As gas prices get higher and higher, we need more oil!
Now doesn’t the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in Alaska have oil. So will we ever drill there? Are we going to choose wildlife or oil?
I sure hope not.
Wildlife. Why ruin a wilderness just to postpone the inevitable?
I doubt that this is the kind of question that anyone lacking a good crystal ball would be able to address as a General Question. Perhaps IMHO or (more likely) GD??
Rather short sighted no?
"OMG, gas has crept up to record levels therefore we must drill anywhere. "
Boy does this sound like something near and dear to the hearts of Big Oil Pres & VP.
I hope we don’t drill, consider that a last resort reserve for a real crisis. Maybe a war or a 100% long term stoppage of OPEC oil.
We can survive a price increae, there is no shortage at the pumps, just our wallets.
Yup, just the sort of thing they’d slip into a budget reconciliation measure in order to avoid honest debate.
Of course, we won’t be “ruining” any wilderness. Any drilling in ANWR will be environmentally sensitive and will be limited to a very small portion of the land.
From my understanding, it would take years to even begin pumping that oil and once it did, it wouldn’t add that much to the overall supply.
And if it’s supposed to be a strategic reserve, keep it that way. Though, in my mind, that means reserving it for the military or national emergency.
From what I’ve read, the oil from Alaska is pumped onto big tanker ships, and it goes to Asia. None of it comes to the “lower 48.” Increasing the oil output from Alaska may be profitable for somebody, but it won’t do a thing for our dependence on foreign oil.
Not according to at least BP which owns 46.93% Share of the Trans-Alaska pipeline.
In fact, it appears that none of the oil from Alaska is shipped to Foreign Ports
While on the other hand, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is visited by about 1000 people per year.
I don’t think there’s enough oil up there to worry about. I also don’t think the environment would be ruined, but the logistics of getting it out would make it a PITA.
The GQ here has been answered. Moving to GD for further discussion.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
Drilling in ANWR is one of my least favorite issues because it’s just so damn pointless. I honestly don’t think the environment will be devestated by doing it, but there’s no way there’s enough oil there to make a damn difference.
The real motives behind the push to open up ANWR are to 1.) boost the stagnant Alaskan economy and 2.) set a precedent for opening up federal lands to natural resource development. That’s why the biggest supporters of opening up ANWR are Alaska’s Congressional delegation (including the Masters of Pork Barrelling, Ted Stevens and Don Young) and Western state Republicans. There are also some Democrats from oil producing states, like Mary Landrieu, who also support opening up ANWR, for the same reasons.
Alaska does have a sucky economy and I do feel for the people up there. But this would be nothing more than a band-aid.
IIRC the problem isn’t the amount of oil being pumped out of the ground, but the logistics of transport and refinement that are the bottlenecks. So, even if there was a new Middle Easts worth of oil in Alaska it wouldn’t necessarily drive the price down automatically.
As for the references to ‘Big Oil’ and that ever dirty word ‘profits’…well, what exactly is wrong with that? Whats wrong with generating wealth? I suppose that those folks tasked to do the actual work (you know, drilling and working the fields, extending the infrastructure, running the ships and other logistics, refining the crude, etc) would appreciate the work.
As for destroying the environment to get at the oil, well…thats a bit overblown. We have been refining our techniques for drilling in that area for decades now. We have new regulations for double hulled ships and the like. And even with the old technology and standards we have had very few mishaps…and no full scale environmental disasters. And the caribou don’t seem to be terribly unhappy.
While I don’t see further drilling in Alaska as being any kind of solution to our present problems, nor do I believe it would significantly impact the price of gas at the pump, I see no reason to block the exploitation of that resource. The economic benifits outweigh the risks IMO. As long as we still are dependant on fossil fuels (and it seems we will be for quite a bit longer at the rate we are dragging our feet over rectifying that situation) we might as well exploit what resources are available.
-XT
I have a few reasons…
Since it’s not absolutely necessary at this time, why not wait 50-100 years when oil is REALLY scarce? Look at it as a security reserve.
The economic benifits are only for the Alaskans and the oil companies. The Alaskan people are used to getting thier $4,000 annual oil revenue checks. And as long as the oil companies are getting multi-billion dollar tax breaks, I see no reason to subsidize them further.
Finally, the problem with ANWAR drilling is that it’s a sham to say that will help lessen our dependence on foriegn oil when there are a miriad of other methods to accomplish this (such as CAFE standards). It sends the wrong message.
Hear, Hear!!
Brilliant and to the point. If you run for office you will have my vote.
(unless of course I disagree with a lot of other points you make, once you’re actually running) [COLOR=Silver]
[quote]
Drilling in ANWR is one of my least favorite issues because it’s just so damn pointless. I honestly don’t think the environment will be devestated by doing it, but there’s no way there’s enough oil there to make a damn difference.
[quote]
I agree. Indeed, from what I understand, the amounts won’t aler gas prices by but a few cents at their very, very best (and this is unlikely), and the animals love napping near the warm factories.
I say we drill it, on the condition that every penny of profit earned from it (by either the oil companies or the government) goes into the funding of a Manhattan Project-level research initiative on alternative and renewable energy sources.
because we won’t need it in 50-100 years. Alternate energy sources will be fully functional by then.
Normally I don’t ask for a cite but it would be a great public service if you could back this statement with some financial analysis for the rest of us in the lower 48. If we could buy the stock that goes with all this money then we can use it to offset the price of gas or maybe buy a hybrid.
If American’s wanted 50 mpg cars they would buy them. What they want is cheap gas.
We are already drilling in the geographic area of ANWAR. This isn’t some Polar expedition to destroy everything in sight What is involved is a minor geographic shift to better utilize the infrastructure that already exists to remove oil from the area.
Because oil is a high priced commodity now…it probably will still be used 50-100 years from now but I have serious doubts it will still be in the demand it is now. As you probably well know. 
And if it’s not in demand your request for 50-100 years is meaningless, as the price of oil probably won’t warrant dragging it out of the frozen ground in Alaska.
Why is it subsidizing the oil companies to allow them to exploit this resource? Why is injecting several billion dollars into the economy a bad thing? For that matter, why is making the oil companies pay the people of Alaska for the privilege of digging up this resource a bad thing?
If your goal is to decrease our dependence on foreign oil or lower the price of gas at the pump then you are completely correct. I never made these claims however. I’m looking at it from the perspective of a business venture with the goal of making money…something I don’t find nearly so evil as some do. To my mind injecting capital into the US economy is, by and large, a good thing…especially if you put in all the checks and balances to ensure that the oil companies don’t damage the ecology and also pay their way for exploiting this resource. Now, if the oil companies are being subsidized by the government to assist them exploit this resource, then it’s obviously not a good business venture from a cost/benefits standpoint…and in that case I would agree that the exploitation shouldn’t be allowed. IS the government subsidizing the oil companies to make drilling in Alaska profitable?
-XT
Hi, we will need oil for plastics in 50-100 years even if we don’t need it for fuel.
I hope you are right about the no fuel need. I think if you think about it rationally, USA keeping an oil reserve is an excellent idea.
Hola. We can make plastics out of other things than oil today…and we can make ‘oil’ as well out of other things than drilling for it. What will we be able to do in 50-100 years?
If we are still burning oil as a fuel 50-100 years from now we will have some serious problems…the least of which will be how the caribou are doing in the tundra.
As for the idea of an oil reserve…why is it an excellent idea? How would such a reserve be used…and when? Who would decide that the time was ripe to use it…and what would they use as the criteria? We’ve already determined that drilling for the oil will have no impact on meeting the US’s over all needs, reduce our dependency on foreign oil, impact the price at the pump, etc. Its primary purpose is as a resource to be exploited for profit…which is a good thing IMO, though I’ll understand if YMMV on that.
The only good thing about waiting (IMHO again) is that whoever exploits the resource may make more money in the future…assuming that alternatives don’t come along and make this whole discussion moot by replacing oil as the primary fuel source for personal transport…and drive the price of oil through the floor, making the exploitation of resources like Alaska too costly to even bother with. Of course, this is probably precisely what many would wish.
-XT