U.S. oil companies during the same period:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_government_really_make_more_in.html
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10/gas_taxes_excee.html
So there you have it, big gov taking more than big oil.
So do you think corn farmers are highering speculators to raise the price of corn? Lets say you own an airline. You need to controll your biggest variable cost=FUEL. So you look to speculators to give answers on what your future costs will be and control them (or hope to). That is all it is. There is no consperacy. It work on all commodities.
Your cost reduction of 50cents a barrel is bunk. As we agree, speculators “feel the market” and would shy away from buying 140 dollar oil with the onset of America taking charge of it own destiny. Line up Isreal against Iran tomorrow and speculators will jump at 140 dollar oil. Come to Hendrickson KY and pay 3.85 today, cross into Evansville IN and pay 4.00, They have a different supplier and the market works even though they are 2 miles apart.
As far as prices variying by only a penny, they often draw from the same depot, and have the same trucking costs. Why does Burger King and Macdonalds both have a double cheesburger for a buck? I guess that is big food screwing us. Or is it what the market will bare?
I disagree with the CEOs and Auto companies being responsible. The F150 is the most popular and has the highest profit margin for the company, and you would walk into the board room and tell them they are crazy for making it? I dont think so.
Time to pay the piper? BS, that is such a quitters way out. If we bring oil back to 2.50 a barrel through exploration, use nuclear power and other sources we can control our destiny and not have to act like a third world country. Your blame America first ideal is shameful. Did you know GM brough out an electric car- big time flop. Did you know the Geo Metro got well over 30 MPG for the past 10 plus years. Auto companies made vehicles from 10 MPG to 40 for the last two or three decades. The difference is, now Americans, because of leftist, eviromentalist, and democrats, cant afford what they want and must settle for a crappy little gas saver. These little gas savers remind me of the VW beetle or as Hitler put it “The Peoples Car”. Well, I wont settle for the Peoples car. I have a family of 7 (with dog) and cant jam them in a tin can.
My point on your fuel usage is that you live in too big of a house! You are wasting precious resources that could be diverted to third world poor countries you greedy American!
Happy Independance Day
Gosh I wish everyone only made 7-8% profit like the oil companies.
Why have the Democrats drug the major investment bankers before them and ask how much money they have in oil spec market? The thing is if the spec market falls your retirement savings are going to take one big hit.
While I am concerned about ANWR area but also believe the old tech used to build the present pipeline up there proves it is safe.
Tell me about the thousands of acres across parts of the US that birds of all types may be killed by windmill blades turning in the winds. Maybe those birds do not count!!!!
ANWR has shown it has a great area of oil under it. Until test wells are drilled it is unknown for a fact and just how much is there.
The problem by this continued stopping of oil drilling in areas that offer high volume of high quality oil only continues to support even HIGHER PRICES of oil. Even drilling in these areas will not reduce oil prices by a large amount but will stop the runaway increases we will see without them.
For the people who think solar and wind is the final answer are out of touch. They do offer a way of reducing some demand on oil but are not the final answer. The final answers are maybe 10-12 years away. Then there is a cross over period as people can afford to change over to the new power.
Everyone, this is not a video game or some movie on TV. It is real and it will take time to make the change. However, the rest of world will continue to suck up oil, even if we do not like it.
The US no longer wags the tail of oil. Once people in this country learn this then we may be able to move on. That will include more nuke power plants, more oil from our own country, devel. of a new type of fuel for cars, and generation of new solar cells.
J.Q.
I guess in order to address the issue of killing birds by them hitting windmills, we would require some type of analysis as to the odds of that happening.
But that misses the point of my post. Again, why ANWR? As I stated in my post, 95% of the coastline is open to leasing and drilling. Why are the oil companies focused on ANWR?
They know if they can get the American public to cave on ANWR and other coastal areas (Florida, California, etc.), that they can pretty much get their way on anything they want – now and forever in the future.
I always watch two agribusiness programs on Saturday morning – U.S. Farm Report and This Week in Agribusiness. Both programs are, I think, a must watch if you want to keep up on agriculture and how the decisions we are making are impacting our food supply and the markets.
On “This Week in Agribusiness”, one of the guests was from the Kelley School of Business. He said that Americans have to get used to a change in lifestyle. He said that we will not see gas prices go lower – at least to any great extent – and that the global market for energy will continue to put pressure on the overall way that we live, plan cities, and conduct our daily lives.
He made an interesting comment about adjusting the way we plan (if what has happened in Allen County can be called planning) our cities and the surrounding areas. He mentioned that it is going to be necessary to build more toward the core and stop the sprawling outward of cities.
His basic warning was that these issues are here to stay, and we must adjust.
What I find interesting is that we seem to be breaking into two factions in general. One faction believes that we can just do what we want and drill for more oil and that will pretty much solve the problem. That faction doesn’t want to change habits, and, I believe, they feel Americans simply are not subject to the same constraints that everyone else is. They believe that “we are Americans, and, by gosh, we can do what we want.”
The other faction believes we have to change the way we live. I belong to that group. I believe that the quest for oil now being driven by increasing industrialization of countries such as China and India is here to stay. That means to me that increasing drilling and hunting for more oil is only a short-term solution. I believe we need to refocus on how we use our current energy resources and rethink those sources we currently have put on the backburner.
We need to use alternative sources, we need to change dietary habits that focus on grain-fed animals (this has nothing to do with my vegetarianism) but rather with the crunch we are now in where corn and soybeans are being diverted for other uses thus driving up the price of meat, and we need to increase use of public transportation systems, etc.
I agree with most of what you say about changing how we do things, but I do not see drilling in ANWR as a solution. The government’s own agency, the EIA, has even said it won’t make much of a difference in prices at all.
This is why I believe the oil companies have made ANWR a “must sell” to the public. If they can accomplish this then they really are free to do what they want in the future. After all, if we cave on ANWR, where else is there that would be safe from drilling? Absolutely nowhere – and the oil companies know that.
There are two groups, the one that says right now oil is what our country thrives on and will continue to run on for decades into the future. This group also belives in alternative energy– nuclear and all the ones you wont allow. This group belives in a free market to bring about change. Not artificial high prices as a result of bad policy and goody too shoe liberals.
Adaption of new drilling policy will affect prices because of the speculators not because of supply. Maybe we should get rid of all the fancy blends you libs have requested.
Eighteen wheelers are not going to be powered by rainbows and sunshine for awhile. In the meantime you and your cohorts are costing American jobs. This is America and your mindset is that I must sacrifice and bring down my usage. My mindset says let others prosper and come up to my level, dont drag me down to thiers.
I checked into a vehicle (Hybrid SUV, Tahoe) I cant affortd the 60,000 price tag so I guess I will continue to suffer because of liberal policy.
John McCain may have been handed the best situation possible. Americans wont put up with high gas prices and Obama has no solution, Other than tax the oil companies? 4-5 Disicion on the Gun Rights, come on, Conservatives are sick right now but Independants will see through Obama.
As a famous and brilliant man once said, Liberals want everyone to to be equal. Even if that means equally miserable.
Ice-ironman:
I suspect we could go on arguing these issues until the cows come home. I won’t change your mind, and you won’t change mine.
A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. While that sounds great idealistically, there is no such thing as a free market, just as there is no free lunch. Right-wingers and conservatives love to throw the term around because it sounds so good and patriotic, and, of course, throw in the word socialism every now and then and you can keep the public shaking in their boots for quite some time.
A true free market would operate without controls, and that isn’t going to happen because companies and corporations can’t be trusted to be fair. What they can be trusted to do is take advantage of anything that benefits their bottom line which is profit, and if that means sticking it to the American people, then that is what they will do. As they become bigger and bigger, very little can control them other than the federal government.
And it isn’t just democrats who have backed the ethanol boom. Good old Mitchie boy jumped on the band wagon as fast as he could. Ya know – it made him look like he was doing something.
Of the 24 states either with ethanol plants already constructed or in the process, 8 in the Midwest have the most.
Based on your theory that democrats are responsible for the misguided foray into the production of ethanol would mean all 8 should have democrats as governors. But, it’s 4 and 4, and here they are:
South Dakota – Republican
Nebraska – Republican
Minnesota – Republican
Indiana – Republican
Kansas – Democrat
Iowa – Democrat
Wisconsin – Democrat
Illinois – Democrat
Governors tend to take the lead in establishing economic policies and preferences. The boom in ethanol has nothing to do with party affiliation – it has to do with taking advantage of new technology with the hope that with new technology comes more jobs. That simply isn’t a party line position followed by only one party. Why do you think Republican governors have jumped on the issue?
The loss of jobs falls on both parties’ shoulders. And a good share of it is called free trade agreements. You cannot escape from the fact that Republicans as well as Democrats have pushed these free trade bills that benefit corporations while sending American jobs overseas. You can try all you want to blame Democrats for the job losses, but it just isn’t true.
The best thing that can happen to these agreements is that they be reworked to put American workers in a better position. In fact, the best thing that could happen would be to stop the insanity of entering into them in the first place. But that means that someone would have to stand up to the lobbyists and the corporate powers that be. Neither party has the guts to do that.
It is absolutely inaccurate to label every policy that you disagree with as a “liberal” policy. The Republicans were in charge until a year and a half ago. It is wishful thinking to say that all our problems just – bam – hit since the January 2007 swearing in of the new officials. Up to that point Bush and his Bushies were in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. We have had almost 8 years of a president who can’t put a complete sentence together let alone manage to lead the free world.
His policies have made us weaker not stronger, and, in the process, he has managed to trash the Constitution, tick off most of our allies, make a disaster of the Middle East, and ignored the economy and the average working people here at home. It has now been over 5 years since he grandstanded on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared with a smirk on his face “mission accomplished.” And since his little PR stunt of mission accomplished, we have lost 4,070 military personnel with 30,182 wounded. Not to mention the thousands of Iraqis killed and wounded.
What a guy. And what will he do when he leaves office? He will walk away from a presidency that is in the worst mess in decades. I am sure he will have some cushy job handed to him – probably one where he doesn’t have to speak much.
January 20, 2009, can’t come soon enough for me.
Pingback: Where Would Jesus Drill? (Not in ANWR)
Pingback: Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut.
The root of high gas prices are 1. NO DRILLING 2. NO REFINING 3. ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION 4. All of these leave speculators nervous. We need not talk about NAFTA, trade, Ethanol, or anything else until we fix the gas/energy price increases. You are speaking on losing jobs caused by a definate reason ie “my job was shipped overseas”. Wait until all automakers, airlines, and other related businesses close up shop. It wont be a slow bleed like nafta, It will be a crushing blow. DHL in Wilmington Ohio=5000 jobs, Northern KY airport just anounced 500 loss today. Ford in Cincinnati more lost. The problem with these job losses is that they are a DIRECT result of high fuel costs. WE CAN SOLVE THIS! But too many libs in the way. Oh well, by the time Obama gets into the Whitehouse he will be conservitive the way he keeps shifting positions.
Ice-ironman,
You never answered her question. Why ANWR? Why not other areas where oil is known to be in abundance?
Why ANWR? Why ANWR?
You sound like one of those fake-smile pundit BS’ers on TV who talk around the question and give a slithering slimey long-winded meaningless answer to some other issue.
Why ANWR?
And why does someone need to be liberal to be against ANWR drilling? You assume liberals are the only ones against.
You say this because our slimey president and vice-president are Republican and they have their faces firmly embedded into the oil companies rears upto their ears. And the Republican Senate so predictably defends the president’s gates instead of having a mind of their own and voting responsibly.
So you assume based on who is taking what side in our government represents the truth. The one and only truth about what is right and what is wrong with ANWR.
You want to drill? Drill where you have a license to drill already.
Why ANWR?
Answer the damn question.
Mark,
Here is one answer.
ANWR offers some of the finest available oil. It means it will “crack” and produce the biggest dollar income for invested dollar of obtaining it. Coupled with the fact that there is enough there to warrent the invested cost of pumping it and shipping it.
If you are worried about 1 percent of the ANWR area being explored then I hate to tell you about what other countries are preparing to do just north of Alaska border. Several countries are making claims to the area under the ocean up there to drill for oil. Plus they give very little care about the wildlife.
J.Q.
I still find it hard to believe that there isn’t anywhere else the oil companies could drill that would yield oil sources. Why is it that the Republicans blocked legislation that would require the oil companies be more diligent in their drilling and use practices? The oil companies have access to over 40,000,000 acres. How is it they can’t seem to find oil on any of those 40,000,000 acres?
Can you provide a source or sources to back up your statements that ANWR has “some of the finest oil available”, “it will produce the biggest dollar income for invested dollar”, etc.?
J.Q.
Oops, forgot to comment on the race for oil in the Arctic. Yes, I know Russia is alleging an underwater ridge is part of Russia’s continental shelf. I don’t believe any of the other nations that ring the Arctic have made such moves yet.
Putin’s grab for the Arctic is seen as a way to gain Western dependence on Russia to some degree for oil and natural gas supplies.
I really enjoyed reading your wisdom, obviously you know what are you talking about! Your site is so easy to navigate too, Ive bookmarked it in my favourites 😀
Pingback: Why ANWR? « Foundersten