The Truth about ANWR

(H/T and Thanks to Senate Conservatives)

Tell everyone you know about this video. It is important that everyone know, how the Democrats are lying about ANWR.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Replies to “The Truth about ANWR”

  1. If one were to look into ANWR, reading nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reports and the official 2007 assessment produced by the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy at the specific request of Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska.

    Turns out ANWR’s a bit of a myth.

    The first myth about ANWR is that we can solve today’s oil problem by drilling there.

    But even the government says that – under best-case scenarios, it would take 10 years to start production and the average net drop in price would be about 86 cents per barrel.

    The second myth about ANWR is that drilling there would provide us with “energy independence.”

    The government’s most optimistic estimate is that peak ANWR production would be less than 1 percent of total world oil output — about 750,000 barrels per day in a country that consumes 19 million barrels per day. In fact, the government admits that foreign-oil dependence would decrease only slightly, between the years 2022 and 2026, and would then return to pre-ANWR levels.

    The third myth about ANWR is that drilling would produce a “supply effect” on gasoline prices. In that Economics 101 formulation, as oil supply increases, gasoline prices will drop.

    But the government throws cold water on that myth, too, because “OPEC and other producers may cut output to offset the supply effect.” In other words, OPEC won’t sit still as we force price reductions — they’ll match our production increases with production decreases to keep supply steady and prices high.

    The fourth myth about ANWR is that we “know” there’s an awful lot of oil just waiting to be pumped there.

    But the government admits that “there is much uncertainty” about ANWR and “little direct knowledge” about the location of oil, how easily it can be recovered, the size of the fields and the quality of oil in them. What we “know” is little more than a guess, based upon some hypothetical, exploratory models.

    The fifth myth about ANWR is that so-called “limited-footprint” technologies would minimize environmental harm.

    But the government admits limited-footprint technology probably won’t work and “full development of the 1002 area” would require infrastructure throughout the area.

    And the government openly acknowledges the threat to what it calls “the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife,” “the center of wildlife activity,” and the only federal land that “protects, in an undisturbed condition, a complete spectrum of the arctic ecosystem in North America.”

    At the end of the day, ANWR simply doesn’t live up to the mythology. It certainly doesn’t seem worth the cost. Real relief will come from the dreaded “nanny state” remedies — higher corporate average fuel efficiency standards, smaller cars, fuel conservation and slower driving speeds.

    Under its own best-case scenario, the government admits that drilling in ANWR would produce a pitifully tiny effect on foreign-oil dependency — four short years of relief at most — and a trivial effect on gas prices.

    And even then, it’d be 10 years before Americans felt a penny’s worth of relief at the gas pump.

  2. I’m letting this comment stand, so people can see it and reply to it, if they feel the need to. Anyone else have a rebuttal on this?

  3. I would rebut that, but I agree with it completely. That penny’s worth of relief spoken of in the first comment may not even come in ten years if Oil companies simply refuse to drill in ANWR. Oil companies have leases to drill in over 850 areas of the US and they are not doing it. Why would they? That would cause the cost of their product-gas-to fall.

  4. Gents,

    I’ve heard your comments, now here’s mine.

    I think that drilling in ANWR IS a solution, perhaps not THE only solution, but it can only help. Along with closing the Enron loophole. Allowing offshore drilling as well as drilling in other various places that we are not drilling now. By increasing production and ending the speculation, prices would come down. I just do not believe there is ONE magical answer, it is going to be a combination of solutions.

    What I KNOW will not fix it, is demagoging a particular stance and not listening to the other sides ideas. The truth is, the deregulation of the Stock Market caused it, AND the Democrats obstruction of drilling helped too. Both sides played a part and both sides can fix it. They just have to work together. The problem is, both sides, Republican and Democrat are more interested in BLAMING one another, instead of actually wanting to work together.

    -Paleo Pat

Comments are closed.