The article in the Christian Science Monitor was very helpful in that it provided a sort of "probability analysis" of the amount of recoverable oil, from both a technical and an economic point of view. However, it failed mention that it WILL TAKE TEN YEARS TO GET ANY OF IT INTO USE, a critical issue which gains even greater significance when national security is considered. Jim Fleming P.S. About 45 people heard U of I Prof. David Osterberg give an excellent talk on global warming last night in Fairfield. Phil Scott, Leopold Group Political Chair then led a lively discussion on taking action. More signatures were gathered for the petition letter to Grassley, urging him oppose Arctic drilling and to support a more responsible energy policy. Have any of the other groups sent the letter? Let me know if you need another copy of it. JF --- Jane Clark <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Today, Senator Murkowski threatened repeatedly on > the Senate floor that he > would attach Arctic drilling provisions to every > bill that comes up for > debate on the Senate floor. Earlier this fall, > Murkowski himself took to > the Senate floor to deny that he was even > contemplating offering such > amendments, but he is definitely intent on > exploiting recent events (and > bills such as the economic stimulus package and the > farm bill) to advance > his own partisan political agenda. > > We need to contact our Senators about these > persistent threats. > Jane Clark > > > Published on Monday, November 26, 2001 in the > Christian Science Monitor > > Going Backwards: New Push to Pump Oil from Alaska > Refuge > > by Brad Knickerbocker > > An important side conflict in the war on terrorism > is the political battle > over whether or not to drill for more oil in the > United States. The Bush > administration and its friends in Congress are using > the recent terrorist > attacks and war in Afghanistan to push for more > domestic oil drilling - > especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge > (ANWR) in Alaska and other > public land. > > Supporters say drilling there is necessary to lessen > reliance on foreign > imports, which are projected to increase by 57 > percent over the next 20 > years. > > Opponents say national wildlife refuges and other > protected areas never were > intended to include oil wells and all the disruptive > development and > pollution they bring. The Senate could see a > filibuster on the issue, which > is attached to the economic-stimulus package. > > Some lawmakers and energy analysts say the lesson of > the past 10 weeks is > that the United States needs to become more energy > efficient rather than > scramble for more oil. > > Citing EPA figures, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) says, "In > seven years, we could > save the same amount of oil available in the Arctic > Refuge by requiring > light trucks and SUVs to meet the same efficiency > standards as regular > cars." > > But Vice President Dick Cheney, who wrote the > administration's > production-dominated energy plan earlier this year, > told the US Chamber of > Commerce recently that for national-security reasons > it would be "foolish in > the extreme" not to increase domestic oil sources. > > For years, environmentalists have wrangled with > oil-industry supporters over > the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic > refuge, which lies just > east of the North Slope drilling facilities that > pump oil south to Valdez > through the 800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline. > > "The ANWR is simply not just a place to drill oil, > it is the largest > potential domestic source of oil," Interior > Secretary Gale Norton told an > oil producers' association in Houston recently. > "This is a matter necessary > for security and also to enhance economic recovery." > > As she frequently does, Ms. Norton also noted that > the US imports 700,000 > barrels of oil a day from Iraq. "It's time to start > investing that money in > our own backyard and not in the back pocket of > Saddam Hussein," she said. > > Republicans and a few Democrats on Capitol Hill are > emphasizing the same > point. Sen. Frank Murkowski (R) of Alaska calls ANWR > "our nation's best hope > for new domestic exploration," and he says, "it can > replace the oil we buy > from Saudi Arabia for the next 30 years." > > But critics assert that these kinds of projections > are based on questionable > estimates of the amount of oil beneath ANWR's icy > tundra. Senator Murkowski > cites the more optimistic oil production estimates > of 16 billion barrels of > oil. > > According to the US Geological Survey's most recent > analysis, there is only > a 5 percent chance that that much oil could be > recovered. > > The "mean value" of recoverable oil is 10.4 billion > barrels, reports the > USGS. There is a 95 percent chance that it could be > far less than the figure > Murkowski cites, the USGS says, or as little as 5.7 > billion barrels. That > number could fall further if state and native lands > are not included. > > All those numbers refer to "technically recoverable" > oil. A more relevant > figure may be "economically recoverable" oil - > meaning oil that would be > worth the cost of extracting it from the ground. > This means that the fight > over ANWR - one of the most important environmental > issues today - is > complicated by the ever-changing price of oil. > > As the price drops - as it's been doing lately - so > too does the amount of > economically-recoverable oil. Using a 12 percent > return on investment, the > USGS estimates that at a market price of $24 per > barrel there is a "mean > value" of 5.2 billion barrels available. > > But at last week's price of $15.35 per barrel, the > Wilderness Society, an > environmental organization in Washington, estimates > only about 1 billion > barrels would be economically recoverable from > beneath the refuge. > > According to a USGS fact sheet, no oil could be > profitably recovered from > ANWR at prices less than $13 per barrel. > > The economic debate over ANWR centers on jobs as > well as barrels of oil. > > A 1990 study commissioned by the American Petroleum > Institute projected > 750,000 new jobs created as a result of oil > production in ANWR. > > But a September study by the Center for Economic and > Policy Research in > Washington cites updated world oil supplies, the > likely response to falling > oil prices by producing nations, and the sensitivity > of employment to oil > prices, to assert that just 46,300 jobs would > result. > > Oil industry supporters insist that drilling can be > compatible with > preserving the environment. > > But earlier this year, the US Fish and Wildlife > Service, which manages the > national wildlife refuge system, reported that > refuges in Alaska "are not > impervious to contaminant threats [caused by oil > development], and many of > them have significant and regrettable contaminant > histories." > > Copyright © 2001 The Christian Science Monitor. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > - - - - - - > To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message > to: > [log in to unmask] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT to [log in to unmask]