As a matter of fact I do know what ANWR stands for and my inability to master spellings (Spelling in general.) of acronyms often invites the cute ad hominen remark such as yours.

You make my point with the remark, "I agree with you that exploratory drilling is a logical step, although I feel that it will likely be disappointing."

It is more than logical, it is necessary if you want to "save" the oil in ANWR for the future for whatever reason. As far as whether or not it will be disappointing I could care less. Let big oil spend their money and find out.

I should have never used government's involvement in housing as an example. It is very complex and convoluted to say the least. My point is the government often acts as an obstacle to the development of energy development and resources rather than an aide. I believe it is rather obvious that government has been an obstacle to offshore drilling and development of ANWR, don't you?

"The idea of allowing the market to decide what the best uses are for petroleum reserves only works if the true costs and benefits are accurately measured."

Markets do this daily and have been doing so for quite some time. One only has to compare the success of market economies vs the economies of the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Cuba, to name a few. In general letting governments decide what is essential and how much of it we need is disastrous. Examples abound in the heyday of the Soviet Union and today's Cuba.

The other problem is the choice of the word "true costs and benefits." Something tells me reasonable men can disagree mightily what those might be, right?

Personally, I pay no attention to what the presidential candidates say about these matters as they tend to say whatever they believe they have to say, not say, evade, or just flat out lie to get elected.