News-Miner Editorial
Not enough oil?
Calls for more drilling should include ANWR
Published Friday, June 20, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!It was good to hear President Bush call for opening the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration as he urged Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore oil drilling Wednesday.
That sliver of ANWR alone, which was set aside for possible future development at the time the refuge was created, has been estimated to hold six billion to 16 billion barrels (give or take a few billion) of oil.
Six to 16, and — as Alaskans know — the more oil companies explore, the more they tend to find. Opening all of the coastal areas along the Lower 48 states is said to make available another 18 billion to 20 billion barrels.
Both should be on the table, but in terms of minimal national footprint and environmental risk for greatest potential return, the so-called “1002 Area” of ANWR makes the most sense. It was set aside in 1980 for a reason, and that reason should be crystal clear to people now.
This country needs that oil and gas. We have been saying it for years. It should be a piece of an overall energy policy that includes development of alternate energies. Work on both ends, and you gain more independence from foreign market influences.
This isn’t just about gas for our cars or heat for our homes. Petroleum products are everywhere we look, from the plastic in the keyboard being tapped to write this editorial to the composite lenses in the glasses most of us old fogies use to read the newspaper to the garbage bag in which it rides to the landfill.
Our economy is demonstrating through our checkbooks just how far the influence of the oil field spreads. This country needed to start developing ANWR back in 1995, but President Bill Clinton vetoed that opportunity.
We have a resourceful and resource-full country that built an 800-mile pipeline to tap Alaska’s North Slope. But, seduced by cheap foreign oil, we allowed the flow through that line to drop and drop while shutting off access to the next-greatest potential development area and becoming more and more beholden to OPEC.
For a country that finds itself in growing economic peril for its dependence on foreign suppliers, where is the logic in all this?
Environmentalists claim there is not enough oil, that tapping our coasts and ANWR is a drop in a bottomless bucket that will make little if any difference at the pump many years from now. The luxury of this idealism of remaining prosperous and “pristine” was embraced by our president in 1995, and the people who can least afford it are suffering for that decision now.
There was a time people in this country rationed (not by choice) and recycled millions of tires in rubber drives because every little bit of homegrown resource made a difference. The situation with oil is no different today. The more oil this country produces, the better, and ANWR represents a plentiful supply.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
You all want to open ANWR because without oil, the economy of Alaska goes under. Fair enough, a very good reason. I don't agree with it, but it makes a whole lot of sense. Those of you who remember the days of living like the Third World pre-1973 don't want to go back. I understand.
But anyone who knows anything about the global oil industry knows your argument here is bogus. A change in supply isn't at issue here, and it is cynical of you, Bush, or anyone else to suggest that $4/gallon is due to low supplies, the refusal of the Saudis to pump more, etc. These are fear tactics that may play well in certain circles -- indeed, they may even succeed in getting ANWR opened some day as you all wish. But that will change nothing in terms of the nature of how speculation has put oil prices through the roof. It will simply line the pockets of big oil in Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia, and Saudi Arabia (are these friends of yours, Mr. Conservative Alaskan taxpayer? -- they are certainly friends of our President). Oh, and yes, your Permanent Fund check will be that much larger. I forgot about that part.
News-Miner,
You state: "Environmentalists claim there is not enough oil, that tapping our coasts and ANWR is a drop in a bottomless bucket that will make little if any difference at the pump many years from now. The luxury of this idealism of remaining prosperous and “pristine” was embraced by our president in 1995, and the people who can least afford it are suffering for that decision now."
However, the congressional report on the economic impact of opening up ANWR to drilling estimated that the extra supply of oil would reduce the cost of a barrel of crude by 1%. The cost of crude flucuates more than that in any given day. There would be no difference at the pump now or in the future. Therefore, as an environmentalist, I argue that protecting ANWR does not limit prosperity and preserves a pristine landscape. Is it really worth it to permanently damage the fragile arctic ecosystem for one drop in a barrel of crude?
So I guess that anything which doesn't completely & immediately solve all our energy problems in one stroke isn't worth pursuing? That seems to be theme of those opposing ANWR. To me, it seems that no single energy source is going to automatically save our bacon. It will probably take ANWR, offshore drilling, oil shale, coal, nuclear, geothermal, and probably a few other technologies. If it's true (and I think it's only a guess) that ANWR will only lower prices 1%, that's still significant, and it still goes a long way toward lessening our vulnerability to blackmail from foreign producers and supply interruptions due to war, civil unrest, etc.
Anyone who thinks that an introduction of 500,000-700,000 barrles of oil day to the world oil market isn't gonna change the price of oil isn't very keen on how the market works. Using small figure like 1% is just the intimitadtion the nay sayers uses to convince folks not to open it. C'mon folks, you think that we (the U.S) start drilling oil in several places around our nation and introducing a million plus barrels of oil a day into the market isn't bring the price of oil down???? For gods sake all China did was add 12% more of the cost of oil on its people and oil dropped $4 in one day. The whole cost for oil prices is not anything real....its all speculations injected by investors. Drill ..I say, it sabout time we pull our heads out of our A$#es!
don't you just love it when people who are not from here, maybe will never come here, get so passionate about our land. go away usa! clean up the your own mess in your own backyard and leave us alone.
Both presidential candidates said they won't open ANWR. Bush doesn't have time to do anything about it. Save energy, useless to argue over it.
polarmark - I agree 100%! Don't you love the "pristine" land argument that environmentalists tag on to ANWR? Have they ever been there? Do they know anything about it except for the one or two archived images NBC news repeats over and over again?
ridiculous.
"Using small figure like 1% is just the intimitadtion the nay sayers uses to convince folks not to open it."
AlaskaCub, you mean nay sayers like the U.S. Department of Energy? Here's a quote from "Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, May 2008, by the Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy:"
"The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case."
Polarmark,
Why do you assume everyone who is against drilling in ANWR is not from Alaska? And like it or not, ANWR is federal land, not state land, so (thankfully) everyone in the U.S. has a say in how it is managed. :)
McCain has already moved his position once on oil drilling and may do so again on ANWR. He just needs more encouragement from voters.
Ah....truly we are blessed with such omniscient experts as polarmark and Non-Lemming who anytime drilling ANWR comes up can be counted on to start whining about those "environmentalists" in the Lower '48 who don't begin to have the expertise and incredible wealth of knowledge these two illuminaries bring to the argument.
Course....some of those darn greenies include the Gwichi'in, a tribe that has been stomping around the ANWR area for several thousand years and are adamantly opposed to drilling in the region. But, heck...what could they possibly know about the ANWR region when we have N_L and polarmark to set them straight? Silly environmentalist Natives....tsk.
Can anyone out there mention a time when a large oil field was opened anywhere in the U.S. which caused the oil companies to noticably drop the price of gas at the pumps? Remember that we all (environmentalist and non-environmentalist) are paying much more at the pumps while oil companies are reporting record profits. This IS great for Alaska in many ways but hard on the average wallet. I am in no way convinced that any of these companies are going to lower our cost at the pump just because a new area is open. Why is oil the only answer folks want to focus on? Just because Bush says that's our answer? If we focus all this this time and money on producing wind, hydro and solar energy resources we can get allot acomplished and get away from dependency on foreign oil. If you don't want to pay allot for oil then let's ween ourselfs off of it. The sooner we start the better off we will be. Opening ANWR is a small bandaid, we need a cure.
It has been a good ride. Coming down off of oil is going to be hard to do..
Sure glad a lot of you were not around when Prudhoe Bay was being thought off, or we would not even have a pipeline now! I also wonder why back in 1995 congress indicated we should be drilling in ANWR, and only because of one very BAD "for many reasons" president did not let it happen? It may appear congress was looking ahead to the future and was doing something right for a change. I seem to also have read not long ago where the mayor of the North Slope area indicate without oil they would practically have no income, who happens to be native. He indicated he was not against drilling if it was done correctly. I wonder how almost every other country seems to be able to drill off-shore with no problems, but when it comes to our country the sky will fall if we do it. As for alternate energy sources, I would like to learn of just one that can be devoloped in 30 years or less, that will replace oil! Exactly what is it in ANWR that makes it so "do not touch anyway"? I don't see anyone from anywhere coming up here to look at it and say, WOW, sure glad we have this. I'm just venting, but why is it we have to depend on every other country for OUR OIL! Is there something wrong with our oil?
Again, do we simply throw out any measure that doesn't solve our energy problems immediately and all at once? Opening ANWR isn't a magic bullet, but it's a step in the right direction and risks no major environmental damage. The argument against it seems to be that drilling there will take away someone's warm, fuzzy feeling about there being "untouched" wilderness. If we can help alleviate our energy problems, and can do so in a manner that doesn't annihilate huge chunks of real estate, why not do it? There seems to be no real argument other than sentiment.
BTW, all one has to do is look at who is pushing, now, to get ANWR open....George Bush. After almost 8 years of his disastrous presidency his imprimatur on any project should raise huge, red flags that this is apt to be the worst course for the US to follow. And surely the fact he is an oil man coming from a family that built its fortune on oil couldn't possibly influence his thinking, eh?
I would suggest that to anyone capable of reasoning thought, George Bush being behind someething is probably the best reason to dump a project.
"Bush bad! No drill!"
There's some "reasoning thought" for you . . . .
Don't you just love it when people who live in Anchorage or Fairbanks, but who have never been to ANWR as I have (several times) or have never been out to the bush (as I have, again, several times, all over the state) assume they know everything about the state simply by living there? As if to imply that ipso facto, that makes you an expert? So as Americans, are you all experts on American History too? Could someone, say, from another country know more about the U.S. than you? But no, no way, you live there after all, so that makes you an expert, right? Good reasoning, that! So you all must have PhDs in Alaskan history, society, culture too, right? No, wait, who needs a PhD? Education, that's for sissies. Because you all LIVE there! That's all the education YOU need! Don't listen to us from the Lower 48! But do me one favor: All the revenue brought into the State of Alaska by Young and Uncle Ted and the rest, MY hard earned tax dollars you get that far exceeds what you deserve per capita -- send it back down here to us where it belongs. After all, we need it to fill our tanks with gas, and once you all are drilling in ANWR, you sure as hell won't need my charity anymore.
a country that consumes one-quarter of the world’s oil supply but owns only 3 percent of its reserves can drill its way out of any problem?
Lets also consider that drilling on federal lands in the last 8 years has increased 356%. The price of gasoline has climbed 250% in that timeframe. Remember what gas costs were before W took the oath? Man i wish i had bought stock in exxon.
If we increase our domestic production, where is the incentive for companies to sell that oil only to americans for a discounted rate, when they can sell it on the global market for a premium price.
AKhusky quoted a report administered by the current pro oil Bush administration's EIA, and the economic impact of opening ANWR is little to none. it just doesn't make sense. We as Americans are always seeking to medicate the symptoms not the source of our problems. Invest now in technologies that will benefit our children. The age of cheap oil that fueled the 20th century will not fuel the 21st, plain and simple.
"The age of cheap oil that fueled the 20th century will not fuel the 21st, plain and simple."
It sure won't if every attempt to develop new sources is shot down by folks who then turn around and demonize the producers for not selling cheap oil.
Piggy wants to drive his big SUV. Piggy needs more oil so he can keep wasting without paying too much. Piggy is a bloated, fat, disgusting animal that doesn't deserve half the respect of the wildlife and Earth he wants to foul. I beg all of you with common sense and a conscience: lets stop the piggies from crapping all over our home. Vote Democrat!
moderoy,
it sure would be nice if I could feel confident that by "voting Democrat" I would relieve this Earth from all those "piggies." However, nothing is quite so simple.
Conservation is a good thing - that's why rather than buying a new vehicle, I ride to work every day. However, because of the freedoms that have been fought for and the wealth that has been earned by those before us, Piggy has every right to drive his SUV, use all the oil he desires, and in no way does that make him a "bloated, fat disgusting animal..." It's a hard concept to understand, I know, I am disgusted by waste, overuse, and the rest, just like you -- but every person deserves respect.
And really, do party lines make any difference? We all enjoy characterizing people by them - you know, greenies are Democrats, rich oil people are Republican ... both are human, both are wasteful, both make plenty of mistakes. I think we could gain a lot more by looking at similarities rather than differences.
Even if ANWR was opened for drilling (which for many reasons it should not be), I can't believe that most Americans, especially Alaskans, don't realize that the oil WILL NOT REMAIN in the USA!!
Just as our oil now is going to Japan, so will any other oil go to the highest bidder. Most people seem to forget that the oil companies are a private entity who may sell oil to whomever gives them the most money. That isn't us, folks!
So it is a joke to continue to pursue drilling here. It will make not a bit of difference!
- Alaska 59
Yes, there is something wrong with "our" oil. Americans don't pay the oil companies enough money for it so they sell it elsewhere. It doesn't matter where you drill here in the USA, we will still be buying oil from the Middle East!
Let's see . . .middle east to Los Angeles: about 8400 miles. Alaska to LA, about 2500 miles. Somehow it seems cheaper for the lower 48 to buy crude from us than from the Arabs. Besides; simple availability is an issue. If we're buying from Venezuela, and Chavez throws a fit, we could be cut off. Likewise if there's a war, political unrest, or a sheikh who gets a bee in his bonnet in the ME. It makes sense to develop our own resources, and there's no good reason not to.
There's 10times more oil in americas garbage dumps than there is in ANWR.
http://www.globalresourcecorp.com/index....
When you recycle late model cars in the shredder the left over plastic is currently buried in landfills and left to contaminate the groundwater...
...if this "sluff" was to be microwaved it would produce 50% of america's transpo-fuel continuously.
If ANWR can compete with new technologies, go for it like a smart Inupiat... but be prepared to understand the rapidly emerging trends in the market..
.. hydrocarbons are in a money bubble this year, next year it will be different.
We gos or we don gos...that is the question? YouMustBConfused
I'm waiting for the environmentalists to start holding candlelight ceremonies down wind of the pipeline and refineries. Should prove cute. Will look like a whole pack of Wylie Coyotes.
I have been meaning to thank all you environmentalist's, for attempting to shut down responsible resource development, way to go.
Hey pinhead, can you explain Arctic Village to me? We went looking for the pristine wildlife refuge, all we found along the arctic coast was a barren brown rocky area, what is that all about??
"""send it back down here to us where it belongs. After all, we need it to fill our tanks with gas, and once you all are drilling in ANWR, you sure as hell won't need my charity anymore""".
By all means, please do keep all that federal revenue, Pinhead. As an added bonus, we'll throw in serial pork-pushers Don and Ted, who have in reality, done nothing but turn Alaska into a sorry federal welfare colony. And most importantly, please also remove all of our federal landlords in the National Park Service, USFWS, USFS, etc. as well as all other UNCONSTITUTIONAL federal land control apparatices.
Finally, leave us alone to drill, mine, fish, cut timber, as necessary to produce honest hard capital. We'd be much better off paying our own way and not being dependent on your debt-ridden federal largess.
I used to really believe that there should be absolutely no drilling in ANWR, ever. I still suspect that drilling is more likely to do harm than good and that it is a virtue to leave some lands undisturbed. That said, I would like a more thorough overview of ANWR, development, oil, and the economy. There are a lot of figures being thrown around, but whose numbers do I trust? Who is showing me an objective "here are the pros, here are the cons" position?
@TundraRebellion: "...leave us alone to drill, mine, fish, cut timber, as necessary to produce hard capital". I get what you're saying; I really do. But, at the same time, these practices can and have lead to the destruction of ecosystems (I'm not necessarily referring to Alaska). Fisheries collapse, forests disappear, mines contaminate water tables, and so on. I'm just not ready to believe that we can use our resources without eventually imploding.
@Tom58: So, do I need to change my name? Is it just a coincidence that we have similar screen names? I can tell you that I did not pick 'tom54' based on your moniker.
Referring to my comment @Tom58: I mean no malice in my comment. I am definitely not upset. I'm just wondering if our names are similar enough to be confusing.
I am not an expert on this by any means, but ...
I wonder with all the talk of opening ANWR and other drilling options, why is it that no one has mentioned (at least not that I've heard or read) that we, as a country, have been closing our old refineries, not building new ones, and, as our locate refinery is, often processing well below capacity. If I remember a recent DNM article right the Flint Hills refinery is processing approximately 60,000 barrels a day but could be doing over 200,000. All the supply of oil we could possibly drill anywhere won't change the price of gas much if we have too few refineries and the ones we have are not refining as much as they could/should be. Maybe as a country we should look at opening more refineries, I would think that would help as much as any other idea.
No Guts, what do you want me to explain? First off, ArcVill is not on the coast, it's inland. So I am guessing you mean that on your way into the Refuge, you stopped off there at their million dollar airport (I am not joking, that's how much it cost to rebuild a couple years back -- our tax dollars at work). So, what would you like to know? I can provide you with plenty of citations of research if you would like. The terribly difficult situation of the Nets'aii Gwich'in people is pretty hideous, as I am sure you know since you live up there, right? I can talk your ear off if you want to hear. As for looking for some pristine wilderness, well, depends where you were and what you were looking for I guess. But again, I really don't think any of this is the question. For me, it's simple. More than 2/3 of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East, ie the Persian Gulf. Include the most optimistic predictions of how much ANWR oil is waiting to be pumped, and that figure won't budge. The sheikhs are running the show, folks. So again, you guys need oil to survive, but I agree with TundraRebellion, this dependent relationship is an insult to your independence as a state. Talk about Third World! So long as all you folks do is pump oil to provide us down here with the black gold to run our SUVs, then that relationship continues. You resent us Outsiders, make fun of Ma and Pa RVer as they clog Airport Way every July and August, and nothing ever changes.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.