Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:I have spent alot of time throughout the back country in many states, and have yet to find a place that has no birds or other animals around. I dare you to try to convince the Sierra Club of just what you said. Just because an area is a desert, high plains, canyonlands, mountainous, or arctic tundra environments, how can you assert that one environment is more important or crucial than another?
Shrug. There has to be
some metric for judging whether or not land is 'crucial,' doesn't there?
Cycloptichorn
I don't know. For the people that oppose drilling anywhere, then the next hot prospect automatically becomes one of the most sensitive areas environmentally. Just my opinion.
Back to the reserves. If you check this site:
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/us/
Consider the fact that ANWR has been estimated to contain roughly 10 billion barrels of oil. This is the expected mean. There could be more, much more, or there could be less. Since current recoverable reserves in the U.S. is maybe 23 billion barrels or so, this would constitute almost a 50% increase in domestic reserves. This is especially important in light of now declining production from Prudhoe Bay. As the price increases, recoverable reserves would logically be higher, as it would also slightly increase in other areas of the U.S.
Also, it has been estimated that ANWR could produce over a million barrels per day for many many years, which would be equivalent to more than 10 or 15% of domestic production or as another comparison, what we import from Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela, or it could be compared to many other countries. To say that production from ANWR would be insignificant and would not impact the situation is simply not true.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Another website of interest:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/aoilpolicy2.asp
The favorite argument of people opposed to ANWR is to look at the potential in light of total reserves around the world and also compared to how long it would last if we simply used only it to fuel the entire economy. Under this very unsound reasoning, there is no energy source that would ever be tapped. The truth is that the next major energy source touted by environmentalists has not been proven to be feasible as a major contributor to the energy mix, and the promise of it is still many years away. People that think so are believing in pipe dreams. The next major technology will happen, but the process of it happening will be gradual in fits and starts, and will take years to occur. In the meantime, we are committing economic suicide to ignore proven economical and efficient energy resources at our doorstep.
