Senator Cantwell gained personal stature while she worked against economic development. She was in charge of the Democrat's latest opportunity to lose to President Bush, who they tell each other is not very smart. And Bush beat her.
Good news. The Senate voted to allow oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The vote was 51 to 49 with 3 pro-energy Democrats supporting it and 7 Republicans opposing it. ANWR can provide 1,000,000 barrels a day for 10,000 days, according to estimates. That's over 30 years. And that production level is significant. The current US consumption is 27,000,000 barrels per day. Adding domecstic production of 4% will have an impact on the market. So this vote is good news.
Bad news. There are people who are against all energy development. Well, not all development. They try to force electric cars on us; but they don't produce any energy. And how much solar power are the greens producing in Puget Sound? Very little. They oppose oil exploration, drilling, and production anywhere and everywhere.
(Mac Safari users click on the time link below to read the full story.)
But they drive cars and have electricity with very, very few exceptions.
How can our economy continue to grow without energy for transportation, light, heat and industrial processes? It can't. So anyone who is against more energy production is against our economy - against kids in high school getting good jobs, against well paying jobs for you and me.
And Senator Cantwell is now crowned as a leader of the anti-economic development crowd. That's bad news for all of us. Senator Cantwell is devoting her energy, staff and skills to work against economic development in Washington. Oh, I am sure she can tell us how she schmoozes with business big wigs (and demands donations) all the time. She is "pro-business" as in "where do I get large donations? From business."
We could use a senator who works for us, not for the "turn off the lights" crowd. And why don't they turn off their own lights, if they are so against any energy development anywhere?
Posted by Ron Hebron at March 17, 2005 07:59 AM | Email This"I am sure China will be thrilled with the Bush decision to drill in Alaska," said the noted energy economist Philip Verleger Jr. "Oil in Alaska cannot easily or efficiently be shipped to our Gulf Coast refineries. The logical markets are on the West Coast of the United States and in Asia. Consumers in China and Japan, not the U.S., will be the real beneficiaries of any big Alaska find.
"With a big find, China and Japan will be able to increase imports from a dependable supplier - the U.S. - while consumers in the U.S. will still be at the mercy of unreliable suppliers, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. It is simple geography. [Also], a big find will lead to lower prices in the short term, promoting more emissions and more warming."
Moreover, focusing exclusively on squeezing out a little more supply will only discourage conservation, Mr. Verleger added, setting the stage for higher prices again in three or four years - "when exhausting oil reserves and burgeoning demand from China and India will drive the price of oil to well above $100 a barrel."
--from Tom Friedman's column in today's NY Times
Posted by: Steven on March 17, 2005 08:15 AMRemember just a few years ago when a blatantly false video was put out in the MSM about what a wonderfully pristine and active wildlife refuge ANWR is? And remember that what they showed in the video was from the southern-most area of the refuge, several hundred miles away from proposed drilling sites? And the dept. of the interior put out a video showing the actual drilling sites, and it looks like the moon?
This crap about "saving the caribou" never ceases to amaze either. Even the anti-oil people concede that the caribou herd around the first alaska pipeline has quadrupled since we started drilling there over 30 years ago. I've seen studies showing the herds like to stay next to the pipeline esp. in winter for it's warmth.
I just can't believe anyone is against drilling there.
Posted by: Scott on March 17, 2005 08:28 AMAs for Mr Friedman, quoted above:
What makes him think China will get any of that oil? What country's demand has been driving up the prices in the first place? CHINA.
By the time we get the rigs in place, we can certainly build a few refineries. Maybe we could have built them here in Washington for further economic development - a prospect that is now doubtful due to Cant(legislate)well.
We'll probably build the refineries in Alaska, and contribute more to that state's economic development, rather than bringing some of the cash flow into Washington.
Posted by: Larry on March 17, 2005 08:31 AMIn fairness, if Tom would base his claims on evidence rather than shallow supposition, I would listen and lend some credence to what he says.
Otherwise we could always listen to the world-renowned geologist/economists Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray and Noam Chomsky.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on March 17, 2005 08:36 AMThe Skeptical Environmentalist, by Bjorn Lomborg - pretty much like a textbook though, not the easiest book to read.
or Michael Crichton's new book "State of Fear" - a great read that presents the evidence against global warming in an easy to read way, set to an exciting fictional story.
Posted by: Scott on March 17, 2005 08:38 AM"When we drill it's dirty- very dirty" - PR rep for BP also in Businessweek.
Just a couple of thoughts from people who know what they are talking about...
Posted by: saxa on March 17, 2005 08:54 AMFriedman is quoting Phil Verleger, an energy economist. His bio is attached. What support do you have for your opinion that "he's wrong on all counts?"
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=104
Posted by: Steven on March 17, 2005 09:03 AMBut let's ask ourselves a question--why are American refineries so ill equipped to handle this new oil? Because we haven't built one since the 70's, because of the same environmentalists who don't want us drilling in ANWR.
Posted by: Timothy on March 17, 2005 09:10 AM"the idea of US energy independence is outmoded just as it was in the era of Nixon" - CEO of Exxon in Businessweek.
We should strive for it anyway and regain control of as much production as possible.
"When we drill it's dirty- very dirty" - PR rep for BP also in Businessweek.
All the more reason to move it far away from civilization. In reality, though, the new technologies allow for much cleaner drilling. The drilling in Prudhoe Bay and Alaska pipeline have never caused the environmental disasters that were predicted.
Posted by: Andy on March 17, 2005 09:12 AMCrichton's book is a NOVEL. It is not a scientific or technical piece. Hell, you may as well just cite Bill O'Reilly ("I'm not a science guy, but they can't be right because they don't agree with me")
Posted by: Steven on March 17, 2005 09:17 AMWe don't have those same options with foreign suppliers. Reserves based overseas are not under our political control. We are at the mercy of their owners. They can shut off the spigot anytime, for whatever reasons they might have.
OPEC did just that in the early 1970s over a political issue. Anyone here old enough to remember that, and what it did to our economy? We are still feeling the effects today.
Sure, ANWR potential will meet a fraction of our needs. But it represents one less knife at our throats, held by people who just might not have our best interests at heart. For a time, there will be no way around dependence on foreign suppliers. But I'm getting mighty tired of obstructionists who won't even let us try to develop the few resources we have under our control, and who knock the efforts of those who are willing to take on the job of developing more domestic supplies.
Posted by: Interested Observer on March 17, 2005 09:20 AMUnless you have the misfortune of traveling behind a diesel and you are trying to breathe at the same time, then they are the same as they used to be.
But I also applaud this vote.
Posted by: JG on March 17, 2005 09:26 AMThere is also scattered reports that Saudi Arabia doesn't have the reserves they first reported they had.
Yes, in this world of terrorism, I would agree to allow drilling in my Puget Sound (gasp!!! cough, cough!!!- I didn't say that did I?)
Posted by: swatter on March 17, 2005 09:26 AMRemember just a few years ago when a blatantly false pamphlet was put out about how we are running out of whales and should consider another source of oil? And how they showed depictions of our vast and proud whaling fleets in such a scurrilous manner?
This crap about "saving the oceans" never ceases to amaze either. Even the anti-whaling people concede that the ocean covers three quarters of the planet. Anyone with even an ounce of common sense must realize whales are an unlimited resource.
I just can't believe anyone is against whaling.
The excessive tax cuts for the rich...
The rest of his analysis is as weak...and I have to assume he "Dowded" the economist. No serious economist could advocate what the guy advocated...and he certainly can't be an "expert" on commodities as his bio suggests...more likely (and again, you can't take a Tom Friedman quote seriously) he's an expert like the Center for Science in the Public Interest is an "expert."
Posted by: South County on March 17, 2005 09:46 AMWho is trying to say that oil is unlimited like your whaling comparison? Just because it isn't unlimited does that mean we stop looking for it until we have an alternative? What alternative should we be using now? other than destroy our economy and standard of living by not using energy. If the economy goes down due to lack of energy (due to legislation, taxation, socially engineering, etc.) how are all the great liberal causes to be funded? The poor and under priveleged will feel it first.
Posted by: Fred on March 17, 2005 09:49 AMIt's about damned time the kids (aka, the whiney libs) got out of the way and let the grown ups (self explanatory) get back to work.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43331
Posted by: anonymous on March 17, 2005 09:50 AMIn short, what anti-anwr people want is to stop our economy which creates immediate mass unemployment, high costs for government and less income via taxes etc to fund a lot of government programs. It basically will change the way we live completely. If that's what you want, pls say so and don't talk around the bush.
Electric cars are great and will be a mainstay in the near future...but where will the electric energy come from ? Hydro ? Nuclear ? Hot air (now here's an idea :-) ).
I wish there would be some common sense and acknowledgement of what is possible and what not. But all I hear from Cantwell and co is "NO". No to energy use and no to energy exploration.
Posted by: FG on March 17, 2005 09:58 AMI'd ask the same question of Unkl - what alternative fuel is viable in the near future? Wind? Solar? Nope, and nope. Nuclear would certainly have been a viable solution for some of our needs if you eco-freaks hadn't poisoned the general public against it. (And please don't bring up Chernobyl - that site was beyond mis-managed, ill-equipped, etc).
Maybe we should make one big giant bong and have all these eco-freak types go smoke from that one instead of their small personal ones. Then we could run some turbines in that sucker. Talk about "green" energy.
Oh, and to Steven - yes, I realize that it's a NOVEL. That's why I said it presents evidence "set to a fictional story". The thing is though, there are copious footnotes, which are REAL. You can argue that they were "cherry-picked", and I'm sure that's at least partially true, but the studies are real nonetheless. And if you think Crichton doesn't do his homework on these sci-fi type books he puts out, you're dead wrong.
I just mentioned it because your average person out there probably isn't going to make it through "The Skeptical Environmentalist", and "The State of Fear" is fun to read. Well, it's fun for me because it's kind of a parable about a liberal eco-freak coming to his senses. Someone who believes the environmentalist dogma will have a hard time making it through this book without their blood boiling.
I applaud Crichton for putting out this book which really sticks it to eco-freaks and hollywood types. I'm sure he'll get thrashed, just like Bjorn Lomborg did after he wrote "The Skeptical Environmentalist". And good luck getting THIS one turned into a movie. They might do it anyway and just butcher it, and somehow make us evil, greedy, free-market capitalists the bad guys. Again....*sigh*...
Posted by: Scott on March 17, 2005 10:23 AMBut the scientific evidence referenced therein is still valid even when quoted by a non-scientist.
The Mann model, 'The Hockey Stick' that predicts the sizable increase in the _rate_ of temperature increase has serious issues as has been reported in the partisan rag 'Science'. In layman's terms, you can take the Mann model and plug 100 years worth of completely flat global average temperature data as input - and STILL get a dramatic hockeystick shape. When you're extrapolating based on such a model you're practicing religion, not science.
And: draw a supply-demand curve. QED.
Posted by: Al on March 17, 2005 10:32 AMDisregarding the whole Whale oil is literally the fuel of our entire economy hokum, there is no comparison between the number of whales (and hence the supply of whale oil) and petroleum. Unlike whale populations, which will not increase regardless of technological advances and price-point management, oil reserves increase (in some cases exponentially) when these two factors are considered.
Forbes had an article in August which discussed this concept in some detail. The article is not available (for free), but the abstract here has the numbers I need:
Reserves are not fixed. Proven reserves in 1971: 612 billion barrels. Since then the world has produced 767 billion--and still has 1,028 billion left.
The two factors I cited are the primary reason for the radical increase in proven reserves. As the price of oil increases, it becomes economically feasible to develop more marginal sources of oil (the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta are a prime example), and as technology advances, sources that were inaccessible are now able to be developed. It is estimated that the two largest tar sand deposits (in Canada and Venezuela) each contain about the same amount of oil as the proven reserves of conventional petroleum available worldwide. It is not yet feasible to extract much of this petroleum, but it is quite likely that it will within the next few decades.
Posted by: timekeeper on March 17, 2005 10:34 AMI like the idea of biodiesel as well. Most cars are not diesel, and it is not readily available. I know both price and availability will get better with demand. I rented a car in Europe and they upgraded me to a diesel BMW. All the normal "issues" with diesel did not exist (delay to start for glow plug warming, sluggish performance, loud, smoke billowing from the exhaust). I traveled over 500 miles before refueling and was nervous to put diesel into it as it was hard to believe it was actually a diesel - it was, as the car operated for another thousand miles without an issue. It will take more demand for diesels and higher end cars imported with diesels. I don't think diesel BMWs are even available in this country.
I have also heard that it smells like popping pop corn. If thousands of cars were producing that smell it might be overwhelming
Posted by: Fred on March 17, 2005 10:38 AMSince global warming is pretty much bunk (cities = heat islands, for starters), it remains to be seen that these "greenhouse emissions" are really as terrible as they say. But smog is one of those things that's been shown to increase rates of asthma, allergies and other respiratory issues.
So I'm guessing that at most, even if the emissions from normal, gas-guzzling cars is really as bad as they say it is (doubtful), it's a wash because of the smog-forming capacity of biodiesel. Yet they're out there pushing it as this big eco-friendly solution to everything. I guess because there's no "big biodiesel" friends of Bush yet??
Posted by: Scott on March 17, 2005 10:43 AMThe question is, why exactly? Biodiesel is proof of a point - 'As gas prices climb, there _are_ alternatives that make sense, but only at higher prices!'. But it isn't clear that we've reached that point just yet. Given a choice between $2.00 and $3.50, you use the $2.00 while it runs out to 2.20... 2.60... Once it _passes_ $3.50, there's a pile of countries that had better have something worthwhile to do other than drill oil. Because they'll be watching cash flow plummet.
Posted by: Al on March 17, 2005 10:49 AMGosh Scott,
Are you sure you aren’t just a lib, posing as a right-winger and posting stuff like this just to make them look like complete idiots?
Shame on you.
You could do almost as well by taking articles from The Nation Enquirer or The Globe to support your opinion.
Posted by: jaybo on March 17, 2005 10:54 AMStill, $3.5 is cheap compared to gas in Europe.
Which will be more overwhelming- the smell of popcorn or the smell of victory over oil-producing, terrorist countries?
PS - no idea on SoDo - anyone else know?
Posted by: saxa on March 17, 2005 11:03 AMHere are a few pages on the junkscience.com page that could serve as a good starting place to find out why global warming is bunk, how much Kyoto is wasting, etc. And yes, there is some data that shows that the temp has been increasing - just as it has been since the last ice age. Anyway, like I said, I don't have the time. Here are the links:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/POP_Quiz.htm
And yes, good point Fred. I definitely think it's worth looking into if we can reduce the NO emissions and produce it cheaper (and also interested how much energy and of what type it takes to produce it).
And now we see what "saxa" really thinks. :)
He/She is one of these "blood for oil" types, which sort of invalidates anything they have to say. So, let me get this straight then, saxa....
Bush invades Iraq (solely for oil, mind you), topples Saddam's regime, gets oil for free to give to his "big oil buddies", thereby INCREASING the price of oil....is that about right?
Nevermind the fact that Bush has said a bazillion times that we're not going to get free oil from them, we're going to pay them market cost to help build up their economy....you people amaze me!
Posted by: Scott on March 17, 2005 11:15 AMYou must have one incredible stash if a 70% increase in prices doesn't seem a lot to you. As I said, how would your standard of living change if all prices changed by 70%?
Posted by: Fred on March 17, 2005 11:19 AMBut you need to expand your horizons and get a few more sources of information. The evidence of global warming is overwhelming and probably best demonstrated by the dramatic shrinking of glaciers around the planet.
If you don't want to believe it, go right ahead and bury your brain in junkscience.com. Just don't expect anyone else to take you seriously.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 17, 2005 11:31 AMBut South County is right. Let's say we do all of the above with the exception of reducing the NO emissions...I'm sure there'd be a barrage of dissent from the eco-freaks out there about how much smog it's going to create, so we shouldn't use it. Even if we did ALL of the above, if it actually was used by a large % of the market, they'd decry it as horrible for some reason or another and try to pass legislation to stop us from using it.
(and I use the term "eco-freak" because I consider myself to be an "environmentalist", though I wouldn't say that with it's current usage. Of course I (and 99% of fellow conservatives) want to be a good steward of the environment, but I don't carry it to this anti-human, freakish extreme that eco-freaks take it to.)
Oh, and you know what? The market will sort it out. If someone finally finds an energy source that's better than oil, people and companies will start using it. Just like how petroleum is much better than whale oil for many reasons, you won't need to pass laws to force us to use biodiesel. If and when it makes more economical sense for us to use than petroleum, that's what we'll use.
Posted by: Scott on March 17, 2005 11:36 AMYes, Michael Crichton's work is a novel. But "The Day After Tomorrow" was "just" a movie, yet I seem to recall it being hailed as a catalyst to discuss important issues, even if it was just an exaggeration.
Posted by: Ted Schuerzinger on March 17, 2005 11:38 AMYes, I saw those pictures on Drudge the other day too. Impressive. And that's why I said the sites on junkscience.com were "a good place to start", because you don't want just one place to be your source of information.
And your statement that "The evidence of global warming is overwhelming..." is just laughable, and betrays the fact that you haven't taken ANY time to research the topic beyond what you read in the New York Times or the Guardian, or the Seattle P-I, etc.
And yes, glaciers have been shrinking!! But it's hardly news, since they've been shrinking for the last 6000 years at nearly the same rate. My point is that yes, the earth is very, VERY, VERY slowly getting warmer (but even that is debatable because it's impossibly hard to figure out the temperature of "the earth"), and glaciers are retreating, but this has been the case for thousands of years, and has NOTHING to do with us driving our cars on the freeway, and other evil activities, etc.
And actually, if you must know, there is some new evidence that the rapid retreat of the glacier covering Mt. Kilimanjaro is probably caused by local deforestation. But, since the theory and supporting data won't fit into a 30 second sound bite on the evening news, you probably don't care to hear it.
Posted by: Scott on March 17, 2005 11:47 AMBut if you can't see beyond your precious fossil fuels to the future, you are an idiot. You probably think drilling in the anwar (which i also support) offers you a free ride for you and your suv. Wrong.
Right now, your gas guzzeler is fueling terrorism, and breaking the economy. As China emerges, the extra barrel per day from drilling the anwar will be swallowed up in no time.
The ONLY solution is modern nuclear power, and hydrogen and electric cars.
Posted by: Steve Ramsey on March 17, 2005 11:54 AMCandrewB - I agree we need to explore these. Prices of B100 will come down (assuming there is an abundant, reliable source) when widely used which will more than make up for the efficiency differences.
If we could have nuke energy we could efficiently break down water for hydrogen power which may even beat biodiesel. It can be piped around the country like natural gas instead of trucked around. It is also safer in a collision. It has a hotter explosion, but for a very short time and does not spray "liquid" fire all over causing more damage than the actual explosion.
Posted by: Fred on March 17, 2005 12:13 PMThe planet may be warming, but there's a causal relationship that has not yet been demonstrated: that the planet is warming because of human beings and/or our use of fossil fuels.
As has been said above, the world has been warming since the last ice age, and will continue to warm, until it doesn't, at which point it will start cooling again. How long will that take? Who knows, but I'll wager it's in the 1000s of years rather than the 100s or 10s.
SAXA:
Another blood-for-oil lemming, huh? Let me ask you a simple question: If the war was ALL about oil - why didn't we just cozy up to Saddam and BUY IT FROM HIM???? Oh, then you would have accused Bush of being friendly with murderous tyrants, that's right.
More questions: Didn't we HELP the environment by getting rid of Saddam? Who perpetrated the largest environmental disasters ever committed by humans? Let's see - Saddam's army lighting the oil wells of Kuwait on fire; Saddam's engineers draining the cradle of civilization to exterminate the Marsh Arabs (do you even know about this?); and maybe we could throw in the Soviet Union and their Chernobyl disaster.
You say blood for oil. I say blood for a cleaner environment and peace in the Mideast in our lifetime. Put that in your bong and take a big puff puff pass the stuff.
Posted by: Larry on March 17, 2005 12:52 PMLet's build more West Coast refineries.
Does anyone have an opinion on our Senator Cantwell's leadership and going bravely down in flames due to President Bush? (Notice that two of the Demos for ANWR are the two senators from Hawaii. No oil companies are pushing them. Their state needs more energy options!)
Posted by: Ron Hebron on March 17, 2005 12:55 PMNormal people can not afford this. This is why it is so hard to make the jump to alternative fuels.
Because of this, I am all for drilling in ANWR.
Posted by: John on March 17, 2005 12:58 PMI think a more relevant question would be how are unilateral negotiations with the N. Koreans going to help the spotted owl?
Posted by: Fred on March 17, 2005 01:05 PMThe most passionate activists from their ranks have turned off their own lights. Now the left is trying to create "homeless neighborhoods" for you and me to pay for for them to live in.
Posted by: Mike on March 17, 2005 01:13 PMAs a ringleader of the anti-ANWR drilling vote this is her message to us. Of course our other illustrious senator, Patty Murray, also voted against ANWR drilling but Murray is just a doofus, a hanger-on, a follower of orders.
Cantwell is the real bomb thrower, the ideologue, the soul sister of the Earth Liberation Front. In public she maintains a somewhat twitchy image as brainy technocrat but occasionally the real Cantwell breaks through.
Cantwell's mantra is conservation which is really anti-growth which is really anti-life. Conservation as an official policy is a death sentence for a prosperous country.
Posted by: Bill K. on March 17, 2005 01:42 PM
--Edward Abbey
I've found that liberals and eco-freaks (usually but not always one and the same) tend to care more about the "feel-good" factor, or the intentions, than the actual result of the inane legislation they pass.
It doesn't seem to matter how terrible a program/law/etc is - if the intentions are good, they'll fight for keeping it around.
Then again, I guess they're governed by an entirely different set of morals - "If it feels good it must be right..."
Posted by: Scott on March 17, 2005 02:10 PMTim
Posted by: Tim on March 17, 2005 02:13 PMI highly doubt you are conservative. You're like the people who call up Rush Limbaugh and say "Hi, I've always loved your show, and I voted for Bush, BUT...blah blah blah", and then say something you'd expect to hear from Michael Moore.
As someone pointed out earlier, we always get a lot more oil than the "estimates" say we should get, especially due to better technology to extract oil from places we couldn't before. But even at 1,000,000 barrels a day, the U.S. only uses about 27,000,000/day. That means the ANWR oil represents about 3.7% of the total consumption in the U.S.
Now, the last time I checked, we imported about 20% of our oil from the middle east. 20% of 27,000,000 = 5,400,000 barrels/day.
So if the 20% figure is somewhat accurate, the oil from ANWR would replace 1,000,000/day out of 5,400,000/day from the middle east = about 18.5% of our middle east oil imports. That would be a huge drop in demand and would give OPEC something to think about.
Posted by: Scott on March 17, 2005 02:51 PMI looked through your post and could not find any reason NOT to drill in ANWR. The closest I got was 'I love the outdoors'. That doesn't cut it. You will never, ever, ever in your long, fruitful life visit ANWR. You'd be lucky to ever see Gates of the Arctic National Park.
And the caribou and polar bears are doing just fine where we're currently drilling on the North Slope, so there's no harm projected in the places we want to drill.
Posted by: Larry on March 17, 2005 03:03 PMConservation can go a long ways in freeing our dependence on foreign oil. It is also good for the economy. I have read upwards of $60 billion could be saved by switching to more efficient motors, lights etc.
Instead of digging holes in the ground we should be focusing on conservation and alternatives like ethanol, biodiesel, solar, and nuclear.
Someone mentioned NOx emissions increasing with biodiesel. A company called Clean Diesel Technologies has already solved the problem. It has an additive which will reduce NOx emissions for biodiesel to 5% below NOx emissions from regular diesel.
Posted by: M&M on March 17, 2005 03:03 PMFred - I walk to work, so a 70% increase would suit my lifestyle just fine. And as for IDs? I'm all for it, pal. I believe in a revote, too. If you want to maintain your own credibility, maybe you should stop throwing around random and irrelevant accusations...
Posted by: saxa on March 17, 2005 03:19 PMI said a 70% increase in everything, not just things you don't use.
Posted by: Fred on March 17, 2005 03:26 PMFirst off, you don't know me from Adam and you state that "I doubt you are conservative." and "You will never, ever, ever in your long, fruitful life visit ANWR. You'd be lucky to ever see Gates of the Arctic National Park". Scott, you are an idiot at best and I sure hope you don't claim to be conservative/republican. If those are your views then you would serve us well to think before you speak. I'm not even going to go into the 1001 reasons that *proves* I'm a conservative because... well, I think you are too dumb to understand that not everyone thinks exactly like you. Thank God.
Larry- I didn't realize you knew so much about my outdoor adventures. Maybe you should take a trip up there sometimes or anywhere outdoors for that matter. I still don't agree that getting 1M a day for a 27M a day demand is worth it. I think a much better idea would be to send you and Scott to Venezuela right before we nuke it and make it a US Territory.
Posted by: Tim on March 17, 2005 03:43 PMNot sure if you got your figures from junkscience.com or the Drudge Report, but either way, they are just wrong. We import over 60% of our oil from foreign sources.
A million barrels a day is a million barrels a day. That's a drop in the bucket to OPEC. A million barrels a day of high sulfer heavy crude that we have no refining capacity for is a lot less.
Just because you have no interest in preserving ANWR doesn't mean everyone else feels that way.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 17, 2005 03:44 PMOh, and when I drive to Westport it goes on up to 48.
I hear the newer models are substantially better, but that's hearsay.
On another note for the guy claiming "too expensive", Bush added a tax break for hybrids, $2000 in the year of purchase. (At least, it was there, I have no idea if that's changed since.)
Posted by: Al on March 17, 2005 03:53 PMI'm pretty sure Scott is really a lib posing as a right-winger and saying utterly ridiculous things to make them look bad. So far, he's only succeeded in revealing his own lack of intelligence.
Earlier he told us 'global warming is a bunch of bunk' and now he saying things like we only import 20% of our oil.
Keep poking him, he seems to respond well to it.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 17, 2005 03:54 PMTo those of you who blame the war in Iraq on oil:
We are taking no more oil from Iraq than we were before the war, at least at the refinery I work in. Most of the oil we get is from Alaska and Venezuela with some trim crudes from the Saudis, Oman ,and some of the new sand tars from Canada.
As for Anwar, 1,000,000BBLS of oil a day would easily supply all five WA refineries with their daily throughput and have plenty left over. WA is where most of the oil would go because of the infrastructure already in place and the fact that the refinerys here are built for Alaskan crude. The rest would probably end up in CA or HI.
Posted by: ChuckJ on March 17, 2005 04:14 PMThe enviromentalists are not so much driven by their love for the caribou or the polar bear but by their hatred for man. Any road blocks they can throw in our way to make our life more uncomfortable, more difficult, more miserable and shorter is fine with them. They are America's own death cultists.
If there is oil to be had ANWR and the companies think it is profitable, let them drill. At least some use will be made of what is now a frozen wasteland.
Posted by: Bill K. on March 17, 2005 04:17 PMUnkl - (*sigh*, why do I even bother?) If you're going to twist what I say around, it would be nice if you admit that. You say that I said that we only import 20% of our oil from foreign sources. If you could READ, you'd see that I said "the last time I checked, we imported about 20% of our oil from the middle east". That was just a guess from my last recollection, and if you notice, I said 20% FROM THE MIDDLE EAST. (Honestly, why am I writing back to people who twist what I say???)
But, since you're obviously incapable of doing ANY research at all, I'll spend the next 5 minutes finding official U.S. data about where we import how much oil from....
Ok, only 2 minutes later, here is a link to the DOE page listing crude imports by country:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm
You'll see that the total is 9665 * 1000 barrels per day. Or, 9,665,000 barrels per day.
Imports from the Persian Gulf countries (which include: Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates) totals 2,425,000 barrels per day. So 25.09% of our imported oil comes from these Persian Gulf countries. I was only a little off at 20%.
And while we're at it, if we only get 2,425,000 barrels per day from the Persian Gulf, then if we got 1,000,000/day from ANWR, we could reduce our oil imports from Persian Gulf countries by 41.23%.
I'm sure these numbers are a little off too, since it took me a whole 2 minutes to find U.S. DOE data and analyze it, but the point is that it is NOT an insignificant amount of oil.
Posted by: Scott on March 17, 2005 06:58 PMHow dare you call your self a conservative when you clearly disagree with Scott? After all, he's the one who gets to define the term.
Scott:
I think we've finally found some common ground when you say your numbers are "a little off." Your brand of half-baked energy analysis will get ya no where with me. I've been in the oil and gas industry all my life. And I'm probably old enough to be your dad.
Two things are pretty well documented and widely accepted outside your little world of junkscience.com and the Drudge Report:
1. Global warming is for real and appears to be accelerating at a rather alarming rate.
2. The projected production from ANWR is pretty small potatoes in the global economic scheme. It's strictly a battle between the environmental whackos and the right wing whackos for bragging rights.
Go right ahead and keep posting those websites and your ideas though. If nothing else, they certainly are amusing.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 17, 2005 07:35 PMEnjoy.
Posted by: Scott on March 17, 2005 08:41 PMI get outdoors plenty, which is why I know you'll never visit ANWR. What makes you think I haven't been to Alaska? Maybe that's why I'm certain, huh?
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you will fly or drive to Fairbanks. Then maybe you'll fly to Deadhorse Airport in Prudhoe Bay, or drive the Dalton Highway instead. And then you'll contract one of the air charter operators to take you into ANWR. And then you'll go backcountry camping for a length of time.
If you've been there, let me know, I'd love to see the pictures. I'd be glad to hear of your adventure. And if you're planning it, maybe I can offer you some tips. But until you go, I'm right, and I don't have to know who you are to know that.
And I'll forget what you said about shipping me off to Venezuela and then nuking it. I'm certain you're not a conservative after that comment. After all, every conservative knows we wouldn't have to nuke Venezuela to make it our 51st state, we could easily conquer it with conventional weapons.
I love your rationale for not drilling up there, by the way: "I don't agree with it." Wow, helluva argument. I guess we better not!!! HA HA HA HA
Posted by: Larry on March 17, 2005 08:49 PMAnd Dems refusal to support this issue is for totally irrational reasons. where did they want oil drilling to happen--downtown Bellevue?
Posted by: Michele on March 17, 2005 08:50 PMwhat completely meaningless quotes. Nobody is claiming the U.S. will become 100% energy independent. So here is a very simple question for you.
Should we strive to become more or less energy independent? Simple question. The obvious question is we strive to become more energy independent. We cannot become totally independent but doing everything to become less reliant on foreign sources of energy is POSSITIVE.
Second, of course drilling for oil is dirty, so is farting, so what is you point? Forest fires are dirty. Volcanos are dirty. Driving cars is dirty. Flying on airplanes is dirty... Again, what is your point?
Posted by: dmeyers on March 17, 2005 08:52 PMReminds me of the old saying: 'Even a broken clock is right twice a day.'
Posted by: Larry on March 17, 2005 09:59 PMStupid reason ! With that attitude, they will hurt more after the 2006 mid-term elections. However, neither party is very smart when it comes to fuel conservation. This country needs to stop the love affair with SUV's - they are not safe and are also TFD's (terrorist funding devices) as gas guzzlers. Fuel efficiency has gone by the wayside. The Government is wasting time, just like they are on Social Security by dilly-dallying on implementing alternative fuel sources.
Posted by: KS on March 17, 2005 10:04 PMAnd let me point out:
1. SUV drivers pay more sales tax than average;
2. SUV drivers pay more to license their vehicle in places with graduated tab rates (like Seattle);
3. SUV drivers pay more gas tax than average;
4. SUV drivers pay more insurance than average.
So any argument you come up with about 'SUVs are bad and terrorist-funding devices', I can counter by saying it's our choice and we pay more taxes than you for that privelege. And if you say they're less safe I'll counter by saying we pay more insurance. So you should come up with better arguments or drop it.
Posted by: Larry on March 18, 2005 07:24 AMI totally agree with you. Take, for instance, the state of the roadways within the City of Seattle.
What causes them to deteriorate so quickly? Answer: 18-wheelers and dual-engine buses (city buses equipped with both electrical and diesel engines). They are far heavier and cause far more wear and tear than any other vehicles.
So one solution would be to increase the fares charged for the riders of the dual-engine buses, or get rid of them. Because the people that ride them do not seem to care that they are tearing up our roadways prematurely, they are not interested in the fact that riding that dual-engine bus has negative repercussions.
Chuck, there's no need to defend what you drive. You pay through the nose for the privilege to drive your Suburban and keep your family safe and sound. Enjoy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Larry on March 18, 2005 10:12 AMI say that Tom Friedman is wrong on all counts because his analysis is part of an agenda, the basis for his contentions arise out of that agenda, and the so-called factual support for his contentions don't exist in the real world. Like any good misdirection, his notions sound reasonable enough only if you are silly enough to suspend your own common sense.
I won't guide you through the analysis because it is boring, redundant, and I don't give a damn if you agree with me or not. I am simply amused at your shallowness.
On the other hand, we might sell all (or a significant portion) of our oil production to China if Bill Clinton or Al Gore were in office. Maybe Freidman bases his premise on the election of Hillary?
If you wish to believe this type of non-evidence along with the likes of Unkl Witz, have at it.
I call this exacly what it is, bubba-$hit for liberals.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on March 19, 2005 09:11 AMThank you all for amusing me this morning...I haven't had such a good laugh since I saw those two moose carrying on in the movie "Brother Bear". If you guys (gals?) had anything else better to do, you could be offering SOLUTIONS instead of insults or brags. I submit that the majority of you take the time to read Dr. Suess'
"The Big Brag", and contemplate which of the two main characters you resemble the most. As long as you people insist on staying in the middle of the herd, you are inevitably going to step in some of your own crap.