Re: Friends of George

Hugh Gibbons <hugh_gibbons@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote: 
> He is right about just one thing.  By themselves, these stats don't 
> indicate all that much.  For instance, if we had 3% of the world's 
> supply of oil, but that was enough to last us 100 years, we wouldn't be 
> worried about it -- at least not as something that had to be addressed 
> in the short term.   But America's "proved" reserves are only 21 billion

> barrels and out "unproved" reserves are only enough to last 11 years at 
> CURRENT rates of production.  So thinking we can drill more wells to 
> solve the problem is nonsense, unless drilling those wells drastically 
> increases our proved reserves.
> 
It's hard for me to stand against the idea of more off shore drilling in
the 
USA because we in Canada (Newfoundland) faced a similar problem.


The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador rebelled against the (Liberal at

the time) government creed that said how the resources in your province 
belong to you as a province.  It was the Natural Resources Act of 1930.

You see, it didn't include off shore drilling rights and Newfoundland has 
**** loads of oil offshore.

The leases were in place to the oil companies but they weren't doing ****
all 
about developing it, and the Premier (Danny Williams) passed laws saying
"use 
it, or lose it".

Then he went after the Feds for the rights, and won.

Now?  The big oil companies in Alberta have set up offices in St. Johns
and 
the money is flowing in.