Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: quehubo who wrote (103203)	6/18/2008 7:25:45 PM
From: Archie Meeties	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206183

"Where would we be today if ANWR was opened 10 years ago?" Today would have been delayed...by about 16-24 months. And we'd be about 3-4% less dependent on foreign oil, best case scenario. That's just above a negligible amount, and it's clearly not a solution. tonto.eia.doe.gov

To: quehubo who wrote (103203)	6/18/2008 11:56:25 PM
From: Webster Groves	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206183

<Where would we be today if ANWR was opened 10 years ago?> If you believe this website, ANWR could provide 600 million barrels of oil per year: sibelle.info If you believe this website, Prudhoe Bay already supplies 600 millions barrels per year (less than half its initial production rate of 1977): columbia.edu Currently the US consumes 7500 million barrels of oil per year: eia.doe.gov So at best ANWR, like Prudhoe, could provide 8% of current US consumption but after 10 years of development. However, it is best considered as a replacement for Prudhoe, and not an enhancement. Fortunately the oil was not developed and wasted earlier, and still remains as our last major domestic source of oil, at least until Iraq gets statehood. If peak oil is real, ANWR is our last hope, and only to cover our retreat as a world power. If peak oil is not real, ANWR is not needed. wg