Will the oil companies be willing to develop anything now that they know it's only a matter of time until the communist (aka democrats) take it away. Would you put new tires and a new paint job on a vehicle that is being repo'd next week?
Your photos don't work. Neither do your arguments. As a nation we will never succeed unless we can lessen the stranglehold of oil on our economy. Instead of drilling, could you possibly suggest alternative energy as a conservative effort. Now that would actually be interesting to read.
Stranglehold? Is that what you call something that works amazingly better than any of the other alternatives? More efficient (BTU/$, BTU/weight, etc.), complete infrastructure in place, and enjoying continuous improvement in efficiency and clean-burning. Just look at how much cleaner and efficient cars have become in just the last five years! And new, cleaner diesel trucks and engines are coming.
And you want to trade this proven, efficient technology with what? A bunch of inefficient, expensive crap that's been hanging around since the 1970s, sucking up research dollars and tax breaks and still not ready for prime time.
It is stupid, selfish and short-sighted to talk about "breaking our dependency on oil." (I know you were more judicious, talking about lessening, but you've heard the talk about "breaking.") It is logical, socially conscious and far-sighted to talk about gradually weaning ourselves from an ever-improving oil-based energy system to an even better, more improved renewable energy system.
There is no rush. Only global warming extremists think there's a rush involved in this switch-over. And if you've read my posts on energy, you know that I advocate everything: oil, alternatives, nuclear and of course conservation. I think conservation is great; it's stewardship, which is a biblical value I believe in. But conservation alone will never meet our energy needs; you can't conserve to zero.
As a child I grew up along the Gulf Coast. One of my fondest memories is sitting in the back seat at night looking at the off shore lights. They were beautiful. They aren't there anymore, and I miss them. But even if they were there, you couldn't see them because of all the light pollution along the highways and byways.
There is no longer any good reason for us not to be drilling either on or off shore. Let's just hope common sense prevails.
At least pj didn't use the tired cliche of, "We can't drill our way out of this problem." The best thing about this issue is it is finally exposing the Democrats and the special interests to whom they are beholden.
I have to disagree with you on one point, Laer. There are a good number of environmentalist moonbats who are extremely pleased with that last photo. If anything, they would like to see those prices go higher.
Sam Donaldson once decried a program to reintroduce predators to the southwest (which were killing sheep on his ranch) by saying, "A bunch of people in Manhattan decide it's a good idea to have coyotes in New Mexico." (I paraphrase.) This is the modern day environmentalism movement in a nutshell. Almost none of them have ever nor will ever set foot in ANWR, but they sit in their million dollar San Francisco apartments and whine about Big Oil and Bush destroying the planet. As long as someone else is inconvenienced, then Earth First, baby!
Drilling in ANWR has a great potential to lower oil prices. In fact if it is fully developed with no thought towards clean practices we might see a one penny drop in prices at the pump about 20 years from now. Its totally worth it! (This statement is backed up by the best science oil company and government money can buy- read their reports)
This is a good start. We must start drilling in ANWR and offshore.
When I was a kid, we'd leave San Francisco and go to Tahoe every summer for three months. At the end of this wonderful sojourn, we'd head back on I-80 E towards the Bay Bridge and home. By this time, after three months away and a 3.5 hour, very hot car drive, the suspense of getting home was always killing. I always knew we were near home when, at about 6:00 in the evening, as darkness was falling, we'd come abreast of the Richmond refinery, lit up like a beautiful fairyland.
In fact if it is fully developed with no thought towards clean practices we might see a one penny drop in prices at the pump about 20 years from now.
That means that oil prices will never rise and the price of gasoline will remain stable.
I know keeping a stable economy is bad for Democrat totalitarian and salve owning power, but some things are just a little bit too obvious.
By a one penny drop in price 20 years from now the study meant that the price of gasoline will be decreased by the a value equivalent to one penny (as measured by how valuable one penny is today). This decrease is RELATIVE to what the price of gasoline would be otherwise (without opening ANWR.) It would seem from your comment that you though the authors had assumed that from the instant of publishing their study, gasoline's price would freeze and remain stable for 20 years, with a possible drop by one penny in that 20 years due to the opening of ANWR. However, mistaken assumptions like that, and the kind of brash and insensible responses that those mistaken assumptions can lead to can be avoided if your basic assumption about the world is that everyone you see fit to argue with is just as smart as you are.
Your post is cute and all, but not very informative. I figured I'd assist you in that area.
I worked in Prudhoe Bay for two years. I can tell you that pictures do not do the Arctic justice. There's nothing like waking up in the summer at 3:00 AM (to bright sunshine) and looking out your window...only to see literally thousands of migrating caribou. Or taking a morning walk along one of the gravel paths and seeing arctic fox and other little tundra animals.
However, this digresses from my point...
Because of my experience, I know that Alaska's environmental and safety regulations are such that ANWR can be developed without significant impact to the environment. However, I also know that its development would be pointless as, in the years it would take to get the oil flowing. we'd better be working on alternative energy sources or we're screwed. Plus, the 2% it would offset oil imports is a drop-in-the-bucket, making development a total waste of time.
Secondly, just as I am not against development in ANWR based on environmental concerns, my feelings are just the opposite regarding offshore oil in the Bering Sea. While a land spill can be easily contained, there is NO WAY ON THIS PLANET that they could guarantee protections from oil spills and leakage into the most fertile fishing grounds in the world. The Bering Sea is one of the wildest bodies of water (if not the wildest) on the planet. Also, one only has to look to the Exxon Valdez to see what happens to an ecosystem when that kind of heavy oil is unleashed...and also what happens when an oil company is not held responsible.
Same problem in 1970s and congress-President Carter got involved and made a crisis into catastrophe. Told we would use all our fossil ful energy in next 10 years. Started NREL in1979, been working with big buildings, lot of expensive engineers, and what have they produced? Suggested use of electric vehicles, using lead-acid batteries and found that hauling around those heavy batteries took up passenger space, created fire hazards, and batteries had to be replaced, creating disposal problems. Just when can we expect to see some wonderous exotic fuel or energy that is economical, and easy for customers to use and service? I cannot afford any new car now, and future cars will be more expensive. My vote is continue looking for new energy source, but in meantime drill and produce where ever oil, gas, and coal is located. I would rather breathe the black fumes from smoke stacks, then starve when transportation stops, farms no longer grow food, and stores have bare shelves. Companies have left U.S. for elsewhere where energy is available and cheaper.
And drilling WILL NOT be in ANWR, but on the Coastal range in 2,000 acre portion of 1.5 million acres. ANWR 17.5 million acres not touched by drills. Does Congress have any knowledgeable members, and is the staff doing its job? I don't think so.
The first rule of tinkering with anything is don't lose any of the parts. Maybe Palin & Mc Gramps are OK with looking their grandkids in the eye & answering the question: Why did you kill the polar bears to extinction? But I am not.
It is totally irresponsible to knowingly allow a species to be threatened/endangered/extinct.
If we spnt all the money we've put into a oil war into alternative energy souces, we'd be driving solar/compressed air/and electric cars, or some such combination.
All the technology exists, but it's not been supported by the government who are personally profiting.
Wake Up America!
fran--hate to break it to you, but polar bears are not becoming extinct. There are MORE polar bears up there than there were years ago. Plus, McCain and Palin will not "let the polar bears become extinct", if what you mean is "indirectly kill the polar bears single-handedly by not passing some legislation". You know, there was a big Medieval warming period, and they didn't have cars or oil companies, so just blaming people doesn't make much sense.
Commenting by HaloScan
