Iowa Sierrans - please respond to this horrible op-ed attacking the Sierra
Club and our position on the Arctic Refuge by sending letters under 200
words to [log in to unmask]
Points to include are the frequent oil spills from north shore drilling in
Alaska, the fact that oil profits will leave the US economy when private
corporations export the oil (as is happening with other Alaska oil now) and
that drilling will do nothing to reduce gas prices or increase oil
independence. We could more than offset the need for oil from drilling with
cost effective efficiency and conservation measures. The 5% he mentions in
his op-ed is not nearly significant enough to destroy a wilderness area set
aside decades ago. Also worth mentioning: most Americans continue to oppose
drilling, so he is in the minority, and Sen. Harkin has an opportunity to
represent Iowans by voting against this year's misguided energy bill.
Please take a few minutes to write a letter today, as an individual or as a
Sierra Club member. Thanks,
tarah
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050426/OPINION
01/504260377/1036
Deloss: Arctic drilling would yield big benefits, low costs
By GARRY DELOSS
April 26, 2005
Recent votes in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives indicate
that oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) will likely
get congressional approval this year. Does this mean "a national treasure in
jeopardy" as a Sierra Club essay in the Register warned?
Not to worry. Back in the "energy crisis" years of the 1970s, I lobbied
Congress on energy-policy issues for consumer activist and environmental
groups. In retrospect, we were wrong to oppose Arctic oil drilling then, and
today's environmentalists are repeating that error.
I offer four undeniable truths about Arctic Refuge oil drilling:
1. The national economic benefits from producing ANWR oil will be
substantial. Environmentalists downplay the several billion barrels of oil
as equal to a year or less of U.S. oil consumption. But that's a nonsensical
calculation. In the real world, ANWR oil will be produced gradually over
decades. It might provide 5 percent (one million barrels daily) of our oil
needs for 20 to 30 years.
If a possible 10 billion barrels are produced over a 30-year period at an
average price of $50 in today's dollars, that means releasing a half
trillion dollars in presently idle underground wealth that will create jobs,
grow our economy, and spin off tax revenues to pay for government programs.
Plus, the Alaskan oil will help our balance of trade as it displaces
imported oil.
Of course, as the price of oil rises, all of these waiting-to-be-tapped
economic benefits get bigger.
2. In contrast, the prospective cost in environmental injuries from ANWR oil
production has been falling and will be slight. How can I be certain?
Because I rely on the two most relevant pieces of empirical evidence.
First, even the outdated oil drilling technology and network of gravel roads
used 30 years ago to develop nearby Prudhoe Bay co-exist with thriving
wildlife.
Second, at ANWR, wildlife habitats will be further protected by two
innovations in Arctic oil drilling since Prudhoe Bay was drilled: the use of
modern "directional drilling" of multiple wells from a single drilling
platform and the use of temporary winter "ice roads" over the tundra in
place of permanent gravel roads.
The consequently minimal environmental "footprint" of modern Arctic oil
drilling is not theoretical; it is readily visible west of Prudhoe Bay at
the Alpine oil field (named for a company, not the topography). That project
drains oil from beneath 40,000 acres with dozens of wells from only two
drilling platforms on 93 acres of land. No gravel roads connect Alpine to
Prudhoe Bay, only winter ice roads and an underground pipeline.
The low-impact Alpine oil field, conspicuously ignored by the Sierra Club,
proves that injuries from Arctic Refuge oil drilling will be mostly
metaphysical (pain to the psyches of people who demand zero-impact purity),
not physical (actual damage to wildlife habitats).
3. There is a highly successful precedent for congressional action to
facilitate arctic oil production despite environmentalist doom and gloom.
In late 1973, environmental groups were litigating against a federal
pipeline construction permit for the proposed Trans-Alaska Pipeline to bring
Prudhoe Bay oil to market.
Then the Arab oil embargo hit, Congress passed a law ending the litigation
(Public Law 93-153), the pipeline was completed in mid-1977, and enormous
national benefits followed, along with tolerably low environmental injuries.
4. Given the above-described rising economic benefits, falling environmental
costs, and successful congressional precedent, a vote to drill in ANWR has
always been a question of when, not whether. When oil prices fluctuated at
$25 to $30, ANWR oil production was a questionable venture. But China and
India have traded their economically depressing socialism for the benefits
of capitalism. As their economies grow rapidly, their rising oil consumption
is pushing the world price of oil to $50 many years ahead of expectations.
ANWR oil drilling is barely economic at $30, attractive at $40, and
irresistible at $50.
GARRY DELOSS is a Spencer businessman.
Tarah Heinzen
Sierra Club Conservation Organizer
3839 Merle Hay Road, Suite 280
Des Moines, IA 50310
(515) 251-3995
[log in to unmask]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
|
