Home › Opinion › Opinion
Unraveling myths about ANWR drilling: It just won't work
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionI paid $85 for gas recently, and though my neighbor across the island pumped nearly double that into her Suburban, it still hurt.
To ease the pain, I punched up Hannity and Hewitt on the radio and both men were demanding — as Rep. Elton Gallegly has in The Star — that we solve our problem by drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
This is controversial, especially concerning the ecologically sensitive Area 1002. It's ironic, too, since conservatives routinely promote "the market" as the be-all, end-all for social problems, yet, here they're demanding government intervention in a market just because they don't like the way it works these days.
But since I'm all for solving our gasoline problem, I looked into ANWR, reading nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reports and the official 2007 assessment produced by the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy at the specific request of Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska.
Turns out ANWR's a bit of a myth.
The first myth about ANWR is that we can solve today's oil problem by drilling there.
But the government says that, even under best-case scenarios, it would take 10 years to start production and the average net drop in price would be about 86 cents per barrel — 0.6 percent.
The second myth about ANWR is that drilling there would provide us with "energy independence."
But the government's most optimistic estimate is that peak ANWR production would be less than 1 percent of total world oil output — about 750,000 barrels per day in a country that consumes 19 million barrels per day.
In fact, the government admits that foreign-oil dependence would decrease only slightly, between the years 2022 and 2026, and would then return to pre-ANWR levels.
The third myth about ANWR is that drilling would produce a "supply effect" on gasoline prices. In that Economics 101 formulation, as oil supply increases, gasoline prices will drop.
But the government throws cold water on that myth, too, because "OPEC and other producers may cut output to offset the supply effect." In other words, OPEC won't sit still as we force price reductions — they'll match our production increases with production decreases to keep supply steady and prices high.
The fourth myth about ANWR is that we "know" there's an awful lot of oil just waiting to be pumped there.
But the government admits that "there is much uncertainty" about ANWR and "little direct knowledge" about the location of oil, how easily it can be recovered, the size of the fields and the quality of oil in them. What we "know" is little more than a guess, based upon some hypothetical, exploratory models.
The fifth myth about ANWR is that so-called "limited-footprint" technologies would minimize environmental harm.
But the government admits limited-footprint technology probably won't work and "full development of the 1002 area" would require infrastructure throughout the area.
And the government openly acknowledges the threat to what it calls "the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife," "the center of wildlife activity," and the only federal land that "protects, in an undisturbed condition, a complete spectrum of the arctic ecosystem in North America."
At the end of the day, ANWR simply doesn't live up to the mythology. It certainly doesn't seem worth the cost. So it seems the only real relief will come from the dreaded "nanny state" remedies — higher corporate average fuel efficiency standards, smaller cars, fuel conservation and slower driving speeds.
Under its own best-case scenario, the government admits that drilling in ANWR would produce a pitifully tiny effect on foreign-oil dependency — four short years of relief at most — and a trivial effect on gas prices.
And even then, it'd be 10 years before that Suburban and I felt a penny's worth of relief at the gas pump.
— Russell A. Burgos of Thousand Oaks teaches global studies at UCLA.
Posted by mikeb6804 on June 16, 2008 at 12:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Burgos --- how long have they been arguing over drilling for oil in ANWR? Over 25 years? If it's that insignificant, then let's concentrate on drilling off our coasts or in fields where we already know there is oil. Let's also get on with using more nuclear power. One point you make sort of opened my eyes --- that was if we increase our supply by a certain amount, OPEC will just cut production to offset any gains we might have made. It should be obvious that unless we develop significant amounts of fuel and power sources, we will continue to be held over a barrel by OPEC. And don't forget the upcoming competition for whatever fuel they are producing.
Posted by nannyfo1 on June 16, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting that the left would suddenly trust our current government when a report is published that they agree with.
J-Dub, way to start off the week strong. Even though your post still has no substance you at least try to throw in some numbers as to give the appearance of facts. I'll drink some kool-aid to that.
Posted by wallace on June 16, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Burgos starts his piece with a couple of myths: "It's ironic, too, since conservatives routinely promote "the market" as the be-all, end-all for social problems, yet, here they're demanding government intervention in a market just because they don't like the way it works these days."
First, Burgos cannot name a single conservative anywhere in the world that says the market is the answer to all problems, let alone all social problems. (What oil has to do with "social problems" he doesn't say)
Second, allowing oil production in ANWR would not constitute government intervention, it would mean an end to government intervention, an end to the federal ban on drilling.
"The second myth about ANWR is that drilling there would provide us with "energy independence.""
Again, who said that? Burgos seems to have simply made up a list of straw men and cobbled them together into this article.
Posted by mikeb6804 on June 16, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jw--my goodness, you just knocked yourself out today!
Everybody else -- you'll have to give j-dub some slack. I'm sure he is posting to the full extent of his limited intelligence.
Posted by mikeb6804 on June 16, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jw--mine does better than that. Why don't you go back to your tree and quit wasting my pixels?
Uh Duh LOL!
Posted by cslaurie on June 16, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Obviously JW doesn't work so he has plenty of time on his hands. But when you do venture out of your yurt I bet you are not riding a bicycle. So if you are driving you are a fan of oil.
Posted by nannyfo1 on June 16, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
J-Dub, I will spell this as it sounds so you can read it ~ play-jor-is-um. That is when you copy a text from a web site, say
http://www.bilerico.com/2006/03/what_...
and then play it off like it was your own. You liberals are so silly.
Posted by cassandra on June 16, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good editorial.
Posted by hemlock1262 on June 16, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Apparently Wallace doesn't listen to Larry Elder on KABC. Because Larry Elder ALWAYS says that the market is the cure.
Let's see, here on Jewish World Daily for January 17, 2008, Elder wrote that "Republicans believe that those who cannot help themselves can and will be helped out by other individuals — not government." In other words, the market, not government, is the be-all, end-all to social problems.
Apparently Wallace doesn't listen to Sean Hannity. Must be a smart man. Because Hannity ALWAYS says ANWR oil is the key to 'energy independence."
But to help Wallace out, here's John Boehner -- pretty much what you'd consider a "conservative" -- on June 12, 2008:
"Bring[ing] more American-made energy to our market [will] show the rest of the world that we're finally serious about achieving the goal of having energy independence here in America." And what is Boehner's plan for that?
Surprise, surprise, surprise, Gomer! Drill in ANWR.
Posted by del on June 16, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A good bit of clarity in this article. There is no doubt we will never achieve 'oil independence' as long as we 'depend' on using so much. We must purge from our societal psyche the notion of 'one person, one vehicle'.
Of course there any number of ‘lifestyle changes’ we must also make as we move ever faster to over-populating and depleting the resources of this old world.
“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact.”
“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”
Charles Darwin
Posted by Jacksprat on June 16, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What is the big deal, the oil produced in from the ANWRwill not come to the United States, just like th eoil rfor alaska now does not come her. the Refineries in this country can not handle that oil. Oil flows on a globe market, the price is not controled by the people drilling for it but by the market and those bidding on in in the futures market. They work to drive the price up so they can make more money, if the price of oil were to drop today, a lot of the traders would be hurting bad since they bid for the oil at a high price and now they will have to sell it at a loss. The traders are the ones controling the price of oil, corn and a bunch of things. Until something is done to put some controls on the future market no matter how much you drill the price of oil will not come down.
Posted by marketrealist on June 16, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The tragic truth is that the experts have been telling us that we are reaching a point where global oil supply cannot match demand and the problem will only get worse. The global oil production rate has stalled at about 86 million barrels per day for the last 3 years. Now what? ANWR is largely irrelevant - drill, don't drill, it just does not matter. ANWR cannot get us out of the pickle. Its too small and our demand for oil is too high. It will also take many years before oil from ANWR flows to the lower 48. The US peaked in oil production in 1970 folks and for the last 38 years, the only thing that has happened is that our energy imports have grown to the tune of about $320 billion per year. Globally, 54 out of 65 oil exporting countries have hit their peak production and are on the downward slope. Countries with great technology and political stability such as Norway have production rates that are declining at about 4%
Wake up folks. Elton Gallegly is in dreamland. He votes against fuel efficiency standards or any move to re-organize our society away from oil. Our fuel economy standards are the lowest in the developed world and even lower than China. Yes, our car fleet does not meet their fuel economy sandards. We need to transform society way from its dependence on oil quickly. Whatever oil we have should be used for the chemical industry - making things, not burning it in our cars. Please google "peak oil". Things got to change, and change soon. We are on a collision course with reality - and reality will win.
Posted by cassandra on June 16, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Whoa! Marketrealist actually knows what he's talking about. How unusual with this group of posters!
Del speaks wisdom as well
Of the wrongfully rightists, only Nanny ever has recourse to fact or logic. And he's usually wrong, of course. But at least he's not stupid. What a crew.
Posted by marketrealist on June 16, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey guys/gals - Any chance to talk about PEAK OIL?
"The tragic truth is that the experts have been telling us that we are reaching a point where global oil supply cannot match demand and the problem will only get worse. The global oil production rate has stalled at about 86 million barrels per day for the last 3 years. Now what? ANWR is largely irrelevant - drill, don't drill, it just does not matter. ANWR cannot get us out of the pickle. Its too small and our demand for oil is too high. It will also take many years before oil from ANWR flows to the lower 48. The US peaked in oil production in 1970 folks and for the last 38 years, the only thing that has happened is that our energy imports have grown to the tune of about $320 billion per year. Globally, 54 out of 65 oil exporting countries have hit their peak production and are on the downward slope. Countries with great technology and political stability such as Norway have production rates that are declining at about 4%
Wake up folks. Elton Gallegly is in dreamland. He votes against fuel efficiency standards or any move to re-organize our society away from oil. Our fuel economy standards are the lowest in the developed world and even lower than China. Yes, our car fleet does not meet their fuel economy sandards. We need to transform society way from its dependence on oil quickly. Whatever oil we have should be used for the chemical industry - making things, not burning it in our cars. Please google "peak oil". Things got to change, and change soon. We are on a collision course with reality - and reality will win."
Posted by terryt6666 on June 16, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right now we can't afford Environmental Nazism and we must look at all means to getting us out of the mess we are now in. Gas prices doesn't just effect driving but also every other aspect of living in America. More importantly than gas prices is how it effects everything else we have including the price of food and clothing, medicines, services etc. Environmental Nazism won't let us drill off our coast or anywhere else because oilwells don't "LOOK PRETTY" and we must never spoil our view even if it were proved that the platforms act as a reef and attract wildlife rather than scare it away.Yes, we can not relie totally on oil but we must use what is now available until we can come up with alternate means which won't happen today or tomorrow.
Posted by BeaHappi on June 16, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Geez people, get a room!
Posted by BeaHappi on June 16, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.prattsinn.com/grease_car.html
My neighbor's car has been running on a systems like this system for 4+ years. He installed it himself in his garage and picks up used oil from local restaurants.
There are alternative solutions available. Technology does exist for this and other options. It's all about making money off of the "alternatives."
Posted by cassandra on June 16, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for trying again, marketrealist.
Bea, there is not enough "yellow grease" (used cooking oil), even with all the McDonalds and Jack-in-the boxes in America to make a dent in the demand. And it doesn't help most Americans who don't have diesel engines, unlike Europeans who often do.
FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO MARKETREALIST. HE IS TELLING IT LIKE IT IS. HE HAS THE FACTS. HE CAN PROBABLY GIVE YOU THE REFERENCES.
ACTUALLY, SO CAN I--Start with Heinberg's "The Party's Over," or just google Richard Heinberg, then move on to the"Hirsch Report" probably archived with the Department of Energy site, try blog "Running on Empty" Or just follow marketrealist's suggestion to google "Peak Oil."
We are there; we are not prepared; it will be bad.
Radical conservation is the first step.
Terry, your information is scattered and cherry picked. Screwing over the environment won't solve the oil problem and will give us a host of others in its place.
Neither was invading Iraq to control its oil. Short term, short sighted,and really expensive.
Posted by nannyfo1 on June 16, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Alright J-dub, you forced my hand.
1. Jesus does love you but does not condone sinful behavior including any form of sex outside a married man and woman.
2. Saddam was never a good guy, but we do use bad guys in the international community when it suits our interests.
3. Trade with China and Vietnam has been established by both parties. The trade embargo with Cuba was established by Kennedy, a Democratic president.
4. We should get out of the UN because nobody enforces the resolutions.
5. A woman can absolutely be trusted with decisions effecting her body, so long as that decision does not kill another body. (interesting that in order to be a democrat you have to think it's ok to kill an unborn child, but it is child abuse to spank them after they are born)
That's all I have time for J-dub, I'll refute some more of your nonsense later.
Posted by BeaHappi on June 16, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cassandra - oh I know that the "yellow grease" solution will not work for everyone. But heck, if I had a diesel car I would absolutely give it a go.
"Radical conservation is the first step."
I'd like to add...by a HUGE percentage of the population.
How will this be achieved? Better yet, is this achievable?
Posted by marketrealist on June 16, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
terry6666, Name calling does not help. I thought I answered your question but if not, let me quote from the original article:
"But the government says that, even under best-case scenarios, it (ANWR) would take 10 years to start production and the average net drop in price would be about 86 cents per barrel — 0.6 percent."
There is no oil field in the US that can get us out of this predicament. We can't drill ourselves out of this problem. I repeat, oil supplies cannot match a growing demand. Or in other words, we discover about 1 barrel of oil each year for every 3 barrels we use. We are dipping into global reserves. Please look at the curve of growing oil demand versus shrinking supply. We are at the point where countries will be bidding up the price of oil as supplies cannot match demand. In China and India, we have less than 20 cars per 1000 drivers. Here in the US, we have 1200 cars per driver. Yes, there are more cars than drivers. And we use 25% of the world's oil even though we have 5% of the population. People, this is not going to go on forever. Oil prices will keep rising until we find a viable alternative. With our cities designed for the car, how will we afford to get to our work 50 miles away?
Hello.... anyone out there?
Posted by BeaHappi on June 16, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
marketrealist...I hear you. My boss and I were talking about getting our company on-board with telecommuting and figured out that it costs me about $15/day just to drive to work. I have a 60-mile RT commute if I go straight to and from work.
So taking weekends and vacation days out of the picture my fuel costs for work are about $3,600 per year...at current gas costs.
You are so right with your statement that our cities are designed for the car. We traveled to Europe 10 years ago and rented a car for a month. My husband and I were blown away by the gas prices there at that time - about $5 - $6 per gallon...in 1998!
But you know what? There weren't many huge cars on the road and there were TONS of public transportation options. Options that were actually easy to navigate and did require a multitude of transfers, etc.
It's ironic to me that the "freedom" we are provided by having our own cars available to us at all times has made us slaves to the oil industry.
Posted by BeaHappi on June 16, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oops! "Did NOT" require a multitude of transfers...
Posted by del on June 16, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
History lesson:
When Herr Diesel built his first "Diesel" engine in 1892, he fueled it with vegetable oil. There is a conspiracy theory that he was 'bumped off' in 1913, by "nervous oil investors". That would seem to Rockefeller’s name all over it....
I love conspiracy theories!
Posted by BeaHappi on June 16, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
del...I love them too!
Posted by allblacks on June 16, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
J_Dubya in top form today though I am VERY disappointed not to see even a single reference to Faux News or sitting on your couch drinking beer.
I give the ace-clown a C+ for todays efforts.
Posted by BeaHappi on June 16, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right Wing "nutjob" (oh, how I've grown to HATE that term) or tree-hugging liberal...or anything in-between...we are all in this together.
It's not like the price at the gas pump differs depending on political affiliation. Nor will the supply of oil carry on for one party but not another.
To continue to lump people into two categories for the sake of these posts is just insane.
I think that there are too many free rides for people in regards to welfare and social services and that people should buck up and take care of themselves...but I also recycle and want our troops to start coming home. I favor tough penalties for criminals, especially those who commit crimes against children, but I think that marijuana should be legalized. I recognize a woman's right to have a child but think that anyone who is receiving welfare should have to partake in mandatory birth control before getting a dime.
So where do I fit in?
jw1000...please take this in the spirit in which it's intended...you start off most posts with something related to the article/topic but then quickly start calling names and dumping posters into categories. You might actually have something interesting to share but we'll never know it because you turn so many people off with your "right wing nutjob" diatribe.
Posted by nannyfo1 on June 16, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's the next one J-dub
6. The best way to support the troops is for America to not supply the enemy with a steady flow of NY Times columns articulating the evil doings of America and her soldiers.
Posted by dragstripgirl on June 16, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jw1000
I believe that you are speaking mostly of what it takes to be a conservative. There are enterprisers out there that those rules may not apply to. They are still republican.
and relevance to drilling for oil in alaska? hmmmm...
Posted by Tom_Johnston on June 16, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whoa! If we could only hook up a Stirling engine to the hot air blowing around this board...we might be getting somewhere.
I think the column and "marketrealist" are on the right track. ASWR is not relevant now, if ever it was.
Those fine arguments aside..
Does anyone really believe that ANH producer bringing oil from the Arctic will deliberately undersell everyone else?
Much of the current price spikes seem to have more to do with changes in commodity market procedures and the ability to "speculate" in what amount to "oil futures".
The environmentalists might have to embrace nuclear power. It could make a significant difference were to judiciously move forward with it. Alternatives are ok, though bio-fuels bring many problems with them, maybe more than its worth.
I think we SHOULD leave some oil in the ground..who know's what better use for it we might find in a hundred years or so?
Posted by BeaHappi on June 16, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Whoa! If we could only hook up a Stirling engine to the hot air blowing around this board...we might be getting somewhere."
Touche!
Posted by cassandra on June 16, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Arggh. The vain hopes for a techno fix . . .too little, too late. Dream on.
Posted by BeaHappi on June 16, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cassandra...so if not a techno fix, then what?
Posted by del on June 16, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bea...Physics is a big hurdle we must get over for any quick techno fix to work. There are laws that must be obeyed.
#1 law, you don't get something for nothing.
Posted by cassandra on June 16, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lowered expectations, community building, sharing locally, radical conservation, giving up our empire, getting the large picture and understanding all of us are in the same life boat and that compassion is more useful than alienation.
Quick practicals--fix our railroads for both passenger and freight, develop a tax structure to equalize what we have, decrease military spending. The military is perhaps the largest entity or close to it in consuming petroleum and tax dollars.
We need to bring our economy home to the local, where we have some say and some power. While we send profits to China or to Wal-mart's corporate offices or Exxon's, we are screwing ourselves. Buying local and eating local will help. And even with best effort to keep Ventura County, California, afloat, it will be very bad.
Veritas's heart is probably in the right place, but he doesn't know bleep. Worse, he doesn't know that he doesn't know.
There is no fix in the offing. Your neighbor found a small solution. Good for him for as long as it lasts. We need to share knowledge and you are doing that. Good for you. We need to share what we have not as a law but as a consequence of understanding our common human plight.
I have friends building gardens for people with land so that they can eat. Some of us are organizing organic gardens to feed ourselves and our neighbors without fossil fuel use. We've been at it a while because we got our information from sources not contaminated by corporate interests. We've expected collapse for a long time.
Posted by marketrealist on June 16, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The good news is that it can be done. Many countries live on a fraction of the energy per capita we do. If we look at the energy contents of everything we do, the transformations will be pretty dramatic. From urban planning to transportation to consumerism, we will need a dose of reality.
Posted by BeaHappi on June 16, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"...getting the large picture and understanding all of us are in the same life boat and that compassion is more useful than alienation."
"We need to share what we have not as a law but as a consequence of understanding our common human plight."
I agree, I totally agree.
Veritas - I think that you and I share the same optimism. If I didn't have hope and a belief that we can overcome our troubles, I don't know that I'd get out of bed every morning.
We need to make changes; if for nothing else...who in their right mind is content paying these outrageous gas prices?
But it's much more than that and I definitely have learned some new things today and have a different take on others.
Posted by cassandra on June 16, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I put down others for substituting optimism for reality, for not "getting it." Our sacred life style is no longer viable and you are not ready to face that. That is what is so annoying with trying to talk with people like you. You don't know, but you hope. Just love that faith based economics.
I don't favor return to agrarianism but see that this is where we are going of necessity. And it has some benefits. I definitely favor a return to community, which you and your ilk will probably denounce as socialism.
Happy talk is no longer affordable. Bea's neighbor has tools to survive. Most Americans don't.
Today, hope is the enemy of truth. We can all agree to work together but you are advocating the wrong directions and not understanding first, we must reduce consumption/energy use. First we must do this.
It will constrict the economy. Our sacred economy. You will go ballistic. It will not be pretty.
You cornucopians are the lemmings of our time and you haven't a clue. Read something. Learn something. Start with Heinberg. He's nice.
By the way, among people who are actually informed, I'm considered an optimist.
Posted by BeaHappi on June 16, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's possible to be optimistic, to have hope, to make changes, to learn to sustain ourselves, to encourage and learn about new technology, to cut back, to conserve, to find alternative transportation...and to toss in some "happy talk" along the way, isn't it?
Here's the deal for me - I am optimistic but realistic. I am not content paying what we pay for gas but more than that, I'm not content being so dependent on oil. I am interested in learning more and in doing what I can to make a difference.
I'm not a bad or stupid person because I'm not growing my own food and biking to work. I suppose I'm not among the "people who are informed" which hopefully doesn't mean that it's too late for me and my family.
Admittedly I don't know all that there is to know about the world's oil supply, alternative fuel sources, new technology, organic gardening, and community sustainability. But at least I'm willing to put my thoughts out there and I try to encourage a thread where I can actually learn something and hopefully share another point of view.
I do this, on these subjects, knowing that there are the "well-informed people" who will likely roll their eyes at my comments and wonder how in the hell I've made it so long in this world with my limited knowledge and optimism.
The truth of the matter is that none of us know how much time we have left on this earth and even someone who runs a community garden could get hit by a hybrid SUV and die.
We all just have to continue to expand our knowledge and do the best that we can in our world.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on June 16, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"RWHITE"...what can I say about comments like yours that Bugs Bunny didn't put better: "What a maroon!"
That's all folks!
Posted by cassandra on June 16, 2008 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You are so funny, RWhite! Are you trying to be?
It's going to be a rough go, Bea. Do what you can. I have the time and the space to grow some food and the blessings of informed and well intentioned friends to guide me. Not everyone does.
And you're right about not knowing and having only now for sure. To my less optimistic friends, I keep quoting Lao Tzu--
"Always we hope someone else has the answer.
Some other place will be better,
Some other time it will turn out.
This is it.
No one else has the answer.
No other place will be better.
And it has already turned out."
Still, you might try Heinberg. He's nice, really. And having given up on warning us about peak oil, which is already here, he seems turned to what to do about alleviating the dire consequences. Check out permaculture if you have the chance.
Posted by BeaHappi on June 16, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay Cassandra...I'm going to check out your friend Heinberg.
Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes
Posted by Tom_Johnston on June 16, 2008 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MAROON!
Posted by Face on June 16, 2008 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They said the same thing about the Alaskan Pipeline.
Posted by mtlmolina on June 16, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Great discussion by everyone. It's too bad the author of this article seems to be stretching to try to make his point. Most commentators are listing ANWR as just one option rather than the only option. No one thing is going to get us out of this situation.
Yes, we need to reduce our oil consumption but gas is not the only thing made from oil so even if we cut our gas consumption, we still need to drill for more oil here and get more domestic refineries online so we can become self-sufficient.
Has anyone heard of the oil that's available in the Rockies? I forget which channel it was on but they called it shale oil and estimated that there is more oil in the Rockies than in Saudi Arabia. There were many other options but that was the most interesting one I heard.
Another thing, until McCain called for a moratorium on the ban of new drilling in the oceans, I wasn't aware there was one. The more I learn of what we can do to fix the oil shortage and lower the gas prices, the more I am convinced that we brought this on ourselves.
1. The law that was changed around 1990(?) that basically deregulated the speculators who have driven the price way above simple supply and demand prices
2. Cutting our refineries in half
3. Banning drilling in oil rich places
Since CA has a $15 billion deficit, I am all for drilling off our oil rich coast with the state getting a cut of the royalties.
Posted by mtlmolina on June 16, 2008 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Great discussion by everyone. It's too bad the author of this article seems to be stretching to try to make his point. Most commentators are listing ANWR as just one option rather than the only option. No one thing is going to get us out of this situation.
Yes, we need to reduce our oil consumption but gas is not the only thing made from oil so even if we cut our gas consumption, we still need to drill for more oil here and get more domestic refineries online so we can become self-sufficient.
Has anyone heard of the oil that's available in the Rockies? I forget which channel it was on but they called it shale oil and estimated that there is more oil in the Rockies than in Saudi Arabia. There were many other options but that was the most interesting one I heard.
Another thing, until McCain called for a moratorium on the ban of new drilling in the oceans, I wasn't aware there was one. The more I learn of what we can do to fix the oil shortage and lower the gas prices, the more I am convinced that we brought this on ourselves.
1. The law that was changed around 1990(?) that basically deregulated the speculators who have driven the price way above simple supply and demand prices
2. Cutting our refineries in half
3. Banning drilling in oil rich places
Since CA has a $15 billion deficit, I am all for drilling off our oil rich coast with the state getting a cut of the royalties.
Posted by marketrealist on June 16, 2008 at 11:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Canadian Tar Sands and Colorado Shale may start becoming more feasible. The problem is that there is a tremendous energy cost to retrieve this stuff. Some say it may take as much energy to extract this material as there is energy in the hydrocarbon retrieved. Canada is thinking about a nuclear plant dedicated to generate the energy to extract the hydrocarbon. All this is pretty crazy stuff. The bottom line is that we can't afford to move a 200 lbs person with a 4000 lbs vehicle for much longer. And we certainly can't house 6.5 billion people in US style houses with 2000+ sq ft. We're in for a readjustment. The challenge is to prepare people for the transition so that we can internalize the changes and accept a new paradigm without trying to go to war for the limited resources available. That would be the worst thing we could do because in the end, we'd be worse off than if we planned and implemented the required changes. Spread the word my friends, we can make this transition.
Posted by rrlee on June 17, 2008 at 6:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JW1000, the reason why none of us "right wingers" don't refute the comments that you yourself did not have the ability to come up with is because one cannot teach, inform, convince or argue with the braindead.....
Posted by gramagracie on June 17, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We have but one point to make to the big oil companies in Saudi, Mexico, Canada, China ...we are going to become independant of you AGAIN...forget the ecology lobbists..and let's think for ourselves. I can bet that once the oil companies that sell us their oil realize we plan to drill and refine we may see the prices drop. If not, we should become independant, drill and refine our own resources here. China and Cuba are drilling off the Gulf of Mexico, yet ecology lobbists keep getting their attorneys to ban our own drilling. By the way, both democrats and repulicans have been on the ban wagon to cap the drilling. Anwar has billions of oil. The Alaskan Governor has filed a lawsuit against the Feds to allow her to drill in Anwar...but the poor caribou, polar bears , little fishies, whatever will be hurt. What about us? Pretty soon we are going to be extinct.
Posted by live_for_purpose on June 18, 2008 at 5:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, when the tree huggers, the ocean lovers, and the caribou kissers can calm down, perhaps the rest of us can explore and drill for more oil just the Chinese have been doing--in the Atlantic Ocean--not too far from Florida! Our solutions to future energy supplies must be multi-faceted: conservation, increased oil exploration and drilling, nuclear power, better solar technology, improved public transportation offerings, hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid vehicles, etc.
Getting about a 4% boost in oil supplies from ANWR is very significant. If your employer offered you a 4% raise in these economically difficult times, would you not think that it is significant? Russell Burgos probably thinks we went to Iraq to "steal" their oil. Obviously that is not true or our oil prices would be quite low. He also should realize that Congress has been controlled by Democrats ever since the 2006 election and they have done nothing positive on energy policy. Congress has a much lower approval rating than Bush. Elections are coming. The folks (about 468 out of 535 of them) in Congress are up for re-election. It's time this do-nothing Congress did something--anything--to allow Americans a chance at solving our energy problems.
Posted by live_for_purpose on June 18, 2008 at 5:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, corn hit $8+ per bushel yesterday. Food prices and ethanol prices will soar. Corn was only about $2 per bushel just 2 or 3 years ago. Ethanol may be part of the answer, but it may be better to make it out of sugar cane and also import it from Brazil and other places.
Energy policy needs to have multiple facets to it. Just like a cop carries a pistol, a back-up pistol, a Taser, mace, a nightstick, etc. and not just one weapon to use against criminals, so we need to have multiple weapons in our arsenal to help ensure our energy security.
Posted by live_for_purpose on June 18, 2008 at 6:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In response to post #9 by jw1000 (Nice that you have the same initial as our president!) in his rant on being a Republican:
1. Jesus loves homosexuals. He hates sin. He loves Hillary too. Isn't God amazing?:)
2. Saddam was a bad guy whenever William Jefferson Clinton needed a "Wag the Dog" way to divert attention from his Monica troubles. However, Bill couldn't muster the intelligence or guts to consider Osama a bad guy and have him arrested when he was at an airport and we got a call to see if we wanted him detained. Bill and Co. said "No."
3. We have the same Cuba policy that we have had under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. Do you understand that?
4. I don't think Kennedy and Johnson got any resolution from the U.N. before they escalated Vietnam. Did Carter get approval when he botched that rescue attempt of the hostages in Iran so he might have a slim hope of getting re-elcted?
5. A pregnant woman is carrying the body of ANOTHER human being. That innocent life has rights. She has the choice to not become pregnant. Multi-national corporations deal with a multitude of regulations.
6. Do you really think we should have and use a military, jw?
7. It is illegal for underage students to be having sex with each other. Teachers are mandatory reporters of this information. Do you expect schools to aid and bet illegal activity?
8. They expect our money and protection and then belittle us.
9. If you think Iraq has such good medical care, I suggest you go and live there or at least see a doctor over there. If you think HMOs and insurance companies are hard to deal with, think about what it would be like to deal with the federal government on health care. Just think "IRS."
Posted by live_for_purpose on June 18, 2008 at 6:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
my previous post in response to jw's post continued.....
10. We should have freedom of speech and consider different points of view, but not when it comes from a Christian view versus from a "theory" from that was conjured up in the mid-19th century.
11. Clinton, who committed perjury by lying under oath and obstructed justice, was impeached but not convicted because his own party did not have the moral fortitude to encourage him to resign or to convict him in the Senate. Nixon did the honorable thing by resigning and saving the country the ordeal of impeachment because his own party had the conviction to turn on him so he knew he was toast before it ever went as far as impeachment.
12. The constitution should be followed. It may be changed from time to time, especially when 4 judges try to overturn the will of 60+% of the electorate.
13. George W (there's one of jw's initials again!) Bush paid a fine for driving while intoxicated and therefore paid his debt to society. Ted Kennedy was responsible for Mary Jo Kopeckne's death at Chappaquiddick (kinda spelled like Chappaqua--hmmm!) and was never even charged with DWI, careless driving, leaving the scene of an accident, or manslaughter. Now whose driving record should we be concerned with?
14. I don't think the talk show host in question hurt anyone other than himself. He did not steal to gets his drugs. He simply took too much of a LEGAL drug. He was not driving and crashed into a barrier near the U.S. Capitol as did the Kennedy nephew a few years ago after being on Ambien or something like that. He was not taking ILLEGAL drugs.
15. Wow, I'm sure glad Clinton never claimed "executive privilege!"
16. What John McCain endured for his country in the 1960s is of national interest. And the kind of hate-filled environment in Barack Obama's church in the past 2 decades+ is on our nation's radar screen as well.
17. Again, he took responsibility for his actions, unlike Ted Kennedy at Chappaquiddick. And besides, if thats what the errant hunter does to his friends, just think what he would do to his enemies the terrorists!
18. Driving a gas guzzling Chevy Tahoe sporting an "Obama '08" bumper sticker like my co-worker at my job does. Or flying in a private plane while preaching to us about mass transit like Robert Kennedy, Jr. does.
And those are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the reasons why I am planning on voting Republican this fall.
Posted by bbbdugout on June 19, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
okay folks enough with the drill here and drill there - if you think I feel sorry for all of you driving around in those big SUV and Trucks - I don't - I don't feel sorry for those of you who made bad loan decisions on your homes either - YOU HAD CHOICES - you made bad ones because of YOUR greed and desire and wants - well now you got what you wanted - live with it - drilling for oil everywhere and destroying more of the earth is simply not the answer - don't get caught up on it - you were lead down the path by the auto manufacturers and the oil industry - do you think they care about your concerns now - think not - so figure it out - they DO NOT CARE - it's the all mighty dollar that they listen to and nothing else - our real problem is we (the American CONSUMER) has simply got to stop consuming and being drawn into that plan...
Posted by Face on June 19, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Drill here and drill now. Stop supporting evil Mohammedans with our money. Whether it is alternative fuels, enhanced public transportation, or drilling more oil domestically, they all take time. To not do any one of those things makes us all more dependent on foreign oil. Anyone who tells you not to do any of those three necessary things is driving with Ahmadinejad. I do not hate or blame my fellow man like the enemy does, we must do what is necessary as a nation and state. Those who would call you fat lazy pigs are living in Fantasyland and are the enemy of the people.
Posted by live_for_purpose on June 19, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good points, Face. Many liberals--like Barack Hussein Obama want oil and gas prices to be higher. This is because they want to try and force you into a bus that will take you 2 hours to do a 15 minute trip or into a subcompact which does not fit your family of 5, especially when Dad is 6'3", 275 lbs.
Then they will continue to live their life with all their money (like Robert Kennedy Jr. flying around in private jets while preaching to us about global warming and mass transit and conservation) while the masses suffer. Hypocrites! They want control over your life and mine. They want to have the power of control and ration and supply and price. They are more fascist than anybody you have ever seen.
Part of the answer is to drill off Florida, the rest of the Gulf of Mexico, California, and anywhere else we want to! Brazil is drilling just off our shores, China is doing it, WHY NOY US?????? Because of tree and turtle-hugging liberals who want you to ride a bike to work and want us not to burn fossil fuels, that's why.
I say drill here, drill there, drill everywhere. Here a drill, there a drill, everywhere a drill, drill. Uncle Sam had a drill, e-i-e-i-oh! Now let's go use that drill, ok?
Vote Obama and vote for $8/gallon gas! He wants gas to be high. Just the other day he said the only thing wrong with the gas price was that it had gone up too FAST--not that it was too high, just that it went up just a little bit too fast for him. Well go ahead and vote for him and suffer the consequences, you boneheads!
Posted by SocietyDweller on July 1, 2008 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This guy is an idiot. You have to start somewhere and you have to start now. If Bill Clinton didn't veto the legislation that Republicans passed when ANWR was created, we would be getting oil from there right now and gas would be at $2.50 a gallon.
Like hig gas prices, then thank a democrat and the writer of this propaganda.
Posted by socal2310 on July 1, 2008 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Come on people, Republicans don't believe in a free market, they exist to enforce policies that prove to socialists that free markets don't work. The system we have in this country is properly known as mercantilism. Such an economy is dominated not by market entrepreneurs but political entrepreneurs: those who eschew innovation, preferring regulatory protection from competition.
Ryan
Posted by Drill_ANWR on December 9, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wrong. Just plain wrong. Sure it's one percent. But remember that teeny bit? The world? Russel, I may be wrong, but actually if we drill in ANWR, we could be producing about 1.5 million barrels of oil a day. That is enough to cover the oil imports from Saudi Arabia who exports about 17% of our oil for 30 years! Also, I have to admit it would take time to eventually get up to that drilling capacity. Predictions say that it could take up to 5-10 years. However, if only Bill Clinton had not vetoed a bill that would have allowed drilling in ANWR, we would be producing that much right now. And the real argument is not that it would lower prices, rather it would decrease OUR dependency. Why mention the world when we're talking about drilling HERE, in the USA. Anyways, oil prices went up because of oil speculators, not the fact that the oil companies were raking in billions of dollars. Perhaps perhaps they were making a little too much money, but the effect of oil prices is based on a worldwide basis, not on about 5 oil companies, and after all, what are companies made for? To make money. And finally, it would last us about 4 years, but...why would we depend on ANWR alone. ANWR is only to help us to get going and keep us running, not sustain us for an unlimited period of time. Hopefully I got this all right, I'm creating a persuasive presentation for my 9th grade honors class. Hey, if you have comments, email me at matthew.xing@yahoo.com!
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 59 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.