ANWR: To drill or not to drill?
 

Thoughts?

Not to drill. Reducing consumption will help us immensely more than drilling for that 6 -18 month supply
Get rid of the Hummers, the Escalades, the Ferrari's and Expeditions that single rich people drive that get less than 10 miles to the gallon. Then the problem is pretty close to being solved.
Start giving government funding to renewables and alternative fuel sources for cars instead of subsidising oil companies and we can completely end our dependence on foreign oil.

ANWR...
Especially not the way Bush and the republican congress want it.

They want to give any oil company a water liability waiver to drill in anwr. If they spill, they don't have to pay.
How can they think they can pass a bill like that?

I am still formulating my thoughts on this one. However, I don't see the logic of "getting rid of the hummers." That would infringe on the rights of free people. It would be like saying, "don't let the liberals cause traffic jams by picketing about the latest trendy thing to be upset about."

Conservation is definitely part of the solution. However, I think that more effort needs to be put forth by the automobile industry to develop alternative fuel sources. But in the mean time, I'll drive my SUV. I don't want to drive some weak battery operated car that can go 0 to 60 in 5 minutes.

Don't drill. Use the wind, the sun, the oceans, and that thing I like to call our noodle to get us off the dirty oily tit.

I'll say do not drill. Forget about getting rid of the Hummers and Ferraris as most aren't even used that often. The person putting 60k miles a year on their Honda creates more emissions than the one putting 2k miles on their Ferrari.

Driving a hummer is equivalent to just tossing gallons of gas on a fire to see it to up in smoke. Driving a Hummer is not a right.

But, I probrably wouldn't ban the hummer either. I would just quadruple gas taxes. See how many hummers and escalades and navigators are sold then.
People who drive a car with good gas mileage (31mpg and up), or are farm workers can keep their gas reciepts and turn them in to get a rebate on their tax that brings them down to the gas tax rate we are at right now.

I think that is the PERFECT solution.

I think it is quite obvious that the number of SUVs on the road have skyrocketed (I myself now own one). A lot of this has to do with marketing and a perceived "need" of the public. It is in a way a chicken or the egg thing. SUVs, however, now seem here to stay. The idea of banning them or burning them is not possible. I think the engineering of SUVs needs to be improved without compromising function. A temporary fix may be the digging of ANWR in light of the current Middle East crisis. Perhaps in time, that source will not be as urgently necessary.

Superbelt, do you think it is a right to toss gallons of gas (and a fire) on a hummer? Just curious...

Of course not. The people who did that didn't use their brains and caused probrably more pollution with that display that those Hummers ever would.

That isn't the right way to go about it. The way cali is doing it is right. They are imposing extra taxes on these polluting, low mileage behemoths.

Quadrupling the federal gas tax over a period of 7 years + inflation, is the next step we need to take.

First, drilling in ANWR wouldn't even provide us with any oil for 8 years or more. It takes a long time just to set that kind of operation up.

So it won't actually relieve anything. Then, the recoverable oil will not reduce our foreign dependence by more than 3%. Trust me on that, I did several debates and research papers on ANWR for my geology classes in college. That 3% is nothing. Drilling in ANWR is not a solution.

I personally don't think that is the answer. I do believe that incentives to other efficient automobiles is a good idea. However, to make it difficult financially so as to eliminate the SUV market seems wrong. Incentives, yes. Decentives (made up that word, I think), no.

Increased gas taxes is a "decentive" to buy a suv, but it is an incentive to buy a car, especially if you gain the gas tax difference back.

It's how Europe fixed their transportation problems. Gas over there costs 3-4 dollars a gallon, comparably. And it is mostly tax. Most people have smaller cars that get incredible gas mileage compared to what we get here.

There is nothing wrong with incentives to eliminate gas guzzlers. Now there is a ford and GM plan to convert one of their suv's (Escape for Ford) into a hybrid, but it keeps getting delayed. If we raise the gas tax there will be an instant market for this and Ford will work their asses off to get this to market.

ANWR will not be a temporary fix, drilling has too much lag time.

What was that statistic Gore was repeating during the 2000 elections? Something along the lines of having all the cars in america be one percent more fuel efficient was the equivalent of 2 ANWRs.

The problem is SUVs being classified as light trucks, thus allowing them by law to be as fuel -IN-efficient as they want. Change the classification and raise the standard.

The government should give Ford and the like the incentives to produce such automobiles. Not "decentivize" the public (basically arm twisting). Not all of us want to drive around a VW bug thing or mini-whatever.

Here's an incentive to automakers:

"Double your average fuel economy for all classes in 6 years or we'll tax the holy fuck out of your vehicles"

The ones that do, keep selling hunks of metal, the ones that don't, have to keep their now overly expensive rusting hulks of metal.

And when it doesn't get achieved and Ford and GM start laying workers off?

Then those workers start working for Toyota who has stepped up production 200% to meet demand for their cars.

But trust me, it can be achieved. It will cost the consumer a couple extra hundred dollars for the more expensive engines.

Ford and GM have an engine they worked on jointly that is 8 cylinders 400 hp and gets 35 mpg. It is in show cars right now, but it should be coming to the truck market in the next year or two.

We shouldn't need to drill there, but the option should be open if it is necessary for some reason -- it is possible to do so with minimal environmental impact. The automotive industry is taking it upon themselves to make more fuel efficient vehicles which will eventually become mainstream. They are solving the problem for us, isn't that nice?

Actually, there is no need to drill there, it's too limited of a supply to ignore the dangerous environmental effects that drilling will have there. Superbelt, your plan to quadruple gas prices wouldn't hurt the "single rich people who drive Escalades, Ferraris and the like" why? because they are single RICH people, they will be willing to pay high gas prices to drive their toys. However, you will be hurting the working class guys who need to drive trucks to do their work (i.e. Silverados, F-150s, and the like that only get around 12-13 mpg). Granted the new engines will be more fuel efficient, but, they're not available for the consumer right now, taxing such trucks would be so unpopular that it probably wouldn't even get passed.

Along with the gas tax break for farm workers, include it for those whose employer requires them to drive a truck to work. SUV's especially the luxury ends like the navigators and expeditions will not be honored as necessary for work vehicles.

I have a real problem with the government mandating what a company can and can't sell. It reeks of communism. Should there be reasonable controls? Yes. I would rather take a different approach, because this is what likely would happen, the economists in each Motor Co. presents a report to the Exec. Committee showing the benefits of producing fuel efficient cars. It is more financially beneficial for a motor company to produce these cars, companies like Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, and Kia have shown us this. Trust me, the companies will make the change on their own without any help from the government, or they will go out of business, it's as simple as that.

No matter how fuel efficient vehicle are the pressure to drill up there will only grow as the years pass. I just don't see the merit of exploiting the area when the risk outweighs the benefit by so much. What part of "animal refuge" don't proponents understand?

Drilling in ANWR is pointless. We should invest money in fuel efficient cars and alternative sources of energy now, because we are eventually going to be forced to anyway. I think the gas tax is a good idea, considering most americans are more about the pocketbook then being responsible.
Nobody needs to drive a freakin' escalade or a hummer anyway.

Nobody needs to drive an Escalade? Or a Hummer?

Escalade, I'll halfway buy into that arguement. But a Hummer? Those have some real useful feature for some people, but, not everyone that drives it needs it.

But everyone seems to forget one thing.

Mini-Vans.

Lower a SUV's ground clearance, extend the cabin forward a foot and add a third row, you got a Mini-Van.

So, are Mini-Van's acceptable or not?

Mini-Van's also get about a third extra gas mileage than the average SUV.

Who are Hummers useful for that you can't do with something else? And do it better.

Who needs a hummer, aside from the military? What huge problem in transportaton has now been solved with the advent of the consumer (read dumbed down) hummer? I think the general public was getting along just fine pre-hummer. None of the people i see driving them in my town need them. They are just a new way for fools and their money to be parted.

I thought that minivans actually had to conform to some standards because they aren't classified as light trucks. Maybe i'm wrong on that,

What's better than a Hummer? A Land Rover, an H1, and a few others.

See, there are some things you can do with a Hummer you can't do with a fuel efficient vehicle. A Civic can't tow a trailer (and anything a Civic can tow certainly doesn't qualify as a trailer), a Civic can't go off-road (well, it can, but it has a hell of a time getting back on-road), a Civic can't carry as much (throw any statistic you want at me "Oh, a hummer only has x amount more, that's almost nothing!" The real life test proves different).

The only thing that absolutely blows away a Hummer in every catagory is, you guessed it, another Hummer, namely the H1, or Hum-Vee.

Now, as for Mini-Van's getting 1/3 better gas milage, that's because A) Most mini-van engines are signigantly smaller than the average SUV's and B) 1/3 of an SUV's gas milage isn't that big, say 5 MPG. So, you upgrade the engine of the van, and you have an unversitile SUV.

Any half-assed pickup can tow a trailer, many of them can also go off road. You can also do those things with an atv/ four-wheeler. Comparing a hummer to a civic in those terms is a little silly. And really, all the people i see rolling a hummer through south minneapolis are the same people who would shit their pants over a scratch in their bumper. Going off road is the last thing on their mind( i know, a generalizaton, but still accurate).

Just because you can find a use for something does not make it necessary. People were hauling trailers and off roading long before anyone could buy a commercial hummer. Hummers aren't going to increase the amount of people who haul trailers and off road either.
Most suv drivers don't even actually take advantage of their vehicles's capabilities. It is all bullshit image management. Atleast minivan drivers generally use their van for what it was intended, cause i doubt anyone would buy one for image.

See, that's the problem though. Many people don't use SUV's to their full capability, but some do. (Particularly where I live because people like to spend money on stuff they will use)

Why should people in Wisconsin be punished for rich jackasses in California and in big cities that we don't care about in the first place?

Nobody in wisconsin needlessly drives a truck or suv? What does brett farve drive? Bet it is a big ass truck like every other player in the NFL. You could be punished for the rich jackasses in your very own wisconsin. Besides, a gas tax would likely have exemptions for people who actually use their big trucks for what they were intended.

I believe in taxation on gas and high mileage vehicles. This is to pass onto consumers and corporations the true cost of having a fuel guzzling behemoth.

Being overly dependent on foreign oil leaves the country vulnerable, it pollutes the environment that we all share, it contributes to global warming etc etc..... time for the people who pollute to pay the true cost.

This is also fairer to people who own gas guzzling vehicles like Ferraris or older show cars. If you don't drive it, you won't pollute, and you won't be taxed as much.

If you are a farmer, or whoever needs it for your work, then you get taxed as well. You're polluting the environment just as much as the average joe in his SUV. No exemptions, no exclusions. Everyone should pay if they pollute. Nothing hits home like the bottom line. And the day that big corporations demand fuel efficient commercial vehicles to save on their fuel taxes, is the day the car companies will pay attention.

It doesn't matter if they use it, or don't use it. When the goverment steps up, and puts stricter regulations on engines and emissions then you people can have somthing to bitch about. Mocking someone because they are buying a truck, simply for the fact they don't NEED one, is completely ignorant. Maybe you should point fingers at the goverment, or car manufactures for building these non-enviroment friendly cars, instead of pointing at the people because a constitutional right gives them the ability to be free, and buy whatever vehicle they want.

I'm an Alaskan, and if any of you knew 1/10th of the politics involved, or seen what that part of the State of Alaska consists of, maybe your opinion would dramatically changed. How can people that don't live here, or know the first thing about it, comment on it.

I hunt in ANWR every year in the Brooks Range, I spend 28 days up there a year. I've seen what it looks like and what is there. You can sit here all day and criticize about it, but until you see it, your just as ignorant as the rest.

I'm all for it. Drill away.

Before we assume that all Alaskans want to drill, I can say that the feelings here are as mixed as they are in the states.
Having been involved in the oil spill cleanup from the Exxon Valdez. I can say that there are many people who are not interested in seeing that happen to ANWR.

I wasn't mocking, but you have to admit that it is rather shortsighted for humanity as a species to put unnescesary stress on the atmosphere for the sake of image. It is ignorant to buy a truck just because you want to look cool, or just because you want to drive some macho ass climatechanger.

You could point fingers a the automakers, but they're just doing what any company wants to do- sell a popular product to an eager consumer. The fact is, until there is no demand anymore for vehicular metaphors for excess, automakers will continue to make these vehicles. I would point fingers at the gov't, but only because they're not keeping car manufacturers in check.

Maybe you'll enlighten me on the 1/10th of the politics involved so i can understand your informed opinion instead of just pulling the "you just don't understand" card. Right now all i know is that some oil corporations want to open up a national wildlife refuge to oil drilling for what could amount to an inconsequential amount of oil. As such i know ex-alaskans who don't favor drilling, why shoulld i listen to you over them?

Fishin obviously suffers from the same sort of ignorance that plagues the rest of america about electric cars--they don't realize that electric cars have FANTASTIC acceleration compared to gas cars of the same class. The old GE electric car (forget the model #) could do 0-60 in 6 seconds because of the great amount of torque that electric engines produce. gas cars have better top speed of course, but who needs a car that can go 200 if they have one that can get to 100 in no time at all? If people only took time to learn about the reality of the situation, we'd have more converts instead of more ignorance.

Remember: condemnation without investigation is at the height of ignorance.:crazy:

You wanna know 1/10 of the politics of drilling in Alaska?

Alaskans survive on corporate welfare. Without it, that state would be a barren wasteland from west shore to eastern border.

Alaskans don't pay much in taxes. There is no state income tax because the oil revenues pay for almost all state functions. Additionally every Alaskan gets a yearly check for their portion of the oil revenues. Drill in ANWR and every alaskan becomes a little bit richer. That's the bare bones of it.

My fiancee has a cousin who moved to Alaska. He works part-time as a pizza delivery boy and crashes at a friends house. He writes back home complaining about how the democrats suck for trying to stop this because it's hard enough to survive in Alaska as it is.

Fuck em, if you can't survive without oil revenues that you didn't earn. It's just welfare. We don't need to support a welfare state on the back of environmental degradation.

LOL.

Your opinion is generalized because of 1 person with a biased opinion because he can't find a job? Ignorance. He's right about the democrats however.

If all he tells you that the democrats are trying to take it away, instead of telling you why, then he doesn't know anything about it. I'm not going to explain it, because it really doesn't matter. You generalzation is as ignorant as they come, so is your assumption the PFD's are strictly paid from oil revenue.

I wasn't generalizing. I was telling you what another alaskan reacts to and how he lives up there.

And tell me how my generalizations about the welfare state that is Alaska is incorrect.

There is no income tax, oil revenues take care of that. Much of what is left from the oil revenues are divided up amongst the residents. Drilling in ANWR would make revenues increase, putting more money into every Alaskans pocket.

But it's money most didn't earn, they are enriched by residency.

How is that an ignorant generalization?

FYI:

It's called the PFD check. Permanent Fund Divident
Look it up, you'll see some stupid shit.

2002's check to every Alaskan was $1540.76

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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....

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

From the article:

Three cheers for statewide welfare for everyone.
/cynicysm.

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.

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!

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??!?!?!

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)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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?

Didn't mean to post.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. :thumbsup:
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

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).

I don't understand all the details either. I thought I remember seeing a comgressperson on TV the other day say that the oil was destined for here so I did a few quick searches. I don't think that we should make a decision based on whether the oil gets exported or stays here. As oil prices rise exporting would help offset what we import and help the trade imbalance.

That Alaskan wasteland is home to animals who were there before we were.

Drilling a supply of oil which will have a questionable impact on the current fuel crisis, and in the process destroying habitat for all the furry creatures...

I really wonder what will happen when the global reserves of oil are all gone, then maybe we can start the slow and arduous process of actually preserving the beauty and liveability of our planet.

so just because something isn't endangered it isn't worth protecting?

This is the second time that this has been asserted in this thread without anything to back it up.

Opinions are one thing, this is a major point of contention. One that cannot be taken seriously if it is merely uttered with no corraborating information whatsoever.

This is simple. We need oil. Like it or not, we need the stuff.

The next question is where do we get it from? Do we rely on other nations that can potentially use the stuff to hold us hostage (i.e. late 70's) or do we tap any source that might decrease our dependence on someone other than oursleves?

How much it decreases our dependence is moot (and questionable).

I would support a measure that means we get 100 barrels less of oil a day from another country (yes, I am exaggerating, but you know what I mean).

We all want to complain about outsourcing jobs, losing money to other countries, etc. But, when we have the chance to increase our self-sufficiency, we don't want to do it.

Sorry about no source... when something is quoted and quoted and cited and cited you just start to assume common knowledge

sorry for the confusion, i'll edit my post

This is something I would support.

The initial costs would be huge, but, in the long-run, the benefits would outweigh the initial costs.

As for safety/technology: Copy the Navy model. The Navy model has a perfect record and has had a perfect record for 50+ years (NOTE: This is based on information I was privy to while in the service))

France does it, based on our model. Iran was going to do it in the late 70's, based on our model. The model works, it is effective and it is very easy to control and contain. The only problem is that we would have to declassify some things in order to transfer all of the info from the military sector to the private sector.

The Russians used a different model (graphite was one of their major problems) and they paid dearly for it.

Sure. But as long as we are so myopic about the future necessity of oil, we'll eventually end up in the same place we are right now, pre-drilling ANWR.
Obviously that is incorrect.
A chance to increase our self-sufficiency that is so short-sighted that it relies on questionable quantities of oil in Alaska as well as propogating the same mentality that oil is the only option is not good enough.

Until the administration makes a strong push for oil independence, I see no reason to view this push into Alaska as anything more than the administration helping out the oil industry lobby.

KMA, I agree we need to be self-sufficient, but aren't we just delaying the inevitable? We still need to find alternative source etc. Meanwhile, it wouldn't hurt to conserve a little wouldn't it? As a conservative myself, I already have good habits of conservation and not being wasteful. I think we all could. What's the harm? SOunds like a win-win to me.

I would also support the safe nuclear option too (although admittedly, I have a little bit of NIMBY syndrome).

According to this biodeisel website, Biodieselers using waste oil feedstock say they can make biodiesel for 60 cents US per gallon or less. Most people use about 600 gallons of fuel a year (about 10 gallons a week) -- say US$360 a year. For those who don't know, biodiesel is an interesting alternative to dino-oil (the stuff we're killing people over). While you need to process it, it's as trouble free as diesel, won't corrode your engine like pure veggie oil, and needs no engine change. It's a combination of oil (fresh, virgin, uncooked), methanol (the main or only ingredient in barbecue fuel or fondue fuel, sold in supermarkets and chain stores as "stove fuel"), and (sold in supermarkets and hardware stores as a drain-cleaner, there's probably a can of it under the sink in most households).

Vegetable oils and animal fats are triglycerides, containing glycerine. The biodiesel process turns the oils into esters, separating out the glycerine. The glycerine sinks to the bottom and the biodiesel floats on top and can be syphoned off.

The process is called transesterification, which substitutes alcohol for the glycerine in a chemical reaction, using lye as a catalyst.

We use methanol to make methyl esters. We'd rather use ethanol because most methanol comes from fossil fuels (though it can also be made from biomass, such as wood), while ethanol is plant-based and you can distill it yourself, but the biodiesel process is more complicated with ethanol. (See Ethyl esters.)

Ethanol (or ethyl alcohol, grain alcohol -- EtOH, C2H5OH) also goes by various other well-known names, such as whisky, vodka, gin, and so on, but methanol is a deadly poison: first it blinds you, then it kills you, and it doesn't take very much of it. It takes a couple of hours, and if you can get treatment fast enough you might survive. (But don't be put off -- it's easy to do this safely. Safety is built-in to everything you'll read here.)

Methanol is also called methyl alcohol, wood alcohol, wood naphtha, wood spirits, methyl hydrate (or "stove fuel"), carbinol, colonial spirits, Columbian spirits, Manhattan spirits, methylol, methyl hydroxide, hydroxymethane, monohydroxymethane, pyroxylic spirit, or MeOH (CH3OH or CH4O) -- all the same thing. (But, confusingly, "methylcarbinol" or "methyl carbinol" is used for both methanol and ethanol.) In the US you can usually get it at race tracks.



Methylated spirits (denatured alcohol) doesn't work; isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) also doesn't work.

The lye catalyst can be either sodium hydroxide (caustic soda, NaOH) or potassium hydroxide (KOH), which is easier to use, and it can provide a potash fertilizer as a by-product. Sodium hydroxide is often easier to get and it's cheaper to use. If you use potassium hydroxide, the process is the same, but you need to use 1.4 times as much. (See More about lye.) You can get KOH from soapmakers' suppliers and from chemicals suppliers. Other chemicals, such as isopropyl alcohol (isopropanol) for titration, are available from chemicals suppliers.

You don't have to convert the engine to run it on biodiesel, but you do need to make some adjustments and check a few things.

Retard the injection timing by 2-3 degrees -- this overcomes the effect of biodiesel's higher cetane number. It also causes the fuel to burn cooler, thus reducing NOx emissions.

Petro-diesel leaves a lot of dirt in the tank and the fuel system. Biodiesel is a good solvent -- it tends to free the dirt and clean it out. Be sure to check the fuel filters regularly at first. Start off with a new fuel filter.

Check there are no natural rubber parts in the fuel system. If there are, replace them. Viton is best.

We might not have to drill anywhere (like Alaska) if we can start to shift the market to biodeisel, AS WE CAN ACTUALLY GROW VEGETABLES FOR FUEL. Any country able to grow produce should be able to start upping production, as the money from the oil industry shifts over to agriculture.

Here's an article I read in Forbes a few weeks back. It appears we are going to build more nuclear plants. A lot more.

http://www.forbes.com/business/forbe.../0131/084.html

Lebell, do you really have any idea of the ecosystem up there in Prudhoe or are you just relying on shipping papers to determine that the oil companies are doing their job in protecting the environment?

Here's one of many soruces KMA. There's articles all over the web so do a little searching.

Article

We don't need any oil. NOTHING. We have the technology today to cut all use of the internal combustion engine. Why dont we do it? Money of course. The world economy would go to total shit if all oil dried up tommorow. And having an oil man in the white house doesn't help either. It doesn't surprise me that other Alaskans are for drilling, it will add a measly $200 or so to their PFD checks. That's what seems to be the most important thing to people thses days. Money. Never mind that this will only repay the oil lobbyists that paid Bush to get reelected.

I've been telling lower48'ers this all along. There isn't enough oil in Alaska to save us from the Saudis. Look at every estimate that has ever been given about ANWR. Show me an estimate that shows a more than six month supply of oil.

I do not believe that the oil from ANWR will save up from the mid-eastern suppliers. I don't believe that anyone in this thread has utilized that as reasoning.

Actually it would probably add another $500+ per person to the PFD. Other effects could add up to a lot more money. Figure in occupational bonus', 401 K matching, and lessen the possibility of having a state tax. That (in my figures) could add up to over $5000 a year per wage earner per year. So if you want to call Alaskans greedy, so be it. Nothing "measly" about $5000 a year. What about the effect on industry in the lower 48. How many millions of dollars will come up on the barge? How many people from TX, OR, WA will fly up for the jobs and bring the money home to spend.

Before you knock someone making money from the resources in their state, look at the lower 48 and the reliance upon natural resources. Tell Arizona to stop mining, tell Colorado to stop exploring for natural gas, tell Mississippi to stop the offshore oil production, tell Florida to stop shrimping etc... etc.... . Animals live there too, lets be fair across the board.

IMO - It does not matter how much oil there is. Obviously there is enough for the oil companies to want to pursue it. Until testing is done we cannot make an informed decision. Estimates are just estimates.

[QUOTE=Boo]
Actually it would probably add another $500+ per person to the PFD. Other effects could add up to a lot more money. Figure in occupational bonus', 401 K matching, and lessen the possibility of having a state tax. That (in my figures) could add up to over $5000 a year per wage earner per year. So if you want to call Alaskans greedy, so be it. Nothing "measly" about $5000 a year. What about the effect on industry in the lower 48. How many millions of dollars will come up on the barge? How many people from TX, OR, WA will fly up for the jobs and bring the money home to spend.

Look at Texas and the rest of the lower 48 who produce oil. You can buy land cheap but you do not own the mineral rights. The oil companies come on your land, set up shop and drill until MOMMA has all the jewelry she needs then they shut down operations leaving the owner with a mess...My in-laws live in Texas and hate that.

Sales taxes in Texas are how much? About 8-14 percent depends on what county and city taxes are added. We in Alaska enjoy a good life style and would like for the rest of the lower 48 to clean up their back yard before judging us.

Yes it is true we have no sales tax, and get a check from the PFD. Don’t be an Alaskan hater just because we have it better. :icare: :icare: :icare: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


BOO, I am on your side 100% on this one....Thanks brother

Oil is finite. Becuasse oil is finite, we need to eventually make plans to replace it. Oil production has been on a consistant rising trend. That means our finite oil is becoming more rare as each year passes. Eventually, we will hit peak oil production. This means there is no where to go but down as far as oil production on Earth, barring a mass extinction, and unnaturalally fast fossilization (we'll call that improbable enought to leave it from the discussion). Eventually, we cannot rely on oil as we do now.

There is a war about oil. People are being sent to secure nations that produce oil. People die in wars, including the war for oil.

There are three options with Peak Oil. The first option is to ignore it. The second option is to fight to the last drop (what we are doing so far). The third option is to find alternatives.

In other words, drilling in Alaska is a wonderful way to not deal with the problem. It is not an answer to prayers, but a bit more oil we spend now instead of getting later, or not getting at all. If we drill there and are able to extrace 100% of the oil, all that does is buy us a little time.

will, you are wasting your breath. I mention that "all the time" (about ten posts up or so and in other threads) but people consistently miss or ignore that perspective. I guess we'll all pay for that myopia somehow. I think KMA and someone else did suggest nuclear as an option they would support but that never got mentioned again either.

We need to stimulate debate for good energy policy - resources/renewable resources/alternative resources etc. It always seems to get lost in either partisan bickering or people just don't want to engage in it. *ponder*

I agree with the Onion that if we follow the "oil as addiction" metaphor then ANWR is the point at which we pawn our wedding ring for a weekend in Vegas. The fact is that 95% of Alaska's Northern coast is already available for oil drilling. ANWR will not impact in any substancial way our unsustainable dependance on oil as fuel source.

Alaskans' support for drilling in ANWR has been bought with yearly checks from the government. Although I'd like to see what would happen if those checks were printed side-by-side with the profits oil executives are making off of the people's natural resources.

The argument that we need to drill in ANWR in order to sustain our more rugged gas-guzzling vehicles is as specious as Kurant's "I've killed animals there for years..." argument. Exceptions in our fuel-economy laws were made for utility vehicles, but since then we've seen them used primarily as passenger cars. To future generations our attachment to SUVs and other low-efficiency vehicles will seem as ludicrous as the ancient Maya cutting down their forests in order to re-plaster their buildings every year.

The thread is whether to drill in ANWR. I believe everyone knows that oil is limited in supply and needs to be replaced with a clean(er) alternative.

Drilling in Alaska has little to do with the oil problem. It will not provide a significant amount for sustained culture as we know it (based on the preliminary estimates). It will not provide an alternate energy source. It will provide jobs and industry in a time when America needs it. Alaska has no real manufacturing base. All the equipment and supplies are shipped in.

Time could be a very important factor. A couple of hard winters, a large scale war, or many other things can effect our ability to have adequate transportation and heat for our homes. Having at least explored our resources and having a closer estimate could be very important.

Everyone already knows this? If drilling in ANWR will do nothing to change this situation then why is it even being discussed? oh yeah...

So by selling our natural resources to the more profitable Chinese and Japanese markets we can ensure that the lower 48 will have no real manufacturing base either. Wonderful solution.

I don't believe everyone knows that, or if they do, they certainly aren't doing anything about it.

As for your Alaska-needs-jobs explanation: I don't care. Don't have a job in Alaska? Move to another state and get a job. I live in Boulder, Colorado and although there are many things I disapprove of that the City does, one of those things is not their Open Space initiatives, which significantly limit new construction and new zoning. This excellent plan reduces over-population and maintains near-pristine wilderness. If I don't like it, I can move to Denver.

Or how about this: Alaska receives massive federal tax breaks for alternative energy development research, attracting high-tech industry and the infrastructure to support it.

People will not take the oil situation seriously until forced. Thats just the way it is.

Yes, I am employed thank you very much. I make more than the people I went to school with in Loveland. I visit family in Colorado and see the front range and NE corner. Boulder in the late 70's was a short drive for street racing and weed.

I left Loveland because the entire front range is saturated with people. All the "pristine wilderness" is populated or under hiking boot attack. My last trip to Red Feather Lakes was an experience in avoiding people instead of fishing and photography.

edited to add:

The company I work for gets 40 foot containers of goods from our depot in Denver every month. If ANWR were to open, it could add 3-5 containers per month. Talk about a nice trickle down effect.