Thank You, Come Again

Despite the fact that no formal announcement has been made, various news sources have reported that Senator Joe Biden of Delaware will be Barack Obama's vice-presidential candidate. Yet another abject racist on the Democratic Party ticket. Good job, guys.

Then again, Obama could have made an even worse choice.

This blog entry has suddenly become a good segue into another issue I've been requested to write about. Coming soon to a blog near you.

Sad At ANWR

Updates to this blog have been infrequent as of late, for which I apologize profusely to my readership (yes, both of you). I spent all of last week trekking through the Andes to the storied ruins of Machu Picchu. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here is the image tells all about my trip:

I nearly fell off a cliff while posing for this stupid photo. Luckily, we got it on the first try.

In any case, let's put aside my acrobatic achievements south of the Equator for a moment and discuss that which the title of this blog entry alludes to (hint: it's not my second-favorite Egyptian of all time; it's not even my favorite Egyptian): drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). A great debate is raging across the country regarding this issue and its ramifications. On the one hand, there are those who believe in maintaining the integrity of America's coastal environments above all else. At the other extreme are those who are willing to despoil said areas in an effort to extract a domestic source of energy. My opinion is that there is no good reason not to drill there. Let us examine the reasons why people suggest we shouldn't drill there to understand why I feel this way.

First, there is an environmental concern. The conservationists believe this tract of land should be preserved in order to maintain its flora and fauna. There are all kinds of birds that roost in these lands, in addition to a large population of caribou. I agree with the principle of this argument as I am a Teddy Roosevelt-styled conservationist: I believe in protecting large swaths of the wilderness for the enjoyment of the people and the survival of various species. However, considering the scale of the land required for drilling, I don't this argument makes much sense. ANWR is approximately 19.8 million acres in area, of which only about 2,000 acres (3.125 mi²) would be developed for drilling (about 0.01% of the total area). Yes, some birds would be displaced and the caribou would lose a portion of their calving grounds, but let's be realistic here: are we really concerned with preserving such a tiny fraction of the land in the face of such volatile oil prices? It is silly to stymie our livelihood on such a small area of practically no consequence.

And that brings me to the next point: those opposed to drilling in ANWR argue that the increase in oil production will have no bearing on the price of oil. They usually base their argument on an Energy Information Administration report that cites a minimal impact (< $1) on the price of oil at peak production in ANWR. Additionally, the report states that the impact would be 10-20 years from now as production ramped up. I do not believe this to be the case. We have only to look at recent history to show that there will be an immediate impact. Merely announcing that ANWR is open for drilling would send the price tumbling.

For evidence of this, let us consider some recent news events, such as the threat of Hurricane Dolly in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil production in the Gulf was halted in fear of Dolly, and that triggered a $3.09 spike in oil prices. Also, after last June's OPEC summit meeting, oil prices soared to a record high of $136 after Nigeria (the fourth-largest exporter to the U.S.) expressed concerns about militants bombing its pipelines, thereby reducing its supply. Finally, consider the timely announcement made by President Bush that the White House ban on offshore drilling had been lifted. This accelerated an ongoing drop in oil prices (due mostly to a decrease in demand and other market forces).

The point is this: news about supply and demand affects the price of oil almost as much as the actual supply and demand. Currently, there is thought to be about 9 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, roughly half of what is predicted to lie in ANWR. News about the dramatic increase in the domestic supply by merely announcing the removal of the ANWR drilling ban would set off a selling spree that would reduce the price of oil considerably.

Finally, we stand to gain something even more important from drilling for oil in ANWR: energy independence. Not having to rely on autocratic, despotic nations like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria would be the greatest benefit from domestic drilling. Domestic oil is, of course, just one of the means to this end. Delving into alternate forms of energy, (nuclear, wind, solar, et al.) is the more important issue to consider. However, the sad reality is that the U.S. is not getting off the oil standard any time soon. Thus, we might as well use our domestic supply while we develop new technologies that will one day supplant fossil fuels. Personally, I'm sick of this great nation remaining beholden to terrorist countries whose populations want nothing more than to kill innocent Americans. Drilling in ANWR will help us move away from these bonds.

I have yet to come across a legitimate argument for not drilling in ANWR, and more than enough in favor (a friend of mine recently pointed out that drilling in ANWR would reduce oil spills, the vast majority of which are caused by leaking tankers; the oil from ANWR would be transported via the Alaskan pipeline; as compelling as all this sounds, I have yet to independently verify it). I'm interested in hearing other thoughts on the matter, though I believe the evidence leans towards lifting Congress' ban on offshore drilling.