There's a lot of hay being made over whether we should drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Republicans seem to think that it is the solution to energy independence and will bring about cheaper gas. Democrats, well, they seem to be vaguely against drilling. I was astonished to see this graph, which gives you an idea of the scale of the whole thing:
I post this not to encourage or decry drilling in ANWR, just to show the scope of what the discussion is about. At it's peak, ANWR might produce the equivalent of 3% of the US demand for oil. One thing that no one really talks about is that the oil from ANWR will not be earmarked for US use, but will go on the global market, for sale all over the world. This graph ignores the demand of other countries, especially China and India.
Every little bit helps and the USGS website indicates that ANWR would produce over 10 billion barrels. I think the likelihood that the U.S. is going to double their consumption in 40 years is nil since the consuption in 1980 was 17,000,000 and only went up to 20,000,000 in 2005. I get real tired of hearing stupid excuses for why we can’t fix this problem when there are no real alternatives at this time to Oil. We have wasted more time talking about this then it would have to put these areas into production.
That's the sort of attitude that would get an Iowa resident worried about whether he left the tap dripping as the Mississippi floods him out of his house. The whole point of why I posted this is to try to put in perspective the fact that our consumption is so high that there is very little difference between drilling or not drilling in ANWR.
That's probably 10 billion spread over several decades. The EIA also put out a report listing the expected production from ANWR, on average it's about 0.7 mbd of crude, with production starting in 2018, while our current consumption is 20 mbd.
Here's a great chart showing historical and projected (to 2020) oil consumption. It's grown fairly linearly since 1950, with a bit of a bump from about 1970-1980. By this projection, consumption will be 9.5 bby by 2020, consistent with the chart above. I'm not sure where the data out to 2050 came from, but it's roughly a linear progression, which seems reasonable to me, and consistent with historical precident.
If you weren't paying attention, the whole point I was trying to make is that putting these areas into production won't help. There's just not that much oil there to make much of a difference. From the summary of the EIA report lined above:
You can't just put your hands over your ears and chant "ANWR, ANWR, ANWR". I'm all for finding some solution to our future energy needs. I'm not sure what that solution will be, but ANWR drilling isn't the magic potion that it's being marketed to the public as. I think this whole issue is being driven by matters of political identity, not sound energy policy.
I think the person who is chanting things over and over again and hoping someone believes them is you Narc and the media. I read this as ANWR providing over 10 years of the US oil supply, hardly something to discount. There is a likelihood there is far more oil there than that. You would think that Obama and the democrats in Congress would be more worried about putting the American people though 4 dollar gas and driving up food price’s then kiss the feet of the environmentalists in their base.
I'm not sure that a linear projection is appropriate. But it doesn't really matter--even if we assume a 3 billion barrel increase per year that tapers off as we develop more efficient energy consumption over the next decades, how does someone look at either the graph or their own numbers and conclude that "ANWR (is) providing over 10 years of the US oil supply"?
Maybe we should put our energy into teaching ANWR drilling proponents how to do math...
Nuclear Power Now.
Xian I made the same assumption you did, that we would conserve. Plus as I said that I think there is more oil there then 10 billion barrels.
That's alright go ahead and take you're best shot liberals have free reign on this site to attack people at will.
Regnad, you can forget that too, unless you can make it absolutely safe and then they will sue to halt construction like they do new oil refinery construction.
We need to build nuclear plants right now and fast roomy cars you can plug in and charge after they go 600 miles or more, and cars that run on hydrogen and emit water vapor. BMW already makes one, and Toyota or Nissan is ready to roll one out. I choose 650 miles because averaging 65 mph you can drive for 10 hours. Maybe we will need longer range, but 650 seems like a good start.
Let India and China struggle with oil and gasoline. Meanwhile, with reduced gasoline consumption, we here will have an almost unlimited supply for the future for the other things we use oil for, besides making gasoline.
And as for ethanol, STOP BURNING OUR FOOD.
Xian I made the same assumption you did, that we would conserve. Plus as I said that I think there is more oil there then 10 billion barrels.
Yes, and I'm sure you are able to make that highly educated guess with your vast professional and scientific experience in the fields of geology, energy research, statistical analysis and oil production. If you don't mind, how about we look at the numbers from people who actually know what they're talking about (and understand probability):
According to the USGS (Table 2 on that link I provided), there is a 95% chance that of the recoverable oil in ANWR that we can recover 5.7 Billon barrels of oil, which translates into production betwen 250-400 million barrels/year AT THE PEAK. There is only a 50% chance of us getting the 10 billion barrels that you speak of (with production in the same timeframe being 400-600 milion barrels/year), and a 5% chance that we'll get the max of 16 billion barrels (600-800 million barrels/year)
So even taking the 5% chance of us actually recovering the 16 billion barrels, ANWR will only contribute a maximum of 800 million barrels/year at it's peak production (around 10% of our total oil demand, which is around 7.5 billion barrels/year in 2008). Realistically speaking, we have the best chance of recovering up to 400 million barrels/year, or around 5% of our total oil demad as of 2008.
Explaing to me again how this lessens our dependence on foreign oil, when it accounts for 5-10% of our total oil demands, which will be pretty much neutralized by the time it reaches the market?
Math, specifically statistics and data analysis, is not your strong suit, and I think you'd remember that from the Chief Illiniwek referendum discussion. But that's ok, it's just easier to "blame the liberals".
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Hybrids and CFL bulbs are on that graph too, it's just that their impact is so small you can't see it. Why is it that when it comes to light bulbs, every tiny bit helps, but oil... unless we can discover an infinite supply, liberals will always claim that it won't solve the problem?
If we take Obama seriously, we need to just stop using energy until somebody can find an immediate "solution" to the "problem".
If you aren't looking for a solution to a non-existent "problem", then finding more supply to meet increasing demand is a reasonable thing to do.
I simply have no idea where you're getting "10 years of the US oil supply." Current demand is about 7 billion barrels per year, or 20 million barrels a day. Your number is that there are 10 billion barrels in ANWR total, which would be extracted over several decades. (Note: only 7 billion barrels are in the federal portion of ANWR.) If you'd read the EIA report, you'd see that the optimistic prediction (5% chance) is that's we'd get 1.4 mbd. The mean prediction is that we'd get 0.7 mbd.
Actually, CFLs aren't. That chart is for petroleum demand and most electricity generation in the US is derived from coal.
This sort of rhetoric is exactly what I mean about this being an issue of political identity, not facts. ANWR isn't the solution to our energy problems, therefore liberals suck.
a non-existent "problem"?
Please explain.
How large would an oil deposit have to be in order for
liberalsreasonable, fact-based people to think that it would be worth drilling? You can always claim that something is not the "solution" to our "problem".What exactly is the supposed problem here? That oil is expensive? That there is a limited supply of oil on the planet? Increasing supply will bring the cost down, but it is not a "solution", therefore not supported by those we aren't allowed to mention. Conservation is also not a solution, though I have not heard Obama argue that we should forget about hybrids because they still use some gas and won't solve our problem. I've never heard him say "We can't conserve our way out of this problem."
What would qualify as a solution? I don't think anything would. No matter what we do, we won't cure our addiction, love-affair, etc. (very fact-laden terms) with oil.
I see no reason to leave billions of barrels of oil sitting in the ground while poor people have their gas and food bills skyrocket and don't say it will take years because you have been saying that for years.
Of course you don't, but once again, you're just too short-sighted and aren't actually looking at the numbers, just stomping your feet, plugging your ears and screaming "ANWR! ANWR! ANWR!". Even if we could stick a pump down there and brought it out of the ground TODAY by the time it hits the market it won't have any substantial effect. Those gas and food bills won't come down. Hell, even if it could bring the price down, people have proven that they're willing to pay those prices, so the magic hand of "the market" will keep them that high).
"We" keep saying it will take years because that's a fact, unless you know of some superior method that accelerates oil production to the point where we can pump it out and use it within the same week/month/year.. Or perhaps you believe that God will magically speed it all up because you've been such a good boy, just so you can continue to be addicted without finding any real solutions?
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
In all of the recent reporting I've seen about drilling in ANWR, the context has been that the price of gas is high, and that we need to drill in ANWR to bring it down. That was the spirit in which I wrote this entry. Take for example, Ann Coulter's latest column (then, please, take Coulter and take her away):
This is the narrative we're seeing from Republicans -- drill in ANWR to significantly bring down the price of gas. It's simply not true. The expected peak production from ANWR is about 2-3% of our current consumption, and that fraction will drop before 2018, the soonest we could see production.
I'd be all for oil drilling in the ANWR if it was done by the US Government and headed up by the EPA. I think there is a very large amount of oil up there and it makes sense to start drilling for it. But very carefully, with minimal impact - ie: no pipelines.
My problem is that I don't think anyone wants the government to head up this project. Instead, the idea seems to be to give drilling rights to a select group of oil companies so they can pump the oil and sell it for obscene profits. This is exactly where the whole ANWR issue was derived: oil lobbyists who want a piece of the action.
And I don't trust oil companies to drill with conservation in mind when there is a quick buck to be made. No way, no how.
So let's have the government do the drilling. John and Jane Taxpayer can reap the profits instead of Exxon/Mobil. Conservatives can get their blessed oil on the market, and maybe the caribou won't have their migration patterns disrupted quite so much.
Somehow I don't think that is what "Run For Cover Liberal!" had in mind.
And when we are all said and done Steven Segal can make an American Movie Classic about the whole thing...<>
Well, as I've said before, I don't identify with "liberals", just anyone who can handle math.
I don't trust the government to do anything efficiently.
Why not let Alaska decide what to do with ANWR?
Don't touch ANWR Don't touch ANWR see I can act like a whiny liberal too. Why not just let a company decide whether it's worth drilling there and see if they can produce enough oil to make a profit and I bet they can also do it in a clean way.
Why not just let a company decide whether it's worth drilling there and see if they can produce enough oil to make a profit and I bet they can also do it in a clean way.
This is the epitome of thoughtlessness
Perhaps high gas prices are the invisible hand of the market
lighting a fire under our collective assestelling people that hey, guess what, you need to change your lifestyle?We could ration gas, but that would of course be heavy handed government intervention etc etc. So, okay, let the market speak, while we all make our individual choices based on our own situations and dreams. Well, gas gets expensive, after a while people will, on their own, based on their own naked economic self-interest, gradually start to use less, and design things so that they don't require so much energy. The market will speak. That's the voice the market uses, it's not always that the market makes things peaches and cream for cheap all the time.
Already demand for large cars is down, without any more whining over imposing CAFE standards or not.
Anyway gas is still cheap in the US, compared to a lot of places, and it probably explains the different urban planning designs.
Adam/Run4cvrlib: "Free markets! Free markets! Wait, the market isn't going to work in my favor and it is forcing me to change my lifestyle? Blame the liberals!"
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Let's see the left's plan:
No Drilling!
No Refineries!
No Wind Farms!
No Nuclear!
No Shale!
No Ethanol!
Exactly who the hell are you guys to criticize, you aren't even presenting a plan.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Although it is not perfect, basic economics works much better than governments attempt at wage and price control. When I hear someone say that a company is making "windfall profits" I know that they do not understand how basic economics works. It is pretty simple. Let's start with profit. A corporation has gross income from sales. It has expenses including what it allocates to replacement of capital assets. The annual income less the annual expense equals profit. Expenses consist of the salaries of the executives. If you want to complain about the excess salaries of the bosses, you are not talking about "windfall profits", because when you increase wage expense, your profit drops. Profits on the other hand is what every business must have or else their expenses will exceed income which makes them insolvent. All profits (not allocated to retained earnings-for tax recognized planning) are distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends. Most stocks are held in mutual funds and these funds are what drives the 401 k's (retirement acocunts). To say you are against corporate profits is another way of saying that you have no clue how economics works.
Govermnent effects the economy by messing with the law of supply and demand. Most politians attempt to portray all economics as short term supply and demand, although it rarely is today because hedging will in the short run moderate the swings of a freely traded commodity. You will have a better understanding of long term vs short term economics by considering the fact that the supply of oil is only one factor in the creation of gasoline. You still need refinery capacity. Thus it may take five years to create the refinery capacity. You may never do this, however, because if govenrment can limit the supply through environmental restrictions, no one will build capacity if govenrment can put you out of business. Business people can make business decisions, but when govenent can arbitrarily change your profit margin, business will say no thanks. Thus the decision forbidding drilling in Alaska had a long term effect on refinary capacity which had a long term effect on expenses, which had a long term effect on profit which had a long term effect on the supply of available gas, which caused the price of gas to increase because the supply was insufficient to meet demand.
You have to be careful about suggesting that a short term solution will solve a long term problem. The best way to solve the long term problem is to take government out of the equation to the extent necessary to enable this country to compete in the global economy. Govenrment adds about 20% to the cost of everything it controls Govenrment usually runs inferior programs. It is a sorry fact of life. No matter how bad the free market philosophy is, it is still better than what you have if govenment runs things.
Why not just let a company decide whether it's worth drilling there and see if they can produce enough oil to make a profit and I bet they can also do it in a clean way.
Why not just sell the area to magical unicorns? I hear that magical unicorns are staunch defenders of both the environment AND the profit motive.
Let's see the left's plan:
No Drilling!
No Refineries!
No Wind Farms!
No Nuclear!
No Shale!
No Ethanol!
Exactly who the hell are you guys to criticize, you aren't even presenting a plan.
Let's see your plan: Make up other people's plans and then strawman the hell out of them. That's mature.
Your first two options deal with the same source, and have been addressed thoughtfully in this thread.
Your third option is supported by many on the left. Besides patronage, is the right really in support of our the government handouts allowing the current expansion of wind farms?
The left is split on nuclear. When we discussed it here, the only criticism was that we should implement, but we should also have some sort of safety regulation to ensure we don't all die in a horrible meltdown. I know, it seems ridiculous to make sure that plants don't kill tons of people before you implement them, but we are hopeless romantics.
Shale has its drawbacks, but certainly we should pursue it.
The right is criticizing ethanol, and rightly so, because it currently is not producing net energy. I would argue that it's still a good idea to develop because in time, research might make it more efficient.
Bizarrely enough, you somehow managed to leave solar off--the most renewable of energy resources. I'd probably put hydro and thermal on there, even if they are less practical except in specific geographic areas...
Our national energy plan is vast, and therefore should explore supplies of all kinds. Where each person draws the line of what is an adequate trade-off will be different, but setting up strawmen to tear down will solve nothing and is ultimately unpatriotic. (In that it wrecks the discussion and hope for solutions to the challenges we face.)
"Adam/Run4cvrlib: "Free markets! Free markets! Wait, the market isn't going to work in my favor and it is forcing me to change my lifestyle? Blame the liberals!"
Now why would anyone claim that in the realm of energy - particularly oil production - that we have a free market. The government has placed off limits places that have oil and natural gas; this is hardly the result of a free market. If we are indeed running out of oil, then it's a good thing the prices are going up. We can thank the speculators in their wisdom (and courage to bet their own money) for helping us to not run out of oil.
The only thing I blame liberals for is the laws that they pass that distort markets in a way that retards economic growth - in the individual, the large company, and the country as a whole. I don't blame liberals for "caring" too much or the fact that there is a limited supply of oil on the planet.
So in a system where profit (well, money) is the one thing routinely measured, how do you suggest we put prices on the enviromental damages and the like so that we can have the companies (and thereby their customers) responsible for any damages? Or will we turn a blind eye to the usual "profit is private, damages are left to the public to deal with - and don't ask us to kick in any tax money to fix anything, 'cuz that's theft!!" situation? That is not an accurate market model.
The CO2 emissions cap-and-trade style schemes are one effort. Of course, very often when it comes to schemes that might require some money put up to pay for things (in the form of licenses) or having the government (will of the people, remember?) say "wait, we're going to put a floor on this thing, say you can't go beyond some agreed on limits, or you have to do things in such-and-such less damaging way", there comes the screaming, no, no, we can't make enough money to make it worth it for us that way. Okay then. When the costs are factored in rather than just pushed onto the public, it's not worth it, then fine, don't do it.
So gas will get expensive, and eventually these "more expensive" extraction schemes or paying for the various protections or whatever it is, become not so bad looking.
Oil is going to get expensive. It won't always be cheap. Remember back in the oil shock, everyone said, we need to look at alternative energy, and we need to conserve. But the response was oh, no, it's pointless to look at any solutions, as long as oil is still so much cheaper, the market says just use oil.
So now oil is getting more expensive, the market is saying, hey, time to finally start thinking, there's finally money to be made.
If the answer is "let the market do its thing" then... that's going to involve expensive gas. Such is life. Putting your head in the sand isn't going to do much - unless of course those are oil sands I guess :)
"Adam/Run4cvrlib: "Free markets! Free markets! Wait, the market isn't going to work in my favor and it is forcing me to change my lifestyle? Blame the liberals!"You do know you live in a country were we are suppose to have a free market economy right? I know speculators have become the new bogeyman that the Dem's and Media are using to draw attention away from the fact that we don't have a free market economy for energy production and exploration in this country. The Democrat's, environmentalists and some friendly Republican's have decided to regulate that Free Market to death. Many have said we can't drill for Oil or build Oil Refineries and Nuclear Plant's. Now the economy is in trouble because of the inflationary costs those bad economic policies have brought and the Democrats should be held accountable but more importantly we should reduce the strangle hold we have on our energy policy and start building Oil Refineries, Nuclear Plants and of course start drilling for Oil on the coasts in ANWR.Yes Free Markets are good, they have made America the greatest economy in the world.
Why don't you re-read the post above yours and respond to it?
Even free-market economists believe in some measures to control externalities.
I would really just responds to that post the same as I did in my post above. You know it seems the only answer environmentalists have for an alternative is some day some green technology will fix it fix all our energy needs. Of course economies don't run on some days industries need power and homes need heat and light now. So until that day artificially limiting supply by over regulation is destroying our economy. Power Plants are cleaner and I think we are trying to improve all the time as we should. Having environmental groups come in after Companies have followed all the extreme regulation and then file a Lawsuit to stop Construction makes it impossible to build these plants.
Not many free market economists believe in the externalities we are talking about or they're not really Free Market economists.
You seem to be conflating "the left" (I presume this include be any Democrat) simultaneously with both hard-line environmentalists and the Amish. No wind farms? Environmentalists are regularly mocked for their desire to use wind power. No nuclear? Personally, I'm of the opinion that Americans' irrational fear of anything nuclear transcends party lines. No ethanol? Is there a state more ethanol-friendly than big blue Illinois?
For the record, this Satan-worshipping, baby-eating liberal is a big fan of wind farms where feasible and nuclear power.
So, would anyone actually like to comment about ANWR and the unreasonable claims being made about it, or just continue mindlessly bashing liberals?
Shut up Narc! You liberals hate the sun! And puppies!
I would prefer mindlessly bashing liberals, because it's painfully obvious you have no clue about ANWR
I guess run4cvrlib will not support Congressman Tim Johnson, who remains opposed to drilling in ANWR because he is, gasp, an environmentally sensitive Congressman.
Run4cvrlib probably hates T. Roosevelt, too, and considers him to have been, gasp, a Democrat.
Nonsense. I love puppies.
With some fava beans and a nice chianti.
I would prefer mindlessly bashing liberals, because it's painfully obvious you have no clue about ANWR
Well, we have one person saying, "Here is my evidence, please don't bash it mindlessly, but instead engage me..." and the other saying, "I will mindlessly bash you because you have no clue!" while providing no evidence or arguments at all.
Besides your name, "Pootsie" which does invoke a great deal of confidence, who are we supposed to think knows what they are talking about?
I guess when they stop debating and start making fun of you they have lost.
I guess when they stop debating and start making fun of you they have lost.
Then what does it mean when you never started debating in the first place?
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
What if your posts exhibit such bizarre logic that they seem to be some sort of self-parody? Then have you won or have you lost? I'm so confused...
"I guess run4cvrlib will not support Congressman Tim Johnson, who remains opposed to drilling in ANWR because he is, gasp, an environmentally sensitive Congressman."
That might start to make sense if the alternative were not just as opposed to drilling in ANWR.
Thanks Dan you're right of course but it seems we can't be sure what Obama thinks he changes his mind a lot.
I'm so confused...Xian yes we know
Since Narc's central argument is that there is not enough oil in ANWR to make a difference, I really think it would be helpful if we knew how large of an oil deposit we would need to find in order to make a difference.
Is it reasonable to expect to get half of all the oil consumed by the US from one deposit? 20%? 10%? 5%?
I think we can all agree that ANWR is not a magical solution and will only make a small contribution to global oil production. However, as I mentioned before, this doesn't stop certain fact-oriented people (I'm not supposed to say liberals) from pushing things like hybrid cars. Hybrid cars are significantly more expensive than their non-hybrid counterparts, and depending on the type of driving you do, the benefit in gas mileage is small to negligible.
So please tell me why every little bit helps when it comes to conservation* and not oil production. I'm waiting to be enlightened.
*buying a hybrid may not really be conserving anything once you factor in what you could have done with the many thousands of dollars extra you spent on the car and the extra efforts and materials used in the manufacturing of the battery.
I agree entirely that the trade-off should be calculated. And in the case of the hybrid, there's two trade-offs to be calculated:
1) Is it cheaper for the consumer? Answer: Pre-this year: No. Currently: Yes. (Comparing the Corolla vs. the Prius, for a less MPG car than the Corolla, the difference is more stark.)
2) Is it good for the environment? Overall, even without further research, the answer is clearly yes. Beyond a reduction in gas consumption, the hybrids also emit less pollution, and their batteries are less toxic than current car batteries.
3) Is it currently sustainable? Probably not. Some of the materials currently used in hybrid cars are not sustainable. Hopefully new research will change this dynamic. Incidentally, the problem is not the components of the battery, but the engine itself.
Hybrid cars are significantly more expensive than their non-hybrid counterparts, and depending on the type of driving you do, the benefit in gas mileage is small to negligible.
Once again, you are wrong, but allow me to demonstrate. Assuming that one purchases a hybrd today and under your implied conditions, which are as follows:
With these "facts" from you, the break-even point to where the hybrid technology has paid for itself and you start turning a profit somewhere around the 173,500 mile mark. However, say you are a hybrid owner like myself and these were the conditions:
With these numbers, the break-even point to where the hybrid technology has paid for itselv and I am now saving money is around 91,700 miles, which I just passed last week. This is of course assuming that gas prices didn't grow 247% between March 2003 and July 2008, though. Assuming a steady growth of $0.026087 per 1000 miles for the price of gas since March 2003, my hybrid broke even aroudn 51,100 miles, meaning I've saved somewhere around $5000 since I purchased the vehicle. Not too bad, I think, and considering I'm planning on owning it for another 50k, I'm looking at a savings of $15,800 by the time it hits 150,000 miles. Gee, glad I splurged a bit and stimulated the local economy by paying that markup.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Xian, fair enough, but the argument being made against drilling ANWR is not that the costs are more than the benefits, but that the benefits are too small, or that it won't completely solve the "energy crisis". I agree that hybrids are a good thing (though I don't like the government subsidies), and that people should be free to buy them and make them. But if we take the criteria set forth in this post for determining whether or not we should drill and apply it to hybrids, then the conclusion would be that they should not be made and sold because "they don't cure our addiction to oil" or they only lead to a minuscule reduction of total oil use. So why the double-standard?
It's easy to find the solutions when you define the problem within the parameters of you’re ideology or party platform. Of course that does nothing to address the problems of those that want to address the real issues of everyone affected. Try this when thinking about looking for our Oil needs-The Whole is greater then the sum of the parts. Hummmmmm
I tend to agree the run4cvrlib. Suck that oil out of the ground as fast as possible. My Exxon stock will go up, I'll have cheap gasoline, the Chinese will be screwed, and the future of our children doesn't matter anyway, THEY can figure out solutions for THEIR problems with energy.
Adam: But you are making a huge fallacy. To evaluate the value of minor solutions, you have to calculate the trade-off. Clipping a coupon is worth it if it takes 3 seconds and saves you five dollars. It's not if you save 35 cents and cut off your hand.
I have already included the trade-off in the hybrid analysis. If it's a net positive, it's worth doing. You have not included the environmental trade-offs to drilling.
Run: Yes, yes, life is tough for those who don't believe in facts or reality.
Of course that does nothing to address the problems of those that wants to address the real issues of the problems of everyone whose issues of problems affect the problems of the issues. If I say issues of the problems of the issue problems four more times and then issue a problematic apology for the lack of issues I've raised plus the problems I've caused will you forget the actual facts and numbers that created a problem for me on this issue because I have no evidence to support the problematic arguments which I've issued?
These oil wells aren't making a noticable difference in supply either, individually (but they are making some people rich). But the beauty of the market is the thousands/millions of little decisions made.
Drillin in ANWR is a symbolic gesture - and important for both sides of the debate. Can environmentalists protect even the most barren parts of our country from oil drilling, or will peoples' demands for cheaper oil force it open?
Adam, I disagree. Certainly it's often phrased simplistically as "there's not enough oil in ANWR to matter" but from where I sit, it's pretty clearly implied "and ANWR of all places, where the cost of destroying the refuge is so large."
There are people who argue about other offshore drilling locations, but it's really ANWR that gets both sides all hot and bothered, and I do think the costs are big factor in why. Part of it is surely ideology too, on both sides.
But back to the general topic... People don't complain about looking for oil in shale, oil sands, etc. The main complaint about that earlier from the oil companies was that it was too expensive. Now that oil is pricey, the money equation works out better for recovering those resources, and wow, look, people are moving that way. Companies are doing it. That's the market talking.
Still though, whether it's today, or years down the road, at some point, oil runs out. If we leave it to the market, the market will make gasoline expensive and that will cause all of our educated free-thinking libertarian consumers to cut back on usage out of their own economic self-interest, and it will cause companies to start researching other forms of energy out of their own economic self-interest too. The "but it's too expensive, it won't pay for itself" argument from the 70's GOES AWAY when the alternatives to new alternatives (i.e. status quo) becomes expensive so the huge differential isn't there.
This has always been the argument of the "no need to worry about supply" people, they say that the market will perform its usual magic, and cause people to drill for the marginal supplies AND reduce consumption (up to and including radical changes to lifestyles) voluntarily on their OWN, due to market incentives (any oil you dig up will bring in $$$) and pressures (costs $$$ to fill the car, so let's stop driving so much).
But it is a valid concern, when talking about all this pricing, to wonder how some of the traditionally ignored real common costs are going to be factored in. If everything will rely on the money market economy, there needs to be a way to translate those costs into a form that can appear on the balance sheets. How, is the question. So, cap-and-trade pollution credit markets, those sorts of schemes are floated. Some places try congestion road tolls, etc.
There's never a guarantee that you will have cheap gas. Cheap gas should not be the goal. Having some supply of energy is the goal. Furthermore, change never happens without some pain. The question is, how to minimize the pain during the transition? It would be nice to make the transition without doing the equivalent of burning the furniture for heat.
Some places less tied to a pure free market ideology, are willing to put in taxes and the like to scoop up some money in advance to pay out later to ease some pain, as people need to change their living patterns. But the basic ideas are the same.
Thing is, now that the "sometime in the future" from the 70's is here, people are complaining, I guess they thought it would only be future generations who had to worry about it. It's the high price of gas which provides the MARKET incentive to do the research into alternative energies of all forms (which need to be properly evaluated on their merits, I 100% agree). It also provides the MARKET incentive for consumers to choose more efficient vehicles, homes, and commuting patterns.
I just don't think there is any magic bullet that will make the transition painless. People driving large vehicles to commute from the exurbs are going to feel some pain, yeah. Naturally, those living such styles want to delay the inevitable (and the discussion of drilling in ANWR is about just how much of a delay that will buy), but... change happens. Ask the buggy whip manufacturers.
I'm not the one making the fallacy. I'm just wondering why the argument against drilling (which is what this post is) only focuses on the small impact that drilling ANWR would have as a fraction of total US oil consumption. Now, as akibare says, it might be implied that there is a huge cost associated with drilling in ANWR, but that wasn't mentioned in the post. If I was supposed to just assume that, I apologize. And if somebody is convinced that drilling in ANWR would be a huge cost (environmental costs), there's no amount of oil that will convince them to drill.
I get so tired of the same old song and dance. We will ruin millions of square miles of the ANWR when they only want to drill on a very small part. Then we blame those SUV driving jerks for all the shortages. You know the bigger issue is the cost to our economy because of skyrocketing transportation costs caused by higher fuel costs. It's funny to read you're ramblings that drilling in ANWR isn’t worth while and then I think about the oil wells all over Southern Illinois were they pump a few thousand gallons of oil a month. Those folks are very happy to have the revenue to add to their farm budgets. Then think gee people may freeze to death this winter because they can't afford to pay the high prices of heating Oil but yet we say it not worth it to drill in ANWR or the coasts were we might find 10 or 20 Billion barrels of oil.
Adam: how about this then...how does drilling in ANWR lower the overall consumption? Many people driving hybrids lowers consumption. Drilling in ANWR put more oil into supply, which does not decrease demand.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
You will notice in my original post, I didn't say we should not drill in ANWR. What I was trying to point out is that certain forces are trying to sell the American people a bill of goods. Namely, people keep claiming that drilling ANWR will be a significant step towards cheaper gas and energy independence. What I was trying to point out is that that is a total crock. If you want to treat drilling in ANWR as a symbolic gesture, that's one thing. Then they should just come out and say that. I just object to people distorting the facts and implying ANWR will substantially change the US price of gas or affect the global oil market much.
After hearing all the ruckus about ANWR, I was generally surprised when I saw that graph, which is why I wanted to share it. My actual response was "That's what all the fuss is about?"
As for liberals pushing hybrid cars, this liberal blogged that hybrids don't really make a great deal of economic sense back in 2005. (As anyone that reads this blog knows, only the most die-hard of liberals own hybrid cars.) Of course when I wrote that, I used terms like "With gas around $2.50 a gallon..." and "Even with gas at $5 a gallon..." Boy, how times change.
"As anyone that reads this blog knows, only the most die-hard of liberals own hybrid cars."
Yes. Die hard liberals like me. ;-)
I'm shocked -- shocked, I say -- to find out that you're a libero-enviro-treehugger!
I've written for years that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, although I'm a man-made global warming skeptic. It's the right policy to pursue even if you're a skeptic, though. (And I should add that I'm a conservationist even though I'm a skeptic. There's nothing more conservative than conservation, after all!)
I got the hybrid two years ago partly because I wanted the better mileage, partly because it was the nicest vehicle I drove, but mostly because I just thought the technology was cool, and I'm a sucker for technology. I shopped around very aggressively, but I didn't pay much more than I would have paid for a non-hybrid of the same vehicle, although I did have to go to an out-of-town dealer to get the price I wanted.
here is some "perspective" from the other side of the argument
this is an obvious propoganda piece, but I think the point is valid - no one wants to destroy all of Alaska drilling for oil, and this particular location is not exactly one of the most scenic and inhabited places on Earth.