[wisconsin_cur]

If they feel the need to secure their base, after the election.
If talk about non-petrol alternatives does not catch on and too many independents start to scream, if it looks like McCain is getting traction on the issue, than before the election.
Is there any other way to measure time in an election year?

[Windmills]

It's too bad that it's importance isn't better correlated with it's likely effect on the price of gasoline: minor to none at all, especially given another 5 to 10 years of depletion and ELM. Perhaps we really do need to start drilling like mad everywhere just so we can demonstrate the futility of it and move on to better issues concerning running out of a resource other than trying to consume our way out of it.

[Petrodollar]

Uh, I think that governors might have some say in this matter too....
Off-shore drilling will probably not take place unless the REPUBLICAN governor of Florida (Charlie Crist) and the REPUBLICAN governor of California (Arnold Schwarzenegger) allow it to happen. Jeb Bush opposed offshore drilling, but his new replacement, Gov. Crist, recently said he supported drilling off the coast of Florida, which is a frist regarding this area of the country.
California of course is a different story when it comes to offshore drilling, they've been there and done that: link
Governor opposes offshore oil drillingWednesday, June 18, 2008
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ACRAMENTO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday he opposes lifting a ban on new oil drilling in coastal waters, breaking with President Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
Schwarzenegger, who has endorsed McCain's presidential bid, said the federal offshore drilling ban was not to blame for soaring gas prices. A federal moratorium has been in place for 27 years.

[evilgenius]

I think ANWR should be considered a reserve and held back until the 2020's or 30's. America, if alternatives fail, will need it more then than now. If alternatives succeed then it can fulfill the much smaller demand which will still exist for crude, especially with depletion concerns in the lower 48. Perhaps then the project can be done with the kind of oversight those proposing it only promise now.

[joeltrout]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Petrodollar', 'B')TW, I read some time ago that of the approxiamtely 8 million oil bore holes drilled in the world, approximately 4 million of them are in the U.S.(!) Can someone find that reference? To me, that little factoid illustrates that more drilling isn't necessarily the answer...

[Aaron]

http://www.peakoil.com/post694775.html $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')onclusion: ANWR would power the US for 57 minutes/day, the rest would have to be imported.
EIA, best case scenario would reduce oil prices by $.30 to $.50 per barrel

[Dreamtwister]

Yeah, it's all them evil democrats' fault. If those enviro-mentals would just let us drill in ANWR, we'd be back to $2 gas.
I love these partisans. They still think there's a difference between red and blue. I wonder, do they believe in the tooth fairy as well?

[Ferretlover]

5 Republican candidates for US House to visit ANWR in July
The Associated Press 16 Jun 2008
RAPID CITY, S.D. -- The Republican candidate for South Dakota's lone U.S. House seat, Chris Lien of Rapid City, says he and four other House hopefuls will travel to Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge next month.
In a statement, Lien said it's a response to concerns about high gas prices. He says more can be done to recover available oil reserves in Alaska as well as parts of Montana, Colorado, North Dakota and northwest South Dakota. ...
Anchorage Daily Times

[bsneath]

Most Americans believe that oil drilling in ANWAR would destroy large swaths of pristine wilderness when the reality is that only a few thousand acres of concentrated land is needed to tap the area's oil resources. This needs to be better communicated by the oil companies.

The real intent behind much of the liberal opposition to drilling in ANWR had been their opposition to auto-led development. Protecting the wilderness of the northern slope of Alaska for polar bears and caribou, while also of concern, was primarily used as the means to gain the support of the media and the general public. This opposition to auto-led development is now waning, or in the least, the transparency of their arguments with respect to ANWR is being exposed, now that gas prices have risen, consumption is falling and people are making economic decisions to move out of distant suburbs and back to city centers.

Under these circumstances, there should be a relatively easy way to reach a bipartisan agreement to access the oil in ANWR using the concept of land mitigation.

Under the land mitigation concept, private companies and governmental agencies agree to add acreage or restore previously damaged acreage in exchange for any lands needed for economic purposes, usually at a ratio of 2 to 1 or higher so that more net land falls under environmental protection at the end of the day. The land mitigation concept has been developed over time in order to balance the oftentimes conflicting needs of protecting the environment while ensuring continued economic prosperity for our citizens. The environmental community most favors this approach when they are in control of the decision making process on which lands will be acquired for mitigation purposes.

Just one example of how this could work: The oil companies could propose to provide funds for the purchase and incorporation into ANWR, of say 11 acres of privately held adjacent lands in exchange for every acre of land needed to drill for oil. If possible, the lands would be acquired through the eminent domain powers of a governmental agency. Therefore, if 2,000 acres are needed to drill for oil, then 20,000 net acres of additional Alaskan wilderness would be added to ANWR and protected for posterity.

The net result would be a win-win for those who are truly concerned about protecting the Alaskan wilderness and for the American economy that would benefit from 1) over $1 trillion in domestic oil that would otherwise need to be imported, 2) domestic jobs resulting from oil company investments in exploration, development and production of a domestic fuel source, 3) more governmental revenues from lease sales and royalty fees that could be dedicated to the development of alternative energy sources if so desired and 4) over time, slightly lower gasoline and heating fuel prices.

[darwinsdog]

ANWR is congressionally designated Wilderness, under the Wilderness Act of 1964. For ANWR to be drilled congress would have to de-designate it. Such de-designation sets a bad precident. Once congress starts de-designating Wilderness in Alaska, the barrier is lowered to them doing so elsewhere. There isn't a significant amount of oil in ANWR anyway. What's there needs to remain in the ground in reduced form, rather than be dumped into the atmosphere in oxidized form, contributing to global warming. So keep your greedy mitts off the Alaskan Wilderness!

[emersonbiggins]

1. It will be drilled.

2. It will not matter, at least as far as the price of oil is concerned.

[emersonbiggins]

If people can be convinced that opening ANWR to drilling will drop gasoline to 2 bucks a gallon, they will make sure that happens - whether or not it is actually true is immaterial.

The disinformation out there is amazing. I'm not impressed with the critical thinking skills of my countrymen.

[Cashmere]

EB is right. ANWAR will be drilled.

At a high enough cost of gas, people will be begging for the oil bigs to cut down the redwoods and kill the orangutans if it means knocking a nickel off the cost per gallon.

[green_achers]

Our local paper has an editorial cartoon every other day it seems aimed at getting ANWR drilled. Yes, there is an amazing propaganda campaign on, and there is no doube a lot of money to be made off of investors, the government, etc from this project. I just hope the costs stack up faster than the disinformation.

[tmulk]

I don't know why people think ANWAR will help anything. We wont' get that oil. It will be shipped immediately to Japan.

[TheDude]

Perhaps next we'll see mandates against US oil exports though. Wouldn't that light up a voter's eyes. Also destabilize Mexico pronto.

The myth of ANWR persists. Big deal if we'd opened it up in 1995, we'd have mildly lower decline now. Maybe 65% imports instead of 70%. Woooh! Looking at all the fields and wildcats in the NPR though, perhaps the low hanging fruit in the 1022 zone would be worth going after. It's not as if the oil companies are good for anything else. And Emerson's right, the caribou will get nice and toasty snuggling up against pipelines soon enough.

[bsneath]

I think many of you are over looking one of the main reasons why it is in our best interests to find and use available domestic sources of oil and gas during the transition period to alternative energy.

At today's prices it is costing over $500 billion a year to import petroleum products. We end up paying for this through a devalued dollar which in turn further drives up the cost of energy as well as everything else - food, consumer goods, gold, business equipment, steel, on and on.

There is $1 trillion of oil reserves in ANWR, perhaps a couple of trillion dollars more off the OCR. Either this wealth remains in our country, or it is transferred to oil producing nations.

It is in all of our best interests to find and use domestic energy sources - coupled with an aggressive program to develop and implement alternative energy technologies such as solar, geothermal, biofuel, nuclear, wind, battery storage, carbon sequestration, et al.

[kokoda]

... but even if they did would it make a difference?

How long would it take for a sufficient amount of oil to get to market?

Will the economy be so screwed by then that it simply won't make any difference? Kind of like giving a blood transfusion to a dead guy.