Let them DRILL

I am beginning to see that there are subtle differences in the pro-drilling argument, some versions of which have more merit than others.

There are those folks who want to lower fuel prices, but we already know that's a crock because increases in supply would only be large enough to lower the prices per gallon a fraction of a penny, as even the Department of Energy admits. You can't lower price by increasing supply, only by lowering demand.

More persuasive are those people whose primary concern is to reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern oil supplies. I see McCain sometimes recognizing this argument, and I repect him for it, because there's at least some long-term thinking in that argument, as opposed to all the knee-jerk shrieking about "holy cow! look at the price of gas!"

While the "end dependence" is a better argument, my concern is that if the U.S. government allows companies to drill ANWR (wholly aside from the environmental devastation), there's no reason to think these companies will sell to Americans. Why should they, when (in the 20 years it would take to get supplies flowing from Alaska) a rising China may well be offering even more per barrel than Americans can afford, not to mention Europe and its ever-stronger currency.

So the assumption that U.S. oil companies would sell the products of any new drilling to us Americans for our declining dollar is dangerous. Or do the pro-drilling people want to nationalize the oil industry to guarantee that the oil goes to us Americans? I wouldn't be surprised if the pro-drilling voices begin to resemble Hugo Chavez's. When that happens, my brain will explode.

Not going to happen. Why spend billions of dollars and touch our strategic fossil oil reserves, while we can allow others to deplete their reserves first? ANWAR belongs to the next generations of Americans, who will face a world with reduced reserves of fossil oil, while we will have a strategic card under our sleeve.

The outraged shrieking about this issue is getting tiresome. Why doesn't Texas, which is about the same geographic size as the ANWR, receive the same environmental whining for its protection? If it's wrong in Alaska, it's just as wrong in Texas, Oklahoma and the Middle East. Worldwide demand for petroleum and petroleum derived products is not receding, it is growing, soon geometrically, as China's economic growth engine continues its current early momentum. Continuing to sit on the oil reserves in ANWR out of "environmental damage" considerations is like a bank refusing to loan any of its funds out of fear that the potential borrowers might be smokers.

If prices keep going the way they have been we may have no choice. That said we need to start really looking at alternative sources of energy.

HELL NO! OH my gosh, this is like giving a marijuana field to a drug addict. AND IT IS NOT JUST AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE!!!!! WE NEED TO DECREASE OUR DEPENDENCE ON OIL!!!!! IT IS ALSO AN ECONOMIC ISSUE!!!!!!THAT IS A FACT!!!! There is plenty of proof of global warming and if you don't believe it you are as close minded ad foolish as those who don't believe in God. But that isn't even the main issue. Oil is a non-renewable resource, it will eventually run out, and there is NOTHING we can do about that. THOSE ARE FACTS PEOPLE. We need to focus more on decreasing our dependence so that future generations aren't completely helpless when they run out and have NOTHING to run on. It would make the great depression look like a pay cut. Anyone who supports finding more oil for us to become dependent on and take focus off finding out what we are going to do WHEN we run out of oil has some serious prioritizing to do. I really like how republicans are so quick to worry about the future of our children when it comes to social security, but not when it comes to finding an alternative to a resource that will, without a doubt, run out. And how they deny that the war in the middle east has nothing to do with oil, yet claim drilling for oil in Alaska will help with the Middle East crisis. Hypocrisy!!!!!!!!!!!! And yes, I know it sounds like I am a tree hugger but fossil fuels aren't exactly good for the environment either. But again, that is beside the point. Yes all you claiming that we should not have to buy our oil from the middle east are ABSOLUTELY correct. We need to stop buying oil from them, south america, western europe, and all of the other places we import it from. WE NEED TO STOP DEPENDING ON IT ALL TOGETHER!!!!! For me at least, the fact that it is bad for the environment isn't one of my top concerns, still a concern yes, but not the biggest.

The Americans are securing their interests by occupying Iraq and installing yet another puppet regime to secure further supplies of oil.

A great idea! From reading I've done on ANWR, drilling for oil up there would not disturb the wildlife at all, despite what the alarmists imagine. We've got an enormous oil reserve and if we'd start using it, we would send the Middle Eastern rulers back to the poverty and powerlessness that they have rightfully earned. Only after they start treating America and its citizens with respect, should we begin buying any oil from them again. Our country has always been good about helping others. That doesn't mean we're supposed to invite their contempt and abuse.

Drilling in Alaska won't solve diddley.Most Americans oppose this-but Oil lobbies have more money to grease the palms of decision makers.This would PERMANENTLY destroy the Wildlife Reserve,kill animals in droves,and only supply us with as measly years worth of fuel,at best.Who'll end up paying for it? Consumers,of course.Another Racket!

This won't solve all our problems.. we need to drill in other places too..

most of the terriorist funding is by opec oil if we used our resourses here like Anwr & offshore but putting only 10% in our Tanks and using 90% Grain Ethonyl and forcing all auto makers too comply Brazil does it why Can't the US.

WE HAVE WINNER!! DING-DING-DING!

BS. We've already done enough to destroy the environment all over the world--take a look at the Pentagon report. We need to STOP our dependance on oil; not fuel it. Wind power is far more efficient in several ways, fuel cells and solar would work if our stupid government would invest in it. Finding oil somewhere else is not going to stop or help the conflict in the Middle East; getting the Israelis off the Palestinians' backs will. Don't think deer are important? No, that's right, the human race is a god compaired to any other living thing, despite the fact that each living thing plays a vital role in the ecosystem, which would collapse if it didn't have them, and we would go with it. If only the human race were to go; don't see OUR vital role in the ecosystem, do you?

Once again, this does absolutely nothing to solve the main problem, the violence in Palestine, and only ruins one of the last great wilderness areas on the continent.

not enough oil in Alaska, too long term, alt energy sources and nuclear energy is a much better choice

Pointless, short-term non-solution to our excessive energy dependence.

A must. Fuel cells are 10 years away, solar power is insufficient, and nuclear power is too dangerous. The environmentalists tell us that it's a thriving environment, when in reality it's a barren desolate glaciaral tundra. Few animals live here. It's huge, a few oil pumps certainly arent gonna be a problem to a few survival minded caribou. It will provide jobs, and may help encourage American industries to move back to the U.S.

Stupid idea, oil has nothing to do with it.

1. Will not provide a significant amount of oil. 2. Will cost a lot and take a long time to develop. 3. WILL hurt the environment. Have you seen pictures of Prudhoe Bay? Nasty.

Damn straight! We've got this wonderful oil within our borders and we've got to pander to the environmentalists who value forget-me-nots ahead of jobs and job security.

While I doubt it will solve the Middle Eastern dependence problem, I do believe we should drill at home, espescially considering that nobody has proven that it would be harmful to the wildlife there. However, I propose that we sign an Agreement with Canada which will become a joint effort by both nations to explore the uninhabited northern lands, which holds more than 50% of North America's natural resources. This will definitely reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Im still trying to figure out why were not doing it now- Oh yeah, thats right! Because DEER are more important than American soldiers fighting for us.

Drilling in the ANWR is the worst idea ever! First off, the amount of oil in all of ANWR is enough to quench americas thirst for a mere 6 months. Secondly, it will take ten years to get at. Thirdly, the wildlife WILL be totally screwed despite what big oil propoganda has got the lemmings believing. Disturbing the natural environment at all will have a catastrophic affect not to mention spills and the fact that certain animals, like the polar bear, will leave their young when the amount of vibrations increase. The only reason we would do this is so Bush, Cheney, and all the other big oil guys can go up there and make alot of money. If the goal was to sever ties to mideast oil then we would look more toward alnerate means of fuel, but that is not the goal.

Drilling in ANWR won't solve our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, but it's a start in the right direction. It's certainly better to be drilling in our own backyards then to be taking oil from other countries like Nigeria or the Middle Eastern fiefdoms. For one thing, we would be able to enforce pollution standards better than they would. We must also remember that ANWR is not all pretty flowers and mountains. We would be drilling only in 1 percent of the land, and that one percent is in a flat plain of cold, windswept tundra. There is very little wildlife in that part of Alaska, therefore little damage can be done. Pinhead politicians who have little knowledge of the issue scare voters into believing that we will be drilling in pristine wilderness. That is not the case. The area that is going to be drilled stands in an economically depressed area. By allowing for oil drilling, these people will not suffer as much because they will be able to make a living. There is not a lot of oil there, but there is enough to offset some of our dependence on OPEC. And we should not ignore our long term goals of making our country more energy efficient. At the end of the day, it will be good for our environment and our economic system if we begin in a path towards energy independence.

this is stupid. alaska should be a neutral area without any man involvments. drilling there will pollute the waters and kill some species, it's just wrong to ruin one of the only untouchble areas.

The drilling for oil that Bush wants to do in Alaska is definitely hazardous to the several species that reside in that area and is bad for the environment in general. Plus, it's not even proven that there is a close to significant supply of oil to meet the needs of Americans in ANWR. The only thing that that Bush cares about is filling the pockets of him and his cronies in the oil business.

Although, as DickDick points out, we non-Americans have no say over American actions in the U.S., I think that drilling in Alaska should be considered unacceptable. Although the affected area may not be picturesque with waterfalls, etc., still it is home to many species. We are much too quick to write off the importance of species other than our own in favour of the expedient solution. That attitude has caused much of the environmental destruction and disaster that we will soon have to face; surely we should not even consider expanding commercial destruction of even more of the world.

A decent idea, and perhaps a good starting point, but would it offer enough oil to be a) cost effective and b) useful in the long term? I just don't know if this will work, but it sure as hell is worth looking into!

This is a no-brainer 5 on my scale if we're talking about things to do in general (have you seen what ANWR actually looks like? -- it doesn't look like the enviro videos of waterfalls, elk and butterflies -- I'll tell you that much). But I'll just give it a 3 here because it wouldn't have any effect on the Middle East situation.