Fuel prices got you down?

[GALAZIO]

...if so, then why does the "left" block the ability to tap one of the largest oil reserves WHICH WE OWN? Pres Bush has wanted to go up to Alaska for his entire time in office and is blocked everytime by Congress. I can tell you this, in Texas, the oil rigs and wells on private land are no problem what's so ever. Run a Google search on Alaska Oil Bush and see what your President has been fighting for to help lower fuel costs and make us less dependent on foreign oil exports. FYI, These oil fields were set aside in the '80's for our needs...and the liberals still to this day think wildlife will be wiped out. If you believe this, come down to Texas and at a look. Our wildlife is more than fine and there are numerous wells on peoples land.

This is from yesterday:

Groups sue to block Alaska oil drilling plan
Reuters Thursday January 31 2008
By Chris Baltimore
WASHINGTON, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Environmental groups sued the Bush administration on Thursday to stop plans to allow oil and natural gas drilling in the icy Chukchi Sea off Alaska, which they claim will endanger polar bears.
The U.S. Interior Department plans to lease about 30 million acres of land in the Chukchi Sea -- home to about 10 percent of the world's polar bear population -- on Feb. 6.
Environmental groups including the National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice filed suit in a federal court along with Alaska native groups to stop the lease sale -- which the federal government has put on a fast track for action.
The Chukchi Sea is one of the few "frontier areas" where new oil and natural gas deposits can be found in North America, and could hold 15 billion barrels of oil, according to the Minerals Management Service, which oversees oil and gas leasing for the Interior Department.
Plaintiffs in the suit claim drilling will endanger polar bears, along with bowhead whales, gray whales, Pacific walrus, ribbon seals, threatened spectacled eiders, and other marine birds and fish.
"The only thing keeping pace with the drastic melting of the Arctic sea ice is the breakneck speed with which the Department of Interior is rushing to sell off polar bear habitat for fossil fuel development," said Brendan Cummings, oceans program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs.
A spokesman for the Minerals Management Service declined to comment.
A key decision on whether to list the big Arctic bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act is due in coming weeks from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which could coincide with the lease sale.
Earlier this month, MMS director Randall Luthi told a congressional panel that the risk to the bears from oil drilling would be negligible.
If the oil sales went through before a decision was reached on the polar bears, there would be "an additional layer of consultation" with conservation officials as oil and gas companies worked in the area, Luthi said.
World polar bear populations are currently stable, but U.S. scientists estimate that two-thirds of them could be gone by 2050 if predictions about melting sea ice hold true. Polar bears live and hunt on sea ice; when it melts, they either drown or are forced onto land, where they are inefficient hunters.
This is the first time global warming has been a factor in arguing for "threatened" status for any species in the United States, and that makes the decision more complex. (Editing by Russell Blinch and by Matthew Lewis)

[iguana1]

Galazio

1) Environmental groups are not all left, just more left.
2) All the oil in Alaska in not enough to make a serious impact on the market, nor would it come on line for several years. It is less than 1 years worth of domestic consumption. It is not a long term solution, nor would it have a serious price impact.
3) I am a bit surprised at your position given you are an outdoorsman. We can replace oil or pay more for it, but we can't replace nature.
4) Are you seriously arguing Bush supports this because he is concerned what you are paying for gas? Really? And here it was I thought it was just becuase he is pals with the whole oil industry.

OK, Im just kidding. I know it is really because the left has a massive conspiracy to make us all miserable and enviros just want to trick you out of your money and freedom.

[GALAZIO]

Tapping 2000 acres out of 30 million is worth the experiment, especially when it was proposed. Plus I see oil rigs and wells EVERY DAY, damn deer and hogs use them for shade, eagles and hawks as nesting sites...and the fish (oh the poor fish) get free structure to attract little bait fish at all those terrible oil rigs.

Do I think ONE polar bear is going to go sleepless? Not a chance.

[GALAZIO]

And there is a reason why they call it "AN OIL RESERVE", and why a pipeline was built along with numerous ports.

I SAY TAP THAT KEG!


While neither approach will give U.S. consumers complete independence, new ANWR oil exploration would provide a less costly and decidedly more effective way to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil than government regulations designed to reduce consumption. The largest North American oil discovery in decades, reserves now located beneath Alaska's arctic tundra are estimated to be large enough to provide the equivalent of 30 years of Saudi crude; a sizeable amount considering that the U.S. now imports more oil from Saudi Arabia than any other country in the world.

Drilling in ANWR would create thousands of jobs and help the U.S. economy grow. Attempts to reduce consumption with higher fuel efficiency standards would, if temporarily, raise vehicle prices, reduce vehicle safety and stifle efforts to revive an already weak U.S. economy. Even with expanded domestic oil supply, OPEC price reductions would still mean higher prices for U.S. consumers. But a more diverse oil supply would help mitigate short-term price fluctuations.

The environmental costs of opening the new Alaskan oil reserves would also be negligible. The entire ANWR reserve is composed of 19.5 million acres, roughly the size of South Carolina.

New drilling operations would require just 2,000 acres, or one hundredth of a percent of the refuge to be used for oil exploration. Work would stop during caribou calving and migration. Ice roads would be used to transport heavy equipment and machinery to the drilling site during the winter months to preserve indigenous plant life and minimize new road construction.

A recent report by the U.S. Geological Survey confirmed oil exploration in ANWR would have little, if any, negative environmental impact on the wildlife native to the Refuge.

[Glenn W]

Sitting here I keep saying to myself---"self, keep the adjectives out of this response and refrain from the editorial comments"
Ge to hell, self

Galazio, this is perhaps one of he best examples of why our current president is a short sighted economic policy idiot--- now, I feel better.

First, the part I agree with you on: Yes many "treehuggers" are as bad as the other side in providing false information and unrealistic threats to wildlife and the environment. I remember when the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) was being built in the 70's, there were the tree huggers that claimed the Moose and Caribou would not be able to get across the pipeline--- yada, yada, yada. The frigging animals live is a very rugged environment and cannot figgure out how to get across a 48" pipeline?--- yea right.

So I will give you (my opinion only) that with responsible safeguards, the Wildlife reserve can be a clean place--- sure some risks of oil spills, etc., but Bush wins this arguement.

Now, let's turn to the need for this oil, and the effect it would have on prices, national security, and long term implications on energy issues.

Please read the following unbiased study report on this subject conduted by the US Depatment of Energy--- it is very important to understand (as discussed in the report) that this report is not directed at policy matters, but simply reports the facts.
Here's the report:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/ser...af(2004)04.pdf

In the briefest of summarys, the study found that if the ANWR were open, the impact on imported oil to the US would be minimal (from 70% in 2025 with no ANWR oil to 66% with ANWR oil-- note 2025 is used because it will take several years to get oil fields up to capacity.

The impact on prices is nill. The output of this oil would be a drop in the bucket of daily world oil production. Thus supply is not increased by any meaningful amount to influence prices. Moreover, the OPEC cartel could (and Would) easily cut production to maintain prices, such that realized oil production supplies would remain unchanged for all practical purposes.

So what is realistically gained by opening the ANWR?--- nothing.

In turn, our nation has made an endowment to preserve this piece of real estate in perpetuity. This is our legacy to future generations. No different than the U.S. opening up Yellowstone Park to complete commercial developement, or allowing the contued draining of the Florida Everglades for developement, or-------

We made a promise to future generations regarding this real estate but Bush wants to break this promise with no economic gains to be realized from such industrial infiltration.

If the opening of ANWR had the possibility of changing supply or prices, at least Buash would have an arguement (for use today at the expense of tomorrow). Unfortunatly there would be no meaniful economic benifit to the United States consumers of today--- let alone tomorrow.

[GALAZIO]

...and one other thing... I have attached a few pics of the DIAMOND MINES in Alaska. I guess it's OK for this and not a 10" hole in the ground???

Besides, I use a hell of alot more oil and gas than I do diamonds.

So where are all the "Poor Moose & Caribou" people when these guys setup shop?

[GALAZIO]

Glenn

Ive read that and MANY other "reports".

I'll keep it simple, Would it lessen the dependance of middle eastern oil? YES

What % you ask? Depends on how many holes we poke and how quick we can refine it. But any amount is better than nothing. I do know economics, and you would see a dramatic price decrease from the middle east if they knew we are going to get our own juice. We have 100's of exports, they have 1.

What I find puzzling is how a Oil Reserve like Elk Hills is kept in control of the DoD until the Clinton Administration, then magically, they decide to say "let's sell this "dead land" off"... and ask for bids... and the winning bid goes to OxyChem (Occidental) and is awarded the same day Gore gives a speech on the poor environment.

Largest Privatization in U.S. history

It was the largest privatization of federal property in U.S. history, one that tripled Occidental's U.S. oil reserves overnight. Although the Energy Department was required to assess the likely environmental consequences of the proposed sale, it didn't. Instead it hired a private company, ICF Kaiser International, Incorporated, to complete the assessment. The general chairman of Gore's presidential campaign, Tony Coelho, sat on the board of directors.

The very same day the Elk Hills sale was announced, Gore delivered a speech to the White House Conference on Climate Change on the "terrifying prospect" of global warming, a problem he blamed on the unchecked use of fossil fuels such as oil. He said, quoting, "If we ignore the scientific warnings and continue stubbornly on our current course, we better begin to prepare what we would like to say to our children and grandchildren. They might fairly ask, if you knew all that, why didn't you do something about it?"

Now, back to Alaska... Do you suggest we just say the hell with it and continue on this same path? And by the way, there are capped wells already there...ARCO drilled them and they produced until the Caribou Crowd went nutz (ie: those that couldn't create another story about Global Warming as a diversion and then personally capitalize off the deal).

[Dave Sikorski]

4% is better than 2000 acres of preserve amongst MILLIONS OF ACRES OF PRESERVE.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a conservationist too, but to say we shouldn't drill in a small section of the arctic b/c it is our "legacy to future generations" is out there Glenn. Did you get a bad lime tonight?

The effect on wildlife would be in relative terms NON EXISTANT.

Yes there is the risk of a spill, but the sky could fall tomorrow too.

Someone please tell me what is so wrong with being 4% less reliant upon foreign oil?

Next give me rigs from Maine down to texas everywhere you can fit them.

Damn hippies.

-D

[Glenn W]

What da hell did Clinton do now to piss you off?--- we're talking about the topic you started---ANWR. This has nothing to do with a president two terms back.
Now, I like to think of myself as objective and rely on objective facts. Please provide a ligitimate authoritative source indicating that oil prices will change one iota if ANWR oil is introduced into the market.

By the way the pompass attitude of " we'll show you and won't buy your stinking arab oil is about as legitimate as a 5 year old child threatening to run away from home. How long will your resolve last with the lights turned out and nowhere to go?

Again, I invite you to provide a single authoritative, and unbiased study indicating that opening the ANWR will have any imact on US oil prices.

[Glenn W]

Dave, you need to read the DOE study as well. All of the oil is located right along the coast. It's not the entire ANWR that will be effected just the coastal area. This is the really critical area that is being preserved, look at a map of ANWR and the expected oil fields.
All I ask is not let political religion dictate your intelligent and other wise objective minds.

Dave, I'll ask you---- what is to be gained by opening the ANWR?