The Heritage Foundation - Leadership for America

June 29, 2008 Steve Brink, Bellingham, WA writes:

It’s sad that most of our federally elected Senators and Representatives (that Americans have elected) won’t do anything about our dependence on foreign oil. Drilling in ANWR, extracting oil from shale in the Rocky Mountains, and drilling offshore of our coastlines has been proven to be environmentally sound.

Hopefully, the voting public will get the message this election season and vote all the liberal democrats and republicans out of Congress. We did it to ourselves by voting them in in the first place.

June 29, 2008 Bill Dukas, Kerhonkson NY writes:

Got the picture, thanks for making it simple and to the point. I especially liked that Alaskan bear run, such an unobtrusive way to stimulate a beast’s intelligence.

June 29, 2008 Darvin Dowdy writes:

Rob, lets focus on the number of very high paying jobs that will be available once all of these areas have been opened for drilling. The American worker has seen a loss of high pay manufacturing jobs over the past decade. Dramatically increased domestic drilling would more than compensate for that and most likely add more.

If you want Congress to act, you’re going to have to get Middle America excited and enthusiastic about it and in turn they’ll call/write/email/fax their representitive. Just like we experienced last June with the McCain/Kennedy. A ground swell. Something that congress can’t deny or hide from. Forced to act. Sorry, thats what it takes.
Middle America can always get pumped up by the prospect of higher paying and more plentiful jobs. That is how we need to sell this issue.

“Our side” is doing a terrible job of selling this issue to the American people. You can point to Newt’s “drill now” initiative but 1 million signatures is nothing. 1/300th. Not enough to get congress off its duff. Darvin Dowdy

June 29, 2008 bill-tb writes:

Sure doesn’t look like the Grand Canyon. I understand it’s dark 8 months or so out of the year. Energy Independece, it’s right under your feet.

Agree with the terrible job our side is doing, McCain sure isn’t helping with all his nutty global warming BS.

June 29, 2008 Joanne Sare, Galt, Ca writes:

I support drilling for oil in ANWAR or anyplace there is oil to drill for in the USA. What happened to all the oil wells in Texas? We are now at the mercy of those countrys that hate us! Another thing that I think is suspicious is when Obama said “I didn’t think gas prices would go up so fast”! What did he mean by that statement? Almost like he was in on the plan.

June 29, 2008 Juan Leal writes:

I am for drilling even in my backyard.

June 30, 2008 MARY TOMPKINS, NEDERLAND, TX writes:

WHY DON’T WE JUST PRODUCE OIL FROM THE CAPPED WELLS IN TEXAS, WYOMING, UTAH ETC. WE ARE PAYING PEOPLE TO LEASE THE WELLS. WE ALREADY KNOW WHERE THEY ARE ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS START PRODUCING FROM THEM. WHY EXPLORE FOR A RESOURCE WE ALREADY HAVE, SEEMS LIKE A WASTE OF TIME. WE NEED THE OIL NOW. EXPLORATION NEEDS TO CONTINUE AS WELL. GREED SEEMS TO BE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS ISSUE. WHO’S GETTING RICH, IT SURE ISN’T ME.

June 30, 2008 Ed Morris--Roswell, Ga. writes:

E-Mail all of your friends if you are for drilling in the USA. This is a “no brainer” We should drill, drill and drill some more.

June 30, 2008 John Bernia - Oxford, Michigan writes:

These photos need to be placed in front of the American people. Obviously, getting the news media to actually put them out there is going to be impossible, which is very frustrating.

Newt Gingrich, with his American Solutions website has circulated a petition to drum up the support for oil drilling. Over 1 million people have signed it, calling for members of congress to pursue drilling here, drilling now, so Americans can pay less.

In addition to helping with oil supply and the overall economic impact, this should also be seen in the light of the national security issue it really is. Want to fight terrorism? Reduce the amount of oil purchased from the middle east and work for energy independence. This is another front of the war on terror.

June 30, 2008 Joyce Parker, Seabrook,TX writes:

I am all for going “green” in what ever way it is practical to do so. However, our nation is fueled by oil and gas. Until someone figures out how to provide all Americans with an alternative to oil that everyone can afford to use we will remain dependent on oil. That means we must drill. I thought this was a good posting. The photo of Caribou grazing around the oil rig made me laugh. In Texas you frequently see cattle and other animals grazing around them.

June 30, 2008 Bob Steele, Riverton IL. writes:

This country has all the resources needed to survive on it’s own. Use our own resources, OIL,technology, medical, and food. Help the few countries that help US and let the rest “fend for themselves”. We didn’t need them 200 years ago so why should we need them now? DRILL OUR OWN OIL = ANWR AND THE COASTAL AREAS. The animals will adapt to the environment. They don’t go extinct due to habitat changes.

June 30, 2008 Kittitas County Republican Party Blog » Blog Archive » The Truth About ANWR writes:

[…] We hear so much in the media about ANWR.  Yet, have you ever seen any pictures of this pristine place?  You can check out some pictures that helps to keep things in perspective at the Heritage Foundation. […]

June 30, 2008 Bob Benn, San Diego, CA writes:

If our politicians had to pay for their own gas and oil, they would fix this problem right away. If we don’t start drilling off of our shores you can rest assured that China, Cuba and Venezuela will have derricks up pumping our oil and selling it back to us at rediculas prices.

We need to clean house in November!

June 30, 2008 M. Johnson, Houston, TX writes:

I, too, am for drilling in ANWR… surely with so many environmentalists watching, the drillers would have to be judicious in their protection of the area. But, for those of you who believe it would be ok in your “backyard”… be careful what you wish for! Drilling on our property began several yrs ago, & it’s not a pretty picture… the oil company appropriated (no compensation b/c they hold the mineral rights) almost 10% of our surface acreage & set up an oil & gas production facility along with their well. The runoff, including sand & once some oil, from their hillside goes straight into the pond we had paid $15K to build… the sand has reduced the pond depth signicantly; “fortunately,” the oil was absorbed into the ground & didn’t affect our surface water.

June 30, 2008 Mark , Texas writes:

Is this really about “showing” the american people the problem , no , we americans are pretty darned smart . we know the problems with and without drilling . the real problem is that our elected represenitives HAVE TURNED THEIR BACKS ON US . they do not care what any american thinks about the current situation . all they care about is their immediate futur , that’s all . well I say if they can sell us out we can sell them out , PERIOD . start making a stand america .

June 30, 2008 Kmuzu writes:

So, here is just an opinion from the other side. Why drilling in ANWR is wrong.

1. Your example of relative area is misleading. The Exxon Valdez spill, Chernobyl, Love Canal were is small areas, but caused major devastation.
2. Oil companies are liars and are cartels, no different than drug lords. These guys brought us leaded fuel, when alcohol fuel would have only been five cents more a gallon.
3. Oil companies are sitting on over 7,400 undeveloped leases right now. Why not start on these before we go to ANWR?
4. Oil companies have been selling developed leases to China. There is a site in Denver sold to China that employs Chinese workers. Let’s throw the Chinese off and give the jobs to Americans.
5. There is not enough oil in ANWR to make a difference.
6. If development started today it would take at least seven years to start pumping.
7. Supply is only a small part of the problem. Speculation is really behind this spike in price.
8. Let’s not forget the anemic dollar and the threat of more war in the Middle East.
9. ANWR does nothing to get us off the addiction to oil. How does this help in developing alternative energy?
10. As I understand it, British Petroleum runs the Alaskan Pipeline (doesn’t sound American to me), they say when and how much oil is piped through. How do we know the same thing won’t happen to ANWR?

As a Democrat, I want to give the finger to the Middle East, Venezuela and Iran. I hate the fact that some king or two-bit dictator is trying to crush the will of America. Have you seen the pictures of Bush holding hands with the Saudi king? How does the president of the United States hold the hand of another man? Makes me wanna puke. We are the greatest nation on the frikin’ earth. We need independence and we can do through American innovation. Alternative energy is the only answer to our oil addiction.

Just my opinion .. Kmuzu

June 30, 2008 Doran Williams, Lee County, Texas writes:

Your approach to this issue is essentially the same as the approach you condemn: Lots of pictures of cute animals, snowy scenes and desolate coastal plains. Lots of semi-hysterical language about the dire consequences of not drilling. Lots of invective against those who do not agree with you.

I hope those who read your post have the common sense you claim the opposition lacks. For instance, could you present some facts about the following:

1. Will disruption due to oil exploration, development and transport be limited to the 2000 acres? I think that not to be likely, as 2000 acres is not all that large, as you point out, and without fences and monitors, there will be little incentive for staying inside the boundaries with all the support and disposal ares that will be created by the drilling.

2. How will the crude get to market? A new pipeline? Offshore loading terminals? Are those areas included in the 2000 acres? If not, what is the total acreage involved.

3. How many companies will get leases on 2000 acres? Really, there is hardly enough room for two outfits to develop the place. Just look at your own photos from around Prudhoe Bay: One rig located in what is probably an area greatly in excess of 2000 acres. Ah! See there! You might say. Not all that much disruption or damage. Could very well be that you are correct, but really: Which company stands to benefit?

4. How long will it take for the crude to reach refiners, from the day ANWAR is opened? How long to reach consumers as gasoline?

5. What is reasonable maximum amount of crude that can be produced? Will it really have the effect of lowering gasoline prices as you suggest? If it does, all that OPEC, or Chavez have to do to keep the price up is lower their production.

6. For what period of time, at full production, will the crude from ANWAR be available?

7. Do you really consider those coastal plains to be a “barren wasteland”? That is a bit of hyperbole, isn’t it?

June 30, 2008 Garry - Oregon writes:

I’m afraid its politics and politicans as usual selling America and its citizens out. Greed and power is always the bottom line.

June 30, 2008 Brian - Atlanta, GA writes:

Self-proclaimed Democrats; always looking at the peas and not the steak. Rather than pick apart the reasons why ANWR may not be “the answer,” I believe its symbolism outruns the actual. At the end of the day the dumb masses will all but give this country away - the shame each of our elders must feel. Really, has anyone stopped pushing their opinions long enough to talk to someone old? You would be amazed at what they are saying about us.

History, and experience, will teach us everything about the future…if we would just listen.

June 30, 2008 Doran Williams writes:

Well, Brian in Atlanta, I’m 68+ and I am of the opinion that if people are going to support drilling in ANWAR without asking and getting straight answers to questions like the ones I posted above, those people are entitled to take their rightful places among the ranks of the intentionlly ignorant. If its a decision out of us, the people out here in the real world, that the Congress wants, we need to be able to make informed decisions, decisions based upon all the available, reasonably accurate information. All I see from the proponents of drilling in ANWAR is the kind of semi-hysterical, hypebolic propaganda such as the main post herein. The opponents of drilling make a much sounder, fact-based argument. Their argument is not without its propagandistic elements, but they do have facts to support their position. What are the facts, along the lines of those suggested by my questions, to support the proponents? Sure as hell can’t tell from the main post, can you?

June 30, 2008 Kmuzu writes:

Agree Doran - Some Republican give the whole party a bad name. Always with the personal attacks instead of a reasonable debate. This is what’s wrong with country.

Nobody has ever told me why we’re in such a damn hurry to go drilling in ANWR.

Good point ..

Kmuzu

June 30, 2008 John Bernia - Oxford, Michigan writes:

I think the overall point in favor of drilling in ANWR is what it would do for the following items:

- It would lower the future price of gas, which is what speculators are essentially investing on, something that is driving up the price of gas.

- Increased potential supply would create a market. Markets create competition, which benefits consumers.

- If we don’t explore, someone else will. The Chinese are now leasing land in the Atlantic from Cuba, roughly 45 miles south of Florida where they are going to drill. They expect to find a considerable amount of oil there. I live in Michigan, where news reports indicate that the Canadians are going to build new refineries across Lake Huron. European nations, who (and this is only my opinion and not meant to be negative) seem to be rather sensitive to the environment are doing exploration.

- No one really knows how much oil is in ANWR. We know it is there, but cannot quantify how much is available until some drilling is done. Consider for a moment what recently happened for Brazil. They explored in the Atlantic and found an undiscovered 90 billion barrels of oil. Combining that with the biodiesel they make from sugarcane, it makes them energy independent.

- You’re correct, oil companies do have some offshore land to explore, but have reported that the approved areas would not yield enough gas to make drilling worthwhile. For that reason, it would be worthwhile to allow exploration elsewhere.

- I’m in complete agreement - we need cars that run on something other than oil. Electricity, hydrogen, solar, waterpower are all worthwhile options. Yet, even if those cars went into production tomorrow, we would still have a considerable amount of time before cars that run on gasoline are obsolete. For that reason, further oil exploration needs to be part of the energy solution. This exploration should include drilling.

As for the hurry, I just filled up - $4.23 a gallon.

I appreciate your thoughts and am glad we got a chance to debate the issue. Thanks for posting. I’m hoping now to ask you a question. What’s your solution for the high gas prices? I know you oppose drilling in ANWR and am assuming you don’t like the idea of new offshore drilling, what do you want to do?

Again, I love a good exchange of ideas, thanks for posting,

John

June 30, 2008 Donald Fritz, Anchorage, Alaska writes:

Apart from our obvious need for energy independence, there is a timeclock running on our accessing the oil and gas wealth in the far North. TAPS (Trans Alaska Pipeline System) is a federally licensed project which covers about 800 miles of difficult terrain, crossing major rivers, mountain ranges, permafrost and swamps. The sheer expense of this endeavor required an oil field the size of Prudhoe Bay to amortize the expense. This pipeline is getting older by the day and has a very finite life. The legislation that permitted the building of TAPS also requires that it be dismantled when no longer needed. A field the size of ANWR will probably not justify the cost of a new pipeline, so it is imperative that we access and ship that oil in the existing TAPS while it is still viable. Or; we can hope the global warming people are right and we will be able to drive tankers right to the North Slope. The shipping season will start right after the Easter Bunny lays her eggs.

June 30, 2008 Bumpus, Houston writes:

It is the roads that open access that will destroy ANWR just
as the roads into the rain forest of South America open the virgin
forest.

TRUTH: Global warming has shortened the usable time per winter for ice roads by approximately 30 days. Ice roads cannot be used in the summer — so much for the ice roads.

If the oil must be harvested, there will be much damage to one of the last unspoiled spots on the globe. The solution to this problem is in restoration.

To insure such restoration is done, a fund should be collected from the beginning consisting of $3.00 deposited in trust for every $1.00 spent on development. Those companies that will develop and remove the resources must be made to completely finance the complete return of all developed areas to the original conditions. The restored area must look exactly as it does now. Such restoration must include the removal and restoration of all roads, airstrips, gravel pits, garbage, production facilities and pipe
lines. Both state and local governments should manage this fund with oversight by an organization, such as Conservation International.

June 30, 2008 Kmuzu writes:

Okay .. here it goes.

We’re buying from a criminal organization called OPEC. They control the spigot of most of the cheap oil in the world. When they decide for the oil price to go up they turn the spigot down. This is true even if we had a hundred ANWR’s

Speculation over war in Iraq and Iran has much more to do with the immediate price than supply.

The weak dollar (because of the tremendous deficit) causes runaway inflation. Remember China and other countries are holding billions in American dollars, as the value decrease they sell off or call these loans. Saudi oil is based on the dollar.

The price of gas has gone from $1.35 in 2004 to $4.75 today. That’s a 350% increase. Tell me that is due to consumption.

The 7,000 or so already existing contracts are not junk. Oil companies bid premium prices for those contracts. Why would they do that if there was no oil?

The Chinese will buy junk crude, they can refine it a lot cheaper than we can. Light sweet crude is only found in a few places around the world. In the United States this is primarily Texas. Alaska, as far as I know contains no LSC.

Solutions

We have not built one refinery or nuclear plant in many years. Maybe we should invest in refineries instead of speculative land leases. Refineries would drop the oil price faster than more drilling.

Strengthen the dollar. We need to start paying off these loans now, instead of pushing them off to our children. The interest rate needs to raise slightly. And yes, rational tax increases would help.

Getting out of Iraq. We need a reasonable strategy of leaving. This does not mean pulling out tomorrow, but like a inconsiderate relative we need to start packing our bags.

Stop meddling in Iran. It is fine to put political pressure and sanctions, but sending in the special forces is going to cause nothing but trouble.

Peace between Israel and her neighbors. Okay some peace is better than none.

Alternative energy. This means solar panels, wind, thermal and tidal turbines. Better battery technology. This also means production of nuclear plants.

Conservation. Americans need to get their heads around conserving energy. Fuel efficient cars, reduction in energy use, less consumption of plastic, buying local.

Even if the contract were signed today, it would take seven to fifteen years before oil was pouring through the spigot. I say let’s think outside of the box on this one.

June 30, 2008 Megan, Pennsylvania writes:

Some of the hurry is that part of the agreement to build the pipelines in the first place was that once the oil was dry the pipeline and all rigs would need to be dismantled and things returned as they were before the pipeline.

If we don’t start drilling soon, there will be no pipeline to use to get the oil here.

June 30, 2008 Tim, Wisconsin writes:

Wow - there is some intense ignorance at work here. Let’s start with Kmuzu. Yes, OPEC is virtually a criminal organization, primarily controlled by people who hate the US (all the more reason to avoid their control). However, they have no control over ANWR. Let’s say we could pump enough oil there not only to provide US consumption, but also largely meet the Chinese and Indian needs. How powerful is OPEC then? They can’t set prices in a vacuum! This might be especially plausible if we were to begin developing Colorado oil shale fields as well (where there may be 500 billion to 1 trillion barrels available).

Why do we suppose the oil companies have 7,400 leases they aren’t currently using? We’d like to think it’s some evil conspiracy, but the obvious reason is that surveys have shown there is no oil there, or at least not enough to bother with.

While we are on the topic, why do we hate the oil companies so much? Yes, it sucks dealing with $4 gas, but the companies are making only about 8% of sales as profit. Compare that with 18% for Intel or 28% for Microsoft! And who owns the oil companies anyway? Rich sheiks? Fat cats lighting cigars with $100 bills? NO! Ordinary Americans own the oil companies in their trillions of dollars of 401(k) holdings! Oil profits are BENEFICIAL to America. Of course we would prefer that they make 15% profit while selling gas for $2 to make the same total gains, but that’s not what the world petroleum markets are allowing right now. Consider the fact that emerging China and India between them have more than EIGHT TIMES the population of the US, and you start to realize where the problem is.

Kmuzu, current estimates are that ANWR contains between 100 and 200 billion barrels of oil. That will make a difference.

The time it takes to start pumping is not relevant. You have to start sometime.

Without a perceived lack of supply, there would BE NO speculation. The two go hand in hand.

We DO need alternative energy. Let’s see some real planning in that area. In the meantime, this is a real plan to try to fix the short-term problems. Hydrogen fuel converted with nuclear electricity solves both the energy shortage and greenhouse gas issues, but greenies want nothing to do with very safe nuclear energy.

Doran, I have yet to see a single fact from YOU. It may be true that the problem of transportation complicates things a bit, but I think the idea that ANWR drilling would involve very little area in a coastal plain region is a valid one, and hardly counts as “hypebolic” [sic].

Do you guys really have that little knowledge of history or economics to state that “all that OPEC, or Chavez have to do to keep the price up is lower their production”? Riiiiiight. What happened after the US sharply curtailed gasoline consumption and increased production in the 1970s? OPEC was forced to compete with US-produced crude or be trampled in the market. They were unable to achieve unity, and it wouldn’t have mattered if they did. OPEC can’t just decide to cut production, since then they DON’T MAKE ANY MONEY!

Please - instead of talking points, let’s use some actual reasoning and application of basic economics!

June 30, 2008 kbTexan writes:

I wanted to buy a hybrid, but they cost more than a regular gasoline engine. Did you know, even at today’s prices, it would take 5 years to save enough on gasoline to make up the difference in price? If we use the arguments presented by some who are opposed to drilling, that would mean it’s a waste of time to buy a hybrid.

Why does a hybrid cost so much more than a gas-powered car? Lack of supply? Or is it because the automobile companies are liars and cheats? Maybe we should nationalize the automobile industry, or tax them more. Or maybe it’s speculators driving up hybrid prices.

On a serious note, conservation is a good plan. I personally burn less than a tank a month. But if we just focus on conservation, China, India and Al Gore will consume all we manage to conserve, and then some. We have to pursue all avenues of solving the problem, and that includes increasing our own production.

June 30, 2008 RSE, PA writes:

Kmuzu et al - Since you had asked, here are fact-based answers to your questions:

1. Your example of relative area is misleading. The Exxon Valdez spill, Chernobyl, Love Canal were is small areas, but caused major devastation.

A:Yes, but the point is that it is very small. The libs have been bemoaning all the LARGE AMOUNT of acres needed that it would overrun the area. Actual size works against the libs’ argument.

2. Oil companies are liars and are cartels, no different than drug lords. These guys brought us leaded fuel, when alcohol fuel would have only been five cents more a gallon.

A: Oil companies run businesses, and act just like every other business. Are all business men and women bad? Should we outlaw all business? The actual owners of the oil companies (not OPEC) are YOU and ME: in the form of mutual fund companies and other investors. Sad to say the truth, but we’re in on it. Read your next prospectus for details.

3.Oil companies are sitting on over 7,400 undeveloped leases right now. Why not start on these before we go to ANWR?

A:Because you cannot equate # of acres = # of places to drill. With newer technology, there is no need to crank out hundreds of new wells; just the freedom to actually let one drill. Plus, some of those acres are in areas that are highly difficult to get out oil, and it would take a short supply market to make it profitable to get the oil out. In fact, wouldn’t you prefer having 1 oil well pumping oil out of a 100 acre plot, rather than 100 oil wells over the same plot like the old days?

4.Oil companies have been selling developed leases to China. There is a site in Denver sold to China that employs Chinese workers. Let’s throw the Chinese off and give the jobs to Americans.

A:That’s possible. But having the Chinese come in and drill doesn’t mean we don’t get the oil. Nor does it mean that we’re incapable of developing other lands as well.

5. There is not enough oil in ANWR to make a difference.

A:There is a HUGE amount of estimated oil that will make a big difference on the market. We’re talking about 1-2 million barrels a day. On a market that is about ½ million short (thus causing higher prices), that would mean serious drop in prices. Supply IS the big issue (see below).

6.If development started today it would take at least seven years to start pumping.

A:That’s fine. I’d rather start today than sit around twiddling my thumbs for a decade before realizing maybe we should have started to drill earlier.

7. Supply is only a small part of the problem. Speculation is really behind this spike in price.

A:Speculation is simply a part of the market, and acts as both a price increaser as well as decreaser. In fact, not having speculators would take away a cushion that actually keeps the markets stable. Supply is the real issue; when it is scarce or short, businesses will pay more for the same amount because its important to have and worth the purchase. If the supply increases to where its not scarce, the demand is met, the concern drops, and the prices go down. Its psychological, but also physical at the same time.

8.Let’s not forget the anemic dollar and the threat of more war in the Middle East.

A:The reason the dollar is low is because of the oil issue (although there are other issues, like the credit market). Fix the oil issue, and the dollar issue will resolve itself in short order.

9.ANWR does nothing to get us off the addiction to oil. How does this help in developing alternative energy?

A: ANWR buys us 30 years. Even if I go by what Chuck Shumer D-NY said (which is wrong) that we’d only get 25 years out of ANWR, that’s 25 years to invest, develop, and market on a large economies of scale the kind of alternatives we need. By that time (roughly 2040) China will arguably have the world’s largest economy, and we will be in a position of not commanding “top dollar” for services. So we’d better be ready for that moment. This buys us time against resource scarcity that hinders that goal because it puts the economy in a funk and stagnates.

10.As I understand it, British Petroleum runs the Alaskan Pipeline (doesn’t sound American to me), they say when and how much oil is piped through. How do we know the same thing won’t happen to ANWR?

A:That’s all controlled in the contract. Sign a good contract, and we should be OK to have what we need, whether it’s Chevron, Shell (which is Dutch), BP, ExxonMobil (which is only the 8th largest oil co in the world).

There you go. I do agree with your statement that we need to innovate & create our way out of this. In a world economy, that is currently our role as creator/innovator with new products. Let’s both hope we can forge alternatives that will work on a large economy model.

Best leaders are “both/and” kind of leaders; not “either/or”. We CAN increase drilling and refining, and by doing so increase our security and economic development, WHILE planning for the future as we have perilously glanced by currently.

Leaders in DC need to wake up and smell the revolution brewing if they don’t hear us on this one.

July 1, 2008 Bill, NJ writes:

I think opponents of ANWR drilling perceive US oil consumption as an addiction. Their solution is to restrict the addict/consumer’s supply with the hope that they will wean themselves off the stuff. Good luck with that strategy.

July 1, 2008 Doran Williams writes:

In response to the request for FACTS: Go to google, type in ANWR EIS. You will get access to the Environmental Impact Statement, as well as to other studies, data, etc. The original EIS was completed in the late 80s. Almost all the google referenced docs I looked at predict significant environmental damage and about a 10 year development timeline.

I think there may be reasonable arguments to be made for drilling ANWR, but they are unpersuasive because they all reduce to essentially “Yeah, there will be environmental damage, but it is worth it to get that oil because it will drive down prices.” Cheap oil is a false hope, people, a foolish fancy, a dream. We will never have cheap gasoline again, not until humans stop demanding it and using it up. This is not a consequence of environmentalists meddling, it is a consequence of market forces brought on by demand for a dwindling resource, brought on by a huge human population.

JFK rallied the nation to put a man on the moon, and bring him back alive within a 10 year span.

Think of that: In less than 10 years, from the word GO, humans sent one of ours to the moon and brought him back still kickin.

There is no doubt in my mind that in a 10 year span, roughly the period of exploration and development of ANWR preceeding delivery of crude to refineries, the US could develop and produce the techniques, hardware and software to utilize renewable energy sources that will cost the consumer less that oil will cost. Stop wasting our time trying to give the oil industry access to ANWR and get started on the solution: That is what we should be doing.

July 1, 2008 John Bernia - Oxford, Michigan writes:

If we sent a man to the moon in 10 years (remarkably quickly as you point out) wouldn’t it be safe to assume that we could use the oil in ANWR on a faster timetable than the 7 years some suggest?

It’s the short term component of the long-term solution.

July 1, 2008 Seth, Vermont writes:

Perhaps we should just make some small changes in the way we live our lives and we wouldn’t need to go drilling everywhere for oil. Simple things like driving more economical vehicles, improving our rail distribution system, using more efficient light bulbs and better insulation to keep our homes warm/cool. Drilling for more oil won’t solve any long term problems. Sure we might reduce the cost of fuel at the pumps for a couple more years…maybe 10 more years….but then what happens….back to where we are now. God forbid we have to make a few small sacrifices and change the way we live. But the reality is our lifestyles don’t have to change a whole lot.

Out in Colorado and Wyoming they are tapping the ground wherever possible to get to the Natural Gas. Unfortunately in the process they are punching through all the underground water systems and much of the ground water has been badly contaminated. So we have cheap natural gas but we can’t drink the water out of our faucets.

July 1, 2008 Seth, Vermont writes:

The price of gas in this country is being driven by several things including the devaluation of the American dollar. The cost of a barrel of oil before iraq was somewhere in the $30 range…as I recall….now we are over $130/barrel. In a way you could say that the 9/11 attacks by Bin Laden and company were highly successful. Consider that Saddam Hussein was no friend of Bin Laden and we went in and removed Saddam (sp?) and thus openned up Iraq for a terrorist playground. In doing so we pissed off the rest of the world and gave the terrorists the perfect location for killing us whenever possible. Now consider the true goal of the 9/11 attacks…sure they were trying to scare us and kill us but they were really trying to kill our economy…which is happening at this moment. If we are not in a recession then I don’t know how bad it has to get for a recession to occur….I digress.

Point being that we/our leader/ the USA etc has made some real poor moves in the last 10 years that we are feeling the effects of now.

July 1, 2008 JK, WV writes:

Apparently facts mean nothing. Drilling in ANWR or anywhere else will have no short term impact or long term impact. F wildlife. F the environment. It’s just a waste of time, plain and simple. Oil companies have tens of millions of acres that they can drill on in the US. Build more wells on existing land and forget about more land grabs! This is unbelievable!!

July 1, 2008 dave mcduffie, laguna Niguel,Ca writes:

It simply amazes me how anyone, especially an American, can be a liberal, considering how their policies are based on LIES, FEELINGS and THEORY! Its really NOT a good “feeling” to know that I risked my life for you morons! Especially knowing that when the conflict comes here(and it is coming!)you liberals will be hiding behind the women and children! This energy situation is going to get much worse and effect every segment of our society in a negative way since the democrats sit on their collective hands and do nothing positive(which is what they have always done!). Just look down the road and see gas at $6.00 or $7.00, food prices through the roof because of delivery costs, Americans stop buying everything and the stock market collapses further, you can bet the streets in this country will be a very dangerous place and certainly nothing to make even Michelle Obama proud of her country again!

July 1, 2008 dave, laguna niguel, ca writes:

Dear bumpus, its easy to see where your name come from; Bum and Puss! Americans want NOTHING to do with any international orginanization which oversees anything we do! That is what American citizens are for, in our voting booths. Your “internationalism” is whats destroying our country! Yeah, lets take the ONLY SUPERPOWER and relegate them to the same status as Zimbabwe!! Thanks a lot Mr liberal!

July 1, 2008 Steve Carlin - Colorado writes:

I’ve actually been to Prudhoe Bay. It’s Kansas with snow. There are no trees and no hills or mountains. It’s flat and barren.

The truth is that 83% of the oil that comes out of the North Slope goes overseas. It doesn’t come to the US. Drilling there won’t bring down the price of gas in the US by even a penny. Only 17% is used within our country. It is estimated that there are only about 7.668 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the area. If they started drilling today they don’t expect to produce any useable oil until 2018. The US currently uses about 20 million barrels a DAY. That means that all of the proposed oil in ANWR would last the US about 400 days, if we actually used it instead of exporting it. Considering that only 17% (1,360,000,000 barrels) would be used in our country, we would burn through it in 68 days at our current consumption rate.

The Porcupine Caribou herd in northern Alaska has the lowest birthing rate of any herd in the state. When they give birth they find isolated areas where they don’t have to worry about wolves and bears and other predators. Historically they used the area in these maps, but as roads and traffic have increased in these areas they have avoided them during birthing season. In 1989 there were about 178,000 caribou living in that area and the herd had been growing at 4.9% per year since 1972. As development and traffic has increased in the area the herd has declined at a rate of about 3.6% per year. The 2002 census counted only 123,000 members of the herd. The 2007 photocensus counted only about 110,000 caribou in the herd. At this rate, assuming nothing further invades the space, it is estimated that the herd will be non-existent in about 30 years. The photo of the herd near the oil pipeline in this email thread is in the summer time when they aren’t calving and is not the norm.

The only animals that live up there are Polar bears (which are the only animal on the planet known to track a human for miles, kill them, and eat them),Grizzly Bears, the Arctic Foxes (which feed on the Marmots and Shrews, Rabbits, Weasels, and baby Caribou), occasional Seals, Bowhead Whales, and the Porcupine Creek Caribou herd.

The good news - birth rates and survival rates were up slightly in 2007. They spent the majority of the winter near the coastal plain where the oil companies want to drill. Historically the mortality rate is lower when they spend the winter further south or east into Canada.

July 1, 2008 Catmandu, Washington writes:

1. Your example of relative area is misleading. The Exxon Valdez spill, Chernobyl, Love Canal were is small areas, but caused major devastation.

The Exxon Valdez spilled oil 11 million gallons, but what the media failed to do is talk of the individual who owned the booms to contain the oil, he held those booms on a dock wanting an exorbanant amount of money (200 times regular costs) while there was an unusal calm over Prince William Sound for two weeks then a storm started to brew and that pushed the oil to the shore but if the individual were honorable he would have released the boom ASAP, but an individual doesn’t make good copy on the evening news, big oil does! Chernobyl had a soviot system of maintenence and no containment field, the civilized world has 400+ nuclear without a Chernobyl accident.

2. Oil companies are liars and are cartels, no different than drug lords. These guys brought us leaded fuel, when alcohol fuel would have only been five cents more a gallon.

Liberals raise taxes to help the little guy yet it never fails to hurt the workersnot the employers, people suffer when liberalism/solcialism succeeds. I have yet to see them lie if they have talk to your liberal rep. and have that companies contract pulled otherwise the oil companies are a free enterprize, not a illegal organization, owned buy many ask Al Gore why he is heavily invested in Ocidental Petroleum?

3. Oil companies are sitting on over 7,400 undeveloped leases right now. Why not start on these before we go to ANWR?

The infrastructure is there!!!!!

4. Oil companies have been selling developed leases to China. There is a site in Denver sold to China that employs Chinese workers. Let’s throw the Chinese off and give the jobs to Americans.

Freedom is what makes America, America. Take it away and you have communism/socialism/liberalism.

5. There is not enough oil in ANWR to make a difference.

10 billion+, without an all out geophysical effort in other words BULL!!!

6. If development started today it would take at least seven years to start pumping.

Oh and where did that come from your *&$)(*$#. The fact that I personally saw an oil field further from pump one than ANWR would be open and start delivering to Valdez in less than two years has no bearing. As I stated earlier the infrastucture is there the pumphouse modules are designed. To build the x-country line to pump one would take less time than getting the modules built and shipped from the lower 48. My estimate 54months MAX!!!
7. Supply is only a small part of the problem. Speculation is really behind this spike in price.

Supply causes speculation, if you know that a major supply is coming on-line the speculators won’t be risking a long.

8. Let’s not forget the anemic dollar and the threat of more war in the Middle East.

Neuter the middle east by stopping the dollar from going overseas, and more accessible resources equates to assets which equates to a stonger dollar.

9. ANWR does nothing to get us off the addiction to oil. How does this help in developing alternative energy?

Who developes the alternative energy? the oil companies get 4% profit per barrel the government gets 15% profit without spending squat, hmmm who is the big money grabber big oil or bigger government????

10. As I understand it, British Petroleum runs the Alaskan Pipeline (doesn’t sound American to me), they say when and how much oil is piped through. How do we know the same thing won’t happen to ANWR?

Alyeska is a conglomerate of the North Slope oil leasers, alaska, and the federal government. No one entity determines oil throughput. It is more determined by tanker availability. An oil company makes no money when there product is in the puddle. Think THink THINK

As for alternative energy GREAT use some of the 15% PROFIT TO R&D an EFFICIENT way to harness hydrogen molecules maybe combine the system with a nuclear plant. Keep in mind we will always need oil the biggest BTU bang for your buck.

CATMANDU

When liberals hold to principles people get hurt, they harm those they claim to help!

July 1, 2008 JK, WV writes:

Steve Carlin - No use using facts and statistics. Those silly things don’t work with these types. Just let them keep believing that drilling will lower gas prices. What’s the real motive behind this obsession to drill?? I can’t figure it out…

July 1, 2008 Booty Malone Fairbanks, Ak writes:

I have been to the ANWR area many times and this is the most truthful explaination of ANWR that I have ever seen. Answers to some questions that have come up.
1. Heavy equipment to ANWR will go over ice roads in winter only. Lighter gear will be flown in.
2. New pipeline will be built to the area of Pump Station 2 about 55 miles South of Prudhoe Bay and connected to existing pipeline.
3. Caribou gather near oil facilities to avoid insects and wolves. Wolves are wary of people and oil activities. Caribou populations may increase by drilling.
4. Opening ANWR will create ten of thousands of jobs in the USA. These are real jobs not hamburger flipping jobs.

Drill here—Drill now….

July 1, 2008 Booty Malone Fairbanks, Ak writes:

I have been to the ANWR area many times and this is the most truthful explaination of ANWR that I have ever seen. Answers to some questions that have come up.
1. Heavy equipment to ANWR will go over ice roads in winter only. Lighter gear will be flown in.
2. New pipeline will be built to the area of Pump Station 2 about 55 miles South of Prudhoe Bay and connected to existing pipeline.
3. Caribou gather near oil facilities to avoid insects and wolves. Wolves are wary of people and oil activities. Caribou populations may increase by drilling.
4. Opening ANWR will create tens of thousands of jobs in the USA. These are real jobs not hamburger flipping jobs.

Drill here—Drill now….

July 1, 2008 Francis, Chicago writes:

Is someone out there able to answer these questions?
Why has the Sourdough site, less than a kilometer from the western boundary of ANWR, not been developed by BP, the leaseholder?
Why drill in ANWR if the capability to extract oil from under ANWR already exists at the Sourdough site?

July 1, 2008 Steve, Minneapolis writes:

Party affiliations aside, the answer is not more or cheaper oil. Regardless of the cost of a gallon of gas or whether it is obtained from the Middle East, Russia or the U.S., each gallon of gas burned contributes to global warming. Reducing the money we send to nations in the Middle East that sponsor terror is a valiant endeavor, but it won’t matter in the long run (the effect on our children’s children) if we ruin the planet in the process. While we can make more money to buy more expensive gas, it is a little tougher to create a new Earth or protect the one that we have.

The answer is cleaner fuels for our cars, not more oil.

July 1, 2008 J., Colorado writes:

One of our friends told us last week that his family land in Oklahoma has oil wells on it. He said several years ago, the company that owns the leases on his land capped several of the wells and told him they were dry. A couple of months ago, the oil company went out to his land, uncapped the wells and started pumping them. Oil shortage? Sure.