Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

ANWR: Quick question

  1. Dec 22, 2005 #1
    Drilling in ANWR has been postponed. I'm sure many of you are familiar with the recent developments on this.

    I was puzzled by this quote from a proponent for drilling:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1223/p01s01-uspo.html

    The only way this makes sense to me, is that Stevens must be saying that we are in Iraq for oil.

    ???

    Can you give me another take on this strange connection Stevens is making between drilling for oil in Alaska, and US forces?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 22, 2005 #2
    Um, he's a tad loopy? After all, this is the guy that went into hysterics about a proposed amendment to eliminate some pork in the national budget simply because said pork was a bridgethat led to nowhere that would be named after him.
     
  4. Dec 22, 2005 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Regardless of why we went into Iraq, I don't see what ANWR has to do with it, unless he's arguing that Alaskan oil reduces the need for Mid-East oil - so voting for ANWR means our troops can come home. But that's pretty thin.

    Yeah, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either.
     
  5. Dec 22, 2005 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    And for the record - few people (Republicans included) would claim that our overall interest in the Middle-East is not because of the oil. If they didn't have oil, we'd pay about as much attention to them as we do to Africa.
     
  6. Dec 22, 2005 #5

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    It probably is directly related to the fact that Stevens is a Senator from Alaska and Alaska receives a lot of money from oil drilling. In fact, instead of paying state taxes, Alaska residents get free money from the state's share of oil proceeds.

    In other words, it's a case of 'who cares if it makes sense or not - I'll say anything that keeps money rolling into Alaska'.
     
  7. Dec 27, 2005 #6
    Why do people have a problem with opening ANWR for drilling? At this point I think it's just political bs that the left wants to push for no other reason than that they have been able to for several years and losing that would be bad for the party. Other than that I don't understand why we wouldn't open it up. I've lived up there for ten years of my life and it might as well be a freakin desert because there is virtually nothing up there. It would do nothing but help ween us off of M.E. oil, create jobs and help our economy.
    A little off topic, but it's a situation I just don't understand.
     
  8. Dec 30, 2005 #7
    ANWR would not ween us off ME oil. ANWR at it's peak projected output (1 million bbl/day) would supply the US with 5% of our current daily consumption. if all of the projected oil is used it gives the US tops 2 years of oil, if we were able to recover it all spontaneously. ANWR would do little to help the US in it's quest for energy independance, and does nothing to "ween us off of M.E. oil".

    who knows maybe the extra 600 days is seen as worth it for most americans, but then that scenario begs the question. where the next two years after that?
     
  9. Dec 31, 2005 #8
    Didn't he attach the measure to the defense appropriations bill?

    I expected to hear this type of rhetoric as soon as I heard that the amendment was part of the defense spending bill.
     
  10. Dec 31, 2005 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, it was attached to the defense spending bill, but a Dem made fuss and had it changed, IIRC.
     
  11. Dec 31, 2005 #10
    The North Slope currently accounts for 25% of our current domestic production and geologists agree that ANWR could rival or exceed that http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/potent.html. Where do you get 5% for 2yrs? I don't believe those are valid projections.
     
  12. Dec 31, 2005 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From your link

    From a previous thread
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=67562
     
  13. Dec 31, 2005 #12
    i'm sorry if it sounded confusing. i have seen projections of 1 million bbl/day peak production from ANWR (from a 10.6 billion bbl reserve). the US consumes 20 million (domestic and international) bbl/day so 1/20 is 5%.

    if we were able to extract all that oil at one time those 10.6 billion / (365 days * 20 million bbl/day) = 1.45 years = 529 days of oil independance.

    sorry if those figures confused you. the second case is an impossibility. at peak production it would supply 5% of US usage for about 30 years and that extra 5% probably would only offset the declining production of the north slope (in decline since 1988) and the US's trend of increased annual usage.

    hope that clears it up.
     
  14. Jan 3, 2006 #13
    Clear as mud :) I just spoke with an ex-coworker that lives in Fairbanks, AK and he says that they aren't as hopeful for ANWR as they are for a new natural gas pipeline. That would give the Alaskan economy several billion dollars with the construction project alone.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: ANWR: Quick question
  1. That was quick - (Replies: 8)

  2. Quick, spend faster! (Replies: 1)

  3. Die Quickly (Replies: 56)

  4. Economy questions (Replies: 2)

Loading...