Send in the troops and occupy ANWR?

he neglected to mention that, according to Energy Literacy Advocates, the U.S. uses 21 million barrels of oil a day. The additional production would account for less than a fifth of our current total oil use.

Am I misunderstanding something or is one-fifth a mistake. If we use 21 million barrels a day, and ANWAR could supply 1 million, isn't the fraction roughly 1/20th and not 1/5th?

I think he means "less than five percent", but wrote "one-fifth"...

Just another excuse for the Republicans to have a wedge issue to use against the Democrats.

Yes, I meant less than five percent, sorry about that. Thanks for the catch.

Markets are driven by psychology as much as supply and demand. While the future daily production out of ANWR might be 5% of domestic needs, opening up ANWR to drilling would have a huge psychological impact on the market and speculators because it would show the US is serious about addressing its needs and not kowtowing to the oftentimes self-destructive wishes of the environmentalists. Just as the market was impacted when Clinton said he would use the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, Bush is right to keep pushing on this issue.

You mean "less than five percent" not "less than a fifth."

Yes of course W got the facts wrong; it's one of the few things he does well. But that's a distraction: Will a million barrels a day make a difference when the days of peak oil have come and gone?

Unfofrtunately, these are facts. And our national reporters do not like reporting facts. So this story will be ignored.

It is much more "important" to report if Barak Obama is wearing a US Flag pin our Hillary Clinton is showing clevage.

the profits from oil production will pay for the operation and certainly the native wildlife will greet our troops as liberators.

such a winning formula, who could deny it?

At 21 million barrels a day, the additional 1 million would account for less than 5% of current use. Seeing as the point was to make obvious the nature of ANWR's potential contribution as a bit player, the 5% figure would be better. The 1/5 is still true, but sounds pretty good when you look at the big picture - and I don't think that's what was intended.

T

Yeah, it's sad too. Most people don't bother trying to figure out fact from fiction and will believe the soundbite they hear on the nightly news.

I really wish politicians could be more truthful when reporting statistics and the like. You can spin things all you want, that's what is expected since people have different ideologies but misrepresenting facts is just wrong. I have some hope for Obama since he seems to do this more often than the others (not to say he doesn't do it as well). Most recently he mentioned the "gas-tax holiday" would save an average of 30 bucks over the summer, which is the norm by many people who analyzed the idea.

Increasing your gas mileage from 20 to 21 MPG would give you the same 5% increase without the hassle of waiting 10-20 years and investing billions of dollars of in the destruction of the in environment for a rather temporal "fix".

Suppose you are driving in an area where gas stations are few and far between. You have a gas can with an extra 5 gallons in the trunk for emergencies. You're getting low on gas. You get to a gas station, but the price is a bit too high for your taste. Would you:

1) Bite the bullet and buy gas at the higher price because you don't know when you find another gas station and you want to keep the five gallons for a real emergency, or

2) Try to save a few bucks by using up your emergency supply, and hope you find another gas station before you run completely out of gas.

I believe that's the correct term that Bush coined himself. Also, why didn't he get a question about his 2000 campaign when he said if oil prices were too high, the President should have a simple promise and plan (June 27, 2000):

http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/062800wh-bush.html

Gov. George W. Bush of Texas said today that if he was president, he would bring down gasoline prices through sheer force of personality, by creating enough political good will with oil-producing nations that they would increase their supply of crude.

"I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply," Mr. Bush, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, told reporters here today. "Use the capital that my administration will earn, with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot."

As a followup, what did Dick Cheney's energy task force with Kenny Boy, Exxon and other do to affect energy supplies? Looks like they locked the US into oil dependent economy for the long term. That's just a guess, since the info is basically classified.

On other subject: Does anyone know what the reaction is from farm country (red states) about Bush blaming "wealthy" farmers for high food prices? Other than corporate farming, I'm not aware of anyone getting rich by farming. His direct quote was:

"Americans are concerned about rising food prices. Unfortunately, Congress is considering a massive, bloated farm bill that would do little to solve the problem.

The bill Congress is now considering would fail to eliminate subsidy payments to multimillionaire farmers. America's farm economy is thriving. The value of farmland is skyrocketing. And this is the right time to reform our nation's farm policies by reducing unnecessary subsidies.

It's not the time to ask American families who are already paying more in the checkout line to pay more in subsidies for wealthy farmers.

Congress can reform our farm programs, and should, by passing a fiscally responsible bill that treats our farmers fairly and does not impose new burdens on American taxpayers."

And everything cited regarding production are all estimates. Geological surveys have been done on ANWR and it is not known how much oil is actually they're. If the actual amount falls closer to the lower estimate, the production might not even pay for the drilling operation!

What ANWR actually is is more pork for Alaska dreamed up by wingnut Ted Stevens, whose been fighting for this since the 70's and hasn't gotten it yet because even Republican Congresses' realize it could be a financial disaster.

Why not look for natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico and give proceeds to economically struggling Mississippi and Louisiana?