Hmm, the Dems want to raise taxes on the companies AND refuse to allow drilling in an area that is more directly comparable to the moon.
-=Mike

Problem is - there isnt even an environmental problem. Modern drilling technology and regulations makes oil drilling relative safe (in this country) wrt the environment. Sure there has been spills, but what's the long term damage to the environment from that? If they were really worried about the environment, the lib-socialists would encourage use of nuclear energy instead of forcing the US to import more oil and oil products.
GC

I thought the Congress already passed the law to legalize ANWR oil. What a bunch of losers the Republicans in Congress were. The blame must go to Bush too, since he could have been more forceful in getting it through Congress. So frustrating...

You are correct it is the fault of that whitie Bush.

MU and Mike D:

Just because drilling in ANWR was legalized (by being put into the budget)doesn't mean that it will be that way forever. Now that the Dems have control, they are going to try to reverse it. I hope President Bush vetos it. And I don't think the Dems will have enough support for their bill to override the veto.

The GOP would also be wise to make hay of the Democrats' almost guaranteed move to change House rules requiring a super-majority to raise taxes.
-=Mike

10 billion barrels of oil won't do much to help a country like ours that consumes 20 million barrels a day. That amounts to 500 days. I totally agree we shouldn't be held sway to the Saudis, but come on.
The Saudis can get Dick Cheney to fly out there on a whim to listen to their demands, and then they abruptly pull their ambassador???

They've got us by the cajones, and they know it.

I would think that more Americans would get thier facts straight. This limited amount of oil would not supply this country but for a day or less. It is not the fault of the middle east of our own greed and waste. We need to look at the ideas of cutting but and getting rid of the gas guzzling road hogs we drive. I are acting globally as if we are the wisest people around, then prove it! As a midwester person I see the need for the extreem of going to alcohol production for vehicles and the conversion of older vehicles to alcohol if we are to use them. The systems are easy to convert and many countries around us use straight alcohol to power thier vehicles. This idea of alcohol mixed gas is not helping much to decrease our dependency on oil. Maybe everyone needs to look at how many american farmers are going bankrupt because they can't sell thier production for a profit. So if you open your eyes up this will be a bigger loss to the us than not drilling for oil and destroying a key wildlife refuge.
With all the houses taking up farm land and farms bankrupting daily our own food supply is in more danger than you think. The Democrats are just trying to save the last 10% or less of the wild areas in our country. We can produce the alcohol faster and cheaper than it takes to install an oil drilling rig, pump and refine the oil, and then sell us the gas that we as a country could cut back on easily.
Lastly, maybe some of you should look outside of our country and realize that in other countries the idea of mass trasit works. In South America most people will use buses daily to travel to work or town, not just jump into the car and go as they please. The price for fuel is far higher there than in this country and they drill for thier own oils.
So rather than bitching about the price of oil and how to can tear up more land to satify our short term greed for cheap gas then you need to open you mind and eyes to longer sustainable systems that can support this country and not line the pockets of other countries. We still are the farmbelt of the world but for how much longer.

I wonder where this whole "It won't COMPLETELY cure the problem so why do it" mentality comes from from the left.

Using the logic, A LOT of their sacred cows should be cut.
-=Mike

Wow Ted, from your misinformation of the benfits of alcohol based systems to the ridiculous number of 10% wildlife area (it's actually higher now than its ever been) to the ludicrous example of South America for mass transit (and mass poverty you left out) there is so much just flat out wrong with your post its hard to know where to begin.

The systems are easy to convert and many countries around us use straight alcohol to power thier vehicles. TED

Canada is around us and so is Mexico. Move along, nothing to see, no alcohol to power their vehicles.

The only country in the world that has a valid system in place to supply their cars is Brazil. There is a not so funny irony to their story as it relates to the US copying it.

Ethanol production and use in the US is exclusively limited to that made from corn.

Why you ask? Because the idiot politicians tax the hell out of Brazil's sugar-cane based ethanol so it can't compete with the US produced corn based ethanol.

To add insult to injury, the morons that are protecting the US industry are in fact hurting the conservation movement in the long run.

Brazil's ethanol yields nearly eight times as much energy as corn-based options in the US. So the idiots are not only practicing protectionism to appease their corn-belt voters but backing an inefficient system at the same time.

Closing ANWR will play really well during Hillary's convention if gasoline is selling for $4.50 gallon in the summer of 2008.

Ford Motors desperately trying not to go under, and Toyota's U.S. car sales slowly but surely surpassing the American car makers -- spurred on by booming sales of their hybrids, isn't enough to convince the amazingly thoughtless conservatives that our country is suffering from the Republicans' careless attitude and neglect towards our energy independence.

A Democrat-controlled Congress would have, with the support of a Democrat in the White House, passed regulations requiring domestic automakers to develop and bring fuel-efficient hybrids to market years ago. Instead we're driving more gas-guzzling SUVs.

Just more Republican stupidity at work, taking America down the wrong path again.

Republicans are more interested in oil company profits than American working-class jobs. Those jobs lost tend to be union jobs, and the Republican leadership could flat-out care less about Americans who don't give them money.

Here's how I look at it...

We're gonna be past primary use of oil in, what, maybe 50 years tops? Most car companies are already working on alternate methods.

So, if we don't use this oil now, it's just wasted.

On the OTHER hand, if we're not past the use of oil in 50 years, it makes a lot of sense to use up everyone ELSE'S oil first.

You'd think that the liberals would be happy Republicans want to get all that icky nasty oil out of ANWR, so the polar bears and caribou could live happy oilfree lives. Look, every extra percent increase in domestic production helps.

Companies will continue to develop green technology whether ANWR oil is legalized or not. It's nuts to ignore the pain an oil shortage would have on American lives and families.

Just more Republican stupidity at work, taking America down the wrong path again.

Stupidity may be at work, but it's the American people who are buying SUVs, and it's likely the same stupidity at work that brought the Democrats into the majority.

The reason Ford and GM are having financial problems has a lot to do with union wages that average over $60 an hour. To support that high level of wage Ford and GM have had to concentrate on high profit vehicles like SUVs and full sized pickups.

The Democrats know the unions are some of their greatest supporters, both for money and votes. It's unlikely a Democratically controlled congress is going to pass new fuel-efficiency standards that jeopardize the high profit vehicles that support high union wages.

Democratic initiatives that harm oil production will have the same effect as new fuel-efficiency standards. That is, drive high profit vehicles out of production by causing high gasoline prices, and that will only hurt the Democrat's union base. Being in the majority is not as simple as it looked on 11/6/06.

ANWR is why God invented slant drilling. All you need to exploit a houge oilfield is a small area with a bunch of wellheads that drill all over the place without disturbing the surface. It's not like the old days of a wellhead every few hundred feet for square miles, like in some places in Texas.

But this really isn't about logic. It's about the extremists tacking another pelt (ha!) to their wall. They care less about the actual environment than about beating their perceived enemies.

Andy,

Real "science" has a lot to say about global warming including the vast majority of it is caused by solar cycles. Nevertheless, I agree we should reduce CO2 emissions and the most viable means of doing that is with nuclear power. Other than that the best thing people can do, particularly people who live in North America and Europe is to not have children. By remaining childless you prevent the energy demands of future generations living in a technologically advanced society. Of course, we also have to stop immigration and stop exporting life extending medical technology to less developed nations. It's tough being a real environmentalists, but the option is to support rapid development of nuclear power. What are you willing to do for your kids?

"These people continually put the environment above the needs and safety of the American people." -- Kim

It's you, Kim, you are the one who puts her own selfish "needs" above the health and safety of the American people, it's you who doesn't give a damn about air pollution and its damage to the lungs and global warming and its resultant increased risk of flooding of coastal cities.

"Drilling for oil domestically, which includes in ANWR, is a national security issue." -- Kim

Like hell it is. You want to become less dependent on foreign oil imports, then take a bicycle (I did 30 miles of biking today) and support mass transit.

"We can not allow our economy to be subject to the manipulations of foreign oil producers. But that's not what the Dems are concerned about. What they want is for us to be off oil all together." -- Kim

Oh, so YOU DON'T WANT US TO BE OFF OIL ALTOGETHER?
I guess it was people like you and other conservatives who killed off production of the electric car.

As usual, you shortsighted, selfish conservatives are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. You blithely ride your gas-guzzling SUVs to your damn NASCAR to intensely watch cars racing around in circles all day long, polluting the air and using up unrenewable resources as they go. Of course, many of you don't give a damn about what kind of world you'll be leaving to your grandchildren, since you don't live in a "reality-based" world, and consequently believe that something called "The Rapture" or "The Second Coming of Christ" is due any day now. Yes, conservatives are part of the problem, as they have become unwilling to conserve.

Thank God that you Americans are going to keep on paying for your stupidity in accepting the lies of liberals and environmentalists. We've got oil here in Alberta and we'll continue to sell it to you at premium prices.

Didja notice that one of the flags in the little Gulf graphic at the Hoft site was Canajan, eh, hosers.

There is no global warming; if there is, it's minor; if it's major, humans have nothing to do with it; if it's major and humans have something to do with it, it's harmless, probably beneficial. 'Flooding coastal cities'. What a maroon.

The whole 'global warming-sky is falling' nonsense is to let the unimportant aggrandize themselves and permit the dishonest to enrich themselves. You schmucks are no better than primitive tribesmen who permit a witch doctor to avoid work by similar frauds. What a yuck watching America revert to pre-Roman thinking and logic. Do any of you even know what Cui Bono means? Does anyone read Mencken?

Fred Z

Make it permanent........slap those oil pigs away from the trough.

Do without......starting today.

it's you who doesn't give a damn about air pollution and its damage to the lungs and global warming and its resultant increased risk of flooding of coastal cities.

Glogal warming is real, just as it was real during the middel ages and in Roman times. CO2 is a green house gas, but it's effect is less than 25% of what's causing the current warming. CO2 is also a powerful plant fertilizer that also helps plants tolerate heat, drought and acid rain. If we are going to have global warming anyway, and we are regardless of what humans do, then we are better off with higher CO2 concentrations.

Like hell it is. You want to become less dependent on foreign oil imports, then take a bicycle (I did 30 miles of biking today) and support mass transit.

What are you going to do to heat your home, generate electricity or run our mechanized economy? The only viable option in the next 50 years is nuclear power.

I guess it was people like you and other conservatives who killed off production of the electric car.

No, it was killed by people who understood that hybrid cars are more environmentally friendly than pure electric cars that depend on electricity generated by coal or oil. Hybrids also have unlimited range and reasonable performance.

As usual, you shortsighted, selfish conservatives are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. You blithely ride your gas-guzzling SUVs to your damn NASCAR to intensely watch cars racing around in circles all day long, polluting the air and using up unrenewable resources as they go.

All of the NASCAR races in an entire season wouldn't equal the pollution and fuel consumption of just one day's airline traffic. If you want to reduce energy usage and pollution then get smart about using technology to minimize long distance travel.

Of course, many of you don't give a damn about what kind of world you'll be leaving to your grandchildren, since you don't live in a "reality-based" world, and consequently believe that something called "The Rapture" or "The Second Coming of Christ" is due any day now. Yes, conservatives are part of the problem, as they have become unwilling to conserve.

You living in a "reality-based" world is a joke. You're just hiding your religious bigotry behind your phony concern for the environment. If you were really concerned about the well being of the future world you wouldn't be so ignorant of the present one.

If any of these moronic liberals were capable of rational thought and interesting in preserving the environment, you'd see more pushing FOR nuclear energy rather than the mindless parroting of 'electric car', 'evil SUVs', etc... but liberal and rational thought are two things that cannot coexist.

So you're a fan of SUVs, Mike? Awww, somebody's got a tiny widdle pee-pee!

So much for that campaign promise to reduce our dependence on foreign oil!

10 billion barrels of oil won't do much to help a country like ours that consumes 20 million barrels a day. That amounts to 500 days.

Actually, the estimates of recoverable oil are less than 8 billion barrels, which means less than 400 days.

In addition...

If drilling were authorized, it would still take 10 years for oil from the Arctic Refuge to reach the market, and 20 years for it to hit peak production[8]. Even in the year of peak production, oil from the Arctic Refuge would amount to less than eight-tenths of one percent (0.8%) of the world's oil production. The U.S. Department of Energy's own Energy Information Administration predicts that Arctic Refuge drilling would reduce the price of gas by no more than a few pennies per gallon when it is at or near peak production twenty years down the road.

Bottom line... this has nothing to do with helping America with our oil problem, neither with availability nor cost. The non-thinkers support ANWR drilling for one reason and one reason only: because Democrats (that is, the "thinkers") oppose it.

If Congress now does ban ANWR drilling, they will simply be implementing the will of the American people.

Just how long to you dumb frigging idiots think it will take for hybrids to make a dent in anything? Go hug another tree.

"If Congress now does ban ANWR drilling, they will simply be implementing the will of the American people."

Provided those people don't live there (Alaskans are for it), native to the area (Eskimoes support it), able to work there (unions support it) or want to see wildlife increase (as happened with the original Alaskan pipeline).

But, no, gotta to keep it pristine for people who've never seen it and would never set foot within 400 miles of it.
-=Mike

I don't understand what is so sacred about ANWR that these libs think they are protecting...

How pompous does the US look to nations around the world that we have huge oil reserves of our own that we refuse to use while we buy out oil from other countries? China has to be pissed. Other oil using nations should be pissed. Our oil use increases their price because we cause a higher demand for it. If we used our own oil, we wouldn't be causing such a high demand. I'm not saying we shouldn't use oil or whatever liberal template there is for the USA being wrong on oil consumption, but i am saying we shoujld use it if we have it instead of being idiots about it and not using our oil because the landscape that no one sees is going to be ruined.

My inaugural address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead, after I have raptured out billions!
Read My Inaugural Address
My Site=http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/spaceman
Your jaw will drop!

CAUTION to those who would click Secret Rapture's link above. When I did, Zone Alarm Pro pops up saying it's linked to a known spyware site.

It sounds like drivel anyway, so save yourself the trouble.

Wasn't there a recent report that Oil is self renewing? That you can't pump the Oil Field empty because it will just fill up again; being supplied by the Earth's many layers and not dead dinosaurs.

So all that only 400 days is totally wrong.

I think this link is what I meant
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm

There was an article a few years back (only available via Google Cache now) entitled "The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the crust of the Earth."

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yjt6k9

There's also "Deep Petroleum and the Non-Organic Theory".

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ymlck8

Seems to me the simplest way to test things would be to uncap oil wells that were tapped out 40-50 years back and see if they've got a fair amount of oil available. But I haven't found any indications that it's been done to date on a regular basis, though I've seen some ancedotal stories that formerly dry holes were wet again.

MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY - THE ENERGY EVOLUTION -R4

In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America's Utilization of Energy sources must change.
"Energy drives our entire economy." We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy."
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.

The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, etc. The source of energy must by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, etc. including utilizing water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption.

The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy.

In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair "NET METERING" (the buying of excess generation from the consumer), including the promotion of research and production of "renewable energy technology" with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.

A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task.

This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (this will also creat a substantial amount of new jobs) It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors commitment to renewable energy - energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.

Jay Draiman
Northridge, CA. 91325
1-7-2007

P.S. I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis--the one in 1942--President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.

Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their