News-Miner Editorial
Long-term solutions
ANWR isn’t the whole picture, but it should be in the frame
Published Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Part of the response from the Democratic side of Congress after President Bush called on the body to approve legislation allowing oil and gas drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is worth repeating just for the “wow” factor.
It’s no solution, goes a portion of the argument, because it would be more than 10 years before it could come into production.
Wow, if only President Bill Clinton hadn’t vetoed ANWR exploration 13 years ago.
The status of that sliver of the coastal plain is still in limbo. No wilderness designation, no exploration allowed; it just sits there as it was set aside nearly 30 years ago. Now, with drilling technology advanced light years since those days and oil topping $100 a barrel — on its way to $200 according to news reports about the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries — the scales on this decision have tipped decidedly in favor of responsible development.
ANWR exploration and development would not only boost our economy but the resulting oil and gas could help immeasurably as well. Is 10 years from now too late? Hard to say for sure. But do we want to be asking the same question again 10 years from now?
Under the threat of OPEC’s visions of $200-a-barrel oil and environmental and energy cost concerns as a whole, this country should be putting its all into issues surrounding its lifeblood — energy.
The need for hydrocarbon fuels is not going to disappear within a decade, but we can make great strides in alternative energy development in 10 years. This is a nation of creative minds. With fuel prices affecting every inch of our economy, things like synthetic fuels and other alternative energy sources will grow in practicality and take hold with consumers. Long-term solutions do take time to develop and to evolve for broad-based use.
Perhaps as we reduce the demand for hydrocarbons, we can bring ANWR production online as a resource that provides a much higher percentage of the national demand for fossil fuels than it would if it were online today.
ANWR is not a magical cure. With its billions of gallons of oil and gas reserves, it isn’t even the biggest part of the U.S. energy picture, but it can make a big difference and it certainly should be a part of that picture.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I live in Texas but I read more smart thinking from my Alaska sources. Smarter and more rational. And our worthless congress has been the biggest contributor to our crisis in energy. GDB
The Energy Information Administration, which is the Energy Department's independent analytical arm, actually researches statistics. They find that ANWR oil would supply 2% of U.S. consumption, and that would be at full production 18 years out. 10 years out is the minimum time it would take to get oil flowing, and the volume then would be a miniscule fraction of U.S. consumption. Various oil industry experts have also noted that it's common for OPEC or other large producers to cut back production in response to new reserves coming online, specifically to maintain high prices.
Newsminer, it took me about 10 minutes to "mine" these statistics (Reuters, "Analysis-Bush drilling plan wouldn't have eased pump prices" by Tom Doggett, 4/29/08). It must be fun to just write any old opinion without a responsibility to the facts at hand.
2% of supply 18 years out--there's the "big difference" you talk up.
I think the percentage one sees depends on whom they get that figure from. I have heard it will supply 20% for years to come. That is with the KNOWN sources that are there. The technology today is incredible compared to 30 years ago. Go ahead, do not drill ANWR. I will continue to survive, but how long is the American public going to allow rising prices until they are screaming for drilling in ANWR?!?! I would venture to say, not too much longer. Let gas go to 10-12 buck a gallon at the pump and see how long it takes them to convince their Congressman/woman to open ANWR....and that will be WITHOUT ALL the environment protections...just get the oil out of the ground!! Go ahead, dont drill ANWR, we will make LOTS more money down the road.
Drill NOW!!!
Do NOT drill now!
Money in the bank. Of course, when the 'depression' hits in 2010 oil will go back down to nothing and it'll take 10 years to recover. So actually that's perfect, start now, and we'll hit the next wave.
Oh ya, I forgot, our Nation doesn't plan ahead.....
The 20% figure is what the pipeline produces not what ANWR might. Most estimates put ANWR at a few percent but no one knows for sure. There might come a time to develop that place and maybe the time is near but the oil will still go to the highest bidder on the world market and will not give Alaskans and definitely not the U. S. cheap fuel. In doubt? Why does Fairbanks pay so much right now?
ANWR is the line in the sand that the Greenies have drawn to take the place of the save the whales program. Its main purpose is to cause large numbers of Americans to send in their dollars to buy off their guilty consciences. However this might backfire on them. They are of course the cause of the high fuel prices due to their reluctance to drill for and produce oil and the resistance to building new refineries. Well now the average American has less disposable income to send to Greenpeace. Our contribution to environmental causes will be higher prices for everything! Thanks for saving the planet Greenies!!
There have been a lot of comments about oil prices coming down this much or not that much if ANWR is opened to drilling. Everyone seems to have an opinion about this qualitative result, but I'm interested in hearing, from these same people, what the actual dollar amount they expect to pay at the pump for gasoline would be with or without having ANWR opened?
For instance, with: $x, without: $y
Excellent point, Lief.
Since oil supply is only one of many factors affecting pump prices we pay, it's hard to say that a 2% increase in supply would translate into anything near a 2% drop in pump prices. If a pump price of $3.70 per gallon was dropped 2%, it would go down 7.4 cents to $3.63. Wow, spectacular. What a "big difference," NewsMiner!
That's the maximum savings we could expect. As I noted before, there's a history of other producers (i.e. OPEC) reducing their supplies specifically to keep crude prices high when new competing supplies come online.
If Bush, Stevens, the Murkowskis, Young, et al had their way, ANWR would have been drilled, drained, dried up and capped by now, and we wouldn't even have the luxury of discussing this option.
Yes, the part of me that sees an intrinsic value to wild and fragile regions wants us to never need to drill in ANWR. But the shrewd conservative in me--the true conservative who wants to actually "conserve"--thinks we should hold on to ANWR's oil until a point in the future when we are the last place left on earth with a decent oil reserve. Think of the strategic power that holds for the U.S., and for Alaska.
The price of crude is at record high while the Alaska pipeline is operating at 1/3 capacity. Thirty years political whining and still no producing wells in either the National Petroleum Reserve nor the 1002 area of ANWR......Have yourself a good laugh as you lament your financial death; ....after-all, the better part of comedy is tragedy.
Great consistency, Alaskans - let's waste lots of fuel blasting away at wolves from the air to increase the population of caribou, and then kill off the caribou anyway by drilling in their grazing grounds. Let's keep driving around in big 4X4 trucks on the roads and zooming around the off-road in our snowmachines and ATV's. When is everyone going to realize that we can't solve our petroleum problem solely by drilling? When gas goes to $12 a gallon, maybe finally we can get the outsider SUV & truck drivers to park their flashy gas-guzzlers & DO something about the energy crisis!
Drilling ANWR would not be the right thing to do. Prudhoe was/is a
disaster area. Do we want another? Drilling ANWR would completely
ruin the area something I would hate to see. Most people that want to
drill have never seen the area nor are they familiar with the destruction that it entails. Maybe they don't care or are thinking
only of the money the project would produce. To say the least this
is short sighted. At this point no one even knows if there is oil
in the area. All figures are just estimates/guesses.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.