RE: "What private conversations have you had that verify an intent that they won't share with the public? Must be nice to just make stuff up to prove your points."
>>>> Make up my ass! Every time someone brings up the possibility of the trans-Canada pipeline (to the midwest) the administration acts like a dead cat has been dragged into the room and changes the subject. They have never once given a straight answer on the subject!
>>>> The Big Oil companies are also favoring a route to an Alaskan port (no surprise there, they can make more money selling in Japan).
>>>> This stuff is not exactly rocket science you know. The public record is there from the first Alaskan pipeline debate in the '70's... When Canada ALSO offered free right-of-way to build a pipeline to the American midwest. The Big Oil companies said "No, that would take a year longer to build" (a point disputed by the Canadians). "Let's build a pipeline to Valdez so we can get the oil to American markets earlier" they said. This, despite the fact of limited refinery capacity on the west coast for the Alaskan oil... and California's distance from the US midwestern markets that (since the 1970s, and according to Dick Cheney's energy plan of last year) are the only region of the US subject to price spikes because of oil shortages.
>>>> Once Big Oil got the crude to Valdez, and loaded upon tankers, they sold the bulk of it to Japanese refineries... where they got a few cents better price. This point is also not in dispute, as there was an extensive set of Congressional hearings during the Reagan administration where the whole scheme was laid out.
>>>> The Big Oil companies clearly lied to the public in the first great pipeline debate (no dispute) and I'm sure they are trying it again... not one doubt in a hundred.
>>>> I repeat: if the oil goes to the American midwest (where energy analysts say it is most needed) then I an FOR drilling ANWAR now.
>>>> If however, the plan is to take it to port and then export it, the proponents of drilling in the ANWAR can't claim that drilling is to "enhance American energy security".... Such a claim would be a bald-faced lie. The true reason is that they simply want to exploit American oil reserves in the wilderness area (owned by the American public!) to maximize their corporate profits.... A not unexpected rationale, and perfectly justified from a capitalist point-of-view, but it hardly meets the claim of "promoting energy security", which is a NATIONAL need, not a CORPORATE need.
>>>> If the oil isn't coming to America where it's needed... than screw 'em, we can drill some other time. American oil undrilled is American oil in the bank. It's not going away, it's not a wasting asset. We can always drill it when we need it. |
