• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Truth About ANWR Drilling

    The following e-mail was forwarded to me today, and it’s just too good not to republish. Coupled with American Solutions’ petition with more than 1.2 million signatures calling for energy production, it is clear that oil drilling can mobilize the right like few other issues.


    First, do you know what ANWR is?

    ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

    Now, a comparison:

    image001.jpg

    And some perspective:

    image002.jpg

    Note where the proposed development area is (in the ‘ANWR Coastal Plain’):

    image003.jpg

    This is what the Democrats, liberals and ‘greens’ show you when they talk about ANWR. And they are right, these are photographs of ANWR:

    image004.jpg

    image005.jpg

    Isn’t ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place?

    Well, that’s not exactly the truth.

    Do you remember the map?

    The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain.

    Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you?

    What’s going on here?

    The answer is simple.

    That is NOT where they are wanting to drill!

    This is what the proposed exploration area ACTUALLY looks like in the winter:

    image007.jpg

    And this is what it ACTUALLY looks like in the summer:

    image008.jpg

    image009.jpg

    image010.jpg

    Here are a couple screen shots from Google Earth:

    image011.jpg

    image012.jpg

    As you can see, the area where they are talking about drilling is a barren wasteland.

    Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife.

    Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the ‘depleted wildlife’ situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay. Don’t you think that the Caribou really hate that drilling?

    image013.jpg

    Here’s that same spot during the winter:

    image014.jpg

    Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.

    image015.jpg

    Posted in Scribe [slideshow_deploy]

    148 Responses to The Truth About ANWR Drilling

    1. Steve Brink, Belling says:

      It's sad that most of our federally elected Senators and Representatives (that Americans have elected) won't do anything about our dependence on foreign oil. Drilling in ANWR, extracting oil from shale in the Rocky Mountains, and drilling offshore of our coastlines has been proven to be environmentally sound.

      Hopefully, the voting public will get the message this election season and vote all the liberal democrats and republicans out of Congress. We did it to ourselves by voting them in in the first place.

    2. Bill Dukas, Kerhonks says:

      Got the picture, thanks for making it simple and to the point. I especially liked that Alaskan bear run, such an unobtrusive way to stimulate a beast's intelligence.

    3. Darvin Dowdy says:

      Rob, lets focus on the number of very high paying jobs that will be available once all of these areas have been opened for drilling. The American worker has seen a loss of high pay manufacturing jobs over the past decade. Dramatically increased domestic drilling would more than compensate for that and most likely add more.

      If you want Congress to act, you're going to have to get Middle America excited and enthusiastic about it and in turn they'll call/write/email/fax their representitive. Just like we experienced last June with the McCain/Kennedy. A ground swell. Something that congress can't deny or hide from. Forced to act. Sorry, thats what it takes.

      Middle America can always get pumped up by the prospect of higher paying and more plentiful jobs. That is how we need to sell this issue.

      "Our side" is doing a terrible job of selling this issue to the American people. You can point to Newt's "drill now" initiative but 1 million signatures is nothing. 1/300th. Not enough to get congress off its duff. Darvin Dowdy

    4. bill-tb says:

      Sure doesn't look like the Grand Canyon. I understand it's dark 8 months or so out of the year. Energy Independece, it's right under your feet.

      Agree with the terrible job our side is doing, McCain sure isn't helping with all his nutty global warming BS.

    5. Joanne Sare, Galt, C says:

      I support drilling for oil in ANWAR or anyplace there is oil to drill for in the USA. What happened to all the oil wells in Texas? We are now at the mercy of those countrys that hate us! Another thing that I think is suspicious is when Obama said "I didn't think gas prices would go up so fast"! What did he mean by that statement? Almost like he was in on the plan.

    6. Juan Leal says:

      I am for drilling even in my backyard.

    7. MARY TOMPKINS, NEDER says:

      WHY DON'T WE JUST PRODUCE OIL FROM THE CAPPED WELLS IN TEXAS, WYOMING, UTAH ETC. WE ARE PAYING PEOPLE TO LEASE THE WELLS. WE ALREADY KNOW WHERE THEY ARE ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS START PRODUCING FROM THEM. WHY EXPLORE FOR A RESOURCE WE ALREADY HAVE, SEEMS LIKE A WASTE OF TIME. WE NEED THE OIL NOW. EXPLORATION NEEDS TO CONTINUE AS WELL. GREED SEEMS TO BE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS ISSUE. WHO'S GETTING RICH, IT SURE ISN'T ME.

    8. Capped Wells, Atlant says:

      Here's an interesting bit about why the wells are capped, and about who's getting rich:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk

    9. Ed Morris--Roswell, says:

      E-Mail all of your friends if you are for drilling in the USA. This is a "no brainer" We should drill, drill and drill some more.

    10. John Bernia - Oxford says:

      These photos need to be placed in front of the American people. Obviously, getting the news media to actually put them out there is going to be impossible, which is very frustrating.

      Newt Gingrich, with his American Solutions website has circulated a petition to drum up the support for oil drilling. Over 1 million people have signed it, calling for members of congress to pursue drilling here, drilling now, so Americans can pay less.

      In addition to helping with oil supply and the overall economic impact, this should also be seen in the light of the national security issue it really is. Want to fight terrorism? Reduce the amount of oil purchased from the middle east and work for energy independence. This is another front of the war on terror.

    11. Joyce Parker, Seabro says:

      I am all for going "green" in what ever way it is practical to do so. However, our nation is fueled by oil and gas. Until someone figures out how to provide all Americans with an alternative to oil that everyone can afford to use we will remain dependent on oil. That means we must drill. I thought this was a good posting. The photo of Caribou grazing around the oil rig made me laugh. In Texas you frequently see cattle and other animals grazing around them.

    12. Bob Steele, Riverto says:

      This country has all the resources needed to survive on it's own. Use our own resources, OIL,technology, medical, and food. Help the few countries that help US and let the rest "fend for themselves". We didn't need them 200 years ago so why should we need them now? DRILL OUR OWN OIL = ANWR AND THE COASTAL AREAS. The animals will adapt to the environment. They don't go extinct due to habitat changes.

      • guest says:

        I've heard that Obama has promised Putin 7 offshore islands near Alaska & they are loaded with oil & other natural resources. I'm not sure if this is true or not. If true, it could be what he whispered to Putin that he would have more leeway after the election. These islands have been in American authority since the 1800s, & now Obama wants to just GIVE them away to RUSSIA?? I've also heard that we got Alaska & those islands from Russia. I don't know if that's true either, but either way, WE NEED THE OIL THAT'S THERE & I'm sure these islands are close to the ANWR. I'm not a history buff, but I'm just repeating what I have heard from to others. Does anyone know if this info is true or not?

    13. Bob Benn, San Diego, says:

      If our politicians had to pay for their own gas and oil, they would fix this problem right away. If we don't start drilling off of our shores you can rest assured that China, Cuba and Venezuela will have derricks up pumping our oil and selling it back to us at rediculas prices.

      We need to clean house in November!

    14. M. Johnson, Houston, says:

      I, too, am for drilling in ANWR… surely with so many environmentalists watching, the drillers would have to be judicious in their protection of the area. But, for those of you who believe it would be ok in your "backyard"… be careful what you wish for! Drilling on our property began several yrs ago, & it's not a pretty picture… the oil company appropriated (no compensation b/c they hold the mineral rights) almost 10% of our surface acreage & set up an oil & gas production facility along with their well. The runoff, including sand & once some oil, from their hillside goes straight into the pond we had paid $15K to build… the sand has reduced the pond depth signicantly; "fortunately," the oil was absorbed into the ground & didn't affect our surface water.

    15. Mark , Texas says:

      Is this really about "showing" the american people the problem , no , we americans are pretty darned smart . we know the problems with and without drilling . the real problem is that our elected represenitives HAVE TURNED THEIR BACKS ON US . they do not care what any american thinks about the current situation . all they care about is their immediate futur , that's all . well I say if they can sell us out we can sell them out , PERIOD . start making a stand america .

    16. Kmuzu says:

      So, here is just an opinion from the other side. Why drilling in ANWR is wrong.

      1. Your example of relative area is misleading. The Exxon Valdez spill, Chernobyl, Love Canal were is small areas, but caused major devastation.

      2. Oil companies are liars and are cartels, no different than drug lords. These guys brought us leaded fuel, when alcohol fuel would have only been five cents more a gallon.

      3. Oil companies are sitting on over 7,400 undeveloped leases right now. Why not start on these before we go to ANWR?

      4. Oil companies have been selling developed leases to China. There is a site in Denver sold to China that employs Chinese workers. Let's throw the Chinese off and give the jobs to Americans.

      5. There is not enough oil in ANWR to make a difference.

      6. If development started today it would take at least seven years to start pumping.

      7. Supply is only a small part of the problem. Speculation is really behind this spike in price.

      8. Let's not forget the anemic dollar and the threat of more war in the Middle East.

      9. ANWR does nothing to get us off the addiction to oil. How does this help in developing alternative energy?

      10. As I understand it, British Petroleum runs the Alaskan Pipeline (doesn't sound American to me), they say when and how much oil is piped through. How do we know the same thing won't happen to ANWR?

      As a Democrat, I want to give the finger to the Middle East, Venezuela and Iran. I hate the fact that some king or two-bit dictator is trying to crush the will of America. Have you seen the pictures of Bush holding hands with the Saudi king? How does the president of the United States hold the hand of another man? Makes me wanna puke. We are the greatest nation on the frikin' earth. We need independence and we can do through American innovation. Alternative energy is the only answer to our oil addiction.

      Just my opinion .. Kmuzu

      • Ross Cameron says:

        1. There is no misleading in the relative of the area. Look at the maps and pictures again. The Slope is flat, desolate and only a small part of ANWR.
        2. Oil companies and drug lords?? Please.
        3. Because ANWR has a buttload of oil. This is low hanging fruit.
        4. Lets focus in on ANWR in Alaska not China in Colorado
        5. Every vote makes a difference. Every barrel of oil coming from the USA makes a difference. Don't be silly.
        6. Sounds like we should quit messing around and get to it, then.
        7. Forecasting (speculating?) that oil prices will remain at this level or higher is not a radical thought. Wouldn't it be nice if this was a "spike" in price? Don't count on it.
        8. Sorry, you lost me on this one.
        9. Aha – something we agree on. I don't think that drilling for oil is meant to help with anything else but getting a commodity to the market that demands it so that many people can make money.
        10. Incorrect – you didn't do your homework on this. Fact – if we do not find more oil to go through the pipeline, it will be shut down in short order because of physics.

      • Conservative Boss says:

        In response to the first 4 of Kmuzu's 10 points:

        1. Chernobyl was a nuclear facility, not an oil one, so it is completely unrelated and makes no difference. I don't know about the other two you mentioned but obviously you have your facts wrong.

        2. Oil companies are companies like any other, and the only reason prices are high right now is because of govt. regulation. Go ahead and continue with the baseless accusations, but the fact stands that oil companies are not cartels like the ones you weak-border-supporting liberals bring up from Mexico. They are, by defintion, companies that produce oil.

        3. 7,400 undeveloped leases; I don't know about that, or where you got your facts from, but the free-market will naturally cause companies to make the most profitable decision, and if there are deviations from this rule, they are invariably due to govt. involvment and regulation, so I find your 7,400 figure questionable. Obviously you hav gotten many other facts wrong throughout your post.

        4. Once again, you provide no reference as to the source of the information, as well as lacking specificity, so I question both the truth and validity of your post.

      • Conservative Boss says:

        In response to point 5-8 of Kmuzu's 10 points:

        5. The United States Geographical Survey has estimated ANWR holds a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. However, there is no way to tell exactly how much until we start drilling there. Once, again, your argument is unfactual and baseless.

        6. That's a fact… so let's hurry up, stop delaying, and get a bill signed.

        7. The OPEC is behind the price hike; if we produce domestic oil that sells for a lower amount than the current OPEC regulated price, the resultant competition will automatically reduces the cost worldwide. Obviously you know nothing about oil production or the stock market.

        8. The dollar has nothing to do with this argument, as it is merely a type of currency, and lowering the worldwide price of oil would reduce the threat of war in the Middle East, as many middle-eastern regimes such as Iran gain much of their revenue from oil exports. Give them competition, and their power will be reduced.

      • Conservative Boss says:

        In response to point 9 and 10 of Kmuzu's 10 points:

        9. The use of oil in America is not a bad thing; it is the most cost effective way to go, and therefore it is the course the free market naturally takes. When the oil supply is actually gone, as opposed to this fake, "oil crisis", created by government overregulation, the market will naturally adapt and improvise as it always has. You talk as if the use of oil is bad, yet it is currently the best energy source there is; why would it be, "bad" to take advantage of that?

        10. British Petroleum is the name of the company, it is not actually run by Britain. It is a company just like Shell or Chevron, it just has, "British" in the name. Although it's company headquarters are in Britain, a BP oil facility located in America still increases jobs, pays taxes to, and improves the economy in America.

      • Conservative Boss says:

        In response to Kmuzu's statement, "Have you seen the pictures of Bush holding hands with the Saudi king? How does the president of the United States hold the hand of another man? Makes me wanna puke."
        Well Kmuzu, have you seen the video of President Obama bowing to the Saudi king? Go ahead and puke now.

        Yes, we are the greatest nation on earth… but not if we continue to implement these flawed liberal policies. Thanks for posting though, I always enjoy a good debate.

      • patrick says:

        you do know there is about 10 billion barrels of oil? I don't know about you but that is a lot of effing oil!

      • old fart says:

        yea, even a minor spill could kill millions of fish and other wildlife

    17. Doran Williams, Lee says:

      Your approach to this issue is essentially the same as the approach you condemn: Lots of pictures of cute animals, snowy scenes and desolate coastal plains. Lots of semi-hysterical language about the dire consequences of not drilling. Lots of invective against those who do not agree with you.

      I hope those who read your post have the common sense you claim the opposition lacks. For instance, could you present some facts about the following:

      1. Will disruption due to oil exploration, development and transport be limited to the 2000 acres? I think that not to be likely, as 2000 acres is not all that large, as you point out, and without fences and monitors, there will be little incentive for staying inside the boundaries with all the support and disposal ares that will be created by the drilling.

      2. How will the crude get to market? A new pipeline? Offshore loading terminals? Are those areas included in the 2000 acres? If not, what is the total acreage involved.

      3. How many companies will get leases on 2000 acres? Really, there is hardly enough room for two outfits to develop the place. Just look at your own photos from around Prudhoe Bay: One rig located in what is probably an area greatly in excess of 2000 acres. Ah! See there! You might say. Not all that much disruption or damage. Could very well be that you are correct, but really: Which company stands to benefit?

      4. How long will it take for the crude to reach refiners, from the day ANWAR is opened? How long to reach consumers as gasoline?

      5. What is reasonable maximum amount of crude that can be produced? Will it really have the effect of lowering gasoline prices as you suggest? If it does, all that OPEC, or Chavez have to do to keep the price up is lower their production.

      6. For what period of time, at full production, will the crude from ANWAR be available?

      7. Do you really consider those coastal plains to be a "barren wasteland"? That is a bit of hyperbole, isn't it?

    18. Garry - Oregon says:

      I'm afraid its politics and politicans as usual selling America and its citizens out. Greed and power is always the bottom line.

    19. Brian - Atlanta, GA says:

      Self-proclaimed Democrats; always looking at the peas and not the steak. Rather than pick apart the reasons why ANWR may not be "the answer," I believe its symbolism outruns the actual. At the end of the day the dumb masses will all but give this country away – the shame each of our elders must feel. Really, has anyone stopped pushing their opinions long enough to talk to someone old? You would be amazed at what they are saying about us.

      History, and experience, will teach us everything about the future…if we would just listen.

    20. Doran Williams says:

      Well, Brian in Atlanta, I'm 68+ and I am of the opinion that if people are going to support drilling in ANWAR without asking and getting straight answers to questions like the ones I posted above, those people are entitled to take their rightful places among the ranks of the intentionlly ignorant. If its a decision out of us, the people out here in the real world, that the Congress wants, we need to be able to make informed decisions, decisions based upon all the available, reasonably accurate information. All I see from the proponents of drilling in ANWAR is the kind of semi-hysterical, hypebolic propaganda such as the main post herein. The opponents of drilling make a much sounder, fact-based argument. Their argument is not without its propagandistic elements, but they do have facts to support their position. What are the facts, along the lines of those suggested by my questions, to support the proponents? Sure as hell can't tell from the main post, can you?

    21. Kmuzu says:

      Agree Doran – Some Republican give the whole party a bad name. Always with the personal attacks instead of a reasonable debate. This is what's wrong with country.

      Nobody has ever told me why we're in such a damn hurry to go drilling in ANWR.

      Good point ..

      Kmuzu

    22. Pingback: Kittitas County Republican Party Blog » Blog Archive » The Truth About ANWR

    23. John Bernia - Oxford says:

      I think the overall point in favor of drilling in ANWR is what it would do for the following items:

      - It would lower the future price of gas, which is what speculators are essentially investing on, something that is driving up the price of gas.

      - Increased potential supply would create a market. Markets create competition, which benefits consumers.

      - If we don't explore, someone else will. The Chinese are now leasing land in the Atlantic from Cuba, roughly 45 miles south of Florida where they are going to drill. They expect to find a considerable amount of oil there. I live in Michigan, where news reports indicate that the Canadians are going to build new refineries across Lake Huron. European nations, who (and this is only my opinion and not meant to be negative) seem to be rather sensitive to the environment are doing exploration.

      - No one really knows how much oil is in ANWR. We know it is there, but cannot quantify how much is available until some drilling is done. Consider for a moment what recently happened for Brazil. They explored in the Atlantic and found an undiscovered 90 billion barrels of oil. Combining that with the biodiesel they make from sugarcane, it makes them energy independent.

      - You're correct, oil companies do have some offshore land to explore, but have reported that the approved areas would not yield enough gas to make drilling worthwhile. For that reason, it would be worthwhile to allow exploration elsewhere.

      - I'm in complete agreement – we need cars that run on something other than oil. Electricity, hydrogen, solar, waterpower are all worthwhile options. Yet, even if those cars went into production tomorrow, we would still have a considerable amount of time before cars that run on gasoline are obsolete. For that reason, further oil exploration needs to be part of the energy solution. This exploration should include drilling.

      As for the hurry, I just filled up – $4.23 a gallon.

      I appreciate your thoughts and am glad we got a chance to debate the issue. Thanks for posting. I'm hoping now to ask you a question. What's your solution for the high gas prices? I know you oppose drilling in ANWR and am assuming you don't like the idea of new offshore drilling, what do you want to do?

      Again, I love a good exchange of ideas, thanks for posting,

      John

    24. Donald Fritz, Anchor says:

      Apart from our obvious need for energy independence, there is a timeclock running on our accessing the oil and gas wealth in the far North. TAPS (Trans Alaska Pipeline System) is a federally licensed project which covers about 800 miles of difficult terrain, crossing major rivers, mountain ranges, permafrost and swamps. The sheer expense of this endeavor required an oil field the size of Prudhoe Bay to amortize the expense. This pipeline is getting older by the day and has a very finite life. The legislation that permitted the building of TAPS also requires that it be dismantled when no longer needed. A field the size of ANWR will probably not justify the cost of a new pipeline, so it is imperative that we access and ship that oil in the existing TAPS while it is still viable. Or; we can hope the global warming people are right and we will be able to drive tankers right to the North Slope. The shipping season will start right after the Easter Bunny lays her eggs.

    25. Chuck, Texas says:

      We will be told anything to get ANWR started. I wonder if other issues are clouded with such ridiculous non-truths, such as:

      The 2,000-acre limitation is the acreage destroyed.

      In truth, it would not include gravel mines, airstrips, drilling pads, production pads or roads.

      TRUTH: The House bill would open the entire 1.5-million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas leasing and exploration. The 2,000 acre area is the surface area under the supports for the pipeline, the "surface acreage covered by production and support facilities." and is compared to Dulles Airport. It sure does not include the many miles of gravel roads and airstrips.

      It is the roads that open access that will destroy ANWR just

      as the roads into the rain forest of South America open the virgin

      forest.

      TRUTH: Development will engulf all of ANWR in small parcels just as the other North Slope development has been. The estimated area covered in the more than 30 small deposits is 1.5-million-acres of coastal plain. The roads to connect them together will require hundreds of miles of roads.

      The development phase of ANWR will use ice roads instead of permanent roads.

      TRUTH: In a recent environmental impact statement on oil development in Western Alaska, Interior Department officials wrote, "the term 'roadless' does not mean an absence of roads. Rather, it indicates an attempt to minimize the construction of permanent roads."

      TRUTH: Global warming has shortened the usable time per winter for ice roads by approximately 30 days. Ice roads cannot be used in the summer — so much for the ice roads.

      If the oil must be harvested, there will be much damage to one of the last unspoiled spots on the globe. The solution to this problem is in restoration.

      To insure such restoration is done, a fund should be collected from the beginning consisting of $3.00 deposited in trust for every $1.00 spent on development. Those companies that will develop and remove the resources must be made to completely finance the complete return of all developed areas to the original conditions. The restored area must look exactly as it does now. Such restoration must include the removal and restoration of all roads, airstrips, gravel pits, garbage, production facilities and pipe

    26. Bumpus, Houston says:

      It is the roads that open access that will destroy ANWR just

      as the roads into the rain forest of South America open the virgin

      forest.

      TRUTH: Global warming has shortened the usable time per winter for ice roads by approximately 30 days. Ice roads cannot be used in the summer — so much for the ice roads.

      If the oil must be harvested, there will be much damage to one of the last unspoiled spots on the globe. The solution to this problem is in restoration.

      To insure such restoration is done, a fund should be collected from the beginning consisting of $3.00 deposited in trust for every $1.00 spent on development. Those companies that will develop and remove the resources must be made to completely finance the complete return of all developed areas to the original conditions. The restored area must look exactly as it does now. Such restoration must include the removal and restoration of all roads, airstrips, gravel pits, garbage, production facilities and pipe

      lines. Both state and local governments should manage this fund with oversight by an organization, such as Conservation International.

    27. Kmuzu says:

      Okay .. here it goes.

      We're buying from a criminal organization called OPEC. They control the spigot of most of the cheap oil in the world. When they decide for the oil price to go up they turn the spigot down. This is true even if we had a hundred ANWR's

      Speculation over war in Iraq and Iran has much more to do with the immediate price than supply.

      The weak dollar (because of the tremendous deficit) causes runaway inflation. Remember China and other countries are holding billions in American dollars, as the value decrease they sell off or call these loans. Saudi oil is based on the dollar.

      The price of gas has gone from $1.35 in 2004 to $4.75 today. That's a 350% increase. Tell me that is due to consumption.

      The 7,000 or so already existing contracts are not junk. Oil companies bid premium prices for those contracts. Why would they do that if there was no oil?

      The Chinese will buy junk crude, they can refine it a lot cheaper than we can. Light sweet crude is only found in a few places around the world. In the United States this is primarily Texas. Alaska, as far as I know contains no LSC.

      Solutions

      We have not built one refinery or nuclear plant in many years. Maybe we should invest in refineries instead of speculative land leases. Refineries would drop the oil price faster than more drilling.

      Strengthen the dollar. We need to start paying off these loans now, instead of pushing them off to our children. The interest rate needs to raise slightly. And yes, rational tax increases would help.

      Getting out of Iraq. We need a reasonable strategy of leaving. This does not mean pulling out tomorrow, but like a inconsiderate relative we need to start packing our bags.

      Stop meddling in Iran. It is fine to put political pressure and sanctions, but sending in the special forces is going to cause nothing but trouble.

      Peace between Israel and her neighbors. Okay some peace is better than none.

      Alternative energy. This means solar panels, wind, thermal and tidal turbines. Better battery technology. This also means production of nuclear plants.

      Conservation. Americans need to get their heads around conserving energy. Fuel efficient cars, reduction in energy use, less consumption of plastic, buying local.

      Even if the contract were signed today, it would take seven to fifteen years before oil was pouring through the spigot. I say let's think outside of the box on this one.

    28. Megan, Pennsylvania says:

      Some of the hurry is that part of the agreement to build the pipelines in the first place was that once the oil was dry the pipeline and all rigs would need to be dismantled and things returned as they were before the pipeline.

      If we don't start drilling soon, there will be no pipeline to use to get the oil here.

    29. Tim, Wisconsin says:

      Wow – there is some intense ignorance at work here. Let's start with Kmuzu. Yes, OPEC is virtually a criminal organization, primarily controlled by people who hate the US (all the more reason to avoid their control). However, they have no control over ANWR. Let's say we could pump enough oil there not only to provide US consumption, but also largely meet the Chinese and Indian needs. How powerful is OPEC then? They can't set prices in a vacuum! This might be especially plausible if we were to begin developing Colorado oil shale fields as well (where there may be 500 billion to 1 trillion barrels available).

      Why do we suppose the oil companies have 7,400 leases they aren't currently using? We'd like to think it's some evil conspiracy, but the obvious reason is that surveys have shown there is no oil there, or at least not enough to bother with.

      While we are on the topic, why do we hate the oil companies so much? Yes, it sucks dealing with $4 gas, but the companies are making only about 8% of sales as profit. Compare that with 18% for Intel or 28% for Microsoft! And who owns the oil companies anyway? Rich sheiks? Fat cats lighting cigars with $100 bills? NO! Ordinary Americans own the oil companies in their trillions of dollars of 401(k) holdings! Oil profits are BENEFICIAL to America. Of course we would prefer that they make 15% profit while selling gas for $2 to make the same total gains, but that's not what the world petroleum markets are allowing right now. Consider the fact that emerging China and India between them have more than EIGHT TIMES the population of the US, and you start to realize where the problem is.

      Kmuzu, current estimates are that ANWR contains between 100 and 200 billion barrels of oil. That will make a difference.

      The time it takes to start pumping is not relevant. You have to start sometime.

      Without a perceived lack of supply, there would BE NO speculation. The two go hand in hand.

      We DO need alternative energy. Let's see some real planning in that area. In the meantime, this is a real plan to try to fix the short-term problems. Hydrogen fuel converted with nuclear electricity solves both the energy shortage and greenhouse gas issues, but greenies want nothing to do with very safe nuclear energy.

      Doran, I have yet to see a single fact from YOU. It may be true that the problem of transportation complicates things a bit, but I think the idea that ANWR drilling would involve very little area in a coastal plain region is a valid one, and hardly counts as "hypebolic" [sic].

      Do you guys really have that little knowledge of history or economics to state that "all that OPEC, or Chavez have to do to keep the price up is lower their production"? Riiiiiight. What happened after the US sharply curtailed gasoline consumption and increased production in the 1970s? OPEC was forced to compete with US-produced crude or be trampled in the market. They were unable to achieve unity, and it wouldn't have mattered if they did. OPEC can't just decide to cut production, since then they DON'T MAKE ANY MONEY!

      Please – instead of talking points, let's use some actual reasoning and application of basic economics!

    30. kbTexan says:

      I wanted to buy a hybrid, but they cost more than a regular gasoline engine. Did you know, even at today's prices, it would take 5 years to save enough on gasoline to make up the difference in price? If we use the arguments presented by some who are opposed to drilling, that would mean it's a waste of time to buy a hybrid.

      Why does a hybrid cost so much more than a gas-powered car? Lack of supply? Or is it because the automobile companies are liars and cheats? Maybe we should nationalize the automobile industry, or tax them more. Or maybe it's speculators driving up hybrid prices.

      On a serious note, conservation is a good plan. I personally burn less than a tank a month. But if we just focus on conservation, China, India and Al Gore will consume all we manage to conserve, and then some. We have to pursue all avenues of solving the problem, and that includes increasing our own production.

    31. RSE, PA says:

      Kmuzu et al – Since you had asked, here are fact-based answers to your questions:

      1. Your example of relative area is misleading. The Exxon Valdez spill, Chernobyl, Love Canal were is small areas, but caused major devastation.

      A:Yes, but the point is that it is very small. The libs have been bemoaning all the LARGE AMOUNT of acres needed that it would overrun the area. Actual size works against the libs' argument.

      2. Oil companies are liars and are cartels, no different than drug lords. These guys brought us leaded fuel, when alcohol fuel would have only been five cents more a gallon.

      A: Oil companies run businesses, and act just like every other business. Are all business men and women bad? Should we outlaw all business? The actual owners of the oil companies (not OPEC) are YOU and ME: in the form of mutual fund companies and other investors. Sad to say the truth, but we're in on it. Read your next prospectus for details.

      3.Oil companies are sitting on over 7,400 undeveloped leases right now. Why not start on these before we go to ANWR?

      A:Because you cannot equate # of acres = # of places to drill. With newer technology, there is no need to crank out hundreds of new wells; just the freedom to actually let one drill. Plus, some of those acres are in areas that are highly difficult to get out oil, and it would take a short supply market to make it profitable to get the oil out. In fact, wouldn't you prefer having 1 oil well pumping oil out of a 100 acre plot, rather than 100 oil wells over the same plot like the old days?

      4.Oil companies have been selling developed leases to China. There is a site in Denver sold to China that employs Chinese workers. Let’s throw the Chinese off and give the jobs to Americans.

      A:That's possible. But having the Chinese come in and drill doesn't mean we don't get the oil. Nor does it mean that we're incapable of developing other lands as well.

      5. There is not enough oil in ANWR to make a difference.

      A:There is a HUGE amount of estimated oil that will make a big difference on the market. We're talking about 1-2 million barrels a day. On a market that is about ½ million short (thus causing higher prices), that would mean serious drop in prices. Supply IS the big issue (see below).

      6.If development started today it would take at least seven years to start pumping.

      A:That's fine. I'd rather start today than sit around twiddling my thumbs for a decade before realizing maybe we should have started to drill earlier.

      7. Supply is only a small part of the problem. Speculation is really behind this spike in price.

      A:Speculation is simply a part of the market, and acts as both a price increaser as well as decreaser. In fact, not having speculators would take away a cushion that actually keeps the markets stable. Supply is the real issue; when it is scarce or short, businesses will pay more for the same amount because its important to have and worth the purchase. If the supply increases to where its not scarce, the demand is met, the concern drops, and the prices go down. Its psychological, but also physical at the same time.

      8.Let's not forget the anemic dollar and the threat of more war in the Middle East.

      A:The reason the dollar is low is because of the oil issue (although there are other issues, like the credit market). Fix the oil issue, and the dollar issue will resolve itself in short order.

      9.ANWR does nothing to get us off the addiction to oil. How does this help in developing alternative energy?

      A: ANWR buys us 30 years. Even if I go by what Chuck Shumer D-NY said (which is wrong) that we'd only get 25 years out of ANWR, that's 25 years to invest, develop, and market on a large economies of scale the kind of alternatives we need. By that time (roughly 2040) China will arguably have the world's largest economy, and we will be in a position of not commanding “top dollar” for services. So we'd better be ready for that moment. This buys us time against resource scarcity that hinders that goal because it puts the economy in a funk and stagnates.

      10.As I understand it, British Petroleum runs the Alaskan Pipeline (doesn’t sound American to me), they say when and how much oil is piped through. How do we know the same thing won’t happen to ANWR?

      A:That's all controlled in the contract. Sign a good contract, and we should be OK to have what we need, whether it's Chevron, Shell (which is Dutch), BP, ExxonMobil (which is only the 8th largest oil co in the world).

      There you go. I do agree with your statement that we need to innovate & create our way out of this. In a world economy, that is currently our role as creator/innovator with new products. Let's both hope we can forge alternatives that will work on a large economy model.

      Best leaders are “both/and” kind of leaders; not “either/or”. We CAN increase drilling and refining, and by doing so increase our security and economic development, WHILE planning for the future as we have perilously glanced by currently.

      Leaders in DC need to wake up and smell the revolution brewing if they don't hear us on this one.

    32. Bill, NJ says:

      I think opponents of ANWR drilling perceive US oil consumption as an addiction. Their solution is to restrict the addict/consumer's supply with the hope that they will wean themselves off the stuff. Good luck with that strategy.

    33. Doran Williams says:

      In response to the request for FACTS: Go to google, type in ANWR EIS. You will get access to the Environmental Impact Statement, as well as to other studies, data, etc. The original EIS was completed in the late 80s. Almost all the google referenced docs I looked at predict significant environmental damage and about a 10 year development timeline.

      I think there may be reasonable arguments to be made for drilling ANWR, but they are unpersuasive because they all reduce to essentially "Yeah, there will be environmental damage, but it is worth it to get that oil because it will drive down prices." Cheap oil is a false hope, people, a foolish fancy, a dream. We will never have cheap gasoline again, not until humans stop demanding it and using it up. This is not a consequence of environmentalists meddling, it is a consequence of market forces brought on by demand for a dwindling resource, brought on by a huge human population.

      JFK rallied the nation to put a man on the moon, and bring him back alive within a 10 year span.

      Think of that: In less than 10 years, from the word GO, humans sent one of ours to the moon and brought him back still kickin.

      There is no doubt in my mind that in a 10 year span, roughly the period of exploration and development of ANWR preceeding delivery of crude to refineries, the US could develop and produce the techniques, hardware and software to utilize renewable energy sources that will cost the consumer less that oil will cost. Stop wasting our time trying to give the oil industry access to ANWR and get started on the solution: That is what we should be doing.

    34. John Bernia - Oxford says:

      If we sent a man to the moon in 10 years (remarkably quickly as you point out) wouldn't it be safe to assume that we could use the oil in ANWR on a faster timetable than the 7 years some suggest?

      It's the short term component of the long-term solution.

    35. Seth, Vermont says:

      Perhaps we should just make some small changes in the way we live our lives and we wouldn't need to go drilling everywhere for oil. Simple things like driving more economical vehicles, improving our rail distribution system, using more efficient light bulbs and better insulation to keep our homes warm/cool. Drilling for more oil won't solve any long term problems. Sure we might reduce the cost of fuel at the pumps for a couple more years…maybe 10 more years….but then what happens….back to where we are now. God forbid we have to make a few small sacrifices and change the way we live. But the reality is our lifestyles don't have to change a whole lot.

      Out in Colorado and Wyoming they are tapping the ground wherever possible to get to the Natural Gas. Unfortunately in the process they are punching through all the underground water systems and much of the ground water has been badly contaminated. So we have cheap natural gas but we can't drink the water out of our faucets.

    36. Seth, Vermont says:

      The price of gas in this country is being driven by several things including the devaluation of the American dollar. The cost of a barrel of oil before iraq was somewhere in the $30 range…as I recall….now we are over $130/barrel. In a way you could say that the 9/11 attacks by Bin Laden and company were highly successful. Consider that Saddam Hussein was no friend of Bin Laden and we went in and removed Saddam (sp?) and thus openned up Iraq for a terrorist playground. In doing so we pissed off the rest of the world and gave the terrorists the perfect location for killing us whenever possible. Now consider the true goal of the 9/11 attacks…sure they were trying to scare us and kill us but they were really trying to kill our economy…which is happening at this moment. If we are not in a recession then I don't know how bad it has to get for a recession to occur….I digress.

      Point being that we/our leader/ the USA etc has made some real poor moves in the last 10 years that we are feeling the effects of now.

    37. JK, WV says:

      Apparently facts mean nothing. Drilling in ANWR or anywhere else will have no short term impact or long term impact. It's just a waste of time, plain and simple. Oil companies have tens of millions of acres that they can drill on in the US. Build more wells on existing land and forget about more land grabs! This is unbelievable!!

    38. dave mcduffie, lagun says:

      It simply amazes me how anyone, especially an American, can be a liberal, considering how their policies are based on LIES, FEELINGS and THEORY! Its really NOT a good "feeling" to know that I risked my life for you morons! Especially knowing that when the conflict comes here(and it is coming!)you liberals will be hiding behind the women and children! This energy situation is going to get much worse and effect every segment of our society in a negative way since the democrats sit on their collective hands and do nothing positive(which is what they have always done!). Just look down the road and see gas at $6.00 or $7.00, food prices through the roof because of delivery costs, Americans stop buying everything and the stock market collapses further, you can bet the streets in this country will be a very dangerous place and certainly nothing to make even Michelle Obama proud of her country again!

    39. dave, laguna niguel, says:

      Dear bumpus, Americans want NOTHING to do with any international organization which oversees anything we do! That is what American citizens are for, in our voting booths. Your "internationalism" is whats destroying our country! Yeah, lets take the ONLY SUPERPOWER and relegate them to the same status as Zimbabwe!! Thanks a lot Mr liberal!

    40. Steve Carlin - Color says:

      I’ve actually been to Prudhoe Bay. It’s Kansas with snow. There are no trees and no hills or mountains. It’s flat and barren.

      The truth is that 83% of the oil that comes out of the North Slope goes overseas. It doesn’t come to the US. Drilling there won’t bring down the price of gas in the US by even a penny. Only 17% is used within our country. It is estimated that there are only about 7.668 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the area. If they started drilling today they don’t expect to produce any useable oil until 2018. The US currently uses about 20 million barrels a DAY. That means that all of the proposed oil in ANWR would last the US about 400 days, if we actually used it instead of exporting it. Considering that only 17% (1,360,000,000 barrels) would be used in our country, we would burn through it in 68 days at our current consumption rate.

      The Porcupine Caribou herd in northern Alaska has the lowest birthing rate of any herd in the state. When they give birth they find isolated areas where they don’t have to worry about wolves and bears and other predators. Historically they used the area in these maps, but as roads and traffic have increased in these areas they have avoided them during birthing season. In 1989 there were about 178,000 caribou living in that area and the herd had been growing at 4.9% per year since 1972. As development and traffic has increased in the area the herd has declined at a rate of about 3.6% per year. The 2002 census counted only 123,000 members of the herd. The 2007 photocensus counted only about 110,000 caribou in the herd. At this rate, assuming nothing further invades the space, it is estimated that the herd will be non-existent in about 30 years. The photo of the herd near the oil pipeline in this email thread is in the summer time when they aren’t calving and is not the norm.

      The only animals that live up there are Polar bears (which are the only animal on the planet known to track a human for miles, kill them, and eat them),Grizzly Bears, the Arctic Foxes (which feed on the Marmots and Shrews, Rabbits, Weasels, and baby Caribou), occasional Seals, Bowhead Whales, and the Porcupine Creek Caribou herd.

      The good news – birth rates and survival rates were up slightly in 2007. They spent the majority of the winter near the coastal plain where the oil companies want to drill. Historically the mortality rate is lower when they spend the winter further south or east into Canada.

    41. Catmandu, Washington says:

      1. Your example of relative area is misleading. The Exxon Valdez spill, Chernobyl, Love Canal were is small areas, but caused major devastation.

      The Exxon Valdez spilled oil 11 million gallons, but what the media failed to do is talk of the individual who owned the booms to contain the oil, he held those booms on a dock wanting an exorbanant amount of money (200 times regular costs) while there was an unusal calm over Prince William Sound for two weeks then a storm started to brew and that pushed the oil to the shore but if the individual were honorable he would have released the boom ASAP, but an individual doesn't make good copy on the evening news, big oil does! Chernobyl had a soviot system of maintenence and no containment field, the civilized world has 400+ nuclear without a Chernobyl accident.

      2. Oil companies are liars and are cartels, no different than drug lords. These guys brought us leaded fuel, when alcohol fuel would have only been five cents more a gallon.

      Liberals raise taxes to help the little guy yet it never fails to hurt the workersnot the employers, people suffer when liberalism/solcialism succeeds. I have yet to see them lie if they have talk to your liberal rep. and have that companies contract pulled otherwise the oil companies are a free enterprize, not a illegal organization, owned buy many ask Al Gore why he is heavily invested in Ocidental Petroleum?

      3. Oil companies are sitting on over 7,400 undeveloped leases right now. Why not start on these before we go to ANWR?

      The infrastructure is there!!!!!

      4. Oil companies have been selling developed leases to China. There is a site in Denver sold to China that employs Chinese workers. Let’s throw the Chinese off and give the jobs to Americans.

      Freedom is what makes America, America. Take it away and you have communism/socialism/liberalism.

      5. There is not enough oil in ANWR to make a difference.

      10 billion+, without an all out geophysical effort in other words BULL!!!

      6. If development started today it would take at least seven years to start pumping.

      Oh and where did that come from your *&$)(*$#. The fact that I personally saw an oil field further from pump one than ANWR would be open and start delivering to Valdez in less than two years has no bearing. As I stated earlier the infrastucture is there the pumphouse modules are designed. To build the x-country line to pump one would take less time than getting the modules built and shipped from the lower 48. My estimate 54months MAX!!!

      7. Supply is only a small part of the problem. Speculation is really behind this spike in price.

      Supply causes speculation, if you know that a major supply is coming on-line the speculators won't be risking a long.

      8. Let’s not forget the anemic dollar and the threat of more war in the Middle East.

      Neuter the middle east by stopping the dollar from going overseas, and more accessible resources equates to assets which equates to a stonger dollar.

      9. ANWR does nothing to get us off the addiction to oil. How does this help in developing alternative energy?

      Who developes the alternative energy? the oil companies get 4% profit per barrel the government gets 15% profit without spending squat, hmmm who is the big money grabber big oil or bigger government????

      10. As I understand it, British Petroleum runs the Alaskan Pipeline (doesn’t sound American to me), they say when and how much oil is piped through. How do we know the same thing won’t happen to ANWR?

      Alyeska is a conglomerate of the North Slope oil leasers, alaska, and the federal government. No one entity determines oil throughput. It is more determined by tanker availability. An oil company makes no money when there product is in the puddle. Think THink THINK

      As for alternative energy GREAT use some of the 15% PROFIT TO R&D an EFFICIENT way to harness hydrogen molecules maybe combine the system with a nuclear plant. Keep in mind we will always need oil the biggest BTU bang for your buck.

      CATMANDU

      When liberals hold to principles people get hurt, they harm those they claim to help!

    42. JK, WV says:

      Steve Carlin – No use using facts and statistics. Those silly things don't work with these types. Just let them keep believing that drilling will lower gas prices. What's the real motive behind this obsession to drill?? I can't figure it out…

    43. Booty Malone Fai says:

      I have been to the ANWR area many times and this is the most truthful explaination of ANWR that I have ever seen. Answers to some questions that have come up.

      1. Heavy equipment to ANWR will go over ice roads in winter only. Lighter gear will be flown in.

      2. New pipeline will be built to the area of Pump Station 2 about 55 miles South of Prudhoe Bay and connected to existing pipeline.

      3. Caribou gather near oil facilities to avoid insects and wolves. Wolves are wary of people and oil activities. Caribou populations may increase by drilling.

      4. Opening ANWR will create tens of thousands of jobs in the USA. These are real jobs not hamburger flipping jobs.

      Drill here—Drill now….

    44. Francis, Chicago says:

      Is someone out there able to answer these questions?

      Why has the Sourdough site, less than a kilometer from the western boundary of ANWR, not been developed by BP, the leaseholder?

      Why drill in ANWR if the capability to extract oil from under ANWR already exists at the Sourdough site?

    45. Steve, Minneapolis says:

      Party affiliations aside, the answer is not more or cheaper oil. Regardless of the cost of a gallon of gas or whether it is obtained from the Middle East, Russia or the U.S., each gallon of gas burned contributes to global warming. Reducing the money we send to nations in the Middle East that sponsor terror is a valiant endeavor, but it won't matter in the long run (the effect on our children's children) if we ruin the planet in the process. While we can make more money to buy more expensive gas, it is a little tougher to create a new Earth or protect the one that we have.

      The answer is cleaner fuels for our cars, not more oil.

    46. J., Colorado says:

      One of our friends told us last week that his family land in Oklahoma has oil wells on it. He said several years ago, the company that owns the leases on his land capped several of the wells and told him they were dry. A couple of months ago, the oil company went out to his land, uncapped the wells and started pumping them. Oil shortage? Sure.

    47. H Florida says:

      When are you folks going to realize that you are paying just as much for domestic oil as you are for imported oil. Why else do you think the oil companies are 9 BILLION dollars profit in a 3 month period. Regardless of where they drill, what they destroy, they will still claim poor mouth, charge the world prices for oil and rack up more billions of dollars in profits. All of this new drilling histeria probably has the oil industry executives doing their victory dance. This country has had 35 years since the last generated crisis to wean itself from oil but the profits were too great on oil to develop alternative energy resources. So folks, get real and realize the only true way out of this mess is to get off the oil companies bandwagon.

    48. Jim Snell, Dallas, T says:

      I can't live and work without reasonably priced gas.

      But I have never seen a caribou that I couldn't live without.

    49. Dot, NYC says:

      Americans need to start conserving. End of story.

    50. ME Gomez, California says:

      It is also a shame that we don't care about generations to come. Sure, fine, drill NOW, get the oil WE WANT NOW. What about yours/mine grandchildren, great grand, Do you care? Of course not!!! Human beings are born with a natural individualistic instict to survive regardless of what or who we squash in the process.

      Why can't we not develop the technology that have been in existance since the 60's for everyone!!!!!

    51. Heidi M., West Linn, says:

      My mother-in-law (bless her heart) sent me the original email, and this is my response to her:

      You've gotta be kidding me! Just because some of the photos make it look like a "wasteland" doesn't mean that it's not an ecologically fragile area which may be key to many arctic animals, marine mammals, and other ocean species as well as indigenous tribal peoples and still an important issue to carefully consider before going in like gangbusters. There might be far-reaching consequences to our drilling actions, and there's a huge potential for a major, major spill. Remember the Exxon Valdez??? Remember Shell's spill in Prudoe Bay on the tundra near caribou migration paths in 2006??? Accidents happen. This area has still been designated a wildlife refuge (ANWR stands for Arctic National Wildlife REFUGE), and that designation must have been made for some reason. We can't just go changing the rules because things in our economy are getting tough. What's next? We'll start clear-cutting our national forests and drilling in our protected national parks?

      "Green extremists" can skew the truth just as well as someone from the other side that has a bias toward their own agenda, but that doesn't mean they don't have a point. Please, at least do some more reading and decide for yourself whether its worth the risk. I'm not thrilled with the increasing prices of EVERYTHING due to rising costs at the gas pumps, let alone having to fill my tank using so much more money now, but we have to be cautious of the environment. It's kind of like living healthy for the sake of keeping your body safe and fit – we're stuck on the earth like we're stuck in our bodies. This life is the only one we get, and we only have one planet to live on. Our world and its land, waters, and life forms depend on the decisions we make NOW. Animals and plant life – as well as future generations of people – don't get to decide. We do. So let's be informed decision-makers.

      Some economists and other analyst experts are saying that the billions of gallons of oil found there are still only a "drop in the bucket" compared with our current oil usage. They go on to say that it's a complete myth that we can solve today's or tomorrow's problems by drilling there. Although there may be some immediate relief at the pump due to the perception that "help is on the way", we wouldn't actually see any of this oil go into production for at least 10 years! [see http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jun/16… And it will only provide a small amount of relief for a few years before we go back to pre-ANWR drilling dependency on other nation's supplies.

      I agree that we should work to make ourselves become less dependent on foreign companies to supply our oil, but I think a key part of this equation is to drastically reduce our usage of fossil fuels. We need to encourage energy alternatives and encourage better use of the oil we do have by applying the simple laws of "supply and demand" to making the oil companies produce more petroleum instead of closing refineries, etc. [see [http://www.foundry.org/2008/06/29/the-truth-about-anwr/]

      Below are some links that may also be of interest. I'm sorry if I sound somewhat abrasive, but I just can't believe that going in blindly to anything is the answer. -Heidi // P.S. I love you!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilli

      http://www.balancedpolitics.org/anwr_drilling.htm

      http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/mcc

      http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/habi

      http://www.newshounds.us/2008/06/13/fox_friends_d

    52. B in LA says:

      The bottom line is that drilling in ANWR/offshore won't do a thing to relieve us of our foreign oil dependence. We could tap every available domestic oil source today and not touch the current need for oil we have.

      While we all agree that the high gas prices hurt, the free market folks should appreciate Tom Friedman and Al Gore's correct assertions years ago that $5 gas was our only path to energy independence. High prices have driven down demand and because there is still a need for energy, alternatives are more hotly pursued. The market is working. End of story.

      These high gas prices/reduced consumer demand are driving corporations to shift their innovative focus on a home-grown alternative (energy independence). We're in hyper-innovation mode with alternative fuel/battery tech experimentation and production because there is such a great demand from consumers for a product that frees them from gas dependence. Look at what's happened in the last four years: Consumers have abandoned SUVs as commuter vehicles in favor of fuel-efficient/hyrbrid cars and public transit. The market is working.

      The reason Toyota is killing GM and Ford is because they have been making cars for consumers that hate gas dependence for decades (Asia), and they have a market ready fleet of autos to meet this intense consumer demand in the US. GM and Ford were busy dumping billions into SUVs while Toyota and Honda read the tea leaves and were in the prime spot when oil sky-rocketed. Now GM and Ford are clawing and scrambling to catch up. The market is working.

      Free market folks, revel in the beauty of capitalism.

      The ONLY solution is to weather this price jump, get our heads out of the oil derrecks as a nation and focus intensely on home-grown oil alternatives/conservation and to increase public transit infrastructure.

      Enjoying the discussion.

    53. KM, Worcester, MA says:

      I'm sure those "patriotic" oil companies will charge Americans less for oil from ANWR and not the international price, even if China and Japan are willing to pay more…. Those great oil corporations will do this just because we're Americans and profits aren't their only guide…yeah, right.

    54. Debbie Polites New says:

      It is sad to see that the animals suffer because

      people are greedy and dont care about if they have

      to drill right where they live. They do not care

      to save any animals all they are worried about is

      all the money they can make. We should never have

      any animals on the endangered species list but we

      do and it is heart breaking to see that. Things do

      have to change but we need just one person with a

      heart to do it.

    55. Rich NYC says:

      If you consider all the products consumed everyday that are manufactured from petroleum products that EVERY SINGLE one of us uses and you try to stop using them you will see that the argument for cheap gas is a limited one. we cannot at this time jump to alternatives, because they're not efficient. Ethanol uses corn, corn feeds livestock. Food for fuel? 25% of the corn crop used for ethanol production equates to higher food prices. Ethanol is approx 27% less efficient than gasoline. Ever notice winter blend of 10% ethanol and your MPG's are lower? Biodiesel increases toxic emissions that are worse than diesel or gas. YES We need alternatives, they aren't ready, drill until we have the technology, it will make all our lives easier. I work hard and want a nice life, not a struggle. Socialism has always failed, it is not the answer. We need a Reagan for the new millennium. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!

    56. Geo. McCalip, Southe says:

      The problem is that we could have had energy independence if Reagan had not demolished the programs that Carter started. I know the Republicans don't like hearing the truth on this one, but those are the facts.

      That's not to say the Democrats are in the right, either. Clinton had eight years and spent more time drilling (wait, this a moderated forum).

      ANWR, off shore and all the capped wells in the country don't change the facts that:

      1. Fossil petroleum is not a renewable resource; we will eventually run out.

      2. Our current methods of developing/exploiting fossil petroleum are not the best thing we can do for our environment.

      3. Any new drilling will take at least five years to make any impact on the market.

      We need to try another alternative. It is possible to completely replace ALL of the fossil fuel that we use for transportation and heating within four years. We can do so without disrupting our economy unless you believe that eliminating the trade deficit, creating tens of thousands of new jobs and restoring the family farms would qualify as disrupting the economy.

      The technology exists and is in use. We have historical precedents for the ramp up it would take to completely replace our use of fossil petroleum. Details are available online at http://trueamericancentury.org/manifesto.html .

      The only thing holding us back is politics and the shortsighted greed of the oil companies.

    57. G in I.C. says:

      It is time for the government to take a stand and stop listening to the minority of gutless environmentalists and war mongers and start listening to the majority of Americans that desire independence from foreign oil. We have done things the environmentalists way for far too long and look at where it has gotten us – it is time to do it our way now.

      As for the Exxon Valdez spill – didn't that happened like 20 years ago? You don't believe that technology and safe guards against that sort of incident have improved since then?? WAKE UP! I find it absolutley deplorable that China, YES CHINA, is drilling off our coast line in international waters for oil and we stand here ranting and raving about damaging the environment. This is inexcuseable! If China is doing it why aren't we?

      I can assure you that countries around the world are looking at the United States shaking their heads and laughing. The coutries laughing the loudest are the countries we buy most of our oil from. We sit here arguing about the environment all the while they collect our tax payer money…unbelievable!

    58. Joseph Ford, Wyoming says:

      OPEC only controls about 40% of the world oil supply and no longer has the control of oil prices they once held.

      The maximum that any oil refinery in the U.S. is running at is 80%. A a major oil exec said that they don't need more refineries and have no plans to increase production.

      A BLM (Bureau of Land Management) report recently released showed there were 105 spills from the offshore oil rigs that were caused by hurricanes.

      The oil companies want the new offshore leases because they would be in "shallow water." They don't want to do deep water drilling (which is what the Chinese are planning to do off of Cuba.) If the Chinese are willing to drill in deep water, then we should make the oil companies drill there also.

      With the massive profits that the oil companies have made in the last few years, people say that the shareholders should be allowed to earn a good profit. They should, but the oil companies have been stocking huge cash reserves instead of paying huge dividends to stock holders or putting it into research.

      Back when there was a windfall profits tax, the oil companies would put profits into research because they got tax credits for research expenses. Let us bring back the windfall profits tax and give generous tax credits for research into alternative energy sources.

      In California the power companies are starting to place solar panels on top of commercial buildings to supplement enrgy to the grid. True, when the project is done it will only replace 10 – 15 percent of electricity needed. That's a 10 – 15 percent that we don't need to use oil for.

      There used to be tax credits for homeowners that installed solar. These credits offset the actual cost over 3-5 years. We need to reinstate this and include wind turbines. These installations must remain hooked into the grid, selling the energy produced to the power companies. This would make such installations affordable since they would not require storage batteries on site.

      We don't need to be making ethanol from corn. It's inefficient and is causing food prices to rise because it's causing a food corn shortage. Dubai is building plants that extract ethanol from garbage. In fact, Dubai will have an energy efficient city by 2018 that will require a very minimal need of oil (and they're an oil rich country!)

      Hybrid vehicles will become more popular if the government gives generous tax credits to offset the initial costs.

      The government needs to get serious about alternative energy research. During the Bush administration, government funded research topped out at $1.5 million a year. It costs that much to repave a few blocks of road pavement!

    59. TB, Georgia says:

      My uncle forwarded me this email. I have generally been opposed to drilling in ANWR but decided to do try to do some unbiased research to get the true story. Here's what I found…

      Given that there is a lot of partisan information on ANWR, I tried to find the most objective sources of information available on the internet. Congressional Research Services (CRS) put together a report to assist members of Congress. The CRS is intended to be objective and non-partisan, and I think represents both sides of the issue fairly in its report. See http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33872_20070208.p…. Granted, you can claim that any group of people is partisan, but you have to start somewhere.

      After reading the CRS report, there are several reasons why the 2,000 acre figure in the email below is probably misleading. According to the CRS report "One single consolidated facility of 2,000 acres (3.1 square miles) would not permit full development of the 1002 area. Instead, full development of the 1002 area would require that facilities, even if limited to 2,000 acres in total surface area, be widely dispersed." Also, the email does not mention the roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure that would accompany oil production. While ice roads have been used in other Alaskan oil fields in the past and could potentially be used in ANWR, the CRS report concludes that "warming trends in arctic latitudes have already shortened winter access across the tundra by 50% over the last 30 years and led to changes in the standards for use of ice roads." Therefore, more permanent roads may have to be put in place, extending the impact beyond the 2,000 acres.

      Aside from the 2,000 acres of federal land, opening ANWR could allow drilling on 100,000 acres of Native Land that currently cannot be drilled on. The current law prohibits drilling on Native Lands in the Refuge as long as drilling is prohibited on federal land. The CRS report states: "Were oil and gas development authorized for the federal lands in the Refuge, development would then be allowed or become feasible on the nearly 100,000 acres of Native lands, possibly free of any acreage limitation applying to development on the federal lands, depending on how legislation is framed."

      The email seems to paint the 1002 area of ANWR as a wasteland. A legislative impact statement commissioned by Congress concluded that "The Arctic Refuge is the only conservation system unit that protects, in an undisturbed condition, a complete spectrum of the arctic ecosystems in North America." It also said "The 1002 area is the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife and is the center of wildlife activity.” Wildlife in ANWR ”includes 36 fish species, 36 land mammals, nine marine mammals, and more than 160 migratory and resident bird species.” http://arctic.fws.gov/wildlife.htm. When the Eisenhower Administration established the original Arctic Range in 1960, Secretary of Interior Seaton described it as "one of the world's great wildlife areas. The great diversity of vegetation and topography in this compact area, together with its relatively undisturbed condition, led to its selection as … one of our remaining wildlife and wilderness frontiers." http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm.

      Everything I found indicates that drilling in ANWR would have little, if any, effect on oil prices. And any effect would not come for a long time. A recent report by the Department of Energy estimated that opening ANWR would reduce the price of oil by no more than $1.44 per barrel and possibly as little as $0.44 per barrel. The report states that any increases in production "would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States" (through reduced production by OPEC). It would take 10 years for oil production to begin and it would be 2027 before oil production peaked. At peak production levels, ANWR production would have a nominal impact on our dependency on foreign oil resulting in a 2% to 6% reduction in oil imports. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/s… see also http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008… (discussing this report).

      The Department of Energy report (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf) estimates that at peak output, ANWR would produce between 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day. The average figure that it settles on is 780,000 barrels per day. As a basis of comparison, the amount of oil produced would not be as much as could be saved by increasing fuel economy standards for cars. According to a report by the conservative CATO Institute, the increasing the CAFE standards to require an average fuel economy of 35 mpg by 2020 would result in a decrease of oil consumption by 1.2 million barrels per day. See http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8623. So rather than drill for more oil in one of our last pristine wilderness areas, maybe we should mandate production of more efficient cars. And to anyone who thinks that this would not work, should be left to the market, or would destroy the U.S. auto manufacturers, consider this: First, mandatory increases in CAFE standards worked after the oil crisis in the 1970s and the U.S. economy did not collapse. Second, it’s hard to argue that any economic effect that this would have would be worse than the economic fallout that is resulting from high oil prices and American automakers’ commitment to inefficient SUVs and trucks. The Economist just published an article that the survival of U.S. automakers is in doubt largely because the vehicles they produce use too much fuel. See http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_i…. So what is more harmful to the economy—mandating higher fuel economy or watching American auto manufacturers go under for producing cars with weak fuel economy?

      Furthermore, if there is to be drilling in ANWR, we should take this path only after exhausting alternatives that do not have an irreversible impact on our environment. The United States consumes 70.6 barrels of oil per day per 1000 people. By comparison, Australia consumes 43.7, Japan consumes 43.7, Israel consumes 36.0, France consumes 32.3, Germany consumes 32.1, and the UK consumes 30.5. See http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_per…. So rather than drill in ANWR, why not try to make a slight reduction in our consumption to achieve the same effect?

      We have to ask why we want to drill in this area. There is a lot of money to be made by companies who gain access to this area, but the average person will save only a few cents on the gallon of gas (see below for support of this claim). At the end of the day, we all know that we are going to have to find alternatives to oil. We might as well take the difficult step now while we still have unspoiled wilderness rather than ruin what we have and face the same problem in twenty years. Furthermore, opening ANWR creates a slippery slope. If drilling is successful on these 2,000 acres, why not open the adjacent land in the future once this area is depleted? Before you know it, industrialization will have permeated the entire wilderness preserve. And what of the other protected areas in the United States? All of our wilderness areas and natural parks have natural resources that could be exploited, but at what point do we abandon the commitment we have made to preserve them for the future in exchange for negligible short-term economic gains?

      Bottom line? I think drilling in ANWR is a band-aid that will have little benefit at too high a price. It is natural that there is a huge push by interested parties to drill in this area since there are huge profits to be made. But I don’t see what is in it for you and me.

    60. Bill in Joplin, MO says:

      It's time for Democrats to stop being on the wrong side of every issue. Our country needs to do it all, explore alternate energy sources, drilling offshore, ANWR, etc….

    61. elaine stevens, New says:

      regardless of how you feel about G W, he said one thing right . . . Americans are addicted to oil. Have you looked at your addiction today? hoe many TVs, refrigerators, entire house air conditioned?, Reduce help us all

    62. Paul K Newnam Ala says:

      DRILLING ANWAR!After reading some of the comments on drilling in ANWAR!I am Concerned about the future of our country! ITS THE PEOPLE! The uninformed! The Ignorant! My first question to these people, IS! have you ever been there? WELL? Have you? I HAVE! You quote statistics that you get from BIASED!Intellectual Conservation Groups! Who have, probably, never! been there either! Well if you haven't been there! let me save you the trip to see this PRISTINE AREA! If you want to experience the Anwar Experience, Go to your freezer, and open it! Look inside ! WOW! Its just like ANWAR! See the pristine condition! Tell me what do you see? What? No Caribou! No Fox or Moose! Not even trees or grass! What! No Mountains? Now that's strange! I heard this was a Natural Wonder! A Great National Park for all to enjoy! I know by the adds! on T.V. that are paid for by the SAVE THE WORLD! KOOKS! Show a completely different story! I have seen some of these adds, and I have seen ANWAR! They would like you to think that it compares to Yosemite Natl. Park! Or The GREAT DENALLI NTL. PARK! THEY ARE LIEING!! It doesnt! Most of the people that see ANWAR never want to go back! It is desolate, A COLD! COLD! and barren FROZEN landscape!Just short tuffs of grass and moss that want support any kid of large animal! We had been exploring and drilling In this area for 30yrs! And IT hasn't been destroyed yet! OH! You DIDNT KNOW THAT! Your GREAT CLINTON STOPPED IT! BUT! Right next to it! we are pumping oil and Gas out of the ground and down the Alaska Pipe Line!FOR TWENTY YEARS!! The same KOOKS that said we will RUIN ANWAR! are the same ones who said we would ruin Alaska with the pipe line!I know that we cant get the truth from our NEWS MEDIA! OR Our Great Schools Of Knowledge! So I suggest you go see for your self! Find out the TRUTH ABOUT ANWAR! You can drive, your SUB/COMPACT all the way, to Prudhoe Bay at the ARTIC CIRCLE! and jump on your cross country skis and go see it for your self. Take warm cloths! And I suggest you take some kind of FOSSIL FUEL to keep you hands! warm with! And be sure to tell someone where you are going, because we will have to come rescue YOU! After you find out, WHAT! the TRUTH! IS! ABOUT! ANWAR! Ask your self , WHY HAVE I BEEN LIED TO? WHY!!This would be the perfect place to put OIL PRODUCTION! No one would ever see it! Like In your freezer! Out of site out of mind!

    63. Pingback: The Truth About ANWR Drilling | Godmode

    64. JimW, Georgia says:

      I don’t normally comment on these forums as most comments are from tree huggers or to the other end of the spectrum, radical. Bottom line, back in the 70's we had gas rationing, you bought your gas on an odd or even calendar day depending on the last number of your licence plate. Gas was less than a buck & a half. If gas is that short, why isn’t it being rationed again, or am I missing something. As long as we are willing to pay 4-5 dollars a gallon there will be all you want.

      As to drilling in ANWR, I can’t ride a caribou to work and I can’t afford to pay for my utilities, food, clothes, etc. much longer. If it’s between me and a polar bear. I vote for me & mine.

      As an aside, just how many of the nay sayers will ever visit that neck of the woods, let alone live there?

    65. Geren Sproull San A says:

      All I have read about is the Democrats doing this and that to stop drilling. Well November 08 is right around the corner, Why don't we get the Dem's out and put the Replubicans in.. I'll bet something will get done and also a Replubican Presidedt….We can make the difference.

    66. Derek, St. Louis says:

      In response to all the jobs created, who wants to work near the Beaufort Sea? It's not exactly the Gulf of Mexico or the Southern California Coast. Next, I don't think caribou have the capacity to "love" or "hate" anything, much less the drilling. Animals are a victim to human desire. If we drill near the bay, naturally the animals will move. Finally, we ought to move toward an infrastructural change that encourages people to utilize mass transit, live close to work so that we might walk or ride a bike (and in turn improve our health and slow the ever-growing obesity epidemic). Also, you might save a few bucks, would everyone certainly could use in our depression-nearing economy. In closing, my mother and I have a very strong and close relationship and freely speak our minds, especially while we are at the dinner table. I'll be riding my bike more this summer. What will you do to make the world a better place?

    67. Cherie Longden, Dowa says:

      So much sense made by people but what I want to know is is this the true pictures of the area? We all know that SNOPES is all about people printing erroneous items on the net but no one is saying if this is legit or not. I want the truth and that's not always available on the internet such as maybe, the pictures of the Democrats who want to preserve Alaska and maybe, the Republicans who have financial interests in drilling for oil in wherever. Just give me the facts man, just the facts

    68. Cg, Chicago, Illinoi says:

      Contracts for US lands currently held by corporations for oil drilling rights should be reassessed immediately–biggest potential producers first–and a strong arm of national crisis applied to renegotiating drilling time that starts now. It's 10 years past time to open ANWR, expand off-shore, and double the capacity of each nuclear plant currently on line.

      The crisis is not so much about the price of oil in July, 2008. It's about the shredding of US savings, the transfer of large portions of US wealth at the speed of an ATM, resulting now in plunging dollars, imprisonment by speculation. The final question is, “who will own us and our assets as we start up from rock bottom?”

      Several hundred men and women have been entrusted by law with the power to act. What are they waiting for?

      Hundreds of millions of US citizens show their patriotism every day through the sweat equity of work. They build lives, and dreams, for their families and communities. Is it right that their equity is sold out from under them by trustees, who carefully plan and fund campaigns for themselves, but fail to take effective action on the most serious crisis we face?

    69. Richard Jones, Bethl says:

      I believe that the oil industry and the rich arab oil producers own our congress and President lock, stock, and barrell. If the oil induetry wanted to drill, they would be drilling. I believe that the oil companies are not the least bit interested in spending billions of dollars exploring for more oil just so that they can sell their product cheaper? Why would they want to do that?

    70. Robert, Alabama says:

      As I recall we went to war over spices and taxes many years ago. I vote we just go to the Middle East and take it. That will accomplish:

      1) jobs,

      2) provide us oil,

      3) and, it would literally destroy OPEC

    71. Roger D, Port St, Jo says:

      People People People, the oil companies are in the OIL business, this is a capitalist country, that is what made US the greatest nation on earth. We are the most compationate PEOPLE ever, we have been of more help to more PEOPLE than any other nation. Even when the Wellfare workers in congress {people that recieve a pay check with out doing anything CONSTRUCTIVE to earn it} over tax US we still come to the need of other People. As for globle warming all i can say is we were taught that the the English Channel was cut by glaciers in the past melt down, now neither i NOR NY ONE ELSE was there so we must determine nature was responsable, so much for that. Oil companys determine what they want to drill for and that is THEIR right. If you or any one else has the desire to come up with another fuel system you are FREE to do so. As for the {hollow wood} stars running off at the mouth they have plenty of money to come together and hire the right people to seek out other means to do so, NOOOoo, they only want to stir up the masses so they can be more than they realy are. Get in the business so we may devert to other fuels where possible. Is anyone telling you what you can earn? You do not have the right to tell anyone how much money they are allowed to EARN, Get over it. Now, how smart can anyone be that would stop manufacturing the life blood of industry that supports OUR country before we have replaced it with another product? It is apparent to me that the powers to be have some other plans that they do not want US to know, until they determine it is time! In closing i will say that God put the fuel where He wanted to because he new we could figure how to get to it safely.

    72. Richard, Poulsbo, Wa says:

      Hey, I'm not a computer literate but, can some one forward this info to the Obama and McCain web sites?

    73. Joel says:

      "Kmuzu writes:

      Agree Doran – Some Republican give the whole party a bad name. Always with the personal attacks instead of a reasonable debate. This is what’s wrong with country."

      Kmuzu also writes:

      "2. Oil companies are liars and are cartels, no different than drug lords. These guys brought us leaded fuel, when alcohol fuel would have only been five cents more a gallon."

      Congress passes the laws. If drilling should be safer, then Congress should change the laws which Congress wrote. If American oil should not go to the international markets, then Congress should change the terms of the lease.

      Finally, calling oil companies names seems like an attack. We either work together on this stuff or not. It's a choice each of us makes.

    74. Catmandu says:

      Paul Newman was correct, Its not the wacko liberals its the American public and their ignorance to facts. our problem is not a shortage of oil its a shortage of knowledge. It appears the N.E.A. and green agendas are more to blame for our problems today than any other single agenda.

      Yes I have experienced the slope all the way to Port Valdez. I read people saying the oil would be going to China…Ummm the oil that comes from the slope MUST be delivered to a US port not a foreign port. Again FACTS, again education.

      My solution…Any school district teaching agendas or political views have ALL funding pulled, better yet fire ALL teachers and rehire outside of the union. Start re-educating the American people by teaching logic, a subject that used to be taught in primary school.

    75. Pingback: anwr drilling

    76. Al, New Jersey says:

      Forget the ten years to bring ANWR production to market.

      Assuming that explorations prove there is marketable quantities of oil at ANWR, it would take less than a year to build a 60 mile-long pipeline to connect to the existing Trans Alaska Pipeline System. With a major crash program, the pipeline could be built in just a few months.

      Production oil wells can be drilled in only a few weeks.

      So, it would be a few months rather than ten years to bring ANWR oil to market.

      Assuming, of course, no nuisance lawsuits or holdups getting permits. But those issues can be dealt with by Presidential Executive Order and similar orders by the Governor of Alaska (who supports drilling).

      Remember the words of Paul Begala, who worked for President Clinton about Executive Orders. "Stroke of the pen … law of the land … cool."

      [By the way, we can get nuclear power plants in four years, not ten.]

    77. Nelly, New Hampshire says:

      I found this site because I was looking for unbiased information so that I could convince myself what the best path would be. It seems that people have a difficult time being rational without name calling. I find that name calling doesn't get those people anywhere except to convince people that are already convinced. There were many good points made, both pro and con, that together at least get most of the important points out in the open. Although I am a Democrat and have an inclination to want to preserve the good things for the future generation, as well as own own (72+), I realize that the "good things" is not a well-defined concept. I personally enjoy natural beauty and quiet and others enjoy dirt bikes and ATV's. I guess now it is up to me to amke a list of pros and cons and decide what my priorities are.

    78. Brian, Pennsyvania says:

      Let's restate the issue:

      We are dependent in hostile countries for our energy.

      Goal:

      Become energy independent

      How:

      Drill on our own lands to get our resources

      Invest in technology for wind, solar, natural gas and nuclear power.

      Under Conservation we can do the following:

      Up the MPG for automobiles.

      Change our driving habits.

      More energy efficient appliances.

      More energy efficient air conditioners and heating units.

      And more…

      ===============

      This is a 35 year old issue and the government has ignored it because oil was cheap and no one really wants to see an oil rig in the USA. However, the oil is now expensive and we need to do ALL we can to provide Americans relief. That includes exploration in areas where science says there is oil.

      The government collects a tax of about 18% on a gallon gas which means they get 76 cents on every gallon. That money needs to be invested in the alternative solutions. If the alternatives do well enough then over time, maybe 50 years we may be able to abandon oil. There is no quick fix, higher taxes, better relations in the middle east and ignoring the problem will not help us meet our goal. These are tough times and we need to correct the problems of the past. Placing blame is not an answer.

    79. Sheila, Virginia says:

      Need to check out

      http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticmap_200

      for a real map of what ANWR drilling would entail. That real-life scenario would pretty much destroy the entire coastal plain as well as any wildlife that would depend on it. The problem is 2,000 acre limitation is not contiguous and is spread out over 1.5 million acres (think of a giant fish net). The 2,000 acres also doesn't include supporting infrastructure (pipes, roads, gravel mines etc.) Thus the "footprint" is in fact almost 10% of the entire refuge. We also know that Porcupine caribou, not the Central arctic caribou around Prudhoe Bay, are much more sensitive to human impact because of their reliance on this coastal area.

      Oil is a limited resource and we will be paying more and more of it regardless of ANWR. Please read the May 2008 Energy Information Administration (EIA) report on ANWR for unbiased answers. Basically, the best we are going to cut gas costs is 2 cents per gallon in 2025. Even the Wall Street Journal (not even remotely "environmental") has questioned any economic benefit from ANWR.

      http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/06/18/dont-ex

      It's clear that the environmental cost is not worth the short term benefit. We need renewable energy — nuclear, solar, wind etc. to truly make us energy independent. Reconsider the oil issue based on real information and reason, not on oil propaganda like this.

    80. KL,Nevada says:

      A tip of the hat to GB, Georgia. A very nicely researched and written contribution. And another tip of the hat to all those who wrote intelligently and respected the views of others.

      Here’s my viewpoint and some facts. Keep in mind I work for a land management agency and see similar issues such as wildlife impacts and oil and gas leasing.

      1. Near as I can tell, most of the leases in our area are speculative, meaning they hope to resell rather than produce any oil, or they are for the purpose of exploiting investors. There is little or no oil on the hundreds of leases in our area. The last three exploratory wells were dry. So the argument that we should concentrate on developing existing leases is not a solution.

      2. Wells are capped usually because the value of the oil being produced doesn’t justify the cost of pumping. Every oil well pumps less and less over time as the reservoir is emptied. It works a lot like a glass of water with lots of ice. As you sip through the straw when you first start drinking, the liquid is plentiful and easy to remove. When you get down to the bottom, it gets pretty tough to suck more liquid out. However, if you stop and let the ice melt for a while, then you have access to more liquid. Eventually the reservoir runs dry regardless. Capped oil wells, to some degree will drain down, similar to the melting ice cubes, and more oil can be pumped. Raising the price of oil, providing the cost of pumping remains more or less constant, means more oil can be pumped profitably from an old well (and there isn’t much of a point in pumping oil that costs more than it is worth). As the price of oil goes higher, a lot of oil wells will be reentered to try and pump additional oil. However, the amount of oil and the pumping rates of that oil are continually decreasing. Eventually there won’t be enough to pump.

      3. Thirty years ago I had the same discussion about Alaska oil with a girlfriend. She pointed out that once it’s gone. . . . . it’s gone. In her opinion it was probably wiser to save such oil fields for the indefinite future rather than burn it now. Given the number of local yokels racing their huge diesel pickups up and down my street with no passengers and no cargo I’m inclined to still agree with her.

      4. The arguments about the minimal impact on prices and supply are correct. The only strong proponents of drilling are those who stand to profit from the development of the oil fields. It won’t have much impact on the rest of us. We can actually impact ourselves a great deal more simply by parking the car and walking or riding a bicycle. I do that. The car hasn’t been out of the garage for a couple of weeks. But it will be out tomorrow for a trip to the mountains. And we are carpooling.

      5. I work in an area with lots of gold mines. There was a lot of wailing and teeth gnashing before the mines were developed. There were scary scenarios raised about wholesale slaughter of wildlife, including birds. Well, yes, there was significant wildlife mortality until solutions were developed. Now it’s pretty common in the fall for wildlife to congregate in mining areas because it is safer than staying out in the countryside during hunting season. I’m very skeptical of the claims that development on the north slope would be catastrophic to wildlife. A good flood or a viral mutation can do a lot more damage. And generally Darwin’s theory says that life will adapt to changing conditions – or go extinct. A recent case-in-point has to do with Tasmanian Devils and widespread fatal cancer developing among young adults apparently leading to the evolutionary change that those Tasmanian Devils which breed younger are replacing those whose breeding patterns, which used to be normal, are ended prematurely by the fatal cancer. Evolution works in mysterious ways.

    81. D. Trent, California says:

      "Every complex problem has a simple solution — and it’s always wrong. – H.L. Mencken

      I wonder at the motivation for such blogs as "The Truth About ANWR." To write and illustrate that essay required a lot of work: Was the effort to spread truth, play the blame game, discredit the liberals, expert opinion, environmentalists, the Congress, presidential candidates, whomever? Such messages are typical of the kind of disinformation that is spread during time of elections. I've received a couple of such messages recently and the kindest thing I can say is that the authors are ill informed. Must have spent more time listing to Russ Limbaugh than Googling ANWAR, USGS for the Survey’s Fact Page on the ANWR 1002 Area, where the real "truth" can be found. In short, the causes of the current high gas prices are a combination of the supply effect (it's geology, not policy), the demand effect (world wide demands exceed world wide production), and the financial effect (investors speculating on oil futures). Please allow me to give you some hard facts to chew on.

      Let’s look at some detail on the ANWR potential: the USGS report is for the 1002 area of ANWR (the coastal plains north of the Brooks Range). This area is a relatively small coastal region, just as the map shows, which is geologically undeformed and contains almost all of the estimated undiscovered oil. The Survey gives two sets of estimates: one for the entire 1002 area, including Federal, Indian, and State lands: a 95% probability of 5.7 billion barrels (bbl); a 5% probability of 16.0 billion bbl, with a mean probability of 10.4 billion bbl. The second area includes only federal lands: 95% = 4.3 billion bbls; 5% = 11.8 billion bbl, with a mean of 7.7 billion bbl. Incidentally, you can access this info yourself by Googling ANWR, USGS.

      Let’s crunch some numbers with that 5% probability of 16-bilion bbl. But first, if you were told there was a 5% chance of rain would you bother carrying your umbrella to work that day?? That 5% chance of 16 billion bbls of oil in the USGS Assessment for the 1002 area of ANWR is simply wild guessing. If indeed there is that much there, it would end up being the biggest oil field in North America. (Last I knew, Prudhoe Bay and West Texas are both about 12 billion bbls).

      If you crunch the numbers, that 95% chance of 5.7 billion bbls (my perception is that there’s a good chance for that amount to be there) would give us enough petroleum to supply us for only 270 days at our present rate of consumption (21.11 million bbls/day). I’m not saying the field would be depleted in 270 days as the field would likely produce for 30 years or more. Just that the 5.7 billion bbls would be equivalent to what we use in less than one year.

      Many of the posts that follow the Heritage Foundation’s blog refer to capped wells and offshore potential. I don’t know anything about the capped wells – I need references and hard data on that as it looks to me like misinformation. And the interest in the oil potential of the outer continental shelf (OCS) misses the important point that there are many good reasons not to pursue this folly: among them the Energy Information Administration admitting that even if all off-shore lands presently under moratorium were opened today, there would be no production of any oil found until at least 2018, and by 2030 the amount of oil that might result would be only 7% more than currently produced from the OCS. Furthermore, it would have no significant impact on the price of oil. Also, the 7% number is simply guesswork, which is as likely to be wrong as right.

      I hope that Sen. Obama's push to close the "speculator" loophole is successful. It would have the salutary effect of showing that the real problem is geology. Politics and government policy are ineffective weapons against geologic reality: we have run out of cheap oil. I strongly suggest that you Google ASPO (the web site of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and read the ASPO Newsletters), and also read the front-page article on today’s (7/22/08) L.A. Times.

      Columnist Charles Krauthammer recently commented on the widely discussed issue of offshore oil drilling. His comments are uninformed. He stated that 75 billion barrels of oil have been declared off-limits according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lands under moratorium (coastal areas of the Lower 48 states) have a mean estimate of 18 billion barrels of undiscovered oil. The Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, which is not OCS land and in which oil drilling is prohibited, has a maximum mean estimate of 7.7 billion bbls of undiscovered oil. The total falls far short of Krauthammer's number. It is important to bear in mind that these mean estimates are guesses, not facts. They are the average of a very large and unreliable number representing a 1-in-20 chance of discovery and a much smaller number representing a 95-in-100 chance. Moreover, it is known that potential deposits along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts are likely to be small, and many may not be economically feasible to exploit.

      Even if the OCS lands under moratorium were opened today, the EIA says that we could not expect any production until 2018, and by 2030 production would amount to only a 7% increase in total OCS production and would have no significant effect on price. I should add that this 10-year lag before production on the OCS is overly optimistic given that offshore rigs are booked for at least the next 5 years. Another point, the current OCS production is only 27% of the measly total U.S. production of 5.1 billion bbls/yr, so 7% of the 27% of a small number is an even smaller number. The bottom line is that it wouldn’t make a dent in the 21.11 million bbl of petroleum the U.S. consumes each day. There are major changes coming in our lifestyle – the changes may already be here.

    82. Pingback: Offshore Drilling and Other Republican Fantasies - The Seminal :: Independent Media and Politics

    83. Monica, Dallas says:

      Just a little reminder people from all political parties: Exxon Valdez. Drilling in ANWAR would be just a time bomb. I did like the cute pics of the animals around the pipeline and rigs(nothing that photoshop can't do), but if that is real, what about the chemical waste? oh where, oh where does it go? The fumes, the residues? You do not think it will be absorb by the soil or go up in fumes? Do you think there is zero contamination?

      I believe that drilling is not the solution to a problem that starts with the consumers. It is just basics economics and a little of common sense. Do you really think that there is a never ending flow of black gold running in Alaska? What about looking for other resources of energy?

      Just pondering about human evolution at its best and extinction of species. Comprende?

    84. sandyshores says:

      It's logical to me that we should drill. 70 percent of the people in anwr want to drill they have a 50 percent unemployment rate. The democrats are like spoiled children, if it don't fit their green gread machine they don't want no part of it. While the normal people in the usa want to drill it is just not something the democrats have invested in. The democrats look like desperate car sales men.

      The fact is that the american people will be needing oil for more then ten years and without oil how will we even be able to build a whole new infrastructure? I wonder if the democrats can conceive of the fact that it will take lots of heavy equiptment to fabricate this new infrastructure. Lots of trucks coming and going. Lots of workmen ariving in trucks with their tools. Lots of trucks that will be needed just to suply all the needed matierials that will most likely be shipped across the usa and maybe even the world all of this takes oil we are not some light switch.

      Why can't we collect revenues from the more oil drilled in anwr where they can pipe it through our existing pipeline. So what we build better refineries wouldnt that add more tax payers again?

      How many years will it take to rewire the entier usa?

      Should everyone today buy a new car pay for green taxes and buy all new appliances? Are you trying to drive our nation into poverty?

      I am for lets do it all but that has to include oil and the all must be at a affordable rate to the usa. I have a great idea for our government why not just cut all earmarks and use that money for your folly.

      I PLAN TO BE HERE IN TEN YEARS!

    85. Pingback: A Vote For McCain will end the tanning industry - Page 4 - tanTALK

    86. J Nelson, Houston TX says:

      Every complex problem has a simple solution and it’s always wrong?

      Actually, the simple solution is usually the best solution, because the more complex the solution becomes, the more variables that are thrown into the mix and the greater chance of getting things wrong than right – J Nelson

      I am tired of hearing that we can’t drill our way out of this problem! Well, the ugly truth is we can’t conserve our way out of this problem either! Democrats want biofuel – great, but we can’t make enough of it. We can’t grow enough corn to supply our energy needs and besides who wants to be dependent on a fuel source that can be wiped out with the next flood, drought, blight, insect attack – faith in mother nature not to knock your teeth out is like trusting OPEC to keep the oil flowing.

      There has to be a concerted effort on ALL fronts – drilling, biofuels, wind, solar, and yes, nuclear. We must not become so dependent on one source of energy. I’m sorry but I’m not impressed with the argument that we won’t see any results from drilling for the next 10 years, because as I see it, we won’t see any results from any of the above for the next 10 years due to the fact it will take that amount of time and even longer in some cases for those sources to become feasible economically. Some may never be feasible because of the technology required just won’t be there. One thing I do know is that for every day we spend arguing about this – it is another day wasted.

      As far as Obama’s trying to pass legislation to take out speculation – give me a break. Speculation is a world issue that won’t be resolved by the US Congress. Pass laws here, the hedges will move off-shore. Trying to control speculation is like trying to catch the wind and paint it green. Sounds great, won’t work. What will curb speculation is if we unite together and convince the world of our desire to become energy independent – speculators will respond to that.

    87. Jesse, Brooklyn says:

      If this is the solution that will get us off of foreign oil, then ask yourself, why didn't George Bush fight for ANWR drilling and freedom from foreign oil when he was campaigning in 2000? Why is this year the first time we've heard about this from his administration?

      The fact is, this will not get us off of foreign oil. The oil will run out. The reason why we don't want to drill in the preserve is because it is meant to be a preserve, a large space were ecology can continue to exist free of unnatural changes.

      Someone wrote above that "The animals will adapt to the environment. They don’t go extinct due to habitat changes."

      Animals do not always adapt to the environment. Those that can adapt will survive, but often times, populations go extinct due to changes in their habitat.

      This is simple simple 7th grade science.

      Why would people want to take a 10-year solution which will only leave us where we are now at the end if it risks the stability of the Alaskan ecosystem that took thousands of years to develop and stabilize?

      And again, why didn't Bush propose this 8 years ago? Why haven't people been pushing for this so thoroughly since the 70s?

    88. J Horgan says:

      I understand this latest push for domestic drilling rights, but what I don't understand is why everyone is so willing to trust "them" again to do the right thing and save us. There are 17 million acres of untapped known oil fields that our domestic oil companies are sitting on. I guess that the reason why they don't drill what they already have is that if they actually did produce oil here the supply would go up and thereby reduce the price. Cutting their profits. Acknowledge that frankly no one in power cares for our plights as normal citizens and that anyone offering us an easy answer to our problems is probably trying to manipulate us. Let us not forget all the privacy that we gave away for FREE for our own protection. We have given up everything, now everyone once out of fear again is going to hand over more land so that all the coastal beaches of the gulf and off the eastern seaboard will look like Galveston TX. I suggest taking a trip there with your kids sometime and see how much black sludge you have to wipe off of them. I am completely in favor of domestic energy production and eliminating our dependence on foreign oil, a standpoint that I feel is truly American. Once again though even our efforts to be green falter and burn with our use of corn ethanol over switchgrass ethanol like in Brazil. Obviously I am sidetracked at this point, but I think the most important thing is to not budge to those claiming to help us, especially when we are in a jam.

      J Horgan

    89. Pingback: Hello world! « Politicommentary’s Weblog

    90. Pingback: Political Suicide « Politicommentary’s Weblog

    91. Clint H, austin says:

      Nice… now how much will it reduce our gas prices???

      I think all think tanks agree it is between $0.04 to 0.25 per gallon.

      I call that real independence. Think of something else Republicans… think real hard next time.

      Stupid is… is what Stupid does!

    92. Jeff, California says:

      You can see a narrated video version of this ANWR presentation on YouTube at:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMKcxVdju8Q

    93. Thomas, Tennessee says:

      The only reason it might take more than two years to bring ANWR online (7 to 10 years according to Obama and libs)… would be because they and the green terrorists will make sure there is that much "red tape" to drill through to get there…

    94. I love US Oil, USA says:

      You think Bush holding the Saudi King's hand is odd, get use to it! If the US does not become oil independent you will not only see a republican President holding hands with the Saudi King but also a Democratic President holding hands and kissing the kings butt begging for oil!

      Why would anyone in the US want to remain dependent on the ME for oil, is beyond common sense.

    95. I love US Oil, USA says:

      Let's look and see how much the government is making off of gas prices in taxes! You will find out the government makes more per gallon then the oil companies! Funny how all wants to ignore that!

    96. J Nelson, Houston TX says:

      I agree with you "I love US Oil", it won't matter who is in the White House, because our failure to expand drilling for oil here in the US will have our next President going hat in hand to the Middle East, begging (or "asking" if that term is too strong for some) for production increases. The only other choice will be to get thrown out of the White House in the next election.

    97. Pingback: A Picture is Worth a Thousand…Barrells | ktownlowdown.com

    98. b pennala, howell mi says:

      It appears only GOOD OLD FASHION competition (who'd of figured?) will lower gas prices. Read more at link below!

      PEAK OIL? Reason for GLOBAL WARMING, HIGH PUMP PRICES? Why are there so many diff theories discussed about these issues? Where can one find one reliable knowledge source that proves or dis-proves this?

      Does PEAK OIL equal HIGH PUMP PRICES? The only logical conclusion is of course! What else can change the price so fast non-proportional to world demand? Why aren't we demanding that our elected officials FIND the clear facts and answers (directly and only from the regulatory governmental departments in place to provide this service) and publish the facts on the NET, in the NEWS, etc. so that we the people can understand and make informed decisions about which laws need to be made or abolished, or, if we want them re-elected?

      Are high gas prices good for USA in long term to force us to FIND alternative fuels, new techs. etc? Perhaps…but the short term effect may actually be worse (IE destroyed real estate markets, big 3 losing or being pushed abroad, etc.) The saying, "Everything in moderation" seems to apply here also!

      Who really suffers for high pump prices? The average hourly paid working person which relies on gas to commute. Do most of these people have significant "retirement invenstments" which could be seeing benifit from high market prices? Most likely the opposite due to the recent recession which high pump prices in the USA must have contributed to. At this time, any extra money is going IN THE TANK, not in the 401, for the average american.

      Are the dems or the repubs to blame for high pump price? Neither. Persons of either party affiliation could not possibly desire paying more for their gas!

      SO WHY PEAK OIL and why high pump prices and why no results yet to fix this?….Blame ALL and I mean ALL of our reps and sens for too slow of a reaction to demand the facts on these issues and to get results immediately. Blame yourself FIRST for NOT VOICING YOUR DEMANDS TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS!!

      http://www.thetruthbehindhighfuelprices.com/GasPr

    99. just a fellow americ says:

      I honestly dont think drilling in the states is going to solve the high oil price issue here in our country especially when mineral rights seem to consistently be issued to Royal Dutch Shell and other foreign oil companies instead of American oil companies…Isnt that what just happened in Alsaka? I dont believe the government (Republicans or Democrats) have any intention of lowering gas prices. Why is it congress and the white house supposedly make it more difficult for American oil companies to have off shore drilling rights and make it more easily accessible for foreign countries to come drill? It really seems to me our "country" is being sold off to the wealthy corporate world in foreign lands and we will see our oil sold back to us at even higher prices.

      I remember reading this article in some oil drilling periodical over a year ago and I think the information was already a couple of years old when I came across it. I recall the artcile where Shell Dutch Royal oil (and there are tons of Shell gas stations in my neck of the woods)was working on a plan for the mineral (drilling rights) for almost 90% of the land between Colorado and California and the current government administration was ready to let them purchase the drilling rights. But opposers to this purchase (better known as "radical treehuggers")kept throwing in endangered species issues, nature conservatory laws, wild life refuge stuff etc and other reasons why selling the drilling rights would be illegal and if they drilled it would break a variety of laws. The article rasied several intersting questions are the "treehuggers" really trying to protect a six eyed three legged spotted gecko?? or are those laws the front they use because they know the economic, social and political devastation it will cause the American people by selling off mineral(drilling) rights to powerful Eurpoean and Saudi owned Corporations such as Shell?? Was it the "treehuggers" belief that by allowing these countries to have the drilling rights on our land it will mean our government will finally officially be in bed with other governments and corporations in other parts of the world which could mean a severe change in the rights and laws of the American People?? Would it mean our country could eventually be controlled by international corporations in foreignlands?? Could such a devastating blow to the welfare of the American people actually happen by simply selling the drilling rights and one of our most precious commodities and natural resources to a foreign owned corporation? Are the elected American Government officals above selling out the American People to line their own pockets through their networks and create more personal power? I found the article to be interesting and came to several personal conclusions as I did more research

      after I read the article I had humorous visions that one day I will wake up in the same old bed in the same old house on the same old street but in a newly constructed country OWNED and operated by McDonalds euro-corporation?? yeah, yeah maybe thats a little far fetched, but I do think theres alot more to the oil and drilling in our own land than we are lead to believe. Follow the money trail…

      Isnt it funny how the media can easily sway the American people to believe only the information they want us to hear?? And how they put Amercian people against one another. When many of us Americans are not fully informed. We only get bits and pieces of the informtaion and never the complete story.

      Remember what Eisenhower said when he warned us about the Military Defense Complex and the future of our country if we allow it to runned by the corporate world when we elect government officals who are entertwined in both corporate and government sects. which is happening NOW!

      I honestly believe its time for a govt overhaul that dismisses both the republican and democrat parties.( no more career politicians) Once we can fix the the real problems (our elected officals) we can then begin fixing the "oil/drilling issue."

    100. eric says:

      the answer to all this lies in the photography business once so dominated by EASTMAN KODAK selling "film"! Remember that stuff??? Imagine a researcher telling KODAK directors 15 years ago "we really have to look beyond film to our own invention (digital photography) and see the light (literally) to begin the process of moving away from what is our tried and true business (chemical based imaging)"- what answer do you think our sorry researcher received at such a meeting? "you delicious fukin idiot, dreaming about "our future"- get the # out!" and so the story goes….as Canon and 15 other imaging companies are mopping up the worldwide digital photo market at supersonic speed! So it is with fossil fuels and the American public's embrace of alternatives- we are already buying solar panels from Japan, windmills from Denmark etc and the trend will continue while we "drill baby drill"!!! sooner or later the public will get it just in time and the the foreigners will once again own the technology we largely innovated. Americans are so convinced that nothing could be better than oil as a fuel, while the governments of the world fund their coffers with the "fuel tax" and on it goes. with globalization it is really naive to suppose that if we let oil companies drill on US soil that we will get cheaper gas? the opec members can simply lower their price on their easy to extract oil and everyone will be buying that oil- and it wont be that much cheaper. the reason that oil companies want to drill in ANWAR now is because we are paying 4$ a gallon, not because they want to sell the stuff for less! the first rule of American POLITICS; "its American OIL- DRILL BABY DRILL"…. the first rule of American business; just because the stuff is in Alaska does not mean that you and I own it! but we can buy it if we are willing to pay the price!

      Change the fuel and you will change the game- diversification of the commodity is what will bring the price of energy down.

      And the best argument is "oil is finite"- however much of it there is, why do we think that we, 6-10 generations of AMERICANS can use up the lions-share in a short 200 years- we came from a 2000 year civilization- expand your horizons- leave some of it in the ground so your great grand children can have something to make crocs out of!

    101. eric says:

      oh, and lets not forget the polaroid corp!!!! desktop OS next?

    102. Pingback: Oil prices - Stang Mafia Forums - THE Ford Mustang Enthisiast Forums

    103. Mae - NY says:

      I don't understand why everyone is so blind to the fact that oil is not our only source of energy. Technology has created other sources that are cleaner for the environment and produce more energy than oil. As a nation we need to get out of the 19th century and start living for the 21st. Our dependency to oil is that of a heroin addict. Kick the habit and build a better world for your children.

      Why would we be proud to be the last nation to suck all the fossil fuels out of the Earth?

      Wouldn't it be better to be the first nation to run on solar, wind, or nuclear power?

      Open your eyes people. Librals are not the problem. People who don't consider the future are the problem

      M

    104. Pete Orlando says:

      ANWR is one little part of the whole energy picture. The US has 2 TRILLION barrels of oil in shale deposits; the ability to make 4 million barrels of fuel per day and generate all US electricity demand for 100 years with coal-to-fuel. We have 25% of the world's coal reserve; the US has up to 2,200 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas in many US sites; the US has billions of barrels of oil offshore and in ANWR;

      we can build many more nuclear facilities.

      And while we use these resources, we can develop future clean, renewable energy sources.

      America, wake up. Call your Congressmen and tell them to wake up. There is no energy crisis. Only a crisis of leadership.

    105. Pete Orlando says:

      Congress is part of the problem, not the solution. They have been useless on the energy issue for over 30 years.

      Can they think out of the box? I doubt it. Some energy experts have already stated that one way to solve the problem is for Congress to mandate only flex-fuel vehicles be sold in the U.S. A vehicle that can use a large variety of fuels will spur development of such fuels and supply the competition needed to control fuel prices and solve this economic and national security problem.

    106. Linda B. Michigan says:

      Having to do research on ANWR for a Biol. paper, I was so tired of reading articles that did not give me real facts, but instead felt as though I was being told what to think. When I ran across this article I was able to form an opinion based on facts, and the visuals were awesome. I will send this to fellow students so they can get the same factual insights. Thanks!!!

    107. Ryan Klein, Lisle says:

      Look at it stricly by the numbers. ANWR is not the solution, and is not even close to the solution. It is a political pawn in the election.

      I broke down the numbers based on governmental data and, even at the highest estimates, it is only a stop-gap:

      http://blog.theryanklein.com/2008/09/04/52

    108. joker101 says:

      I think that we need to drill in this area immidiatally, it would help out our ecnonomy by reeducing imports of oil from forgien nations, therefore putting more money into OUR economy not the middle easts

    109. Mary, Omaha NE says:

      First of all, it will take until 2018 before the first extractions are made. Secondly, at the very best with everything operating at 100%, we would only be able to recover 14 billion barrels of oil from ANWR. The US consumes 7 billion barrels of oil PER YEAR.

      Doesn't seem worth it to me.

    110. Patrick, Seattle, WA says:

      Not something I thought of on my own, but I will relay to you all because I thought it was a good point: Drilling in ANWR may or may not actually immediately lower our prices at the pumps- but we're missing a bigger point here. It would be better to pay $4 for a gallon of gas that comes from America than it would to pay $4 a gallon of gas that comes from Venezuela or Suadi (for example). Its about time we stop exporting the American dollar on oil. Also, many jobs would be created as a result.

    111. Maureen Hallowell,Ro says:

      DRILL BABY DRILL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Why send all our money overseas?

      It's time to wake up AMERICA.

      Pass this on……

    112. Danica Schroeder says:

      Just because it isnt the prettiest place on earth doesnt mean its not important to the ecosystem. Im sure all the caribou and bears just love having their homes taken over and polluted by humans.

    113. Mal, Alaska says:

      Oh, my.

      1. I have worked in and around Prudhoe Bay for quite some time. Animals not only exist around the pads and Deadhorse, they seem to thrive there. The pictures of the summer around the rigs with the caribou in the tens of thousands don't begin to cover the fact that these caribou are not allowed to be disturbed. Can any other state say that their mineral exploitation was more rigorous than Alaska's? No. There is no hunting permitted around Prudhoe, and yes, there are bears all around. Mainly grizzlies and polar bears. Because all of the buildings are constructed on pilings (prevents them from sinking into the permafrost when it thaws), bears congregate under the buildings. Signs are posted at the exit doors, reminding people of this fact.

      2. The limitations set on the oil companies are followed rigorously. The EPA, FEMA, state and local agencies are all interested in maintaining a clean and safe environment. Trucks that are parked at an area must have an "oil containment reservoir" placed underneath of them, in case of oil leaks. Contaminated soils are removed, burned to remove hydrocarbons and are returned to the site from which they came. Soils and gravel removed for construction are placed in marked piles to be returned to their original sites upon depletion of the site and shutdown. No travel is allowed by vehicle anywhere off of the current paved roads. Any construction done is after the ice roads have been built. Crews and parts are flown out by helicopter in summer.

      I saw a lady claiming that the caribou had been photo-shoppped into the picture above. No they weren't. If anything, the photographer tried to find a clear area to see the grass. If you haven't been up there and worked there, you're comments are probably misinformed as to the working conditions and ecological status of Prudhoe Bay and ANWR.

      I DON'T work for an oil company.

    114. Riley says:

      I am shocked to read so many pro-drilling posts. Educate yourselves and quit being monkeys.

      Truth: drilling for oil and natural gas is NOT environmentally sound, nor is it a viable solution to our economic woes.

      A simple Internet search for "truth about natural gas drilling" is a good place to start. Better yet, why not look into what Cheney was able to push past the EPA and Congress, going so far as to claim that natural gas drilling was 100% safe. In reality, it's killing Americans by infecting our drinking water and polluting our air. While it's currently being protected (thanks to Cheney/Halliburton's ability to bypass the Clean Air and Drinking Water Act vis a vis the 2005 Energy Policy Act) its days are numbered, thanks to the ousting of the Republican party by the majority.

    115. Mink says:

      Ok I see so many people arguing here so I'm joining in.

      if we did drill there, then we would have enough oil to last us over one and a half years, just on that oil. It would also reduce the amount of taxes that the American people have to pay. If we do drill in ANWR, we would be getting an average of one million barrels, per day. In Some people consider that a small amount, but that is two-thirds of the amount of oil that we lost during Hurricane Katrina, which did cause prices to rise. As for the environment, the surface would be limited to a few thousand acres of the one-and-a-half million acre coastal plane, leaving the majority of the nineteen million acre refuge, untouched. And think about it, with so many buisnesses going bankrupt, drilling will provide jobs!

      Do we not want good stuff in our world?

      -Mink

    116. Pingback: La Gobernadora sigue trabajando « Sarah Palin en Español

    117. Nick,Marreita,GA says:

      The media is very liberal and , frankly, I think that they want to keep people from seeing the truth and opening their eyes. They have pulled a blindfold over our eyes and are stabbing us in the back. We ,as a nation, should rip the the blindfold off and shut them down. The oil companies make cents and the government makes a large profit from taxes and charges us more.

      Just a look at things

    118. Common Sense says:

      I find the fact that people are still having this argument to be saddening. I am a conservative, but progressive at the same time. We do need to stop depending on foreign, but drilling in ANWR is not the answer. Please use logic people. Oil is sold on the global market, the prices of oil are not determined domestically. In additon it would be private companies such as Shell, and Exxon Mobile, not the U.S. government doing all the drilling. I was supportive of drilling in ANWR at first, but after objectively looking at the facts I see that it makes no sense. The U.S. guzzles down 21 million barrels of gasoline a day. I looked at the statistics and the oil in ANWR when put into marketing calculations would not even have a worth while effect on oil prices let alone gasoline prices – even if all the oil was kept in the U.S. Not to mention the mere fact that it will take 10 years for Americans to even see one drop of oil. Drilling will only increase addiction to oil as an energy source. We are America, the land of hard work and innovation, there is no reason we should not be looking for and using newer, cleaner, more effective fuel sources.

    119. Come on! says:

      Short term solution for something that is going to be a problem forever if we don't start conserving! End of story. New technology is expensive and it will take years to save, but we have to start somewhere and it begins with the effort each person here puts in.

    120. Ari says:

      Go green and yes oil drillin does affect earth cause where does tht oil go in cars and what do cars do pollute the air… if ur to worried bout gas prices and think its cause oils running low then learn how to ride a bike… it isnt tht hard

    121. Marge Brooke-Peotone says:

      ABSOLUTELY we should 'drill'; why is it the 'media' NEVER picks up on truths? I'm sick of it! WHY would anyone want to be 'dependent' on ANYTHING foreign, when it would be 'so easy' to have 'control' of it? I've known about 'this area' for a long time, and so have many others…guess it's going to take 'longer' for those 'others' to be MADE believers; I certainly hope & pray it won't be too late to 'turn it all around'.

    122. stephen testa, Sacra says:

      I would like to utilize two photos for an editorial I am publishing with the non-profit American Geological Institute. May I get permission to use two of the photos (one with the bear on the pipeline and the other showing caribou by the well site

    123. stephen testa, Sacra says:

      I would like to utilize two photos for an editorial I am publishing with the non-profit American Geological Institute. May I get permission to use two of the photos (one with the bear on the pipeline and the other showing caribou by the well site

    124. sandrar says:

      Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R.

    125. Mags says:

      you say that the animals don't mind the oil plants but, what if there is a spill! That is just putting those animals life in danger in land that was put aside for the wildlife.what if there is not much oil in the ground? How is that going to help?

    126. Shawn New Jersey says:

      Ok people, oil is not our only source of energy, we need to move on and find a better source that isn't going to help kill the enviroment faster then we already are. i say no drilling in anwr and we find some cleaner sources of energy for the next generations to use, so that they aren't argueing over this same topic.

    127. Pingback: Porn for political types… VSFW (Very Safe For Work) | RedState

    128. Ben Boyd Alaska says:

      Though it might appear to be a waste land to people who do not have knowledge of Alaska's Echo Systems, It has vegetation and environment that are essential for the birthing of many animal and bird species. Some species of birds travel all the way from the tip of South America to have their young there. Would they travel that far if it were not the best place to have their young. I am not saying not to drill in ANWR but what I am saying is that people need to research the subjects they are talking about before putting misinformation on websites. Alaska's tundra Echo Systems appear to be flat with no vegetation but close inspection reveals many forms of vegetation which are important.

    129. Pingback: HOME | The Idaho Observer

    130. Jake84 says:

      In my opinion we need to stop looking for oil and start working harder on alternative fuel and making it more affordable to the public. Soon enough oil in ANWR would run out too and then where will we be? Back to the same old problem.

    131. lizzy says:

      These pictures and information presented fail to address the fact that caribou numbers are still down, and most animals try to avoid the developed areas. Also the 1002 area is home to the porcupine caribou herd. If development is to continue we can be sure to see catastrophic effects on the already declining population of this herd. Displacing the animals into less desirable habitat for calving and grazing will not help the situation.
      further more lets just get off the drug oil and find a better more sustainable energy. Who determines the fate of an entire herd. It should not be the oil companies.

    132. Dave Abegg says:

      Drill Baby Drill!!!!!

    133. unknown says:

      •"After all the effort we are putting in to get the oil from ANWR it will barely save us 2 days of the amount of gas used a day. The US consumes 18.5 million barrels of gas a day, and ANWR will only supply us an estimate of 11.8 if they find more."

    134. joel young says:

      hey, i so vote no. sure, they say it's a little bit. well, you know Dr.Suess' classic The Lorax? just keep that in mind while you're drilling. little bit by little bit, people are destroying the enviroment, and i would like my future kids to enjoy the beauty of the natural earth. GO DRILL SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-Joel, 11 years old, Ionia middle school, MI (Michigan), 6th grade.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×