Non-military discretionary spending is "only" around $800 billion a year. Let's say it's an even $1000 billion. That means that subsidies to oil companies consume 2%-5% of non-military discretionary spending. I don't see the rest of corporate America letting that slip by since they would pay for a big chunk of that.

$2-$5 billion I could accept but I would want to see some canceled checks before I even begin to buy into a number an order of magnitude higher.

Bithead, us increasing world supply by the amount in ANWR, divided by the amount of world demand we'll be responsible for at that time, will result in a trivial price benefit for us, and only a very small price benefit globally.

First of all, to get where you describe, you'd ahve to under-estimate what's there by an order of scale. Remember, Prudoe bay wasn't suppsoed to last this long or be nearly as productive as it's been. It's almost to the point how where the Alaska pipeline needs replacing, having outlived it's projected lifespan by a decade, already.

Secondly;

The point is that it doesn't matter that said oil is under our soil -- it would have the same precise effect on world prices of crude if Russia drilled a field of precisely the same size.

Well, now there's another factor you're not considering; trade imbalances. I've mentioned this elsewhere, I'm sure, but the left likes to scream about trade imbalances because of Nafta, and they love to complain about what that's doing to the dollar. The real truth is most of that is oil, from Canada and Mexico. ANWR would help in that area, by reducing or at least holding the line on such trade imbalances. With a stonger dollar, we'd be payng less for fuel now, no?

The point is that it doesn't matter that said oil is under our soil -- it would have the same precise effect on world prices of crude if Russia drilled a field of precisely the same size.

Anyone who figures gas prices are going to drop because we increase an already massive taxload on those who actually produce the stuff is ovbiously dain brammaged. Sorry, I have no kinder words for it.

Again, it doesn't matter that ANWR is on US soil - drilling it won't make our gas prices any lower than anybody else in the rest of the world, unless, and this is important: we wall ourselves off and somehow produce enough oil to totally satisfy native demand.

So, increasing world supply by X isn't going to lower the price by at least X?

Gee. Seems to me your invocation of 'supply and demand' is a little misplaced, if that is the extent of your understanding of it.

Again, it doesn't matter that ANWR is on US soil - drilling it won't make our gas prices any lower than anybody else in the rest of the world, unless, and this is important: we wall ourselves off and somehow produce enough oil to totally satisfy native demand.

FUNGIBLE. FUNGIBLE. FUNGIBLE.

This doesn't mean there's not good reasons to use less oil. Our critical stupid-suburban dependence on cheap oil leads us to accept crap from the Saudis that we wouldn't otherwise take (remember, they were almost all of the men and most of the support for 9/11). If we taxed gas/diesel like the Europeans do, we wouldn't care that much about comparatively small price effects like the ones we've seen recently.

I'm pretty dubious about ANWR, especially since most estimates I've seen indicate that we're looking at 6-8 years before we'd even realize any oil out of the place,

Now, I rarely agree with Bithead, yetanotherjohn or (dear God) Wayne, but you can't claim to be thinking "long term" about energy policy and then discount an option because it takes "6-8 years" to come to fruition. Commercial cellulosic ethanol production will take about that long to make an impact on the energy market. There are other reasons to oppose drilling in ANWR, but that isn't one of them.

You are not suggesting that if subsidies and tax breaks were cancel that R&D and whatever else those subsidies pay for would continue at the same level? Some would decrease while others would cease to exist at all. Would all R&D stop? Of course not but the idea is to encourage it so we can have viable options sooner rather than later.

There are other ways to accomplish the same thing besides subsidies. We could invest in the outcome of the exploration and R&D, such that if the venture fails the company loses less, but if it succeeds the US government get's a cut of the profit proportional to it's share of the investment.

Yes that's coming close to socializing the oil industry, but it seems to me that tax payers should get something for the money they're giving out to these companies. While we're at it, I'd like to see the same thing done for pharmaceuticals developed on the tax payer's dime.

CORPORATE WELFARE IN THE OIL PATCH....Alex Knapp thinks that a windfall profits tax on oil companies is a bad idea:However, one thing that I did notice when I was doing a little google-fu on the issue is that there appears......

I agree with Steve in that the Devil is in the details. I just one of those people who dislike blanketed and/or oversimplify statements. If there is particular subsidies that are not being beneficial let’s look at it. To cancel them all would cost us in the long run.

I'm all for eliminating corporate welfare and find highly profitable companies at the top of the list of those least deserving of it. Then again I'm all for eliminating a lot of taxes and government too.