CNN's Beck didn't challenge former oil exec's assertion that ANWR drilling would "probably" produce oil in "two to three years"
SUMMARY: On his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck did not challenge former Shell Oil president John Hofmeister's assertion that drilling in ANWR would "probably" produce oil in "two or three years." In fact, the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration concluded that any benefit from drilling in ANWR would not impact the U.S. oil supply for at least a decade.
During an interview with former Shell Oil Company president John Hofmeister on the August 8 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, Beck did not challenge Hofmeister's assertion that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would "probably be two to three years to get some oil." As Media Matters for America has documented, in its May 2008 Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration (EIA) concluded that oil drilling in ANWR would not impact the U.S. oil supply for at least a decade.
During the interview, Hofmeister asserted, "You know, you can find oil pretty quickly, you can put the engineering plans together if you've got infrastructure in place. And that's why the oil industry continues to have interest in ANWR, 'cause the infrastructure's there. The Trans-Atlantic pipeline is there. It can bring oil quickly to the United States if ANWR was opened up. And you don't have to build new infrastructure." When Beck asked Hofmeister, "How fast on ANWR?" Hofmeister replied: "ANWR would probably be two to three years to get some oil."
Beck did not challenge Hofmeister's assertions that the "infrastructure's there" and "you don't have to build new infrastructure" by pointing out that the EIA estimated it would take "3 to 4 years to construct the feeder pipelines; to fabricate oil separation and treatment plants, and transport them up from the lower-48 States to the North Slope by ocean barge; construct drilling pads; drill to depth; and complete the wells."
In assessing the impact of hypothetical legislation that would allow drilling in ANWR, the EIA "assumes that enactment of the legislation in 2008 would result in first production from the ANWR area in 10 years." The EIA stated: "The primary constraints to a rapid development of ANWR oil resources are the limited weather 'windows' for collecting seismic data and drilling wells (a 3-to-4 month winter window) and for ocean barging of heavy infrastructure equipment to the well site (a 2-to-3 month summer window)." The EIA continued:
The assumption that ANWR oil production would begin 10 years after legislation approves the Federal oil and natural gas leasing in the 1002 Area is based on the following 8-to-12 year timeline:
- 2 to 3 years to obtain leases, including the development of a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leasing program, which includes approval of an Environmental Impact Statement, the collection and analysis of seismic data, and the auction and award of leases.
- 2 to 3 years to drill a single exploratory well. Exploratory wells are slower to drill because geophysical data are collected during drilling, e.g., rock cores and well logs. Typically, Alaska North Slope exploration wells take two full winter seasons to reach the desired depth.
- 1 to 2 years to develop a production development plan and obtain BLM approval for that plan, if a commercial oil reservoir is discovered. Considerably more time could be required if the discovered oil reservoir is very deep, is filled with heavy oil, or is highly faulted. The petroleum company might have to collect more seismic data or drill delineation wells to confirm that the deposit is commercial.
- 3 to 4 years to construct the feeder pipelines; to fabricate oil separation and treatment plants, and transport them up from the lower-48 States to the North Slope by ocean barge; construct drilling pads; drill to depth; and complete the wells.
The 10-year timeline for developing ANWR petroleum resources assumes that there is no protracted legal battle in approving the BLM's draft Environmental Impact Statement, the BLM's approval to collect seismic data, or the BLM's approval of a specific lease-development proposal.
From the August 8 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: People say, "We'll never be able to pump a drop out in seven -- for seven to 10 years." I've heard that there are capped wells out -- just off the coast of California, and there are easier places where we could turn it around in months' time. True or false?
HOFMEISTER: True, if you turn the industry loose. The coast of California is a perfect example. There is infrastructure already in place that could carry off new oil from new wells, which could be drilled in a matter of months, not years.
BECK: I heard that there was a big discovery in Russia -- I think it was maybe somewhere near Turkey or something. They found this big, gigantic oil find. They found it back in June and I had to read this story like three times, 'cause it said they will be pumping oil from it in September, this year.
HOFMEISTER: They must have had existing infrastructure --
BECK: OK.
HOFMEISTER: -- because the infrastructure is usually the delay. You know, you can find oil pretty quickly, you can put the engineering plans together if you've got infrastructure in place. And that's why the oil industry continues to have interest in ANWR, 'cause the infrastructure's there. That Trans-Atlantic pipeline is there. It can bring oil quickly to the United States if ANWR was opened up. And you don't have to build new infrastructure. But in the coast of California is a different example than the Middle Atlantic states. If the Middle Atlantic states were opened up for oil exploration and production, yeah, it's probably somewhere between five, seven years before you get any.
BECK: How fast on ANWR?
HOFMEISTER: ANWR would probably be two to three years to get some oil.
BECK: OK. Back in just a second.
Beck was right not to challenge Hofmeister. Oil executives are the most informed, unbiased and reliable sources when the subject is oil.
Not like those nutty bureaucrats at the EIA.
And Sands, you're a piker, I drilled my property myself, and was pumpin' the sweetness and light crude within 20 minutes, and had my home refinery cooking by sundown.
Same thing for me, except with gas and water.
Within 10 minutes of starting up the bobcat and putting the bucket in the ground, I had natural gas spewing into the air and water all over the back yard. Was at least an hour before Southwest Gas and the water department shut me down. Damn corporatists - always worried that someone else is going to horn in on their profits. But for a short while there, I was energy independent.
Is sandss981580 an alias for Daniel Plainview?
"When our property was drilled it took ninety days to get the oil pumping into the tanks."
Does your property experience Arctic weather conditions for 3/4 of the year?
This blog post is a great example of a total non sequitur.
Hofmeister's assertion that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would "probably be two to three years to get some oil." As Media Matters for America has documented, in its May 2008 Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration (EIA) concluded that oil drilling in ANWR would not impact the U.S. oil supply for at least a decade.
Now, here’s the non sequitur:
"probably be two to three years to get some oil."
-and-
Energy Department's Energy Information Administration (EIA) concluded that oil drilling in ANWR would not impact the U.S. oil supply for at least a decade.
Understand that the statement "probably be two to three years to get some oil" in no way conflicts with the EIA’s findings (although the blogger would like you to think so.)
Let's see if I can put this in a way you'll understand, Max.
Remember "Joan" from the bar last Saturday night? Saying that "Joan" was wearing a sexy dress in no way conflicts with apparent non-sequitur that "Joan" was using the men's room all evening. But you being aware of both statements - rather than just the first - probably would have saved you some angst and explained why "Joan" was using your razor Sunday morning.
this is such a red herring. my sister in law has a 50,000 acre ranch in west texas. not a drop of oil, so no one drills there.
our ranch in south texas had oil once, but no longer, so no new , less than a mile away they produce nothing but oil.
in most places there is no oil. even if there is oil under property, it won't necessarily be in commercial quanties.
Are you actually of the opinion that we should drill in ANWR because there is oil there, but there is not oil in the 20 million acres next to ANWR?
Let me give you a hint: the oil companies are very happy owning or controlling the supply and drippling it out very slowly, they get lots of money that way. They complain that they do not have the equipment to take advantage of the land they currently lease, but Exxon spends more money buying back its stock than on expanding their ability to drill or process oil. They are keeping the leases, not turning them back in, BECAUSE THERE IS OIL THERE.
Why, you librul yeehaws clearly don't git it. If'n it were up ta youse, we'd be wiping saudi butts with our hands. This is 'Merika, dammit! Look at whatcha pertecktin, dummies! Drill ANWR, drill now. It am right thing to do!
And explain to me again why it is that John McCain doesn't want to drill in ANWR?
ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Now a comparison
And some perspective
Note where the proposed development area is
(it's in the 'ANWR Coastal Plain')
This is what the democrats, liberals and 'greens' show you when they talk about ANWR
And they are right these ARE photographs of ANWR
Isn't ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place?
Well that's not exactly the truth
Do you remember the map?
The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain
Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you?
What's going on here?
The answer is simple
That is NOT where they want to drill!
This is what the proposed exploration area actually looks like in the winter
And this is what it actually looks like in the summer
As you can see, the area where they are talking about drilling is a barren wasteland.
Oh and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife
Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the
'depleted wildlife' situation created by drilling around prudhoe bay *
don't you think that the caribou really hate that drilling?
Here's that same spot during the winter.
Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay *
*The Prudhoe bay area accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production
Go JmC!
cha-ching! another t-bill from my man john...
I had no idea there were so many lazy caribou laying around doing nothing.
I'm convinced. Put them to work hauling sleighs of drill pipe or something, for crying out loud.
LOL! Thanks Neondesert that comment made my morning - lazy caribou!
Honestly, give me 2-3 years and I'll find oil - somewhere. Heck, oil is popping up lately in the Dakotas and Montana but yeah, rights to that land just aren't that hard or exclusive to come by like the ANWR.
That was a great presentation snoop. OK, how'd ya do it? When I would cut and paste a long article on here before it would get kicked back because of length. Your pics HAD to be over the limit!
Come on man, show us the magic!
If oil prices are all based on speculation, then all you would need to do is change someone's mind.
When it comes to drillng in ANWR, though, I'm all for it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing ends up becoming a totally complicated mess and it doesn't even become worth drilling as a result.
So you just put the energy and standard of living needs of American citizens second to the migratory birds and caribou? The national security of the USA based on energy is not more important than some "habitat" you talk about - even though the area of ANWR for drilling is a barren wasteland?
You are out there man. Wayyyy out there.
Amen scienceguy.
In addition to the claims about the destruction of birds, polar bears, and national treaties...unfounded and emotionally irrational.
What's emotional and irrational is your belief that drilling in ANWR will somehow help us achieve energy independence or benefit our security situation. It's hogwash. The only thing that would change would be a few more assets listed on oil company balance sheets. Gas prices wouldn't change, and our over supply of energy wouldn't change significantly. It will accomplish nothing. It is not a sustainable energy, environmental or business plan. It's just more short-sighted corporate greed.
So you just put the energy and standard of living needs of American citizens second to the migratory birds and caribou? The national security of the USA based on energy is not more important than some "habitat" you talk about - even though the area of ANWR for drilling is a barren wasteland?
You are out there man. Wayyyy out there.
You've gotten your butt handed to you on this subject time after time after time. Why do you think you'll get away with the lies and distortions this time? Dems didn't use to fight back when someone spewed nonsense. We do now.
Drilling in ANWR won't have any effect on the standard of living or the energy needs of Americans. There isn't enough oil there to affect the world prices but a couple of pennies at best even when it's producing at full speed. That's not going to affect Americans standard of living.
That's a strawman argument that's been torn down here multiple times. Every time you make that strawman argument it's going to get torn down.
Preserving the oil reserves we have will do more for National Security than racing to use them up as soon as possible, idiot! Having as much in reserve is much more important for our long-term security, and having a tiny bit of oil extra in the next 5-30 years does nothing to protect us!
The sections of ANWR to be drilled upon, and the sections of Alaska and Canada that might be affected by an environmental problem are quite different, and neither is a vast wasteland.
You had no valid points. As usual.
Hey chief, how about this for starters?:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE1D9143FF936A35750C0A9659C8B63
You are incredibly naive and incorrect if you think that the current drilling going on in Alaska has not caused environmental issues. Remember BP's pipeline spill of a couple of years ago? That oil just doesn't evaporate.
Morgan Weiland writes a nice rebuttal of an oil company executive's knowledge of the business...but whoa nelson...there's one major flaw in her cut and paste of EIA predictions.
No one...and I mean no one...who is remotely connected to the oil and gas industry relies on anything that the geeks at EIA predict. They are a fairly accurate keeper of records...historical supply, production, prices, etc...but they have been and are woefully inept at predicting future scenarios...they have never produced a drop of energy...just typical non-thinking govt. bureaucrats.
That is correct!!!!!!! They did get it wrong because they don't understand that we are entering into an unprecidented slupply bottleneck.
Oil is a limited resource. How much we get depends on above and below ground factors that few in our political discourse want to aknowledge or discuss.
If our "addiction" to oil requires us to compromise other values (imagine that!), at least we should bargin so that the price for drilling liberally is significant energy saving reforms/limits elsewhere.
EB,
Another increasing supply problem is our ever growing reliance on importing "refined" fuels like gasoline and diesel. Not only do we need more domestic oil production...we need to get the govt. restrictions and eco-activists out of the way in order to build more refineries.
I asked RINO this same question the other day and got no response. I don't expect a very good one from you, but I'll give it a shot. Why are you so intensely championing a cause (giving away more federal land to oil companies) that will do nothing to increase our energy independence or lower fuel prices? To top it off, you present yourself as some sort of energy expert, but you make the same arguments every time and every time your ignorance is pointed out. Then the next time this topic comes up, here you are making the same stupid points again. Why? Why would you continue to believe something that has been shown to you to be untrue and not helpful to our county at all?
As to the "crazy" notion of being good stewards of the environment, how much is enough? When you call the coastal plain a wasteland, it shows that you know nothing about the tundra ecosystem. At what point, in your mind, should we decide to not drive every animal around us into extinction? I don't even need you to respond because it will be some sort of uninformed drivel. You are clueless as to what it would mean to our existence as a species if we go down this road of environmental destruction. And I'm not even talking about some truly wild idea, just the protection of the last remaining section of Alaskan North Shore that is critical habitat to several protected species and millions of animals.
Wesley,
Wake up man! Congress has already opened up over 60 million acres for drilling. The oil and natural gas is there. Why in the world are you crying about drilling in ANWR when we already have 60 million acres available????????? Why??????http://www.shameonbigoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/truth-about-americas-energy.pdf
We need we need we need...
Yea, we need christmas every day!
The point has been made since the 70's. Modern life (and its oil thirst) is not sustainable. Period. That means business as usual can't continue forever. it means eventually we need to retool and reorganize for less.
Either we plan and work out how this all works or we get shocked.
-- That means business as usual can't continue forever -- EB
You're right...it can't...and it hasn't.
Technology, innovation, and private business willing to take calculated risks has always served the American people with a better way of life.
It's not an "either/or" case. We can support ever increasing improvement in the lives of our citizens by producing more energy while adopting sensible alternative fuels and conservation policies.
Obama and I must be on the same page...Yes we can!!!
You mean we need to problem solve. Thats funny! We have been avoiding any serious problem solving in the energy sector since we decided to go to sleep and let the market take the wheel after Carter.
The market will solve the problem. It will shock us because substituting oil is not like having a new yogurt selection on the shelf at the store. Of course we may wish that our liquid fuel needs will take care of themselves because we need them to. Unfortunatly sometimes the party has to end. We need to get busy and solve the problem proactively and instead we have elected people who do not believe goverment can work and "we the people" can direct our own lives through the political process. Instead we are supposed to wait for better market selections and spontaneous lab breakthroughts.
Instead we are supposed to wait for better market selections and spontaneous lab breakthroughts.
Thats typically how it works. Feel free to use Ethanol as an alterative, but everyone knows you'll be spending about 15-20% more per gallon to achieve the same fuel economy.
Yea the amount of energy you need to grow and refine the alternative energy leaves little net energy to actually use. We are entering a bottle neck with liquid fuel.
Meanwhile we have the reassurance of optimists, such as sean hannity, who think that if we only get the enviros out of the way, the oil shale and off shore will give the market whatever it "wants". This is simply because we want it and the market it wants it. If only it really worked that way!
Drilling more eventually will not offset depletion. We can only do so much to alter that timetable. Alternatives are not by definition as efficient at getting us the same bang for the buck. Fossil fuels are unique. Not getting as much as we want when we want it changes everything.
Technology, innovation, and private business willing to take calculated risks has always served the American people with a better way of life.
Exactly right Wes. Simple economics, and a quick glance at history, show that in all technology sectors, the quick rules of economics work. When product A achieves too high of a price due to supply and demand, other private companies will come out with alternatives/substitutes that will take a very small martket share...we'll call this product B. Eventually, the private sector will refine and improve product B until it can be a viable alternative on the market by offering similar, if not more, value and output than product A, and a cheaper cost.
The problem comes when people out there, like the current eco-nuts, who will complain and complain that they dont like Product A, and force Product B onto the market to take place of Product - even though it costs more than Product A, and provides only a fraction of the output of Product A.
The more efficient the market is at gobbling up everything for growth, the quicker we need alternatives and improvements to avoid over depletion. Actually the market doesn't care if something is mostly depleated. The price can be 5000 dollars a barrel. Problem solved!
Somethings can't be substituted. Not everything magically appears or gets invented just because there is a price for it. Physical realities do exist.
Current resource use per capita is unsustainable. Eventually some one pays the price when the alternatives give less and less.
What's the price for curing cancer these days? What! Its not just happening because we want it to and the market wants it!
"Current resource use per capita is unsustainable."
Not only is it unsustainable, but the resource use itself is only going to go up.
At our current rate of population growth, it only takes 14 years to add a billion people to the world population. It's long past decision time as to whether we're going to be good stewards of the earth or condemn humanity to a world of dirty air, poisonous water and non-arable land.
Sounds just like the old Paul Erhlich failed prophesies of doom and gloom.
-- The battle to feed humanity is over. . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death." (1968) -- Erhlich
-- I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000. -- Erhlich
-- Again, technology has thwarted Ehrlich's predictions, and you needn't be Nostradamus to know it always will. Ehrlich will still garner those accolades because, while in reality he's always wrong, politically he's always correct. -- Michael Fumento - AEI
BLOW IT OUR PANTS, WESLEY.
Did I lay out a time line?
Population growth is a hard fact. We didn't reach our first billion until the early 1800's, but it's been snowballing ever since. The more people we have, the faster that non-renewable resources will reach their end. That's not prophecy, that's simple mathematical certainty.
I don't pretend to know when or with how devastating of an effect these factors will collide. Mother Earth may decide she's had enough, or it could be a bloody conflict for what little is left. It won't happen in our lifetimes, which makes it easier for you and those who think like you to defer the solutions to future generations.
I agree. The Malthusian Nightmare has only been delayed, not averted. And the delay, with the synchronous increase in population, will just make it more, well, nightmarish.
If our "addiction" to oil requires us to compromise other values (imagine that!), at least we should bargin so that the price for drilling liberally is significant energy saving reforms/limits elsewhere. –EB
I don’t think characterizing our need/dependence on oil as an "addiction" is helpful as it places an unfounded stigma on oil consumption.
Look, we’re not addicted to corks for our wine bottles (made of real ‘cork’) and we’re not addicted to garden hoses made of real rubber. These things are nice but as supplies dwindle we look for alternatives.
(I will however pay a premium for a real rubber garden hose because it is 100 times better than even the best vinyl ones!)
If you’re wondering where my point it it’s this: Calling our use of oil an "addiction" is a cheap trick used to attach guilt to a societal need for efficient transportation.
Do we need alternatives? Probably. Do we need to drill at home? Certainly. Do we need to feel guilt in order to make reasoned and proactive steps to ensure our nation’s energy needs are met? No.
If you want to pretend that you're not an old troll with a new name, you need to stop copying their formatting.
No mam, not an old troll. However it did take me a minute to figure out what you were implying, heh.
Truth is I’ve made probably 10’ish posts at MMFA in my lifetime, in fact just today they took the training wheels off so that I could post without that review thing they do to new posters. Wee!
I’m sorry if you don’t like my posting style, but I don’t buy into that “OMG the the polar bears!”, or “We’re addicted to oil” nonsense.
PS. Nice to meet you too ;)
It was the extra spaces between your paragraphs that you use when you're The Wuss.
Looks like I may have won the office pool. I said it would be this week that you created a new screen name.
Sides your price at the pump is not the total cost of using the resource. Science and co continue to studiously ignore viable alternatives in the mad frenzy to continue to prop up the money machine.
I find the insistence that we can only continue to feed our energy needs with hydrocarbons insulting to the counrty that has here to fore prided itself on meeting difficult challenges and suceeding, often suceeding with some style.
"Sides your price at the pump is not the total cost of using the resource."
More apt to say it's not the total cost of securing the resource.
Aside from the insane cost of securing the resource in Iraq that we're passing on to future generations, we're spending millions of taxpayer dollars every single day for carrier groups to patrol the Persian Gulf and keep the oil lanes open. All the while we get sob stories from oil executives in front of Congress about how tough it is for them to make money. The truth is their profits are kept safe with the blood and treasure of the working class.
Science and co continue to studiously ignore viable alternatives
No we dont, or at least I don't. But the fact is there are NO viable alteratives capable of providing the energy that we need short term into the next 10-20 years. Solar doesn't product adequate power for the costs and amount of space it takes, wind power cannot actually harness and contain the small amounts of energy it produces, geothermal is only viable in a small portion of the US...and well, bicycling to work 20 miles each way is not going to happen. I won't even touch ethanol, as we all know what kind of blunder that is.
We can't even get those 1980 Oldsmobiles off the streets, and its been almost 20 years. How long do you think it will take the US to recycle its current automotive system for 200 million electrical cars? And with that, how do you propose to power those cars - if you think wind, solar, and geothermal can do that, you've got another think coming. Its going to have to be more coal and more nuclear.
Pick your poison, carbon based fuels provide the most energy, are most cost efficient for the average person, its within out current energy infrastructure that has already taken 60-70+ years to build, and we have an abundance of it.
"carbon based fuels provide the most energy, are most cost efficient for the average person"
Because the trillions of dollars for securing the fuel is being passed on to future generations.
Of course, there's the 4,000+ average people who have paid for the fuel with their lives. Pretty hard to make the case that it was efficient for them. In addition, there's many more who came home and literally paid and arm, a leg, or a piece of their skull for it as well. And many of them may not even be able to drive a car or work ever again.
It just gets more and more "efficient" the more you contemplate the virtues of fossil fuels.
And let's not forget, as I mentioned above, that we also pay millions every single day for naval patrols of the Persian Gulf regardless of whatever war we're fighting to secure the oil.
Yep, it's super efficient.
Actually, I'm making the case to drill what the oil companies already have available under presently held leases AND TO GET OUR MILIARTY THE HELL OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST.
But the reality is, We could drill on every single acre of the U.S. and it won't prevent the right-wingers-for-sale from getting elected and exerting military strength and political influence in the Middle East for control of their oil. They depend on the chaos to keep prices high and their friends wealthy.
Don't dishonestly make this out to be a choice between the two. It's not. The political right wants BOTH.
The amount of oil in currently protected areas won't significantly affect our reliance on foreign oil.
That's the strawman argument you've tried and failed to push time after time, and you have yet to get away with it even once.
Do you like banging your head against a brick wall? That must be why you have to lie about the advanced degrees you can't possibly have - all that head banging made you incapable of thinking clearly or deeply.
Hell, you're so undereducated that you didn't realize that it wasn't the 'mid-evil' period!
Wrong fore, aft, and amidships. I've given you the figure on geothermal resources several times. It obvioulsy is unable to survive in your brain. Try lots and lots. Our prime realestate here is the basin and range geological. area. Pretty much all of the Rocky Mountains. If you can't find a good site here, your not trying. A good possiblity of striking pressure as well as heat. There's only a few ways to extract that energy and turn it into electricity or hydrogen. Hydride tanks store usuful quantities of the stuff. Pipe to, truck it, get tricky and Zepplin it.
Drill, install prime mover, connect to heat source, make electricity.
Compare that to the long trail from drill comencement to refined gasoline.
Why aren't our Democratic leaders standing up and calling the Republicans on their stunt and lies? Haven't they learned they can't just ignore them? The longer they let them scream, the more people they convince of their lies. I am surrounded by right-wing nuttiness where I live.(In fact, a guy just went nuts and shot up a liberal-leaning church, saying liberals are ruining America. They found copies of all the amjor players books in his home; Savage, Coulter, Hannity) Now, even my normal friends who usually are pretty clear-minded are thinking we should drill, and, of course, I educate them on the FACTS, then give my philosophical arguments, and most of them come around. But again I say, where are all the Dems that are willing to just HAMMER them back? Hit them as hard as they hit you.
Secondly, I guess something I haven't heard much, but is extremely important to me, is that is this not a Wildlife Reserve? To me, these areas are untouchable, period. These are areas that are set aside for a reason, and are meant to protect the irreplaceable. It will be nice in a couple hundred years, when everything around us is industrialized, and we have some natural beauty left to see. We all know Repubs hate the idea of Federally protected lands, and I think they are using this opportunity to get inside one, and will set precedent in the future for any other times they want to invade protected lands.
" Drill HERE! DRILL NOW!" (Newt Gingrich talking point intended to recover GOOPers hegemony, pre-election 2008)