Thursday, May 25, 2006

The new pro-ANWR blog

Via Rita at the Bivings Group, which does PR work for Arctic Power (and others), there's a new website for supporters of drilling in ANWR:

As the blog says,
Please visit our Action Center and Take Action NOW! In just a minute or two you can Send a letter to your Congressmen, Sign the ANWR Petition, and Tell your friends to take action.
Definitely check it all that good stuff. I don't how effective the e-mailing and online petition are, but if you have a few minutes to spare, they can't hurt.

Of special note on the blog are "ANWR Fact and Fiction" and a video making the case for drilling in ANWR.

I do want to comment on a couple of things in "ANWR Fact and Fiction." good American wants to "ruin" any amount of our land, even if it is a largely uninhabited, frozen desert.
Actually, I consider myself a good American and a good capitalist. I see nothing wrong with "ruining" a certain amount of land, if that means sufficient benefit. That's why we dump garbage in certain places, rendering any adjacent land quite unsuitable for residential use. Similarly, if drilling in ANWR meant that the land would be unusable for any purpose once the oil is drained, I'd say that's worth 30 years of 1.5 million barrels a day.
In reality, ANWR has the potential to supply America with an additional 1.5 million barrels per day for 30 years – that's equivalent to 30 years worth of Saudi imports.
No amount of supply, though, from ANWR or any other domestic source, would reduce our Saudi oil imports to zero unless Congress enacted legislation to forbid it. We would import less, but never zero: oil is a fungible commodity, so each type of crude will sell for the same price on the global market whether it came from Alaska or the Middle East. And even if we passed import restrictions so we bought no more Saudi oil, Saudi Arabia would just sell to other countries, albeit at lower prices because of the increased supply.

So increasing our own domestic output won't mean energy independence, not without government intervention, nor will it ever significantly deprive Middle East nations of money that sometimes is funneled to terrorists. It will, though, mean cheaper oil prices, and that's all the reason we need to start drilling.



Anonymous Brad Warbiany said...

Definitely check it all that good stuff. I don't how effective the e-mailing and online petition are, but if you have a few minutes to spare, they can't hurt.

I've been told the most effective are a phone call or a fax. It used to be a letter, but those are now so scrutinized for security that it can take a while to get there. But composing your own letter (not a form letter), and sending it to your Congressman's office by fax, is probably going to get their attention the best. Most often, when I send a self-composed letter by fax to my Congressman, I get a letter back that isn't a simple form letter in return.

Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:09:00 AM  
Blogger T. F. Stern said...

I mentioned ANWR in an article I posted earlier:

dealing with national dependency on oil imports.

Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02:00 PM  
Blogger Benny said...

This isn't a long term solution, and none of the oil will be usable for several years. This is just a token gesture that does absolutely NOTHING to solve the problem of our quickly diminishing oil supply. What our nation really needs to be energy independent is an easily obtainable way to make energy that has an almost infinite supply of raw materials to do so, such as using hydrogen cells or making rechargable solar powered baterries that would store enough energy to power a car for a few days. This oil solution would do nothing.

Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Quincy said...

Benny -

We HAVE a source of energy which is clean, plentiful, safe, and readily available--nuclear power. What does nuclear power have to do with cars? Well, there's this one, itty bitty problem with hydrogen as fuel, it takes more energy to create (through electrolosys (sp?)) than it carries as a fuel. Basically, the only way to get any substantial amount of hydrogen is to take a large quantity of water (H2O) and use electricity to break the chemical bonds between the atoms. That takes energy. Where is this going to come from? Here in CA, if you plug into the power grid, most of your power is coming from natural gas, a fossil fuel, with a goodly amount from hyrdo-electric power. If you're in the east, most of your power comes from coal. Coal, that stuff people are (literally) dying to pull out of the earth. That's certainly not helping the environment, and would have a dubious effect on our energy independence, if you care.

This is the one place we could learn from France, where they have enough nuclear plants to seriously consider economic (and clean) hydrogen production. Instead, the environmentalists on the left used the power of government to restrict the building of nuclear plants and, as a result of unintended consequences, KEPT US dependent on fossil fuels, including foreign oil, for energy. (Save the fact, of course, that oil is a fungible commodity, so there really isn't a thing "foreign" oil.) Way to go, Sierra Club.

As for your solar idea, all I'm going to say is go figure out how many watts it takes to move a car with all those batteries plus four or five human beings. Long story short, there aren't enough photons hitting the car to keep it independently powered for a few minutes, let alone a few days.

There's no such thing as infininte energy, but there are very efficient energy sources (most material output for least material input) and right now, with current technology, that is nuclear power. And, for mobile applications, it's gasoline/diesel fuel. Before you make anymore suggestions about fuel supplies, or before you take any pundit's recommendation seriously, go brush up on the law of Conservation of Energy. It's one that no court can overturn.

Saturday, May 27, 2006 3:41:00 AM  
Blogger Perry Eidelbus said...

As a comment coming very late, I'd like to add that we are continually discovering new oil reserves. The Gulf of Mexico deposits discovered just last year could be as much as 50% of the United States' current known reserves.

Running out of oil? Don't believe it. There's plenty of tar sands in Alberta, too.

Monday, May 07, 2007 10:43:00 PM  
Blogger Arizona Sam said...

First I'd like to state that I am not opposed to drilling in ANWR. However, statements such as, "In reality, ANWR has the potential to supply America with an additional 1.5 million barrels per day for 30 years – that's equivalent to 30 years worth of Saudi imports." are misleading. Please see the analysis I posted here:
for a more realistic analysis of the impact of drilling in ANWR.

Monday, June 16, 2008 12:57:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home