I don't think ANWR is the answer to all our prayers…… here are some various tidbits from all over the web.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that if the green light is given it would take 7 to 12 years to sell leases, do permitting, environmental reviews, etc. and that initial production could start in 2010 at the earliest. Assuming an optimistic scenario in which the mean expected technically recoverable oil in the entire coastal plain (not just the 1002 area) - 10.3 billion barrels - could be completely recovered (i.e. ignoring market pricing) the EIA estimates production of 600 million barrels a year. In comparison, US daily consumption is 18.5 million barrels a day, or 6,752 million barrels a year. Thus in this scenario ANWR, once on tap, would provide less than 9% of US annual usage (given that usage is trending upward..). Assuming a less positive scenario, at a market price of $24/barrel the mean estimated commercially recoverable oil is 5.2 billion barrels, and since the oil is in multiple plays rather than one large play the costs of exploiting the oil will be higher.
Source:
http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm *
Now, here are the findings from the USGS study:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
Beware, it’s a lot of reading.
Ultimately, as much as I would love to believe that drilling in ANWR would lower the price of oil/diesel/gas, it won't (not appreciably). If gas is $3.50 a gallon and it goes down $.05, that's only something like 1.3%.
And, let's assume for a minute that it dramatically lowers gas prices. Let's say (for the sake of discussion, because in reality there's no way it would happen) that drilling in ANWR decreases gas prices 20%.
What do we do when we have exhausted all the economically feasible oil in ANWR?
It's time to look past oil, to a future of renewable energy sources. Things like solar, hydro, etc. Yes, a lot of research is required. The return (power generated) by things like windmills and solar panels needs to increase multifold. That will only come with time and $ (which will happen with the massive increases in the price of oil).
And I don't think we can exclusively blame the treehuggers for the lack of refineries being built. As another poster above said it so well, why would they build refineries? That would be self defeating. A larger supply would theoretically lower the price.
There have been a few media reports over the last few years about refineries that were profitable being shut down. A whistleblower who worked at one of these was fired and then sued by the company, after he came out and admitted it was one of the most profitable refineries in the company.
Another revelation was a leaked internal document in which an oil industry exec basically said "we have to limit the amount of refining capacity if we ever hope to get good prices for gas".
This stuff got some minor play in the media, but it didn't go far, for obvious reasons. The media takes in millions upon millions of advertising dollars from the oil industry and they might just be biting the hand that feeds them if they are too critical.
Here are a couple of fun articles about profitable refineries being closed:
http://questionsquestions.net/docs04/refinery.html
http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/?id=958&IssueNum=52
Let's also not forget speculation on the cost of a barrel of oil and the weak dollar.
*That article is 6 years old, the statistics are good as well as the charts but the prices are out of whack. They mention $30 barrels of oil……gee, wish my income had risen 300% in 6 years.
