Alaska, gimme yer oil :)

Anon · 03-17-2005, 00:03 AM

Senate Approves Drilling in Alaska Refuge

57 minutes ago

Add to My Yahoo! Politics - U. S. Congress

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A closely divided Senate voted Wednesday to approve oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, a major victory for President Bush (news - web sites) and a stinging defeat for environmentalists who have fought the idea for decades.

Photo
AP Photo

By a 51-49 vote, the Senate put a refuge drilling provision in next year's budget, depriving opponents of the chance to use a filibuster to try to block it. Filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome, have been used to defeat drilling proposals in the past.

"This project will keep our economy growing by creating jobs and ensuring that businesses can expand," Bush said in a statement. "And it will make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, eventually by up to a million barrels of oil a day."

Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, who has fought for 24 years to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil companies, acknowledged it still could be "a long process" before a final drilling measure clears Congress. Lawmakers must agree on the final budget, something they failed to do last year, or Wednesday's vote would have been for naught.

Also, the House did not include an Arctic refuge measure in its budget, a difference that will have to be worked out in future negotiations.

Nevertheless, the Senate made clear by Wednesday's vote that a majority now supports tapping what is believed to be 10.4 billions or more of barrels of oil within the refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska. Two years ago, a similar attempt to use the budget process to open the refuge failed by three votes.

But that was before Republicans last November expanded their majority, adding a number of GOP senators who favor drilling. Only seven Republicans, all moderates, bucked their party Wednesday and voted with most Democrats against opening the refuge.

Environmentalists said while the vote was disappointing, they haven't given up the fight. "It only strengthens our resolve to protect America's most pristine national wildlife refuge for our children's future," said Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation.

"The battle is far from over," said Lexi Keogh of the Alaska Wilderness League. She said environmentalists will push to keep the ANWR provision out of a final budget document.

The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to the oil. In 1980, Congress said the oil could be developed, but only if lawmakers specifically authorized the Interior Department to sell oil leases. Repeatedly Congress has failed to do so.

Environmentalists for years have fought such development, contending it would lead to a spider web of drilling platforms, pipelines and roads that would adversely impact the calving grounds of caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the refuge's coastal plain.

"The fact is it's going to be destructive," Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., said during debate on an amendment that would have stripped the drilling language from the budget measure. Democrats fell two votes short of the 51 needed.

Kerry and other drilling opponents argued that more oil would be saved than ANWR could produce if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels.

Drilling supporters countered that the refuge's oil can be pumped while still protecting the environment and wildlife.

Modern technology, drilling techniques and environmental restrictions would dramatically limit the industrial footprint that would be left on the tundra and protect wildlife, said Murkowski. "We know we've got to do it right. ... It's a fragile environment."

One GOP senator after another argued that with foreign imports accounting for more than half of the oil the country uses, every available barrel should be pursued. The Alaska refuge represents the largest potential onshore oil find in the country, they said.

"Some people say we ought to conserve more. They say we ought to conserve instead of producing this oil. But we need to do everything. We have to conserve and produce where we can," said Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

But drilling opponents rejected the suggestion that ANWR's oil would have much impact on global markets, today's high oil and gasoline prices, or the continued U.S. reliance on foreign producers.

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist."

Cantwell and other Democrats accused Republicans of trying "an end run" by attaching the refuge provisions to the budget, saying the question of drilling in an ecologically pristine refuge — a "special place" as many environmentalists called it — should be debated as separate legislation or as part of a broad energy bill.

"It's the only way around the filibuster," countered Stevens, defending the use of the budget process. He said that approach is justified for issues that have special importance such as getting at ANWR's oil, something he characterized as a matter of "national security."

___

dalem · 03-17-2005, 03:02 AM

When I heard the news this is what I IMed to my best friend:

"We're gonna drill in ANWR, Yaaaaay! oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil"

-dale

highsea · 03-17-2005, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist."

Cantwell is a complete idiot, I'm sorry to say. I'm sure she's never been to ANWR. It's about time we opened it up for exploration.

Ray · 03-17-2005, 04:55 AM

Quote:

"foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist."

Indeed it is not foolish.

Isn't it that seeing is believing?

Can't you see oil and 'wild life' coexisting side by side in Saudi Arabia and Iraq?

highsea · 03-17-2005, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Can't you see oil and 'wild life' coexisting side by side in Saudi Arabia and Iraq?

That's a better analogy than you may realize. Take Saudi Arabia, freeze it to 60 below, and you have the ANWR coastal plain.

It's a permanently frozen scrubland. There are no trees, almost no wildlife, just lichens and some wildflowers in the summer. The ground never thaws below the top few inches. There is nothing remotely interesting in ANWR until you travel way south to the Brooks Range.

**Julie** · 03-17-2005, 09:24 AM

Personally, I am glad to see it. I'm not an Environmentalist, but I often wondered what could be existing in a freezing desolate area.

Even though it could be 10 years before we can benefit from any oil extracted in the area, does anyone have any figures as to how much this would save the US, and/or negatively impact who we buy oil from presently?

Just curious.

barrowaj · 03-17-2005, 17:03 PM

I've read some reports on the possible environmental impact, but it seems like the oil companies are going to be very environmentally conscious about their work over there. I wouldn't be opposed to drilling if the issue were purely environmental, however, the drilling doesn't make economic sense. The output (at a cost of $35 per barrel) isn't going to be enough to bring down oil prices or significantly reduce America's reliance on foreign oil. Therefore, the only ones to benefit from this are going to be the oil companies and the state of Alaska, which will receive royalties. What's to loose though? A lot, the environmental impact could be significant, and in addition, if we are unable to efficiently develop a petroleum independent economy, we will be depleting reserves that could prove far more dear to us in the future. So why was this measure passed? Republicans bowing to corporate interests. Unfettered capitalism at work, pure and simple.

Ray · 03-17-2005, 17:48 PM

Julie,

I hope this helps.

From an article that I am writing.

Quote:

US experienced severe oil and gas shortage with periodic blackouts before Bush was first elected. Oil imports had crossed 50% of the total consumption as a historical first, leading to foreboding about US’s long term energy supply security since oil propped the US economy and the war machine.

The National Energy Policy Document in the Eight Chapter ‘Strengthening Global Alliances’ states that the US national energy security depends on sufficient energy supplies to support US and global economic growth and categorically emphasises securing more oil from foreign sources and making energy security a priority of US’s trade and foreign policy.

The requisite quantum of foreign oil required though not specified, yet a chart of net US oil consumption and production over time indicates a decline of domestic field production from about 8.5 million barrels per day (mbd) in 2002 to 7 mbd in 2020, with consumption rising from 19.5 mbd to 25.5 mbd. It indicates imports or other petroleum sources like natural gas liquids will have to rise from 11 mbd to 18.5 mbd. This shortfall, the NEP indicated would have to be procured.

The NEP interestingly underscores the removal of political, economic, legal and logistical obstacles in the quest for access to petroleum sources including advancing methodologies like exhorting the Administration “to deepen their commercial dialogue with Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and other Caspian states to provide a strong, transparent and stable business climate for energy and related infrastructure projects”.

Middle East caters for 18% of US imports but is critical to US economy since the high export volume ensures low oil prices, benefiting the US economy. Hence, the Middle East remains vital to US interests.

Global Peak Oil is another issue of US concern. With the rise in population and increased industrialisation, demand can outpace availability . Therefore, the country that corners or influences the world economy through oil production, prices, rate of change of prices and output will control the world.

Oil, thus, becomes a potent weapon.

Yet, oil dynamics is not absolute or quiescent.

The potential for instability through regional strife and via price and output manipulation by the oil cabal is indisputable as the world oil market is neither free nor competitive, as also because property rights are not well defined or enforced. This makes the oil a high risk entity. The world oil infrastructure security encompassing oilfields, pipelines, trade routes, etc manifests the US’s national concern, oil being its economy’s cornerstone.

Hence, prima facie, oil plays a major role in strategy.

US’s Oil Status.

The US economy is highly oil dependently driven. In fact, the US Oil Imports averaged a total of 10.108 million barrels per day in November 2004 .

Though the US has untapped reserves but it cannot meet the demand. USA’s recoverable oil reserves are probably more than 110 billion barrels. The US Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Assessment of US Oil and Gas Resources of 1995 concluded that there could be an additional undiscovered 30 billion barrels of oil, recoverable by conventional drilling and exploration technology and another 60 billion through new technology. Oil from shale and other unconventional sources could yield, as per USGS, another 112.3 billion barrels of oil. Even so, it would not assure energy independence, though it could become less vulnerable to the instability of Middle East oil calculus.
The US dependency on Oil import will escalate with her military deployment worldwide pursuant to the DPG dictates making it an expensive proposition. This will thus demand the requirement of tempering the world economies to suit the US domestic and international interests.

Hence, it becomes essential for the US to ensure that oil producing countries are without reservation within the US sphere of interest and inimical countries converted to the US cause. This alone would, influence the oil industry, its output, its prices and thus manipulation of world economies so as to ensure US global supremacy in near perpetuity.

Bluesman · 03-17-2005, 17:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrowaj

I've read some reports on the possible environmental impact, but it seems like the oil companies are going to be very environmentally conscious about their work over there. I wouldn't be opposed to drilling if the issue were purely environmental, however, the drilling doesn't make economic sense. The output (at a cost of $35 per barrel) isn't going to be enough to bring down oil prices or significantly reduce America's reliance on foreign oil. Therefore, the only ones to benefit from this are going to be the oil companies and the state of Alaska, which will receive royalties. What's to loose though? A lot, the environmental impact could be significant, and in addition, if we are unable to efficiently develop a petroleum independent economy, we will be depleting reserves that could prove far more dear to us in the future. So why was this measure passed? Republicans bowing to corporate interests. Unfettered capitalism at work, pure and simple.

Oh, for Gawd's sake, learn the facts, Propaganda Boy.

It actually WILL lessen the reliance on foreign oil. You're the one that keeps carping about our too-cozy realtionship with Saudi Arabia. ANWR output will almost completely offset what we get from them. Furthermore, if it made no economic sense, it wouldn't be done at all.

It was passed NOT because Republicans bowed to special interests (unless you count as a 'special interest' every single American benefiting because the economy can keep humming along). No, it was passed because you may have noticed that today oil hit a record high, and Americans - ALL of us - are going to suffer as a result and our economy is apt to slow down.

So, if you're saying that the GOP gets to claim credit for staving that off, then you're dam' right, because there weren't a helluva lot o' Democrats voting sensibly, were there? But that's not what you were saying at all. Because you and the Democrats just can't see that the rest of us don't want to pay four bucks a gallon for regular, especially when unemployment spikes as the economy takes a hit.

Unfettered capitalism at work is actually a GOOD THING, unless you'd rather:

A) Fetter capitalism, with the attendant human misery that this inevitably produces (and misery is all socialism has EVER produced in any quantity), or

B) Stop working, and let grass grow in the streets, because gosh, productivity, consumption, and expanding economic well-being is so...well, YOU know...bourgois, dahling.

Get the hell out of the way. We need to put a derrick where you're standing around crying.

highsea · 03-17-2005, 18:03 PM

Interesting Ray. Just curious, have you factored the Alberta Oil Sands into your calculus? 320Bn bbl proved reserves according to Syncrude LTD's last annual report.

highsea · 03-17-2005, 18:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Get the hell out of the way. We need to put a derrick where you're standing around crying.

Lol. I hope he wasn't one of those moaning about our trade deficit...let's see, 1.35 Million barrels/day @ $54.00/bbl.....

Ray · 03-17-2005, 18:11 PM

Highseas,

The statistics are from the National Engery Policy.

Notwithstanding, I will check. It is such a laborious document that I looked at info that fitted into the 'meat' of the article. Space restraints!

Try this:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1995/circ1118/execsum.html

highsea · 03-17-2005, 18:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

.... Space restraints!

I understand, it's an extremely complicated subject. Another good source of data is the US Energy Information Agency. Here is the currect country analysis brief.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

Ray · 03-17-2005, 18:24 PM

Highsea,

Thanks a lot.

Any more links you may have, do e mail to

rayc17m@yahoo.co.uk

I will be obliged.

highsea · 03-17-2005, 18:58 PM

My pleasure sir. I will sift through some of my stuff and see if there's anything interesting...

03-17-2005, 00:03 AM	#1 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	Alaska, gimme yer oil :) Senate Approves Drilling in Alaska Refuge 57 minutes ago Add to My Yahoo! Politics - U. S. Congress By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - A closely divided Senate voted Wednesday to approve oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, a major victory for President Bush (news - web sites) and a stinging defeat for environmentalists who have fought the idea for decades. Photo AP Photo By a 51-49 vote, the Senate put a refuge drilling provision in next year's budget, depriving opponents of the chance to use a filibuster to try to block it. Filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome, have been used to defeat drilling proposals in the past. "This project will keep our economy growing by creating jobs and ensuring that businesses can expand," Bush said in a statement. "And it will make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, eventually by up to a million barrels of oil a day." Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, who has fought for 24 years to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil companies, acknowledged it still could be "a long process" before a final drilling measure clears Congress. Lawmakers must agree on the final budget, something they failed to do last year, or Wednesday's vote would have been for naught. Also, the House did not include an Arctic refuge measure in its budget, a difference that will have to be worked out in future negotiations. Nevertheless, the Senate made clear by Wednesday's vote that a majority now supports tapping what is believed to be 10.4 billions or more of barrels of oil within the refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska. Two years ago, a similar attempt to use the budget process to open the refuge failed by three votes. But that was before Republicans last November expanded their majority, adding a number of GOP senators who favor drilling. Only seven Republicans, all moderates, bucked their party Wednesday and voted with most Democrats against opening the refuge. Environmentalists said while the vote was disappointing, they haven't given up the fight. "It only strengthens our resolve to protect America's most pristine national wildlife refuge for our children's future," said Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. "The battle is far from over," said Lexi Keogh of the Alaska Wilderness League. She said environmentalists will push to keep the ANWR provision out of a final budget document. The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to the oil. In 1980, Congress said the oil could be developed, but only if lawmakers specifically authorized the Interior Department to sell oil leases. Repeatedly Congress has failed to do so. Environmentalists for years have fought such development, contending it would lead to a spider web of drilling platforms, pipelines and roads that would adversely impact the calving grounds of caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the refuge's coastal plain. "The fact is it's going to be destructive," Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., said during debate on an amendment that would have stripped the drilling language from the budget measure. Democrats fell two votes short of the 51 needed. Kerry and other drilling opponents argued that more oil would be saved than ANWR could produce if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels. Drilling supporters countered that the refuge's oil can be pumped while still protecting the environment and wildlife. Modern technology, drilling techniques and environmental restrictions would dramatically limit the industrial footprint that would be left on the tundra and protect wildlife, said Murkowski. "We know we've got to do it right. ... It's a fragile environment." One GOP senator after another argued that with foreign imports accounting for more than half of the oil the country uses, every available barrel should be pursued. The Alaska refuge represents the largest potential onshore oil find in the country, they said. "Some people say we ought to conserve more. They say we ought to conserve instead of producing this oil. But we need to do everything. We have to conserve and produce where we can," said Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. But drilling opponents rejected the suggestion that ANWR's oil would have much impact on global markets, today's high oil and gasoline prices, or the continued U.S. reliance on foreign producers. "We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist." Cantwell and other Democrats accused Republicans of trying "an end run" by attaching the refuge provisions to the budget, saying the question of drilling in an ecologically pristine refuge — a "special place" as many environmentalists called it — should be debated as separate legislation or as part of a broad energy bill. "It's the only way around the filibuster," countered Stevens, defending the use of the budget process. He said that approach is justified for issues that have special importance such as getting at ANWR's oil, something he characterized as a matter of "national security." ___

03-17-2005, 18:11 PM	#12 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 27,195 Country:	Highseas, The statistics are from the National Engery Policy. Notwithstanding, I will check. It is such a laborious document that I looked at info that fitted into the 'meat' of the article. Space restraints! Try this: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1995/circ1118/execsum.html Last edited by Ray : 03-17-2005 at 18:21 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Shouldn't the people who make war actually be in the war?	chankya	Political Discussions	108	12-26-2007 16:23 PM
Saudis waging an oil war on Iran?	Shek	The Iranian Question	5	01-29-2007 20:36 PM
What are we doing in Iraq?	Gio	Political Discussions	152	09-16-2006 14:07 PM
No, The Iran Oil Bourse Is Not A Casus Belli…’	Parihaka	Political Discussions	3	03-22-2006 00:10 AM
Why use force when talk works so well?	Leader	International Defense Topics	54	12-05-2005 04:29 AM

03-17-2005, 03:02 AM	#2 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 8,552 Country:	When I heard the news this is what I IMed to my best friend: "We're gonna drill in ANWR, Yaaaaay! oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil" -dale

03-17-2005, 09:24 AM	#6 (permalink)
Julie Moderator Join Date: 08-04-03 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,639 Country:	Personally, I am glad to see it. I'm not an Environmentalist, but I often wondered what could be existing in a freezing desolate area. Even though it could be 10 years before we can benefit from any oil extracted in the area, does anyone have any figures as to how much this would save the US, and/or negatively impact who we buy oil from presently? Just curious.

03-17-2005, 17:03 PM	#7 (permalink)
barrowaj Contributor Join Date: 08-22-04 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 710	I've read some reports on the possible environmental impact, but it seems like the oil companies are going to be very environmentally conscious about their work over there. I wouldn't be opposed to drilling if the issue were purely environmental, however, the drilling doesn't make economic sense. The output (at a cost of $35 per barrel) isn't going to be enough to bring down oil prices or significantly reduce America's reliance on foreign oil. Therefore, the only ones to benefit from this are going to be the oil companies and the state of Alaska, which will receive royalties. What's to loose though? A lot, the environmental impact could be significant, and in addition, if we are unable to efficiently develop a petroleum independent economy, we will be depleting reserves that could prove far more dear to us in the future. So why was this measure passed? Republicans bowing to corporate interests. Unfettered capitalism at work, pure and simple.

03-17-2005, 18:03 PM	#10 (permalink)
highsea *Defense Professional* Join Date: 12-10-04 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3,530	Interesting Ray. Just curious, have you factored the Alberta Oil Sands into your calculus? 320Bn bbl proved reserves according to Syncrude LTD's last annual report.

03-17-2005, 18:24 PM	#14 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 27,195 Country:	Highsea, Thanks a lot. Any more links you may have, do e mail to rayc17m@yahoo.co.uk I will be obliged.

03-17-2005, 18:58 PM	#15 (permalink)
highsea *Defense Professional* Join Date: 12-10-04 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3,530	My pleasure sir. I will sift through some of my stuff and see if there's anything interesting...

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)