English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

There are HUGE oil reserves in Alaska and they just found another huge reserve in the Gulf of Mexico.
If this war is about oil - wouldn't it have been easier to just drill in our own country?

2007-01-08 06:57:48 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

13 answers

Because the democrats and environmentalist refused to let any exploration of oil happen in ANWAR.

2007-01-08 07:02:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

There are not to many people who think the war is just about oil or just about anything, war is a complex issue with a variety of reasons for people to say we should stay there or leave. I believe that the war has a little to do with oil, but not just oil, but a presence in the middle east, look up the word hegemony and you will see what I mean. Whether we are there for oil or WMD or whatever the one thing that is true factually is that what we have done so far has only made matters worse. War should be a last resort and going to war preemptively only creates a war that will never end, because if anyone thinks that once Iraq is done that another country wont try to get WMD, (see Iran and N. Korea) then we are mistaken. A neverending war is something that George Orwell would be proud of. We need to get out of there and figure out a new way to deal with countries other than by being a bully. The current admin has lead us down the wrong road and this war will not be over for many years to come and will have ramifications that will last even longer.

2007-01-08 07:06:51 · answer #2 · answered by Docbrown 2 · 0 0

well for starters the oil in Alaska is locked in tar sands.
Extraction of oil from tar sands is a very resource intensive process requiring large quantities of de-mineralized purified water to "flush" the oil from the sands. Seeing as though finding a large source of freshwater in that area is the first problem, not to mention the energy required to purify that water it really isn't an economically viable source of oil.

There is also the complication of transport. The northern passage is not a viable shipping passage as it is frozen for a large portion of the year, Canada does have an extensive network of pipelines however it cost money to make use of them.

There is also the factor that it is right smack in the corner of a UN protected wildlife preserve that is home to caribou and grizzly bears, both of which have recently been added to the endangered species list. Not that anybody cares about the environment I just though I would toss that in for the sake on information.

As for off short drilling. The platforms alone require billions of dollars to erect, are susceptible to the element which will result in billions of dollars worth of repairs and maintenance through their life span. Off shore drilling also has a profoundly negative environmental impact with regular spillage and disruption of natural habitats. IN order to build an offshore rig a company needs to have a fairly impeccable safety records as well as the means to build one. Most lack the safety record. AS a side not as well with underwater oil reserves there is no actually way of gaging how much oil is actually there. Even the most modern geophysical equipment can only give an estimate at best. Thus it is a building an offshore rig is a bit of a gamble.

2007-01-08 07:25:07 · answer #3 · answered by smedrik 7 · 0 0

I agree, we get more oil from Canada than any other country. We aren't invading Canada. Although those who think the war is about oil probably think that we will be invading Canada. I have a link that shows half of our oil comes from the western hemisphere. Last time I checked Iraq and the middle east are in the Eastern Hemisphere/

2007-01-08 07:05:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

It is about control and the oil in the Middle east needs to be controlled . It makes up the world market price which must be maintained to slow the third world from developing .Oil IS POWER and produces electricity runs motors and makes the world turn .
Imagine a cheap supply on the world market .
The cost of production drops and America does not profit from its investments abroad .We control oil because it controls the money . Americas dollar is worthless around the world if oil is not traded in dollars .
Thats why When Iran Iraq and Venezuela talked about using the euro dollar as the money for oil they became targets of America .

2007-01-08 07:05:08 · answer #5 · answered by -----JAFO---- 4 · 1 2

Hey now...making sensible comments and asking tough logic questions won't get you anywhere here. Good question. Of course, I have known from day one that oil wasn't the main thrust of this war, neither was it about profits for friends. And if this nation gains some side benefits from this, I won't complain. Maybe we should not have moved into Iraq but we are there, so we need to finish it and finish it right.

2007-01-08 07:03:17 · answer #6 · answered by Rich B 5 · 6 0

The same libs that are screaming about the war being for oil are the same ones that whine about "the environment" in Alaska....and they also whine about the cost of fuel making Bush's buddies rich. Basically it is just another issue to attack Republicans with!

2007-01-08 07:01:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6 1

wow.. i can't believe no one posted this conspiracy yet..... because the American government wants to have the last reserve of oil when the world starts running out.. burn the middle easts now.. not ours till we have to.

2007-01-08 07:07:04 · answer #8 · answered by pip 7 · 2 0

The war is about Israel. Bush's PNAC Zio-con Jew Traitor Shitbag bosses are the ones who sent us to Iraq. And it is these same Zio-con Jew Traitor Shitbags who want to send us to Iran.

Neo-con = Zionist = Zio-con = Jew Traitor Shitbag

2007-01-08 07:58:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

And Alaskans WANT ANWR opened!!

We only have one percent - that's right, ONE percent - of our land open to development. The rest is tied up in national and state parks or Native corporations. Name me one other state that has 99% of it's land tied up like that, and I swear I'll never mention ANWR again. Anyone? Anyone? Hello?

2007-01-08 07:01:45 · answer #10 · answered by Jadis 6 · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers