Dear Kay Bailey – get OVER your ANWR shibboleth and fetish

Every week, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison sends our newspaper group her weekly column. And, just about every week for the past two months, I can guarantee I will find a call to opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling in there somewhere.

Here’s this week’s nuttery:

On U.S. soil and off our coasts, we have significantly more oil than Venezuela’s 80 billion barrel reserve, and our available natural gas reserves exceed that of Iraq, China, Yemen, Oman, Nigeria, and Venezuela combined.

Wait, we went to war with Iraq for oil, Kay. Not natural gas. Nice, smooth bait-and-switch there. You caught me for just a second.

Last week, my Senate colleagues and I unveiled sweeping legislation to begin to tap some of these resources to increase domestic fuel production and lessen our reliance on other countries. The American Energy Production Act of 2008 would leverage both traditional and renewable sources of energy that could add enough domestic production supply to satisfy U.S. energy demand for five years without foreign imports.

You forgot the word “Republican” between “Senate” and “colleagues,” Kay.

And, what’s this “leverage” mean? Subsidies to Big Oil to do HUGELY destructive exploration of oil shale in the Western Slope of the Rockies?

The legislation would allow coastal states to petition the U.S. Department of Interior to lift drilling moratoria for offshore oil and gas leasing off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. It would also grant U.S. oil companies access to the 10 billion barrels of available oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain (ANWR).

Coastal states already have a lot of control over offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and Florida has said no. California has said no to Pacific coastal drilling ever since the 1971 Santa Barbara oil spill. What lies there.

But, we’re to ANWR. And Kay is inflating numbers. From Wikipedia:

A 1998 U.S. Geological Survey report did little to end the controversy (over estimated oil reserves). It estimated that there was significant oil in ANWR and that most of the oil would be found in the western part of the "1002 Area". This differed from the 1987 USGS report which estimated that less oil would be found there and that it would be in the southern and eastern parts.

Beyond that reserves existed, however, little was agreed upon by both sides of the debate. Supporters of the drilling claimed there were as many as 16 billion barrels of oil to be recovered, but this number was at the extreme high side of the report and represented only a 5 percent probability of technically recoverable oil across the entire assessment area, which included land outside ANWR. Opponents of drilling pointed out that the USGS report actually estimated 7.668 billion barrels of oil to be recovered. …

A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95 percent probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5 percent probability) barrels of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels In addition, in the entire assessment area, which covers not only land under Federal jurisdiction, but also Native lands and adjacent State waters within three miles, technically recoverable oil is estimated to be at least 5.7 billion (95 percent) and as much as 16.0 billion (5 percent) barrels, with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels Economically recoverable oil within the Federal lands assuming a market price of $40/barrel (constant 1996 dollars - the highest price included in the USGS study) is estimated to be between 3.4 billion (95 percent) and 10.4 billion (5 percent) barrels, with a mean value of 6.8 billion barrels, (current market prices are over $120 and using inflation rate between 1996 to 2007 it comes out to $89 dollars in 1996)

The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels daily. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5 percent of the U.S. daily consumption — most is imported from Canada (19 percent), Mexico (15 percent), Saudi Arabia (11.5 percent), Nigeria (10.5 percent) and Venezuela (10.percent) — the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels, would last approximately 4,300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11,800 days, or 32 years. Total oil independence at 20 million barrels per day (using the before mentioned 10.5 billion barrel mean) would only supply the United States for 525 days (or less than a year and a half, but this complete supporting is impossible).

Ignoring the question about how underground geology, etc. might constrain actual per-day pumping levels, we now have some factual numbers to slap Kay Bailey in her cheerleader face with.

Further, the bill would allow access to alternative sources, such as the over one trillion barrels of shale oil in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. These sources, which presently sit unused, are equal to three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.

What disingeniousness. No, they don’t “sit unused.” They, the shales, will be more expensive to get at, with less energy return per energy expended, and with more environmental destructiveness, than the oil sands of Alberta.

And, let’s get a little Wikipedia on oil shale:

According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, the cost of producing a barrel of oil at a surface retorting complex in the United States (comprising a mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation), would be between US$70–95 ($440–600/m3, adjusted to 2005 values).

These numbers are certainly on the low side.

Oil sands production cost in Albert is up to $65/bbl right now. Oil shale here in the U.S., in the Rockies, surely would cost $100/bbl to produce right now. Shell Oil claims it can do shale oil for $30/bbl, but it’s full of shit.

And, beyond general environmental destructiveness, we haven’t mentioned the massive amounts of water that shale oil mining requires .