Actually, the events of the 70s were predicted by the peak oil people with great accuracy. They said that US production would peak in the 70s, and it did; as I am sure you are aware, it has been declining ever since. As a result, no one was prepared for the leverage OPEC would have over the US economy, thus the "oil crisis" of that decade. The economic shock resulted in a drop in demand, which meant supply plateaued for a time; then came the North Sea discoveries. Now the UK, Norway, and Mexico are in decline, and new discoveries are nowhere near matching the decline in production. So far, everything the peak oil people have predicted has happened, except they didn't predict the decline in d...

Actually, the events of the 70s were predicted by the peak oil people with great accuracy. They said that US production would peak in the 70s, and it did; as I am sure you are aware, it has been declining ever since. As a result, no one was prepared for the leverage OPEC would have over the US economy, thus the "oil crisis" of that decade. The economic shock resulted in a drop in demand, which meant supply plateaued for a time; then came the North Sea discoveries. Now the UK, Norway, and Mexico are in decline, and new discoveries are nowhere near matching the decline in production. So far, everything the peak oil people have predicted has happened, except they didn't predict the decline in demand through the seventies, which cushioned us from the impact of a global peak -- which most think is happening now or will within the next few years.

You're right, of course, that environmentalists oppose drilling in the ANWR. However, a large part of the defeat of the attempt to open the Refuge to drilling had to do with the fact that it is manifestly no solution to the US's energy problems. It will not be a viable source of energy until at least 2015, and will not reach peak production until 2025, at which time it is expected that it might supply at most 4% of US oil consumption. To pretend that the defeat of attempts to lease ANWR to oil and gas companies represents the sabotage by environmentalists of a viable way out of our energy impasse is simply a lie. Drilling in the ANWR won't save us and will in fact produce very small energy r...

You're right, of course, that environmentalists oppose drilling in the ANWR. However, a large part of the defeat of the attempt to open the Refuge to drilling had to do with the fact that it is manifestly no solution to the US's energy problems. It will not be a viable source of energy until at least 2015, and will not reach peak production until 2025, at which time it is expected that it might supply at most 4% of US oil consumption. To pretend that the defeat of attempts to lease ANWR to oil and gas companies represents the sabotage by environmentalists of a viable way out of our energy impasse is simply a lie. Drilling in the ANWR won't save us and will in fact produce very small energy returns in the grand scheme of things; we'd be gutting one of the last remaining real wilderness areas for an almost inconsequential economic benefit, one much smaller than would be gained by investing equivalent amounts of capital in increasing energy efficiency, reducing consumption, and exploring alternative energy sources.

First, we don't know how much oil is there. The environmentalists like to use the lowest numbers possible, but the experts at oil production put it much higher. But the fact is, we don't know how much oil is there until we allow exploration drilling.

Second, if we had started on it ten years ago, it would already be producing oil now. And I can just see us in 2015 with $6 a gallon gas saying we shouldn't drill in ANWAR because it wouldn't be ready to go until 2025.

Third, it isn't just ANWAR. There is lots of oil off the coast of the US that we can't extract because of environmentalists, including that oil that Cuba may end up extracting because we won't.

Oh ya, then there is the problem ...

First, we don't know how much oil is there. The environmentalists like to use the lowest numbers possible, but the experts at oil production put it much higher. But the fact is, we don't know how much oil is there until we allow exploration drilling.

Second, if we had started on it ten years ago, it would already be producing oil now. And I can just see us in 2015 with $6 a gallon gas saying we shouldn't drill in ANWAR because it wouldn't be ready to go until 2025.

Third, it isn't just ANWAR. There is lots of oil off the coast of the US that we can't extract because of environmentalists, including that oil that Cuba may end up extracting because we won't.

Oh ya, then there is the problem with refinery production. The last refinery was built three decades ago and it took ten years to get approval. Yet environmentalists just fought a proposal to streamline that process while keeping the same standards.

And all this is what makes me laugh at those on the left who claim they want to reduce our dependency on foreign oil but fight tooth an nail against making that happen.

Not sure what numbers you're looking at, but I was looking at the ones here. Current US oil consumption is about 20 million barrels per day and is projected to rise significantly. Proponents of drilling say that at peak production ANWR might generate 1.4 million barrels per day. Peak production is about twenty years away. Opponents of drilling say it's a mistake because twenty years from now, if we're looking forward to those gushers in Alaska to save our SUV-driving behinds, then we're in trouble. More numbers here.

Where are thes...

Not sure what numbers you're looking at, but I was looking at the ones here. Current US oil consumption is about 20 million barrels per day and is projected to rise significantly. Proponents of drilling say that at peak production ANWR might generate 1.4 million barrels per day. Peak production is about twenty years away. Opponents of drilling say it's a mistake because twenty years from now, if we're looking forward to those gushers in Alaska to save our SUV-driving behinds, then we're in trouble. More numbers here.

Where are these mysterious other oilfields that no one is talking about? Are the environmentalists somehow conspiring to make sure no one ever hears of their existence? As far as the Cuba discovery is concerned, I read that article too. It sounds like it's more a suspected -- or hoped-for -- discovery rather than something that's likely to produce any oil in the near term. The people who are making the loudest noises about it say it might have 60% or 70% of the oil of ANWR, if I recall correctly.

As far as refinery capacity is concerned ... maybe you're right, I don't know about that. But to my simple mind, it seems like, if we're running out of oil -- and the numbers seem to suggest that consumption is beginning to catch up with supply, and that new discoveries are dropping off, all of which add up to "we're running out" -- building new refineries doesn't sound like a real smart investment, either.

Anyway, I don't propose new drilling as the only solution, I just propose it as part of the solution. I think we should do everything we can to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and that includes drilling. But anyone that opposes new drilling as part of the solution can't really care all that much about our dependence on foreign oil since they aren't willing to do all it takes to reduce that dependence.

Very well said.

I might add that we need to wean ourselves off of oil, but it won't be easy. They don't make methadone for oil addicts. What we can do is drill where we can, reduce our foreign needs as much as possible and create /strengthen renewables such as sol...

Anyway, I don't propose new drilling as the only solution, I just propose it as part of the solution. I think we should do everything we can to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and that includes drilling. But anyone that opposes new drilling as part of the solution can't really care all that much about our dependence on foreign oil since they aren't willing to do all it takes to reduce that dependence.

Very well said.

I might add that we need to wean ourselves off of oil, but it won't be easy. They don't make methadone for oil addicts. What we can do is drill where we can, reduce our foreign needs as much as possible and create /strengthen renewables such as solar and wind. By reducing our need and growing our alternatives it puts the country in a better position to deal with the uncertain future.