DOE - Oil From ANWR Would Have Minimal Impact

[hatrack]

WASHINGTON - "Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.

At the same time, the report said new Alaska production would stem the expected dramatic decline in domestic production and extend the economic life of the Alaska oil pipeline as production from other North Slope areas declined significantly.

But even the additional domestic production would not be enough to overcome increased demand, meaning continued heavy reliance on imports, the EIA said. Currently, the United States imports about 56 percent of the oil it consumes."

EDIT

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

Additionally, a couple of points - this story attributes about 10 bbl to potential ANWR fields, but should note that there's only about a 50% chance they would be that big.

Also, it states that the US imports about 56% of its oil. This is inaccurate - DOE noted that in 2003, American oil imports reached 63% of total consumption.

[T Roosevelt]

1. Oops

How'd they let this one get through? Ol' Dickie is not going to be happy.

[Viking12]

2. By comparison

even a modest improvement in fuel efficiency will offset protection of ANWR.

"For example, simply upgrading the quality of replacement tires to match that of tires that come as standard equipment on new cars would save 5.4 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years. Updating fuel efficiency standards to reflect the capabilities of modern technology would produce even greater savings. Increasing fuel efficiency standards for new passenger vehicles to an average of 39 miles per gallon over the next decade would save 51 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years -- more than 15 times the likely yield from the Arctic Refuge."

www.nrdc.org

[Earth_First]

3. Staggering...

[Earth_First]

4. ANWR = disservice

Not to be critical of your remarkably conscientious outlook for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, however, to address it as "ANWR" is doing the the refuge a great disservice. The term ANWR was developed and utilized by the Energy lobby to make the refuge seem faceless, to lessen the impact that "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" would have in the face of legislation.

[jpak]

5. Peak output only 0.88 million barrels a day??? That's it???

The US currently consumes 18 million barrels of oil per day.

Consumption will increase to 23-25 million barrels per day in 10 years.

This means ANWR would satisfy <4% of US crude demand at the peak of its production cycle.

Is this enough to justify its development????