In the climate and energy debate, conservatives continue to argue that the only solution to high gasoline prices is drill, drill, drill, especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This argument is false, false, false.
The Administration's own Energy Information Administration found differently in a 2004 Congressionally-requested "Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR" (see "Note to Bush, media: Opening ANWR cuts gas prices one cent in 2025"). I pointed out then that the 2004 analysis was based on low oil prices, and that higher oil prices would raise the savings.
A May 2008 re-analysis [PDF] by EIA, "Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," in fact found this:
In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 ...
The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of ... $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case ...
There are 42 gallons in a barrel, so that'll be about two cents a gallon. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Don't spend it all in one place, America.
Now, in "fairness" to the EIA, they have gone from a 2004 prediction that world oil price in 2025 of $27 per barrel (2002 dollars) to a May 2008 prediction that oil in 2030 will be a mere $70 a barrel (in 2006 dollars).
(Note to self: Find out what EIA forecasters are smoking and stay far away from it.)
This mainly proves the EIA is really lousy at energy forecasting (see "Peak Oil? Bring it on!").
Let me propose a rule of thumb based on the EIA analyses: ANWR will cut future gasoline prices about 1 percent. You can pick your own gasoline price in 2030 and do the math.
If we want to avoid gasoline prices, $6 or $7 a gallon and then much more, we need to get off of oil as our primary transportation fuel ASAP. That, of course, is a primary goal of climate legislation.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
The violent twilight of oil and a strategy to expose it
Comments
View as Threaded
Sam Wells Posted 5:34 am
05 Jun 2008
However, crude, gasoline, and diesel simple can't be piped over the Continental Divide, so the West Coast relies on crude from Alaska, Canada, and Mexico. And guess what? Alaska is running out of crude. Western Mexico is running our of crude. California is shutting down most crude production.
So to heck with the money argument, Alaskan crude stays on the West Coast and we're playing a game of catch-up at best. How many people live between San Diego and San Fransisco? We're talking about a major calamity here.
So as Brazil, Cuba, and some very large Gulf offshore platforms come online, the West Coast will have to get tanker shipments through the Panama Canal - which is already happening. There is a reason why the Panama Canal is being widened and deepened ... few Big Oil companies want to drill in the ANWR ... are you starting to see the light here people? -sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 7:17 am
05 Jun 2008
Even if we did have enough to meet our needs 100% domestically, it wouldn't amtetr so long as the rest of the world was still facing a shortage.
Our oil prices would still go up, because it's an internationally-traded commodity.
The sooner these "energy security" guys realize this, the better.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:44 am
05 Jun 2008
http://www.newsweek.com/id/139537.
There is not all that much there, in fact, that has not been presented already in Grist and Gristmill; but it is a good survey, with good details about some selected endangered animals, and with a straightforward charge against Republican-leaning pro-business interests tending to obstruct both the intended purpose of the Endangered Species Act and Americans' generally favorable regard for it. Regarding Alaska, and the resolve of many misguided people up there to do what they can to keep the oil gushing and flowing, there is of course a reference to Governor Sarah Palin's anti-polar-bear maneuvers.
There is also a nice essay by Newsweek's excellent science writer Sharon Begley, on how the charismatic mammals have much less of a contributing role in the health of the Earth's biodiversity than the less charismatic, more obscure and regularly overlooked invertebrates.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
bigTom Posted 5:00 am
06 Jun 2008
Permalink