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]