Dyre you forgot this part:
"The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels (3,200,000 m³) daily. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption -- most is imported from Canada (19%), Mexico (15%), Saudi Arabia (11.5%), Nigeria (10.5%) and Venezuela (10.5%)[12] -- the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m³), would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years.
In total, the oil deposits in ANWR contain as much oil to solely support U.S. consumption for 7 months (4.3B estimate) to 19 months (12B estimate). If used to completely replace oil imported from Saudi Arabia, oil from ANWR would last from approximately 8.9 years (4.3B estimate) to 25 years (12B estimate)."
So really, it's not all that much. It'd take about 10 years to develop but would potentially only get us 12 years. Also, by the time that it's up and running either a) the world will be using 20% more oil or b) there will be almost flat supply but tons more demand. In the first case it is even more of a drop in the bucket but in the second it is more useful but in the grand scheme of things oil will be so outrageously priced anyway it'd be hard to say how well it'd work.
"So even if all of ANWR's oil is used only by Americans (say through a clause in the drilling rights lease) then it would only offset an equivalent amount of imported oil (a good thing) however it would only represent a 1.6 percent increase in global supply thereby resulting in an equal price drop. With gas currently at four dollars a gallon that would only equal a 6.4 cent per gallon decrease in prices."
This is actually not correct. Price depends on the shape of the supply-demand curve. Oil is highly inelastic over the short term and as such, very small changes in demand/supply can cause large shifts in price.
A large change in behavior over the long term may provide more options and make demand more elastic, thus flattening the curve a bit, but in nearly all cases, price isn't linear with demand or supply.
A large change in behavior over the long term may provide more options and make demand more elastic, thus flattening the curve a bit, but in nearly all cases, price isn't linear with demand or supply.
I think the solution is right there. Consumption patterns are going to effect prices more than any new sources of oil.
I believe the key is that it will take about 10 years or so to get any supply from this source. Not really relevant to today's gas prices, yet the Faux News crowd repeats the "drill ANWR" chant like a mantra. It will help, in a small way, so we will do it, now or later, but for goodness sake, let's say the words, "peak oil," can't we? If we can't, why not?
2 million barrels a day, if they stay in the U.S., would be a 10% increase in our current oil supply. That would have a much more profound effect than is being touted here. Even just SEEING the US pass legislation for further exploration and drilling of our own energy resources would help offset the speculators who are driving prices up. And in 6-8 years, when we are that much MORE desperate, this oil will be flowing. The idea that it will take years to get the oil so why bother assumes that we won't be in a WORSE energy crunch in years to come, which is dangerously naive.
Walt, you missed the point of the whole post. There isn't going to be 2 million barrels a day coming from ANWR without a second pipeline. Once that was completed
there wouldn't be an increase in our supply. We'd only offset the amount of oil we import (Which is a good thing.).
Mikkel
Thanks for the additional info however I was working from the vantage point that the oil from ANWR became immediately accessible. However I did not state that.
PC
That may prove true over the next few years but as prices rise coal bed shale becomes an increasingly viable source of oil.That is of course provided that waste and grass based ethanol research doesn't majorly pay off before that price point.
I'm not familiar with coal bed shale. I've been wondering if the oil sands up in Canada will start to become more cost-effective. The high price of oil is certainly going to provide more incentives to try methods that were previously too expensive.
I still say, regardless of an increase in production, the best thing for the U.S. is to limit our need for oil. That is going to leave us extremely vulnerable to trade pressure.
If you guys think that either coal bed shale or Canadian tar sands are going to save the US, you need to do a bit more reading....try www.theoildrum.com for some scientific analysis of these energy sources.
Here is the issue, and all this short sighted rhetoric is detracting from it; we have to keep the price of oil down as much as possible for as long as possible, because we have to end our dependance upon it. Unless you guys want to destroy our economy while we figure out a way to that, then you will have to agree that ANYTHING that increases supply (thereby lowering prices) is a good thing. In order for this economy to thrive, and today operate at all, we have to have cheap, readily available energy. But we have no infrastructure in place yet for anything that even comes close. And if the economy is desimated, we never will. WE NEED MORE OIL NOW TO EXTEND OUR ABILITY TO BECOME INDEPENDENT OF IT IN THE FUTURE. Otherwise....I tell you now....it wont make any difference how well we preserve wildlife habitat, or anything else. Because this issue has the potential to completely destroy the nation. We need time, because we should have began getting off of oil 30 years ago. Nothing will make it painless now. But we have to do whatever we can to cushion the fall.
Rick,
I never made an argument against drilling in ANWR in that post. I simply pointed out the fact that opening ANWR for drilling would do jack to reduce the price of gas in the short term and that anyone saying that it will is either ill informed or blowing smoke up your keister.
That's politics. Shall we play politics while America burns?
Commenting by HaloScan
