The Reality Behind ANWR

from JoeUser Forums

There's been a lot of talk lately about drilling in ANWR and opening up offshore areas for further development. In this article I will address only the issue surrounding ANWR, as I don't have enough info about the moratorium on coastal development.

The Myth:

Drilling in ANWR will increase domestic production and lower the price of gas at the pump (eventually) By increasing domestic production we will also be less reliant on foreign oil.

The Truth:

Drilling in ANWR will only maintain the status quo, because production from other fields in Alaska have been declining for years. Oil that gets pumped out of ANWR will only compensate for lost oil being pumped from fields that are in decline.

Companies like BP are indeed salivating at getting into ANWR as are many Alaskans. There is indeed a lot of oil there. USGS estimates put it somewhere between 6-16 billion barrels recoverable (so let's average it at 10 for discussions sake) So, those 10 billion barrels could theoretically supply the U.S with all the oil it needs for one year and 4 months, at 21 million barrel per day consumption approximately, only about 5-ish million barrels per day are produced domestically)

So in the big picture, yes, there is oil in ANWR. But there is a BIG piece of the puzzle that has been left out of the dialogue regarding this issue!

The real reason why there is such a big push to develop ANWR has very little to do with dropping the price of gas, and a lot with being able to maintain profitability for certain business interests. The piece of the puzzle that's missing is called Prudhoe Bay.

What's been so heavily under-publicized and under-reported, is that production from Prudhoe Bay has been falling for years now and there's not too much left. This is no dirty secret. All the oil companies publicly report the numbers, some of which actually end up in snippets in the news, but it's mostly been ignored in the major media dialogue.

Don't believe me? Let's look at a few facts about Prudhoe Bay-

Production peaked in 1979 at 1.5 million barrels per day production, and stayed relatively consistent up until the mid 80's when it started to decline. Today production has declined 70 % from it's peak 20 years ago to only 470,000 barrels per day.

Although various satellite fields have been turned up since 1998, collectively it is a pretty safe bet to say that Prudhoe Bay is indeed dying a slow death. All the big companies that are invested in Prudhoe know this. They've known it for years. And they know that they don't have too much longer before production drops off so much that the cost of maintaning operations there starts to become questionnable.

This leads us to the true heart of the matter:

The push to develop ANWR has very little to do with increasing domestic production and much to do with trying to maintain the status quo. From a business perspective, this make perfect sense. You already have massive infrastructure and development in the neighbourhood. Now that existing fields are declining, the push is to open up untapped fields nearby. The biggest and juiciest of those is ANWR.

At best, if all goes well this will help to keep domestic production from falling into further decline, but it is highly unlikely that it will increase it by any appreciable amount, therefore not dealing with dependency on foreign oil, OPEC, or market volatility.

politics
11,935 views 28 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
I fail to see how letting our domestic oil production "die off," as you put it, will improve our situation any? Otherwise, good job on pointing out a fact few in the media seem to care about.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
If production is down to less than half a million barrels a day currently and a new drilling site(s) is(are) opened to increase production, even if it is only back up to 1.5 million barrels a day isn't that still an increase in production which is an increase in domestic supply? And based on the laws of supply and demand if supply increases and demand remains the same then prices should fall slightly. Hell even if demand increases based on current production wouldn't prices rise less if we increase the amount of oil produced?

So I fail to see how this is a myth as you suggest other than the part of by drilling there we will be less dependent on foreign oil, that part I could agree with.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

So your argument is not to replace declining oil production? Great philosophy. If everyone would just stop replacing everything, cars, homes, light bulbs, etc. all our energy problems will just go away. It's called the Stone Age.

I haven’t heard anyone (that wants to drill) put all their eggs in ANWR, like that is the end all answer to the energy problem. The left would like the people to think the drill crowd is thinking that (what’s new). Drilling in ANWR and off shore will ease our dependency on foreign oil (not illuminate it) until alternate fuels can be developed and made practical. Don’t believe me? Then why are the Chinese planning to drill 60 miles off Florida? Here’s your truth, the do-nothing congress with there “I need instant gratification now” special interest groups pulling their strings are keeping us dependent on foreign oil. Hey they promised change in 2006 and we sure got it. Last poll I saw 70% of the people want to drill.  Pelosi and Reid, voice of the people, ha what a joke.

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

So your argument is not to replace declining oil production? Great philosophy. If everyone would just stop replacing everything, cars, homes, light bulbs, etc. all our energy problems will just go away. It's called the Stone Age.
End of quote

Actually, Nitro Cruiser, I never said that we SHOULDN'T replace declining production, nor did I even offer a solution in this article. All I'm trying to point out here is that there is no silver bullet that will make things better. What bothers me is the argument that in simply "drilling for more oil" everything will suddenly get better. The numbers simply don't bear that out, as the U.S only produces 30 % of it's required energy. For the last 38 years U.S production has been declining, so to think that by opening up ANWR and offshore drilling will suddenly reverse that is not realistic. The U.S would have to increase it's domestic production by several million barrels per day in order to have any realistic effect, something that is no easy feat especially when certain existing fields are in decline.

Here in Canada we produce around 3 million barrels per day, about half of which we use and the other half we export to you. For the last 8 years there's been a major push to increase our production, namely from the tar sands in Alberta. Even with years of concerted labour and billions of dollars invested, the forecast calls for increasing our production to 5 million barrels per day by around 2015-2020, and that's if everything goes stupendously well with no hang ups.

For the U.S to increase it's domestic production, you would need to undergo the same effort and any oil that declines from existing fields would need to be replaced from something pulled from a new field first, before even thinking about increasing production.

 

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

Here’s your truth, the do-nothing congress with there “I need instant gratification now” special interest groups pulling their strings are keeping us dependent on foreign oil. Hey they promised change in 2006 and we sure got it. Last poll I saw 70% of the people want to drill. Pelosi and Reid, voice of the people, ha what a joke.
End of quote

Yes, and let's see how long your country could last without foreign oil. Let's see, you'd need to increase your current domestic production by, umm 400 %!!! Not only that, but even if you managed to return your production to it's peak of 9.some million barrels per day (attained in 1970 and has been dropping ever since) You'd still not even be producing half of what your country consumes!!! Not only that, but you'd also have to more than double the number of refineries in the U.S (or build a couple of mega refineries that put existing ones to shame)

Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

And as an aside, even though we produce all of our own oil and export 1.5 million barrels per day to the States, as Canadians we pay more for gas than you do!!!

Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
Yes, and let's see how long your country could last without foreign oil. Let's see, you'd need to increase your current domestic production by, umm 400 %!!! Not only that, but even if you managed to return your production to it's peak of 9.some million barrels per day (attained in 1970 and has been dropping ever since) You'd still not even be producing half of what your country consumes!!! Not only that, but you'd also have to more than double the number of refineries in the U.S (or build a couple of mega refineries that put existing ones to shame)
End of quote


And that is why we need a multi-faceted approach to dealing with the energy crisis. For now there aren't any real viable alternatives to oil ready to go, especially for fuel for cars, either because the energy itself isn't quite good enough to support average daily usage of most Americans (full electric cars) or because the infrastructure needed to support the alternative isn't there (hydrogen and natural gas). So what we need is to increase our own domestic oil production for the short term so that we won't be as affected by world events in the price of oil. While we are increasing our domestic oil production (OCS, oil shale, and ANWR) we should be investing in alternative energies rather heavily. We need to spend time building an infrastructure to support those alternative so that we can wean ourselves off of oil.

The bottom line is that oil is a finite resource and we need to find other sources of energy now so that we can deal with things when the oil runs out.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
And as an aside, even though we produce all of our own oil and export 1.5 million barrels per day to the States, as Canadians we pay more for gas than you do!!!
End of quote


You've gotta pay for universal healthcare somehow. Guess what's going to happen to us if Obama is elected and congress approves his universal healthcare plan. Our taxes will end up going through the roof and one of them will be our gas taxes.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
All I'm trying to point out here is that there is no silver bullet that will make things better. What bothers me is the argument that in simply "drilling for more oil" everything will suddenly get better.
End of quote


And this is where the problem really is. No matter what anyone says, what words are used, what language is spoken, some of you continue to hear the same tune over and over. We don't expect our venture into drilling at home to be the "be all, end all" solution to our problems Artysim. What we believe is that this can help put us on the road to less dependence on foreign oil, a chance to seek out better alternatives and, well what the heck, possibly more money for our own economy since it would be "Made In America" and to me that's a good thing.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
While we are increasing our domestic oil production (OCS, oil shale, and ANWR) we should be investing in alternative energies rather heavily. We need to spend time building an infrastructure to support those alternative so that we can wean ourselves off of oil.

The bottom line is that oil is a finite resource and we need to find other sources of energy now so that we can deal with things when the oil runs out.
End of quote


A very sensible and convincing argument. :) 
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top

El Duderino-

So what we need is to increase our own domestic oil production for the short term so that we won't be as affected by world events in the price of oil. While we are increasing our domestic oil production (OCS, oil shale, and ANWR) we should be investing in alternative energies rather heavily. We need to spend time building an infrastructure to support those alternative so that we can wean ourselves off of oil.
End of quote

I agree with you 100 %!

Here is where we differ; if I believed that there was a serious drive to embrace alternative energy sources while in the short term increasing domestic production, I would be all for it no arguments!

However, Bush and his crew have no plan for embracing alternatives. This is something that needs massive initiatives and R&D between government and industry. California was quite succesful in the mid-90's in getting 100% electric cars on the road, which were wildly popular with everyone who was lucky enough to lease one. As soon as the laws were changed, however, GM scrapped the entire EV program and re-possessed all the cars.

If Bush were to say- "Increase production now in the short term while we transition to alternatives" I would be in agreement. Instead all he's said is "Since we're addicted to oil.... we need more oil"

Yes, of course in his speeches he's made reference to pursuing alternative energy initiatives but his administration has done very little or at the most made token gestures, nothing with any real substance.

This is nothing new. The Bush administration is known more for "sticking to it's guns" and staying true to ideological dogma than it is for innovating and adapting. Instead of acknowledging that society needs to change from obsolete, inneficient machines to something more sustainable, their only solution is to try and increase the amount of fuel available with no plan for what to do after that. Well, maybe they could start another war somewhere, I dunno.....

Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
However, Bush and his crew have no plan for embracing alternatives. This is something that needs massive initiatives and R&D between government and industry. California was quite succesful in the mid-90's in getting 100% electric cars on the road, which were wildly popular with everyone who was lucky enough to lease one. As soon as the laws were changed, however, GM scrapped the entire EV program and re-possessed all the cars.
If Bush were to say- "Increase production now in the short term while we transition to alternatives" I would be in agreement. Instead all he's said is "Since we're addicted to oil.... we need more oil"
Yes, of course in his speeches he's made reference to pursuing alternative energy initiatives but his administration has done very little or at the most made token gestures, nothing with any real substance.
This is nothing new. The Bush administration is known more for "sticking to it's guns" and staying true to ideological dogma than it is for innovating and adapting. Instead of acknowledging that society needs to change from obsolete, inneficient machines to something more sustainable, their only solution is to try and increase the amount of fuel available with no plan for what to do after that. Well, maybe they could start another war somewhere, I dunno.....
End of quote


On the fact that the administration and the Republicans in congress are unwilling to do anything but drill I will agree with you. But the Democrats in congress are equally unwilling to listen to anything involving drilling.

The result is a complete stalemate where nothing at all gets done meanwhile you and I are sitting at home paying ever increasing prices for goods and services. We need leadership in this country that is willing to work with each other, do a little thing called compromise. However we have two parties that couldn't care less about the American people, all they care about is their own party and how it is perceived. So in the end nothing is going to get done.

I don't know about the rest of you out there but in November I am going to make sure my voice is heard, the age of a do-nothing, point the finger at the other party congress must come to end. I am going to vote against ALL incumbents on my ballot to include Federal, State, and local office because none of them deserve to keep their jobs. To everyone out there desperate for "change" in Washington, the only want to get "change" is to get rid of everyone who is currently there and start fresh. We need to send a message that we are pissed off with the same old crap day in and day out.

VOTE AGAINST INCUMBENTS!!!!!
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top

What we believe is that this can help put us on the road to less dependence on foreign oil, a chance to seek out better alternatives and, well what the heck, possibly more money for our own economy since it would be "Made In America" and to me that's a good thing.
End of quote

Again in echoing my comments to El Duderino I largely agree with you as well CharlesCS. However, in a situation like this one needs to look at the numbers and see how they'll affect things. I fully acknowledge that most folks don't see the argument to drill for more oil as a silver bullet secret weapon that will cure all ills. However, that is how the debate has been framed in the media, as usually boiled down to two oversimplified 'sides' of supposed good guys and bad guys.

Instead of getting drawn in to the ridiculous and childish fantasy that is the republican vs democrat pissing contest (I have no love for either party) let's take a step back and analyze the situation.

U.S oil production has been in decline for 38 years.... 38 years!!! If all foreign oil were to suddenly stop flowing across your borders (which lets face it aint gonna happen, you'd annex Canada in a pinch I'm sure) then your current methods of production are enough to supply only about 30-35% of your required needs.

At present there is enough oil in your strategic petroleum reserve to last about 60 days. Sure, it could be more than publicized but for arguments sake, at 21 million barrel per day consumption it's doubtful that it's any more than enough to last a couple months, even with fuel rationing. And let's be honest, if this situation ever happened that fuel would go entirely to the military and transport to ensure that food and essential supplies made it into the cities and towns, that's it!

With your domestic oil production only meeting less than half of your needs, not only would gas become ridiculously expensive, but you simply wouldn't be able to buy it in most places. There would be no choice but to go to some kind of rationing system which would only provide a very small amount (or none- a 65% reduction in available supply might mean you could only fill up once every 6 weeks!)

Analyzing things objectively, it simply doesn't make sense to continue the addiction to oil. The most patriotic thing you can do to get off of foreign dependency is to switch to alternatives. Sure, go ahead and drill all over the place in ANWR and off the coast. But those are the last big, easily recoverable untapped reserves you have in-country. Dipping into the cookie jar for that rainy day money should only come as a stop-gap measure to hold you over while you transition to alternatives. Instead, Bush and his ilk have no plan for alternative developments, selling the pipe dream that more drilling will somehow make things better. All it will do is maintain the status quo a little longer!

Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
Analyzing things objectively, it simply doesn't make sense to continue the addiction to oil. The most patriotic thing you can do to get off of foreign dependency is to switch to alternatives. Sure, go ahead and drill all over the place in ANWR and off the coast. But those are the last big, easily recoverable untapped reserves you have in-country. Dipping into the cookie jar for that rainy day money should only come as a stop-gap measure to hold you over while you transition to alternatives. Instead, Bush and his ilk have no plan for alternative developments, selling the pipe dream that more drilling will somehow make things better. All it will do is maintain the status quo a little longer!
End of quote


I agree completly. The problem is that we don't have any VIABLE alternatives to oil at the moment. Either the alternatives aren't cost effective or we don't have the infrastucture in place. We need to tap the OCS and/or ANWR to lessen our dependence on foreign oil while we wean ourselves off of oil. Alternative energies are a long term solution (20-30 years down the line) and we need something that will help us in the short term (5-20 years) which is increased domestic production.
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting EL-DUDERINO, reply 8
You've gotta pay for universal healthcare somehow. Guess what's going to happen to us if Obama is elected and congress approves his universal healthcare plan. Our taxes will end up going through the roof and one of them will be our gas taxes.
End of EL-DUDERINO's quote

If the The US goes to a universal health care system it  will be a bad thing for future health care as a whole.  There wont be as much incentive to make new medicines or advance medical tech.

Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
If the The US goes to a universal health care system it will be a bad thing for future health care as a whole. There wont be as much incentive to make new medicines or advance medical tech.
End of quote


If you want an example of what will happen to our medical industry if we implement a universal healthcare system just take a look at our public education system. A universal healthcare system will take a similar route. that's not to say that we don't need to reform our healthcare system just that universal healthcare is NOT the answer.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Myth:
Drilling in ANWR will increase domestic production and lower the price of gas at the pump (eventually) By increasing domestic production we will also be less reliant on foreign oil.
The Truth:
Drilling in ANWR will only maintain the status quo, because production from other fields in Alaska have been declining for years. Oil that gets pumped out of ANWR will only compensate for lost oil being pumped from fields that are in decline.
End of quote


Let's look at these.

Scenario 1 - We do not drill. What happens? Are the other fields going to all of a sudden pick up production? No? Then our supply is going down. Let's say from 100 to 80.

So now we have 80. That is the basis for now deciding what drilling in ANWR will do. Not 100.

Scenario 2 - We drill. What happens? The other fields go from 100 to 80 (see above). BUT now we are getting 20 from ANWR. So what happens?

We went from 80 to 100. We got an increase.

Your premise is flawed because the only way for your premise to be right is that if we DONT drill then the old fields will not decline.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
And as an aside, even though we produce all of our own oil and export 1.5 million barrels per day to the States, as Canadians we pay more for gas than you do!!!
End of quote


Got to pay for Universal Health care some way. ;)
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
You've gotta pay for universal healthcare somehow.
End of quote


Sorry El Duderino, I should read all responses before replying. ;)
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top
The republicans don't have an alternative energy plan?

Last time I checked, McCain wanted to build over 30 nuclear power plants ASAP, and match that with massive funding of electric car development.

It's an answer that we can do with today's technology, right now, if the nation actually decided to go for it.

Considering that both Britain and France have ordered construction of dozens of nuclear power plants, what the hell are the Democrats waiting for? They should unite with Republicans to usher in the new Nuclear power age...
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
However, Bush and his crew have no plan for embracing alternatives. This is something that needs massive initiatives and R&D between government and industry.
End of quote


This is flat out wrong. The administration is begging industry to come up with alternatives that work. They were so desperate for alternatives they went against better judgment to push bio-fuels. It was a short sighted decision that is costing us big time.

By providing incentives for turning corn into oil the price of corn went through the roof. Corn syrup is a sugar substitute because the price of sugar is so high. Now it is just as expensive as sugar because there is less corn on the food market and more corn on the oil market. Look at the ingredients of your food you will find corn in there somewhere on most products. If it cost more for corn then every product that uses corn goes up. Great we have a bio-fuel that does not work as advertised and food that is more expensive. In taking the short path we have not solved the main problem and created two more problems.

You can not build and infrastructure for a product that has not been invented yet. First you get the alternative, then you build the infrastructure to support the product. It does us no good to create a support system for unproven and untested products.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is flat out wrong. The administration is begging industry to come up with alternatives that work.
End of quote


IN the end, nothing, not congress, the president, or Canada or Europe is going to come up with alternatives. Private industry will, when the money is to be made there. The honest democrats, and there are some here, admit it and embrace the high prices. Not to be mean, but to advance their agenda (one I agree with to a limited extent).

An energy plan does not have to include pipe dreams, and until oil is too expensive (it has gotten there now), alternatives are just that.

An honest energy plan will deal with the reality, not the fantasy.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

as Canadians we pay more for gas than you do
End of quote

And how much of that is tax compared to the actual price of oil? Canadians do have to pay for things that US residents don't pay for, like national health care. Your right, drill will never get the US back to where it was, but doing less will only make it worse. Sorry to take your article out of context, not my intent. That's what I despise about the written word, it can be hard to get the authors real meaning.

I like Canada, beautiful place, the people are nice too. IMO great and appreciated friends of the US, one of the few NATO countries to pull their share of the load and more. I hope you live close to the border so you can fill up cheaper, at least occasionally.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush and his ilk have no plan for alternative developments, selling the pipe dream that more drilling will somehow make things better. All it will do is maintain the status quo a little longer!
End of quote


Couldn't agree more! And if we don't get serious, soon there will be nationwide rationing.
Reply #25 from Stardock Forums Top

I like Canada, beautiful place, the people are nice too. IMO great and appreciated friends of the US, one of the few NATO countries to pull their share of the load and more. I hope you live close to the border so you can fill up cheaper, at least occasionally.
End of quote

Thanks Nitro Cruiser! I believe that if we can all get past the scripted hologram that calls for left-leaning folk fighting right-leaning folk, we might actually be able to buckle down and tackle the real problems we all face collectively!

As for Canadians paying more for gas than the States, I was alluding to the fact that even though we are a net exporter and you are a net importer, we still pay more. While a small portion of this is indeed due to taxation for our social programs, as you have correctly stated, much of it is also due to the fact that many of the oil companies operating in Canada are American. Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, etc, comprise the major players developing and exporting our oil. Therefore the prices paid for barrels going across the border is not so much due to our government as it is international economics, and collusion between the big players in country!