Comments (24)

God bless global warming.

Drill, drill, drill!!!

Adrasteia, what are you talking about? Oil from ANWR certainly would help our supply...just like the oil we already get from Alaska now. Also, the more of a product available, the lower the price.

Okay, yes we can admit that we need to develop alternate energy sources. Now, in the intervening 100 years, lets go ahead and use oil and coal which are plentiful and available.

Nuclear is still the true energy source of the future.

Who says oil from ANWAR would end up in American cars? Do many of you forget that oil is traded on the world market and we live in a capitalist economy?

Once on the world market oil goes to the highest bidder. Even if America bids the highest the price will not be lower than it is now.

It is simply time to admit we must develop alternatives to oil.

Let me tell you about today at the farmers market.

Blueberries, raspberries, the plant is confused.
Half are ripe, the rest are budding and green.
Cauliflower is white, yellow and purple.

"I have been harvesting natures bounty for 20 some years and have never witnessed such radical change. Anchorage has not seen a day above 70deg. Politics will run its course, but I live here. The jet stream flows in the counter-clockwise direction, bringing with it the poison from ..."

Report from the arctic:

Dragonflies are abundant and massive
Bees are stunted
The berry crop is confused
The bear has mauled intruders into natures path.

I plan a writers seminar in the arctic, during the darkest and coldest day, Dec 17-23. If you attend, expect temperatures to be -40F.

We should be drilling everywhere--ANWR, the Gulf Coast, off the Atlantic Coast. And we need more nukes.

Did everyone hear that fool Nancy Pelosi say the other day to Bush to "Free our oil" from the Strategic Reserves. "Free our oil"! Are her constituents simpletons? Do they buy into her idiotic mantras? She'd like to tap into our limited emergency reserves but is against new drilling. Their favorite line is that ANWR (or wherever) would take "10 years" to come on-line. Well, if we'd started back in the mid 90's when the Republican Congress started pushing for it, it'd be helping now. We've got to start sometime. Did Nancy just now discover that we need more oil?

Wow, what leadership we get from the Dems. The truth is that Democrats and liberals are all too happy with the current energy crises. As usual, bad times for America are good times for Democrats. They think we need to be cut down to size and that our living standards are too high anyway. Your typical greenie-weenie liberal hates "big oil" "big nuke" "big energy"...and for that matter "big pharm." "big health care" "big defense contractor" "big retail".. (the list is endless)..in other words capitalism and just about everything that makes this country great and strong.

So, Democrats and liberals are against new drilling, new oil refineries, nuclear power and coal fired plants. What does that leave?? Ah, wind! (and Hydro!) Wheee! Dream on enviro-whack-o's if you think that will supply our needs. (esp. if your got your fantasy wish to have all cars....electric!!!!) Your moment in the sun, so to speak, shall soon end. But I guess you can feel smart and proud living in silly glass and mirror houses and buying "carbon off-sets."...while China and Cuba suck up our oil just miles off our shores and laugh.

Robert B: oil that's actually ready to refine will change the supply situation faster than oil in Alaska (and same note to you as to Allance - McCain is AGAINST drilling in Alaska, where the oil is). not that I think Pelosi's idea is all that great, but it's sounder than the silly gas tax holiday that would give the most money to rich folks who would drive their hummers just as far cause they don't care what gas costs.

I don't even care if we drill, it sure is safer than ever, but we should pursue the alternatives as if the oil were running out (even if it isn't) it just seems that we put that on the shelf whenever gas is cheap enough not to bother. that's why we're where we are now. and neither party is blameless.

We should be drilling everywhere--ANWR, the Gulf Coast, off the Atlantic Coast. And we need more nukes.

Did everyone hear that fool Nancy Pelosi say the other day to Bush to "Free our oil" from the Strategic Reserves. "Free our oil"! Are her constituents simpletons? Do they buy into her idiotic mantras? She'd like to tap into our limited emergency reserves but is against new drilling. Their favorite line is that ANWR (or wherever) would take "10 years" to come on-line. Well, if we'd started back in the mid 90's when the Republican Congress started pushing for it, it'd be helping now. We've got to start sometime. Did Nancy just now discover that we need more oil?

Wow, what leadership we get from the Dems. The truth is that Democrats and liberals are all too happy with the current energy crises. As usual, bad times for America are good times for Democrats. They think we need to be cut down to size and that our living standards are too high anyway. Your typical greenie-weenie liberal hates "big oil" "big nuke" "big energy"...and for that matter "big pharm." "big health care" "big defense contractor" "big retail".. (the list is endless)..in other words capitalism and just about everything that makes this country great and strong.

So, Democrats and liberals are against new drilling, new oil refineries, nuclear power and coal fired plants. What does that leave?? Ah, wind! (and Hydro!) Wheee! Dream on enviro-whack-o's if you think that will supply our needs. (esp. if your got your fantasy wish to have all cars....electric!!!!) Your moment in the sun, so to speak, shall soon end. But I guess you can feel smart and proud living in silly glass and mirror houses and buying "carbon off-sets."...while China and Cuba suck up our oil just miles off our shores and laugh.

Allance: you need to read McCain's position. He's for drilling, but not in Alaska, where all the oil is. He's for it in California, where the Governor and the people won't stand for it, and Florida, where it ain't much more popular. So he's for it because it's politically popular but he knows it won't happen in the only places he's willing to drill. How can the right wing media make an issue of Alaska drilling when McCain is opposed to it? ooops, forgot, they don't let facts get in the way of a good smear.

Champagne Wishes and Artic Dreams

It is estimated the Arctic has one-sixth of the world’s undiscovered oil.

Russia is competing with Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United States to get Artic oil.

Medvedev wants Gazprom Oil to be the world's biggest company by 2017, and Putin expects oil output to rise by almost 14 per cent by 2015, and has committed his government to cutting taxes for oil firms and introducing incentives for exploration.

Meanwhile, we have Democratic apologists like Steve Mufson saying it is too much trouble and expense to go for it. The Democrats favor algore's anti-oil ideology over competitiveness and common sense. Wave that white flag and surrender now.

We have the tech. to get off of foreign oil within a few years. For some reason though there is no discussion, not even a whisper about it. Just goes to show you how much control the fossil fuels industry has over our government and media.
It's called ditchweed. Grows wild throughout the US. For those of you who don't know what ditchweed is, industrial hemp. We can grow our way to energy indepedence in a matter of a few years. It grows wild in most areas of the US, doesn't need pesticides, very little fertilizer, and it would free up the hundreds of millions of dollars spent to irradicate it. 98% of the budget to irradicate marijuana is used to irradicate this weed that is the best source of oil from a plant. Ford and GM ahve already developed cars to run on it. Why aren't we using it?

We should accept any hardship to rid ourselves from oil dependency on others. Our national security and way of life depend on this self- sufficiency.

The economics that make such drilling "reasonable" is the high price of oil and the continued necessity of supplies. Like any product for sale, it is not produced to be sold for lesser value then the cost. It would seem to insure high prices or why produce it to sell for a cheaper price. It is apparent the present prices while slightly lowering demand in some areas, is a price the public will and must pay.

This drilling, even in optimal conditions, would likely not even reach the market for seven to nine years. Since this is not a short-term solution, it should more properly by compared to other non-short-term solutions.

Wind generated energy seems plentiful, and certainly the product cost is as inexpensive as it gets. Furthermore, the supply is unlimited. Never mind the "little by-product" that it happens to be clean.

While the development seems expensive, a "Manhatten Project" focus, (as shown by our accomplishment on that project) would likely result, in seven to nine years, at the very least enough energy being produced by wind to more then compensate for the oil being produced by that time.

Recently, there have been a number of articles suggesting that development has been hindered by an inability to get the power to where it is needed. Texas has just approved a nearly $5b project, which will focus on building the necessary transmission lines which are lacking. When completed the lines will carry sufficent energy for 3.7m households.

I guess we should weigh the cost of drilling on a chance we may find oil there or harnessing the wind (definately there FOREVER) and building power transmission lines. In the big scheme of things option #2 looks to be in the best interest of the country, the world, our children and yes even the economy.

The jobs created will not only involve research and development, but will expand into other areas of the econony. Construction of the lines and production of the harnessing equipment would certainly provide a shot in the arm to manufacturing. Furthermore, it is likely new applications for this "new-found" wind/oil will be developed.

It would seem this is where the debate should be in regards to any new drilling on protected lands. Either option will involve 5-10 years for the benefit to manifest, however option #2 is a sure thing, and it will last forever.

Unfortunately, the oil lobby, power companies, special interests and all the back scratching politicans would not allow anything like this to happen, unless those presently controlling the oil are able to control the new wind/oil.

Allen: get a life. repubs are for it because they are in the pocket of big oil, and because anything that sounds like it would lower gas prices is politically attractive. but just like the silly gas tax summer holiday that would have given the most money to rich people who drive hummers and don't care how far cause they can afford it, it's a political stunt. there won't be a rig available on the market to start drilling for years, and all the oil in our control wouldn't add enough to the global supply to affect prices all that much. I don't have much against drilling since the technology has reduced the risk of spills dramatically, but don't get fooled. of course dem's are in the pocket of the environmentalists as well, but you have to get over both sides spin and think for yourself. The biggest problem with drilling now is that we always put alternatives on hold when gas is cheap enough. We can't afford to keep doing that. I don't care if we drill or not, as long as we pursue alternatives as fast as if we knew the last drop of oil left in the earth would be pumped five years from now.

Mr. Ridge:

You claim that Democratic Congressmen are controlled by donations from environmental groups. Have you compared the amounts of political contributions and lobbying cash expended by these groups to those made by the oil industry? Now tell me who is in control.

Most Experts would put the maximum reduction in Gas Prices from unlimited drilling in the USA at an upper maximum of 10 Cents per gallon with no effect for 5 years at a minimum. The instability of the Iraq war, and the unresolved issues with Iran have raised the price of oil somewhere between 20-40 dollars a barrel.

Mr. Ridge,

Two Hundred twenty six BILLION dollars of our budget goes to pay for the INTEREST on the national debt each year.

George Bush doubled the national debt to a staggering NINE TRILLION dollars in a mere eight years.

In the last 38 years, three republican administrations have run the largest budget deficits in our land--Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

Who is REALLY responsible for the energy, economic, and social problems we face? Seriously.

Thanks for your advice, but I'm voting Democratic--straight ticket, too--for the first time in my 60 years.

So, world oil consumption is about 86 million barrels of oil a day. ( I think I am right about that) All oil rates must be analyzed given world demand, despite what republicans want to tell you, US demand is irrelevant. This means that 90 billion barrels, though a seemingly large number, would not satisfy world oil consumption for that long of a period of time. This report, as it indicates, does not take into consideration the cost of getting this oil. Billions and billions will need to be spent just to extract the oil from the earth. Then billions more just to get that oil to the US where we can use it. So, what is the net gain on extraction of this oil? Now take into consideration the environmental degradation that would be irreversible. The effects of drilling in the arctic could have real consequences to life on this planet. I think before we send out our cowboys, we really need to consider the overall benefit that we could possibly receive by doing this. Its not an easy fix. And, no, Allen Ridge, this is not just the Democrats fault. I think T Boone Pickens is right on this one.

For those that think in terms of a year or two. oil and gas from the arctic would seem a good idea. If you think in terms of your children and grandchildren, it is a disaster. If solar collectors were put on 13% of the roofs in the US, it would take care of our electricity requirements. There is a great capacity for wind generated electricity. Oil is an efficient breeder stock for plastics and industrial chemicals. Gore is correct about what our energy sources should be.

Are you sure this isn't more propaganda from the Bush Administration???

Since the cost of oil is already high, there is money available to go after more expensive oil, as a migration solution.

We need to build many nuclear power plants, and build many electric railroad rights-of-way. France has been safely getting 70% of it's electric energy from nuclear plants.

We need to continue fuel cell improvement. The existing natural gas (methane) network that services many homes could be extended to existing gas stations to replenish the direct-fueled cells.

The planet produces much methane naturally. We need to find better ways to recover it (ie methane hydrates.)

The alternative is to send Al Gore more money for his hair-brained and self-serving schemes.

How about in return for drilling, we require the energy companies to undertake carbon sequestration (capture and storage) of CO2 and address rapid methane release, both global warming culprits?

Over 70% of Americans want this Do Nothing Democrat Congress to lift the ban on offshore drilling, but they won't.

And they won't because they are being PAID by the environmental lobby not to.

My fellow Americans we cannot HOPE for lower energy prices.

We have to VOTE for lower energy prices.

Vote REPUBLICAN on November 4th and lets send these Do Nothing Democrats home for looking after the interests of their special interest group, Enviro's instead of looking after the interests of the American people.

Enough is Enough with the Democrats and their blocking of "domestic" development and production of OUR natural resources.

This Party, the Democrats are 100% responsible for the suffering of millions of Americans.

.............CROOKS!

If we wait long enough the ice will melt, the Arctic will be much warmer and the oil easier to get to. To tide us over we could invade Iran and between Iraq and Iran we will have enough time( and oil) before the Arctic warms up adequately, speeded up hopefully by cheap oil from Iran and Iraq that will spell the return of big cars and faster global warming.

Sounds like an intimidating project.

We better get started right away.