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.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (15674)	11/12/2005 12:09:35 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

ANWR Is A Firing Offense -- Lorie Byrd PoliPundit.com I agree with Hugh Hewitt that if ANWR does not pass, those Republicans that didn’t support it deserve to lose their seats. <<< With the budget deficit at 2.4% of GDP, getting a budget vote wrong is not the occasion for denunciation. But getting ANWR wrong is. ANWR is a national security issue. In a time of war, the actual production from ANWR is not as improtant as taking the steps necessary to get the oil to a position where it would be available to us if we were to need it because of supply disruption or, worse, a catastrophic attack on our facilities for importing oil. Stand-by production potential is as necessary to the economic health and defense capability of the United States at least as important to the national security as any other element in aour national defense. It is just not obviously so. Congressmen are supposed to have the intellect to get beyond the obvious. If the effort to open ANWR fails, the Republican Congressmen who deserted the GOP on this issue don’t deserve a return ticket back to the Congress. Freshman Rep. David Reichert appears to be the most vulnerable of those who are on record as opposing ANWR exploration. Who’s his Democratic opponent? >>> Update: Hot comments tonight. So far I have been called a cultist and stupid for agreeing with Hugh Hewitt on ANWR. Where Hugh goes farther than I do is that he says that it might even be okay for Republicans voting against ANWR to lose their seats to Democrats. I prefer the primary route. I don’t want to see any Republicans replaced with pro-choice, anti-war Democrats. It would not bother me in the least, however, for some those voting against ANWR to lose their seats to conservative Republican primary opponents. polipundit.com hughhewitt.com

To: Sully- who wrote (15674)	11/12/2005 12:30:34 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Envirophobia via Cox & Forkum coxandforkum.com

To: Sully- who wrote (15674)	12/21/2005 12:03:28 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

DRILLING & DEFENSE By TED STEVENS NEW YORK Post Opinion December 20, 2005 The U.S. Senate has a unique op portunity to support our troops, increase our energy in dependence, plan for the potential of a global pandemic and arm our first responders to protect our citizens in the event of another terrorist attack. All of these things can be accomplished by casting a vote in favor of the annual Defense spending bill this week, but some senators — under pressure from single-issue extreme environmentalists — are hesitating. The Defense bill has billions of dollars for such essential items as body armor for our troops and their vehicles and technology to remotely detonate improvised explosive devices. It also sets aside funds for Katrina victims, and to purchase vaccines to guard against the specter of a bird flu epidemic Some of its provisions are of particular interest to New Yorkers. Many will recall the tragic failure of communications between the NYPD and FDNY on 9/11. This bill establishes a new grant program dedicated solely to providing state and local governments with interoperable communications equipment so that our police and fire-fighters can communicate during a terrorist attack or natural disaster. The 9/11 Commission specifically called for such efforts and has been critical of Congress for not moving quicker on this issue. The bill also allocates $2 billion to help our poorest citizens meet their home energy costs, which are skyrocketing this winter. Each year, residents of the Northeast rely on this program, known as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, as a vital lifeline to keep the pilot light on. But here's what the extreme environmentalists object to: The bill authorizes responsible development of the Arctic coastal plain, which will provide up to 14 billion barrels of oil to help mitigate our dependence on foreign oil. This is an important step toward the United States increasing production of its own energy supplies — rather than relying on unstable regions of the world, such as the Middle East and Venezuela. Some 60 percent of our oil now comes from overseas. Contrary to hysterical propaganda, any development will be small and will strictly adhere to all environmental laws. After all, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the size of South Carolina, while the area slated for development is no bigger than Dulles Airport outside Washington, D.C. Both the House and the Senate have given thumbs up to this common sense effort, as recently as last month, to limit our dependence on foreign, potentially unstable governments. But the extreme environmentalists apparently aren't concerned if they derail this important legislation. Their focus is to have members of Congress support their narrow agenda, regardless of the repercussions. They have called upon senators to defeat this bill. It is my hope that all Americans will reject this extreme agenda. Let's support our troops, plan for the future and help those in need. Ted Stevens, the senior senator from Alaska, chairs the Senate Commerce Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. nypost.com

To: Sully- who wrote (15674)	12/21/2005 12:25:14 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

LET 'EM DRILL, ALREADY NEW YORK POST Editorial December 20, 2005 The U.S. Senate could vote as early as today to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — a.k.a. ANWR — to oil exploration. It's about time. That is, it's time for an ANWR policy that emphasizes enhanced energy supply, as well as energy conservation. As well as a policy that balances concern for the environment with concern for national security. After all, opening up ANWR is inherently a question of national security. The nation's dependence on foreign oil has long tied policymakers' hands in many ways. If the War on Terror is to be taken seriously over the long term — as the Bush administration seems to be doing — America can no longer refuse to explore for oil on its own shores. Otherwise it will remain forever in thrall to the very Mideast dictatorships that now foment anti-American hatred — and fund and protect those who commit acts of terror against American citizens. Thus it is all the more appropriate that the Senate's GOP leadership has attached the legislative provision that would open up ANWR to the budget bill that funds the Defense Department. Since the House has already approved the ANWR measure, it is now up to Senate Democrats (and squishy Republicans like Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine). They must decide whether they will pass the measure — whatever their reservations — or whether they will deny American service personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan such essentials as body armor, armored vehicles and roadside-bomb-jamming devices in order to appease the radical environmentalists. Actually, the objections to ANWR drilling have always been ludicrous. Caribou, it is said, would be the big losers if ANWR is opened up. Ah, if only the moral calculus in all public-policy making involved assessing the interests of caribou versus those of people. But, alas, the caribou will do just fine. The same alarmist nonsense about "devastating" caribou populations was trotted out in the fight to build the Alaska pipeline. Yet since that oil started flowing, the caribou population has grown six-fold. Also laughable is the argument that there's not enough ANWR oil to bother with. Eventually, experts predict, the range could produce 1 million barrels of crude oil a day — close to what we now import from Saudi Arabia. Even if drilling started in ANWR today, it could take 10 years for the oil to start flowing. Bottom line? As American soldiers fight terrorism overseas, it's well past time American civilians began fighting terrorism at home. Opening ANWR will help. nypost.com

To: Sully- who wrote (15674)	12/21/2005 3:51:26 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Alaska oil drilling myths By Ben Lieberman The Washington Times Commentary December 20, 2005 Drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) makes so much sense, it's no wonder opponents must twist the facts to make it controversial. Yesterday, at last, common sense prevailed when the House passed by 308-106 a bill to authorize development of ANWR. We're talking about 10 billion barrels of domestic oil in an area where there has been a proven track record for environmentally responsible drilling. Yet a host of tall tales from environmental activists and like-minded journalists has made it a tough fight in Washington. The current action in Congress involves adding ANWR drilling to the defense appropriations bill. Given continued high oil prices and political turmoil in many oil-producing nations, now seems to offer a good chance to get ANWR done. But this will finally occur only if the ANWR myths are exposed. Here are several: • ANWR drilling would harm the environment. Some perspective is helpful to understand the ecological insignificance of ANWR drilling. ANWR comprises 19 million acres in Northeast Alaska, 17.5 million of which are totally off-limits to drilling or any other kind of economic activity. This is why the news footage showing beautiful snowcapped mountains is misleading, because the drilling would not be allowed anywhere near those areas. Only the flat and featureless coastal plain would be affected, and even there only a small portion of its 1.5 million acres. The current version of the bill limits the surface disturbance to 2,000 acres, a small piece of a big coastal plain in a very big wildlife refuge in the biggest state in the Union. • Oil wells would despoil one of the few remaining pristine places. Again, the vast majority of ANWR will be completely unaffected by drilling. It would occur only on a small part of the coastal plain where there already is some human habitation. There are plenty of truly pristine places in Alaska worth preserving, but ANWR's coastal plain isn't one of them. As it is, Alaska has 141 million acres of protected lands, an area equal to the size of California and New York combined. • Drilling is incompatible with National Wildlife Refuges. Drilling critics have tried to confuse wildlife refuges with national parks, wilderness areas and other more highly protected categories of federal lands. But national wildlife refuges typically allow limited mining, logging, drilling, ranching or other activities. Indeed, the statute creating ANWR contemplated future oil production on the coastal plain, subject to congressional approval. It is worth noting that another wildlife refuge in Alaska, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, has had drilling onsite for decades. The oil production there rarely makes the news because it has not caused any problems, even though Kenai has far more wildlife than ANWR. • Oil development harms local wildlife. An extensive track record proves otherwise. In addition to Kenai, Alaska has oil drilling in the Prudhoe Bay field, only 55 miles west of ANWR. Prudhoe Bay has produced more than 10 billion barrels of oil since the 1970s, which has been transported through the Alaska pipeline to the domestic market in the Lower 48 states. Decades of studies show this oil production has affected the environment negligibly. Environmental opponents of drilling cannot cite a single species driven toward extinction or even a decline in numbers attributable to Prudhoe Bay. That drilling also was done with decades-old technology and methods far less environmentally sensitive than ANWR would require. • Caribou herds will be devastated. Environmentalists have been particularly excessive in predicting dire harm to the herd of caribou that migrate through ANWR. But the caribou migrating through Prudhoe Bay have increased from 3,000 to 23,000 since drilling began in 1977. • Alaskans oppose ANWR drilling. In fact, polls regularly show 75 percent or more of Alaskans support drilling. This includes the native Alaskans who live near the potential drilling site. But the few who oppose drilling get most of the media attention. Alaskans know firsthand that resource extraction can co-exist with environmental protection. They also know how silly are the environmental gloom-and-doom predictions: They have heard such nonsense for decades. If the average American, and his or her representative in Congress, knew the facts as well as the average Alaskan, ANWR drilling wouldn't be controversial. Fortunately, it's not too late for the Senate to join the House's common-sense step and boost domestic oil supplies by allowing ANWR drilling. Ben Lieberman is a senior policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. washingtontimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (15674)	12/22/2005 3:05:00 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Republicans Rolled Again Power Line Oil drilling in ANWR is dead for another session, as the Republican leadership in the Senate couldn't break the Dems' filibuster of the defense appropriations bill. The Democrats were willing to shut down the nation's defense rather than give up their pretense that ANWR drilling would somehow harm the environment. Their position was untenable, but the Republicans blinked. In another defeat, the Republican leaders had to agree to a six-month extension of the Patriot Act to give the Democrats time to water it down further, rather than making the act permanent. This time the Democrats didn't even need to filibuster, as eight Republicans joined them in hand-wringing over faux "civil liberties" concerns. Maybe if they have six more months to read the act, they'll notice that it doesn't mention libraries. It's a funny thing: when the Democrats are in the majority, the Democrats run Congress. When the Republicans are in the majority, the Democrats still run Congress. How does that work? Via Power Line News. powerlineblognews.com powerlineblog.com news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com

To: Sully- who wrote (15674)	12/22/2005 4:59:01 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

ANWR -- Jayson PoliPundit.com Senate Democrats went ahead and filibustered ANWR drilling today. Apparently they’re hell bent to go from having lost 23 net U.S. Senate seats over the past few decades to losing even more over the next decade. Oh, well, you can lead Democrats to reality, but you can’t make them think. The vote was: 4/45 = Democrats for ANWR drilling (9%). 53/55 = Republicans for ANWR drilling (96%). 41/45 = Democrats opposed to ANWR drilling (91%). 2/55 = Republicans opposed to ANWR drilling (4%). Go figure. Because only four Democrats appear willing at this juncture to buck the Sierra Club, there are not 60 votes for cloture. Even 55 + 4 does not = 60. {On a different but related topic, how many conservatives who want ANWR drilling and who live in Colorado, but who stayed home, went third party or voted for Ken Salazar last year, now want a do-over?} Lastly, Bill Frist’s “no” vote was procedural. Purely a parliamentary tactic. That’s so he can bring up the bill again in the future. With any luck, however, Democrats will continue filibustering oil drilling until maybe late-October of next year. polipundit.com senate.gov

To: Sully- who wrote (15674)	8/8/2006 12:25:25 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

'Huge' Prudhoe Bay Oil Shutdown: Not Half of Probable ANWR Production by Mac Johnson Human Events Posted Aug 08, 2006 Oil futures were sent sharply higher this week after a surprise announcement from British Petroleum that the company would be shutting down the Prudhoe Bay oil field, the nation’s largest, due to the discovery of a severely corroded pipeline. The loss of Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for 7% of total U.S. output, will cut world oil production by 400,000 barrels per day and could last as long as three months, due to the extent of the pipeline problem. September U.S. Light Crude Futures rose $2.22 to $76.98 per barrel on the news, and some estimates projected prices could be pushed as much as $10 per barrel higher than pre-shutdown levels by the loss. This shock to oil markets came despite the shutdown being temporary, oil inventories being high, and the federal government indicating that it would likely begin releasing large amounts of oil from the 700 million barrel Strategic Petroleum Reserve to cover the shortfall. While the shutdown will certainly put a small dent in consumers’ wallets, it should serve to absolutely crush one of the great lies in the debate over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR: that the amount of oil in the ANWR field would have “little impact” on supply. This claim is regurgitated by every opponent of drilling from Greenpeace to Sen. Joe Lieberman, who asked melodramatically during a previous debate over drilling, "Is it worth forever losing a national treasure, one of our last great wild places, for a six month supply of oil 10 years from now?" Another favorite factoid from drilling opponents is that peak production in ANWR would reduce oil prices by only $0.50 per barrel -- an estimate based on production coming into a supply glut and $24 per barrel oil. That’s hardly the scenario we face in the future. But one does not have to argue any longer over projections, models, or a six-month supply of trite analogies to discern what effect ANWR could have on world oil markets. Prudhoe Bay is giving us a real taste right now -- but only a 44% taste. While Prudhoe Bay produces an impressive 400,000 barrels per day, the Energy Information Agency estimates that peak production from ANWR would likely be 900,000 barrels per day -- an incredible 225% more than Prudhoe Bay. And if removing Prudhoe Bay’s production for just a few months can “shock” oil markets and induce a supply crisis severe enough to merit the mobilization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, imagine what adding two Prudhoe Bays to the world supply for several decades could accomplish. And 900,000 barrels per day peak production is just the most probable projection. The EIA estimates that there is a 5% chance that peak production could be as high as 1,600,000 barrels per day. Yet we are to believe that finding the equivalent of four new Prudhoe Bays would have little impact on supply and price? The relationship between supply, demand, and price is not at all linear. One need not double the production of oil to halve its price, for example. When demand exceeds supply by even a small percentage, prices can skyrocket as buyers compete for a limiting resource. Likewise, when supply exceeds demand by even a smidgeon, suppliers can find themselves selling into a price freefall as each attempts to sell excess inventory first. The considerable supply of oil currently sitting unused in the desolate North Slope of Alaska represents a market-shifting change in the ratio of supply and demand. Although it is emotionally appealing to some, America need not “wean” itself from all foreign oil to obtain lower prices (a moot impossibility when dealing with a global market for a fungible commodity, by the way). We simply have to ensure that supply slightly exceeds demand. For those of you that are still lost in the ether regarding energy markets, that means we need to actually drill for oil when we find it. In ANWR and the offshore areas of the United States, America has enough oil and gas to take control of her energy destiny for the near-term future. And if nuclear power is again committed to in a serious way, we will have that ability for the long-term as well. If the amount of oil in Prudhoe Bay is significant, as it surely is, then the amount of oil in ANWR is very, very significant indeed -- but only if we choose to use it. Mr. Johnson, a writer and medical researcher in Cambridge, MA., is a regular contributor to Human Events. His column generally appears on Mondays. Archives and additional material can be found at www.macjohnson.com. humanevents.com

To: Sully- who wrote (15674)	8/8/2006 3:22:35 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Oil Companies' Investment Exceeds Profits Power Line The Washington Times reports on an interesting study by Ernst & Young that supports oil companies' argument that substantial profits are necessary to support oil exploration and development efforts: <<< Big Oil's record profits attract attention and outrage, but an independent study has found that oil companies do exactly what economic textbooks say they should do with all that money: They invest it in oil exploration and development efforts that eventually should relieve pressure on prices. The top 20 U.S. and Canadian oil companies actually invested 50 percent more than they earned in the past 10 years in efforts to produce more oil, but adverse geopolitical developments conspired to give them fewer opportunities to expand production while fading oil fields in the U.S. and elsewhere forced them to spend substantially more just to maintain current production, according to the study by the Ernst & Young accounting firm. The study found that the top companies -- including Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron, among others -- took in a mind-numbing $5 trillion in revenue from sales of oil and related products between 1995 and 2005. After subtracting the cost of equipment, leases, labor and other operating expenses, the companies posted whopping profits of $336 billion. Over the same time span, however, the companies spent even more than they earned -- $550 billion -- on oil exploration and development. Some of them went deeply into debt to finance new ventures, especially during times of lean profits. Despite the massive sums of money oil companies spent trying to find more oil for the world's fuel-thirsty consumers, returns on investment over the past 10 years declined sharply because most existing oil fields in the West are in decline and the most promising new discoveries are not available for development, Ernst & Young found. "Most of the new reserves are outside of North America, and much of the global reserve base is off-limits to Western oil and gas companies," said Mr. Swanson. Moreover, oil-rich countries such as Venezuela and Russia are exacting onerous licensing terms and costly royalty payments from Western companies seeking access. >>> Our government is part of the problem, not part of the solution. It could go a long way toward easing the gas crunch and lowering prices by authorizing development in Alaska and offshore, but the Democrats (abetted by a handful of Republicans) won't permit it, preferring to force the oil companies to enrich foreign governments, often governments that are hostile to American interests. It would be hard to think of a more perverse policy. And, under these circumstances, the worst possible policy would be a "windfall" profits tax. One thing we know for sure is that the government, unlike the oil companies, wouldn't use the money to drill for oil. powerlineblog.com washtimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (15674)	8/11/2006 12:05:32 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

American-Made Energy from ANWR at a Modest Cost by Ben Lieberman HUMAN EVENTS Posted Aug 11, 2006 Oil and gasoline prices remain high, and two wars raging in the Middle East could drive prices up further still. Yet Congress has failed to remove restrictions on oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). ANWR is America’s single largest untapped source of oil. A new bill, the American-Made Energy Freedom Act (H.R. 5890), would open it to energy production. Other provisions in the bill are problematic, particularly those that would use the billions in ANWR leasing and royalty revenues to fund alternative energy projects. A Stalemate on ANWR In times of high prices and turmoil in many oil-exporting nations, America should make good use of the oil available here at home. Indeed, both the House and Senate have supported opening ANWR many times before, but they have failed to do so in the same bill. The House has been more aggressive, repeatedly passing legislation opening up a portion of ANWR’s coastal plain to exploration and drilling. Each time, however, the Senate was unable to overcome filibusters to companion bills. In turn, the Senate successfully included ANWR provisions in budget legislation, a useful tactic because that legislation is not subject to a filibuster. However, the House has thus far failed to go along with this approach. The frustrating bottom line is that ANWR oil is still off-limits. America remains the only nation on earth that has restricted access to such a promising domestic petroleum source. In the meantime, oil prices remain high, and imports increase each year as demand grows faster than existing domestic production from those areas where drilling is permitted. Ending the Stalemate The American-Made Energy Freedom Act contains many of the same provisions as previous ANWR legislation. It limits drilling to the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, leaving the other 17.5 million of ANWR’s 19 million acres completely off-limits. The surface disturbance on the coastal plain is further limited to no more than 2,000 acres. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 10 billion barrels are recoverable from this small area, which is enough to increase known domestic reserves by 50 percent. As with previous bills, this measure would impose strict environmental safeguards to protect ANWR. Notwithstanding the precautionary shutdown of some corroded BP pipelines in Alaska, history demonstrates that oil production and environmental protection can coexist in Alaska. Since the 1970s, drilling in nearby Prudhoe Bay has amassed a strong environmental record while providing 15 billion barrels of oil. And ANWR drilling would be done with much stronger protections and technology that is far more environmentally friendly than what was available 30 years ago. In addition to providing a million barrels per day at peak production, ANWR would also provide substantial revenues to the federal government. Oil companies would have to pay rent for leasing rights, royalties on each barrel produced, and corporate income taxes on their profits. The Congressional Research Service estimates that, based on current oil prices, over $112 billion in revenues would be accrued by the federal government, $36 billion from leasing and royalty revenues and $76 billion from tax revenues. A New Twist Some legislators have complained that previous ANWR bills were not “balanced,” in that they helped provide more fossil fuels but did nothing to encourage alternative sources of energy. The new bill funnels ANWR revenues to alternative energy projects, which the sponsors of the bill hope will broaden support for the measure. Instead of going into the federal treasury, the estimated $36 billion in leasing and royalty revenues are targeted for a variety of alternative energy projects. This money would go into a trust fund that would pay for tax breaks and subsidies to promote such things as ethanol and diesel production from agricultural materials, residential and commercial solar energy, energy efficiency improvements, and the production of motor fuels from coal. For example, a company that wants to build a plant that turns agricultural waste into ethanol would qualify for federal loan guarantees to help build the facility as well as tax credits for each gallon of ethanol produced and sold. The bill creates some new alternative energy programs and also provides funding for existing programs authorized by last year’s energy bill. This is not good policy. Federally funded forays into alternative energy have a poor track record over the past four decades. Washington has repeatedly proven incapable of distinguishing winners from losers among emerging technologies, too often spending billions in tax dollars to back losing technologies that accomplish little or nothing. That is not surprising. Worthwhile projects usually succeed in attracting private capital and don’t need government support. While it is possible that the American-Made Energy Freedom Act will yield successful alternative energy breakthroughs, it is not likely. Conclusion Even if the alternative energy projects proposed in the bill don’t pan out, the economic and energy security benefits of 10 billion barrels of additional domestic oil are a net plus for the American people. Mr. Lieberman is senior policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. humanevents.com

To: Sully- who wrote (15674)	1/12/2007 12:52:57 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Now, there is a threat to permanently close ANWR by declaring it a wilderness, where no further drilling or exploration can take place. Cutting our own throat Thomas Lifson American Thinker I often wonder at the motivations of those who oppose exploiting the oil resources of arctic Alaska. The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is a frozen wilderness most of the year, and a swamp for the brief summer. The breathtaking pictures used to sell the public on the idea that this is a pristine wilderness, sacred (or at least scenic) land like the Yosemite Valley are propaganda. No endangered species are threatened there. Opponents of drilling in Prudhoe Bay predicted disaster for the moose and elk which never developed. Yet, the credibility of drilling opponents in ANWR remains high in the media, and consequently among the general public which doesn't take the time to get more information than what is spoon-fed to them in misleading pictures. The fact is that our dependence on oil from the Middle East is a strategic liability of major proportion. Substituting a million barrels a day of domestic oil production, as would be possible from ANWR's currently-known reserves, would help a great deal. It wouldn't solve all our problems, but it is in the nature of our vast energy consumption that no one measure will solve all out problems. Now, there is a threat to permanently close ANWR by declaring it a wilderness, where no further drilling or exploration can take place. Investors Business Daily writes: <<< No longer content with merely blocking Republican attempts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration, Democrats have decided to make that ban permanent, forever protecting species that are in no demonstrable danger and that have flourished in nearby Prudhoe Bay. While Cuba and China drill off the Florida Keys, Democrats worry about caribou. So do we, but not at the expense of American national and economic security. On Friday, Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., introduced H.R. 39, legislation that would make the 1.2 million-acre coastal plain of the ANWR a permanently protected wilderness and end efforts to develop its energy resources for the benefit of the American people. >>> What few realize is that the reserves proven so far are likely to be a fraction of what lies waiting for us. Drillers do not waste money exploring the potential of oil deposits which are politically off limits. It is often the case with large discoveries that additional exploration yields far larger resources in similar geological structures elsewhere in the neighborhood. If ANWR is declared a wilderness, we may be putting ourselves in hock to the Saudis and Iranians even further, by denying substantial supplies to the oil market, enriching those who mean us no good. americanthinker.com investors.com