Thu 12 May 2005
On March 16, the U.S. Senate voted 51-49 to go ahead with drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
I saw on television (amazingly there was actual relevant information coming across a television screen; I nearly choked in surprise) a female senator claiming the oil to be found in ANWR would cover the same amount as 25 years of Saudi Arabian imports.
Its hardly relevant to only consider only Saudi Arabian oil imports, but since the senator wishes to do so lets look at some facts and do some simple math. Firstly, we have only a rough idea of how much oil is in ANWR. Current estimates list it at 5.6 to 16 billion barrels, according to CNN and other various websites. Assuming this is accurate information, we can assume the actual amount is probably somewhere around 10.8 billion barrels, an average of the two estimates. America consumes approximately 21 million barrels of oil each day. In January, we imported 1.6 million barrels daily from Saudi Arabia, or 584 million barrels annually. This means the number is in reality closer to 18.5 years of Saudi Arabian imports. However, this is flawed for two reasons. American oil consumption increased more than ever in 2004, and taking into account an ever increasing population with ever increasing demands for energy and an ever decreasing sense of reality it is obvious that the real number is much less than that. Second, there is no guarantee that Saudi Arabian imports will remain steady. In fact, if recent trends are an indicator, they are already decreasing. Yea, I know, Bush and Crown Prince Abdullah met and promised us that Saudi Arabia can increase its imports…I’ll believe it when I see it (clasped hands notwithstanding). On top of all this, it will take 10 years for the first drop of Alaskan oil to find its way into our cars, homes, food, and virtually every other aspect of our daily lives. Also, keep in mind the amount of money and energy that will be used to build the infrastructure for this project. Think of the pipelines, roads, and refineries that will have to be built. Is it worth it?
It might sound fancy to say that there are billions of barrels just waiting to be pumped, or whatever other rhetoric the politicians will throw out to give the public the illusion that drilling in ANWR is going to do anything to decrease America’s oil addiction. Keeping the big picture in mind, at current consumption rates there is approximately enough oil in Alaska for 514 days (1.4 years) of supply, if we were solely relying on ANWR. All we are looking at here is more momentary satiation. Sooner or later it is inevitable that we move away from hydrocarbons and begin incorporating other sources of energy into our lives, nothing less than the survival of our society depends on it. John Kerry, whom I voted for without much confidence or hope, did have some words that actually made sense (amongst politicians, a rare feat). He said, “Drilling is not the answer, invention is.” Sounds good, John, but talk is cheap…lets see some action.
May 12th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
The Kerry quote is apt. It lends itself to the question, why do we even bother to debate ANWR? Yes, there are real environmental concerns. But in the grand scheme of things, what happens there will matter little. Yet the ANWR battle has managed to steal the efforts of environmentalists, while allowing the Republicans, et al to cloak themselves in a veil of national security (as people tend to believe the false presumption that energy alternatives are not readily available).
I haven’t studied what ANWR legislation contains. But if a trade was made, i.e., drill in ANWR in exchange for massive investment in renewable energy research and implementation, I probably would not be too opposed (though they could massively invest without drilling).
I blame the corporate news media. Any time the issue of oil comes up, for example, its expense, its scarcity, its control, its environmental implications, etc., whomever is reporting should be sure to mention renewable energy. Oil will vanish, and it seems any discussion of oil by itself, or oil in a more general discussion of energy policy, absolutely must include a discussion of renewable alternatives if the reporting is going to be a relevant discussion and analysis of the current state of affairs.
May 12th, 2005 at 4:21 pm
“Oil will vanish, and it seems any discussion of oil by itself, or oil in a more general discussion of energy policy, absolutely must include a discussion of renewable alternatives if the reporting is going to be a relevant discussion and analysis of the current state of affairs.”
Right on, this is what infuriates me. On a large scale people don’t realize just how deep hydrocarbon energy is embedded in our daily lives. For example, with each calorie of food we consume, ten calories of energy are expended in the production and transportation process to get it from the farm into our stomachs. Implementation of current renewables and research of new technology should be top news, yet you never hear about it in the mainstream.
We need to start seeing a large scale effort to move away from oil where we can and promote conservation in areas that we can’t. The most readily available alternative right now is solar. New Jersey even has a program that will pay you back 70% of the cost to install a solar panel system on your home.
http://www.njcleanenergy.com/indexflash.html
May 12th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
That hydorcarbon statistic is interesting. And, damn, that Jersey program sounds great. Good excuse to settle down there (as opposed to paying out the nose for a NYC apartment).
May 12th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
The 10:1 calorie thing is just an average, but its interesting nontheless. The ability to feed the populace depends entirely on hydrocarbons, and I’m not just talking about the fuel end of it. Most of our pesticides are made from oil, and most of the our fertilizers from natural gas.
May 12th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
This is why being weaned off oil should be a national security concern, not the acquisition of more oil supplies. I don’t mind things being framed as matters of “national security” but they should at least be approached from a non-idiotic standpoint.
May 12th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
Classic. I can see Duc now on a talking head show.
Chris Matthews: “You’re watching Hahdbahl.”
Rep. Ublican (R - Alabaskansas): “Drilling in ANWR is a matter of national security, as we now rely on foreign sources of oil.”
Rep. Nguyen (D - New Jersey): “But Chris, national security needs to be approached from a non-idiotic standpoint.”
–Last shot: a gang of censors jump on the screen injecting you with a syringe in the neck, the screen goes to color bars–
May 27th, 2005 at 10:26 am
okay over comeing saudi imports 18.5 years Vs 25 years doesnt help your argument very much… thats a matter of how big of a estimate you give it. takes 10 years to get the oil to here all the more reason to start now so in 10 years my gas doesnt run 5 dollars a gallon. It is more then just gas for cars it is heating and transportation of goods across the country.
The fact the drilling companies are willing to bid and pay for the right to drill this oil means that they can make a profit off this oil. How do they get it out of alaska not the goverment’s bussiness… If a company says they can do it at profit then in a soeicity such as ours we let them do it provided it obeys the laws.
May 30th, 2005 at 2:06 am
I wasn’t using the 18.5 years as part of my argument really…I’m probably wrong too, its not the point. The point was, its stupid to make these estimates because of all the x factors involved. Saying that is just putting disinformation out there, which is easily refuted by using simple common sense.
May 30th, 2005 at 2:08 am
“The fact the drilling companies are willing to bid and pay for the right to drill this oil means that they can make a profit off this oil. How do they get it out of alaska not the goverment’s bussiness…”
When did the government and the oil business become separate entities?
September 30th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Gay resort hotel…
ANWR is not the answer…
September 30th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Wet busty babes…
ANWR is not the answer…
September 30th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Jeans butt voyeur…
ANWR is not the answer…
October 1st, 2006 at 12:34 am
Mature sex videos…
ANWR is not the answer…
October 25th, 2006 at 1:58 am
Do you want to have sex…
ANWR is not the answer…
October 25th, 2006 at 2:16 am
Free porn stars cumshots…
ANWR is not the answer…
October 25th, 2006 at 2:33 am
Britney porn skye…
ANWR is not the answer…
October 25th, 2006 at 2:38 am
Northern illinois swinger groups…
ANWR is not the answer…
October 25th, 2006 at 2:52 am
Extreme hardcore gallery…
ANWR is not the answer…
October 25th, 2006 at 3:01 am
Naked asian tit…
ANWR is not the answer…
October 25th, 2006 at 3:12 am
Twin cum…
ANWR is not the answer…
October 25th, 2006 at 3:24 am
Bif naked related artists…
ANWR is not the answer…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I have been a guest of this home page! ZiPiTiDuYa… ZiPiDiHey…
February 28th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Nice! We rather appreciated the website
March 4th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Lorazepam….
Lorazepam….
April 14th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
4/15/2007 12:42:45 AM
car shipping quote
auto transportation
April 30th, 2007 at 7:26 am
4/30/2007 6:29:04 AM
Alcohol Treatment Center
December 7th, 2007 at 9:12 am
12/7/2007 7:11:48 AM
Drug addiction treatment