Yesterday, the senate approved drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. What does this mean? It means that our national energy policy is so misguided that we will focus on drilling in pristine wilderness in order to secure six months worth of oil, ten years from now.
God forbid we should focus on conservation, higher fuel economy standards, alternative fuels, or renewable energy. Drilling in ANWR will do essentially nothing to wean us off our dependence on imported oil. The reserves that are “technically” available are estimated to be about six months worth, at our current consumption.
Who will benefit? British Petroleum, and handful of Alaskans. Who will suffer? Millions of caribou, polar bears, and migratory birds. Oh, and our national karma.
Glenn Dixon Says: March 19th, 2005 at 7:35 amI really don’t know why people keep repeating the ‘six months’ mantra when a simple search of Google provides you with *multiple* sources indicating that ANWR would replace over 30 years of Saudi oil imports. Billions of barrels. Explain to me how British Petroleum would ‘benefit’ from spending all that money to develop ANWR for only six months of oil! Dude.
Oh, and the caribou are *thriving* at Prudhoe Bay — the herd is the largest since we began tracking! I’ve got some links on my site:
erim Says: March 20th, 2005 at 10:01 amWell yes, there are estimated to be billions of barrels of oil in ANWR. However, since the United States currently consumes about twenty million barrels a day, billions don’t go very far.
But, you’re right, the six month figure is not that descriptive. So, let’s break it down and look at the numbers more closely, based on the 2004 report by the Energy Information Administration.
First, the mean estimate of “technically recoverable” reserves is about 10 billion barrels. This figure is a little misleading, because no oil well ever delivers its entire reserve. Typically, an oil well’s production peaks a few years after development, then tapers off gradually until it’s no longer profitable to continue extraction.
If you look at the results of the study, you’ll see that the EIA estimates production will begin in 2013, peak in 2024 at 876,000 barrels per day, then decline at an estimated 10% per year thereafter. So, even at it’s peak, ANWR will only supply a few percent of the nations oil needs, based on current consumption (sure to be more in 2024). To say that ANWR will “replace over 30 years of Saudi oil imports” is totally inaccurate.
These estimates contradict the Bush administrations claims that developing ANWR will somehow help to wean us off imported oil. It is, in fact, yet another example of the cynical and completely disingenuous way in which this administration presents its agenda to the American people.
But for me, the more important question is a philosophical and ideological one. The question is, should we, at this point in history, undertake to develop the last pristine wilderness on the arctic coastal plain, while at the same time placing absolutely no emphasis on conservation, finding alternatives to fossil fuels, and scoffing at global warming?
For me, the answer is an unequivocal no.