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.
6 comments:
I think this picture of you is very sexy.
I wish you would love me for my mind, and not my body.
Its not the 0.01% of total area that is of concern, but the area of destruction emanating from an oil spill (be it from drilling or tranporting via pipeline disasters etc) that is the risk. This more realistic scenario is much harder to quantify. Your second argument is stronger.
The rate of oil spills by tankers and pipelines has decreased by over 200% since the 1970s (http://www.itopf.com/_assets/documents/amop05.pdf; http://www.environmental-research.com/publications/pdf/spill_statistics/paper4.pdf). As a matter of fact, oil spills from pipelines are more frequent than those from tankers, thanks largely in part to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
Not only that, if you consider the frequency with which oil spills occur in the U.S. as a function of how much oil is transported here, the U.S. is by far the most efficient country in the world. I would rather have the drilling done here, where it is better regulated and spills will be quickly contained. Elsewhere, oil spills largely go unchecked by more apathetic nations.
In your post, you use two highlight two reason are commonly used against drilling in ANWR. The first is environmental concern and the second is the alleged minimal impact on the price of oil based on ANWR drilling. You then refute the first environmental argument with
"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)."
My post serves to highlight that your evidence in the counter argument is not strong. Because its not the 0.01% of total area that is used for drilling that is the environmental concern as so much the area that may be affected by an/any accident. Even if the chance of an oil spill by tanker or pipeline is small (sure maybe it has declined by 200% but it is not 0%), I'm sure the using an exposure area of 0.01% is not realistic.
I wonder, also, why you don't mention the lack of offshore drilling in Florida - an area which you may be familiar with - and oh by the way under republican governorship (Jeb and Charlie).
An oil spill would certainly cause devastation beyond the 0.01% of land required to drill in ANWR. I'm not arguing that. However, the point is that oil transportation has increased in efficiency significantly over the years, which renders a spill less of a threat (though still not zero as you mentioned).
As a function of consumption, the U.S. is the most efficient transporter of oil in the world. That means when it's in our hands, we drop less of it inadvertently into the environment than all other nations. The Exxon Valdez was the worst oil spill disaster in U.S. history, but it's only the 35th worst oil spill in world history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_spill), and it wasn't even the worst oil spill in the world in the year it happened (a spill almost twice as large occurred in December 1989 in Morocco). The upshot of all this is that I'd rather have the oil drilled for in the U.S. instead of other nations where it is less regulated, less efficient, and where there is no moral imperative to maintain the environment (all of which I stated in my last comment).
Or when we tout our environmentalism, are we only talking about the U.S.'s environment? Don't we care about other ecologically sensitive places around the world, too? There is potential for a spill anywhere you drill or transport oil, but there is less of a chance in the U.S. so I say do it here where we can hold ourselves accountable and engage in rapid clean-up efforts.
Regarding Florida, I'm not sure what your comment about Jeb and Charlie implies. Crist allowed drilling off the Panhandle a couple of years ago, but extended the moratorium on the rest of the Gulf Coast. The reason he touted was to protect Florida's beaches from a potential spill since tourism is Florida's biggest industry by far. From an economic standpoint, it makes sense to me. Especially since there is estimated to be about half as much oil in the Gulf of Mexico as there is in ANWR.
Post a Comment