View Single Post
Old 03-02-2010, 09:11 AM   #10 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
tim3058's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Northeast
Posts: 147

Silver Bullet - '86 Chevy Camaro Z28
90 day: 19.74 mpg (US)

New Blue - '96 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
90 day: 20.46 mpg (US)

Diesel - '96 Chevrolet Tahoe LS
Last 3: 13.56 mpg (US)

Tahoe #2 - '95 Chevrolet Tahoe LS
90 day: 13.05 mpg (US)

SuperDuty - '08 Ford F-350 dually Lariat
90 day: 9.34 mpg (US)

Fundai - '09 Hyundai Elantra
90 day: 26.45 mpg (US)

HRV - '17 Honda HRV LX
90 day: 31.39 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7
Thanked 18 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
Compared to U.S. consumption, all the oil in ANWR is a mere pittance that doesn't amount to squat. OH, by the way, ANWR doesn't have WAR in it. >

In that forum people vote yay or nay if they approve of posts. Both of my posts are running about 3:1 nay:yay. Sure the second post could be debateable, but the first one??? The majority opposes the best available facts, data, and evidence?

People: they cease to amaze me.
Not knowing much about ANWR I searched it on Ixquick. Just to educate myself about the facts. The Dept. of Energy has a report out on ANWR, it was the first link on ixquick

Page #9 has a graph worth looking at, ANWR is at least an appreciable increase in domestic production. Below the graph the DOE concludes:

The opening of ANWR to oil and gas development includes the following impacts:
• reducing world oil prices,
• reducing the U.S. dependence on imported foreign oil,
• improving the U.S. balance of trade,
•extending the life of TAPS [current alaskan pipeline] for oil, and
•increasing U.S. jobs.

I would assume the DOE has the best available facts at their disposal. Others may just have discovered this report before I did.

  Reply With Quote