Why not?...less foreign dependence, lower prices..

^ farmer's mentality.

edit: less foreign dependence means everything would be expensive. everyone will be poor.

 

I forgot the exact figure, but ANWAR would result in the annual savings of something like a fraction of a penny to the American consumer. Or maybe it was 50 cents, I forget.

WHOOP

EEE

 

Drilling in ANWR would be a good strategic move. It would do little for prices. The only thing that will help us is if we stop debasing the dollar.

 

when we start running out of oil, lets talk. supply to me isn't the problem as much as demand. we can't get it out fast enough, but its not a supply issue because the oil is there.

 

It is a supply issue to the extent that there have been a few places other than the middle east where they have recently found large supplies of oil. The reason this is a supply issue is that it is expensive and laborious to get to that oil. Until they are able to do so, it doesn't really count.

 

short term non-solution with long-term environmental impact to the region. pass.

 

Short term non-solution with relatively minor long-term environmental impact to the region.

At least keep the debate honest.

 

Do research on the (Synthetic Fuels Corporation). Drilling in Anwar is another band-aid. Take the money we use for the Iraq war and invest in something like what we were heading to in the early 80's. We just need better oversight and more checks and balances for this to work:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v129/ai_4094824/print

J. Raloff
Congress kills the U.S. Synfuels Corp.

President Reagan's recent signing of a bill abolishing the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corp. (SFC) gives the agency 120 days to pack up its files, to lay off its 130 employees and to transfer the administration of its five financial awards to the Department of the Treasury. By May the Synfuels Corp. will be history.

Launched by President Carter with fanfare in 1980, SFC's mission was to shepherd in a new industry -- one that would tap unconventional resources like coal, tar sands, oil shale and heavy crude to meet future U.S. oil and natural gas needs.

As a sign of its commitment to this mission, Congress had empowered the new investment bank to spend up to $88 billion. While the price tag was high, public sentiment in the wake of Arab-oil embargoes suggested that the independence from foreign oil supplies that it promised was worth every penny.

But dissatisfaction with SFC developed quickly. The Reagan administration complained that the new agency's charter -- providing subsidies to private industry for commercial-scale projects-ran counter to free-market principles. Congressional supporters of the agency in turn challenged the good faith of officers President Reagan nominated to run the bank. (For example, prior to chairing the agency, Edward Noble is widely reorted to have advised President Reagan to abolish the agency.)

Before long, complaints developed over SFC's sluggish activity. The agency had initially been expected to approve up to $20 billion in financial backing of loans and product prices to reach its first milestone: the production of 500,000 barrels of crude-oil equivalent daily by 1987. As of July 1985, however, SFC had committed only $1.2 billion toward three projects--and they would yield less than 2 percent of that 1987 production target Congress had set. Then there were scandals, charges of lavish spending and mismanagement by SFC officials (SN: 8/4/84, p. 74).

In retrospect, it's no surprise SFC died, says Michael Koleda, president of the Washington, D.C.-based trade association, Council on Synthetic Fuels. The Synfuels Corp. was envisioned as a program on the scale of the Manhattan Project. But to succeed, he says, a program this massive and coordinated would have needed the active support of the President, the energy industry and the Congress. In fact, President Reagan's support for the program "was always weak at best," he says, and the unlikely prospect that industry would reap any immediate financial benefits garnered it only lukewarm support there. It was in the Congress that SFC's support was initially strongest. And there dissatisfaction has been growing steadily, Koleda observes -- "fueled originally by mismanagement issues, and increasingly by falling oil prices."

Despite SFC's checkered record, Koleda believes on [synfuels development] activities within the private sector." How much it will slow investments in these technologies remains to be seen, he says, but the measure has certainly sent a chill through the energy production community.

Several members of that community were frozen by the move, which took place Dec. 19. Gilbert Shale Oil Co., based in Omaha, Neb., and Geokinetics, based in Salt Lake City, were to have been partners in the commercial-scale Seep Ridge Oil Shale Project. While small-scale tests of the technology it would employ indicated promise, says Kenneth Stinson, president of Gilbert Shale Oil, SFC support was essential for its commercial-scale development. And after three years of reviewing the request, SFC had agreed to provide that support.

Signing of the contracts, postponed in Sept., was rescheduled for SFC's Dec. 17 board meeting. "But the meeting was called off in light of what was going on on Capitol Hill," explains SFC spokesperson Karen Hutchison. Before it could be rescheduled, the agency was dead.

 

The effects of drilling on tundra are considerably more severe than most environments. The tundra ecosystem is about as delicate an ecology as you can find on land.

 

I think its a joke that we're not exploring ANWR or off the coast of Florida, CA, etc.

I think its funny how some people will say that oil/gas in ANWR would have minimal impact on pricing yet complain that filling the strategic oil reserve is impacting prices (or that oil is to expensive to be filling - except oil keeps going up so it seems like we got a "bargain").

I guess 10 billion barrels of oil (plus nat gas) at $100..or $1 trillion dollars really wouldn't impact prices much....I mean its $1 trillion dollars worth of oil..but I guess its better we drill later than sooner...I mean last year it was only worth $600 billion, so guess we've made $400 billion.....

Btw, at these prices, technologies to recover reserves becomes even more feasible, so the 10 billion barrels is likely to be much higher (the USGS survey showed the impact of going from $20 to $40, so going to $100 would have some impact too).

 

Agreed, but it would only require a very small footprint. I know that workers in Louisiana might yell, but for environmental protection purposes, I'd trade tundra for wetlands so fast your head would spin.

 

Drilling in ANWR would do little to address the fundamental issues causing rising gas prices right now. There are a multitude of issues that are contributing to the rise in prices.

That being said, the environmental concerns about drilling in ANWR have largely been overstated from what I've read on both sides, as drilling technology has advanced tremendously. I'm fairly convinced it probably wouldnt have a huge impact on the region, but ANWR drilling cant be treated as some sort of saving grace.

Honestly, it doesnt matter either way. I suppose it would alleviate prices a little, but prices will continue to rise regardless of ANWR.

As for Florida, that's a political and environmental issue. There are environmental concerns there but there's also strong opposition from the military since they use florida coastal waters for naval testing grounds. (especially now that the US can't bomb on Vieques anymore).

 

Dubious conjecture. Ecosystem footprint is usually far more complex than people realize until 30 years after the damage is (often permanently) done.

Amen, brother. Don't get me started on our wetlands policy. It's a terminal disaster.

 

ANWR will be pumped at some time in the future, better (for big oil) if we wait for prices to hit 150+ per barrel first.