NY Times ignored actual oil survey, previous Times reporting; overstated refuge's oil "reserves" to be 10 billion barrels
An October 20 New York Times article by reporter Felicity Barringer on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's decision to allow oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) cited the Department of Energy to make the deceptive claim that the refuge "sit[s] atop reserves of 10 billion barrels of oil." But as Media Matters for America has noted, the 10-billion-barrel figure is misleading, encompassing both a larger area for drilling than what the Senate committee voted to authorize and including oil that may not be economically worthwhile to recover. Moreover, the article's description of this figure as "reserves" attached a certainty to that figure upon which previous Times reporting cast doubt.
The 10-billion-barrel figure the Times article cited comes from a 1998 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assessment of the possible oil in the ANWR area. The USGS reported that 10.4 billion barrels was the average likely amount of "technically recoverable" oil for the entire surveyed region. The Senate committee, however, voted to authorize oil development and production only in the "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Coastal Plain Area," an area that is smaller than what the USGS surveyed in making its assessment. The USGS found this smaller region's average likely amount of "technically recoverable" oil to be 7.7 billion barrels -- not 10 billion.
The amount of oil that could be obtained by opening ANWR is further diminished by cost. As of this writing, oil prices sit at roughly $60 a barrel, or $47.85 in 1996 dollars (which the USGS report uses). The USGS assessed how much of the oil that is technically recoverable would be economically feasible to obtain; and, while the USGS report did not assess how much oil could be profitably recovered above a $40 price per barrel (1996 dollars), if the trend shown until that point were to continue to the current $47.85, an average of approximately 7 billion barrels of oil would be economically recoverable.
In addition, the article's claim that ANWR "sit[s] atop reserves of 10 billion barrels" suggests a certainty that is not warranted. As a February 21 New York Times article noted, the 1998 USGS "estimates are of 'petroleum resources' -- potential oil deposits -- instead of 'petroleum reserves,' which refers to oil that has been discovered." The current article's use of the latter term obscures the fact that the actual amount of oil in ANWR is uncertain; the USGS estimates at the 95 percent confidence level only 3.4 billion barrels as technically recoverable.
From the October 20 New York Times article "Senate Panel Approves Arctic Drilling":
The plain is a way station on the annual migration of thousands of caribou and many more migratory birds. It is also part of the range of musk oxen, grizzly bears, arctic foxes and a whole suite of other wildlife that regularly journey through the coastal flatlands at the edge of the Beaufort Sea.
The Department of Energy has estimated that the coastal plain and the area immediately offshore sit atop reserves of 10 billion barrels of oil, and the Bush administration argues that increasingly tight and increasingly expensive supplies of gasoline, home heating oil and natural gas require the nation to exploit available resources, like those in the refuge.
MMFA says 7 BILLION barrels, the NYT says 10 BILLION, in either event its a heck of a lot of oil that the US could really use for many reasons, not the least of which would be strategic reasons. What's the beef here?? Misinformation is one thing, difference of opinion is quite another. Fact is, we NEED ALL domestic production until someone comes up with some alternative means to drive our economy and way of life.
A few billion here, a few billion there, and pretty soon you're talking some big numbers. The more the number of potential barrels can be inflated, the more people are going to agree that the cost and environmental impact are worth it. We probably will end up extracting the oil in ANWR largely due to the reasons you cite, but this constitutes misinformation or sloppy fact checking by the reporter. The other right wing fallacy concerning ANWR is that it's anything more than a drop in the bucket short term answer, overshadowing the more important issues of conservation and alternative sources.
by rufus t firefly - Friday October 21, 2005 09:54:59 AM EST -
The fact is that as of today, there is NO alternative and we must deal with the here and now. When drilling in ANWAR was passed ten years ago and vetoed by Clinton it was hailed as a tremendous victory. I wonder what impact the oil in ANWAR if Clinton had not vetoed it would have on today's prices and more importantly availability. I recall an editorial in the Houston Chronicle recently that suggested that ANWAR wasn't the solution because even if they started today, we would not see the oil for 10 years. Hmmmmmm, if we had started it in 1995, we would have it today. I also don't buy into your argument that it is either/or. We CAN drill for the oil in ANWAR and be environmentally reasonable and until there is another REAL, not pie in the sky alternative, we NEED TO DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!!! Our very way of life is at stake, in my view.
There already are alternatives, it's just that car companies and oil companies haven't been presurred to take advantage of them. As long as the Government allows (highly profitable) 12 MPG SUV's and the American people mindlessly buy them (often using them to transport a single 150 lb person to the store for milk), there's no incentive for car companies or oil companies to even try using the already available alternatives.
Biodiesel is real, commonly used it many other countries, and could be common-place in the US within 1 - 2 years if we had an energy policy promoting it. Hybrid technology is here now and combined with smaller (still safe) cars can easily double the average MPG on the road today. Biodiesel capable hybrids have been built, but are not yet on the market. A simple requirement for higher average MPG per car would be all the incentive car manufacturers needed.
As long as oil companies are experiencing record profits (which they are) there is no incentive for them to invest in biodiesel or any other alternative. Pressure must be applied. More drilling will only delay that pressure.
KLwinters,
Some of these hybrids can be modified by adding batteries and a plug-in charger to get up to 88 miles per gallon easily. Plugging in the car to get power is much cheaper than gas. I have seen where it can cost as little as $.01 per mile. Of course, it still contributes to polution on a small scale due to our dependence on coal burning energy plants.
Right now you have to convert the car yourself or pay someone to do it, but the Japanese auto-makers like Toyota are warming up to putting this technology in their new models.
This technology and increased bio-diesel are feasible alternatives that will happen soon. The market is fueling the need for better alternatives.
Some short reading on the topic: [link to 72.14.207.104]
yipee, you skimmed didn't you.
The current article's use of the latter term obscures the fact that the actual amount of oil in ANWR is uncertain; the USGS estimates at the 95 percent confidence level only 3.4 billion barrels as technically recoverable.
how long does a billion barrels last ? judging by this DOE web page, the US consumes more than 24 billion barrels per year. so even 10 billion barrels would last, what .... several months ? and so according to you we're supposed to use this up while we come up with some alternative solution ? in a matter of several months ?
is there an error in my math/facts or are you living in a fantasy world ?
I'm not neccessarily disagreeing with the drilling. We certainly need the oil, but it IS true that we won't see a drop for 6 to 10 years. A lot can happen during that time. This country's energy policy has been subservient to big oil/big energy for decades. It's their profit hungry short-sighted mentality that's responsible for whatever level of crisis you think we're in right now. We have been encouraged to consume, consume, consume. Conservation hes been cast as an un-American behavior and I think it's unfortunate.