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the outdated oil drilling technology and network of gravel roads used 30 years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.