ANWR

Which would also do nothing to lower the price OR save the environment because China and India are increasing consumption at a higher rate.

 

We've had this discussion before. From what I've read, the impact would be insignificant.

But don't take my word for it:

---------------
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/23/arctic-drilling-wouldnt-cool-high-oil-prices.html

The U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, concluded that new oil from ANWR would lower the world price of oil by no more than $1.44 per barrel—and possibly have as little effect as 41 cents per barrel—and would have its largest impact nearly 20 years from now if Congress voted to open the refuge today.
-----------------


And remember, that's "per barrell." The actual savings per gallon would be much less.

Then, like someone mentioned, all it would take would a slight decrease in oil production by Saudi Arabia to offset the slight increase in US oil production and we're right back where we were before.

That's all I got.

 

ANWR's peak output is estimated at 1 million bbls per day. That's 5% of our national rate of consumption. Opening ANWR will do nothing to lower the price of oil or decrease the rate of Chinese or Indian consumption.

The low estimate is that ANWR pumps at that rate for six years. The high estimate, 12 years.

If we simply eliminated waste, inefficiency and gluttonous consumption, we could realize the same 5% advantage simply through conservation and never have to sink another well.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999228,00.html

 

I don't think ANWR is a sacred cow. If it must be drilled, it must be drilled. However, I fail to see how advocating additional drilling without first advocating conservation is in any way wise. The biggest problem we have is how inefficient we are. We consume much more per person than any other country.

So why would we tear up all the land at ANWR? So we could consume what's there faster than any other society on earth would? I say you fix our issues with efficiency before you go drilling new limited sources that we would, with our current habits, surely waste.

 

And, as I pointed out, that five percent change will do nothing to lower price or save the environment.

 

Actually, you didn't point out shit.

 

Neither will opening ANWR - which was my point.

 

Guess you missed my original post doucherocket.

 

If our government had mandated higher fuel efficiency standards 10 years ago, we wouldn't be in this situation either. Think about the difference if everyone was driving a Prius.

You can call out the environmentalists as being "obstructionists," but the same thing could be said for the auto industry lobby and the oil companies repeatedly blocking the development of new technologies.

It works both ways.

 

I didn't miss your post. However, you post contained no actual quantitative information. It was merely qualitative guessing. Thus, you made no point at all.

If you want to actually comment on what is occurring overseas, you would be wise to recognize that China has increased the price of gasoline. Thus, they are looking to reduce the amount that is used.

 

So if we had done both 10 years ago we'd be better off.

It is possible to do both, right?

 

It's not possible when oil companies have as much influence as they currently have.