:thumb: Even at its highest, most optimistic production estimates, ANWR would merely be a reprieve.

If we run short on energy, this nation will wither away. A series of reprieves is what we need to allow alternatives to be developed as the price of oil rises slowly and predictable. The world will not stand by peacefully while oil prices suddenly head for the stratosphere.

Production from ANWR will span decades and its importance is the impact that additional oil production will have on the price of gasoline. The reserves in ANWR could not be depleted in 7 months even if that was the goal, so simply taking the estimated reserves in ANWR and dividing it by total US oil consumption is very misleading. It misses the point.

 

Can you back up the bolded?

 

I think the point that is missed is that our "domestic oil reserves" give us a false sense of security - "if only we would drill, gas wouldn't be $4 a gallon." To think that we have enough of our own oil to breakaway from our dependence on forgein oil is what is midleading.

If we run short on energy, this nation will wither away. A series of reprieves is what we need to allow alternatives to be developed as the price of oil rises slowly and predictable. The world will not stand by peacefully while oil prices suddenly head for the stratosphere.

 

That is really the only logical fit for ANWR; to stave off the impending crisis, but only in whole coordination with development and conversion of our energy supplies to an alternative. It appears to me, though, that most want to drill ANWR so we can close our eyes for the next few years. ANWR is not the end game in our energy dilemma.

Can you back up the bolded?

 

I think the point that is missed is that our "domestic oil reserves" give us a false sense of security - "if only we would drill, gas wouldn't be $4 a gallon." To think that we have enough of our own oil to breakaway from our dependence on forgein oil is what is midleading.

We do not need to totally free ourselves from foreign oil. We need to have reliable sources of oil, whether it is pumped from domestic reserves or from countries with reliabla supplies. We also need stability in prices and that is what increased domestic production can help achieve.

 

The global economy cannot continue to absorb oil price increases at the rapid rate that we have seen over the past couple of years. Eventually fuel prices will trigger wars if price increases go unchecked and a large scale war in the Middle East would set off a vicious chain of events that would redraw many national boundaries.

Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Updated Assessment

Technically Recoverable Resources and Development Rates Associated with the Projected Production Cases for the ANWR Coastal Plain of the Alaska North Slope
Statistical Estimate Cases	Technically Recoverable (BBbls)	Low  Development Rate (MMBbls/yr)	High Development Rate (MMBbls/yr)
95% Probability	5.7	250	400
Mean (Expected)	10.3	400	600
5% Probability	16.0	600	800

 

(If you do the math, you will see that even in the best case scenario, it will take many years to deplete the oil reserves in ANWR because the production rate is well below what it would take to deplete the reserves in 7 months. It is not technically possible and those who are throwing around those numbers for public consumption know better.)

Edited June 14, 200818 yr by AcesFull

That is really the only logical fit for ANWR; to stave off the impending crisis, but only in whole coordination with development and conversion of our energy supplies to an alternative. It appears to me, though, that most want to drill ANWR so we can close our eyes for the next few years. ANWR is not the end game in our energy dilemma.

 

:thumb: You said it so much better than I did.

That is really the only logical fit for ANWR; to stave off the impending crisis, but only in whole coordination with development and conversion of our energy supplies to an alternative. It appears to me, though, that most want to drill ANWR so we can close our eyes for the next few years. ANWR is not the end game in our energy dilemma.

The old "necessity is the mother of invention" adage is true. Gasoline prices have reached a point where adoption of fuel efficient cars has accelerated and venture capitalists will be looking to invest in promising alternative energy research. If the economy drops into a deep recession or depression, oil demand will plummet, gasoline prices will follow, and the focus on development of alternative energy sources will be lost as a result - just as it was following the collapse of oil prices during the Reagan administration.

 

The best way to ensure the development and adoption of new technology is to keep the US economy healthy and growing at a reasonable rate. That will not happen if the economy is crippled by misguided and extremely expensive efforts to combat a problem that may very well not even exist.

The old "necessity is the mother of invention" adage is true. Gasoline prices have reached a point where adoption of fuel efficient cars has accelerated and venture capitalists will be looking to invest in promising alternative energy research. If the economy drops into a deep recession or depression, oil demand will plummet, gasoline prices will follow, and the focus on development of alternative energy sources will be lost as a result - just as it was following the collapse of oil prices during the Reagan administration.

 

The best way to ensure the development and adoption of new technology is to keep the US economy healthy and growing at a reasonable rate. That will not happen if the economy is crippled by misguided and extremely expensive efforts to combat a problem that may very well not even exist.

 

Specifically, what are you referring to in the bolded section? Just global warming?

Specifically, what are you referring to in the bolded section? Just global warming?

I am referring to global warming, which is the topic of the thread. A weak economy is bad for the environment and it will delay the adoption of alternative fuels. Imposing expensive unilateral controls on CO2 emissions will weaken the economy.

I am referring to global warming, which is the topic of the thread. A weak economy is bad for the environment and it will delay the adoption of alternative fuels. Imposing expensive unilateral controls on CO2 emissions will weaken the economy.

Extremely! :thumb:

We do not need to totally free ourselves from foreign oil. We need to have reliable sources of oil, whether it is pumped from domestic reserves or from countries with reliabla supplies. We also need stability in prices and that is what increased domestic production can help achieve.

 

The global economy cannot continue to absorb oil price increases at the rapid rate that we have seen over the past couple of years. Eventually fuel prices will trigger wars if price increases go unchecked and a large scale war in the Middle East would set off a vicious chain of events that would redraw many national boundaries.

Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Updated Assessment

Technically Recoverable Resources and Development Rates Associated with the Projected Production Cases for the ANWR Coastal Plain of the Alaska North Slope
Statistical Estimate Cases	Technically Recoverable (BBbls)	Low  Development Rate (MMBbls/yr)	High Development Rate (MMBbls/yr)
95% Probability	5.7	250	400
Mean (Expected)	10.3	400	600
5% Probability	16.0	600	800

 

(If you do the math, you will see that even in the best case scenario, it will take many years to deplete the oil reserves in ANWR because the production rate is well below what it would take to deplete the reserves in 7 months. It is not technically possible and those who are throwing around those numbers for public consumption know better.)

 

Missed this part when I first saw your post. I am assuming it was the addition.

 

I do see your point about the misleading nature of the "7 month to 2 year" claim. However, I don't think the intention was to ever say that we would actually BE using only ANWR oil for a period of time and that is how long it would last. IMO the point is that the amount that is there is extremely limited and, were drilling to begin on it tomorrow, it would not ever be an amount significant to make a lengthy enough or drastic enough difference in our energy demands. IMO, this makes ANWR somewhat of a false hope.

I am referring to global warming, which is the topic of the thread. A weak economy is bad for the environment and it will delay the adoption of alternative fuels. Imposing expensive unilateral controls on CO2 emissions will weaken the economy.

 

I fully know the topic of the thread. Since we had just spent the last ten or so posts not specifically discussing it, but the need for more drilling or more alternative fuel research, I wanted to make sure that you did not have an additional point to make.

Missed this part when I first saw your post. I am assuming it as an addition.

 

I do see your point about the misleading nature of the "7 month to 2 year" claim. However, I don't think the intention was to ever say that we would actually BE using only ANWR oil for a period of time and that is how long it would last. IMO the point is that the amount that is there is extremely limited and, were drilling to begin on it tomorrow, it would not ever be an amount significant to make a lengthy enough or drastic enough difference in our energy demands. IMO, this makes ANWR somewhat of a false hope.

Yes, I added the last paragraph because I was not sure that I made the connection between the 7 month number and projected daily production clear.

 

A million barrels of oil or more per day is not insignificant in the world market, and that number only includes potential production from ANWR. Add in production from oil shale and our offshore reserves and this nation has the reserves to bring stability to the global oil market.

 

IMO, the 7 month to 2 year statement of ANWR reserves is used by opponents of drilling because it makes the amount of reserves there seem puny. Production from ANWR would equal or exceed the current oil production level of Texas, which is currently leads the US in oil production.

Yes, I added the last paragraph because I was not sure that I made the connection between the 7 month number and projected daily production clear.

 

A million barrels of oil or more per day is not insignificant in the world market, and that number only includes potential production from ANWR. Add in production from oil shale and our offshore reserves and this nation has the reserves to bring stability to the global oil market.

 

IMO, the 7 month to 2 year statement of ANWR reserves is used by opponents of drilling because it makes the amount of reserves there seem puny. Production from ANWR would equal or exceed the current oil production level of Texas, which is currently leads the US in oil production.

 

I do appreciate the addition. I had been looking all over your link, trying to find a definitive statement to back up your claim.

 

As to the bolded, even with the comparison to Texas, it doesn't necessarily make it significant. Again, I am not outright against drilling in ANWR, off-shore, or elsewhere. I am against us thinking that it is the answer to our energy needs and using it as a crutch.

I do appreciate the addition. I had been looking all over your link, trying to find a definitive statement to back up your claim.

 

As to the bolded, even with the comparison to Texas, it doesn't necessarily make it significant. Again, I am not outright against drilling in ANWR, off-shore, or elsewhere. I am against us thinking that it is the answer to our energy needs and using it as a crutch.

Ask yourself what the impact would be on gasoline prices if all of the production from Texas stopped tomorrow. Do you really believe that the loss would be insignificant? Nobody is suggesting that opening up the 1002 Area of ANWR to drilling would solve all of our long term energy problems but domestic oil production will continue to decline as long as environmental extremists continue to block access to new reserves. Oil is not called a nonrenewable resource for nothing.

 

As for definitively backing up my claim, does not the DOE's best case annual production rate address your question?

I did a little research on my own. From a variety of cites, I found that about 75 million barrels of oil are produced each day. One cite estimates that by 2010, that number will increase to 100 million barrels per day, though it did not delineate where the oil would come from. I am still of the belief that adding to the worlds supply by 1/75th will not make a significant impact on global economy.

 

The US utilizes about 20 million barrels of oil daily (the source I am using was 2001 numbers - I imagine that it is greater now). Obviously, 1/20th of our own needs is more significant.

 

Interesting read: http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/Sidebar/OilConsumption.html

 

Also, I did find this to be interesting, and I apologize if this was covered in a previous thread that I did not read or if it is common knowledge that I have missed. We import the largest amount of our oil from....not a Middle Eastern country....but Canada. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html