Do you think kerry will be for more drilling for oil in say Alaska?
I doubt he will, but then those who support drilling in Alaska are about as honest about the "value" of Alaskan oil and exactly who will benefit from it. BTW, and IMO, we should be adding to our reserves right now and not draining them.
ANWR potentially represents 4 percent of our demand after a decade or so. However, it is more expensive to produce than foreign oil is to import. It will likely displace other domestic sources of oil that are even more expensive to produce, not imports.
We currently shut down wells every year in the US that are still producing oil, but not effeciently enough for the current market. In most cases these wells can never be reopened due to hydrologic reasons.
Since the multinational oil industry that serves the US and much of the world is not regulated, Alaskan oil will not likley be produced in quantities or sold at prices that do not reflect the world market. The price of oil will still be set by OPEC, and matched by non OPEC suppliers just like it is today.
It will mean some job creation, though I don't know the figures. Alaska will ge more handouts from the oil industry. It will generate profits for the oil industry (especially since production is where you get the greatest ROI). But, Just like Kerry's "renewable energy" stuff is a BS selling point for the policy, ANWAR drilling's "reduced imports" is a BS selling point for something that has more corporate than national benefit.
If I'm a bit jaded where BOTH parties are concerned, its because both parties typically push and oppose legislation for technically accurate reasons that have little to do with the real reasons both push and/or oppose the legislation.
Who would support "Ethanol, another agri subsidy!" Farmers for sure, but perhhaps not many others.
The same for ANWAR. "Drill in the wildlife refuge. It's good for big oil but any benefits to the consumer will be a coincidence!"
