If the liberals wold have let the man drill in Alaska we wouldnt be having this discussion.
Damned if we do, damned if we dont.
The oil in Alaska would hardly make an effect on this.
It contains 10 billion barrels of oil - about the amount the US consumes in a little more than a year.
In addition, given it would be removed from US soil, less than 2/3 of it would have actually made it's way to market.? The other third would go toward our "oil reserves" (you know, the ones that it takes a natural disaster for Bush to release...and even then he has to be prodded into action.....and STILL that oil he promised from the reserves has not made it into the market).
where do you come up with these things.
you dont know that nor does anyone else.
The liberals wont even help finance a study to find , in all likelyhood? enough oil to make us self sufficent.
No one can take oil from your land or force you to put it on the world market.
And since you quoted me...and not SLC...
The fact that 1/3 of all oil produced on US shores goes to reserve is a well documented fact...but I ain't doing any more research for you.
The fact that GW promised the release of oil reserves after Katrina is a well documented fact...but I ain't doing any more research for you.
The fact that the promised reserves have not yet made it to market is a well documented fact...but I ain't doing any more research for you.
Use google. It's your friend.
Author