Both Democrats and Republicans agree on this. Why don't they stop. Dump a 100 million barrels on the open market and see what happens to the oil prices.
I do not support this move. As someone very close to the energy industry, we need to have a LONG TERM secure supply of energy, should we ever have a global conflict. Otherwise, we lose. Period.
Well, if we stay at 97% capacity, I'm ok with this move for now. But in the same article, it mentions that the Senate still won't allow drilling in ANWR. It's obvious they're more interested in politics and sucking up to the environmental lobby than solving this problem.
But all the republican are for this move. You thing greenspan was thinking longterm when he created the housing bubble? This country runs on cheap gas and it would be in our best interest to lower gas prices.
Drilling in ANWR is a drop in the bucket. Drilling offshore off the coasts of rich neighborhoods would make a bigger difference. The only way to make that idea have a lasting impact is to create a national energy plan with detailed inventories and projected usage along with social and financial costs for the next 20+ years.
97% is ok for now, but isn't there a clause in the law that says that the reserve may not be filled unless the price of oil drops under $75 a barrel? It's possible we'll never see $75 dollar a barrel oil again. Did they take that out of the bill?
Yeah. I think the .gov should hold its reserves rather than termporarily create surplus. If we are cutoff from most oil we would need it to drill ANWAR and hope that we can produce enough to meet over 50% of our needs (unlikely) Basically I will be willing to not have cheap gas for a week rather than really long lines if some crisis happens.
Bush has already suspended filling the reserve twice since he's been President, when prices were much lower than they are now, but were considered to be high (at the time). Why on earth wouldn't he do it now, when prices are easily at record levels, his political party is on the ropes and looking for anything, anything positive they can run on? Has there ever been a worse Republican President, not only for America, but for his own party? I think not. Impeach Bush.
We get much more from Saudi today than what we'll get from ANWR at its peak. It'll have some influence, but by 2017, do you still want to rely on it for our energy needs? http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/analysis_summary.html Analysis Summary The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and gas development is projected to increase domestic oil production starting in 2013. In 2025, the coastal plain of ANWR is projected to reach 0.9 million barrels per day under the USGS mean oil resource case, and 0.6 and 1.6 million barrels per day under the low and high resource cases, respectively. These cases include the impact of production in the Federal 1002 Area plus Native lands and the State offshore area within a 3-mile limit. Petroleum imports are projected to decline one barrel for every barrel of ANWR production. Opening the coastal plain of ANWR is projected to reduce 2025 oil import dependence from 70 percent in the AEO2004 reference case to 66 percent in the mean resource case. The high and low oil resource cases project a 2025 oil import dependency of 64 percent and 67 percent, respectively. Expenditures on foreign oil and petroleum products are also projected to be lower in 2025 by $8 billion dollars (2002 dollars) in the mean oil resource case, and by $15 and $6 billion dollars in the high and low oil resource cases, respectively.
The last estimates I saw said it could sustain the US ENTIRE daily oil consumption - for about 9 months. It would impact the price of gas by a few pennies or fractions thereof per gallon.
no I think we use 20mil and ANWAR could have 8-10bill that is over a year but since we cannot possibly pull out 20 mil per year it will just reduce the cash we send to a-holes like venezuela and Saudi.
if "it" means oil than i don;t think we have a choice. if "it" means ANWAR then I don;t think we have a choice because it will take longer than 10 years to get the oil out.
Sorry it was about 18 months t not 9 months. Again that's a pretty fractional amount and marginal in the grand scheme. It sets the clock back a few years, but if we are looking to ANWAR to solve long term problems w/its 10 -12 years worth of oil (and according to the President, this is what we need to be doing, aside from waiting for the magic freedom car to invent itself) we are going to revert to Thunderdome pretty rapidly
ANWR would by most account represent the largest oilfield in the United States. Think about all the jobs, taxes and royalties that would benefit our nation from that development. It would contribute greatly to our resource base and would clearly benefit the Alaskan economy. The Alaskans are VERY MUCH in favor of drilling in the frozen tundra of ANWR. It's their backyard, let them do it! Help reduce our dependence on foreign oil by tapping into a HUGE field! The dems talk about shipping jobs overseas, yet then turn around and ship oil revenues overseas by limiting domestic development of resources. It simply does not make sense.
Trader_J, do you have an opinion on suspending filling the remaining 3% of the petroleum reserve, until the end of the year? Impeach Bush.
8-10 billion barrels of oils? We have no use for the $1 trillion dollars sitting in ANWR as its "a drop in the bucket" Its not about having a golden bullet, but a comprehensive set of solutions. And the idea of importing $1 trillion less of oil from other places would mean something to this comprehensive solution. $1 trillion.....
The problem is oil is not trading on supply and demand. Inventories go up prices goes up. Demand goes down price goes up. The market is run by speculators and if the government shows that it can and will hurt the speculator you will see the speculation drop. With a highly shorted stock a company will do a small buy back to create a short squeeze. The gov't can do the opposite here.
