Kevin-

Right on, fellow dude! People seem to think that getting to the oil is as easy as turning on a faucet. There are enormous expenses and consequences involved with such an undertaking, and the impact is so minimal as to make us wonder if it is worth it.
My own personal opinion is to let the price of oil keep going up so that it spurs us into alternative fuels even the quicker. To trash our environment for the next 10 years might buy us a little time, but we will always end up in the same pickle that we are now. Might as well solve it now than let the next generation worry about it…..

Your readers who think drilling the ANWR will dramatically reduce gasoline prices may be smoking funny cigarettes. Prices aren’t going to go down.

However, the ANWR begins only 50 miles east of Prudhoe Bay, which now provides 17% of America’s domestic oil. ANWR’s high grade crude oil can be easily retrieved and can use the existing pipeline, so the cost of gasoline made from ANWR crude is predictable, and shouldn’t be much different from that derived from the declining Prudhoe Bay reserves.

ANWR oil can move by pipe or water. Being near the sea, the climate is better suited to development and continuing production than some other potential sources, like the Canadian Northwest Territories that are now being tested in the increasingly desperate search for oil. Even Canadian tar sand oil from Alberta has some serious economic limitations, like the Illinois farmers who are currently screaming bloody murder over the pipe line to bring this oil to American refineries. They’re being offered big money for right of way, but they see the pipeline as a way to get rich quick.

A good read on ANWR is “The Alaskan Key to U.S. Energy Security”, on the Heritage Foundation website. The article is 30 years old, but still valid and highly informative.

Why is it that you selectively believe the Bush Administration? You don’t believe them about anything else, but you believe them about ANWR only resulting in 3.5 cents a gallon? This bubble has many inflators, but speculation is the primary reason gas is so high. This would cause the people long oil to think twice. Wall Street traders are lemmings. This could flush out some of those bidding up oil futures causing an even greater savings. The other issue about drilling in ANWR is that it means we will be able to get the oil, regardless of the price, something we can’t say about the Mideast and Uncle Hugo. I am not the smartest guy in the world, however your math only takes into account ANWR. If drilling was permitted off-shore as well, we could even greater savings. Here’s my idea: The oil in ANWR and off-shore should be drilled and after the cost of exploration and drilling, the balance of the per bbl price should be invested in a Manhatten project to find alternative sources of fuel that maintain our standard of living, i.e., allows us to keep driving cars. I also support a Selective Service Act to draft the top minds in science. Move them out to the desert and tell them they can go home when they come up with that alternative fuel. I bet it won’t take very long.

The portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in question was specifically set aside for oil and gas exploration when the refuge was expanded by Congress in 1984. The question isn’t whether we should drill, the question is why has one political party been allowed to disobey the law all these years and block drilling?

“The Bush Administration’s own Department of Energy recently concluded that opening ANWR to drilling would reduce the price of oil by about 75 cents a barrel.”

The north slope isn’t the only place where the US has massive gas and oil reserves. What are the DOE’s estimates if drilling wasn’t forbidden off the coasts of Florida, California, or the interior west?

“The DOE also estimates that if ANWR were opened to drilling today, the first of its oil wouldn’t hit the market until 2018.”

Better late than never. Had we started drilling back in ‘85, we would be enjoying the 12 year of benefits.

“Increasing world demand and shrinking supplies will create massive pressures on policymakers to increase domestic production despite the environmental arguments against it.”

Congress has sat on its hands for 30 years while the problem gets exponentially worse. How many more decades are we supposed to wait?

“If it comes with stricter consumption and conservation rules, I’m all for it.”

How deliciously dictatorial of you.

Kevin, as usual you are not complete with the facts - remember that new invention you recently discovered called “Google?” You conveniently forgot to mention that back in 1996, President Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWAR because he said it would take ten years to reap the rewards. It’s 2008 and we’d be pumping away. Thanks President Clinton. I wonder if Al Gore had anything to do with that.

Wow - my first comment got “removed” for calling Al Gore a five-letter word even though the PD editorial page allowed a letter in the paper calling the president a 7-letter word. Apparently the name-calling is not allowed by Republicans. Okay,that sounds fair. Kevin, I am retaining your comment for future reference.

My comment was that had Kevin used Google, he might have actually reported that President Clinton in 1996 vetoed drilling in ANWAR because it would take ten years. Thanks President Clinton for your forsight.

Since 60 % of the costs are etimated to be because of speculation and the middle east has such a tight grip on the USA, just the anoucement of more oil comming in the future and opening up other places for drilling in the US would probable drop the price more like 50cents a gallon.

We should also return to the building of nuclear facilities like France did.

dont get the 25/45 thing, and it’s clear we’re going to need alternative forms of energy, wind, solar, nuclear; where’re those in your equation?