Fog over ANWR

IT WAS appropriate that the plane carrying Reps. Bob Latta, Jim Jordan, and eight of their Republican congressional colleagues never got to land at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Their minds were made up before they began their "American Energy Tour," so nothing they saw on the ground in Alaska would have mattered. In fact, they could just as easily have conducted their "fact-finding" junket from their Washington offices and saved us all a little money.
Speaking to the Toledo Rotary Club after his return, Mr. Jordan, who represents Ohio's 4th District, said he didn't see any caribou, polar bears, or even "Bambi," just "the most barren desolate place with 10.4 billion barrels of oil waiting to be brought to market."  (cont.)

No votes yet

 the drilling up there.

   So you like us getting most of our oil from foreign sources  ? 


View the Real ANWR 

Top ten reasons to support ANWR development
Arctic Winter Exploration

1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are $4.2 billion. Royalty and tax estimates for the life of the 10-02 fields were estimated by the Office of Management and Budget from $152-237 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 731,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total would be nearly a trillion dollars.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

So you like us getting most of our oil from foreign sources

Me? No. I say if we're going to spend money to subsidize energy, we do it on renewable sources instead of continuing to burn fossil fuels. You know what they say---when you're in a hole....stop digging. (or drilling in this case) How about you, do you think we should continue our addiction to oil?

Pink Slip

So which "renewable source" of energy is poised to take the place of oil RIGHT NOW?

Which "renewable source" of energy can be afforded by the working class and the poor?

Which "renewable source" of energy can the working poor put in their cars in order to get to work?

Which "renewable source" of energy does not require expensive modifications to be made to the working mans car?

Maybe in the future there will be a "renewable source" of energy that can be afforded by the lower and middle income people in America, but TODAY and IN THE NEAR FUTURE there is nothing that can replace oil.

So SINCE WE ARE FORCED INTO USING OIL as the only viable energy source for the lower and middle class of Americans, CAN'T WE DRILL FOR AMERICAN OIL IN AMERICA, CONTROLLED BY AMERICANS AND USED BY AMERICANS?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

As the saying goes on, we were warned.

We were warned in the 70's with the oil embargo.

We were warned with the gas rationing.

Business did nothing to take steps to improve the business infrastructure.

This is a business decision and business must find its way out of it.

Most of the products we depend on and use are petroleum based. But with recycling we could reuse the spent materials and not need as much fresh material.

But we still don't get that either.

The cost of a barrel of oil, dropped on the Presidents announcement that he would be rescinding an executive order, more supply because of mere words, or the reactions of speculators in the commodities marketplace.

There is no quick fix to the problem, it took well over 30 years to get here and will take many more to get us out of it, but business is reacting to the steep prices, as in Ford's case, "the world's third- biggest automaker, posted a record quarterly loss of $8.7 billion and accelerated a conversion to fuel-efficient vehicles to wean itself from money-losing trucks. "

Many pundits are calling for the free market to work, and the reactions tend to indicate it is.

Come on BlowMe, we've been through this.  Drilling in ANWR won't get us oil "RIGHT NOW", as you say.  So if we're shooting for something that will help us in 20-30 years, why not something a little more sustainable?

But in the short term, why isn't Latta and company pressing the President to release some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, instead of wasting our taxpayer money on trips?  It WOULD lower oil prices NOW. 

Pink Slip

It's easy to conserve oil. According to PinkSlip, it is the answer to ALL high energy prices including. oil and gas.


"Conventional food production and distribution requires a tremendous amount of energy—one study conducted in 2000 estimated that ten percent of the energy used annually in the United States was consumed by the food industry"

THAT'S IT! Along with shutting down the American Auto industry and FIRING ALL UAW WORKERS etc. let's quit growing food and shipping it overseas.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a


Actually, that is a good idea.  When we write trade deals that favor our agribusiness corporations, it usually undercuts local farmers in those countries.  That's a big reason we have illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico.

But what I really said about quickly lower oil prices was to release some of the SPR.  It would increase supply (in days, not decades). 

Pink Slip

Releasing the Stratigic Oil Reserve is just a red-herring.

IF YOU RELEASED ALL OF THE SPR, it would only lower the price of oil a few cents a barrel and ONLY for two months.

Then what?

THE PRICE PER BARREL WOULD GO THROUGH THE ROOF because overseas speculators would know that America has no other recourse.

The Arab world, China, and the rest of the world would see:
1) Americans are not tapping their own land for oil
2) there is no plan for Americans to tap their own oil
3) there is a political party who REFUSES to let America tap it's own oil
4) the Americans have NO RESERVE OIL, so if we (OPEC et. al.) cut off supply, America will be our bitch and we can force America to pay whatever we want to charge.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

The SOR is there for strategic reasons. High price due to now-normal supply-and-demand, and a speculation margin, is NOT a reason to implement a strategic reserve. For war? YES. For a natural disaster? YES. But this is a pure market play.

Like you, I say NO to releasing the SOR.

In the past when we have release some of the SPR, oil prices went down and stayed down for 6 months.  We could release 50 million barrels over 100 days and decrease the price of oil by 19%.  The SPR would still be 90% full.  You asked what would lower prices NOW.  This would. 

Pink Slip

Been there, done that.

It was the oil embargo of the 70's.

Everyone made, nice nice, and we went back to the old ways.

Burning the candle at both ends and the middle.

Many advocate for the free market to work, which it seems to be.

The public is conserving, car manufacturers are changing the products they offer.

Funny though, the cost of other materials made from petroleum have not shot up in price, like, etc.

It's renewable and immediate.

"The largest impacts come from opening the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling. The maximum annual difference from the reference case level of energy production is an increase of 2.2 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) (2.7 percent) in 2025. Starting in 2016, increased oil production from ANWR and from other fields in Alaska accounts for most of the increase in energy production in the H.R. 6 EH case. Alaska oil production is 940,000 barrels per day (154 percent) higher in the H.R. 6 EH case than in the reference case in 2025. Opening ANWR reduces oil import dependence by 4 percentage points in 2025, to 64 percent of petroleum product supplied. By 2025, world oil prices are expected to be 57 cents per barrel (1.9 percent) less than the reference case in constant 2003 dollars. (World oil prices are defined as the average refiner acquisition cost of crude oil imported into the United States.)"

Right now?! What does anyone have RIGHT NOW to help? We've been putting it off for 30 years already so we COULD have had it right now if we hadn't waited.

RIGHT NOW there is technology that developed a machine that takes 1 ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere per day. Why isn't that getting more attention? Answer: The agenda of the extremist environmentalists to eliminate fossil fuel usage all together.

Maggie Thurber talked about this the other day on WSPD and Glenn Beck had a bit on his show last night about it.


Hey! Maybe we if we dropped a few million of these devices on China it would help clean up the atmosphere a little. They are the biggest polluter of the world, not the US.


Because the business community wants less regulation of their business.

Calling for them to clean up the end result of their business has been and continues to be a hot topic.

what? Got anything more substantial than that?

According to the data which is fairly reliable, 2005 was the year of World Peak Oil. Considering the costs of maintaining and upgrading infrastructure:

... you can't expect domestic production to counter increased demand from "Chindia". I'm sure from too many reports that the major producers like Saudi Arabia and Iraq have their own problems increasing production. I don't know about Venezuela.

So, even with price-motivated exploitation of oil shales and tar sands in the USA and Canada, World Peak Oil is likely to have arrived. If not in 2005, then assuredly by 2015. And then what?

Well, the "what" is that we can't continue to drive 12mpg SUVs. We must transition to 40mpg Hondas like those commonly available by 1992. Those who wish to continue driving to work, will have to become part of the demand pool, and then Honda and other sane auto companies will respond (if the US government lets them, BTW).

As for GM and Ford? They're dead already. Chrysler is not too far behind.

LCBM asked the question, and I damned well answered it. CONSERVATION is a key part of the answer. You'll have to change your car, driving habits (note that I LOVE watching assholes vrrrrroooooom around me on the AWT just to come to screeching halts at the red lights -- DICKLESS MORONS!), home furnace, thermostat settings, etc.

Like it or not, right or wrong, management problem, designer problem WHATEVER.

The bottom line, like you say, " We must transition to 40mpg Hondas like those commonly available by 1992. Those who wish to continue driving to work, will have to become part of the demand pool, and then Honda and other sane auto companies will respond"

So, GET READY for the largest depression since the 20's. AS GM, FORD, CRYSLER AND JEEP close plants, fire workers, idol suppliers, and CRIPPLE THE ENTIRE U.S. ECONOMY.

Because it's better to turn America into a 3rd world country than it is to DRILL for oil.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

LCBM, you sure do have a very narrow focus when talking about the economy.

Cars will still sell ... since transportation needs are still heavily dependent upon them in the nation. The difference is, Ford, GM and Chrysler will have to re-tool to build ones with greater fuel efficiency. They have the designers already. They have the plans already. They have the factories already. They have the workers already. And if investment capital is needed, there's still enough left in the world capital markets to give them it.

If they refuse to re-tool (hence acting like a real business that prepares for a future of product change), then they will go under. And good riddance to ANY business that refuses to prepare for the future. Right?

Note well that I'm STILL not saying "don't drill for oil domestically". Of course we should be drilling. To avoid drilling when supplies get too tight, is the very definition of STUPID. But conservation measures pay off IMMEDIATELY. Remember, YOU ASKED ME what we could do immediately.

Really, LCBM, you need to clam down and think things through before you respond to my postings. Yes, avoiding drilling is a mistake. I don't have a derrick in my back yard where I can help with that. But I DO have my part in the demand and conservation equations. If Ford and GM refuse to supply me with what I'm perfectly able to pay for, then they don't get my money, and they're welcome to go out of business as a larger result.

In short: "Stupid businesses should collapse." Their assets will be bought up at cents on the dollar by hopefully smarter Capitalists.

...which would give the US auto makers time to design, test, re-tool, and get government approval on new effecient cars.

In fact, it would lower oil prices immediately, and it was PROVEN to do so.

This happened on Monday, 14 July 2008

...and this is the result Saturday, 19 July 2008

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

The price of gas shot up over $3 several years ago. Ford, GM and Chrysler started to lose serious market share about that time. So, sorry, LCBM. Too late. The "Big Three" (now more like "The Three in the Big Six") were warned years ago. So was the American people.

Bush's "lifting" of *a* ban is only a part of the problem. The Congress' ban is still in place. Bush only lifted his Daddy's ban, and that was only symbolic. In fact, it does raise the question of why he and his Daddy placed or tolerated such a ban in the first place. Aren't they both members of an oil family?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.