Responsible People Want to Drill in ANWR
Viewed as a separate line item, I can understand why people are against drilling in ANWR, but I think that responsible people thinking globally have to accept that it is the right thing to do.
The United States uses 25% of the world's energy. We import a significant portion of that in oil. The oil that is drilled elsewhere is not done in the most environmentally sensitive way, and often causes economic turmoil in the developing world where it is found. The United States has a responsibility to mitigate the damage its oil thirst causes through out the world. One way to do that is to reduce our thirst. However, with a growing population, even a reduction in use by each individual is not likely to reduce our needs a significant amount for long. We should do this as well, but it will not be enough.
Another way to help mitigate third world problems is to produce our own oil. This helps in several ways: It reduces the leverage of oil exporting countries and allows the US and European countries to be more forceful in enforcing human rights. So long as a minor reduction in output from OPEC causes the West to tremble, we can never stand up as strong as we should. ANWR may be a drop in the bucket, but it helps some, and it may turn out to be more than a drop. Without exploring, we won't know.
By developing the technologies that we will require for oil exploration in ANWR, we will provide the world with a better way to extract the oil we use. This is essentially the same argument that environmentalists use in arguing that even though the US is a relatively minor producer of mercury, we need to lead the world in regulation so that the proper technology is developed and available for China and India, who produce the lion's share of mercury. Even if ANWR turns out to be a money pit with minimal output in oil, the new technologies developed will make it worth while.
Additionally, using our own natural resources and risking our own environment is only fair since we use so much oil. Perhaps a significant catastrophe in ANWR would be a catalyst to reduce oil dependency. I am pretty certain that an oil catasptrohe in Venezuela would barely make the news here, even though the catastrophe occurred because of our desire for oil (what was that about the ocean drilling platform a couple years ago?)
And last, I just think it is selfish to use oil from the poor parts of the world causing unspeakable economic and environmental damage, while hoarding our own supply that we can extract relatively cleanly and without the threat of civil war.
As a responsible person, I want to control the extraction of the oil that I use as much as possible, and we can do that in ANWR.
posted by Jrudkis @ 4:39 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
You make a really interesting argument that I've not heard before. I've seen oil operations, first hand, in Nigeria and they do things there that they would NEVER do in the US because we wouldn't allow it. And, these are US companies. For example, you have to "flare" gas off of oil, or it'll explode. When you see a big tower with a flame on top of it in the US, they're flaring the gas off the oil. In Nigeria... there was no tower. They actually cleared a football sized patch of land and it is ALL in flames, all the time, and yes, it smells and yes, it'll make you cough and yes, in a freaking rain forest there is no vegetation around it. They also have above ground pipelines by the freaking roadside, which would never happen in the US either and, well, I'm sure you can figure out how dumb that is for obvious reasons of bad drivers, or just a driver who loses the wheel in the mud.
And so we are, as you say, hypocritcal consumers who would never allow this kind of thing in our territory but are happy to buy it elsewhere. So maybe we should put up with some of this on our land. And, at least, the happy side of it is that what we put up with won't be anywhere near as bad as what people put up with in the nations we import from.
Destor
First of all, it will take up to ten years before oil from the released territories comes on line.
Second, even when it does, the prime beneficiaries will be China and Japan. Since tankers can't get through the Panama Canal, the only impact of the Alaska oil windfall will be in the Pacific. Of course, the oil will be available to the Pacific coast states, but it won't get any farther east. Whatever the Pacific coast states don't buy will go west.
Third, since the impact of increased Alaska oil output will be incremental, American energy needs will still be held hostage to geopolitical factors, like Iran, which accounts for 6-7% of world output, and Venezuela, whose oil export policy is growing more problematic as its relationship with the United States grows more problematic.
And finally, thin reserves will continue to make prices sensitive to production and delivery failures, such as the Shell oil refinery shutdown in the California Bay Area, in 1994.
All-in-all not a pretty picture. But then, if you were wondering how in the world we could wage a multi-billion dollar a day war on terror and not mobilize - i.e. tighten our belts, raise taxes, ration strategic commodities and limit general consumption - you are seeing how right now, with soon-to-be $3/gal. gas, the dollar exchange rate down the tubes and the cost of all imports through the roof.
Of course, releasing America's strategic oil reserves would have a bigger and more immediate impact than Alaska oil, but our strategic reserves are to be released only in time of war. But aren't we at war now? Well, apparently we're at war only when saying so promotes Administration interests; so, for purposes of releasing strategic reserves and thereby abating the oil price spiral, I guess we're not at war.
High oil prices and printing dollars are the "guns and butter" policy by which politicians in the White House and Congress cynically keep war painless on the home front, in effect waging war by credit, in order to perpetuate themselves in office. It's corrupt as hell but, Hey, with a compromised news media and a dumbed-down public, it works like a charm.
Oil is a commodity similar to electricity where it does not matter who actually uses it. More available oil benefits all, but by producing more ourselves it makes us more self sufficient.
Regardless of how long it will take to produce, it is the right thing to do. ANWR has been on the table for more than ten years, so if the length of time it will take to produce is a defining issue, than those who opposed ANWR drilling are to blame.
Oil reserves are for emergencies. This is not an emergency, but instead is a price correction. Oil is undervalued, and should be more expensive. Using strategic reserves during normal pricing is foolish and eliminates the value of the strategic reserve.
A corrupt policy would be to release the strategic oil reserve to reduce the "pain" of the war to the public. Making the economy absorb the impact of the war through gas prices is the "price" that we are paying.
I don't think of it as a huge issue, but on the whole I think drilling is going to be a mistake. I'd be a lot more comfortable with ANWR drilling if I thought this government gave a damn about environmental protection. Because the technology is there, it just costs more than being sloppy. Thing is, I can't imagine good-ol'-boy energy industry pros like Bush & Cheney ever enforcing the regs, so I suspect we're going to see an old-fashioned Texas oil rush, with all the attendant leakage and careless trampling.
And the arguments you make about how we need to be world leaders could be made even more strongly about leading in NOT squandering natural resources. How do we say with a straight face that Brazil should clear-cut less rainforest if we can't even be bothered to keep our last remaining big stretch of undeveloped territory virgin? And for much paltrier goals than Brazil's.
Because, really, what are the odds that it's more than a drop in the bucket? Honest question, does anyone know? But I note that nobody is pretending the Tongass will come close to accomplishing independence from foreign oil (a worthwhile goal). What it might, maybe, do, is send gas prices back down below $2/gallon by the next Presidential election. For obvious reasons, I'm against that.
But here's my biggest issue:
If the drilling were part of a real program for energy independence, a way to stretch the oil a bit longer while we learn to bioengineer more or conserve better or windfarm, or whatever, I would be a lot more positive. But it comes off more as a way to again postpone the hard work. Based on experience personal and societal, spending the last bit of money so as to put off the decision to economize is ALWAYS a mistake.
trilobite
Trilobite,
Thanks for the comment. As I understand the development timeline, Bush/Cheney will be long gone before any footprint is placed in ANWR, so if the administration's record is a concern, I think we can safely believe that there will be a new administration in place before the work really begins.
I tend to think the best way we can get to alternative fuels is to stop subsidizing the oil industry. The main subsidy we give oil is our military presence in the gulf to keep the shipping lanes open.
I don't think we need new taxes on energy to provide a financial incentive for alternative sources. I think we merely need to stop subsidizing the entire world's energy supply of oil. I think it is clear that only through the power and projection of US military force into the Middle East has oil been a continuous and reasonably reliable source of energy. Half of our military budget is arguably spent on projection platforms to maintain sea lanes there. This allows oil to be a reliable and reasonably priced energy not just for us but for every country that imports energy. Why are we giving away the security for oil that our military provides to the rest of the world?
It is entirely foolish. Let the true price of oil bear the market conditions that would be if we did not spend 200 billion dollars per year on the flow. With oil at twice or three times the historic levels, alternative energy would not need subsidies to be cost effective, and over time with wide production would presumably be more efficient and therefore cheaper. The military savings from not having to screw around with the Middle East would be significant, and would offset somewhat the impact on the US economy giving us a competitive edge over other oil consumers who would bear the higher cost without any commensurate military savings to offset the new burden.
Not to mention the political and security benefit that we would get from not having to mess around with such a backward place like the Middle East.
But I think as an interim step we need to find a domestic source of oil that we can rely on for the transition. ANWR oil is going to be a lot more expensive to extract than in Saudi Arabia, so it will also accomplish to some degree the rationalization of oil prices to allow competing technologies.
And I think the straight face to Brazil will be to use the resources but to put in the controls needed to do it cleanly.
jrudkis - sorry you couldn't be more wrong.
I'm originally from Alaska, this has been in the news for more than a while up there.
There would be no production for nearly 20 years. That is worthless. It won't be enough to affect our dependence on foreign oil, it is merely a drop in the bucket - it will help the american people in absolutely no way. Are you aware of the tiny fraction of US oil supplied by the North Slope? In fact much of it goes to Japan. It is just an opportunity for the oil companies.
I have no idea why people think this is a good idea - other than it supports some abstract principle of exploiting as much of nature as possible.
Nanook
Nanook,
Oil is a commodity similar to electricity where it does not matter who actually uses the particular oil from a particular well. North slope oil goes to Japan because it is cost effective to do so as a commodity, but if the mid-east oil gets cut off, we would still have that oil to use and not sell to Japan. More available oil benefits all, but by producing more ourselves it makes us more self sufficient and more in control of our energy needs.
Regardless of how long it will take to produce, it is the right thing to do. ANWR has been on the table for more than ten years, so if the length of time it will take to produce is a defining issue, than those who opposed ANWR drilling are to blame for making it worthless. In 20 years we will still be using oil, and if that is when it comes on-line, it will be valuable then.
So is it your opinion that we should only use oil that exploits some third world nation's environment and economy, rather than ours? I just think that is unfair.
jrudkis
And again, if the plan to open up ANWR were part of a bigger weaning plan, it might be good. But it isn't, so why talk about that? It's like the guys who said Bush's Mars mission would be good because we need L-5 habitation and/or asteroid mining. I'm like, fine, but nobody was proposing that.
What's on the table right now is plain and simple opening up more land to drill oil in. That doesn't imply stepping down forces in the ME. It can't, because as you say, no production for 20 years, and even then we'll still be buying just about as much from the ME. I.e., we're not going to pump less from the ME, spend less on our military there, or hurt their environments less. We'll just have more oil to waste, and a messed-up former wildlife reserve.
So your reasons seem to have nothing to do with what's actually happening. Except for your "fairness" reason - that it is a moral imperative to mess up our environment as much as we mess up others'. Isn't part of the point of being wealthy, to have the luxury of conservation? Just like only the rich can afford to maintain really good gardens or manorial lawns. It's unfair, but the lawns are nice. Conservation is a good, so why toss it out in the name of abstract fairness that doesn't actually help anyone?
trilobite
The 20 years it will take to extract the first drop will give us plenty of time for a weaning process to develop, and there will be 5 administrations passed through. Bush's policies will not impact the ability of the US to effect that change, which is inevitable.
Your argument to not provide future administrations with the ANWR tool to aid them in implementing policies like we are talking about only makes sense if you are resigned to 20 more years of neo-con rule.
I do see it as part of a bigger weaning process, though not necessarily as the focus of the policies, but at least in effect. I see the emerging democracies in the middle east as the key to weaning us of the need to enforce the sea lanes with our expensive fleets. I think having another source of oil that we control will make it easier for us to not mettle with the emerging democracies, and allow them to have the inevitable backward steps without feeling compelled to intervene.
The price of oil is going to continue to rise no matter what we do due to growing industrialized populations, which will make emerging alternatives more viable. I think that is a good thing. But I also think that strategically we need to be able to cushion fluctuations in the world market so we can control the transition (which is inevitable through simple market forces) rather than be thrust into an emergency situation where the action we take may be worse than by taking a measured action now.
I think your conservation point is like saying that it is okay for Starbucks to pay unfair prices for coffee to the third world producers so that the wealthy in the US can have Latte's, or child labor in Asia is okay so we can have cheap stuff at Walmart. I think the wealthy nations have a responsibility to see the impact of their wealth and mitigate them.
Nigeria, for example, has oil wealth but that wealth is causing turmoil there. There is nothing resembling the environmental controls that we require for extraction here, and the land is being devestated. I would prefer that we take the oil we have, and leave Nigeria alone. And I think that by opening ANWR, oil companies will prefer to work in a politically stable environment even if it means that there is more cost in extraction, because there will be less risk to their investment.
I agree that we will continue to drain the ME so long as they are producing since it is the cheapest place to get oil, but that does not mean that ANWR won't provide us with more leverage and moving space, and when the ME either shuts down or runs out, we will have a developed field that will help.
jrudkis, basically it sounds like you're saying that if we give ourselves more slack we'll use it for good. I think we'll just squander it.
I see nothing to justify your optimism. At the very least, there would have to be a commitment at the outset to, say, reduce by an equal amount puchase of ME oil, or start planning to pull out troops. Otherwise, I just don't see how any of the things you project are actually going to happen. Congress, and lobbyists, will not say, gee, we have more oil, we can exploit the world less now. They'll say, gimme more.
I think your conservation point is like saying that it is okay for Starbucks to pay unfair prices for coffee to the third world producers so that the wealthy in the US can have Latte's, or child labor in Asia is okay so we can have cheap stuff at Walmart.
Not quite. The latte does not serve any particular virtuous goal, it's just more squandering. I enjoy squandering wealth as much as the next guy, but I agree that we should have a better reason for destroying the world. But when it's a choice of (A)conserving the environment here and destroying it in Nigeria, or (B) doing a half-assed job of conservation here and in Nigeria, there's possible good on both sides. So you have to start asking, how much are we going to lose here and how much will we gain there.
My guess, based on the history of gold and oil rushes everywhere, is that we will end up demolishing both sites if we open up this one at all. It is much easier to not screw up the Alaskan environment when you're not drilling in it, than when you are, no matter how many rules are in place.
trilobite
I know this may be a bit off subject but...
There is another undeveloped natural resource still in this country. Oil shale.
Colorado, Wyoming, and California all have huge reserves available for development.
Yes, oil shale is expensive to process and green peace is totaly against it. There where tests done in the 70's in Colorado using explosive devices to fracture the shale and cause the oil to flow. I guess it proved to costly then to use it as a form of production but now it may be worth while.
mls
Post a Comment
<< Home