Drilling in ANWR

[osprey4]

I oppose drilling in ANWR for perhaps different reasons than most people. Why tap a valuable resource when oil is so cheap and easy to get elsewhere?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

Frankly, I find this extremely short-sighted. But then again, being short-sighted is a well-entrenched habit of both political parties.

[Theophylact]

There isn't enough oil there, and it wouldn't be available soon enough, to make any practical difference in the price or availability of oil. Not compared with an increase in the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards, or requiring that SUVs be treated as cars, rather than as light trucks, in calculating whether they meet the standards.

[daveleau]

It would be nice to have the rigs set up there in case of emergency (another OPEC-driven boycott of America). So, I think drilling there is necessary. If there is not much oil there, then keeping it as a reserve for emergencies would not be a bad idea.

Personally, I don't think there is enough oil in the world to support our use for too much longer. We are consuming it faster than ever. Hydrogen or other fuel developments is an even bigger necessity. Wouldn't it be nice if the US led the way in alternate fuels and we began selling our oil to other nations instead of being the chief consumers. Talk about a boost in the economy!

[osprey4]

Ultimately, fuel cell technology is a medium-term solution.

As far as world-wide oil reserves, I've heard numbers like 50-500 years, so it's an open question. Same thing with ANWR, you hear people say there's enough to meet US demands for 25 years. Hey, I got news for those people, 25 years isn't a long period of time.

[Bill in SD, CA]

Go ahead and drill. What are we going to do? Upset the Elk? When was the last time an Elk hijacked an airplane?

(Profs to D.M.)

Bill

I voted to keep them dang A-RABS off. here is the reasoning:

1) Less dependence on foreign resourses is good for stability in pricing as well as reliability.
2) The US has resources for 25-30 years using current oil recovery methods. There are secondary and tertiary methods that can literally squeeze oil from rocks (shale). These methods may prolong the resources by another few decades.

By that time, there will be alternate sources like hydrogen, electricity (fuel cells that are commercially viable). and so on.

Makes no sense to give more money to Arabs.

[MTAtech]

Let’s described the following hypothetical situation. We have a 100-year supply of a resource, say oil - that is, the oil would last 100 years if it were consumed at its current rate. But the oil is consumed at a rate that grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it last under these circumstances? This is an easy calculation, the answer is about 36 years.

Oh, but let's say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a 1,000-year supply. At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, haw long will this last? The answer is about 79 years.

Then let us say we make a striking discovery of more oil yet - a bonanza - and we now have a 10,000-year supply. At our same rate of growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 125 years.

Estimates vary for how long currently known oil reserves will last, though they are usually considerably less than 100 years. But the point of this analysis is that it really doesn't matter what the estimates are. There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy problem can work.

The exponential function describes the behavior of any quantity whose rate of change is proportional to its size. Compound interest is the most commonly encountered example - it would produce exponential growth if the interest were calculated at a continuing rate. I have heard public statements that use "exponential" as though it describes a large or sudden increase. But exponential growth does not have to be large, and it is never sudden. Rather, it is inexorable.

Calculations also show that if consumption of an energy resource is allowed to grow at a steady 5 percent annual rate, a full doubling of the available supply will not be as effective as reducing that growth rate by half - to 2.5 percent. Doubling the size of the oil reserve will add at most 14 years to the life expectancy of the resource if we continue to use it at the currently increasing rate, no matter how large it is currently. On the other hand, halving the growth of consumption will almost double the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what it is.

This mathematical reality seems to have escaped the politicians pushing to solve our energy problem by simply increasing supply. Building more power plants and drilling for more oil is exactly the wrong thing to do, because it will encourage more use. If we want to avoid dire consequences, we need to find the political will to reduce the growth in energy consumption to zero - or even begin to consume less.

I must emphasize that reducing the growth rate is not what most people are talking about now when they advocate conservation; the steps they recommend are just Band-Aids. If we increase the gas mileage of our automobiles and then drive more miles, for example, that will not reduce the growth rate.

Reducing the growth of consumption means living closer to where we work or play. It means telecommuting. It means controlling population growth. It means shifting to renewable energy sources. It is not, perhaps, necessary to cut our use of oil, but it is essential that we cut the rate of increase at which we consume it. To do otherwise is to leave our descendants in an impoverished world.