Why don't the liberals want to drill for oil?

We have 6 billion barrels worth of oil in ANWR, not to mention North Dakota, and the Gulf of Mexico. Just the oil in ANWR is equivalent to 30 years of importing oil from the mideast. But because liberal environmental extremists are lobbying to our liberal congress, the government won't let oil companies drill. They care more about the pristine environment in ANWR (which happens to be just a frozen tundra). We could've been energy independent by 2005 had Bill Clinton not vetoed the bill which would have allowed for drilling in ANWR.

"In 1995, Republicans prepared to take up the battle again and included a provision for ANWR in the federal budget. President Bill Clinton vetoed the entire budget and expressed his intention to veto any other bill that would open ANWR to drilling."



And it's not just a guess honey..."A 1993 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km³) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (1.7 km³).[3] In addition, in the entire assessment area, which covers not only land under Federal jurisdiction, but also Native lands and adjacent State waters within three miles (5 km), technically recoverable oil is estimated to be at least 5.7 billion (95%) and as much as 16.0 billion (5%) barrels (0.7 to 1.9 km³), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels (1.2 km³).[3] Economically recoverable oil within the Federal lands assuming a market price of $40/barrel (constant 1996 dollars - the highest price included in the USGS study) is estimated to be between 3.4 billion (95%) and 10.4 billion (5%).

Why don't you read some history?! (Hate Girl)

Update 2:

DAZE: I'm not oppossed to alternative energy, but since the price of oil is so high, that will just slow the process of technological and chemical companies in developing an alternative fuel.

Right now we are dependent on oil. We can't just cut it off cold turkey. Our economy would collapse. We need to slowly ween off of it, by preserving our economy and using oil to help these companies that can develop the new fuels.

Update 3:

actually CHRIS H: The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush pushed to perform exploratory drilling for oil and gas in and around the refuge. The House of Representatives voted in mid-2000 to allow drilling. In April 2002, the Senate rejected it.

On December 15, 2005, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) attached an Arctic Refuge drilling amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill. A group of Democratic Senators led a successful filibustering of the bill on December 21, 2005, and the language was subsequently removed from the bill.[11]

Why don't you do a little research chief?

25 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Because they wouldn't have anyone to blame it on then....that and they are afraid the "spotted owl" may have to relocate. And people vote for a Party that puts owls above humans..hmmmmm!!

  • 1 decade ago

    Well you came close to the right answer when you mentioned North Dakota. Oil is currently being drilled there and has for quite a while. But new drilling technology along with the high price of oil has North Dakota bursting at the seams with joy right now. It is also estimated that the oil fields in North Dakota could be over 400 billion barrels of oil. More than Saudi Arabia's best fields. The oil is light, sweet crude. Meaning it is the best there is for refining into gasoline. So the answer to your question is:

    we just don't need ANWR. It has less oil, of lower quality, and it is further away from the mainland of the USA.

    Oh yea, as for the Gulf of Mexico, drilling off the Florida coast was halted at the behest of the tourism and real estate industries in Florida. Neither of which come across as very liberal to me.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No one is against drilling for oil. Some people are against drilling for oil in Anwar without certain protections for the environment in place. Look how relatively spill free the present trans alaska pipleline has been in the tundra....as long as the existing operating regulations are complied with. There were some problems a couple of years back, but the operator was ignoring the regulations.

    Personally I think we should drill off the Atlantic coast of Florida where there are proven reserves much larger than those in Anwr. Unfortunately the Republicans do not want to drill there.

    Hmmm Jeb Bush, George Bush, Charlie Christ what party do they belong to?

  • 1 decade ago

    at this rate that oil will be gold in 20 years. Strategic reserve, that's it. And not just for later fuel consumption but to preserve a little bit of what once was the worlds industrial market. Something that people will learn of in history books if they're not all dead. All the oil will be scraped by and wars and crazy stuff. So it is preservation of that, (I don't think there's 30 years there) for maybe when there is a dire need for it.

    Oils almost gone 50 years max, we hope for a technological marvel but people have been let down before. The prices and what we're seeing is free market, incentive to change.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    1) That's a poor estimate...on the high side.

    2) That's only about five years worth of what the US uses.

    3) The oil companies don't just want the rights to drill. They also want the US government to pay to transport the oil out. They pocket all profits.

    4) You're not naive enough to think the oil companies are going to sale the oil back to us "at cost". Do you? The price will be the market rate $140+ per barrel.

    That's why!!

  • Ali
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    It's just a short term solution to a long term problem. Drilling everywhere for oil will help us while it lasts... but oil is a fossil fuel that is going to run out sooner or later anyway... the sooner we invest our money in clean and renewable energy and STOP depending on fossil fuels the better... for us and for the environment.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Maybe it's because they realize that 30 years of oil isn't as important as irreversible damage to the environment.

    It might be "...just a frozen tundra" to you but take a moment to consider tundra's critical link in stabilizing the global environment.

    We're gonna run out of oil eventually. Must we desecrate every possible piece of Earth in search for it, or should we shift our efforts and focus on something that makes a little more sense (read: renewable)?

    And ethanol is a scam too, so it's back to the drawing board. Horse and buggy anyone?

  • 1 decade ago

    Currently, the United States consumes 19.6 million barrels per day...6 billion barrels won't do squat. We already drill for oil...you should go to Wyoming. And, guess what? It's not just liberals as you claim. There are plenty of conservative folks in the middle of WY and Montana who see the drilling for oil and gas in their state as a loss of lifestyle as it's taking up ranch land. We need new, cleaner, nuclear power along with things like capturing carbon from coal plants as well as new, green technology. It's not smart to produce more oil which, when burned, produces carbon, which, in turn, warms the planet. That's like cutting off your nose to spite the face.

  • 1 decade ago

    Because the oil companies donate to the GOP and not the Democrat party. It wasn't always that way. LBJ stank with oil money and there was never any talk about how evil oil was.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I'm not a liberal, and I've seen that tundra... but I think it's time for this country to free itself from oil and use something else. We won't remain the most powerful country in the world if we're slaves to oil. Can't the USA, the country that invented cars, ironing boards, and the telephone, develop oil-free technology?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Because NeoCon oil CEO's don't spend the money to keep up the refineries already in existence, and that leads to disasters, such as the Texas City explosion, which killed 15 and wounded more...


    And aside from that, gas prices are not related to supply and demand, at least not in the normal way...


Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.