June 29, 2008 Steve Brink, Bellingham, WA writes:

It’s sad that most of our federally elected Senators and Representatives (that Americans have elected) won’t do anything about our dependence on foreign oil. Drilling in ANWR, extracting oil from shale in the Rocky Mountains, and drilling offshore of our coastlines has been proven to be environmentally sound.

Hopefully, the voting public will get the message this election season and vote all the liberal democrats and republicans out of Congress. We did it to ourselves by voting them in in the first place.

June 29, 2008 Bill Dukas, Kerhonkson NY writes:

Got the picture, thanks for making it simple and to the point. I especially liked that Alaskan bear run, such an unobtrusive way to stimulate a beast’s intelligence.

June 29, 2008 Darvin Dowdy writes:

Rob, lets focus on the number of very high paying jobs that will be available once all of these areas have been opened for drilling. The American worker has seen a loss of high pay manufacturing jobs over the past decade. Dramatically increased domestic drilling would more than compensate for that and most likely add more.

If you want Congress to act, you’re going to have to get Middle America excited and enthusiastic about it and in turn they’ll call/write/email/fax their representitive. Just like we experienced last June with the McCain/Kennedy. A ground swell. Something that congress can’t deny or hide from. Forced to act. Sorry, thats what it takes.
Middle America can always get pumped up by the prospect of higher paying and more plentiful jobs. That is how we need to sell this issue.

“Our side” is doing a terrible job of selling this issue to the American people. You can point to Newt’s “drill now” initiative but 1 million signatures is nothing. 1/300th. Not enough to get congress off its duff. Darvin Dowdy

June 29, 2008 bill-tb writes:

Sure doesn’t look like the Grand Canyon. I understand it’s dark 8 months or so out of the year. Energy Independece, it’s right under your feet.

Agree with the terrible job our side is doing, McCain sure isn’t helping with all his nutty global warming BS.

June 29, 2008 Joanne Sare, Galt, Ca writes:

I support drilling for oil in ANWAR or anyplace there is oil to drill for in the USA. What happened to all the oil wells in Texas? We are now at the mercy of those countrys that hate us! Another thing that I think is suspicious is when Obama said “I didn’t think gas prices would go up so fast”! What did he mean by that statement? Almost like he was in on the plan.

June 29, 2008 Juan Leal writes:

I am for drilling even in my backyard.

June 30, 2008 MARY TOMPKINS, NEDERLAND, TX writes:

WHY DON’T WE JUST PRODUCE OIL FROM THE CAPPED WELLS IN TEXAS, WYOMING, UTAH ETC. WE ARE PAYING PEOPLE TO LEASE THE WELLS. WE ALREADY KNOW WHERE THEY ARE ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS START PRODUCING FROM THEM. WHY EXPLORE FOR A RESOURCE WE ALREADY HAVE, SEEMS LIKE A WASTE OF TIME. WE NEED THE OIL NOW. EXPLORATION NEEDS TO CONTINUE AS WELL. GREED SEEMS TO BE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS ISSUE. WHO’S GETTING RICH, IT SURE ISN’T ME.

June 30, 2008 Ed Morris--Roswell, Ga. writes:

E-Mail all of your friends if you are for drilling in the USA. This is a “no brainer” We should drill, drill and drill some more.

June 30, 2008 John Bernia - Oxford, Michigan writes:

These photos need to be placed in front of the American people. Obviously, getting the news media to actually put them out there is going to be impossible, which is very frustrating.

Newt Gingrich, with his American Solutions website has circulated a petition to drum up the support for oil drilling. Over 1 million people have signed it, calling for members of congress to pursue drilling here, drilling now, so Americans can pay less.

In addition to helping with oil supply and the overall economic impact, this should also be seen in the light of the national security issue it really is. Want to fight terrorism? Reduce the amount of oil purchased from the middle east and work for energy independence. This is another front of the war on terror.

June 30, 2008 Joyce Parker, Seabrook,TX writes:

I am all for going “green” in what ever way it is practical to do so. However, our nation is fueled by oil and gas. Until someone figures out how to provide all Americans with an alternative to oil that everyone can afford to use we will remain dependent on oil. That means we must drill. I thought this was a good posting. The photo of Caribou grazing around the oil rig made me laugh. In Texas you frequently see cattle and other animals grazing around them.

June 30, 2008 Bob Steele, Riverton IL. writes:

This country has all the resources needed to survive on it’s own. Use our own resources, OIL,technology, medical, and food. Help the few countries that help US and let the rest “fend for themselves”. We didn’t need them 200 years ago so why should we need them now? DRILL OUR OWN OIL = ANWR AND THE COASTAL AREAS. The animals will adapt to the environment. They don’t go extinct due to habitat changes.

June 30, 2008 Kittitas County Republican Party Blog » Blog Archive » The Truth About ANWR writes:

[…] We hear so much in the media about ANWR.  Yet, have you ever seen any pictures of this pristine place?  You can check out some pictures that helps to keep things in perspective at the Heritage Foundation. […]

June 30, 2008 Bob Benn, San Diego, CA writes:

If our politicians had to pay for their own gas and oil, they would fix this problem right away. If we don’t start drilling off of our shores you can rest assured that China, Cuba and Venezuela will have derricks up pumping our oil and selling it back to us at rediculas prices.

We need to clean house in November!

June 30, 2008 M. Johnson, Houston, TX writes:

I, too, am for drilling in ANWR… surely with so many environmentalists watching, the drillers would have to be judicious in their protection of the area. But, for those of you who believe it would be ok in your “backyard”… be careful what you wish for! Drilling on our property began several yrs ago, & it’s not a pretty picture… the oil company appropriated (no compensation b/c they hold the mineral rights) almost 10% of our surface acreage & set up an oil & gas production facility along with their well. The runoff, including sand & once some oil, from their hillside goes straight into the pond we had paid $15K to build… the sand has reduced the pond depth signicantly; “fortunately,” the oil was absorbed into the ground & didn’t affect our surface water.

June 30, 2008 Mark , Texas writes:

Is this really about “showing” the american people the problem , no , we americans are pretty darned smart . we know the problems with and without drilling . the real problem is that our elected represenitives HAVE TURNED THEIR BACKS ON US . they do not care what any american thinks about the current situation . all they care about is their immediate futur , that’s all . well I say if they can sell us out we can sell them out , PERIOD . start making a stand america .

June 30, 2008 Kmuzu writes:

So, here is just an opinion from the other side. Why drilling in ANWR is wrong.

1. Your example of relative area is misleading. The Exxon Valdez spill, Chernobyl, Love Canal were is small areas, but caused major devastation.
2. Oil companies are liars and are cartels, no different than drug lords. These guys brought us leaded fuel, when alcohol fuel would have only been five cents more a gallon.
3. Oil companies are sitting on over 7,400 undeveloped leases right now. Why not start on these before we go to ANWR?
4. Oil companies have been selling developed leases to China. There is a site in Denver sold to China that employs Chinese workers. Let’s throw the Chinese off and give the jobs to Americans.
5. There is not enough oil in ANWR to make a difference.
6. If development started today it would take at least seven years to start pumping.
7. Supply is only a small part of the problem. Speculation is really behind this spike in price.
8. Let’s not forget the anemic dollar and the threat of more war in the Middle East.
9. ANWR does nothing to get us off the addiction to oil. How does this help in developing alternative energy?
10. As I understand it, British Petroleum runs the Alaskan Pipeline (doesn’t sound American to me), they say when and how much oil is piped through. How do we know the same thing won’t happen to ANWR?

As a Democrat, I want to give the finger to the Middle East, Venezuela and Iran. I hate the fact that some king or two-bit dictator is trying to crush the will of America. Have you seen the pictures of Bush holding hands with the Saudi king? How does the president of the United States hold the hand of another man? Makes me wanna puke. We are the greatest nation on the frikin’ earth. We need independence and we can do through American innovation. Alternative energy is the only answer to our oil addiction.

Just my opinion .. Kmuzu

June 30, 2008 Doran Williams, Lee County, Texas writes:

Your approach to this issue is essentially the same as the approach you condemn: Lots of pictures of cute animals, snowy scenes and desolate coastal plains. Lots of semi-hysterical language about the dire consequences of not drilling. Lots of invective against those who do not agree with you.

I hope those who read your post have the common sense you claim the opposition lacks. For instance, could you present some facts about the following:

1. Will disruption due to oil exploration, development and transport be limited to the 2000 acres? I think that not to be likely, as 2000 acres is not all that large, as you point out, and without fences and monitors, there will be little incentive for staying inside the boundaries with all the support and disposal ares that will be created by the drilling.

2. How will the crude get to market? A new pipeline? Offshore loading terminals? Are those areas included in the 2000 acres? If not, what is the total acreage involved.

3. How many companies will get leases on 2000 acres? Really, there is hardly enough room for two outfits to develop the place. Just look at your own photos from around Prudhoe Bay: One rig located in what is probably an area greatly in excess of 2000 acres. Ah! See there! You might say. Not all that much disruption or damage. Could very well be that you are correct, but really: Which company stands to benefit?

4. How long will it take for the crude to reach refiners, from the day ANWAR is opened? How long to reach consumers as gasoline?

5. What is reasonable maximum amount of crude that can be produced? Will it really have the effect of lowering gasoline prices as you suggest? If it does, all that OPEC, or Chavez have to do to keep the price up is lower their production.

6. For what period of time, at full production, will the crude from ANWAR be available?

7. Do you really consider those coastal plains to be a “barren wasteland”? That is a bit of hyperbole, isn’t it?

June 30, 2008 Garry - Oregon writes:

I’m afraid its politics and politicans as usual selling America and its citizens out. Greed and power is always the bottom line.

June 30, 2008 Brian - Atlanta, GA writes:

Self-proclaimed Democrats; always looking at the peas and not the steak. Rather than pick apart the reasons why ANWR may not be “the answer,” I believe its symbolism outruns the actual. At the end of the day the dumb masses will all but give this country away - the shame each of our elders must feel. Really, has anyone stopped pushing their opinions long enough to talk to someone old? You would be amazed at what they are saying about us.

History, and experience, will teach us everything about the future…if we would just listen.

June 30, 2008 Doran Williams writes:

Well, Brian in Atlanta, I’m 68+ and I am of the opinion that if people are going to support drilling in ANWAR without asking and getting straight answers to questions like the ones I posted above, those people are entitled to take their rightful places among the ranks of the intentionlly ignorant. If its a decision out of us, the people out here in the real world, that the Congress wants, we need to be able to make informed decisions, decisions based upon all the available, reasonably accurate information. All I see from the proponents of drilling in ANWAR is the kind of semi-hysterical, hypebolic propaganda such as the main post herein. The opponents of drilling make a much sounder, fact-based argument. Their argument is not without its propagandistic elements, but they do have facts to support their position. What are the facts, along the lines of those suggested by my questions, to support the proponents? Sure as hell can’t tell from the main post, can you?

June 30, 2008 Kmuzu writes:

Agree Doran - Some Republican give the whole party a bad name. Always with the personal attacks instead of a reasonable debate. This is what’s wrong with country.

Nobody has ever told me why we’re in such a damn hurry to go drilling in ANWR.

Good point ..

Kmuzu

June 30, 2008 John Bernia - Oxford, Michigan writes:

I think the overall point in favor of drilling in ANWR is what it would do for the following items:

- It would lower the future price of gas, which is what speculators are essentially investing on, something that is driving up the price of gas.

- Increased potential supply would create a market. Markets create competition, which benefits consumers.

- If we don’t explore, someone else will. The Chinese are now leasing land in the Atlantic from Cuba, roughly 45 miles south of Florida where they are going to drill. They expect to find a considerable amount of oil there. I live in Michigan, where news reports indicate that the Canadians are going to build new refineries across Lake Huron. European nations, who (and this is only my opinion and not meant to be negative) seem to be rather sensitive to the environment are doing exploration.

- No one really knows how much oil is in ANWR. We know it is there, but cannot quantify how much is available until some drilling is done. Consider for a moment what recently happened for Brazil. They explored in the Atlantic and found an undiscovered 90 billion barrels of oil. Combining that with the biodiesel they make from sugarcane, it makes them energy independent.

- You’re correct, oil companies do have some offshore land to explore, but have reported that the approved areas would not yield enough gas to make drilling worthwhile. For that reason, it would be worthwhile to allow exploration elsewhere.

- I’m in complete agreement - we need cars that run on something other than oil. Electricity, hydrogen, solar, waterpower are all worthwhile options. Yet, even if those cars went into production tomorrow, we would still have a considerable amount of time before cars that run on gasoline are obsolete. For that reason, further oil exploration needs to be part of the energy solution. This exploration should include drilling.

As for the hurry, I just filled up - $4.23 a gallon.

I appreciate your thoughts and am glad we got a chance to debate the issue. Thanks for posting. I’m hoping now to ask you a question. What’s your solution for the high gas prices? I know you oppose drilling in ANWR and am assuming you don’t like the idea of new offshore drilling, what do you want to do?

Again, I love a good exchange of ideas, thanks for posting,

John

June 30, 2008 Donald Fritz, Anchorage, Alaska writes:

Apart from our obvious need for energy independence, there is a timeclock running on our accessing the oil and gas wealth in the far North. TAPS (Trans Alaska Pipeline System) is a federally licensed project which covers about 800 miles of difficult terrain, crossing major rivers, mountain ranges, permafrost and swamps. The sheer expense of this endeavor required an oil field the size of Prudhoe Bay to amortize the expense. This pipeline is getting older by the day and has a very finite life. The legislation that permitted the building of TAPS also requires that it be dismantled when no longer needed. A field the size of ANWR will probably not justify the cost of a new pipeline, so it is imperative that we access and ship that oil in the existing TAPS while it is still viable. Or; we can hope the global warming people are right and we will be able to drive tankers right to the North Slope. The shipping season will start right after the Easter Bunny lays her eggs.

June 30, 2008 Bumpus, Houston writes:

It is the roads that open access that will destroy ANWR just
as the roads into the rain forest of South America open the virgin
forest.

TRUTH: Global warming has shortened the usable time per winter for ice roads by approximately 30 days. Ice roads cannot be used in the summer — so much for the ice roads.

If the oil must be harvested, there will be much damage to one of the last unspoiled spots on the globe. The solution to this problem is in restoration.

To insure such restoration is done, a fund should be collected from the beginning consisting of $3.00 deposited in trust for every $1.00 spent on development. Those companies that will develop and remove the resources must be made to completely finance the complete return of all developed areas to the original conditions. The restored area must look exactly as it does now. Such restoration must include the removal and restoration of all roads, airstrips, gravel pits, garbage, production facilities and pipe
lines. Both state and local governments should manage this fund with oversight by an organization, such as Conservation International.

June 30, 2008 Kmuzu writes:

Okay .. here it goes.

We’re buying from a criminal organization called OPEC. They control the spigot of most of the cheap oil in the world. When they decide for the oil price to go up they turn the spigot down. This is true even if we had a hundred ANWR’s

Speculation over war in Iraq and Iran has much more to do with the immediate price than supply.

The weak dollar (because of the tremendous deficit) causes runaway inflation. Remember China and other countries are holding billions in American dollars, as the value decrease they sell off or call these loans. Saudi oil is based on the dollar.

The price of gas has gone from $1.35 in 2004 to $4.75 today. That’s a 350% increase. Tell me that is due to consumption.

The 7,000 or so already existing contracts are not junk. Oil companies bid premium prices for those contracts. Why would they do that if there was no oil?

The Chinese will buy junk crude, they can refine it a lot cheaper than we can. Light sweet crude is only found in a few places around the world. In the United States this is primarily Texas. Alaska, as far as I know contains no LSC.

Solutions

We have not built one refinery or nuclear plant in many years. Maybe we should invest in refineries instead of speculative land leases. Refineries would drop the oil price faster than more drilling.

Strengthen the dollar. We need to start paying off these loans now, instead of pushing them off to our children. The interest rate needs to raise slightly. And yes, rational tax increases would help.

Getting out of Iraq. We need a reasonable strategy of leaving. This does not mean pulling out tomorrow, but like a inconsiderate relative we need to start packing our bags.

Stop meddling in Iran. It is fine to put political pressure and sanctions, but sending in the special forces is going to cause nothing but trouble.

Peace between Israel and her neighbors. Okay some peace is better than none.

Alternative energy. This means solar panels, wind, thermal and tidal turbines. Better battery technology. This also means production of nuclear plants.

Conservation. Americans need to get their heads around conserving energy. Fuel efficient cars, reduction in energy use, less consumption of plastic, buying local.

Even if the contract were signed today, it would take seven to fifteen years before oil was pouring through the spigot. I say let’s think outside of the box on this one.

June 30, 2008 Megan, Pennsylvania writes:

Some of the hurry is that part of the agreement to build the pipelines in the first place was that once the oil was dry the pipeline and all rigs would need to be dismantled and things returned as they were before the pipeline.

If we don’t start drilling soon, there will be no pipeline to use to get the oil here.

June 30, 2008 Tim, Wisconsin writes:

Wow - there is some intense ignorance at work here. Let’s start with Kmuzu. Yes, OPEC is virtually a criminal organization, primarily controlled by people who hate the US (all the more reason to avoid their control). However, they have no control over ANWR. Let’s say we could pump enough oil there not only to provide US consumption, but also largely meet the Chinese and Indian needs. How powerful is OPEC then? They can’t set prices in a vacuum! This might be especially plausible if we were to begin developing Colorado oil shale fields as well (where there may be 500 billion to 1 trillion barrels available).

Why do we suppose the oil companies have 7,400 leases they aren’t currently using? We’d like to think it’s some evil conspiracy, but the obvious reason is that surveys have shown there is no oil there, or at least not enough to bother with.

While we are on the topic, why do we hate the oil companies so much? Yes, it sucks dealing with $4 gas, but the companies are making only about 8% of sales as profit. Compare that with 18% for Intel or 28% for Microsoft! And who owns the oil companies anyway? Rich sheiks? Fat cats lighting cigars with $100 bills? NO! Ordinary Americans own the oil companies in their trillions of dollars of 401(k) holdings! Oil profits are BENEFICIAL to America. Of course we would prefer that they make 15% profit while selling gas for $2 to make the same total gains, but that’s not what the world petroleum markets are allowing right now. Consider the fact that emerging China and India between them have more than EIGHT TIMES the population of the US, and you start to realize where the problem is.

Kmuzu, current estimates are that ANWR contains between 100 and 200 billion barrels of oil. That will make a difference.

The time it takes to start pumping is not relevant. You have to start sometime.

Without a perceived lack of supply, there would BE NO speculation. The two go hand in hand.

We DO need alternative energy. Let’s see some real planning in that area. In the meantime, this is a real plan to try to fix the short-term problems. Hydrogen fuel converted with nuclear electricity solves both the energy shortage and greenhouse gas issues, but greenies want nothing to do with very safe nuclear energy.

Doran, I have yet to see a single fact from YOU. It may be true that the problem of transportation complicates things a bit, but I think the idea that ANWR drilling would involve very little area in a coastal plain region is a valid one, and hardly counts as “hypebolic” [sic].

Do you guys really have that little knowledge of history or economics to state that “all that OPEC, or Chavez have to do to keep the price up is lower their production”? Riiiiiight. What happened after the US sharply curtailed gasoline consumption and increased production in the 1970s? OPEC was forced to compete with US-produced crude or be trampled in the market. They were unable to achieve unity, and it wouldn’t have mattered if they did. OPEC can’t just decide to cut production, since then they DON’T MAKE ANY MONEY!

Please - instead of talking points, let’s use some actual reasoning and application of basic economics!