How the media got the facts about Arctic oil wrong

[Dinner]

As a geologist I find the fanatical opposition to drilling mind bogglingly stupid. I lived in Santa Barbara,an area blessed with one of the richest oil & gas deposits in the western hemisphere, for five years and during that entire time there were huge numbers of SUV driving "activists" saying they didn't want oil drilling.

Most of these people are fat, rich, happy, and totally unrealistic about were gasoline comes from. Oil and gas drillling are necisary for the maintaince of a modern industrial economy. Wouldn't it be better to use energy souces here rather then send billions to Arab dictators who incite their people to kill us?

Yes, we should push for more fuel efficient cars but as much as we are possibly able we should get our oil domestically or at least from none Arab sources.

[chequita guevara]

Santa Barbara is a beautiful area (almost got a job there several years ago). It would be considerably less so with oil wells all over the place.

BTW, most real activists don't have SUVs.

As a geologist, what do you have to say about the article?

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Once again I refer you to the '70's, when everyone was worried about another ice age.

ACK!

This is still being talked about today. I refer you to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute:

http://www.whoi.edu/home/about/whatsnew_abruptclimate.html

This is not a liberal group, as they are heavily involved in oil and natural gas sea extraxtion development in conjunction with oil companies and also as a defense contractor.

[DanS]

Interesting and informative article. I note that the price of crude is ~$32/barrel (slightly less in '96 dollars), well above the 5.6 billion case of $25. At $32, I think we would find that the amount of economically recoverable oil is quite large.

Edit: For context, consider that the US uses ~ 5 billion barrells of crude a year.

[Sava]

I heard a report on CNN (back when this was a major news issue) that the amount of oil we could get from the arctic is equal to the amount that would have been saved in Congress had passed that mandatory SUV/light truck fuel efficiency bill back in 2001.

[Az]

I don't get it. Do the oil companies say that there is more oil there than there actually is? if so, why? They're not making money from destroying the enviroment, and if there is not enough oil there, they'd lose money. What's the point? I actually think that the vast majority of them wouldn't prefer it to be kept safe.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Azazel
I don't get it. Do the oil companies say that there is more oil there than there actually is? if so, why? They're not making money from destroying the enviroment, and if there is not enough oil there, they'd lose money. What's the point? I actually think that the vast majority of them wouldn't prefer it to be kept safe.

They won't lose money. Bush is going to give them the ANWR lands and any oil underneath. There's government money put towards exploration and development. There's surely enough oil there to make it worth their while. Probably less than the oil companies say, but more than the environmentalists say, too.

[Az]

but what's the problem? It's not like they're going to strip-mine the place. Oil wells will damage the local enviroment a bit, and the area will lose it's 'pristinity', but this seems to be nothing more than an anti-bush flame.

[Sava]

Bush isn't mentioned at all in this thread...

[Az]

Bush is going to give them the ANWR lands and any oil underneath.

[GePap]

Azazel:

Oil companies make money by selling oil: the more oil they sell, the more they make. Now, to drill in this section of laska, they have to overcome resistance by groups and individuals who want the area as a pristine nature reserve. If the amount of oil is small, then why drill at all, when a 'small' amount of oil wouldn't matter one bit. So it is in the interest of oil companies to inflate the possible amount of oil, to make it seem that drilling it would make a significant difference to the US's oil requirements.

Even at the highest estimate, given the current, and growing use of oil, the US will never again be "oil dependent', certainly not from the single biggest source of oil in the world. Also, oil is an international commodity: the price of oil mericans pay has nothing to do with how much the US gets directly from the ME, but with the total world supply vs. total world demand. Thus, as long as the US craves cheap oil, it wil have to secure a steady supply from the ME, even if the oil is headed to Japan or the EU. The idea of oil independence from the ME is a myth.

[chequita guevara]

Azazel, regardless of whether there's a huge amout of reserves or a little, whoever gets the rights to that oil will make money off of it. The reason we argue over the amount of oil is a cost/benefit argument . . . is the amount of oil that can be economically recovered from the ANWAR enough that it's worth destroying the area. If it isn't enough, people are going to say it's not worth the cost, and those companies won't make more money off that oil.

Oil production is rather polluting, and the oil companies haven't been terribly careful about protecting the wilderness so far. There is no reason to believe, given their past performance, that they'd suddenly start bending over backwards to protect the environment. The "exploratory" area is smack in the middle of the caribu migrating area, so any oil drilling would have a significant effect on North America's largest remaining wild herds.

[Az]

Oh no! NOT THE CARIBU!

[chequita guevara]

We'd like to hold on to what pristene wilderness we can. It increases our happiness to know there are still wild places in the world. It's not worth a year or two's worth of oil.

[DanS]

"the single biggest source of oil in the world"

Who is the biggest source of oil in the world, please?