Originally Posted By DAR I'll apologize to you personally for labeling you as such, that was unwarranted. But that doesn't change my mind that Maher is an arrogant a-hole as are many of his viewers especially his studio audience.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What happens if there is an oil spill - that would certainly impact a lot more area than the few thousand acres you keep throughing out there.> What if there is an oil spill from a tanker bringing imported oil? Accidents can happen no matter where we get energy from.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's not so much people as animals.> There's not many animals that live on frozen tundra.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And second, it has already been pointed out that drilling in ANWR probably won't help the price of gas much.> That's what's been claimed here. I've read the opposite a number of times.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm a fan of Maher and don't appreciate being labeled an "arrogant a-hole."> I'm sure nobody minded when Maher called them retards.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We need to be spending our money finding ways to use less oil - not drilling up the wilderness to find more.> We can do both. There's no reason not to look at short term solutions as well as long term solutions. <Especially when that oil will only serve us for the short term, but will hurt the environment for years and years to come.> What if the oil will serve us for a fairly long time, and will do almost no long term damage to the environment?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***That's what's been claimed here. I've read the opposite a number of times.*** What sort of cost difference have you read about per barrel? I would be interested to hear about this.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "There's no reason not to look at short term solutions as well as long term solutions." Yes, but we should be looking at short term solutions that actually do some good. There's no evidence that drilling up more of Alaska would actually help anyone at all. "What if the oil will serve us for a fairly long time, and will do almost no long term damage to the environment?" Would you care to share some proof that this is so? The last I checked, if the USA got 100% of it's oil from Alaska, it would only last 1 year. If we only use part of it each year, we could maybe stretch it out to 15 years, but we would still be getting most of our oil from abroad. So, how is this helping us for the long term?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What sort of cost difference have you read about per barrel?> Substantially more than 50 cents. The higher the price of oil, the more the oil of ANWR is worth, because more and more of it because economically feasible to extract. One estimate is it could replace 50 years of the oil we get from Saudi Arabia, and that's hundreds of billions of dollars per year that would be going to Americans, rather than foreigners.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There's no evidence that drilling up more of Alaska would actually help anyone at all.> Of course there is. <Would you care to share some proof that this is so?> Would you care to share some proof that it is not?
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster Our nation is a nation of junkies and oil is our addiction. Giving us more oil will only worsen the problem. We need to reduce our dependence on oil by building nuclear power plants, dramatically raising minimum MPG standards on cars, and investing in new non-petroleum-based energy technologies.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Our nation is a nation of junkies and oil is our addiction. Giving us more oil will only worsen the problem. We need to reduce our dependence on oil by building nuclear power plants, dramatically raising minimum MPG standards on cars, and investing in new non-petroleum-based energy technologies.> Agree with the last part, but not the first. Oil is the most efficient energy source currently available, and we need to continue to use it over the short term while we search for long term solutions. Importing it from the middle east when we have it here doesn't make sense.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<It's not so much people as animals.>> <There's not many animals that live on frozen tundra.> As the link shows, there are relatively few species, but quite a few animals. Plus, there are people up there who depend on those animals, especially the caribou. <<And second, it has already been pointed out that drilling in ANWR probably won't help the price of gas much.>> <That's what's been claimed here. I've read the opposite a number of times. > This has become a distressingly frequent tactic of yours. Someone presents actual evidence, and says "here's evidence that shows A." You then say, "No, I think it's B. I can't show evidence, but I've 'read it' before." <<Would you care to share some proof that this is so?>> <Would you care to share some proof that it is not? > And there it is again. And even though you asked it of plpeters, I'll provide another link. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/56y5jc" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/56y5jc</a> It presents a formula based on supply and demand, and so is not based on a static number of any given year. "A report of the U.S. Department of Energy predicted that ANWR drilling could lower the price of oil by about 50¢ a barrel or 1%, given that the price of a barrel of oil was slightly above $50 at the beginning of 2007. Severin Borenstein, an economist who is the director of the U.C. Energy Institute, concluded that ANWR might reduce oil prices by up to a few percentage points so that “drilling in ANWR will never noticeably affect gasoline prices.†(snip) "Comment: Our estimate of a small drop in the world oil price if ANWR oil is sold would not change substantially if our estimates of the elasticities of supply and demand were moderately larger or smaller. The main reason for this result is that the ANWR output would be a very small portion of worldwide supply—the new supply curve is only slightly to the right of the initial supply curve. Thus drilling in ANWR cannot insulate the American market from international events that roil the oil market. A new war in the Persian Gulf could shift the worldwide supply curve to the left by 3 million barrels a day or more (nearly four times the ANWR production). Such a shock would cause the price of oil to soar whether or not we drill in ANWR."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As the link shows, there are relatively few species, but quite a few animals.> I don't see where the link claims that, let alone shows it, unless you have an extreme interpretation of what "quite a few" is. <This has become a distressingly frequent tactic of yours.> Sorry. I read a lot, and I've got better things to do than try to find old articles to "prove" things to people like you. I pointed out why I don't think the opinion offered was correct. <And even though you asked it of plpeters, I'll provide another link.> Which doesn't prove a thing. As I pointed out before, the department of energy study said 50 cents when oil was $27 a barrel. These guys are now trying to apply that 50 cents to oil at $50 a barrel, and extrapolating from that. Oil doesn't work that way - the higher the per barrel price goes, the more oil becomes economically feasible to extract, and the savings grow at a greater rate. However, even if drilling in ANWR didn't lower the price of a gallon of gas a penny, it would still be a good idea, because the money would be going to Americans, rather than Middle Eastern or Latin American dictators. That's one reason why the people of Alaska overwhelmingly approve of drilling in ANWR.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<As the link shows, there are relatively few species, but quite a few animals.>> <I don't see where the link claims that, let alone shows it, unless you have an extreme interpretation of what "quite a few" is.> You're trying to make it sound like it's a handful of caribou. Sorry, it's not. And this is their natural habitat. Harsh as it is to humans, they thrive there. But (and you once again didn't address this) there are indigenous people up there, and they depend on the caribou. <<This has become a distressingly frequent tactic of yours.>> <Sorry. I read a lot, and I've got better things to do than try to find old articles to "prove" things to people like you. I pointed out why I don't think the opinion offered was correct.> Yeah. You said you "read it" someplace. Yeah, that's REAL credible. Sorry, but if someone provides evidence showing A, and you say "I can't show it, but I read once that it was B"... well, don't be surprised that you're not taken seriously here. <<And even though you asked it of plpeters, I'll provide another link.>> <Which doesn't prove a thing. As I pointed out before, the department of energy study said 50 cents when oil was $27 a barrel. These guys are now trying to apply that 50 cents to oil at $50 a barrel, and extrapolating from that.> No, they're showing how the economics works. They say that as the price of a barrel increases, the savings would increase, but only at roughly the same percentage. And they quoted the Energy Institute economist who concluded that "“drilling in ANWR will never noticeably affect gasoline prices.†<Oil doesn't work that way - the higher the per barrel price goes, the more oil becomes economically feasible to extract, and the savings grow at a greater rate.> The question with ANWR was never particularly the price to extract it. It's not like the oil sands in Canada. This is conventional drilling. The question was not the price to extract but the wisdom of doing so on that piece of environmentally fragile land. <However, even if drilling in ANWR didn't lower the price of a gallon of gas a penny, it would still be a good idea, because the money would be going to Americans, rather than Middle Eastern or Latin American dictators. That's one reason why the people of Alaska overwhelmingly approve of drilling in ANWR.> They approve because it's economically advantageous to them. Quel suprise.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And this is their natural habitat. Harsh as it is to humans, they thrive there. But (and you once again didn't address this) there are indigenous people up there, and they depend on the caribou.> Drilling on a few thousand acres will not destroy the caribou heards. <if someone provides evidence showing A> "If" indeed. Of course, if they just claim A, I don't have to prove B. <They say that as the price of a barrel increases, the savings would increase, but only at roughly the same percentage.> And that's not correct. <They approve because it's economically advantageous to them.> It's economically advantageous to all of us.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<And this is their natural habitat. Harsh as it is to humans, they thrive there. But (and you once again didn't address this) there are indigenous people up there, and they depend on the caribou.>> <Drilling on a few thousand acres will not destroy the caribou heards.> It will damage them, and the people who depend on them. <<if someone provides evidence showing A and you say "I can't show it, but I read once that it was B"... well, don't be surprised that you're not taken seriously here. >> <"If" indeed. Of course, if they just claim A, I don't have to prove B.> I posted two links showing that drilling in ANWR would have precious little effect on either oil prices or weaning us off foreign oil. With percentages, graphs, and explanations. You? Squat, as usual. <<They say that as the price of a barrel increases, the savings would increase, but only at roughly the same percentage.<> <And that's not correct.> Perhaps you'd like to show why their calculations are wrong, then, instead of just asserting it. <<They approve because it's economically advantageous to them.>> <It's economically advantageous to all of us.> No, it really isn't. It will have a minimal effect for most of us. We'd do far better doing something like subsidizing HHO converters (a very interesting - and currently available - technology).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It will damage them, and the people who depend on them.> Maybe, maybe not. And any damage it may do may be minimal. <I posted two links showing that drilling in ANWR would have precious little effect on either oil prices or weaning us off foreign oil.> You posted two links claiming that. Yeah for you. <Perhaps you'd like to show why their calculations are wrong, then, instead of just asserting it.> I've explained it. If you can't follow the explanation, then I'm sorry. <No, it really isn't. It will have a minimal effect for most of us.> Yes, it really is. It would mean billions of dollars going to Americans, rather than foreigners, and those Americans would pay taxes on that income. That's a good thing.
