Conscious Choice: The Sweet Smell of Clean Air

November 2005 | Choice Feedback

The Sweet Smell of Clean Air

Thank you for the good article (Smells Can Make You Sick in the Oct. 2005 issue.) I’m on disability because of sickening smells because I have developed chronic general anxieties … and consulted psychologist and psychiatrists who think I have developed imaginative brain and behavioral abnormalities. I will bring photocopies of your article to my family doctor and specialists. Please write more on this. People are misinformed!

— Name withheld by request

Arctic Drilling

YOU CERTAINLY know how to write a cute article, (Sept. Editor’s Notes: Final Days to Save Arctic Refuge) but I think that perhaps it is you who is acting irresponsibly based upon your ideas. It seems that you clearly know what is not to be done, but fall short when it comes to suggesting what is to be done. I think that we both can agree that our country is dangerously dependent upon imported oil from unstable parts of the world. The difference in our opinions, I am sure, is what can be done about it.

We can continue to refuse to develop our own sources of energy and thus be forced to send our young men and women in the armed forces to the Middle East to assure that we can continue to import oil.

Or we can develop our domestic sites including the Arctic reserve (which will provide at least 1,000,000 barrels per day of oil, almost as much as we now get from our Gulf of Mexico wells — the “six month supply” statement is specious at best) and institute a massive federal program to develop alternative sources of energy for our transportation systems to ultimately replace the need for oil. We can develop such systems (hydrogen-based fuel cells, high capacity batteries, etc.) and implement them for use in cars and trucks and obviate the need for gasoline.

But surprise, any such system needs massive inputs of energy to either generate hydrogen or recharge batteries and guess where this energy will come from. Although some will be generated from solar-based and hydroelectric systems, more than 80 to 90 percent will come from some combination of nuclear-electric and fossil power plants. There simply is no other source of energy available of sufficient capacity for this purpose. But wait, you may say — what about ethanol? I’m sad to say that it takes more energy to produce the ethanol than the energy that can be obtained from it — and most of the energy input comes from oil! Although I generally support President Bush, I am no fan of his and oppose many of his positions. But this energy issue has been a failure of all presidents for the past 30 years and frankly I see little hope that any of the potential future presidents will have the guts to really address this critical national security issue. I hope that I am wrong.

— Ralph Singer, Naperville, Ill.

Editor’s Note: We contacted Sen. Dick Durbin’s office for details on how he reached the calculation of the six-month supply of oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain. What follows is an edited version of information from his office:

This estimate was originally calculated in 2003 using estimated crude oil prices. Estimates of a region’s petroleum production potential are typically based on oil prices anticipated during the period of production. It is generally agreed that it would take about 10 years to bring still-undiscovered oil in the Arctic Refuge online. Therefore, in the spring of 2003, forecast prices for 2015 (12 years in the future) was the basis for estimating the Arctic Refuge production potential. At that time, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) oil-price estimate for 2015 was $25.35 in 2003 dollars (based on a report from the U.S. Energy Information Agency, Annual Energy Outlook 2003, adjusted using the gross domestic product deflator through 2008 from the 2004 U.S. Government Budget).

At that price, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated the Arctic Refuge 1002 area would yield approximately 4.7 billion barrels of oil. HOPE also estimated petroleum consumption in 2015 at 25.23 million barrels per day. At that rate of consumption, the U.S. would take six months and four days to consume 4.7 billion barrels of oil.

Here’s how the formula was updated to reflect today’s prices and economic conditions.

In the spring of 2003, oil prices were generally declining, from over $30 per barrel at the start of the year to approximately $25 per barrel by mid-year. (At that time the Alaska Department of Revenue (ADOR) was forecasting a significantly lower real long-term oil price of $17.92 in 2015. Under that scenario, the Arctic Refuge 1002 area would yield less than 2 billion barrels of oil.)

However, since that time, steadily rising oil prices have ushered in a new forecast regime based on higher oil prices. For example, for planning purposes BP is using a long-term forecast price of $40 per barrel (according to an Oct. 2005 interview on National Public Television with Lord John Browne, BP’s CEO).

At that price, USGS now estimates that the 1002 area of the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain would produce slightly less than 7 million barrels.

Based on EIA’s estimate that the U.S. will consume approximately 25 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2020, the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain would produce, over its life, the equivalent of 9.2 months of domestic consumption. This was calculated as follows: Estimated domestic consumption per year: 25 million bpd x 365.25 = 9.13 billion barrels; Arctic Refuge 1002 area’s total production as percent of annual consumption: 7.0/9.13 = 76.6 percent; 76.6 percent of 12 months = 9.19 months.

It is important to recognize two aspects of these estimates. The first is their uncertainty. As USGS has observed, in view of the geological unknowns and the volatility of oil prices, these estimates represent possible outcomes rather than reliable predictions.

The second is that even the most optimistic economic estimates of Arctic Refuge production constitute only a small fraction of the hundreds of billions of barrels the U.S. must import to fill the gap between potential domestic supplies and projected consumption; that is why the problems associated with the current tight energy market merely underscore the importance of an aggressive and disciplined approach to conservation and the development of alternative energy sources.

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: