1. That assumption comes from unproven estimates of the recoverable oil & gas present in the area. When we tie the words "assumptions" and "estimates" together in a single sentence we are awful close to the word, "guesses". How do we improve estimates of recoverable oil & gas? Drilling. It could be that there is even less recoverable petroleum than is estimated. In which case, the oil companies would lose billions of dollars of investment risk. It could be that there is more than the present estimate, in which case the oil companies would make more money than they used to raise money to cover their risk. Everybody that has a 401K probably owns some oil stock. If the oil companies make a lot of money then my 401K makes money and I like that.

2. To me, that is the best argument against drilling. It's subjective, but much more compelling than the economic arguments.

3. That's why they call it a risky investment. But that's what oil companies do on a daily basis. Guess how much it costs an oil company to drill onshore in LA & TX per week -- about $10K. And they may drill for over a month on a single hole. There are about 2,000 land rigs running in North America. That's about $80,000,000 of risk per month on drilling. They usually pay off, but certainly not always. It's far less risky than roulette but far more risky than the S&P 500. That's their money. With great risk comes the possibility of great reward. But you gotta have the balls for the risk. Not many people do so they spread the risk -- investors. I have a good friend that has been risking his own money since 1938 (took a brief vacation to fight in the Pacific during WWII). He has lost millions of dollars over his lifetime but has made more than he lost. He told me that it is a tough feeling at the end of 3-4 weeks of drilling with no production to decide whether to shut it down or keep going. How many $10K weeks could I sustain? Ha! Years ago I got into one for a small investment and it is still paying me almost 30 years later. Not much but crap, $100/month for 30 years is pretty nice. I wish I'd stuck with it, but I crapped-out one time and lost my ass along with my nerve.

4. That goes to my answer to #1.

5. That "need" is predicated on the belief that we should conserve petroleum. I haven't seen an argument for conservation that I find particularly compelling. I stand ready to be educated.

Regarding your answer to point #1: Using the same logic, if there is less oil than projected, your 401K will take a big hit.

Regarding your answer to point #5. Even if you don't believe in global warming, doesn't it make sense to conserve petroleum to help keep prices down and make it last longer into the future? You act like it's an unlimited or unimportant resource.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

petroleum is probably limited (we are on a finite globe, ...). I do believe that global warming is a real phenomenon and I do believe that there is a reasonable case to be made that man has had an impact on that warming. I do not believe that either of those points, even if they are ironclad facts, make a case that the rational response is to forbid drilling for oil in ANWR.

B

Word. Though Bot replied with a well thought out reply about how it's just guessing, I don't think much analysis of numbers in necessary. One simply must analyze this: If you can sell your product at $5 and demand is not in any way diminished - in fact it's at an all time high, when you get more of said product, will you sell it at $5 or $2? An argument maybe could be made that prices may stay constant for a little while longer, no serious person could believe oil producers are going to be sell it for less. I would argue that since corporate taxes are passed onto consumers, so too willt he cost of drilling, so most likely drilling in Anwar will raise oil prices, not lower them.


This I can't stand. I don't agree with Aklim on any of his reasons/posts regarding why crap mileage vehicles are no big deal. But, the only freaking reason we don't have more fuel efficient vehicles, including more fuel efficient hauling vehicles, is because of Ford, GM, and Chrysler interfering in our government. They are the worst example of corporate mismanagement as there exists in the world and the only reason they aren't dead is because they use the government to bleed us. You don't need higher prices for everyone to hope the minority driving guzzlers decides not to. You need the big 3 out of government so people can have the choice to get some of the way more efficient vehicles Europeans get. They seem to manage to own dogs and enjoy life w/o a 4mpg land yacht. Give us the same choice.

__________________
1984 300TD

Minority driving guzzlers?? Last time I checked trucks and SUV's were outselling sedans in this country, at least a few years ago they were. I couldn't disagree with you more. The reason we have so little choice in fuel-efficient vehicles is that for a long time until recently we had very cheap gas and many Americans just pigged out and got themselves the biggest $hitbox they could fit in their driveway. The Big 3 were only satisfying that fetish which thankfully is finally starting to recede, thanks to higher oil prices.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Now if he is right, his and our 401Ks will take a hit. But such is life. My 401K doesn't win every quarter but as long as it wins more than it loses, I'm happy.

But will it? I haven't seen a shred of evidence that proves that. However, the fact that China and India are gobbling up every drop of fuel certainly proves the reverse. You are thinking of a small town shop where if I don't buy from you, your store hurts. This is a case of a seller's market. Even if you didn't buy a drop of oil, as long as the Asian countries buy it, life is still good.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Depends. If supply exceeds demand, you are going to have to lower the price.

Would you be willing to pay for it? So far the answer is "no" from Citizen Joe. IF the Big 2.5 can offer a car that gets 20 mpg and another that offers 30 mpg, do you think anyone will buy the 20 mpg one? HOWEVER, for that to happen, all things have to be equal. IOW, if MB offered me a E320 CDI that gets 20 mpg and an E320 CDI that gets me 30 mpg, I'd be all over the latter. UNLESS there is a price difference. Then the equation gets more murky. Yes, the Big 2.5 can make anything you want. However, the problem is that you won't buy it at that price.

You got a choice. If you don't show them that you want a more fuel efficient vehicle by doing more than flapping your gums, they will take note. They would be making more pink trucks if those would sell to more than Mary Kay people.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

In '06, no SUVs were in the top ten in sales. 4 were pickups. The Big 3 do not/are not satisfying fetishes. They create them, and they create lower costs and incentives to buy through government.

If you think ANWAR supply is going to dent demand, you're crazy.

Three quick examples. The SUV exists because fuel efficiency standards were enacted for cars in the 70s. Since Detroit's biggest profit came from pick ups, trucks were exempted. Since trucks were exempted, the SUV was classified a truck (this included Jeep CJ5 and CJ7s, the model most of Ford's SUVs were based off of). Oh and guess what? there was a 25% tarriff on foreign trucks.
There is currently a tax credit for businesses for buying large, gas guzzling vehicles. Who makes large gas guzzling vehicles? The Big 3.
Government agencies are bound to buy fleet cars from American manufacturers.
There's even a book about the Big 3/Gov relationship
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521631734

__________________
1984 300TD

Some dark part of my brain figures it's going to happen someday and in the not too distant future. Oh, and every last bit of coal will be dug up, tailing piles everywhere, about double or triple the mercury levels in waterways on that account.

The good news is, Americans will be spared excessive exercising, stuff like walking and bike riding, so they'll still be able to cultivate large bellies.

Is this a great country or what?

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

As I understand it, and I am not certain that I do, oil supply is not the problem. There is plenty of oil. There is somewhat of a problem in refining capacity.

In the long term history of the world, what is the single most important factor in bringing about innovation?

B

I am all for drilling and exploring ANWAR, especially since we can now do so in a nearly unobtrusive way, steering the drill bit at up to 35' degree angles where we want it to go! The Alaska pipe line is aging and we should make the best use of it while we can! I used to live up there and I can tell you that those people could use the income.

Overcoming the objections of the envoronmentalist liberals. They don't want us in Iraq for any reason, including oil. Environmentalist liberals have opposed every refinery our oil companies have ever tried to build in the last 35 years, NIMBY, Not I My Back Yard! Yet these same refineries would also process Biodiesel and other alternative fuels.

I cannot honestly figure out what it is that these people want us to do! We need a transitional period where we can evolve toward renewable energies, but the capacity and technology we would use for this exploration is often the one and the same for things like refining our current fuel supply!

The U.S. is the worlds THIRD biggest oil producers, yet we cannot get to it because of Environmentalist Liberals, who incidentally do not want restrictions on controlling our exponentially growing populations!

Get a clue. Wild salmon is likely to go extinct in our lifetime. Rice is in major shortage around the world. You can't live on oil. Oh yeah, petro based fertilizer. Whoopee. It ruins the soil over time.

We are in a bubble of self infatuation and the harm we do to the planet is real and difficult to undo.

Seek ye some knowledge and get rid of this scapegoating crap.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Do you know what the carrying capacity of the planet is without agrichemicals, mechanized farming, and modern distribution? We reached it in the late 1800's. The planetary population has more than doubled since then. Which people do you think it would be okay to kill-off so that we wont have to use evil chemicals and Satanic oil?

B

From what I read, refining capacity isn't a problem either. It's just another revenue stream in the form of tax credits.

Since no one else answered, need.
What we need is agrichemicals, mechanized farming, and modern distribution w/o planetary destruction.

__________________
1984 300TD