Oily Numbers

To the editors:

I write to correct some misconceptions in James M. McElligott’s “A Case for Opening ANWR” (Opinion, April 17). He states that according to the latest estimates—and they are estimates—there are 7.7 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in ANWR. He goes on to note that this would be the equivalent of “our entire domestic oil use for well over a year.”

However, McElligott fails to draw a distinction between technically recoverable oil (the amount of oil that is contained within the ANWR field) and economically recoverable oil (the amount that can actually be obtained, given recovery costs and oil prices).  When this distinction is taken into account, the amount of oil we can expect to recover in exchange for opening ANWR is significantly less than McElligott tells us.

In fact, opening ANWR will not significantly help our energy concerns, for our crisis is one of demand, not supply.  If we truly wanted to lower oil prices and reduce foreign dependence, a better strategy would be to increase conservation efforts; improving the fuel efficiency of our gas-guzzling SUVs would be a good start.

Adam J. Wienner ’04

April 18, 2001

Inconsistent Ad Policy

To the editors: