THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VII, Issue # 276, December 15, 2005
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
IT'S TIME TO SUPPORT ANWR DRILLING:
U.S. ANTI-OIL POLICIES ARE HURTING
JOBS, PROSPERITY, & THE POOR
By Paul K. Driessen
ENVIRONMENTALISM VERSUS CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATION: THE
DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS & THEIR ALLIES AMONG THE POLITICIANS IN THE U.S. CONGRESS TO BLOCK
LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO OPEN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE TO OIL & NATURAL GAS DRILLING -- DRILLING
OPPONENTS SUBORDINATING AMERICA'S NEED FOR STEADY ECONOMIC GROWTH & DEPENDABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY TO
THE DICTATES OF ENVIRONMENTALIST IDEOLOGY & THE NECESSITIES OF SELF-SERVING POLITICAL ALLIANCES &
ARRANGEMENTS
FULL STORY:
The budget reconciliation bill recently passed by the U.S. Senate would finally open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR) to drilling. Environmentalists are “outraged,” while most Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives plan to
go against their constituents’ best interests by voting against drilling.
Sadly, that’s to be expected. What’s amazing is that a number of House Republicans are likewise saying they intend to vote
to lock up ANWR’S vast energy resources. They’re supposed to understand market forces and energy economics – at least
better than their colleagues across the aisle. And yet they are planning to cast “nay” votes precisely when global demand
for petroleum is soaring, energy prices are reaching all-time highs, and Winter heating bills will make it increasingly difficult
for poor people to heat and eat.
That any responsible member of Congress could vote against this energy development legislation underscores the
ideological blinders worn by drilling opponents, the vast misinformation that still dictates discussions about this issue, and
the refusal of elected officials even to acknowledge the cumulative effects of “environmental protection” rules enacted over
many decades – much less do anything about them.
Many votes against drilling will come from California, Northeastern, and Midwestern legislators who have made a career of
railing against high energy prices, “obscene” oil company profits, unemployment and balance of trade deficits, while
simultaneously doing everything possible to constrict supplies, increase demand, and drive up prices. For instance, air
quality rules, coupled with a virtual prohibition on building new nuclear plants, mean that most new electrical generating
plants are gas-fired. So, demand for natural gas continues to climb, while domestic supplies continue to decrease.
But these same legislators have consistently opposed natural gas (and oil) development in Alaska, off the East Coast, off the
Florida coast, along the Pacific Coast, in the Great Lakes, throughout the western states, and in any other areas where
petroleum might actually be found.
They apparently believe it’s OK to drill in other countries, even in sensitive areas in other countries. It’s likewise appropriate
to buy crude from oil-rich dictators (especially when offered at a discount by Venezuelan despots), send American jobs and
dollars overseas, reduce U.S. royalty and tax revenues, imperil industries that depend on petroleum, and blanket habitats
with “ecologically friendly” wind turbines and solar panels. However, drilling in the USA, even for natural gas, is strictly
verboten.
This is truly political theater of the absurd.
ANWR, government geologists say, could hold up to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That’s 30 years’ of imports from
Saudi Arabia. Turned into gasoline, it would power California’s entire vehicle fleet for some 50 years. The area’s natural gas
could fuel Florida, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin generating plants for a decade or more.
At $50 a barrel, ANWR crude would eliminate the need to import $800 billion worth of foreign oil, create up to 700,000
American jobs, and generate hundreds of billions in royalties and taxes.
Bringing this oil online would have another vital benefit. As Prudhoe Bay and nearby oil reserves decline, a point will be
reached where there isn’t enough to keep the Trans-Alaska Pipeline running at capacity. That would mean enormous
quantities of otherwise recoverable oil will be left in the ground, instead of fueling our economy. New supplies from ANWR
would ensure that our oil lifeline remains open.
But all that is irrelevant, insist environmental purists in and out of Congress. Energy development would “irreparably destroy”
the refuge, they assert. Caribou droppings!
ANWR covers 19 million acres, an area equivalent to South Carolina. Of this, only 2,000 acres – scattered in small parcels
across the “coastal plain” – would actually be disturbed by drilling and development, thanks to modern directional drilling
technologies. That’s 0.01% of the refuge, one-twentieth of Washington, DC – or 20 of the buildings Boeing uses to
manufacture 747 jets!
The potentially oil-rich area is flat, treeless tundra – 3,500 miles from DC and 50 miles from the beautiful mountains seen in all
the deliberately misleading anti-drilling photos. During eight months of Winter, when drilling would take place, virtually no
wildlife are present. Only oil field workers are crazy enough to remain outdoors when temperatures drop to minus 40 F, the
tundra turns rock solid, and that chaw of tobacco they spit out freezes before it hits the ground.
However, these unforgiving conditions mean drilling can be done with ice airstrips, roads, and platforms. In the Spring, they’ll
all melt, leaving only puddles and little holes. The caribou will return, just as they have for years at the nearby Prudhoe Bay
and Alpine oil fields, and do just what they always have: eat, hang out, and make babies. In fact, Prudhoe’s caribou herd has
increased from 6,000 head in 1978 to 32,000 today. Other Arctic wildlife will also return, along with the Alaska state bird,
Mosquito giganteus (which locals claim can carry off rabbits and small dogs).
Vast oil and gas potential, in a distant, mostly desolate area. Unprecedented global demand for petroleum. Soaring energy
prices that hurt productivity, prosperity, and the poor. Modern technological marvels that enable us to find and develop
petroleum resources with no significant environmental impacts. Jobs, revenues and reduced dependence on foreign sources.
Ensuring that we can recover all the oil we’ve already discovered along Alaska’s North Slope.
The benefits are many and obvious. The negatives few. Finding and producing ANWR’s oil ought to be a slam-dunk. The
fact that so many congressmen (and senators) can’t bring themselves to support drilling there – or anywhere else in or off our
50 states – ought to make every American question the analytical skills of the people they’ve sent to Washington.
Every thoughtful taxpayer and voter ought to tell their representatives: These oil and gas resources are vital to our future. It’s
time to end the obstruction and political posturing. It’s time to drill in ANWR.
© 2005 Paul K. Driessen
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
Paul K. Driessen is Senior Policy Advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality, the Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow, and the
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. Driessen is author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, which can be
obtained at