Here we are with yet another installment in my "Oil Lies" series that is such a hit on teh intertubes. If you think I'm kidding, go do a Google search for the phrase, "Why don't we use Alaskan oil?" I'm authoritative, baybee! *snort*
This entry is dedicated to my local Congressional "representative," Steve Buyer. I had noticed a few days ago over at Masson's Blog that since it's election season Steve has introduced a buzzword-laden monstrosity, the "Main Street USA Energy Security Act of 2008." Sounds fantastic, eh?
Well, not so much. Go below the fold for a detailed look at what sort of solution ANWR drilling would be . . .
First, as Doug pointed out:
When I was drafting legislation, we used to joke that the most important thing was to have a good title for your bill. Since then, it seems like the worst bills have some of the best names. Buyer’s has some great buzzwords -
Main Street: "Hey! I have a main street close to my house!"
USA: (chanting) "USA! USA! USA!"
Energy Security: "These are scary times, I like security. And energy seems important just about now."
What’s not to like? I’ll vote for it! Oh, wait, I have no idea what it does yet.
Well, according to "Representative" Steve Buyer (R, IN-04), one of the energy security measures it calls for is perhaps my most favoritest energy topic of all: ANWR drilling!
That's right, pillaging ANWR for its sweet, sweet crude is one of Steve Buyer's keys to Main Street Energy Security in 2008. Gas prices will fall! Democracy will break out in the Middle East! Free Hummers for everyone! The surge is working! John McCain is a renegade maverick moderate!
Oh, balderdash.
In honor of "Representative" Steve Buyer (R, IN-04) and his little attempt at election year posturing significant legislation, I have updated the data from my previous ANWR posts to make the information more current. Unfortunately for "Representative" Steve Buyer (R, IN-04), it doesn't really make ANWR drilling any more sensible. Heck, I'll even toss "Representative" Buyer a bone and use the best-case statistics for this round, even though according to the USGS there's only a 5% likelihood of these numbers actually happening.
First, some raw numbers. According to the Energy Information Administration's Petroleum Basic Statistics for the year 2007, the United States uses 7,554,601,000 barrels/year of oil. Let's call that 7.55 billion barrels/year. According to the USGS ANWR survey, the absolute best case scenario from the ANWR oil fields --which includes non-federal land (i.e. State and Native areas)-- puts it at 15.96 billion barrels of oil.
So you can see where this is going, can't you?
Yes, that's right. In the absolute best case scenario for recovering ANWR oil, it would provide 2.11 years of oil. Unfortunately for "Representative" Steve Buyer (R, IN-04), even that number is misleading. That "2.11 years" is assuming the Magic Oil Fairy™ comes along and zaps all the oil out of the ground in one fell swoop. Here in the real world, that ain't going to happen. The EIA did a study at the behest of Ted "Please Please Re-elect Me" Stevens that was released just this month. In said report, every scenario they run numbers on assumes ANWR oil production beginning in 2018. That makes "ANWR drilling as a solution for current gas prices" even sillier than a federal gas tax holiday.
The EIA study also found that "ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices." Why? Because those dang OPEC countries would just lower their output to keep total world production in the supply/demand/futures market sweet spot it's in right now. Oh, those tricky bastiches!
So we have 2.11 years of oil that we can start getting to market in about 10 years. Under the EIA's high-resource-case scenario, ANWR production would peak at 1,450,000 barrels per day in 2028. For perspective, that is 7% of today's daily usage.
What all this jumble of numbers and research points to is that ANWR drilling is not going to help our current gas prices. In fact, it wouldn't help gas prices at all. It will not do anything to relieve us of our dependence on foreign oil for perhaps a decade. Should drilling occur, it could provide as much as 7% of our current daily usage for a very short amount of time. Even while in production, it will not significantly reduce our dependence on oil imports.
If the U.S. Government were to aggressively pursue a policy of higher fuel efficiency standards, energy efficiency, conservation, and alternative fuel sources, don't you think we could come up with something more substantial by 2018? What about 2028? This is the country that went to the moon in under a decade, ferchrissake! How hard would it be for us to make ANWR drilling moot if we really wanted to?
Not hard at all.
So remember kids, when you see an entrenched Washington politician like "Representative" Steve Buyer (R, IN-04) trying to present you with ANWR drilling as a meaningful energy solution, especially if it's billed as a solution for immediate problems, be sure and double check. Likely what you're really getting is yet another energy company giveaway that's been giftwrapped in doublespeak and tied up with a pretty buzzword bow. Make sure you keep the gift receipt so you can return it for something that's less destructive and provides more immediate relief.
Thanks, but no thanks, Steve.
Nels Ackerson is not responsible for the content of this post. I just plan on voting for him in November.
NOTE: Cross-posted, more or less, over at My Eponymous Sandbox and Blue Indiana