Originally posted by wittywonkaI'm going to assume you meant $144.00 per barrel instead of $1.44
Furthermore, reading a little more...
The report I quoted also states that "ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil prices of [...] $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case." And, according to www.about.com, "For every one dollar increas ...[text shortened]... , at the very least, you can thus understand my lack of enthusiasm about ANWR drilling.
Those figures are based on assumption after assumption and you are throwing in "ifs" in regards to OPEC and what they might do in the future, but if you want to go there that is fine with me. You don't know what OPEC will do in the future, and even if they do reduce exports are you going to let them ruin the world economy because prices are too high because we didn't drill when we could have?
As long as we are playing the "what if" game, what if Israel attacks Iran and Iran not only puts a crap load of mines in the Straits of Hormuz but bombs oil facilities in Saudi Arabia and Iraq to make a real mess of the world economy? Then fuel prices are over $10.00 per gallon here and a lot more in Europe unless they take taxes off of the fuel. I guess then you will get alternative energy to compete with petroleum, but at what cost to the world economy? It is not like production of green technologies can keep up with demand after such a devastating price shock. It would take years and then we would wish we did drill in ANWR and kick ourselves in the hind end for not doing it.
What then smarty pants?
Originally posted by Metal Brain
___
I'm going to assume you meant $144.00 per barrel instead of $1.44.
No. The report ran calculations based on three different estimates for "projected ANWR oil production." In the best-case, "high oil resource" scenario, increased oil production was projected to lower the price of oil by $1.44 per barrel after twenty years.
If you doubt the assumptions and calculations of the study, that's fine. Let's pretend that even the best-case, "high oil resource" scenario was off by 300%. In other words, let's say that ANWR drilling would decrease the price of oil by $5.76 per barrel after twenty years instead of $1.44 per barrel.
That's still only a decrease of $0.12 per gallon of gasoline! After twenty years!
If you have a different study, then by all means, let's have a look at its conclusions. But I wouldn't support drilling in ANWR for a projected $0.20 per gallon savings on gasoline after twenty years, let alone $0.12 per gallon.
___
Your solution is to sit on the oil and hope our economy will thrive despite the high price. That is not much of a solution [...] You don't know what OPEC will do in the future.
My solution is not to embrace inaction, and I don't appreciate your insinuation that it even resembles as much. My position on increased domestic drilling, whether offshore or in ANWR, is that the risk is not worth the miniscule benefits (assuming, per my reference to OPEC, that any benefits come to fruition whatsoever), particularly in the medium-term time range. As I have already said, I don't believe any serious short-term solutions exist, perhaps with the exception of tapping the emergency oil reserve supply or reforming the process of speculation. In the medium- and long-term, I think the best solution is to subsidize, incentivize, or simply encourage broader research in alternative, renewable energy sources. And frankly, if the government were serious about it, it could easily accomplish the same level of progress in alternative energy technologies after twenty years of research to offset energy prices by an amount similar to that we talked about above. Besides the decreased environmental risk, though, this is the key benefit of doing so: it would have long-term benefits, too, by the definition of its being renewable.
Originally posted by wittywonkaWhat risk? You should state what you think is a risk. I don't see any risk worth worrying about.
Originally posted by Metal Brain
___
[b]I'm going to assume you meant $144.00 per barrel instead of $1.44.
No. The report ran calculations based on three different estimates for "projected ANWR oil production." In the best-case, "high oil resource" scenario, increased oil production was projected to lower the price of oil by $1. d have long-term benefits, too, by the definition of its being renewable.[/b]
Your claim that subsidizing alternative energy sources is worth it is bunk. That would bankrupt our country to have that effect. None of the alternative energy sources come anywhere close to being economically viable. Feel free to show me I am wrong if you can, but I don't see it happening. Obama is a moron (comparable to the flat earth society he used to insult those with common sense) if he thinks it will happen.
Go ahead, show us the math.