<p>Because it might disturb some caribou if we pump it out? Insanity.</p>
<p>I don’t know, environmentals aside, maybe we’re better off leaving it there for a rainy day. There seems to be adequate oil available already.</p>
<p>barrons, in today’s prices, $1 Trillion of oil = a couple of barrels. Not worth digging for. We will spend more for electricity and heat needed to melt that permafrost to get to the oil, anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not even close…the caribou sleep near/under the current pipeline for warmth – they’re no fools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, not really; drilling in the arctic does not require melting permafrost since every warm fixture is built on stilts or thermo pads.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Surely you have links for this?</p>
<p>Please someone tell me that economic suicide is not the solution! Some people complain about our national debt, yet we continue to import 70% of our oil. Others believe bio-fuels are the way to go. As a result of increased production, the cost of our food is close to doubling. Surely, we could seek out alternative energy solutions while drilling for domestic oil. Why are we putting ourselves in this paradoxical box.</p>
<p>I don’t understand it either. I can’t think of a more perfect place to drill for oil. The part of ANWR that is being proposed is a very small, desolate, mosquito-infested wasteland that to human would ever even want to see. And, as other drilling in Alask has shown, there doesn’t seems to be any negative impact on wildlife.</p>
<p>If we obtain oil from ANWR that would result in less money being transferred to middle eastern countries who are trying to spread peace throughout the region by destroying intruders like Israel. If you want peace don’t drill in ANWR!</p>
<p>(now where is that blankety blank icon for sarcasm again)</p>
<p>There’s a great Dubai-based company that can handle the job. ;)</p>
<p>If Dick Cheney had tried to be civil and open-minded about it he might have been able to get somewhere with this issue. He could have tried to make some grand environmental compromise, for example agree to back and enforce stringent fuel efficiency standards, provide money for alternative energy, etc etc. etc. It is called negotiation and statesmanship. </p>
<p>But it was always “the liberal scum traitors are not letting my buddies drill in ANWR”.</p>
<p>This admin has rarely if ever tried to actually find common sense solutions to our problems. I don’t think they even care. They are like robber barons, just interested in enriching their buddies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whether drilling in Alaska is allowed or not, we aren’t getting out of our challenges or paradoxical box as you call it. </p>
<p>[The</a> Seattle Times: Nation & World: How much oil in Alaska refuge? It’s guesswork](<a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002692315_webanwr19.html]The”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002692315_webanwr19.html)</p>
<p>The best estimates indicate that the oil “stocks” in Alaska would supply 5-10 percent of our need for 25 years or so. (And many think this estimate is far too high). The price relief of such a move – opening up the reserves for drilling – will still be overwhelmed by the fact that increasingly scarce oil is sold to a world market and the Chinese and Indians (among others) are demanding more and more. The price is going up no matter what – especially in the context of a dollar that is on a perpetual slide. Hell, even in the article quoted above, the reality is noted that Alaskan oil would be likely sold to Asia. You think Chevron’s not going to export oil and sell it cheaper to Americans? They are more rational than that.</p>
<p>Alaska’s oil is no panacea. We are facing a huge energy challenge. Saudi Arabia itself will acknowledge it will face increasing inability to meet its share of world demand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, are you for the CAFE standards – vehicle fleet fuel efficiency requirements? If Detroit had accepted those and not fought them, it’d be leaner and meaner maybe actually make cars that people will continue to buy in the future and would likely have done more to relieve oil price pressure than Alaska’s oil ever will.</p>
<p>Sorry, folks, economic suicide is being committed by all the people who insisted upon driving Hummers and the like far more than by people who would limit access to Alaskan oil fields.</p>
<p>BedHead: Agreed. You can’t ask to drill in Alaska and then give tax breaks for buying Hummers. This actually happened in the first Bush term. It was sold as a business tax break but its main use was to let people with self-employment income buy Hummers and deduct the cost on their income taxes.</p>
<p>
Which is approximately what we have to import from the Middle East right now. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to tell Saudi Arabia to pound salt (sand) for a change?</p>
<p>
You mean like what actually is happening? The problem was that an agreement was made to do these things without extracting any quid pro quo from the “my way or the highway” Dems.</p>
<p>“Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to tell Saudi Arabia to pound salt (sand) for a change?”</p>
<p>Why? They own us, and treat us real good. That’s what a global economy is supposed to be about. Got something against that? Something stuck in your craw? All the oil goes to the world market anyway. </p>
<p>But if we want to drill, there’s this great little Dubai company with a fantastic track record. They’ve been so successful in getting the Iraqi oil sector up and running again, why the occupation is paying for itself!</p>
<p>FF: Nice try. I am sure you are aware that the admin and industry pushed for these “standards” so that they could thwart the California-led initiative to get serious about fuel efficiency. </p>
<p>Despite the slim Dem majority Bush has been very successful in getting his own way thanks to his veto pen and the surviving ultra-right wing Republicans in the Senate. </p>
<p>Totally turned me and a lot of independents away from the Republican party. I may yet vote for McCain, but more because I believe Rush Limbaugh when he says that McCain will “destroy” the Republican party…i.e, the way Rush wants the party to be.</p>
<p>
Yes. And they should have been raised even higher. Unfortunately, people like Dem. Senator Carl Levin were able to delay and reduce implementation of effective CAFE standards. </p>
<p>President Bush is the one who told us we are addicted to oil and need to find other alternatives. President Bush was asking for authority from Congress to increase the CAFE standards on hiw own. Congress refused. In addtion, President Bush introduced the word “switchgrass” to the nation. He supports alternative energy (and so does Texas which produces the second most power from wind of any State).</p>
<p>"FF: Nice try. I am sure you are aware that the admin and industry pushed for these “standards” so that they could thwart the California-led initiative to get serious about fuel efficiency. "</p>
<p>Oh, so when you give the Dems only 80% of what they want and get nothing in return in terms of additional oil supplies you are still castigated for lack of “negotiation and statesmanship”? I call it giving up the store and getting nothing in return.</p>
<p>But “the U.S.” would not get the additional oil. The world market would. Is it your goal to make oil cheaper for the Chinese?</p>
<p>It was the Republican governor of California who was most upset about the whole affair.</p>
<p>Look, the problem is that the agenda in Washington is being set by the extremists on both sides. I agree with Bloomberg on this, the extremists need to be fought back on both sides. If McCain proves to me that he is really going to reject the right-wing of his party then he gets my support. If he panders to the so called “base”, then I will go with the candidate of Hope and Change.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but not people like Carl Levin, Carl Levin himself – and a lot of Republicans.</p>
<p>Detroit has its head up its proverbial a**. Rather than facing an obvious future, they embraced loopholes in CAFE to spur a big market for SUVs. The outcome will have been obvious. They sold huge gas guzzlers and got a great jump in market share that’s led them to be mammothly unprepared for the inevitable: gas prices are huge and the fuel efficiency cars so much in demand are mostly being made by the Japanese.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please don’t tell me you actually believe George Bush was on the forefront of noticing our addiction to oil. His Administration has down the line supported policies to enable this addiction.</p>