Designate ANWR as part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

[gulliver]

Let me get this straight. Republicans want to pump oil out of ANWR while, at the same time, Bush is pumping oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Why don't we just stop pumping into the SPR and designate ANWR as another SPR site? Then Republicans would not want to pump oil out of ANWR. (They'd probably want to start pumping oil into it though.)

On edit: Actually, shipments to the SPR were suspended last month, so we are not putting oil into it any more.

[MiniMe]

1. The strategic petroleum reserve should be readily available

Since it will take 10 years or so to get any petroleum out of ANWR, that would just push the repukes to start drilling now I think.

[gulliver]

4. Tricky one.

Make it part of a new "long term" petroleum reserve strategy then. Saving oil for the country's future needs...

[sharesunited]

2. Ha ha good one! I might support drilling in ANWR if Congress

would establish a national oil company to be owned by the People for the purpose of introducing crude at cost into the U.S. marketplace.

Oh the downward price pressure big oil would feel!

[Arctic Dave]

3. How about they develop the NPR-A

and not worry about ANWR. The NPR-A is roughly five times the size of ANWR and the oil companies have done almost zero development in it. Oh thats right, ANWR is nothing mmore then a political issue that comes out during election time like "Guns, God and Gays".

[belpejic]

7. You hit the nail on the head

It's not economically sensible to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, which is why major oil cos don't give a crap about it. If it ever gets to be economically sensible we will be truly screwed--i.e., if you think $4.50/gal of gas is bad, wait until you see where it can really go.

Arguing about the Reserve is purely a political issue for mouthbreathing Republicans. It makes no economic or strategic sense.

[babylonsister]

5. I thought we stopped adding to the SPR. As for ANWR,

there's no savings to be realized by ruining ANWR for oil. It's just the GOOP's current strawman.

Survey says...

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/anwr-drilling-could-cut-75/story.aspx?guid=%7B26229D0C-EC53-4FF1-BC12-6CE405A403AC%7D&dist=msr_4

ANWR drilling could cut 75 cents from oil prices, DOE says
By Rex Nutting
Last update: 10:20 a.m. EDT May 22, 2008

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Producing oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska could cut crude oil prices by about 75 cents per barrel by 2025, the Energy Department said Thursday in a special analysis prepared for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. The price decline would be about 0.6% of the current spot price. Under federal law, no drilling is now allowed in ANWR. Under the most likely case, production would begin in 2018 and peak in 2027 at 780,000 barrels per day, with total production of 2.6 billion barrels.

[gulliver]

6. That's right.

I found that after I posted and added it to an "On Edit". Still, as a counter straw man, it seems to me like the idea of "saving ANWR" as part of a truly strategic term oil reserve would add to the argument against rushing to drill it now. Food for discussion anyway. Anything smart about it has probably already been thought of by someone. The dumb parts are original.

[Bandit]

8. Well for one thing Alaska owns fifty percent of it.

According to the "Alaska Statehood Pact", Alaska was to maintain ninty percent with ten percent going to Federal government. I believe it was Reagan but could have been Bush 1 decided to change that ratio to fifty/fifty. I am not sure the Feds could just take it all without a real "War". Alaskans don't mind the state selling it's oil. Royalties from oil sales pretty much run the State and citizens there don't pay State Income or Sales Tax. In fact every year every single Alaskan receives a check from the State as their indivual share of their resource. What a concept, a sharing of the wealth. It doesn't all go directly to the Top...At least not immediately. Right before Christmas every year Alaskans receive their Permanent Fund Dividend Check, which began as oil money but now is basically all built on investments and Interest. It has been growing at over ten percent a year and seems like very sound economic reasoning for the State. People get their checks and almost immediately put that money right back into the State's economy, buying stuff for Christmas etc..For a very red State, Alaska does a pretty good job of taking care of it's citizens.I might add that epublicans have been drooling over this money for years. Alaskan's did a very smart thing though, they made it so the money could never be touched without a vote of the people. The people love their pot of money..

[Blue_In_AK]

10. My Republican brother from Florida,

who was just here visiting, absolutely HATES that we Alaskans get a permanent fund check every year. It just smacks too much of Socialism for his tastes, and he isn't shy about expressing his feelings either. His argument is why should individual Alaskans get dividends from the state's oil when Texans and Oklahomans and citizens from other oil-producing states don't. I say that was just short-sightedness on the part of those states' governing bodies at the time when their resource was first being developed. I think Jay Hammond, Dave Rose and the other "fathers of the Permanent Fund" were brilliant visionaries. As you say, it is a boon to ALL Alaska's citizens, from the very rich down to the very poorest -- who can at least comfortably pay their rent for a month and maybe buy a little Christmas for their kids -- and a great boost to our economy every fall.

[kentuck]

9. I think that is a brilliant idea!

We can drill some wells in ANWR but we will not take any oil out of the ground - unless there is a national emergency. It would be like an insurance policy during a time of war. It could also be used as leverage against OPEC if they tried to raise prices too much. Of course, we could imagine all the machinations and deceptions by the oil companies and Republicans to try and get that oil out of the ground. Maybe not? :-)