Senate Approves ANWR Drilling

[Qwertz]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/04/anw...g.ap/index.html

A good thing.

Discuss.

-Q

(Capitalized title - sNerd)

Edited November 5, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Capitalism Forever]

Banning exports is not such a good thing.

[Qwertz]

Oh I agree, though I doubt much would be exported anyway even without the restriction. We greedy rich Americans sure do love our oil. <wink>

But seriously, have you ever asked an environmentalist how caribou that don't have to look at drilling infrastructure are supposed to make your car go? I did once and he told me I didn't need my own car, I could use public transit. So I have to be late to work riding the smelly bus just so caribou in Alaska don't have to see any oil derricks.

-Q

[Capitalism Forever]

Oh I agree, though I doubt much would be exported anyway even without the restriction. We greedy rich Americans sure do love our oil. <wink>

AFAIK, it would be more economical to export the Alaskan oil to Japan and import the same amount of oil from elsewhere. They wouldn't want to ban it if you wouldn't want to do it.

Even with the export ban, though, it beats riding the bus!

[Yes]

Banning exports is not such a good thing.

I agree. In fact, it is a bad thing.

There is a worldwide demand for oil. Why is is that we should regulate where the drilled oil goes, if the cumulative effect of increasing the oil supply is to lower prices anyhow?

AFAIK, it would be more economical to export the Alaskan oil to Japan and import the same amount of oil from elsewhere. They wouldn't want to ban it if you wouldn't want to do it.

In fact, the last time we drilled for oil in Alaska, much of that oil was exported to Japan, where it increased the worldwide supply of oil enough to cause an eventual oil glut in the 80's.

I applaud the Senate's vote to allow oil drilling in Alaska.

Edited November 4, 2005 by Yes

[erik]

Better they get the oil than not get it because the permafrost might be injured. Once the oil is drilled for then fight for exporting it, if you are the oil company.

Edited November 4, 2005 by erik

[softwareNerd]

The stupidity of disallowing exports ties in to Felix's thread about the costs of a mixed-economy.

[Captain Nate]

Better they get the oil than not get it because the permafrost might be injured. Once the oil is drilled for then fight for exporting it, if you are the oil company.

This is a good point. If the only way to shore up political support for drilling was to ensure we would not export it, once we start drilling we can change the rules later when needed. Otherwise, nobody would drill and nobody would recieve the oil.

[softwareNerd]

This article has bad news about ANWR: "House leaders late Wednesday abandoned an attempt to push through a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling, fearing it would jeopardize approval of a sweeping budget bill Thursday.

They also dropped from the budget document plans to allow states to authorize oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts — regions currently under a drilling moratorium"

[BurgessLau]

Just to state the obvious (in this forum) for the record: The U. S. government should stop controlling trade, in every form; stop regulating the oil industry (and all other consensual activities); and abolish ANWR (along with selling off all other governmental lands).