Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and Oil Drilling
One of the major objections I’ve heard against drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is that it would not produce a lot of oil. I’m not sure what people consider a lot, but the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Arctic Refuge survey (page 18), states that the mean average projected amount of oil is 13.8 bbo (Billion Barrels of Oil).
According to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) the united states used approximately 7.5 BBO in Crude Oil and Petroleum Products in 2006.
That’s approximately 1.8 years of fueling America just on it’s own.
The proposed drilling area of ANWR is only 2000 acres, but the proposed drill site doesn’t include any land that would be affected by the necessary roads, ports, or pipelines and I’m not sure if it includes housing for workers. I did find reference that current best technology uses ice roads which do not damage the landscape after winter thaws. These are used to get the drilling platforms in place using vehicles designed to do so with little environmental impact called Rolligons. But what type of transportation or piping is used to move oil and manpower?
Another huge issue is that this oil is spread across the coastal area of Anwar, and that each individual drilling site has a footprint of 13 achers each. Most of the pro-drilling sites I’ve seen with maps of proposed development show the relative size of this 2000 acers, but they show it clumped all in one location, rather than spread across the coast as the drilling would have to be to tap the entire costal region. The arctic platforms referenced in the above report allows a 13 acer drilling site to harvest oil for a 50 square mile area, but that means there would only be about 7 miles between the individual stations if we wanted to tap all of the oil in ANWR.
The Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve was established, as many of our natural wildlife parks were, to try to preserve some of the wilds left in our country, so that the children of the future can see and feel what the wild once was. I haven’t been to ANWR, but I have been to many national and state parks that keep at least some small bit of wilderness alive and I have to say that these parks are a national treasure that could never be replaced, one that should be preserved for future generations if at all possible. ANWR is there to protect the animal life in the reffuge, and to preserve the way of life of certain native Inuit tribes and their hunting, but also to preserve many kinds of terrain for the future. If we have a drilling platform every 7 miles through the coast, one of the smallest available types of land, can we really say that we’ve preserved any of it in a wild and natural state?
I agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but there’s only so much oil out there to drill. Even if we do decide to drill to give ourselves those 1.8 years worth of oil, but we don’t use that time to reduce our reliance on oil, foreign or domestic through the use of more renewable energy technology, is it really worth it?
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Simple answer.
No.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I’d tend to agree, but I think that everyone needs to look at the situation, and ask themselves that question… and answer it truthfully.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I am not of the opinion that this is a question that takes that much thinking.
May 7th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
However, there’s nothing wrong in exploring the issue - and your insistence that it not “a question that takes that much thinking” is indicative of an ideological rather than logical stance - and a desire to coerce, at least intellectually, another person into taking your side.
In short, you may think one way, but let him explore the issue. There’s no such thing (thankfully) as the Thought Police.
May 11th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Drilling in ANWR is a hard issue because it will effect the environment in those areas. While at the same time it will reduce costs of gas and oil based products here in the US greatly. So in the end it’s a balance that is hard to find.
Now I’m not sure if your numbers are production numbers or total numbers. What I do know is that with ANWR and other areas we can supply ALL US oil needs for a period of time. Now that shouldn’t be the only reason to open up the region. Yet it’s very compelling as this would minimize our need for foreign oil that often is used to generate money for our enemies.
Lastly on alternative fuels and alternative energy we definately need to research and develop more. The problem with current systems is that very few present an answer to our needs. All they do is change the area we are dependant on. E85 for example just makes our foods more expensive and other issues as it’s doesn’t burn as well as diesal and unleaded gas. There are other bio fuels that are good and provide good alternatives for some small markets as their benefits are also limited. For hybrid vehicles for example it just changes the types of waste and complicates the vehicle more. This only changes were the costs are. Diesal gas engines provide more fuel savings then hybrids as an example of other areas were technology has provided an answer. Hydrogen fuel cells that are being developed may find an answer but they can be unstable and need further development. Yet you can find these in smaller applications outside vehicles. For solid electrical cars the problem is batteries, We simply don’t have the needed battery technology for them to be efficient enough.
In the end I definately do not know enough to know the correct answer for this. I think that limited drilling may help it may be a temperary answer but one none the less. I also think that it must be done carefully. I know this because of what I know of my own home in southern Louisiana. That area has been damaged greatly beacuse of offshore drilling yet in some areas were people have stopped and worked together including the oil companies there have been improvements. The problem is that it’s not enough there and more needs to be done. I think that much can be learned and corrected in Louisiana. Lastly I if done I hope the situation can be avoided in Alaska.
May 11th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I do have one last thing I forgot to add in relation to gas prices. I think that there are a fewt hings that can be done to counter this.
1: Build refineries and update old ones. This is expensive and will cost us now but in the long run will be more then worth it.
2: Nationalize fuel mixtures so that all of the US uses the same fuel. Today if you didn’t know municipalities and states tell the oil companies which fuel mixture can be sold in the area. This has caused more then 30 different fuel mixtures to be used here in the US. Each Mixture requiring different processes in refineries. If you wish an example of this just look at the time right after Katrina Bush repealed the mixture laws for a time and this reduced the cost of gas almost overnight by as much as 50cents a gallon.
3: Research, Research, Research.. Simple really no comments needed.
There is more but these I think can be done Today and will show an immediate differance.
May 11th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
To answer your question Auly, the bbo number is the mean estimate of how much oil is in the ground and can be extracted according to the USGS, along the ANWR coastal region. The numbers listed for consumption are totals for petroleum use, in gasoline, plastics, ect.
So according to the USGS estimate there is enough oil to run the country on for 2 years in the ANWR coastal region alone, but the next question is if we could get it all out fast enough to close the gap between our current oil consumption and our current oil production. I somehow doubt it.
May 11th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I agree but that shouldn’t stop us from developing sources and becoming more and more self sufficient.
Also thank you for clearing that up.
May 12th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
[…] Josh the Aspie’s Blog The thoughts of an Aspie on Technology, Politics, and Everything. - The Answer isn’t always 42. « Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and Oil Drilling […]