Artic (!)

I'd rather be drilling in ANWR than buying Saudi oil.

I think it is a good idea but the incentives for innovation and production of domestic sources of energy, i.e. coal to liquids, biofuels, etc. would be useful sooner, rather than later. Despite the recent surge in oil prices, it is still relatively cheap. It would be in our best interest to do the innovation before the energy crunch really hits hard in 3 or 4 years.

When the founders wrote our Constitution they said that impeachable offenses included, "Bribery, Treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors"

Wonder what they would say about what is happening today?

I've long been sorry that they didn't limit politicians to one term in office.

There are other places in Alaska that should be drilled before spoiling the arctic wildlife reserve, such as the National Naval Petroleum Reserves which haven't been tapped either and don't have the extreme environmental considerations (high extraction costs) associated with drilling in a wildlife reserve. I have a feeling this is being done so that other environmentally sensitive sites will be easier to open in the future as the domino effect takes hold.

Remember 50 cents is lowering the present price per barrel by 0.7%

You mean instead of paying $3.149, I would only have to pay $3.167!!!

WOW!

Lets all RAPE the Arctic!

OOPS!

$3.147 ...

Everyone is willing to formulate an opinion on this bill based upon a 2+ year old MSNBC article? That estimate was based upon oil being $27/barrel, even though at the time the market price was $37. That suggests this analysis assumed the price of oil was going to go down from the levels at the time. Given how off that prediction was, I see very little validity to this article.

The market price of oil has just as much to do with perception than cold, hard facts. No one has a clue what Middle East oil reserves really are either. The botton line is that a slight decline in total US production (which will be more likely without drilling in ANWAR)is a BIG difference from the slight increase with this drilling, in terms of the market's perception. That doesn't even include the influence of the investments in energy alternatives that will come out of this.

As long as this bill clearly earmarks these revenues for both shorter term and longer term alternatives, it's in our best interest. Environmentally and economically.

Hey, I wish we wouldn't have to do this, but we've already made our boat. People are going to have to make compromises in certain areas, and in my humble opinion, this is not a bad tradeoff. Of course, there are a lot of contingencies, such as making sure this drilling is actually performed in an environmentally responsible way. I believe they can do that. In this information age, it's really tough for any corporation to get away with such misdeeds without the public becoming aware eventually. Given that this is a longer term proposition, even the evil oil corporations won't risk losing out on such revenue streams by being careless.

In terms of these funds not being totally devoted to non-fossil alternatives, that is also a compromise we'll have to make to get such a deal done. As no one has proven any one strategy to be the ultimate solution to our woes, it's in our best interest to promote anything that will improve our situation, nomatter what the degree of improvement or timeframe. We need short term, medium term and long term solutions. Market forces will almost definitely produce the winners in the end, and we'll be stronger as a country because of it.

As t is saying, what we need isn't more oil, its less dependence on oil. An extremely short term increase in oil supply at the expense of the refuge just doesn't add up, except for the oil companies. More than the estimated peak production rate from ANWR (876,000 bd) could have been saved by 2025 if the NHTSA had simply raised fuel efficiency standards from 24 to 26 mpg by 2011 and applied it to all light trucks (saving 1 million bpd see http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/2006-Fuel-economy.html). "This would have met 20 percent of the president's target of cutting oil imports from the Middle East by 75 percent by 2025. Why didn't it happen?

Drilling in ANWR just exacerbates the problem while damaging the environment for the sake of oil company profit.

Angelo,

When I saw “Anwar” in this title, I thought, Oh, Boy! This discussion’s going to get heated, as I’ve seen this topic generate some nasties. But not so much this time!

You said, “People are going to have to make compromises in certain areas”

Well stated! One of the virtues of this site is that people from the left, right, center, and don’t care about politics, are all encouraged to state their opinions. I learn a great deal from the variety of opinions/ facts/etc. at this site, and the only negative I’ve seen is when people become intolerant of other’s opinions.

Lucas,
“I’ve long been sorry that they didn’t limit politicians to one term”

Here, here!

I am kind of tired to read ever-repeating urban legends.
The biggest oil polluter in US/Canada (way bigger then everything else combined) is leaking oil pan gaskets, happening right where most people and most portion of continental wild life live. Somehow not only humans, but even deer population is striving. That is not to say that I am trying to “get people out of their cars”, but merely pointing out that it is worth consideration to use better materials for gaskets and legislate to change old ones. Nowhere in civilized world parking lots, roads, and back alleys are stained with leaking engine oil.

The biggest oil reserves of the world are situated on continental shelf of Arctic Ocean. Small portion of Russian Arctic (North of West Siberia) and Norway are supplying oil in excess of Saudi Arabia, and these reserves are only lightly tapped. Make no mistake, this oil is particularly expensive. But somehow wild life is surviving in these regions. I do not even touch East Siberia and Far East Arctic regions of Russia, and Canadian and Alaskan Arctic. These waste land regions are so huge, that even if we will pure all extracted oil on the ground, for wild life it will have less effect then bird shot in elephant ass. Somehow we tolerate oil exploration in down town Los Angeles, near Mexican Gulf beaches, in Norway and North Sea, on city beaches of Baku, all over Texas, but are sure that it will destroy wasteland region comparable to US Mid West. Why New Jersey is still habitable? Why it is possible to live in New York city, where 10 million tons of oil is handled (on gas stations, for example) yearly? How it is possible to bath on Briton beach after German submarines onslaught of oil-ridden ships just outside New York harbor? How Romania survived oil contamination after allied bombers decimated it Ploesti oil industry?

Get real, folks. Spare no money to assure oil exploration is clean, and it will be clean. Way cleaner than US lawn mover fleet.