Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
When even the HIGHEST estimate is compared to U.S. usage, if the oil were to be accessable at the rate we use it (I know, it ain't gonna happen, but this is just for illustrative purposes OK?) it would be gone in about 2 1/2 years. Yes. 2.5 years. MAX. All other values were lower. The obvious conclusion is that this whole ANWR thing being any sort of energy supply solution is a joke. I'm pretty sure I didn't inject anything predetermined into that.
|
Sorry, wrote my post while you were writing yours..
As a single source, nope, there probably isn't any one source that could deliver that kind of consumption. As an addition to current sources it does contribute some additional
production. Whether thats valuable versus opposing facts, tradeoffs, financing foreign enemies, etc, I'm not arguing either way here. Just that the DOE study reported additional supply (some 700,000 barrels/day). Based on the situation you just described above (single source) it wouldn't last long. But would any supply (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kuwait, Texas, etc) last long as the sole source? I like the context of your calcs (what if it was the only source?) but not knowing the basis for (
Quote:
|
By Frank Lee: Compared to U.S. consumption, all the oil in ANWR is a mere pittance that doesn't amount to squat
|
which contradicts the DOE report led me to post. A 2.5 year supply as the single-source is still a 2.5 year supply as the single-source of
billions of barrels of oil to the majority of a continent. I politely disagree with "mere pittance"
. Thanks for the clarification on the single-source context though.