parados wrote: Not quite. In 2005 we imported about 13.21 billion a day and use almost 22 billion a day. That comes out to about 5% of our present requirements and assumes we have no increase in the next 5 years until ANWAR comes online. The 5% figure also reduces the lifetime of ANWAR production to less than 10 years from 20 claimed. If ANWAR is to produce for 20 years then it will give us about 2% of our needs.
Boy, after some days off, I am not sharp with the figures, but hey Parados, you are as bad or worse than me here in regard to figures.
I was going from previous memory of research I've done on this subject. I used a million barrels per day, but it seems I recall it could be 1.5 million per day. But lets assume a million per day, that is 365 million barrels per year, and if the reserve is 10 billion barrels, that is about 27 years of production at that rate. Obviously, real world scenario has the production ramping up to a level, and then tailing off as the reservoirs draw down. The other factor here is current North Slope production that will tail off and will need to be replaced. If we could produce 1.5 million per day for a few years, that would comprise about 7% of our demand if we could hold it at about 22 million per day through conservation and other means.
All of this figuring still comes back to bottom line, that is ANWR is potentially a very significant oil reservoir that we can and should tap in the very near future. To continue to opt out of this option is stupidity, plain and simple. And selfish I might add, given we don't mind plundering other areas of the world. I use the word plunder for the benefit of tree huggers. I don't think it is appropriate, but I use it to point out the need for consistency by environmentalists, which they obviously do not practice.
Quote: Again you ignore the present advances in farming. Present technology has actually reduced the fertilizer requirements to grow corn. Using GPS and computer controlled application, fertilization is reduced these days.....
Quote:
I will need to read up on this subject, but anytime the government has to artificially prop up an industry to make it viable, lets just say I am very skeptical to begin with.
You mean like the oil industry? Why are we selling them drilling rights at reduced rates? Are you skeptical?
Parados, all of a sudden, you love farming over the oil industry? You are apparently not an equal opportunity environmentalist.
Who is selling drilling rights at reduced rates? I believe government offers land blocks for lease sale and the companies compete in a free market in terms of what they are willing to pay for the leases. If you wish to point out tax breaks for oil companies, all companies receive tax breaks. Things like depletion allowances, although I do not understand all aspects of the situation, I think it simply allows a company to accurately get credit for depletion of oil reserves or inventory, just as a retail store would properly get the same. If you want to compare tax breaks of oil companies over farmers, I am not sure you could win that debate Parados.
Simply pumping oil out of the ground is obviously much more economically efficient than planting corn, harvesting, and then processing into ethanol.
