[at-l] Alaskan Oil Drilling

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

At 08:22 AM 11/12/2004 -0500, George (Tin Man) Andrews wrote:

>>ellen wrote:
>>
>>>>"...The government estimates ANWR could hold between 5.7 billion and
>>>16 billion barrels of oil. The U.S. market consumes about 20.4 million 
>>>barrels of oil a day."
>>>
>>>Assuming a mid range figure for total reserves and that I did my 
>>>arithmetic right, that means almost a 13 hour supply of oil. Just think, 
>>>we can extend the age of oil another 13 hours. How could anyone be 
>>>opposed? What's a few caribou, snow geese, and polar bears compared to 
>>>that "huge" supply of oil?
>>
>>my math came out to 790-ish days...but, I'm still with you.
>
>As usual, I see it a slightly different way-
>
>This assumes 100% replacement of current usage levels...which ain't gonna 
>happen.

Agreed, but I don't think Weary was assuming 100% replacement. It was 
merely a way of quantifying how much oil it there.

>  If the ANWR were used to supplement our oil fix at 5% of current levels 
> that would work out to about 43 years.  A 5% increase in production would 
> significantly reduce the price of gas at the pump and help the national 
> economy...in the short run.  That is why it is so attractive to 
> politicians.  ie:  " You mean all I gots to do is pump oil from ANWR and 
> the economy will improve and I'll get re-elected??!!!!??...Sign me 
> up!"  A lot can happen in 43 years and it is soooooo politically 
> attractive and easy to let other people-to-be deal with the problems many 
> years from now.

A 5% supplement to current supply assumes the highest estimate of the 
amount of oil available. I'm not that optimistic.

>I don't buy into the argument that drilling in ANWR would be distasterous 
>for the local ecology.  That argument is overstated and as such hurts the 
>objective.  Would there be impact? Sure.  Would it be minimal?  Absolutly. 
>The drilling companies can not politically or financially afford to be as 
>sloppy and irresponsible as they were even 20 years ago.  With as much 
>cost and hassle it will take if they are ever actually allowed to drill in 
>ANWR they would need to appear to do it right or they would never be 
>allowed to drill anywhere again.  So they would have be on their best 
>behavior.  The real and bigger environmental  problem is the use of the 
>ANWR oil itself.

And this is wildly optimistic. What has happened in the energy industry in 
recent years that makes you believe they would be more socially responsible 
than in the past? They have a surplus of friends in high places. I would 
guess, if anything, they would feel freer to charge ahead as never before.

>It's hard to quit a nasty habit when the object of your addiction is so 
>readily available.  I fear we will never evolve to predominantly 
>solar/hydrogen/nucular/wind power until enough of us are convinced that 
>the future beyond our allotted time on this earth really is up to us.
>
>Bottom line is that ANWR doesn't represent 13 hours or 790 days of oil 
>supply.   The far more dangerous issue is that ANWR represents the ability 
>to put off dealing with the problem for another whole generation.  ANother 
>whole generation of fossil fuel burned up in smoke.  That's all I'm sayin.
>Tin Man
>(rant mode - off)

Yes, it's hard to quit a bad habit but like the smoker who has been told by 
his/her doctor that it's time to quit, the fact that we have to go after 
such a modest amount in such a remote location should tell us it's time. 
Unfortunately our leaders don't lead. Instead they choose to continue the 
addiction. But why be surprised by that when the voters keep sending to 
office people who reassure them that we don't need to change our habits.