Media overstated amount of oil that ANWR drilling could produce
SUMMARY: In articles on the House's passage of a bill that would allow oil exploration in a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, and the Associated Press overstated the amount of oil that could be produced if the bill becomes law.
Reporting the House's passage of a bill that would permit oil exploration in a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), May 26 articles from The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, and the Associated Press overstated the amount of oil that could be produced if the bill becomes law. The Times reported that "[b]ackers of the drilling" say "10.3 billion barrels of oil would lead to greater energy independence." The Post similarly reported that "proponents say ... 10.4 billion barrels" would be added to "the nation's oil reserves." Both USA Today and the AP wrote that "federal geologists" estimate the land holds between 5.4 billion and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil, with the AP adding that the land set aside for drilling is "likely to hold about 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil." But these estimates appear to be based on the amount of "technically recoverable" oil purportedly contained in the entire ANWR region, not the mean estimate for the smaller area addressed by the House bill. Moreover, the articles do not address economic factors that could further constrain oil production in the drilling area.
As Media Matters for America has noted, the figures cited by these media outlets represent the amount of oil deemed "technically recoverable" -- oil that can be obtained given technological and geological constraints, regardless of economic factors -- in the entire 19-million-acre ANWR region, as opposed to the amount contained in the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain, or "ANWR 1002" area, that would be opened for oil drilling should the House proposal become law. A 1998 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assessment states: "The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire [ANWR] assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels ... with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels." But the amount of technically recoverable oil in the ANWR 1002 area "is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels ... with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels."
In addition, the use of statistics for technically recoverable oil is misleading. As Media Matters has noted (here and here), the USGS also assessed how much of the technically recoverable oil in the 1002 region would be "economically recoverable," or cost-effective, to obtain, given a particular price of oil. The current price of oil is about $70 a barrel ($55.58 in 1996 dollars, which the USGS report used). While the USGS did not continue its analysis beyond $40 a barrel (in 1996 dollars), it appears that if the trend shown until that point were to continue, an average of about 7 billion barrels of oil would be economically recoverable at current prices.
From the May 26 New York Times article:
Backers of the drilling contend that the promise of 10.3 billion barrels of oil would lead to greater energy independence and job creation. Opponents say that the risk of spills and other environmental damage outweighs the benefits and that drilling for oil delays the development of alternative fuels.
From the May 26 Washington Post article:
Twenty-seven Democrats voted for Pombo's bill, which proponents say would add 10.4 billion barrels to the nation's oil reserves, and 30 Republicans voted against it.
From the May 26 USA Today article:
The House of Representatives voted Thursday to allow oil exploration on a small portion of Alaska's 19 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The vote was 225-201 to allow drilling on 1.5 million acres that federal geologists estimate hold 5.4 billion to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
From the May 26 Associated Press article:
The House voted 225-201 to direct the Interior Department to open oil leases on the coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- an area of 1.5 million acres that is thought likely to hold about 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
[...]
While oil companies have long eyed the area where federal geologists estimate anywhere from 5.4 billion to as much as 16 billion barrels of oil may be recoverable, environmentalists consider it one of their top priorities for protection.
A friend of mine was complaining about gas prices. Yes they are terrible, I said, so why do you drive a truck that gets 12 miles to the gallon?
Driving higher mileage per gallon vehicles, which is a personal CHOICE, would do more for helping our gas prices than drilling in Alaska, IMO.
Furthermore, according to the USGS (likely the same 1998 survey - see National Geographic, Agust 2001), the lower estimate of 4 billion barrels carries a 95% probability while the 12 billion barrel estimate has a 5% probability.
As if that weren't enough, peak production would not be reached until 2030 and would reduce the need for foreign imports by only 9% at TODAY'S rate of consumption...
most scientists agree that the more likely # is only worth a 3% reduction in foreign imports, relatively speaking. They also agree that the oil has higher sulfer content and will most likely be sold in overseas markets with the cost being used to offset the price of imports. My question is how much foreign crude will lower grade alaskan buy? I bet it isn't a 1:1 trade.
It seems to me that we have a problems with solutions and solutions with problems.
Drilling in ANWAR helps with lowering the foreign oil imports. How much it will help? Who knows. But I would think most will agree that reducing reliance on foreign oil would be a good thing for the U.S.
The other problem is the release of CO2 into the air. Regardless of where the oil comes from, using petroleum based fuel spews more into the atmosphere causing global warming. We know the Chinese and Indians, among others, will buy the oil even if we don't. The ultimate solution is to find an alternative
Is it possible to develop an alternative fuel that doesn't cause global warming. Anyone got any ideas?
that should eliminate 3 months worth of hot air
... good point!
I wish I had the answers to these questions (I bet they're easily answered), but I'll just speculate anyway...
What are the top five selling automobiles in the U.S., and what kind of gas mileage do they get?
I'll speculate that whatever models they are, they all get less than twenty miles per gallon; closer to fifteen than twenty, I'd guess.
Now, if the number's near fifteen miles per gallon, then that means that someone who drives a car that gets thirty miles per gallon burns half as much fuel to drive the same distances.
And no, a 30 mpg vehicle isn't necessarily a cracker-box; not only does Honda and Volkswagon make a substantial automobile that gets that kind of mileage, but so do many others, including even U.S. manufacturers.
Those who work hard for the public good in this matter, to do all they can to reduce the extraordinary levels of fossil fuel emissions, and those who work also to reduce the U.S.'s dependance on foreign oil, they share a common ground:
To burn less oil accomplishes both objectives; less emissions, and less business with those who hate us and cheer the deaths of innocent terrorist victims.
Both groups working to that end, would themselves cheer a 10% reduction in emissions and imports; they would celebrate a 20% reduction in emissions and exports...
50% less fuel is burned, driving the same distances, by a vehicle that gets 30 miles per gallons versus one that gets 15...
a 50% reduction in emissions and imports.
OK, so you still think that a 30 mpg vehicle is a cracker-box, and wouldn't drive one?
Then to drive a 25 mpg vehicle versus the 15 mpg one, is still a 40% reduction (in emissions or imports, you choose); to drive an 19 mpg vehicle versus a 15 mpg one is more than a 20% reduction in emissions and consumption (more than worth celebrating); to drive a 17 mpg vehicle versus a 15 mpg one is more than a 10% reduction in fuel burned (more than worth cheering)...
What could be simpler?
What could be a more obvious solution to both problems?
The first poster on this thread had it right; but at this stage, not enough people care.
But they will, and right soon.
("Alternative fuels" and drilling in ANWR as solutions? Those are the kinds of ridiculous "solutions" being babbled about by those who like the problem just the way it is: obscenely profitable.)
...and allow yourself to be proven a fool? The answers are easy to find. While the top 2 may get less then 20 mpg, 2 out of the other 3 average 30 mpg or better, and 6 out of the top 10 average 30 mpg or better. There has also been a shift towards more fuel efficient vehicles as well.
Now, let consider who buys pick-up trucks. There are hillbillies, pimps, and everyone in between. The majority bases their livelihood on their pick-up. Contractors, construction workers, landscapers, farmers, etc., all have a need for something a putt putt will not give them...power, hauling, and storage.
It is interesting how most pundits for "fuel conservation" take little to no recognition of the truly wasteful fuel consumers, and arguably, the greatest polluters. These would be farm machinery, tractor-trailers, dump trucks, buses/motorhomes, and any other large, commercial vehicle. If fuel consumption is such a bad thing, then let's do away with these highly inefficient fuel consumers/polluters.
Of course, that's a ridiculous statement.
So, how about this one. The higher fuel efficient vehicle drivers who live >30 min (without traffic) from their job and sit in traffic for hours, thereby, defeating the "greater fuel efficiency" argument you propose. BUT, we can't build more/better roads or better forms of public transportation because that evil process would burn fuel.
Are there alternatives? Absolutely! For one, let's focus on ethanol. How about in stead of paying farmers to not grow crops, we allow them to grow the crops, and then use the subsidies that were paid to the farmers to advance the technology of ethanol as a viable alternative fuel. Too bad most politicians are in bed with big oil, otherwise this could certainly happen. What about the other alternatives that are currently being investigated and put to use. For what ever reason (and I'll look to the politicians for this answer), none of these are attractive.
So, in the mean time, drilling in ANWR is not such a bad idea...and how about off the coasts. We should have done this a few decades ago, but a little late is better than never! Technology has advanced so that the likelihood of a spill is low, and if one did occur, it would have minimal impact on the environment.
Lastly, to comment on your "obscene profits" comment, I assume you are talking about the oil company profits. Let's have a little Economics 101. Profit is not a bad thing. Few companies are in business for any other reason then profit. Of course, people want to demonize the oil companies for their profits when the price of gas is rising. First lesson: supply and demand. The supply of refined gas and crude oil has been outpaced by the demand for such (i.e., growth in India, China, etc.). Therefore, the price will go up.
Second lesson: profit vs. profit margin (dumbed down for the economically challenged). The profit is the amount made off the sale of said item. Profit margin is the percentage taken after the sale of said item. For example, I sell widgets for $10, and it costs me $9 to make these widgets. I have a profit of $1, and a profit margin of 10%. Now, the cost of making these widgets increases to $18, so I sell them at $20. I maintain my 10% profit margin, but my profit has DOUBLED!!!
My, I must be an evil bastard, right!?! Wrong! I determined that I needed to maintain a profit margin of 10% in order to stay in business/invest in my business. Therefore, my profits necessarily will have to increase with the cost of the widget.
Also, let's not forget the other businesses that make a much greater profit than the oil companies. They're out there...just do a little research and you shall see the truth.
As a solution to the problems of extraordinary levels of fossil fuel emissions and U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
fuel efficiency and conservation
What's wrong with that now?
Was there anything you posted that even resembled a solution to the problems of emissions and imports?
As for your claims that everyone is driving a fuel efficient vehicle, you mentioned no makes and models to support such nonsense, so I think you just made that stuff up out of an antagonized spirit...
One with no solution to the problem, and no positive statement whatsoever that I could discern.
I did propose a solution. I guess your ignorance blinded you from it.
Furthermore, I did not say that "everyone" was driving more fuel efficient cars. Truly, your gov't education payed off well! Not to mention, if I had posted makes and models, you still would believe that I made them up. It's call RESEARCH. Do some for yourself instead of being spoonfed everything.
A genuine example of the loss of the American spirit. Rely on gov't, media, etc., to give you all the information, etc., and not rely on your own abilities to find the true answers.
Seek and ye shall find...not the blind leading the blind.
You're the one who was specific about automobiles purchased in the U.S., and the gas mileage they get, by saying the "top 2 may get less then 20 mpg, 2 out of the other 3 average 30 mpg or better, and 6 out of the top 10 average 30 mpg or better"...
You're the one supposedly citing facts; you claim to know what you're talking about; just how hard would it have been to type the brand names of any one of those automobiles, or all ten of them?
You had two chances to do so; how hard is it to type the names if you know them, unless of course you just made that crap up...
I think you may have lied, and are defensive at being called on it.
Let's start by changing a basic American belief, "All politicians are corrupt.....except for mine." Force your politician to get out of bed with big oil and truly focus on a viable alternative (I gave you one already, and alluded to others). Most politicians talk about conservation and alternative fuels just to satiate their constituency, and then turn around and get in their motorcade of 8 Suburbans to go 6 blocks.
We can all talk about higher fuel efficiency, conservation, and alternative fuels, but they are all a farce as long as politicians are not held accountable. Okay, so Congress wants to raise the minimal fuel efficiency levels. What a joke. They tell automakers that the average fuel economy of their fleet has to meet level X. So, the automakers add a few fuel efficient vehicles to their fleet, probably a moped that gets 50 mpg, and IT'S MAGIC! They have increased the overall economy of their fleet. It's a game that is played between lawmakers and automakers so as to give Johnny Q. Public the sense that their precious representatives in DC care about and are actively doing something about the fossil fuel "crisis" in this country.
I guess this is the end result of such a wonderful gov't education.
If you truly want to do something, and want to find a true solution to this "crisis", hold YOUR representatives accountable. Then, and only then, will we truly see any advancements.
Lastly, I wonder what kind of vehicle(s) you drive/own. I drive/own one of the evil, horrible SUV's, as well as a medium sedan, and while I'm not crazy about the price of gas, you will not hear me whine and complain about the amount of gas it takes to fill my tanks. If you can't afford to put gas in the damn thing, then don't freakin' buy it!
To burn less fuel accomplishes both the goals of reducing emissions and reducing our dependence on foreign oil...
Burn 10% less oil, or 20% less oil, or 50% less oil...
And reduce both emissions and imports by 10%, 20%, or 50%.
It's simple, and obvious; even a child wouldn't need it repeated two and three times to understand it.
As for your "best solution"?
Let's see... Politicians are irresponsible hypocrits; automakers meet fuel efficiancy standards by making "mopeds"; something's eating you about "gov't education"; and you drive an SUV, and you're not complaining about the price of gas...
I guess that's a sensible solution.
Actually, it just sounded like an insane rant to me, but who knows...
FUEL EFFICIANCY and CONSERVATION; burn 20% less fuel and thereby reduce emissions and dependence on foreign oil by 20% also
...that's a more sensible solution to the problems of fuel emissions and dependence on foreign oil, than whatever it was you typed.
that you are truly clueless as to my suggested solution, as your "reduced emissions and dependance on foreign oil" senseless dribble is not a real solution. Continuing to use foreign oil, yet only at 80% of what we currently use now, is by no means a solution.
Of course, I'm sure it made perfect sense to you.
Also not surprising, you are afraid to answer what kind of car you drive.
My Acura TL gets 29mpg highway, and that's at -um - shall we say - "extralegal" speeds. It's a large, 4 door sedan. The Audi A3 gets 25 city/31 hwy, as does the A4. The 4cylinder Saabs do extremely well on mileage as well. And every one of these cars are far, far more entertaining to drive than any SUV. Of course, they don't let you be a bully on the road, which is - I suspect - the real attraction of SUVs to most who buy them. I'll take HP, agility, and fuel economy over brute force and mass any day of the week. But, most people can only drive as quickly as they think - which ain't too fast in most cases.
really start when Congress started meeting year round?
Who Killed The Electric Car?
Once again I am compelled to quote from one of our finest Indigenous poet/activists John Trudell
"They lie to us, then lie to themselves, about lying to us."
Used to be that the powers that be were content just lying to and stealing from the Indians. Now they are playing Cowboys and White Folks.
Welcome to our World. Hope your resistance is more effective than ours was.
In the Spirit of Crazy Horse.