http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
I know there will be some "that's ridiculous" comments and so forth concerning the first link, so I also threw in that second link.
While I, too, believe that there is a bit of over-urgency in the first article, a lot of the figures I did some quick cross-referencing and found to be fairly accurate, especially when checking geological periodicals.
(rude comment removed. -lebell) The reasons are as multitidinous as they are half-brained, and wishful. Oil dependency will not be solved in the least bit by drilling the ANWR, will sustain us for maybe a year (as an overly positive estimate), and do nothing but deceive us into thinking it is even the shadow of a slution, long-term or otherwise.
What makes it worse is that yesterday, Senate Republicans added an ANWR-drilling proviso to the budget, preventing senate Democrats from using the filibuster, the only thing that's stone-walled drilling for the past few years. And in the Republican-dominated Congress, (which no longer needs the 60% majority to beat a filibuster, but only the 50% majority to pass any budgetary measure), it looks like new drilling projects are only a few months away. Who needs that pesky environment, anyway?