Some more numbers.

[link|http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm|10.4 B barrels "technically recoverable", 1.4 Mbbl/day estimated production]. That would give 20.3 years at 1.4 Mbbl/day (real production rates will almost certainly fall after a peak).

The [link|http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html#IntlConsumption|EIA] has an XLS file that says the US consumption in June 2005 was 21.2 Mbbl/day, and [link|http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html#IntlConsumption|EIA] has an XLS file that says that the US production in June 2005 was 5.4 Mbbl/day.

Similarly, the [link|http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html#IntlConsumption|EIA] says that US Net Imports were 12.8 Mbbl/day in June 2005.

So if you accept all of the above, then ANWAR could decrease net oil imports by 1.4/12.8 = 10.9% - a not-insignificant amount. But, by the time ANWAR oil was on the market, it's probably safe to assume that US net imports would be larger than 12.8 Mbbl/day, giving ANWAR a smaller piece of the pie. But it may also be the case that pressure on oil markets will be larger by that time (due to increased imports by China and India) so that any increase in production will help reduce pressure on the market.

ANWAR clearly isn't a panacea, and won't be a big part of the solution to the oil import problem we have. It would help some, but, e.g., improving efficiency in transportation would help much more.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #238,975 by Another Scott 12/22/05 1:16:36 PM Reply	Some more numbers. [link\|http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm\|10.4 B barrels "technically recoverable", 1.4 Mbbl/day estimated production]. That would give 20.3 years at 1.4 Mbbl/day (real production rates will almost certainly fall after a peak). The [link\|http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html#IntlConsumption\|EIA] has an XLS file that says the US consumption in June 2005 was 21.2 Mbbl/day, and [link\|http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html#IntlConsumption\|EIA] has an XLS file that says that the US production in June 2005 was 5.4 Mbbl/day. Similarly, the [link\|http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html#IntlConsumption\|EIA] says that US Net Imports were 12.8 Mbbl/day in June 2005. So if you accept all of the above, then ANWAR could decrease net oil imports by 1.4/12.8 = 10.9% - a not-insignificant amount. But, by the time ANWAR oil was on the market, it's probably safe to assume that US net imports would be larger than 12.8 Mbbl/day, giving ANWAR a smaller piece of the pie. But it may also be the case that pressure on oil markets will be larger by that time (due to increased imports by China and India) so that any increase in production will help reduce pressure on the market. ANWAR clearly isn't a panacea, and won't be a big part of the solution to the oil import problem we have. It would help some, but, e.g., improving efficiency in transportation would help much more. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #238,981 by jake123 12/22/05 1:39:47 PM Reply	Something you gotta realise The tar sands are coming on line. Those are SA sized reserves, and they're right next door in a friendly country. We'll expect to be paid for the oil, but we're not going to expect blood for it. I'd leave ANWR alone; it's a drop in the bucket next to the tar sands, and there aren't the same kinds of concerns; there's not a lot of wildlife there as grass doesn't grow too well in bitumen-soaked sand. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #239,040 by boxley 12/22/05 5:21:32 PM Reply	we know why you want to leave anwr alone you're sucking it dry from your side of the line :-) forgot those delta drilling plans? thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]

Welcome to IWETHEY!