Should high gas prices cause Congress to open ANWAR?

Is there any reason NOT to drill in ANWAR?

If we can drill in the continental U.S. near large population centers, why wouldn't we be allowed to drill in ANWAR? Because it's "pretty?" Give me a freakin' break. Because it's going to disrupt the animals there?

For all of you who oppose drilling in ANWAR, I have one question: Where do you live? Do you think maybe a few bunnies had to be displaced so you had a place to live?

WHY
NOT
DRILL
IN
ANWAR???

John McCain compared drilling in ANWR to drilling in the Grand Canyon. What an idiot!

"Hey honey, where are we going to take the family on vacation this year, The Grand Canyon, or ANWR?"

If Bill Clinton wouldn't have vetoed drilling in ANWR 10 years ago, we would be getting that million barrels a day from there, instead of Saudi Arabia, and I guarantee that gas wouldn't be $4.00 a gallon. Thanks Bill!

I am in agreement with many others.

First we should not continue to hand land leases over oil companies until they have used the leases they currently hold, most of which are not in production.

Furthermore the USA's investment into the energy sector should begin to transfer from oil to alternative energy.

That is the BI(G issues the oil companies don't want us to talk about because all they can do is stave off the inevitable. Better to create controversy and dramam over this National Wildlife Refuge or the prisitne ocean views of the US coasts.

Big oil already has tens of millions of leased land for production and they only use about 1/4 of it. Find a SOLID explanation of why we should drill ANWR or further subsidize any industrial advance that is going to continue to drag out the carbon economy.

So no, Do not drill ANWR drill the lands all ready under lease. Spend tax payer dollars on ADVANCEMENT not STAGNATION.

Originally posted by jamie83
Is there any reason NOT to drill in ANWAR?

If we can drill in the continental U.S. near large population centers, why wouldn't we be allowed to drill in ANWAR? Because it's "pretty?" Give me a freakin' break. Because it's going to disrupt the animals there?

Why decimate a pristine environment for oil you won't see hide nor hair of for a minimum of ten years?

Will drilling ANWAR make your gas prices at the pump go down now? A big "No!" Will nationalizing the refineries and regulating the speculators lower your gas prices at the pump now? A big Yes".

For all of you who oppose drilling in ANWAR, I have one question: Where do you live? Do you think maybe a few bunnies had to be displaced so you had a place to live?

I assure you, no bunnies were harmed or displaced in the building of my home.

reply to post by Animal



Man, you got them Democrat/Enviro-whacko talking pts down pat.

1st of all, if the land currently leased was worth a crud, don't you think with oil going for over $125 a barrel, the oil companies would be all over it? Either you think the oil companies are greedy or you don't, which is it?

What is this about madating that oil companies start investing in alternative fuels? Isn't that like asking Chick-filet to invest in Burger King? Let the next Bill Gates discover an alternative, don't force the oil companies to do it.

ANWR drilling was vetoed by Bill Clinton 10 years ago. So the stupid statement "We won't see any benefits for 10 years" (which it won't take that long) is stupid. I guess Dems/Envir-whackos don't care about our future either.

reply to post by jamie83


This is why we should NOT drill in ANWR.

I like this quote it highlights one aspect of this issue quite well:

"Oil corporations are trying to take control of as much land now during the oil-friendly Bush administration years, but are holding off on drilling until the price of oil soars to $200 or $300 a barrel so they can make even greater profits," said Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a New York Democrat and a sponsor of the drilling bill. link

[edit on 21-6-2008 by Animal]

Originally posted by RRconservative
reply to post by Animal

 

Man, you got them Democrat/Enviro-whacko talking pts down pat.

You know I would really appreciate it if you did not begin your comments directed toward me with an insult, we really could have a much more productive conversation.

1st of all, if the land currently leased was worth a crud, don't you think with oil going for over $125 a barrel, the oil companies would be all over it? Either you think the oil companies are greedy or you don't, which is it?

This is simply a lame duck argument. Why would an oil company spend money on an oil lease that was worthless? They wouldn't. My guess is that they want to get CONTROL of more oil leases as the resource becomes more and more scarce, sitting on their reserves until the price maxes out as we pass peak oil.

What is this about madating that oil companies start investing in alternative fuels? Isn't that like asking Chick-filet to invest in Burger King? Let the next Bill Gates discover an alternative, don't force the oil companies to do it.

If you would pay attention to exactly what I am saying you would realize I said NOTHING about oil companies funding Alternative Energy. Possibly I simply was not clear enough, but based on what IO remember you should be able to see that fairly clearly. What I did say was that we (USA) should stop subsidizing the industry, weaning it off the PEOPLES money and put that money into appropriate technologies such as 'Alternative Energy'.

ANWR drilling was vetoed by Bill Clinton 10 years ago. So the stupid statement "We won't see any benefits for 10 years" (which it won't take that long) is stupid. I guess Dems/Envir-whackos don't care about our future either.

Good I hope Obama does the same and forces change rather than enabling stagnation that drags our country down. It is long past time the USA invent its next Golden Age. We can invest in developing the technologies of tomorrow for the benfit of everyone, deny it all you want this change is inevitable.

Also Ia m once again perturbed at your closing with an insult as well. Perhaps a few hours spent perusing the internet for information on manners and etiquette would do you some good.

reply to post by plumranch


You might find this interesting.

75% of all land in Alaska is Federally owned.

Federal government royalty rate (onshore) is 1/8

If Oil companies can get a more favorable royalty rate somewhere else, they have no interest in Anwar. Would you pay more royalty for a product when you could get it elsewhere cheaper? Would you increase the supply in the market at additional expense to yourself in return for lowering the market price (and profitability) of your product?

Of course not. Oil companies hold Anwar over our head but really have no desire to drill it. Politicians want it drilled because Federal royalties is Federal Revenue.

reply to post by Exmar


Thanks Exmar,

Good point.

I guess my response is that we don't have to worry about whether the oil companies would or wouldn't drill in ANWAR because Bill Clinton vetoed the ANWAR bill in 1996 and Congress hasn't had the political courage to vote on another bill since then. We Alaskans thought the oil companies would jump at the chance to drill in ANWAR since it is just down the patch from the north slope fields and the pipeline and there is tremendous potential there.

There may be wisdom in what you say. Do you by any chance know what kind of cut the government gets for oil drilled at other domestic sites? Seems to me that the north slope deal is similar to the 1/8. In fact the 1/8 doesn't sound like a bad deal to me...

reply to post by jamie83

Is there any reason NOT to drill in ANWAR?

No rational reason. All the environmental concerns have been met except for paper work.

All Americans are being harmed by high gasoline prices. Especially the poor. One of my lower income employees can't afford gas for her 50 mile commute. She can't afford to drive to work any more and may have to accept a lower paying job closer to where she lives. Kind of scarey!

I was out recreating this weekend and here in Alaska where there are usually lots of boats, RVs, and airplanes out enjoying the summer weekend there were only a few. What I'm saying is that you have to practically be a rich guy to afford to go out and recreate with gas prices like this!

Here in BC, our forward thinking government decided that the way to lower oil dependency was to tax the consumers. The "carbon tax" is aimed at the end level consumer; us.

Now it seems to me that the most effective way out of this mess would be to tax the "producers" of the oil dependent vehicles, lawnmowers, etc...
It was the producers and manufacturers that set up this resource based infrastructure which, without oil, would completely shut down. Why do the end consumers have to pay for the stupid, single-minded manufacturers and oil producers when we were only given one option in the first place: gasoline powered cars. Big ones, at that. I recall the automotive industry had downsized their products when Jimmy Carter enforced lower emission standards. Of course when Bush Sr. came onto the scene, he revoked that and we had SUV's in every driveway.

Now if a car manufacturer was charged a carbon tax for every gas vehicle that gets shipped and sold in a province or state, how long before we start seeing more environmentally friendly vehicles?
I suggest that governments stop taxing the end user, stop considering drilling in environmentally delicate ecosystems and begin charging the manufacturers of oil based products and the oil producers, themselves and we shall begin to see the alternative energy systems hitting the market.
The governments just need to stand up to big business.

reply to post by solo32_98

Now if a car manufacturer was charged a carbon tax for every gas vehicle that gets shipped and sold in a province or state, how long before we start seeing more environmentally friendly vehicles?

Hi Solo,

Nice thought but. Either way it is you who is punished by the tax. The manufacturer simply passes on the tax to the consumer...you. What else can they do? You wanted the car (or other motor vehicle) to drive so you bought it from the manufacturer. You probably wanted the big motor and a few more gas guzzling options. Is that the manufacturer's fault?

And Bush was correct to rescend Carter's tax. Any punitive tax is simply passed on to the consumer in an upside down way, ie. the poor are hurt more than the rich.

I'm sorry about your high gas prices but it sounds like your government is doing exactly the wrong thing with its taxing policy.

reply to post by plumranch

Hey Plum.
Currently no government is talking about "incentives" to vehicle manufacturers. If governments demanded taxes for every gas engine imported into their jurisdiction, could they not offer that money back to the manufacturer for every hybrid or electric vehicle sold? Some progressive, positive way to get the manufacturers off their asses and developing better technology.

I am personally against drilling in ANWR. I spent 16 years in the north, traveled extensively in Alaska and Yukon, worked, lived and played with the first nations people. They are particularly susceptible to oil drilling as their lives are dependent on the caribou populations which calf their young on the north slope. Oil drilling and transporting will decimate the caribou population and quite likely the First Nations, also.

I would suggest that we all spend a wee bit of time educating ourselves about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And ask ourselves what things would be like if it weren't there, if it were opened to trucks and drills and pipelines and tankers and speculators and rigs. Sounds like Texas. Personally, I believe we are all much richer with maintaining the refuge as a natural heritage, a unique ecosystem which benefits our long term health and prosperity.

reply to post by solo32_98

I am personally against drilling in ANWR. I spent 16 years in the north, traveled extensively in Alaska and Yukon, worked, lived and played with the first nations people. They are particularly susceptible to oil drilling as their lives are dependent on the caribou populations which calf their young on the north slope. Oil drilling and transporting will decimate the caribou population and quite likely the First Nations, also.

Hi Solo,

My wife and I have both been to the North Slope many times and I have seen ANWAR from the air. Few people actually go there as it is a coastal swampland somewhat uninhabitable. Indians don't actually live there either.

You take the view that the north slope indians and others will not benifit or even will be hurt by development. I see that as the paternalistic european vs. indian viewpoint. We have employment, cars and nice houses but we want you to live up there on the north slope in primative villages with nothing much to do but hunt caribou, etc. I think the indians would benifit and especially the younger ones would welcome the improvement in their living standards that petroleum development would bring.

I've never heard that the caribou (and wildlife in general) would be hurt by the drilling processes. In fact just the opposite has happened with pretty much accross the board benifit to all species except some birds that have been impacted because of increase in preditors like foxes. The wildlife enjoy the roads and drilling pads as the rest of the area is swamp or wetland. The caribou go to the roads and pads to rest, do their calving, and run from preditors.

I heard one of the presidential candidates say he wouldn't want to develope ANWAR any more than develope the Grand Canyon. The implication is that ANWAR is beautiful and thus too nice for oil pads.
However, ANWAR is a coastal swamp, ie. mile after mile of flat wet tundra. The only topography is an occasional river bed or a pingo (a natural frost hump). Nothing to enjoy there except the mosquitoes!

Why are so many of you saying that we could drop our entire transportation infastructure at the drop of a hat, and suddenly "go green"? I have no problem with exploring alternative fuel sources, but that is precisely what we should be doing. Exploring. Not replacing. And it's not just our transportation that has to be replaced. Do you realize how many products we use everyday that are made possible by petroleum? Replacing oil with solar/electric/whatever will take time, and in the meantime, we have to use our own resources. Drilling in ANWAR is our best viable option. For those of you who don't want to harm some mooses, remember that ANWAR is a mosquito-ridden swamp, and anyway, the drilling would be extremely minimal; ANWAR is the size of South Carolina, while the drilling would be the size of Dulles Airport. And remember, oil isn't just in ANWAR, we have huge amounts of it in the midwest and offshore.

"Mighty Mouse, save us!"

Good Gawd Almightee, the problem with the gas prices is the devaluation of the dollar which has been engineered by the Bush/Cheney goons with the complicity of the Democratic and Republican members of Congress.

You in the States don't even have the refining infrastructure to handle gasoline/petrol production. Your much beloved multi-nationals like Exxon buy up refineries and CLOSE THEM DOWN.

Sorry to shout. But this has nothing to do with drilling or not drilling in ANWAR.

Does anyone realise that Communist Chinese are drilling for oil in Colorado? Yes, that's right. They bought the Canadian company and now they are drilling with impunity.

WAKE UP!

reply to post by Pellevoisin

the problem with the gas prices is the devaluation of the dollar which has been engineered by the Bush/Cheney goons with the complicity of the Democratic and Republican members of Congress.

The do nothing Democrats (esp. Bill Clinton) can be blamed for the US not drilling for the last 20 years. But the devaluation has more to do with Katrina and the mortgage collapse. Our poor quality investments has caused money to flee from the US and foreigners to sell their dollars.

But this has nothing to do with drilling or not drilling in ANWAR.

Supply of oil has a direct effect on oil price in spite of what Nancy Pelosi and others say. Did you notice that the price of oil dropped $4 today? That is because the Saudi's have promised to increase the supply and because both Bush and McCain are committed to opening off shore drilling and maybe ANWAR. Once the US shows its committment to increasing supply and lowering prices, it will happen. Econ 101.

You in the States don't even have the refining infrastructure to handle gasoline/petrol production.

A committment to build more refineries is something that McCain mentioned recently and was noticably missing from Obamas speaches.

McCain also mentioned a big committment to nuclear, solar, wind and other alternative energies. Great news finally!

reply to post by plumranch


The wild spending of the Bush/Cheney years with regard to foreign entanglements are far more significant contributors to the destruction of the US dollar far more so than either Katrina costs or the sub-prime mortgage debacle.

In broader scope, the U.S. dollar's devaluation has been engineered and executed with precision by both the Federal Reserve Bank and the Executive of your government.

And said devaluation has been given a bit of encouragement by Dick Cheney converting US$10 million of his personal fortune into Euros not to mention his building a home in Dubai. Taking such decisions, a vice-president can make a world deeply concerned about the longterm outlook for the USA itself and its economy.

Originally posted by plumranch

A committment to build more refineries is something that McCain mentioned recently and was noticably missing from Obamas speaches.

Unfortunately, McCain's statement of commitment to build more refineries is meaningless. Perhaps he agrees again with the Democrats and is interested in nationalising the U.S.A.'s refineries?

The lack of refineries has to do with Big Oil buying up small refineries in the USA and shutting them down. Big Oil doesn't want anything to happen that might jeopardise the current price levels and predictions.

[edit on 25/6/08 by Pellevoisin]

reply to post by Pellevoisin

Hi Pell,

Here is what an oil exec is saying about increasing refinery production:

More importantly, though, while the number of refineries has fallen since 1986, U.S. refining capacity has increased by 25 percent. That's what Cohen refers to as "creep." That is, refining technology has improved, allowing refiners to operate more efficiently.

There is no reason to think we need to increase the number of refineries when the ones we have can increase their production.

This comes from: Building New Refineries

Makes sense to me. I see no reason why we need to build new refineries when the ones we have can just increase their capacity.