Good News! Drilling ANWR would save $0.02 per gallon, 10 years from now!

Just when you thought there would never be any good news about the economy, oil, or anything along comes this. McClatchey reports that a new report commissioned by Ted (“the internet is a series of tubes“) Stevens (R, Alaska) finds that drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska would, in ten years, bring the price of a barrel of oil down by $0.75. Wow. At today’s prices ($135 per barrel and $4 per gallon) that gives us a 2-cent reduction in prices at the pump. In ten years. Seems well worth it to me (in opposite-world; for fans of Superman, that’s Bizarro World [thanks Bob!]).

5 comments

  • You guys don’t get it. We need to let them drill so they would see that it does not stop the increase in oil prices. Then we can push them to agree that we need to do much more than drilling. We can’t get them do anything now.

    Ekonomix
    http://turkeconomy.blogspot.com/

  • I’m assuming that’s if we require that the oil stay in the U.S.. When the last Alaskan pipeline became productive, big oil complained that they were running out of places to store it and that the excess was “artificially” lowering prices. They lobbied to be able to put it on the market.

    And got it.

    Why would we think it would be any different when we dare turn our backs on these people again?

  • @Ekonomix:
    I see the point you’re making, but how long would we have to wait for ‘them’ to be convinced, when the people pushing for this aren’t interested in the price of oil, just in winning elections? By the time it all becomes clear, they’ll have moved on to another hot-button distraction anyway.

    @The Political Stray:
    The effect on price does not depend on the oil staying in the US. It’s purely a matter of the limited impact on total global supply of oil at the time that it would finally kick in. An interesting argument that is not widely made is that the benefits of drilling outweigh the costs because of the revenues it would create here in the US (as opposed to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or Iraq). I’m skeptical of how the costs are actually calculated, though.

    About big oil claiming that storing oil (withholding it from the market) was artificially lowering prices doesn’t pass the sniff test (lowering prices by reducing supply?). Are you sure that was the argument?

  • Mr. Masterson,

    Yes, I’m sure. To quote a familiar Senator…
    “It’s seared into my memory…”

    Here’s the CRS Report for Congress on the issue of oil exportation.

    http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/06jun/RS22142.pdf

    Allow me to point out that very little of what the big oil companies publish as “fact” passes the sniff test. What rankles me is that several U.S. Senators appear to be working for them – not us.

  • For you to puzzle over:

    Did’ja know that several attempts to pass laws to protect American citizens from predatory lenders were made – only to be voted down?
    Here’s your question: How did your reps vote?

    Find out. Go to the Library of Congress and do a search on “predatory lending”.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html

    It’s ten o’clock. Do you know what your Senator is doing?