How the media got the facts about Arctic oil wrong

[Az]

Seriously, though, I don't want the caribu to be hurt. They're nice, and people have lots of fun looking at them. However, the pollution of the land worries me about the oil drilling much more. Eco-standards SHOULD be held.

[SpencerH]

The largest caribou herd is the George river herd in Labrador.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
"the single biggest source of oil in the world"

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

Define source? Total amount of oil, total amount of recoverable oil, total amount of economically recoverable oil?

IIRC, the answer to the first two questions is Russia, and Saudi Arabia is the answer to the third.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The largest caribou herd is the George river herd in Labrador.

Mine was plural . . . yeah, that's the ticket.

[SpencerH]

What about the Athabasca tar sands?

[chequita guevara]

Definately a huge source, but the ME would have to be dry before we'd use them.

[DanS]

che: Current year oil production.

[GePap]

DanS: either Saudi Arabia or the US itself (probaby Saudi Arabia).

[DanS]

In '02, it's the US @ 8.2 million barrels of oil/day. Saudia Arabia @8.1 mbpd. Russia @ 7.8 mbpd. Oil in this instance includes liquid natural gas, as is the norm.

I'm not trying to trick you. Rather, this somewhat supports your arguments, but somewhat goes against your arguments as well.

[GePap]

DanS: according to those figures, the US produces about 3 billion Barrels a year of oil. So, even if we take the highest estimates made, of 20 billion barrels, that would not mean a very significan rise in the US share of oil production. And given the US's growing demand of oil, it will do nothing to lessen US dependence on the ME. Besides, this is a question of cheap oil. I am sure that at $60 dollars a barrel, there is plenty of economically-viable recoverable oil out there, BUT, how many Americans would want to pay 3 dollars a gallon at the gas-pump? After all, if anyone were to suggest a 5 cent tax on each gallon of gasoline sold (which would raise a very large amount of revenue) they would be crucified currently. As long as CHEAP oil is a vital US interest, we need to stay in the ME.

[DanS]

"that would not mean a very significan rise in the US share of oil production"

On the contrary, even a small rise is significant in this game, since the price is set at the margins. Oil will likely be just cheap enough not to encourage marginal producers to invest. The production numbers also suggest that investment in Russian production might achieve our national goals as well, or in addition to Alaska production.

"As long as CHEAP oil is a vital US interest, we need to stay in the ME."

I agree.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Azazel
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.

How is this an anti-Bush flame? Are you saying he isn't giving it away? Like he gives our forests away to logging companies? Like he gives our mountains to mining companies? I don't how you can not mention Bush in this thread. This seems to be a major part of his energy policy.

The irony here it that ANWR has for many, many years been protected by Republicans, from the Eisenhower White house to the Reagan White house. ANWR wouldn't be so protected today if it hadn't been for Republican Senator William Roth ( of the IRA fame and Reagan's go-to guy for tax cuts ) working with Democrat Congressman Mo Udall.

If you look back on the history of the conservation movement in the United States, it is filled with conservatives and NOT liberal tree huggers. Look at how much land Teddy Roosevelt set aside.

Phony-baloney conservatives like Bush, actually a neoliberal, sees these as resources to be exploited quickly, and not as part of America's national heritage.

[Az]

hmmm, fair point. I'll concede this point, but I am not sure about the importance of conservationism for conservatives (NO PUN!),generally.IMO it has more to do with the outback spirit, which in the American case, is the yearning to the 'good ol' times', a pillar of conservatism. I do think that oil drilling should begin there, though this is a debate for you americans, really.

[Lefty Scaevola]

I like the idea of postponing new oil development in the USA. Buy oil from abroad while it is cheap. Use their reserves and with great foresite buy extra a fill the national reserve as Bush has done for over a year. Later when the price is way up, then develope USA fields, using later better technology for safer and more economic production

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by 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.

You always go further with energy efficiency measures. They are continuous, so once in place they keep saving. On the other hand, drilling is a one-shot deal. Once you get all the recoverable crude, that's it.