ANWR drilling no solution to gasoline costs, Kerry says

adn.com ^ | March 31, 2004 | LIZ RUSKIN

[KQQL]

WASHINGTON -- While blaming President Bush for the high price of gasoline, his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, on Tuesday reiterated his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, saying it is no solution.

"We deserve an administration that doesn't fake it to the American people and pretend that somehow by drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge we can deal with the problems of America," Kerry, D-Mass., told university students in San Diego. "We can't provide the supply of oil America needs from the Alaska wildlife refuge or from any other source in the United States, because we only have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves."

[eggman]

See my take (21) on that same Kerry quote.

[steveegg]

You make too much sense.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I think we agree. It would lower prices a tiny bit (increase in supply always does that) but probably not much.

And it certainly wouldn't "solve" gasoline prices, whatever that is supposed to mean. Gasoline prices are going to remain nonzero.

I guess the real problem is that Kerry was attacking a straw man. I don't know anyone who thought opening ANWR to drilling would "solve" the sociopolitical that there are gasoline prices. ;-P

[gogeo]

Drilling in ANWR would kill the caribou, and the Democrats need to register caribou in order for Knowles to win in November.

Dead caribou can still vote RAT...

[F.J. Mitchell]

Kerry has a secret formula for turning ketchup into a high octomatotane fuel. It's likely to cost him a many of his liberal bharfrat bosom buddies though.

Can't you just hear the left critizing BIG KETCHUP and it's founder Ketchcup Kerry?

[marron]

Oil has been cheap so far, even now. That's the problem with alternative energy. It just costs more.

I think you could figure the equivalent cost of SASOL-style coal-derived gasoline as being the upper price limit of oil-based gasoline. Gasoline has to stay low enough not to trigger the construction of coal-to-gasoline refineries.

The price of coal-gasoline would improve over time as the technology became more widely employed.

The catch is, as it often is, you would have a very difficult time ever getting a permit to build such a plant; no jurisdiction is going to want to deal with it. The fact that such a plant is in direct competition with OPEC would guarantee that the environmentalists would go crazy.

US oil companies would not be a problem, however, as they would most probably own it and the coal field supplying it.

[hershey]

Hmm, didn't they say it would take ten years to see oil flowing from ANWR if we started drilling today? We should have started when Bush took office four years ago.

[RightWhale]

Oil companies may be toploaded with geologists and chemists, but they could no doubt staff up with physicists if necessary to continue to function in the energy sector when some of the alternatives turn to solar and wind. Big equipment such as solar or wind farms shouldn't be a problem for those already dealing with oil rigs, pipelines, and refineries. Some of these other fuels such as hydrogen and alcohol would already be right down their alley.

[RightWhale]

It might take 10 years for the natural gas pipeline, but for the relatively short extension to ANWR from Prudhoe it shouldn't take that long. Pipe would have to be ordered, the EIS written, and permits would have to be granted. Probably 4 years if everything goes well.

[Army Air Corps]

Probably 4 years if everything goes well.

Yep, assuming that the left does not hold-up the whole affair in the courts and legislature until the end of time...

[Torie]

The dirty little secret is that there is NO solution to gas prices, ANWR or otherwise, until cars that run on something else, or partly on something else, really become a viable alternative. Of course, Kerry says it is all Bush's fault. Of course.

[RedMonqey]

My family owns a 500+ farm here in Tennessee. True technology has greatly expanded the production per acre BUT we are losing VERY good farmland to urban sprawl at the same time the population is increasing. Somewhere the two lines will intersect and that's where the trouble starts. Just in my lifetime, I've seen thousands of acres of PRIME FARMLAND lost in the Clarksville TN. area, alone

And we're a SMALL town. I see this across the state and in other Southern States.

Hell, my family will do very well in the future as the food, energy prices soar. We are pretty self sufficient.


If I was a city dweller in a high rise apartment, I'd be working on an ulcer. We are spending our children's inheritance

[RightWhale]

Gov Murkowski said Alaska will offer offshore leases--right off ANWR--this summer. Good move and politically powerful.

[Different-is-good]

"We can't provide the supply of oil America needs from the Alaska wildlife refuge or from any other source in the United States, because we only have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves."

This is like saying:

"We can't provide for the supply of tax revenue America needs by increasing taxes on the rich, or any other small group, because they only make up a small percentage of the taxpayers. We must instead decrease the government's demand for additional tax revenue by cutting government programs and stimulate development of new sources of income through private investment."

From Rush Limbaugh's website:

"Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes"

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html
So, a "small group" of rich taxpayers does indeed supply a majority of the tax revenue for America. It's simple numbers: that's where the money is. And: "The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes." So no money there to tap.

Thus, back to topic, if America only has 3% of the world oil reserves (I believe this includes ANWR), it's simple numbers: that's not really where the oil is. It would be like us trying to fund our national defense budget with the taxes of the bottom 50% of income earners.