Here are the numbers. America used (in 2007) 142 billion gallons of gasoline a year. Estimates for savings for tire pressure and tune ups are 5 million gallons a day and 7 million gallons a day respectively. The untapped resources in off shore sources are 86 billion barrels or about 2 trillion gallons of gasoline. Let's do some math.
If you only use the fuel from the untapped sources and include 12 million gallons a day saved by requiring properly inflated tires and tune-ups, it would take 14.3 years to consume the fuel in the untapped sources. If you set aside any tire inflation and tune up assistance, it would take 13.9 years to consume the fuel in the untapped sources. In other words, if we allow off shore drilling, we could extend our available fuel reserves for 14 years. The savings in fuel from tire inflation and tune ups would make a 5-month difference. On the other hand, not drilling would make a 14-year difference.
Please note, in a final observation, that no amount of tire pressure and tune up modifications will affect the 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas estimated to be available in off shore sources.
5 comments:
FYI, your numbers are slightly off.
Of the 86 billion gallons which may be in offshore sights (it is a guess without further exploration, only 18 billion are subject to the prohibition on offshore drilling.
Further, a barrel of oil makes 19.6 gallons of gasoline.
Using the updated figures, we have 18 billion barrels of oil, which would make 352.8 billion gallons of gasoline. If we continue to use 142 billion gallons of gas per year, the most we could get was an additional 2.5 years. (2.48 years without air/tune-up, 2.56 years with air/tune-up)
And, it is estimated, due to permits, exploration, building and production, we would not even see those 2.5 years until 10 -12 years from now.
Offshore drilling is a band-aid, coughed up to appease the masses that the government is doing “something” about the high prices at the pump, but upon inspection, it barely qualifies calling it a band-aid. More like a thread in a gaping wound.
Keeping everything stuffed with hot air is the Democrats' solution to every problem.....
The 18 billion you're holding to (I mean, it strikes me as odd the fact that Boston.com appears to be the only source for this when every other source I've seen -- for and against -- doesn't use that number), then, would not be a good thing to have? And what would the government be doing here? So far they're blocking access, but allowing access doesn't qualify as "doing something about it." Finally -- and this is not about you but about all the same arguments I've seen from all who are opposed to off shore drilling -- telling us "It won't help" doesn't answer what will. I'm thinking "More supplies can't hurt" and all I can get from the protests is "There is no hope!!!" Since you're opposed to obtaining extra oil, what would your answer to the problem be?
Stan,
Well, here is an embarrassing confession. I had never bothered to study offshore drilling until I read your post. I was not very informed (and quite ambivalent, frankly) about either position. Glad I had an opportunity to review it.
I don’t have a clue as to whether Boston Globe is correct as to the 18 billion. Part of the reason I provided the link, so you know where I got it from. I googlewacked your “86 Billion” to see what the sources say, and this article came up. What I did find was general agreement that this is not a situation where drillers are just waiting to hear the word “Go!” and in about 2 months we will be putting gas in our cars from this offshore drilling. Most articles I read were saying we wouldn’t see any until 2030! (And many said the most we would see was a .04 reduction in price.)
Stan: Since you're opposed to obtaining extra oil, what would your answer to the problem be?
*shrug* Actually I am not against obtaining extra oil. After researching it, I find myself remaining ambivalent on the subject. (It does not help I am from Michigan where “offshore drilling” doesn’t really effect me, does it?)
What I did find interesting was how little we are talking about. What I am opposed to are politicians offering solutions the public wants to hear, when a little research shows this is most certainly NOT any solution whatsoever to the rising gas prices we see at the pump. Just like the idea of taxing large oil companies. At first people love it (“Hit ‘em back!’) but in reality, those taxes are not going to lower the price at the pump, and in the end we—the consumer—will not gain at all.
So people hear, “What? You’re against offshore drilling?” when, in fact, we are talking a miniscule amount of oil when looked at in the big picture. It is not going to make a bit of difference in helping the price. It will only provide another source of revenue (for a short period) to oil companies.
It just sounds good for politicians to say. [Government may not do anything about offshore drilling, but it is certainly blocking others from doing it. Removing the block sounds like doing something.] It is the equivalent of knocking two sticks together to keep away the bears. Sure looks like you are doing something, and we don’t see any bears, do we?
The answer to the problem, obviously, is to find a replacement for a depleting resource. Preferably something renewable, like solar or wind. At the moment, there is nothing that will completely replace oil. So we should start with reducing our need for it. (You may laugh at air in tires or tune-ups, but small measures do add up.) Part of the reason gas prices are down is that people, due to consciousness of the problem, have started to limit their use, thus limiting demand.
Start looking at alternatives in areas which can supplement the need of oil. I agree with McCain’s ideas of nuclear power (but this is replacing one non-renewable source with another) to forestall the oil situation. Cars which are partially powered by water or solar. (Electric cars may only push the need for oil from the engines in the car to the generators at the station.)
Start conserving energy. We leave our computers plugged in, with monitors on, and equipment and clocks and this and that—all draining electricity, which requires more oil. Start re-using plastics. Start recycling.
Start going green.
To be honest, I am not very good at recycling. So I am in no position to point fingers at anybody. But this is the initial place to start.
I'm in full agreement on several points. (I don't suppose that there's anything you wrote there with which I disagree.) I don't know what foolish people would think, "You know, if we drill for oil our prices will drop." I've never heard anyone suggest that we could get to this oil in less than 10 years. (Of course, the longer the government puts it off, the longer that 10 years will take.) Adding to the oil supply won't change the amount I pay for gas tomorrow. Lots of strange ideas out there.
Some of those strange ideas are that 90% of the country is driving around on tires under-inflated by 30%. Really? 30%? Who drives on flat tires like that? And even if it were true, filling all the tires won't lower the price of my gasoline either.
I'm not opposed to doing those things. Actually, I already do. I drive slower, keep my car tuned, check my tires ... all that good stuff. I conserve electricity, water, and all that. Funny thing ... it doesn't seem to have helped the environment any. (Humor, just humor.)
I think we should get as much oil as we can. That won't help us tomorrow, but it will stave off the end. I think we should invest in new nuclear power plants. It won't be the answer, but it will help. We should research electric cars. Most people don't know it, but it's currently impossible to replace a standard car with an electric car because of battery technology. We're "right around the corner" they tell me ... but that's been the case for years. I'd love an electric car that was charged by nuclear power or wind power or solar power. In other words, I like those solutions. I was not saying, "Don't check your tires." I was saying, "Don't shut the door on all possibilities."
Post a Comment