You’ve been missing out on some info. The area affected is about the size of an average airport…not exactly the whole state. It won’t “ruin” even that area. The amount of oil there is debateable…anywhere from a few billion to a hundred billion barrels…no one knows for sure. The US uses about 5 billion barrels a year. If it were 20 billion barrels it would provide us with 20% of our consumption for 20 years…that is not insignificant. The way oil fields work is they take years and years to deplete…so no, you wouldn’t use it all up at once. That much supply would insulate the pricing power OPEC has…it would be a safety valve so to speak. Since the area is owned by the government, they get a fat royalty from each barrel…so it’s not exactly a sop to “big oil”. The key question is…why not drill in ANWR? It won’t ruin anything. As far as conservation, I’m all for it, but it’s one facet of the solution, not the total solution. As long as people demand oil, we need a stable supply, it’s that simple. We can’t conserve our way down to no oil demand. As far as alternative fuels/new technology, that’s great. The problem is the new technology doesn’t work that well now and isn’t cost effective…ie it’s cheaper to use oil/coal/natural gas, so that’s what people do. If using alternative energy meant your electricity bill would triple, would you still be for it? One more thing, the age of oil is estimated to last another 50 years…by then they’ll be better/cheaper solutions around. In my opinion there’s no reason to leave all that oil in the ground in ANWR. If it would “ruin” Alaska, I’d be against drilling there. Also ANWR is a barren wasteland, not that it would “ruin” even that. They said the Alaskan pipeline would “ruin” Alaska too…that has a much larger environmental footprint, and it didn’t ruin anything.
I’m not really sure that it has ever been proven that there is more oil in the Gulf than in the Mideast. It has been hypothesized for years but there doesn’t seem to be alot of headway being made there. I doubt the reason for this is political but more due to the fact that they just haven’t been able to find any yet. You can bet your bottom dollar that all of the companies involved in drilling want to find those reserves first.
Alternative fuel. Great idea. Things like this have been suggested beofre and they have never panned out. The reason no one has electric cars is b/c everyone still wants their nice gasoline powered cars and can have refueling stations at every corner. I doubt setting up recharging stations for cars would be ridiculously difficult but the cost would have to placed somewhere. Methanol(the kind of alcohol that would be used), is a nice fuel source, clean burning, high octane(135 while pump gas is 87-93), but a problem would enter with engine longevity. When gas ignites in the cylinders it leaves a very tiny lubricant that helps just a little in maintaining the life of an engine, and alcohol wouldn’t have that. Also, we would still be using oil as the main lubricant in our engines so all the tree huggers would get pissed and say to redesign our engines. Alternative fuel is not too far off but basically the technology right now would be too expensive to set up(right now).
We would be able to cut our importation costs 25% if we were only needed to import half of what we currently import. This would save us approximately $7.5 billion every month. I think ANWR should be drilled until we can find some of the supposed reserves in the Gulf. It really doesn’t matter how far off they are b/c we will war with anyone who tries to take our oil. We did once already(lol).
SteelyEyes, please mention the approximate location of this new deepwater find. I live in Louisiana and I would love to know. Thanks.
Michelle, your ignorance is astounding. Almost every point you make is a lie that is feed to the public from the left wing dominated media. Learn to apply logic to what you read.
Oh really? None of that is true? Then why are FORDS sold in Europe more efficient than the FORDS sold here? Same car, vastly different consumption. Please, now tell me that is just a coincidence, that American automakers actually want to decrease oil and gas consumption. That’s bullshit. Our country depends on the automobile to get around, it is documented fact that in the early 1900’s car companies bought and then discontinued mass-transportation projects. This fostered a complete dependance on the automobile. What possible gain would automakers have by making longer lasting, more fuel efficient cars? None at all, consumption would go down and companies would lose revenue across the board.
Run out and get a copy of today’s (Thursday, April 18th) Investor’s Business Daily. It has an article on the opinion page that explains a lot. Some key points: 1) Conservation does not create energy; it’s like going on a diet when you are trying to build LBM. You need new sources of fuel. 2) Alternative sources are highly inefficient and expensive; would you give up 150 square miles of land to host a windmill farm? 3) It is possible to drill without damaging the environment. It’s being done today all over the place, even if it wasn’t done in the past. 4) ANWR is equivalent to 40-50 years of Iraqi oil imports.
As for a conspiracy among the oil and automotive industries, well, get real! If oil is all that bad and we’re running short, does it make sense for them to run themselves out of business faster by making gas guzzlers? Of course not. If anything, the auto companies will make more efficient cars as soon as possible to STAY in business. And most are working on it right now. The technology s just very immature.
Are you missing some info? Yes! Most people ARE missing out on the most important info and don’t understand the economics and impacts of the energy industry. And you can blame the environmentalists and liberal media for denying you that information.
if you ask me this whole oil “shortage” thing is bullshit and just a way for opec to jack up prices and make more money. i don’t believe there is any real danger that we will run out of oil, but if the perception is that there is an oil shortage then the price of oil will go up and opec can make more money.
As for your first posting: 1. “Look at who funds the government. Automobile and gas companies give politicians huge sums of money to protect their interests.” Part of this is true. Both industries do spend an incredible amount on lobbying. However, to imply that these industries run the government is absurd. They “fund” the government by paying taxes. They fund campaigns of the political system to protect their interests. 2. “Therefore, creating more efficient, longer running cars is the last thing on the mind of many politicians because angry companies take money away.” We don’t live under Socialism where politicians decide what the industry makes. Also, in the present, American automakers want to make “longer running” cars so that they can compete with foreign cars. 3. “So, this country will continue to drink natural resources…”. I agree with this. If Americans are consuming too much is subjective, but everyone is entitled to their opinion (at least in America). 4. “… to avoid more dependancy on foreign oil we will destroy fragile eco systems to get the small amount that is there.” What constitutes destroying an ecosystem is also subjective. However, drilling in an area that makes up 1/2 of 1% will not kill all wildlife in Alaska. We’re no sure how much oil is there but potentially there could be enough there for a few decades. I wouldn’t call that small but you could use rhetoric to make it sound small. As for your second posting: Fords being modified for Europe is irrelevant to the points you made. I agree with mostly everything you say in your second post. I’ll even add a few things. Years ago, Ford used to make a terrific 289 cubic inch engine. It was so dependable that they stopped its production. Also, Ford made a transmission that was made out of plastic. People were losing their transmissions before they hit 10,000 miles (not 100,000 I purposely typed 10,000). I know that the auto industry has killed the plans for subway systems in some cities. This still does not mean they run/fund the entire government though. “What possible gain would automakers have by making longer lasting, more fuel efficient cars?” These days companies want to make longer running cars. When the Japanese began to manufacture dependable cars, they began to compete with American auto manufacturers. This prompted Ford to change and begin to make their cars more reliable again. In the years since this trend began, both foreign and domestic automakers have been making their cars more reliable. Listen to any car commercial and you’ll hear reliability as a major selling point. As for making cars more efficient, they will do that when there’s money in doing it. Right now, there’s a huge market for SUV’s and luxury cars. Both sacrifice fuel efficiency for power. There are cars out there right now that are fuel efficient and people are buying them. However they are not the biggest share of the market at the moment.
the oil people do control the government. the bush family made their billions from zapatta oil, the gore family made their billions from petroleum, and cheney is another rich oil guy, the rich and powerful do control the governemnt its called facism, and the world is moving towards global facism, which in a nutshell is govenment, business partnership
Ok, I was not 100% clear, NO auto companies by themselves do not run the government, but big business does. They invest billions every year in lobbying and funds given directly to politicians. Do you think that ANY politician would go directly against thier main cash cow? Not a chance. Most of our current national government is from the same background… rich. Many have very specific roots to their money, be it tobacco, oil, or alcohol. None of these people are going to fly in the face of thier support. None of them.
As for the European cars, my point was that Ford and other manufacturers make car that are MUCH more efficient than what we can get here. They have to to sell them in Europe, because many countries have extremely specific standards. This is not different than the 'clean air act' in this country, the same standards could be applied, they just are not. A car that gets 30 miles a gallon in France is considered a gas guzzler... yet in this country there are cars for sale that get less than 10. Yes, I have a problem with that. Of course, people should be able to buy what they want, but gas guzzling cars should not even be available to purchase.
Think about it... the average American drives 15,000 miles a year. A car that gets 10 miles a gallon uses 1500 gallons of gas. A car that gets 30 miles a gallon needs 500. Which car do you think the oil and gas companies like better?
Bryan, it’s over-simplifying to say that oil people run the government but not necessarily wrong. Bush and Gore are both from Blue-Blood families that went into the oil business because the money was there. When that declined the families moved into politics for the money and power. Al Gore Sr. returned to the oil business for a while but his going there was also a product of him being a senator. Cheney is a career politician who after he served in President Bush’s (Sr.) cabinet went to Halliburton Corp (a Texas based oil company). Cheney was already running the government (to some degree) before he became CEO of that oil company. Most members of the president’s cabinet go to these mega corporations and serve on the board. It seems like they are always going into energy or banking. Ronald Reagan went to Sony after his presidency. Michelle, you were not very clear at all. Your third post is very logical (and I agree with what you had to say). I kind of jumped the gun in questioning your reasoning skills because about half of the people in these forum seem to believe that the media is ran by the right wing conspiracy.
Bryan – Come on dude. From which back-of-a-matchbook giveaway did you get that argument? Firstly, go back to your elementry poli-sci text and look up fascism. The definition of fascism is not “the rich and the powerful control the government.” Not that fascism had much of a coherent ideology, but if you examine it closely you’ll see that a lot of it was basically populist. The big industrialists in Italy and Germany weren’t too happy with having the government tell them what to do with their assets, even though they retained de jure ownership (provided they didn’t disobey and get shipped out to a camp or shot). Quit playing the “I heard a big word that sounds bad so I’m going to use it” game; go read up and then come back to the discussion.
Michelle – How did you write that with a straight face? To quote you: “Of course, people should be able to buy what they want, but gas guzzling cars should not even be available to purchase.” Did anyone else find that blatant contradiction humorous?
Firstly, I agree completely with the first part of that logical contradiction you wrote – people should be able to buy the cars they want. I would add for whatever reason they want, but here’s one you might find more compelling.
That reason is safety. Basic physics (conservation of momentum) says that a bigger, heavier car is going to be safer than a smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient car. Not to mention the added safety of having the passengers higher up in comparison to the center of mass of whatever vehicle is crashing into the bigger, heavier car.
Do you think it's mere coincidence that auto makers only rate cars for safety compared to other vehicles in their class (same general size and weight)? If they actually did comparative ratings of how your beloved fuel-efficient European model Fords or someone's cute little Toyota Corolla did against a Ford Expedition, they'd never sell another little car.
I don't have any kids now, but I'm getting married next year, and you can be assured that when I do have kids they are going to ride in the biggest, safest gas-guzzler around. Out.
well… um… next time read my mind ok? grin sorry about the mixup!
Well the senate voted against it anyway. Too many environmentalists out there.
Well, no, I don’t see it as a contradiction. People should be able to buy what they want, but certian things should not be available for purchase. This makes the range of choices smaller, but still allows for choice. You can not buy things that do not meet safety codes weither you want them or not. I view this as the same issue… some states have extremely strict emission standards, people in those states can’t buy cars that don’t meet those standards.
As for safety, I was in a Ford Aspire and had a head on collision going about 60. I hit the other car on the driver side front, their bumper went far enough into my engine to bend my front axel. Normally, an accident like this crushes the feet of the driver when the foot panels/ firewall move. My foot panels moved less than an inch and the frame remained true enough to open and close all four doors. I doubt a 'big' car would have made me a whole lot safer.
Indian tribes have the claim to the land on which the drilling would take place. The majority of them (I think all who have a direct physical claim) want the drilling. They are sitting on a gold mine and want the cash, who wouldn’t?
A small tribe who are obsessed with Caribu (who are a big part of thier rituals) are worried that the drilling will scare off or hurt the Caribu.
I say let the Indians, who are supposed to own the land (although the federal government at the behest of the fucking greens like to stop the rightfull owners of the land from using it) sort out what they want to do with it.
If they did, the drilling would have started a while ago.
It will increase the supply of oil and really fuck up the OPEC cartell, all the OPEC members would be enticed to cheat (produce more) as their individual and collective market power would be strongly reduced.
Fuck the fucking greens and their bullshit politics. They have no real understanding of economics or geophysics, they just think trees and animals have a greater right to life than humans. They should put their money where their mouths are and off themselves, less strain on Gya and all.
Michelle – OK, now I understand your statement as a qualifier, but it wasn’t clear the way you framed it before. There’s always some balance between freedom of choice and what’s allowed. I happen to think that freedom of choice w/r/t cars in terms of power, safety, size, etc., is more important than are standards for fuel consumption, and therefore don’t think the power of the state should be brought to bear to limit the buyer’s choice of vehicles w/r/t fuel efficiency.
As for your safety example, I am glad that you were unhurt in your accident. At the very least, it kept you around for interesting discussions on the board. =-) Your crash was highly dependent on the size and shape of the other vehicle you hit as well as your own, and the angle of impact. Whether in that one instance you would have been safer is a matter of scientific analysis, but it doesn’t make the smaller, lighter cars as safe as bigger, heavier cars – and I’ll still be putting my future wife and kids in the big, heavy car.
Actually, I want to address this idea that “Big Business” controls governmental action. Firstly, the idea that there is some grandiose entity with monolithic interests known as “Big Business” is ridiculous. Big corporations are in competition with one another, and while in any given situation certain incentives may be aligned for a group of corporations, it is almost always the case that there is another group of corporations with diametrically opposed interests, who will be fighting hard in the opposite direction.
Specifically, lets look at the oil companies, the car companies, and the steel companies – all those nasty Big Businesses that “run” the government. As a safe assumption, lets assume that each company in each group wants to maximize its profits. Well, the oil companies theoretically want as high a gasoline price as the market will bear, right? And demand for gasoline is historically very inelastic, meaning that consumers will still buy close to the same quantity of gas as the prices rise.
OK, so if the oil companies raise the gas prices, what happens to the auto and steel companies? For one, they also pay higher energy costs, which add up. But how would extremely high gasoline prices affect the market for cars? Look what happened in the gas shortages of the 1970s. When the price of gas skyrocketed, consumer preference shifted to cars that consumed less gas, and the Big 3 American auto makers got their clocks cleaned by imports that had better fuel economy.
How would a historical repeat affect automakers today? Automakers get their highest percentage profits from selling those big gas-guzzling trucks, SUVs and minivans (which should indicate that consumers are willing to pay extra for something they value more highly than fuel economy, namely safety), so if the market fell out for those their profits would take a huge hit. Therefore, higher gas prices are good for oil companies, but bad for car companies – which group runs the government?
What about steel companies? They also want the highest price they can get for their commodity, but once again higher prices for steel get passed on to both the auto and the oil industries in terms of what they pay for their supplies (auto industries being far larger consumers than oil industries). Gas companies can pass this on to consumers, but cars have a much more elastic demand curve (people can just keep using cars they already have or look to buy more used vehicles rather than purchase new ones), so at least in the short term they have to eat the increase. Other industries that use steel, such as construction companies, are in the same boat. So which of these groups will get to run the government and get what it wants?
Now, none of the oil companies owns any of the car companies, and I’m pretty sure cross ownership between any of the groups is minimal at most. They have different objectives, different economics, different incentives – how exactly do they get together to “run” the government? And we’re not even talking about other businesses like Microsoft, G.E., Wal-Mart, etc., that each have their own economics, agendas, incentives, etc.
Do businesses have influence in the government? Of course. But so do other businesses with contrary interests. “Big Business,” whatever the hell that is, does not run government.
If you're worried about businesses influencing government, the best thing is to keep governmental decisions in the hands of accountable elected officials -- businesses are best at "capturing" specialized agencies with no electoral accountability and using them to create barriers to market entry that protect incumbant businesses from competition (the one thing all established businesses can agree is a good thing -- for them).
I’ll just disagree with the statement that the oil companies “want” you to use 1500 gallons rather than 500. That’s just silly… the oil companies don’t sell on volume, they sell on price. If people start using a third less oil, there will still be uses for the surplus. Worse comes to worse, they raise the price of oil. Who could complain? The oil industry is unlike most others, in that if I have a regular product to sell, it has a limited shelf life (technology, food, entertainment media), but the oil companies don’t have to worry about that. If they don’t sell it today, they’ll sell it tomorrow. If the don’t sell it tomorrow, they just jack up the prices. It isn’t as though they have to worry about competition.
Look everyone yes we would all love to have this perfect little peaceful no polution world but we are far far away from that mainly because alot of cultures have not caught up with the times. Not just economically or in industrial terms but as a culture. We are suppose to grow and move forward. If we all were like alot of cultures we would still be under a monarch rule of england. These people over there rape their women and children, suppress education and art and music, let me say it again they rape and beat their women. Now you want to make them join us in the 21st century stop purchasing any oil from them at all. Completely stop. If the US and Canada alone did this you are looking at approximately 80% of all their combined gross national product. North America uses more oil than most of the rest of the world combined. Get Japan in on this idea with us and that area of the world will be begging for forgiveness and will do whatever we say in no more than a year. Look we play a very nice little media and political game with the world but the bottom line is in the end the world comes to us for answers and the world will continue to until all of the nations of the world realize that democracy is at this time in history the best way to live. We must export Democracy and Capitalism. If we do these things the majority of the world will get along and in time our journey as people will grow faster, safer and stronger. As much as I may seem prejudicial towards certain types I am really not. I don’t term us all as different races. We are different communities within one race THE HUMAN RACE and their is no reason why we can’t one day be one community.