Good read about global warming...

[True blue (and gold)]

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?

 

At the time, I was looking for a number to refute the 7 month - 2 year claim. I think we were actually addressing 2 slightly different issues.

[AcesFull]

At the time, I was looking for a number to refute the 7 month - 2 year claim. I think we were actually addressing 2 slightly different issues.

At an approximate consumption rate of 20,730,000 barrels per day, two years worth of US oil consumption would total 15,132,900,000 barrels. This is just a little under the best case scenario of recoverable reserves contained in ANWR. So, the 2-year total is a reasonable approximation.

 

The 7 month equivalent is, not surprisingly over 20 percent below the most pessimistic estimate of recoverable reserves. (20,730,000 x 12/7*365=4,413,762,500 barrels.)

 

My point is, and I thing that I have defended it with facts, that people who cite the recoverable oil reserves in ANWR in terms of US total oil consumption do so with the intent to make the reserves seem inconsequential. Oil production from the state of Texas is not a drop in the bucket. Allowing the oil reserves in ANWR to be placed into production may not even be enough to replace lost production from existing US oil fields.

 

However, failing to replace dwindling domestic oil reserves will have potentially dire consequences. If our economy collapses because energy reaches unaffordable levels, then there will be no switch to alternative fuels anytime soon. Instead, this country will begin to go dark and start looking more like North Korea from space.

 

[True blue (and gold)]

My point is, and I thing that I have defended it with facts, that people who cite the recoverable oil reserves in ANWR in terms of US total oil consumption do so with the intent to make the reserves seem inconsequential.

 

I understand your point, but I am not sure that you have backed up anyone's intent with facts.

[AcesFull]

I understand your point, but I am not sure that you have backed up anyone's intent with facts.

The 7 months figure understates the ANWR reserves as I have demonstrated. Why would anybody want to convert the minimum estimated reserves contained in ANWR, convert it to months of total US consumption and then round the result downward?

 

The 7 months to two year figures are almost always cited by people opposed to drilling. Worse yet, is that some of the people throwing this number around believe that ANWR oil would be gone after two years of production because they do not understand the production process. These numbers are intended to mislead the masses and in too many cases, those throwing them around succeed in their effort.

 

Now, you are right that I cannot prove intent to 100 percent certainty, but the evidence seems pretty compelling - maybe enough for civil court but not criminal court.

[True blue (and gold)]

The 7 months figure understates the ANWR reserves as I have demonstrated. Why would anybody want to convert the minimum estimated reserves contained in ANWR, convert it to months of total US consumption and then round the result downward?

 

The 7 months to two year figures are almost always cited by people opposed to drilling. Worse yet, is that some of the people throwing this number around believe that ANWR oil would be gone after two years of production because they do not understand the production process. These numbers are intended to mislead the masses and in too many cases, those throwing them around succeed in their effort.

 

Now, you are right that I cannot prove intent to 100 percent certainty, but the evidence seems pretty compelling - maybe enough for civil court but not criminal court.

 

Maybe...but the other side of the coin promotes the ANWR drilling to the point of getting them to believe that the drilling will be our salvation.

 

By the way, I get the 7 month - 2 year estimate from wikipedia. Strangely, the footnote for that citation comes from the DOE, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

[AcesFull]

Maybe...but the other side of the coin promotes the ANWR drilling to the point of getting them to believe that the drilling will be our salvation.

 

By the way, I get the 7 month - 2 year estimate from wikipedia. Strangely, the footnote for that citation comes from the DOE, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

Unless I am missing something, the footnote to the DOE is documenting the source of the consumption numbers, not the ANWR reserves. (The article also footnotes reserve numbers by citing the same DOE report that I cited.)

 

If you read the Wikipedia article in its entirety, you will see that the higher reserve estimate, which includes native lands and adjacent offshore reserves, but chose to exclude those reserves to arrive at the lower 7-month equivalent US oil consumption number.

 

Once again, people who cite the lower reserve numbers deliberately understate the technically recoverable reserves when they use the 7 month and two-year numbers.

 

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)

Why are you opposed to drilling in ANWR? Do you believe that the government should keep our own oil reserves off limits while domestic oil production continues its decline and gasoline prices continue to rise? Are you willing to put your future at risk in the hope that alternative fuels will be developed just in time to avoid plunging us into darkness?

[True blue (and gold)]

Unless I am missing something, the footnote to the DOE is documenting the source of the consumption numbers, not the ANWR reserves. (The article also footnotes reserve numbers by citing the same DOE report that I cited.)

 

If you read the Wikipedia article in its entirety, you will see that the higher reserve estimate, which includes native lands and adjacent offshore reserves, but chose to exclude those reserves to arrive at the lower 7-month equivalent US oil consumption number.

 

Once again, people who cite the lower reserve numbers deliberately understate the technically recoverable reserves when they use the 7 month and two-year numbers.

 

 

Why are you opposed to drilling in ANWR? Do you believe that the government should keep our own oil reserves off limits while domestic oil production continues its decline and gasoline prices continue to rise? Are you willing to put your future at risk in the hope that alternative fuels will be developed just in time to avoid plunging us into darkness?

 

See below.

 

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.

[AcesFull]

See below.

:thumb: I hope that you will see the light and actively support drilling in ANWR. Drilling in ANWR is not be a panacea but it is a piece of the puzzle that will help replace depleted domestic oil reserves.

[True blue (and gold)]

:thumb: I hope that you will see the light and actively support drilling in ANWR. Drilling in ANWR is not be a panacea but it is a piece of the puzzle that will help replace depleted domestic oil reserves.

 

I don't know if I will "see the light" as much as you want me too, but I do hope that people understand that even if we open up ANWR we are no where near solving our energy problems. Also, I would hope that by the time that the test drilling and ACTUAL drilling occurs...and by the time the oil has been processed...that we will have better answer to the problem.

[Xtiger69]

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

 

Canada and Russia are drilling and pumping oil very close to Anwar as we speak and the US continues to sit on our butts and argue bewteen parties. Just drill here driil now while we look to change sometime in the future.But right now we need more oil and we have more than enough to solve the problem for years.

[True blue (and gold)]

Canada and Russia are drilling and pumping oil very close to Anwar as we speak and the US continues to sit on our butts and argue bewteen parties. Just drill here driil now while we look to change sometime in the future.But right now we need more oil and we have more than enough to solve the problem for years.

 

Ok...as long as people understand that it will take years for any ANWR oil to reach our tanks, thus little significant change in our gas prices. Then, when we do find it in our tanks, it will only make a small difference, too. I read somewhere that if all the ANWR oil could be used immediately, our gas prices would only decrease by about 50 cent/gallon. IMO, ANWR is only a tiny part of the answer to our energy crisis.

[75center]

Ok...as long as people understand that it will take years for any ANWR oil to reach our tanks, thus little significant change in our gas prices. Then, when we do find it in our tanks, it will only make a small difference, too. I read somewhere that if all the ANWR oil could be used immediately, our gas prices would only decrease by about 50 cent/gallon. IMO, ANWR is only a tiny part of the answer to our energy crisis.

 

Only??? That's not a significant decrease to you? Anyway, I do agree with the rest of your post. There is no one answer and I don't believe anyone has said there is.

[AcesFull]

Ok...as long as people understand that it will take years for any ANWR oil to reach our tanks, thus little significant change in our gas prices. Then, when we do find it in our tanks, it will only make a small difference, too. I read somewhere that if all the ANWR oil could be used immediately, our gas prices would only decrease by about 50 cent/gallon. IMO, ANWR is only a tiny part of the answer to our energy crisis.

I am not sure what you mean by "if all ANWR oil could be used immediately" but if you mean if it could be depleted in 7 monthe to 2 years, then the 50 cent claim is ridiculous. If the world's oil suply was suddenly not needed by the US, which is the basis of the 7 months to 2 year supply figure, gasoline prices would plummet. OPEC would panic. Speculators would be jumping out of the windows of tall buildings.

 

If you mean if Clinton had not vetoed ANWR drilling years ago and the oil was available at an 800,000 to 1 million barrel per day rate today, then the 50 cent figure that you cited is probably reasonable. (Sen. Schumer cited a 62 cent figure recently - but only if the additional production came from Saudi Arabia and not ANWR.)

[True blue (and gold)]

I am not sure what you mean by "if all ANWR oil could be used immediately" but if you mean if it could be depleted in 7 monthe to 2 years, then the 50 cent claim is ridiculous. If the world's oil suply was suddenly not needed by the US, which is the basis of the 7 months to 2 year supply figure, gasoline prices would plummet. OPEC would panic. Speculators would be jumping out of the windows of tall buildings.

 

If you mean if Clinton had not vetoed ANWR drilling years ago and the oil was available at an 800,000 to 1 million barrel per day rate today, then the 50 cent figure that you cited is probably reasonable. (Sen. Schumer cited a 62 cent figure recently - but only if the additional production came from Saudi Arabia and not ANWR.)

 

 

I mean exactly what I said. Oil that is being tapped (not sure if that is the right word) today, takes years before it gets to market.

 

Evenso, I am much more enthusiastic about off shore drilling then I am about ANWR drilling. Estimates for the amount of oil off shore are considerably greater then ANWR. I would like to see information on how much more costly (I am assuming) it is to find/tap off shore reserves then those on land.

[True blue (and gold)]

Only??? That's not a significant decrease to you? Anyway, I do agree with the rest of your post. There is no one answer and I don't believe anyone has said there is.

 

At this point, 75, 50 cents is a drop in the bucket, with prices expected to reach $5 a gallon soon. Every little bit helps, I know, but my point about it is that even with ANWR oil being available, then it only eases the overall problem minutely.