Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank Pembleton who wrote (10941)	4/22/2002 2:31:30 AM
From: nspolar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

Frank, thanks. I just get irritated reading these ANWR articles, pro or con, that are full of inaccuracies. You might notice most are written by bozos sitting in NYC or WDC offices that know shit all about nothing that goes on here in AK. There has been one or two (I forget the exact number) wells drilled in ANWR. I believe BP and Chevron know the results. ANWR has just turned into a symbol of the fight, between left and right. The estimate by Will in my opinion at this point borders on ridiculous. What I stated about the oil fields moving west is true, and if you look at the topology in the area it makes good sense. Just offhand it also correlates with the results of the exploratory wells. I'm not sure of the licensing to the west, but as I recall if they go much further they will get into the Naval Petroleum reserve, which I suspect holds greater promise than ANWR. From my perspective what is more important than ANWR is a gas line, or perhaps a GTL facility. There is a real load of gas already discovered, there just isn't any way to get it south. How to finance it is the issue. I not sure I like to think about it being subsidized, but then on the other hand I don't think much of us spending all kinds of military coin protecting the mideast oil lanes either.