Franco, the difference between the NYT and WSJ articles seemed to be that the WSJ indicated that the particular areas Salazar is opening up are one which make pipeline construction more difficult, thus delaying the benefit of drilling in that area. Basically saying that POTUS makes a news story of opening up the area, but glossing over the fact that it will take a long time to actually get that oil to market ... sounds something like the 3-year study on the XL Pipeline that was yet again extended by Obama.
"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim
I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.
The area in my article is offshore. Most of that production will go directly into tankers as running pipe underwater in areas prone to earthquakes is risky. Any pipe that is run will be from the wellhead to a nearby terminal for tanker loading. Probably directly above the wellhead. From the time a rig is moved into place till production in this shallow water(one-tenth the depth of the BP well that failed) is under 75 days. Also, when drilling in remote areas, roads have to be constructed as well as working and living quarters. When drilling offshore, no roads are needed and the living/working quarters are on the rig.
I hate to burst anyone's bubble but this is a far more practical plan than drilling in refuges. Plus, the reserves offshore are estimated to be as large if not larger than the NP Reserve.
I hate to admit it but, the current administration is far more cautious about where and who gets to drill. Pre-BP Blowout, the oil companies pretty much ran the show. Today, the Dept of The Interior is running the show.
Last edited by Franco; 10-15-2012 at 09:50 PM.
Changing the Presidential Debates to allow Liberty on the stage will change America. You can help. Go to Our America's Debate Challenge to learn how you can help.