Ignoring hybrids... pushing more oil instead

I did some more research and the 30 billion barrels of oil that dbarry mentioned above may indeed be a real number after all. So it's not a fantasy number.

However, that is the number that is in the entire ANWR refuge and NOT in the 2000 square mile area that Bush is trying to get drilling done in.

AND, according to the USGS team report, only 5.5 billion barrels are likely to come out of that 2000 square mile area and to get those 5.5 billion barrels it will take about $400,000,000,000 dollars and 7 to 12 years before the oil starts flowing. The USGS believes that to get 10 billion barrels out, it would cost closer to 800,000,000,000 dollars.

To get all 30 million barrels of oil out would require thousands of more acres of drilling than the 2000 sq arces they are talking about and those oil fields would have to be scattered all over ANWR and not localized to one area.

According to the USGS, oil would have to be up to $150 per barrel to make it economically feasible to drill all over ANWR because the wells would be all over the place and some of the wells would be dry.

Frankly, I am not against drilling in that 2000 sq acre area of ANWR seeing as how ANWR is millions of acres in size. We have to be willing to despoil small areas of the environment, IMHO. But I still don't see where they have made the case that this drilling makes sense. If we spent $400 billion on conservation, better hybrids, better solar and wind, I suspect the payoff would be tons better than the 5.5 billion barrels that can reasonable expected out of ANWR. Plus, we still get to go after that oil in 25 or 50 years when the Arabs are totally dry. Let them use up their oil first and lets us keep the ANWR oil as a back up reserve.

If the Bush administration is telling the truth that we will only drill in those 2000 acres, then they are lying when they use the 30 billion gallon figure. And if they are telling the truth when they use the 30 billion gallon figure, then they are lying to us when they say they will only drill in those 2000 acres. You can't have it both ways.

 

Here's a columnist with an article saying that no-one really wants to drill there.

He doesn't give much in the way of concrete references, but I thought it relevant.

 

That's a very good point. And as dbarry pointed out, our refineries are at 100% output. It would be ideal to build a few more refineries, but for some odd reason the environmental kooks have opposed that.

So even if you dramatically upswing the crude available, it doesn't change the fact the refineries are at 100% already. Your Prius doesn't run on crude, it runs on one specific distillate you derive from crude.

The United States should also be pursuing options in the Athabasca Tar Sands in the Province of Alberta. I would much rather see an American company buy into Athabasca than allowing the Canadian government to fund a Chinese takeover of the Tar Sands with Canadian taxpayer dollars.

What the Liberal Government is doing right now amount to robbing Peter to pay for Paul, Dick, and Roger.

And dbarry *really* hit it on the head when he stated the whole situation has turned into a putrid, nasty s*** sandwich. The sooner we accept that we have to get our a** in gear, the better.

 

Much like how here in Canada first the regional government than the Federal Liberal Government got involved in the Hibernia Oil Field off the coast of Newfoundland. They promised it would make tons of money and tons of jobs.

They imported all the "skilled" engineers from Norway, despite the fact perfectly qualified engineers in Alberta were collecting EI (Employment Insurance, or "pogey"). Oh, the only way Hibernia will break even is if a barrel of oil exceeds $70 a barrel.

The ANWR is a good fallback option, but the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta is a much better option.