Superbelt

Then there is "Free Market" Frank Murkowski, Rugged Individualist and Governor of Alaska, who 9-21-03 on 60 Minutes argued that the federal government should assume all of the risk of a natural gas pipeline project (18 billion) through Alaska.

So he wants us to pay for a pipeline that will directly benefit every Alaskan in their PFD check. And the rest of american has an 18 billion dollar debt. (Plus more nat gas.)
Instead they should have to pay for that pipeline with their PFD checks. Let's see how well that goes over.

Alaska, huge porkbarrel. Welfare state.

Kurant

I love it, you call it enriched.

The PFD doesn't even pay half my house payment. :roll:

The reason the Democrats want to take the PFD is because the fact they don't have enough money to operate. Oil revenus don't cover any of the states functions. That is why they are 400 million in debt, and wants the constitutional right, which is the PFD, to pay for it, and they can't touch it. Yet.

ANWR doesn't necessarly mean oil revenues, they aren't even 100% sure there is enough oil there to make any revenues from. They drill in parts of ANWR every day right now. Just not to the extent they want to, and it's a few select corporations. It's not free regin.

I don't disagree with much that you said, however, there are things you really have no idea about. The politics involved in the PFD are very extensive right now. They are cutting education, state jobs, etc.. etc.. because the public won't allow them to touch that money, to pay the debt. The state legis. also won't vote in a sales or income tax. Personally, take the divdend, the 1200 dollars a year isn't half of what I'd pay in income and sales tax every year.

Superbelt

you pay 3000 a month in house payments? (that would make the PFD half your house payment) If you do, you aren't an average alaskan. You are way, way above the average. 1500 is much more "enriching" lower on the income scale.

I understand the reasoning behind PFD, without it the state would be just as willing to drill and would just blow all the money on projects.

But the PFD still creates a demand to drill. The legislature votes to drill and pushes for it to get their constitutents votes. Knowning the, "hey we'll give you free money", always buys an election.

You have problems up there because your economy is built on raw goods. You aren't much better off than Saudi Arabia or Qatar. There is a phantom wealth in that oil because it is not stable. The only difference is that the state shares the wealth a bit.
Raw goods fluctuate in value rapidly, and dwindling supplies make your long term prospects poor.
The population in Alaska is artificially inflated. And it is showing right now with your cuts in education and state jobs.

___
And please, if you think I got any of this wrong, feel free to try and educate us.

james t kirk

I agree 100%.

But there is a simpler way to do it. Put a gas guzzler tax on the damn things when you buy them. A hummer eh, well, that will be $60,000 sir, plus you gas guzzler tax of $100,000.00 for a total of $160,000 dollars please sir.

Anything getting over 30 MPG there is no tax and then it's a graduated scale up based on decreasing mileage. If you are a farmer, or a contractor and need a pickup truck for your work, then you are excempt. No exemptions other than that, irregardless of vehicle type.

See how many people buy idiotic SUV's then.

I see these fucking HUGE navigators, Cadilac whatevers, Ford school buses and it is INFUCKINGSANE. You get some 30 pound overweight 40 something soccer mom with 3 screaming brats in the back with chocolate smeared all over their piglet faces wailing down the street at 80 km/hr while she is on the cell phone headed over to Costco and you just KNOW that the world is out of its mind.

No-one in god's green earth needs to drive an assault vehicle.

My parents had 4 kids and we had a 64 Pontiac Strato Chief with a straight 6 and we managed just fine.

Lebell

And I'll bet that it didn't get 30 mpg either.

Other than that, I found this post to be rather offensive in addition to ignorant.

I use my Ford Ranger (23mpg) both off road and for hauling the things in daily life, but according to your criteria, I should be charged an additional $100,000?

Not to mention I know at least two mothers of 3 children with vans who use them because they are the best way they've found to transport a large family along with all their posessions.

But because that isn't you or yours, they are

Well, I guess I better leave it at that or I'll get kicked off of TFP for what I want to say next to you, James T. Kirk.


Have a good day.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Dibbler

It sounds like most of you have only seen snow on television. Some of us have to deal with it every winter. Before I bought a 4X4 I missed an average of 10 days of work a year due to my "civic" being stuck in a snow drift. Raising gas taxes is only going to punish those who can't afford it. Do you really think the guy who can afford a Hummer H2 is really worried about how much it cost to fill up at the gas station?!? It'll hurt the guy with the 10 year old Jeep because it's now considered a SUV. How do I prove I'm using the truck for the correct purpose? Should I take a picture of myself climbing a snow drift? Take a picture of the truck when it's real muddy? What?

james t kirk

Hi lebell nice to hear from you.

There is no alternative. We continue to use nonrenewable resources at an alarming rate with no regard for the future. Something must be done.

To answer you, if your ranger only gets 23 MPG, then YES, you should have to pay some form of a gas guzzler tax. As i said in my post the scale should be sliding. The worst gas guzzlers (hummers and the rest) should have to pay 100,000 yes, but 23 MPG isn't that bad, so perhaps $20,000 would be a fair tax.

But this would only apply to new vehicles and would be phased in over say 10 years to give the auto manufacturers time to put out an improved vehicle. I bet you would be amazed what they could do rather than loose sales. I am sure that Ford could easily make a Ranger that would get 30 MPG.

You may not like it cause i am fucking with your vehicle, but it makes sense. People do not have the right to own gas guzzlers when there are more fuel efficient models on the road.

As far as your soccer moms go, I don't care less what they drive, but if the fuel economy is poor then yes, they should have to pay too. Again, they already make minivans that get on average greater than 30 MPG, so don't sing the blues too loudly. And 3 kids isn't a large family. My best friend was one of eight (8) kids and they had a chevy impala and managed to make it through life too.

You can say whatever you like to me, it would be just an attack on little old me. You don't like what i say, so you attack me. Hardly professional. Besides, you are a moderator, I highly doubt you will kick yourself off.

cheers lebell, always interesting....

archer2371

I am with Lebell on this one here, but for my own reasons as well. You are limiting people's choices here, and choices are freedoms my friend. In a free market economy, the government has no place in telling manufacturers or consumers what to make/buy. Sure, the people can get together and say hey, Ford, GM, Dodge, etc. make some more efficient cars because we're gonna start buying these other models if you don't. Which is what is occurring right now. Yeah, it makes more sense economically to get a more fuel efficient car, that's why consumers buy them. I own a 95 Ford F-150 because I use it for more shit than just hauling my lazy ass all over the place. Helping friends move, hauling stuff and other things like that when I need it. The manufacturerers will make the decision to move to more fuel efficient vehicles on their own without help from the government, law of supply and demand my friend, Ford, GM, and Dodge will either adapt, or die.

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

dimbulb

With regard to limiting choice (and according to some, limiting their "freedoms"), that is what the government is for, that's what regulations are for.

If the market were left to its own forces, there would be no safety regulations in the workplace. ( why should they? ). The cost would not take into account social costs, only costs to the individual. Who would build roads? make sure that the drug companies sell safe drugs?

Why can't the drug company sell drugs that have not been certified to be safe? The manufacturers will NOT make that move on their own.

Lebell

Two corrections:

First, I don't like the way you said it,

as if you have some morally superior position, which you don't.


Secondly you cannot point out where I attacked you because I didn't. Just because I am a moderator, I did not give up my TFP right to be offended by something another member says.

Had you chosen to express yourself the first time like you did the second time, I might have agreed with most of what you said and added to it.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

archer2371

If they're losing business they will, and trust me, Ford, GM, and Dodge are losing business to the likes of Toyota, Kia, Honda, Hyundai, etc. Especially with Toyota coming out with full size pickups. Sure, I believe in reasonably regulating things to ensure the safety of workers, that's just common sense. So is making sure that drugs are safe for people. Beer isn't the best thing in the world to be selling or buying, because it's detrimental to health, but people still buy it, and manufacturers still make it. If someone is of legal age to drink beer/alcohol, then let them do it. If someone of legal age wants to light up a cig, sure go ahead. If someone of legal age wants to buy porn, who am I to stop them? It's choices that I'm talking about here, if you think that SUVs are detrimental to the environment, then inform the people, let them make their own choices, that's how we got the word out about the detriments of smoking and drinking too much alcohol. The bottom line is this, the American Motor Companies are allready beginning to develop more fuel efficient engines for their SUVs/trucks and the like. Without the help of the government, amazing how consumers can affect production in such a way, you'd think it was rocket science or something!

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

Lebell

JTK,

BTW,

Since the average is about 2.5 kids, then 3 kids is a large family. Eight is very large.

Also, did their Impala get 30mpg?

The answer is what is happening right now: develop better technologies to get gas mileage up, but don't penalize those right now for buying what is out there.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

filtherton

I deal with snow every winter, and I've never been late for work because i got stuck. That doesn't mean i didn't get stuck, but if all you are worried about is getting stuck, get a subaru outback.

As far as punishing the poor, capitalism is all about motivating the poor by hanging that carrot just out of their reach. And saying that not being able to afford to drive an SUV is a punishment is really a stretch. Atleast, it is not punishment anymore than me not being able to afford buying a ferrari is punishment.

The rest of your arguments deal with the implementation of such a plan, and i agree that they would need to be dealt with. Perhaps some sort of permit could be issued to you if you could demonstrate that you actually used your SUV for something productive. Maybe it could be grandfathered in so as not to effect older vehicles.




As far as limiting my choices, it could be argued that the people who are really going to be robbed of choices are the future generations who are going to have to clean up after the mess we left for them.

I think there needs to be regulation, beause without it profit and growth are the only motivations. Sometimes society's interests are more important than profit or growth. Waiting for the market to catch up means you will wait a very long time, if not forever. How long have we been waiting for the healthcare to become affordable? Seem like it is only getting worse.

james t kirk

Lebell my friend.

Of course their impala didn't get 30 MPG back in 72, no car did.

Now they have computers to regulate fuel consumption, 5 speed automatic transmissions to keep RPMs down, Electronic Fuel Injection, etc.

It was government legislation at the time of the 70's oil crisis that forced the Automakers to improve their product. At the time, they said it couldn't be done, but it was.

Sadly we seem to be drifting the other way now days. The big 3 will never willingly radically improve fuel economy. They are in business to make money, pure and simple, which i completely understand.

There are even alternative technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells but the development of the these engines in painfully slow and not a priority. (The priority of auto manufacturers in North America seems to be adding more coffee cup holders all over the vehicle and DVD playes and on star at high markup values. And vice versa, cutting engine quality (eg. GM's infamous plastic intake manifolds which are so cheap to make but will eventualy crack and destroy your engine when that happens.)

No, i do not have faith in Automanufacturers.

The choices are either higher fuel prices or a tax on gas guzzlers.

I figured the gas guzzler tax is the lesser of two evils because it does not affect the part of the economy that needs cheap energy.

And as i said, contractors, truckers, etc. should be exempt.

No-one needs to own a hummer, navigator, or anything else such as that. If you want to, you should have to pay for the right to chew up valuable non-renewable resources.

Someday the politicians might have the balls to enact such legislation, but for now, you are safe.

cheers

Superbelt

Isn't socialism grand? All those conservative, rugged individualists in Alaska think so.

Now get with passing out those wealth distribution checks!
And drill in ANWR next year too so I can get more money I haven't earned.

Superbelt

From the article:

Three cheers for statewide welfare for everyone.
/cynicysm.

james t kirk

Lebell,

By the way, i drive a semi gas guzzling Buick too.

It has a piece of shit 3800 motor that probaby gets on average about 24 or 25 MPG. On the highway though, it does pretty good. I still hate the fucking thing.

I don't think you should penalize people buying what is out there, but i do think you should penalize conspicuous consumption and Hummers and the like lead the list.

We seriously need to figure out a solution. Every year, people are using more and more oil.

This city i live in is choked with cars. But try and convince the federal and provincial governments to help pay for a subway and they just turn their backs.

It's nuts.

fishin

Looks like we're doin it. Thoughts?

When supply is short of demand (which it seems obvious that this is the case: see rising gas prices), this seems to be a good decision by an obviously Republican Congress. Besides, technology for drilling has improved over the past years tremendously and the threat to the environment is way overblown in my opinion. Here's to more oil... storehouse dat jonk!

__________________
liberals rule. phhtt.

NCB

We should have done this long ago. However, us drilling in that Alaskan wasteland does not automatically equal a surplus in oil for fuel. We need to couple it with our refining capabilites, which are currently 10-20 years behind the times.

Unfortunately it won't happen though. Some enviro group probably already has a brief written and are currently searching the judicail calendars in order to shop for the right judge to put a halt to it. Ain't Democracy grand??!?!?!

__________________

cj2112

Tap that keg.....Reality is we're not going to going to conserve, we've already shown that time and time again.

*edit* btw the Hummer has a combined EPA rating of 11 mpg, compare that with what the 3/4 ton 1984 Cevy pickup I'm currently driving gets....compare emissions from the two....compare the number of trucks on the road similar to mine.....it's not "all the hummers" out there that are guzzling gas.....(btw, the pickup i'm driving might average 8mpg on the highway)

Superbelt

Time to remove that subterranean oil spill from ANWR. That stuff is dangerously close (only several miles) from wildlife. That is of course, measured vertically.

Serously though, there may be even less oil there than previous pessimistic estimates. Even the DOE is saying that the oil may not be financially recoverable.

But we's still fuck over thousands of acres of tundra to try!

stevo

I'm for drilling in ANWR. I'm also for drilling off the Florida coast.

Everyone talks of cars and hummers causing the problems, yet on the financial news the high cost of oil is due to winter time and the high demand for heating oil. So maybe people should stop heating their houses in the winter or be "taxed out the ass". Just a suggestion.

kutulu

I really don't think we should be worrying about cars that get 24mpg. I'd rather we focused on the < 20mpg vehicles. Get all trucks to that point first.

Anyways, back to the real topic:

There are lots of lies thrown around on the ANWR drilling. Proponents like to say that they will only destroy 2000 acres of land. It's a total lie. That 2000 acres is equipment footprints. It only counts the parts of equipment that are touching the ground. Say there is a 4'x4' tower. The tower itself covers 16 sq ft but since it is supported by 4 2"x2" legs, the footprint for that is only 16 square inches. Additionally, the 2000 acres does not count roads, piplelines or many other things. Politicians saying it will only affect 2000 acres should be hung by their nuts for making such a dirty lie.

smooth

I still don't understand how people think that drilling in ANWR is going to result in lower gas prices--yet that's what they seem to focus on when they speak and think about benefits to themselves.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

stevo

I've never been under the impression that drilling in ANWR will reduce gas prices. Gas prices are never coming down. More drilling will mean more oil which will mean less of a rise in gas prices.

daswig

Ah, yes, we know that there's such a shortage of tundra...

jorgelito

The main problem is that drilling in the ANWR won't produce results for years. Even then, most if not all the oil will be going to China and Japan (I will look for the source of this contention. Hopefully you guys can too - I have finals *wah*).

So, for us non-liberals, this another angle to see it. I'm not sure I want to subsidize someone else's oil 'habit'.

We could definitely find alternative sources and technologies by the time anything in the ANWR comes online (up to 12 Years). Therefore, it is silly or negligible (from an oil standpoint) in my opinion to drill there.

Or, what happens after we suck the 6-18 months supply dry? Then what? we're back to square one and have to find another source again. We might as well get it right now and be reliant on no one but ourselves. No Japanese hybrid technology, no Middle-East Oil, no African dictators, no south American corrupt governments.

We need to develop our own sources of alternative energy and not rely on others. I believe this will do wonders for our economy and foreign policy.

Here are two different sources of info regarding the issue - The Heritage Foundation and Reuters. I believe this to be a good balance of info so as to avoid right-left etc bickering. There's more but we all have 'google'.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Ene...nderforprint=1

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16720379.htm

Boo

IMO - I am PRO drilling in ANWR.

The US needs to have multiple sources of oil in case of war. Early in the exploration we would be able to get a true picture of the total reserves. If there is not a profitable amount of oil the oil companies will not spend the money to produce anyway.

The state needs (and deserves) to develope its natural resources. Developing its resources will not only assist the people of Alaska, but will trickle down to the lower 48 and Canada. The manufacturing sector would enjoy a nice profitable few years.

Even "welfare" places that "USED" to be STEEL states could benefit from another oil boom in Alaska instead of nice place to be "FROM".

I suggest that states that vote against ANWR need to have their natural resources removed from utilization. No mining in Nevada, Arizona etc....

I really like the PFD arguments. Another total outside opinion that makes me wonder where all the math teachers are. Anyone that moves to Alaska because of the PFD has some serious calculator problems. The people that count on the PFD usually exist in the subsistance lifestyle. The PFD is used for purchasing items that can only be purchased with cash money.

It is funny how people are against drilling in ANWR because someone might make money from it. Don't Alaskans deserve the right to make a decent living too?

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

twotimesadingo

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?

__________________
I'll be the one to protect you from your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from a will to survive and voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from your enemies and your choices, son.
They're one and the same I must isolate you, isolate and save you from yourself."
- A Perfect Circle

Kurant

Didn't mean to post.

Hardknock

As an Alaskan, here's my opinion...

The GOP wants you to believe that there is enough oil in my home state to end our dependence on foreign oil. Anybody with a brain cell knows that is not the case. I read somewhere that we import about 70 percent of oil into America. ANWR MIGHT bring that number down to 69 at full production, which would take years until we're at that point anyway. Why can't we spend our time and resourced into developing new technology so that we can leave the oil in the ground? Why doesn't the GOP ever think of that? Is lining the pockets of themselves and their oil company contributors the only thing they think about?

I don't want my grandchildren to have to put on their SPF 1000 in 30 years because the ozone layer is gone.

No drilling.

Hardknock

You and I both know that everyone looks forward to those checks every October. And not everyone who lives a subsistance lifestyle depends on those PFD's. Plenty of peole in Anchorage who spit out babies just to collect more PFD money. Somebody from outside might believe that. but locals know better. If you doubt that, then you don't really know whats going on.

Oil well after oil well is not the solution. I will have a good laugh if the ecosystem is destroyed up there and there isn't enough oil to be found anyway. It'll just be another blemish to Bush and Co's "legacy."

Willravel

I say we start phasing to alternates as soon as possible. Biodeisel, hydrogen, hydroelectric, wind, solar, and (theoretical ->) zero point power sources should be studied for possible applications as the bell curve of fuel makes gas and oil more expensive and less available. If instead of securing fuel sources with our massive wealth, America were to invest in inventions and real solutions like alternate fuel and self sufficiency, we might actually survive.

What worries me: instead of taking the road less traveled and going with science for solutions, we are taking the warmunger road and are trying to secure all fuel sources on the planet in the ficticious war on terror. It's no coincedence that Iraq, Iran, Syria, West Africa, and Saudi Arabia are named as terrorist states; they have some of the worlds largest oil reserves. So what happens? We kill tons of people to get oil that will quickly run out anyways. Good job, guys. What this means is that, like America, the world will become polarized over alternate fuel/the war on oil. This puts everyone in serious danger, espically those in the countries who have decided to try and take all the oil. Guess who will the biggest oil takers be? America (and our butt-buddy, the UK), obviously, and almost certianally Japan and/or China (I still think that there is a chance they might end up trying to take each other out). While I still don't see it as likely (eternal optimist , here), it is *possible* that the war will escalate. In that worst-case sceneereo, cities will not be too safe, espicially those near military bases. Paranoia aside, there will be a need for a strong sense of community and people willing to do a lot of farming in order to keep people from starving.

check out:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
and
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...ating_oil.html

Edit: oops, sorry, twotimesadingo, didn't mean to repeat what you said, though it does bear repeating.

Boo

Looking forward to the PFD is one thing. Using it as a means of existance is totally irresponsible. Counting on it is another. Anyone that "spits" out babies just to get another check is so piss poor at math that they need to get a clue. I know I cannot feed, cloth and otherwise support a kid on $1500 a year (thats $125 a month) especially in Alaska. Yes, I understand that there are total morons that think its a good idea to make babies to increase their "PFD fortune". BTW, the PFD for 2004 (which could have been quoted earlier instead of the much higher HISTORIC value of 2002) was only $919.84. Raise a kid on that.

The best thing the oil revenues do for Alaskans is allow us to be state tax free (well for now anyway).

I understand that the oil in ANWR is not going to be enough to allow for North America to be free of its dependencies. I do believe that at least exploring and knowing what is is available may provide us oil in an emergency, such as a long term war, at least.


(more housekeeping)I agree that oil dependency cannot be solved by the oil in ANWR. If anyone is openly stating that it will, can, or should cover our complete needs then I have not read or heard about it. Lets try to keep this for what it is. A natural resource in an arctic area that with todays technology can be removed with minimal impact and risk. The big difference between drilling in Texas and drilling in Alaska is our roads melt in the summer and will disappear if we no longer need them.


I work with people in Prudhoe Bay and Valdez daily. Their purchase orders even have requirements on shipping containers and packing materials.

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

KMA-628

I am coming down to my last few brains cells, but I don't know it to be the case. Also, I haven't heard any arguments related to ANWR stating that it will "end our dependence on foreign oil".

Where are you getting this info from? Most arguments I hear against ANWR relate to environmental concerns.....I haven't heard that there isn't any oil there.

From "The Economist"
LINK

Would you rather get these billions of barrels of oil from another country.....or would you rather the money stay here in our country?

Anything we do to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is a good thing, in my opinion.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

jorgelito

Um, that oil is not going to us, it will be going to China and Japan (that is one other perspective that hasn't been explored in this thread, except my post from above). So we will continue to need to find other sources of oil. What is the Department of Energy doing?

I am with you KMA 100%. I hate being dependent upon other countries, especially for something so easily replaceable such as oil. I still remember the oil shocks. You would've thought we had learned our lesson then.

I always wonder what the Middle East and indeed the world would be like if we were to just go solar (or whatever hypothetical). I bet that would really screw them. It's almost funny.

flstf

Maybe build more nuclear plants. Perhaps the technology and safety has improved to the point where we should consider them.

A higher tax on gasoline will hurt those least able to pay, those who drive older cars and who cannot afford to live in close to the cities.

flstf

I thought the oil would be required to be used here.

FishKing

The PFD is a great shot in the arm for Alaska's economy every October. You make it sound like everyone living in Alaska is having babies just to get another PFD check. That is just not the case as anyone can tell by the population Boom in this state.

As for drilling oil, it would help All Americans keep there live style. I personally do not want to depend on OPEC to control oil prices. The same people who want to control our lives and live the same live style they do control our check books. Ask anyone, every time the price of gas goes up is one less trip a movie or eating a meal out. It affects a large percent of the population.

As for the SUV’s, we Americans drive nice cars and have a good life in the great US. I am retired military and I have seen a lot. As I seen a comedian on TV say, there are not a lot of Americans crossing the boarder into Mexico for a better life style. The oil fields on the northern part of Alaska employ more people in the lower 48 then anyone realizes. 2 weeks on 2 weeks off and it is only a plain ride away. This also helps the airline industry.
Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.


Just a few facts..... www.anwr.org/topten.htm

jorgelito

flstf,

Thanks for the article. There's a lot of info out there, it's kind of dense and takes awhile to go through. I haven't seen the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act of 1973 mentioned before so that was informative.

One thing I don't get: Why would developing oil in Alaska not be attractive to domestic producers? The article didn't really make it clear (to me at least). I would think anyone would jump at the chance. I don't understand the 'artificially low prices' bit.

I also saw other articles contending that oil form ANWR would be destined for Asian countries.

Hard to tell who's right or accurate. I guess it is telling to look at the source too though. I've noted that the Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank (just an observation).