MSNBC's Brewer uncritically aired Bush's misleading assertion that ANWR, continental shelf drilling would "give this country a chance to help" with gas prices
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Contessa Brewer uncritically aired President Bush's assertion that the "United States has an opportunity to help increase the supply of oil on the market, therefore taking pressure off gasoline for our hardworking Americans, and that I've proposed to the Congress that they open up ANWR, and open up the continental shelf, and give this country a chance to help us through this difficult period." However, federal researchers have found that any benefit from the oil exploration Bush suggests would not impact the U.S. oil supply for at least a decade.
Despite federal researchers' findings that challenge President Bush's claims, MSNBC Live anchor Contessa Brewer uncritically broadcast his assertion that drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and off the continental shelf would "tak[e] pressure off gasoline for our hardworking Americans."
During the June 9 edition of MSNBC Live, discussing Bush's trip to the U.S.-European Union summit, Brewer said Bush "will push for help from our European partners on the oil front" and aired a video clip of Bush saying, "The United States has an opportunity to help increase the supply of oil on the market, therefore taking pressure off gasoline for our hard-working Americans, and that I've proposed to the Congress that they open up ANWR, and open up the continental shelf, and give this country a chance to help us through this difficult period."
But Brewer did not note that researchers at the Department of Energy have concluded that the oil exploration Bush advocates would not yield any benefit for many years. In its May 2008 Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration (EIA) concluded that oil drilling in ANWR would not impact the U.S. oil supply for at least a decade: "The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018 [emphasis added]." Moreover, in its Annual Energy Outlook for 2007, the EIA stated: "The projections in the [Outer Continental Shelf] OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017."
Indeed, in assessing the impact of hypothetical legislation that would allow drilling in ANWR, the EIA "assumes that enactment of the legislation in 2008 would result in first production from the ANWR area in 10 years." The EIA stated, "The primary constraints to a rapid development of ANWR oil resources are the limited weather 'windows' for collecting seismic data and drilling wells (a 3-to-4 month winter window) and for ocean barging of heavy infrastructure equipment to the well site (a 2-to-3 month summer window)." The EIA continued:
The assumption that ANWR oil production would begin 10 years after legislation approves the Federal oil and natural gas leasing in the 1002 Area is based on the following 8-to-12 year timeline:
- 2 to 3 years to obtain leases, including the development of a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leasing program, which includes approval of an Environmental Impact Statement, the collection and analysis of seismic data, and the auction and award of leases.
- 2 to 3 years to drill a single exploratory well. Exploratory wells are slower to drill because geophysical data are collected during drilling, e.g., rock cores and well logs. Typically, Alaska North Slope exploration wells take two full winter seasons to reach the desired depth.
- 1 to 2 years to develop a production development plan and obtain BLM approval for that plan, if a commercial oil reservoir is discovered. Considerably more time could be required if the discovered oil reservoir is very deep, is filled with heavy oil, or is highly faulted. The petroleum company might have to collect more seismic data or drill delineation wells to confirm that the deposit is commercial.
- 3 to 4 years to construct the feeder pipelines; to fabricate oil separation and treatment plants, and transport them up from the lower-48 States to the North Slope by ocean barge; construct drilling pads; drill to depth; and complete the wells.
The 10-year timeline for developing ANWR petroleum resources assumes that there is no protracted legal battle in approving the BLM's draft Environmental Impact Statement, the BLM's approval to collect seismic data, or the BLM's approval of a specific lease-development proposal.
Further, in assessing the likely impact of drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf area, the EIA stated that "despite the increase in production from previously restricted areas after 2012, total natural gas production from the lower 48 OCS is projected generally to decline after 2020." The EIA continued: "Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices."
From the noon ET hour of the June 9 edition of MSNBC Live:
CONTESSA BREWER: President Bush is heading to Europe today for what will likely be his last visit there, at least while he's in office. The president will attend his final U.S.-European Union summit. He'll push for help from our European partners on the oil front.
BUSH [video clip]: The United States has an opportunity to help increase the supply of oil on the market, therefore taking pressure off gasoline for our hardworking Americans, and that I've proposed to the Congress that they open up ANWR, and open up the continental shelf, and give this country a chance to help us through this difficult period.
BREWER: The president will visit Slovenia, Germany, Italy, France, England, and Northern Ireland on his eight-day trip.
I think Bush is right. These oil companies just want to be helpful and patriotic. I'm sure when they drill that oil out of the ground - careful so as not to disturb a single dandelion - they will sell it far below market value because they love the people so much - thus sending oil prices tumbling towards almost free.
; )
Wind power is picking up. GE sells a lot of windmills these days.
The answer would probably be basic economics. The gas companies shut down half of their oil refineries while maintaining roughly the same production levels over the last 25 years. This was done as far as I can tell to control prices. I have no reason to doubt the oil companies did not invest in oil shale because the economic impetus simply wasn't there yet. Four-dollar gas changes everything. It may now be worthwhile for them to investigate oil-shale.
Wind power is picking up. GE sells a lot of windmills these days.
There is a section of Southern Colorado south of Lamar that has windmills as far as the eye can see. It's the perfect place for them - it's sparcely populated and there is a fairly steady wind. I'm sure there are other areas that would also be good for windmills.
I remember back during the first Arab Oil Embargo (1973-74), when someone suggested putting windmills along the New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway. Their reasoning was the cars driving by would turn the windmills, generating electricity.....
oscar, according to this, 9.6 billion barrels initial estimate, but it has produced more.
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006CD/finalprogram/abstract_104568.htm
Thanks, so there may be more in ANWR than estimated. Let's keep it locked up until we can sell it for $500/Barrel and get some of our money back from the OPEC nations (and China and India). In the meantime, the cost of crude is reaching a point where it may become economical to go after Shale Oil and still spend some $$ on R & D for alternate sources. However, we are a fossil fuel driven economy (pretty much World-wide) and will be for the foreseeable future.
As an aside, how many of you have been to ANWR?
as you can see by the map in this link, there is also the national petroleum reserve on the northwest coast. from what i have read, the oil discoveries in this area are more scattered than in anwr. i don't think it's a matter of going to anwr, but a matter of impact on the environment of that area. i don't automatically reject drilling in some spots, including off shore in the gulf of mexico and anwr if they can limit it to a very small area.
http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm
Well, if we drove 35 mph, we would be closer to achieving 35 mpg. However, to those of us that have to drive long distances to see family, etc, 35 mph is unacceptable as a solution to the problem.
High mileage IS achievable. I used to drive a '93 Ford Festiva that got 43 MPG from a 1.3-liter 4 and a 5-speed tranny. I used it for commuting and occasional trips with my wife - we have no kids, so rear passenger space was not a criteria. I also had a '96 Suzuki Swift that got 36 MPG - it had a larger engine, an automatic, and A/C. Today, we drive a Honda Element because my wife is disabled and we needed something that could transport her mobility scooter. It gets around 25 MPG on the highway.
I think the trick it to find the vehicle with the best mileage that suits your needs. People with kids need a minivan or SUV, and people who haul cargo need full-size pick-ups. But if you don't need a large vehicle, you might want to consider getting something a bit smaller and more fuel-efficient.
THe problem with your theory is that under current law, the oil companies are under no obligation to sell the oil from Alaska to the US. It goes on the open market. We would have to repeal that law and have some sort of nationalized system if we really wanted to save money with that new supply.
As for your other comment, you know who visits ANWR every year? Millions of migratory birds from as far south as Argentina. Tens of thousands of species. Not to mention the now protected polar bears and the caribou that we have a current treaty with Canada to protect in ANWR and its sister reserve on the other side of the border.
The problem with oil shale isn't just the technology, but the environmental damage in removing it. I'm not just being a greenie here. My point is that in this industry, like so many others, the true cost of doing business is not shouldered by the industry itself. The environmental damage is passed on to the gov't to take care of. If the true costs of these products were forced upon the industry, the price of oil shale would be insurmountable regardless of technology.
Beyond that, the people in the states where these resources are located are no longer interested in seeing their natural resources flushed down the toilet. Alaska seems to be the only exception. I live in Colorado and the people here have had enough. We are in some heated battles with the feds and the industry over new drilling sites and mining operations. There has been mining here for over 100 years and everyone has finally woken up to how damaging it is. It is not just the environmentalist left, but the hunters and fishers that are against it these days.
My main point is that we need to get serious about moving in a different direction. It isn't beyond our reach. As Robert Kennedy, Jr. says, if we increase our average fuel economy by 1 mpg, it would make up the entire supply in ANWR. 2 mpg and we eliminate all need for mideast oil. And that's just the beginning.
Can any of these people figure out that we do NOT have an oil shortage?
This is not 1973 all over again. Higher prices-- not that high, really-- are the result of a number of factors. Speculation, for one.
Increasing the oil supply will make little difference.
"Can any of these people figure out that we do NOT have an oil shortage... ...Increasing the oil supply will make little difference." -Carlileb
Of course, we do not have an oil shortage. But if all of the oil is in the hands of foreign powers who may or may not give it to us, it may be wise to increase supply in American stores. Hence, the desire for energy independence.
Scrolled down the comments to see if any would note there is no "shortage", and there it is.
Also, there's the reference to an actual "shortage", back there in the embargo days... insightful, not much I can add. I put in quotation marks the word "shortage", because that's the word that the entire supply/demand higher prices argument hinges on... which of course is what George W. Bush was cleverly implying: "increase supply, to satisfy demand".
The magic word is "shortage".
"Mr. President, are you saying that there's a gas and/or oil shortage in America, or in the world even? Is there a shortage Sir?"
Because as you recalled, a "shortage" is what you'd say there was, when you go to pull into the gas station, and there's a line of cars out into the street, waiting to fill up also... that's what happened back then: cars were backed up out into the street, waiting for gas... dozens and dozens of cars in some cases (true!), stretching a quarter mile or so... true. Sometimes waiting for the tanker, sometimes there was a sign on the pumps: "No Gas"... that's what a "shortage" is, that's what a supply problem is, and how a "shortage" drives prices up.
It's all true, every word: it actually happened, some of us were there (some of us even pumped gas, and stuck those signs on the pumps when we were out, and waited for the tanker to show).
"Mr. President, are you saying that there's a gas and/or oil shortage in America, or in the world even? Is there a shortage Sir?
And if there is a "shortage" Sir, then why aren't there lines at the gas stations, and dry pumps and "No Gas" signs and folks waiting for the tanker to arrive?
Is there a "shortage" Sir, or is it just that your old Enron gang has cornered the Commodities Futures market in oil, and are driving the prices as high as you and your administration will allow them, by not Regulating their trades by way of the CFTC, and by allowing them to corner and tilt a market in a precious and strategic Commodity?"
It's deja vu all over again...
...not gas lines, and a "shortage": that's not what's happening... it's the Enron gang, speculating in and dictating energy costs, draining billions and billions of dollars from American energy consumers...
...that's what's deja vu all over again.
Wow...MMFA is saying the same thing that Clinton said in 1996. That turned out well...
Here's an interesting article from About.com on why oil prices are as high as they are:
http://useconomy.about.com/od/commoditiesmarketfaq/p/high_oil_prices.htm
It strikes me that even if we start tapping our oil resources today and it takes 10 years to get online, if we wait to start, we're going to be 10 more years behind. If nothing else, why not drill now and cap the wells for a quicker reaction to world events in the future. Equate it to having uncommitted money in a savings account for some unexpected expense. Starting a 10 year wait from some unknown future event makes no sense.
A second point is directed to those worrying about the impact on wildlife in the sites. Give those creatures credit for being very adaptable to human presence. I live in Minnesota where the deer have adapted to humans almost too well, to a nuisance situation.. They thrive on farm crops, newly timbered areas, and yes, even lawns and gardens. Population estimates are thriving over 10-fold in the last 50 years and we harvest over 200,000 annually and many thousands are killed by autos. Same is true of geese, sandhill cranes and other game birds. Same with bear and moose. Osprys nest on high rise buildings. Timber wolves and eagles have increased significantly. Even the polar bears that invade Churchill, Manitoba each year have already adapted somewhat. I think enviornmental fears are overated.