I was just reading some information that showed if we drill in ANWAR and offshore, each could produce 1.5 million barrels of oil per day. Apparently the U.S. consumption of oil is 5 million barrels per day, 2 million of which we currently obtain domestically. In other words, had we drilled in ANWAR and offshore years ago, we would currently be 100% self sufficient for oil.

Its got me to thinking. Who didn't want us drilling off shore and in ANWAR? Answer: The Democrats and certain liberal Republicans (McCain). Many have said the war in Iraq is about oil, so it seems reasonable to say that the whole Iraq invasion is on the hands of the Democrats. In any event, at least some of the blame has to be placed there, if the war was about oil.

Shhh, it's a grand evil plan to use up all the oil in the rest of the world making ours worth all that much more..

If Bush had his way, when gasoline hits $35 a gallon (next week?), we'll go back to whaling for oil in the blubber. Once we drive whales into extinction, we'll start extracting oil from everybody who earns less than $100,000 per year.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Once we drive whales into extinction, we'll start extracting oil from everybody who earns less than $100,000 per year.

I'd want to move onto baby harp seals first..

It's hysterical, the level of far right wing extremism going on here, and how little consistency is required to get the troops all riled up with a Talking Point. Whenever anybody complains that, under GWB, gas prices doubled before they doubled again, the response from conservatives is always the same. Even the Republicans in this forum answer "I love paying $5.00 a gallon. I wish they'd charge me $7.00!"

Somebody must have asked why GWB continues to fail to bring Osama bin Forgotten to justice. Far easier to whip the troops up into a frenzy about how we could have 1 % more gas in 5 years without opening the Reserve, than to go catch Osama, or the Small Pox Mailer, or to deal with the economy.

Of course, 1.5M barrels of oil per day from ANWR is the highest estime. The mean rate is 780,000 BPD. By the time it would go into production, the rest of Alaska's oil supply will decline by 400,000 BPD, so it will only be a little more.

Fact is, the U.S. doesn't have very many oil reserves. No one would know that listening to FOX news or the oil and gas industry commercials. They think you can get crude out of turnips.

Why don't we pump all the oil out of the ground in the U.S. (won't take long) then we can import 100% of our oil. But you know real renewable energy shouldn't be developed until then. Wouldn't want to hurt the oil stocks.

Joder, you are absolutely right. The mean barrel count is estimated at 780thousand, not 1.5 million I also just noticed the numbers I posted at the opening of the thread are inaccurate. Accurate 2006/2007 numbers can be found here directly from the DOE.

Misinformation seems to come from everywhere on this topic, especially on an election year. For instance, you implied that someone is advocating we not develop renewable energy. If you look past what the politicians and media outlets are telling you will work, read the raw data and use some common sense, a couple things become glaringly obvious.

1) A 780,000 bpd increase would be a 14% increase in our domestic production. If Alaska oil has decreased by 400k bpd by the time we reach full production, ANWR will account for a much higher percentage of domestic production.
2) The original EIA estimate on ANWR was released in 2004, with estimated full production in 2013. ANWR got rejected so the new 2008 EIA estimate now projects full production in 2018(assuming we permitted it... and soon). If we delay another 4 years, I would assume full production will be estimated to be 2022.
3) Those against ANWR (Obama) have failed to present an alternative solution that could to making additional oil available to the U.S. in a shorter time frame. If you read the EIA Report on ANWR, you'll notice it makes use of the nearby Alaskan Oil Pipeline and extends its service lifetime by many years.
4) The argument that oil companies are using only 20% of the land they have leased fails to present evidence that the other 80% of the land has oil resources which can be economically tapped. It seems unreasonable to expect that to be likely.
5) Unlike the 70s, the U.S. can not dramatically drive down oil prices by cutting consumption. China, India, and the rest of the world now make up too large a portion of the consumption.
6) Some nations (Venezuela, and others) are now nationalizing their oil business and making less of their reserves available on the open market.
7) High oil prices create inflation as the cost of transportation goes up, so do the costs of goods transported.
8) In almost every case, taxes a corporation has to pay are passed along to the consumer as part of the price of product(/cough Obama's windfall tax idea).

What it all clearly adds up to is that oil is not going to be going dramatically down in price anytime soon, no matter how much we "conserve". High oil prices are driving the free market to produce alternative energy vehicles as fast as they can be produced, and with guaranteed continued high oil prices, those products will make it to full maturity. (EDIT: I don't expect a hybrid Abrams M1A to be appearing on the market anytime soon)

That leaves us here trying to figure out what to do in the meantime. The most impressive "short term" solution I've seen has been negotiated by the Bush administration vis a vis sweetheart deals to ship Iraqi oil to the U.S. outside the production constraints of OPEC. Outside of that, the ONLY viable solution I have seen presented that has a shot at slowing down the seemingly inevitable arrival of 15$/gallon gas prices, is an all out assault on increasing domestic production. That means ANWR.

Feel free to disagree, but be sure to present an economically viable argument with it.

Originally Posted by joder

Why don't we pump all the oil out of the ground in the U.S. (won't take long) then we can import 100% of our oil. But you know real renewable energy shouldn't be developed until then. Wouldn't want to hurt the oil stocks.

Because without invading and occupying Alaska (already part of the USA - sorry Bush Co) it's going to be awfully hard to get those darkroom, no bid contracts. You can't steal your own oil, and nobody wants to send Blackwater to Alaska to shoot up the locals.

Not that anyone would trust Bush Co to solve our energy woes after Enron.

cb, I'm don't have a problem with drilling on the continental shelf. Get rid of it quick so conservatives can't whine about it anymore. Just be ready when the oil starts rolling on the beaches and the electorate decides it may not be such a good idea anymore.

Your still not going to achieve energy independence by drilling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
If the United States had to supply its entire demand of 21 million barrels per day (3.3×106 m3/d) without resorting to foreign imports, existing US reserves would last only three years at the current rate of consumption.

That's three years still at market rate since the oil in the U.S. is on the oil market. And after the three years, importing 100%.

I've noticed Sean Hannity and Glen Beck lump in nuclear power for our energy independence but nuclear power plants have nothing to do with our dependence on oil. Nuclear replaces coal and natural gas.

Originally Posted by joder

cb, I'm don't have a problem with drilling on the continental shelf. Get rid of it quick so conservatives can't whine about it anymore. Just be ready when the oil starts rolling on the beaches and the electorate decides it may not be such a good idea anymore.

Environmental impact of energy deserves its own thread. I'd say the NRC has done a pretty good job with our nuke reactors since three mile island. I don't have exact statistics on leaks from offshore drilling platforms but I suspect theres not a lot of fuel in that tank, and even if there was, a bit more regulation would clean up the mess.

Originally Posted by joder

Your still not going to achieve energy independence by drilling.

I hear this alot. "You cant tax your way out of it". "You can't drill your way out of it". Lots of people saying what won't work, with very few people talking about what actually WILL work. I do know this. We wont import less foreign oil by NOT exploring our own oil resources. Looking at the problem logically, there are really only four options.
1) Drill more of our own oil
2) Invade foreign countries and steal their oil
3) Pay the non-free market rate (Oil Cartel) to Import foreign oil
4) Get off of oil

Did I miss anything there? The left seems to be against
1&2, and they complain as loud as anyone about 3. That leaves option 4 which is arguably happening as fast as it can happen. People unwilling to do items 1 or 2 should quit complaining about item 3 IMHO.

Originally Posted by joder

That's three years still at market rate since the oil in the U.S. is on the oil market. And after the three years, importing 100%.

Those numbers are as bogus as a 3$ bill. There are many who argue oil is an unlimited resource, not a fossil resource as implied by the name "fossil fuel". What makes the resource so finite are:
1) Environmental Protection Regs
2) Cost of drilling (based on location)
3) Cost of transportation (based on oil location)

For our immediate near future needs, ANWR has the lowest numbers on 2&3, leaving us strangling our own economy because of number 1.

Originally Posted by joder

I've noticed Sean Hannity and Glen Beck lump in nuclear power for our energy independence but nuclear power plants have nothing to do with our dependence on oil. Nuclear replaces coal and natural gas.

The new generation of plugin hybrids about to hit the market will put a tremendous strain on our power generation, and will likely cause prices to spike. In a way, the hybrids will likely be replacing oil with nuclear.

Honestly speaking much as the high oil prices hurts, it is good that it came, reason being the longer the cheap oil prices remain, the less the money going to investigate alternative fuels. But now with the oil prices breaking records day after day, what we are seeing is a genuine attempt to get into alternative fuels. In the end of the day, this helps, crude oil whatever arguments is a finite resources and also the estimates of the oil reserves in OPEC countries are never really verified. We may run dry and high much earlier than we know it.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Those numbers are as bogus as a 3$ bill. There are many who argue oil is an unlimited resource, not a fossil resource as implied by the name "fossil fuel". What makes the resource so finite are:
1) Environmental Protection Regs
2) Cost of drilling (based on location)
3) Cost of transportation (based on oil location)

Really? Where is the evidence. Oil is clearly a fossil fuel made from the fossils of ancient plants just like coal. It is also clearly finite. Unless you think the earth is flat and extends to infinity in all directions. Of course then, you'll still run into the problem of number 3 above.

Originally Posted by joder

Really? Where is the evidence. Oil is clearly a fossil fuel made from the fossils of ancient plants just like coal. It is also clearly finite. Unless you think the earth is flat and extends to infinity in all directions. Of course then, you'll still run into the problem of number 3 above.

Before I start into this tirade, let me restate that this is not my opinion, but one put out by an ever growing group of people. Here are some links:
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/...ustainableOil/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
http://www.amlibpub.com/liberty_blog...ssil-fuel.html
http://www.prouty.org/oil.html
http://www.ls9.com/

Given the quantity of oil we have already harvested, and the amount remaining to harvest, the concept that oil is truly a fossil product seems highly unlikely. Whether it is, or is not is actually beside the point. The amount of the planet we have actually done oil exploration on is actually fairly small, especially on U.S. soil considering the environmental considerations.

It may well be the case that our (US) demand for oil will drop so dramatically, based on new technology, that by the time the new oil resources are found, tapped, and operational, demand and global warming concerns will make it economically unfeasible to continue pumping it. I would bet on it, and the consequences of betting on it and loosing will damage the U.S. irreparably.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I was just reading some information that showed if we drill in ANWAR and offshore, each could produce 1.5 million barrels of oil per day. Apparently the U.S. consumption of oil is 5 million barrels per day, 2 million of which we currently obtain domestically. In other words, had we drilled in ANWAR and offshore years ago, we would currently be 100% self sufficient for oil.

Its got me to thinking. Who didn't want us drilling off shore and in ANWAR? Answer: The Democrats and certain liberal Republicans (McCain). Many have said the war in Iraq is about oil, so it seems reasonable to say that the whole Iraq invasion is on the hands of the Democrats. In any event, at least some of the blame has to be placed there, if the war was about oil.

I think that anwar and off shore is part of the soltion . We could make CTL plants and have enough oil from coal to last 250 years.

it's a very very bad news..

Originally Posted by jv17

it's a very very bad news..

Why is oil in Anwar bad news. Its always been there?

I heard the figures on the Colbert Report last night from whoever he was interviewing that it would take 6-7 years to start drilling in anwar, and that average estimate is that there's about 10 billion barrels of oil. I guess at the rate we consume oil, if anwar were our sole source, we'd run it dry in 200-400days.

Thanks god India still has oil left.

There is an issue of national security to take into account is there not? If a WW3 breaks out and we are denied imported oil how will we be able to maintain our army? And isn't this just a short term solution no matter how you look at it? Not only that but isn't it a bit presumptive to think it will actually lower the price of oil? Won't speculation still drive the price just as high even if the point of oil production decline is put off a few more years?

I don't see oil as a long term solution at all anymore, we need new power sources or to find a way to bring our current alternate methods into mainstream use.