Forwarded by Jane Clark at [log in to unmask]
=======================================================
February 4, 2001

Boston Globe

Snake Oil from Bush

Editorial

ALMOST BEFORE HE HAD unpacked his bags at the White House, President
Bush made his first moves to expand domestic oil production, most
prominently in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In doing so, he
cited among other things California's current electricity crisis - an
absurd linking of entirely separate issues in the short run and probably
in the long run as well. He also called for reducing American dependence
on imported oil, a more reasonable objective by comparison but one
that still should be put in perspective.

Americans consume about 19 million barrels of oil a day, about 8 million
of that as gasoline. Annually they use nearly 7 billion barrels and
import slightly more than half of that from a wide range of places.
While estimates of the amount of oil to be found in the Alaska refuge
range from 5 billion to as much as 16 billion barrels, at the most it
could displace only about five years of imports - significant, but
hardly a long-term solution.

The more significant figure, though, may be in dollars. At $25 a barrel,
5 billion barrels would amount to $125 billion, 16 billion barrels to
$800 billion - numbers that should make any oil executive's mouth water.

There are also unquantifiable amounts of oil in offshore areas within
the 200-mile limit, off bounds for environmental reasons but still
highly tempting. Georges Bank, for example, is currently unavailable for
exploration, along with most of the East Coast and much of the West
Coast. We hope it stays that way.

The really big reservoir of potential petroleum is in the form of shale
in Colorado and neighboring states. It is estimated to contain as much
as 200 billion barrels, larger than Saudi Arabia's known reserves. A
major attempt to launch production was made in the early 1980s by Exxon
and other large oil companies, but the costs of production were found to
be at least $40 a barrel then, and the project was dropped. More
troubling than the price, which was a stopper in itself, was the massive
disruption that would have been inflicted on pristine natural
surroundings.

Bush's goal of reducing dependence on imported oil sounds attractive.
But in many cases, the costs in loss of or injury to natural habitat are
manifestly unattractive. Better by far to rein in consumption by opting
for smaller cars, new technologies like the hybrid gasoline-electric
vehicles just emerging, and making more efficient use of energy in other
sectors. Conservation is still the biggest opportunity, and more
incentives should encourage it.

America will not be the richer if Bush sets off a headlong rush to find
oil wherever it may exist at the expense of irreplaceable natural
assets.

© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]