[cooperthedog]

[quote=jficquette]Arraya,

For every link you present supporting peak oil I can find one that saids its a myth.

Consider that Peak Oil is based on the theory that all the oil we have has been found and that we can do nothing about demand.

John

http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2007/20070122.html

http://mises.org/story/1717

http://blog.mises.org/archives/005892.asp

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_12/otoole-oil.html
[/quote]

Did you actually read these papers? Simply providing “links” that counter an argument does not necessarily make them valid. I’m sure I could find “proof” online refuting the holocaust, global warming, & that cigarettes don’t cause cancer.

Here is the first few lines from your first link:

[quote]The Peak Oil Myth… Don’t Go Broke On This Popular Investing Fallacy
by Alex Green, Investment Director, The Oxford Club

At an investment conference last year, I ran into an attendee who told me he had just put his entire fortune into oil stocks. Sadly, this was just as oil was crossing the $75 mark.

[/quote]

With oil at $140+, I fail to see how this supports your point.

The second paper actually provides evidence contrary to its premise (which I suppose emulates your own behaviour). Here are a few examples taken from throughout the text:

[quote=snips]It is also generally accepted in the industry, as I understand it, that we have probably found all of the major oil reserves that we are going to find.

However, As Nymex and Brent prices were bid up past the $50 mark last autumn…

I’m not a geologist or a geophysicist, so I do not know whether crude oil and natural gas are made from biomass ….. or whether the complex hydrocarbons we extract from the earth are “inorganic” – the result of time, heat and pressure acting upon chalk, water and a few other odds and ends chemicals.

But as demand across the world rises, and the call on the resource increases, the price will likely slowly but inexorably rise. Efficiency and conservation will buy room, but the economic affect of using less and using more efficienctly is equivalent to increased production, and those extra barrels will be used by someone somewhere. And for those wishing for an end to Saudi influence on the oil market, officials with the Bush Administration have said that a 120-million-barrel-pay day world is going to need 20 million barrels each day from Saudi Arabia, making the world more, and not less, dependent on the Gulf kingdom. (One former Aramco executive said 20 million barrels per day will be impossible to reach.)

[/quote]

The third link is from a blog, referencing an outdated report by CERA, who possess a less then stellar track record forecasting oil industry s/d and prices.

The fourth is essentially a paper debating the future of driving in the US. It generally accepts that the world is running out of cheap oil, and that alternatives will be available (albeit at a significantly higher price), which is essentially what peak oil is all about.

Finally, you state that we should consider demand. A valid point, albeit diametrically opposed to your premise of democrats driving up the cost of gas by limiting supply.

[cooperthedog]

[quote=jficquette]Arraya,

For every link you present supporting peak oil I can find one that saids its a myth.

Consider that Peak Oil is based on the theory that all the oil we have has been found and that we can do nothing about demand.

John

http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2007/20070122.html

http://mises.org/story/1717

http://blog.mises.org/archives/005892.asp

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_12/otoole-oil.html
[/quote]

Did you actually read these papers? Simply providing “links” that counter an argument does not necessarily make them valid. I’m sure I could find “proof” online refuting the holocaust, global warming, & that cigarettes don’t cause cancer.

Here is the first few lines from your first link:

[quote]The Peak Oil Myth… Don’t Go Broke On This Popular Investing Fallacy
by Alex Green, Investment Director, The Oxford Club

At an investment conference last year, I ran into an attendee who told me he had just put his entire fortune into oil stocks. Sadly, this was just as oil was crossing the $75 mark.

[/quote]

With oil at $140+, I fail to see how this supports your point.

The second paper actually provides evidence contrary to its premise (which I suppose emulates your own behaviour). Here are a few examples taken from throughout the text:

[quote=snips]It is also generally accepted in the industry, as I understand it, that we have probably found all of the major oil reserves that we are going to find.

However, As Nymex and Brent prices were bid up past the $50 mark last autumn…

I’m not a geologist or a geophysicist, so I do not know whether crude oil and natural gas are made from biomass ….. or whether the complex hydrocarbons we extract from the earth are “inorganic” – the result of time, heat and pressure acting upon chalk, water and a few other odds and ends chemicals.

But as demand across the world rises, and the call on the resource increases, the price will likely slowly but inexorably rise. Efficiency and conservation will buy room, but the economic affect of using less and using more efficienctly is equivalent to increased production, and those extra barrels will be used by someone somewhere. And for those wishing for an end to Saudi influence on the oil market, officials with the Bush Administration have said that a 120-million-barrel-pay day world is going to need 20 million barrels each day from Saudi Arabia, making the world more, and not less, dependent on the Gulf kingdom. (One former Aramco executive said 20 million barrels per day will be impossible to reach.)

[/quote]

The third link is from a blog, referencing an outdated report by CERA, who possess a less then stellar track record forecasting oil industry s/d and prices.

The fourth is essentially a paper debating the future of driving in the US. It generally accepts that the world is running out of cheap oil, and that alternatives will be available (albeit at a significantly higher price), which is essentially what peak oil is all about.

Finally, you state that we should consider demand. A valid point, albeit diametrically opposed to your premise of democrats driving up the cost of gas by limiting supply.

[cooperthedog]

[quote=jficquette]Arraya,

For every link you present supporting peak oil I can find one that saids its a myth.

Consider that Peak Oil is based on the theory that all the oil we have has been found and that we can do nothing about demand.

John

http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2007/20070122.html

http://mises.org/story/1717

http://blog.mises.org/archives/005892.asp

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_12/otoole-oil.html
[/quote]

Did you actually read these papers? Simply providing “links” that counter an argument does not necessarily make them valid. I’m sure I could find “proof” online refuting the holocaust, global warming, & that cigarettes don’t cause cancer.

Here is the first few lines from your first link:

[quote]The Peak Oil Myth… Don’t Go Broke On This Popular Investing Fallacy
by Alex Green, Investment Director, The Oxford Club

At an investment conference last year, I ran into an attendee who told me he had just put his entire fortune into oil stocks. Sadly, this was just as oil was crossing the $75 mark.

[/quote]

With oil at $140+, I fail to see how this supports your point.

The second paper actually provides evidence contrary to its premise (which I suppose emulates your own behaviour). Here are a few examples taken from throughout the text:

[quote=snips]It is also generally accepted in the industry, as I understand it, that we have probably found all of the major oil reserves that we are going to find.

However, As Nymex and Brent prices were bid up past the $50 mark last autumn…

I’m not a geologist or a geophysicist, so I do not know whether crude oil and natural gas are made from biomass ….. or whether the complex hydrocarbons we extract from the earth are “inorganic” – the result of time, heat and pressure acting upon chalk, water and a few other odds and ends chemicals.

But as demand across the world rises, and the call on the resource increases, the price will likely slowly but inexorably rise. Efficiency and conservation will buy room, but the economic affect of using less and using more efficienctly is equivalent to increased production, and those extra barrels will be used by someone somewhere. And for those wishing for an end to Saudi influence on the oil market, officials with the Bush Administration have said that a 120-million-barrel-pay day world is going to need 20 million barrels each day from Saudi Arabia, making the world more, and not less, dependent on the Gulf kingdom. (One former Aramco executive said 20 million barrels per day will be impossible to reach.)

[/quote]

The third link is from a blog, referencing an outdated report by CERA, who possess a less then stellar track record forecasting oil industry s/d and prices.

The fourth is essentially a paper debating the future of driving in the US. It generally accepts that the world is running out of cheap oil, and that alternatives will be available (albeit at a significantly higher price), which is essentially what peak oil is all about.

Finally, you state that we should consider demand. A valid point, albeit diametrically opposed to your premise of democrats driving up the cost of gas by limiting supply.

[cooperthedog]

[quote=jficquette]Arraya,

For every link you present supporting peak oil I can find one that saids its a myth.

Consider that Peak Oil is based on the theory that all the oil we have has been found and that we can do nothing about demand.

John

http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2007/20070122.html

http://mises.org/story/1717

http://blog.mises.org/archives/005892.asp

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_12/otoole-oil.html
[/quote]

Did you actually read these papers? Simply providing “links” that counter an argument does not necessarily make them valid. I’m sure I could find “proof” online refuting the holocaust, global warming, & that cigarettes don’t cause cancer.

Here is the first few lines from your first link:

[quote]The Peak Oil Myth… Don’t Go Broke On This Popular Investing Fallacy
by Alex Green, Investment Director, The Oxford Club

At an investment conference last year, I ran into an attendee who told me he had just put his entire fortune into oil stocks. Sadly, this was just as oil was crossing the $75 mark.

[/quote]

With oil at $140+, I fail to see how this supports your point.

The second paper actually provides evidence contrary to its premise (which I suppose emulates your own behaviour). Here are a few examples taken from throughout the text:

[quote=snips]It is also generally accepted in the industry, as I understand it, that we have probably found all of the major oil reserves that we are going to find.

However, As Nymex and Brent prices were bid up past the $50 mark last autumn…

I’m not a geologist or a geophysicist, so I do not know whether crude oil and natural gas are made from biomass ….. or whether the complex hydrocarbons we extract from the earth are “inorganic” – the result of time, heat and pressure acting upon chalk, water and a few other odds and ends chemicals.

But as demand across the world rises, and the call on the resource increases, the price will likely slowly but inexorably rise. Efficiency and conservation will buy room, but the economic affect of using less and using more efficienctly is equivalent to increased production, and those extra barrels will be used by someone somewhere. And for those wishing for an end to Saudi influence on the oil market, officials with the Bush Administration have said that a 120-million-barrel-pay day world is going to need 20 million barrels each day from Saudi Arabia, making the world more, and not less, dependent on the Gulf kingdom. (One former Aramco executive said 20 million barrels per day will be impossible to reach.)

[/quote]

The third link is from a blog, referencing an outdated report by CERA, who possess a less then stellar track record forecasting oil industry s/d and prices.

The fourth is essentially a paper debating the future of driving in the US. It generally accepts that the world is running out of cheap oil, and that alternatives will be available (albeit at a significantly higher price), which is essentially what peak oil is all about.

Finally, you state that we should consider demand. A valid point, albeit diametrically opposed to your premise of democrats driving up the cost of gas by limiting supply.

[cooperthedog]

[quote=jficquette]Arraya,

For every link you present supporting peak oil I can find one that saids its a myth.

Consider that Peak Oil is based on the theory that all the oil we have has been found and that we can do nothing about demand.

John

http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2007/20070122.html

http://mises.org/story/1717

http://blog.mises.org/archives/005892.asp

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_12/otoole-oil.html
[/quote]

Did you actually read these papers? Simply providing “links” that counter an argument does not necessarily make them valid. I’m sure I could find “proof” online refuting the holocaust, global warming, & that cigarettes don’t cause cancer.

Here is the first few lines from your first link:

[quote]The Peak Oil Myth… Don’t Go Broke On This Popular Investing Fallacy
by Alex Green, Investment Director, The Oxford Club

At an investment conference last year, I ran into an attendee who told me he had just put his entire fortune into oil stocks. Sadly, this was just as oil was crossing the $75 mark.

[/quote]

With oil at $140+, I fail to see how this supports your point.

The second paper actually provides evidence contrary to its premise (which I suppose emulates your own behaviour). Here are a few examples taken from throughout the text:

[quote=snips]It is also generally accepted in the industry, as I understand it, that we have probably found all of the major oil reserves that we are going to find.

However, As Nymex and Brent prices were bid up past the $50 mark last autumn…

I’m not a geologist or a geophysicist, so I do not know whether crude oil and natural gas are made from biomass ….. or whether the complex hydrocarbons we extract from the earth are “inorganic” – the result of time, heat and pressure acting upon chalk, water and a few other odds and ends chemicals.

But as demand across the world rises, and the call on the resource increases, the price will likely slowly but inexorably rise. Efficiency and conservation will buy room, but the economic affect of using less and using more efficienctly is equivalent to increased production, and those extra barrels will be used by someone somewhere. And for those wishing for an end to Saudi influence on the oil market, officials with the Bush Administration have said that a 120-million-barrel-pay day world is going to need 20 million barrels each day from Saudi Arabia, making the world more, and not less, dependent on the Gulf kingdom. (One former Aramco executive said 20 million barrels per day will be impossible to reach.)

[/quote]

The third link is from a blog, referencing an outdated report by CERA, who possess a less then stellar track record forecasting oil industry s/d and prices.

The fourth is essentially a paper debating the future of driving in the US. It generally accepts that the world is running out of cheap oil, and that alternatives will be available (albeit at a significantly higher price), which is essentially what peak oil is all about.

Finally, you state that we should consider demand. A valid point, albeit diametrically opposed to your premise of democrats driving up the cost of gas by limiting supply.

[cooperthedog]

Josh,

While I believe the trend in increasing oil prices is fundamental (a finite & static/declining supply and increased demand), I can’t argue that part of the current run up isn’t attributed to the weak dollar and inflation hedging (speculation). To what degree, I do not know. I do know that oil has also increased in euros, albeit to a lesser degree (~4.5x increase in EUR since 02 lows & ~7x for USD), so the medium of exchange isn’t the only factor.

In addition the “parabolic” move may be the illusion of linear graphs vs. logarithmic & breaking the psychological $100 mark. The increase in the last 6 months (100 to 140) in “only” a 40% increase. The price of oil was ~$20 in 2002, and doubled TWICE to $80 last year, and I don’t remember fx or speculators being blamed, nor the parabolic arguments proffered until recently. On the other hand the dollar has been falling since then, and seems to really have accelerated starting in mid 2007 (imagine that…), so your argument of medium of exchange is definitely a factor that should be included in the scope of the debate.

I would posit that the environmentalists are also to blame for our currency crisis. Anyone interested in the “facts” knows that these notorious limosuine liberals are in bed with the Federal Reserve. Environmentalists are to Bernanke, as peanut butter is to jelly…

I’ve included a graph of oil in USD and Euros.

[img_assist|nid=8129|title= Oil in USD & EUR|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=446|height=330]

Source: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/06/oil_prices_in_o.html

[cooperthedog]

Josh,

While I believe the trend in increasing oil prices is fundamental (a finite & static/declining supply and increased demand), I can’t argue that part of the current run up isn’t attributed to the weak dollar and inflation hedging (speculation). To what degree, I do not know. I do know that oil has also increased in euros, albeit to a lesser degree (~4.5x increase in EUR since 02 lows & ~7x for USD), so the medium of exchange isn’t the only factor.

In addition the “parabolic” move may be the illusion of linear graphs vs. logarithmic & breaking the psychological $100 mark. The increase in the last 6 months (100 to 140) in “only” a 40% increase. The price of oil was ~$20 in 2002, and doubled TWICE to $80 last year, and I don’t remember fx or speculators being blamed, nor the parabolic arguments proffered until recently. On the other hand the dollar has been falling since then, and seems to really have accelerated starting in mid 2007 (imagine that…), so your argument of medium of exchange is definitely a factor that should be included in the scope of the debate.

I would posit that the environmentalists are also to blame for our currency crisis. Anyone interested in the “facts” knows that these notorious limosuine liberals are in bed with the Federal Reserve. Environmentalists are to Bernanke, as peanut butter is to jelly…

I’ve included a graph of oil in USD and Euros.

[img_assist|nid=8129|title= Oil in USD & EUR|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=446|height=330]

Source: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/06/oil_prices_in_o.html

[cooperthedog]

Josh,

While I believe the trend in increasing oil prices is fundamental (a finite & static/declining supply and increased demand), I can’t argue that part of the current run up isn’t attributed to the weak dollar and inflation hedging (speculation). To what degree, I do not know. I do know that oil has also increased in euros, albeit to a lesser degree (~4.5x increase in EUR since 02 lows & ~7x for USD), so the medium of exchange isn’t the only factor.

In addition the “parabolic” move may be the illusion of linear graphs vs. logarithmic & breaking the psychological $100 mark. The increase in the last 6 months (100 to 140) in “only” a 40% increase. The price of oil was ~$20 in 2002, and doubled TWICE to $80 last year, and I don’t remember fx or speculators being blamed, nor the parabolic arguments proffered until recently. On the other hand the dollar has been falling since then, and seems to really have accelerated starting in mid 2007 (imagine that…), so your argument of medium of exchange is definitely a factor that should be included in the scope of the debate.

I would posit that the environmentalists are also to blame for our currency crisis. Anyone interested in the “facts” knows that these notorious limosuine liberals are in bed with the Federal Reserve. Environmentalists are to Bernanke, as peanut butter is to jelly…

I’ve included a graph of oil in USD and Euros.

[img_assist|nid=8129|title= Oil in USD & EUR|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=446|height=330]

Source: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/06/oil_prices_in_o.html

[cooperthedog]

Josh,

While I believe the trend in increasing oil prices is fundamental (a finite & static/declining supply and increased demand), I can’t argue that part of the current run up isn’t attributed to the weak dollar and inflation hedging (speculation). To what degree, I do not know. I do know that oil has also increased in euros, albeit to a lesser degree (~4.5x increase in EUR since 02 lows & ~7x for USD), so the medium of exchange isn’t the only factor.

In addition the “parabolic” move may be the illusion of linear graphs vs. logarithmic & breaking the psychological $100 mark. The increase in the last 6 months (100 to 140) in “only” a 40% increase. The price of oil was ~$20 in 2002, and doubled TWICE to $80 last year, and I don’t remember fx or speculators being blamed, nor the parabolic arguments proffered until recently. On the other hand the dollar has been falling since then, and seems to really have accelerated starting in mid 2007 (imagine that…), so your argument of medium of exchange is definitely a factor that should be included in the scope of the debate.

I would posit that the environmentalists are also to blame for our currency crisis. Anyone interested in the “facts” knows that these notorious limosuine liberals are in bed with the Federal Reserve. Environmentalists are to Bernanke, as peanut butter is to jelly…

I’ve included a graph of oil in USD and Euros.

[img_assist|nid=8129|title= Oil in USD & EUR|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=446|height=330]

Source: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/06/oil_prices_in_o.html

[cooperthedog]

Josh,

While I believe the trend in increasing oil prices is fundamental (a finite & static/declining supply and increased demand), I can’t argue that part of the current run up isn’t attributed to the weak dollar and inflation hedging (speculation). To what degree, I do not know. I do know that oil has also increased in euros, albeit to a lesser degree (~4.5x increase in EUR since 02 lows & ~7x for USD), so the medium of exchange isn’t the only factor.

In addition the “parabolic” move may be the illusion of linear graphs vs. logarithmic & breaking the psychological $100 mark. The increase in the last 6 months (100 to 140) in “only” a 40% increase. The price of oil was ~$20 in 2002, and doubled TWICE to $80 last year, and I don’t remember fx or speculators being blamed, nor the parabolic arguments proffered until recently. On the other hand the dollar has been falling since then, and seems to really have accelerated starting in mid 2007 (imagine that…), so your argument of medium of exchange is definitely a factor that should be included in the scope of the debate.

I would posit that the environmentalists are also to blame for our currency crisis. Anyone interested in the “facts” knows that these notorious limosuine liberals are in bed with the Federal Reserve. Environmentalists are to Bernanke, as peanut butter is to jelly…

I’ve included a graph of oil in USD and Euros.

[img_assist|nid=8129|title= Oil in USD & EUR|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=446|height=330]

Source: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/06/oil_prices_in_o.html

[cooperthedog]

Allan – ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025…

That is 1/2 of 1% of the price of a barrel oil. Assuming that roughly the same percentage reduction would apply to gasoline, you are looking at saving 2 cents per gallon if ANWR is drilled (you will, of course, have to wait 10-15 years for this price “relief”). See below for details and src.

jficquette – You’ve provided some links to what appears to be oil industry sponsored propoganda (anwr.org), as well as a conspiracy theory of big oil lying about reserves to boost profits (which ironically contradicts your original premise of environmentalists conspiring to raise gas prices). In the future, when making a specious argument, cross reference your “talking points” a little better.

I will counter this with the official Energy Information Administration data (the EIA is part of the DOE, and provides the official energy statistics).

Estimates of oil reserves

In May 2008 the Energy Information Administration released the following report:

“The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.” [29]),

The report also states:

“Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.” [30])

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025. The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030.[31]

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

[cooperthedog]

Allan – ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025…

That is 1/2 of 1% of the price of a barrel oil. Assuming that roughly the same percentage reduction would apply to gasoline, you are looking at saving 2 cents per gallon if ANWR is drilled (you will, of course, have to wait 10-15 years for this price “relief”). See below for details and src.

jficquette – You’ve provided some links to what appears to be oil industry sponsored propoganda (anwr.org), as well as a conspiracy theory of big oil lying about reserves to boost profits (which ironically contradicts your original premise of environmentalists conspiring to raise gas prices). In the future, when making a specious argument, cross reference your “talking points” a little better.

I will counter this with the official Energy Information Administration data (the EIA is part of the DOE, and provides the official energy statistics).

Estimates of oil reserves

In May 2008 the Energy Information Administration released the following report:

“The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.” [29]),

The report also states:

“Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.” [30])

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025. The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030.[31]

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

[cooperthedog]

Allan – ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025…

That is 1/2 of 1% of the price of a barrel oil. Assuming that roughly the same percentage reduction would apply to gasoline, you are looking at saving 2 cents per gallon if ANWR is drilled (you will, of course, have to wait 10-15 years for this price “relief”). See below for details and src.

jficquette – You’ve provided some links to what appears to be oil industry sponsored propoganda (anwr.org), as well as a conspiracy theory of big oil lying about reserves to boost profits (which ironically contradicts your original premise of environmentalists conspiring to raise gas prices). In the future, when making a specious argument, cross reference your “talking points” a little better.

I will counter this with the official Energy Information Administration data (the EIA is part of the DOE, and provides the official energy statistics).

Estimates of oil reserves

In May 2008 the Energy Information Administration released the following report:

“The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.” [29]),

The report also states:

“Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.” [30])

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025. The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030.[31]

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

[cooperthedog]

Allan – ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025…

That is 1/2 of 1% of the price of a barrel oil. Assuming that roughly the same percentage reduction would apply to gasoline, you are looking at saving 2 cents per gallon if ANWR is drilled (you will, of course, have to wait 10-15 years for this price “relief”). See below for details and src.

jficquette – You’ve provided some links to what appears to be oil industry sponsored propoganda (anwr.org), as well as a conspiracy theory of big oil lying about reserves to boost profits (which ironically contradicts your original premise of environmentalists conspiring to raise gas prices). In the future, when making a specious argument, cross reference your “talking points” a little better.

I will counter this with the official Energy Information Administration data (the EIA is part of the DOE, and provides the official energy statistics).

Estimates of oil reserves

In May 2008 the Energy Information Administration released the following report:

“The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.” [29]),

The report also states:

“Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.” [30])

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025. The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030.[31]

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

[cooperthedog]

Allan – ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025…

That is 1/2 of 1% of the price of a barrel oil. Assuming that roughly the same percentage reduction would apply to gasoline, you are looking at saving 2 cents per gallon if ANWR is drilled (you will, of course, have to wait 10-15 years for this price “relief”). See below for details and src.

jficquette – You’ve provided some links to what appears to be oil industry sponsored propoganda (anwr.org), as well as a conspiracy theory of big oil lying about reserves to boost profits (which ironically contradicts your original premise of environmentalists conspiring to raise gas prices). In the future, when making a specious argument, cross reference your “talking points” a little better.

I will counter this with the official Energy Information Administration data (the EIA is part of the DOE, and provides the official energy statistics).

Estimates of oil reserves

In May 2008 the Energy Information Administration released the following report:

“The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.” [29]),

The report also states:

“Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.” [30])

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025. The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030.[31]

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

[Author]

Posts