[Looking for Diogenes]

Teacher, you seem to know a lot about this topic, so let me ask you this. What is the advantage of rushing to tap what has been described as America's last big oil field? Oil from abroad is cheap. Why not buy from the foreigners now and save our own supply for future needs? Take a look at the chart in post #52. America will be in a much stronger position versus other oil producers if we have a reserve of this size.

The only advantage I can see is to keep the Alaskan pipeline full.

[Teacher317]

I'm not that well informed, actually. I have no friends in the industry, just a couple in Alaska that love to share their newspaper stories. =^) I also love the application of reason and logic in every situation.

I'll still try to present my thoughts on the issue you raised, though... I think it's probably not a very wise course of action for several reasons...

1. Why on earth would you sit on a resource when it has present value, its price doesn't keep up with the rate of inflation (gas was about $1.10⁹ when I was a teen, and was again this morning), and possibly no quantifiable future value? The Middle East's supply will easily last for decades. The price, supply, demand, and quality of the oil in the market is totally unpredictable 20+ years in advance. Comparing the two markets is risky at best.
2. Our supply may be totally worthless by the time the ME supply is tapped out. Alternatives are improving their cost-efficiency every day. (Nuclear, solar, etc.) Leaving it in the ground could very easily be throwing out national wealth.
3. Enough speculation. As for the certainties: America's economy needs help NOW. We need to send a clear message of independence from the ME NOW. Alaskans want to drill NOW. According to the most rabid environmentalists, helping the environment is necessary NOW (and again, we drill cleaner than the ME).

The only reasoned position I can see is to take the available wealth, security, environmental and economic benefits now, and not wait for possible benefits a few decades away.

As for the chart, it doesn't graph the ME's production or supply. Also, the downward trend from 1975 could have as much to do with regulation (and even the gas crisis of 79?) as it does with our supply or demand (which has only gone up, obviously).

Also, notice the second slide on the Power Point presentation on that site... all the data points after 1990 are above the yellow projection line, yet they have it continuing to trend downward. Just because they can fit a few years to a decently fitting bell curve does not mean the bell will continue indefinitely, that new production methods won't be found, or that new supplies won't be found. (The fourth slide oddly keeps our production capacity at 189 billion bbls per year, even past 2030... I'd REALLY have to take issue with a hard limit like that!)

Finally, their conclusive chart states that, "It is clear that it would take some 13 years (from today) for ANWR to begin making a sizeable contribution to U.S. oil supply and that while this would be a non-trivial contribution to supply, it really does not change the long-term outlook." Once again, it doesn't matter if the contribution is over 5% ('sizeable') to the U.S production... ANYTHING that will add to our wealth, job opportunities and independence (while cleaning the environment, decreasing transport prices, and diminishing the influence of the ME) is a GOOD THING. An analogous situation: Every household in this nation uses coupons that would 'not be a sizeable contribution', and 'won't change the long-term outlook' for the family... but every little bit helps! =^) Finally, again, Alaskans WANT to drill, and I want the concept of Liberty to be followed. Let 'em drill!