We have MORE oil under the ground---untapped----than all of Saudi Arabia.

So---why aren't we getting it? Ask the Dem leadership AND John McCain.

"Seventy-two of today’s senators — including Schumer, of course, and 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain — have voted to keep ANWR’s estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market."

http://www.rrstar.com/opinions/colum...f-untapped-oil

Just the mere announcement that our country opening up all areas to drilling and increasing our OWN supply would result in some short term relief. And it sure as heck would solve the longer term problem.

The American people should GET outraged if they aren't already.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

How much of that Oil can we actually get to?

That is, show me the an estimate of how much we can produce from drilling there?

Sure, there's oil there. THere's a bunch under North Dakota. The problem is, we can't get to most of it.

Every legitimate source I've read indicates that if we used ANWR for 5% of our consumption, it will be dry in a decade.

But that would give us 10 years to come up with the right alternative fuel. You are for alternative fuel aren't you?

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

If we had started investing 8 years ago instead of subsidizing the most profitable business ever, then we would have 8 years of development.

For 10 years of oil, you're willing to permanantly destroy some of the last unsegmented forests on earth, for something that only gets us 5% of our consumption.

And, somehow, doing this will lead to alternative fuels?

That just doesn't make sense.

That's like saying a little more crack will help us get off the pipe.

You have displayed precisely why we are in this energy crisis. The opposed (that would be you and almost all of the democrats) has not offered one single bit of compromise to this issue.

Bush wanted to drill there in the beginning of his first term and was shut down, Clinton killed more offers in 1995, are you getting the picture? The foolish left went nuts over the Alaskan pipeline, claiming it would destroy the environment, and all the animals would suffer, well guess what, it didn't happen.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

You must be reading ONLY liberal environmentalists' sources. They have an agenda.
FACT is, there is an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil under the ANWR. And even if it proved to not be that much, whatever we get there would DEFINTELY help us to be more energy independent. In addition to ANWR, we need to open up other areas for exploration----areas where gov't has put in so much red tape and rules, that it is unfeasable to do so.
THIS madness has to stop.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

My God. Why don't liberal Democrats educate themselves, for heaven's sakes? You are living in the past. Get yourself up to date on the new technologies of drilling. It's called slant-drilling and horizontal drilling. It's also done in a way to minimize any damage to the environment. How can you be so beholding to an extreme group of people???

BTW, oil companies are ALREADY heavy into R&D for alternative fuels.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Didn't we already have a plan after the 70s but then the car industry and oil industry threw a fit and suddenly cars ran cheaper and gas prices remained low?

We should have stuck to our guns back then.

Horizontal and slant drilling are not new technologies, having been introduced over 25 years ago. As ecological awareness has increased, the practicality of HD has gained traction among drilling companies to avoid some of the criticisms of the environmentists. Now, having said that, HD drilling has also made some strides recently making it even more effective than previously.

Our proven reserves are actually fairly low (compared to consumption) and in no way would be capable of making us oil independent. Our potential reserves could be significant but they are potential. Oil shale being the most intriguing because of the sheer amount of the estimates. While capable of producing a synthetic crude, the two extraction process both use tremendous amounts of water and can potentially foul large areas that are under extraction.

Now personally, and as a oil company employee, neither of the two opposing viewpoints in this thread are going to create US oil independence. We simply do not have the proven reserves to support our consumption, nor are we likely to. We have to do both - practice safer and more ecologically friendly drilling to expand into certain areas and institute changes in our present consumption levels.

__________________
Toodley-doo,
Maggie.

I think an important question to ask would be "What type of oil is it?" There are different types that are refined into different things. Is the oil we have that we aren't tapping into even able to be used for gas or diesel?

If not, its a moot point.

If you really want to get angry or outraged at someone, get angry at the stock speculators and traders in oil futures who are artificially inflating the prices...but now that I think of it, you guys won't get outraged at them because they worship greed just like you do.

__________________
sputterman: "Aiding the enemy? If the truth aids the enemy then we are in the wrong war."