Boy are you covered now ML -- IOW if Bill Clinton had OKI'd (and not vetoed) ANWR back in mid 90's, we'd be getting a mil bbls a day therefrom. Actually I think that is low. Based upon our old Frontier Projects Model -- but I'll go with your buddies estimates......

But since Clinton and then subsequent Bush Congresses weren't willing to step up, yes, now you can say it will be XX no. of years (depending on who you ask) before it is on line.

You still don't understand the speculation part of futures dude.

and tries to predice [sic] what the price will be down the road (at the time of delivery).

 No sheeiite!! Halleuiah and hells bells. Why don't you tell me the sun sets in the West bro.....

If the U.S. embarked on a published no nonsense path to weaning ourselves off of foreign crude...... the futures mkt would reflect this immediately.

You just don't want to accept it as it throws a clog in your churn of blaming Bushco for everything and reaping the rewards (your man in office who will turn on you with a vengeance)

Just wait...............

Wait until you find out Obama is dusting off pension plan distribution (yes even for yours) for redistribution to those who had no access thereto......... This is the old Jessie Jackson model...... wonder why he's been so quiet lately???

So.... 1mbl/day on the world market would be doing what for prices, Chico? What would that drop the spot market to?

Chico: "You still don't understand the speculation part of futures dude."

So school me. How, precisely, am I mistaken?
 

Chico: "If the U.S. embarked on a published no nonsense path to weaning ourselves off of foreign crude...... the futures mkt would reflect this immediately."

What did the futures market do last December when Congress set new CAFE standards?

And what makes you think ANWR oil (or anything else you've named) would stay exclusively in the US?

Would cheaper gas decrease, or increase, our dependence on oil?

Your question "would cheaper gas decrease or increase, our dependence on oil?

says legions about your final  "solution"

To me I think it is a mix of nuclear, fossil fuels, and every other kind of energy source

However, when it comes to automobiles ML, you have to agree that the infrastructure (your County has even made foreyes in CNG cars etc...... did you talk to anyone who had one? -- where they could refuel, etc.?) costs are formidable. (I knew a guy down there who had one actually -- constantly bitched about it)...

More than anything else the cost of changing out all the infrastructure (re-fueling stations) is a bigger cost factor than anything else we have considered.

So we are where we are. You are a smart guy...... what do you propose? NO drilling? No enhanced recovery methods for fossil fuels? Put all our (current) eggs in the basket of future technology?

To me a mix of all of it is the way to go......... If you will recall you actually swayed me to nuclear.......many moons ago........ I was overly concerned about waste........ glass embedded technology..... remember our discussions?

I despise the waste of fossil fuels I see all around me, every day. Idiots gunning their one passenger vehicles that are more than they need for what they are doing (hauling) and peeling out at stop signs, etc.

But you need to get real and realize that the answer doesn't lie in dependeince on oil -- just FOREIGN OIL........ We have plenty of reserves here..... we just need to exploit them and in the interim pursue every possible avenue of alternative sources of power. Utilizing crude for electiricty (whether in autos or power plants is BTU conversion ratio ridiculous....... and yet some of your cohorts on here have advocated that.....

Cheaper gas will only increase our dependence on oil as a negative factor if it is FOREIGN OIL.

CAFE Standards were not recogninzed by the specultors as being effective. As they already had baked into the cake the  "effect" therefrom. Do you get that?

Have you ever bought commodites (futures)? I have......... 

...and yet, once again, you have completely failed to answer my very simple question from the beginning: HOW MUCH WOULD ANWR LOWER GAS PRICES? We don't have a time machine to go back to the Clinton Administration and warn them that a crazed oil man would come into the office and triple gas prices in a mere 7 years. We can't wave a magic wand over oil fields and instantly suck them dry of every drop, at no cost. We can't convince traders to drop the price of a six-month oil future because the field we're opening up will start to produce in seven years (and will peak in 15).

CAFE standards were the only reliable way we were able to decrease our dependence on foreign oil between 1977 and 1987. But the small truck loophole, increased number of vehicles, increased number of miles traveled, etc. have all increased demand. If Republicans hadn't fought CAFE increases since then, we'd be much less dependent on foreign oil, have a smaller carbon footprint, have better air quality, and no need to open any new fields.
 

Just wait until the second generation hybrid vehicles start hitting the market in the next few years. Electric power, with gas generators. True plug-in power for short trips, gas backup for long trips.

I've never advocated oil for electricity. But wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, natural gas, all play a role. Decreasing demand on oil and coal is always a good thing.

You can't solely blame Democrats for this problem. Republicans fought CAFE standards and renewable energy requirements for decades, increasing our dependence on unstable regimes. Doesn't make a lot of sense that conservatives hate conservation, but they do.

I may be banking on future technology, but you are too with oil shale. They've been trying for 20+ years to figure out how to get the stuff out of CO, and they're still 20 years out.

Brill -- You ask a question no one can have the exact answer to while you answer NOTHING.

All you do is complain....... about Bush, Republicans, Oil Cox.

You are a typical liberal with NOTHING.

NOTHING but complaints. If we drill ANWR I would estimate it would have an immeidate affect on per bbl crude futures and would translate to pump price reductiolns, but probably not much and not for long. But who the hell can say? You are like one of my kids -- ARE WE THERE YET? WHY IS THE SKY BLUE? HOW COME MOMMA'S ALWAYS MAD?

Ask the unanswerable and think you've really accomplished something.

I CAN tell you this.............. your type will never solve ANYTHING.

This is becuase you have

NOTHING. NOTHING TO OFFER BUT INSIPID QUESTIONS....

ARE WE THERE YET?

I thinki I'll take your allowance away.

But Mattloch, if an answer to your unanswerable is what you insist you want, a futures trader on TV just said that DRILLING OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF WILL IMMEDIATELY REDUCE CRUDE FUTURES $10 TO $15 PER BBL.

OK, thats not alot but you know what? Its a hell of a lot better than Obama's plan for WPT. That will only increase spot prices and futures contract prices. And that too is per the futures trader. And thats what he does. Al least its and answer -- 180 out of phase with what you have given -- which is worse than nothing actually.... I was giving you too much credit. You and Obama will drive prices even higher. His solution is to give WPT money back to the poor. Brilliant.

You see, once again, I am at least giving an answer even to the unanswerable -- you seem obsessed with ANWR -- it is only one piece of the puzzzle. All the energy solutions you have talked about don't translate directly to vehicle fuel solutions anyway.

We have fuel sources, I've talked about them. I still maintain that the algae fired by CO2 infusion holds much promise. There are strains of micro-algae that produce 50% by weight in usable oil (for fuel). That and some of the other alternatives for reducing the overall need for power that goes to non-vehicular usage, at least are partial solutions.

Wipping that draft horse (oil cos & WPT) some more will not solve ANYTHING! (except to make those of you with a grudge against them happy. Fuel your automobile with THAT!

Chico, I had to ask like that because you refused to answer it every time I asked it (and I'm not a clever as you are being able to train crickets). Maybe if you would have answered it days ago when I first asked it I wouldn't have to "yell". 

Oh, a "futures trader on tv"..... yea, that sounds great, coming from a guy who doubts it when other say China isn't drilling.....
 

The WPT would have no effect on prices, since it comes directly out of the pockets of the oil companies. It isn't an added "cost" (which could and is passed along to the consumers), it is taken out at the end, like when your wife takes her cut out of your wallet at the end of the day. The more money you make, the more she takes out. There's no way to pass it on to consumers. (That's like saying that capital gains taxes are passed along to consumers, and affect the price of stocks.) The WPT isn't meant to "solve" the high prices. It is meant to take some of their obscene profits and use it for something constructive, instead of enriching the already ultra-wealthy.

Chico: "All the energy solutions you have talked about don't translate directly to vehicle fuel solutions anyway."

CAFE standards don't translate into a vehicle fuel "solution"? Who's ignorant now? Stick your fingers in your ears and sing all you want, that doesn't make it so. They were the only thing to decrease our dependence on foreign oil in the '70s and '80s. Stick THATup your exhaust pipe!