The Will to be ignorant

Drilling in ANWR still isn't the solution to high gas prices

Posted by Andrew Dessler (Guest Contributor) at 1:22 PM on 09 Jun 2008

Read more about: oil and gas drilling | Arctic Refuge | oil | energy | dumbassery

George Will is at it again. His latest bit of inane demagoguery can be found here, in which he excoriates everyone who has ever opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:

Also disqualified from complaining [about oil prices] are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR's oil in the ground and who voted to put 85 percent of America's offshore territory off-limits to drilling.

Naturally, Will ignores the flip side of the coin. What about people who have opposed investing in renewable energy, increasing fuel efficiency standards for cars, or encouraging conservation a decade ago? Those people have done far more long-term damage. If we'd begun to work on the oil problem ten years ago, we would be in much, much better shape than we are today.

But is drill, drill, drill a solution? Will writes:

In September 2006, two U.S. companies announced that their Jack No. 2 well, in the Gulf 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, had tapped a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil, which would increase America's proven reserves by 50 percent. Just probing four miles below the Gulf's floor costs $100 million. Congress's response to such expenditures is to propose increasing the oil companies' tax burdens.

Wow, that's a lot of oil! Given that the world consumes 30 billion barrels of oil today, that's a whole six-month supply of oil. The U.S. consumes about a quarter of this; it represents about two years of U.S. consumption.

Thus, the policy of drill, drill, drill only delays the problem by a few months to a few years. The only long-term solution is to switch to renewable sources of energy -- and the sooner we do it, the better.

For story: The Will to be ignorant
9 Comments | Post a Comment

Who's complaining?...

Also disqualified from complaining [about oil prices] are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR's oil in the ground and who voted to put 85 percent of America's offshore territory off-limits to drilling.

Considerin' that most of those people are environmentalists...I doubt they were complainin' 'bout high oil prices to begin with.

by Tasermons Partner at 1:57 PM on 09 Jun 2008

We need a comprehensive solution.

The United States should have a three part energy policy, short term, intermediate term, and long term, all operating in parallel.

The short term policy is drill, drill, drill. Drill in Alaska, drill offshore, and drill in the 48 states. We should also expand refinery capacity. For each barrel of new production we keep $100+ in this country, reducing the rate at which our money is the devalued. It also shows the world that we're taking action on the high cost of energy, which will tend to curtail the substantial speculative part of oil cost.

The intermediate term policy is to rapidly implement proven technology that can reduce our energy consumption, and increase supplies of clean energy substantially.

The long-term energy policy should increase R&D to $90 billion per year (only 2.25 cents/kWh) and push every technology as hard as possible. That would include building at least one full scale commercial size plant of every promising technology. Actual performance data would give companies and individuals confidence to make rapid large scale investments in new and proven technology.

We should create a totally level playing field by including all external costs and deleting all subsidies for every energy source, and allow prices to rise as necessary to meet the demand? This policy will automatically select the best energy system possible at the lowest cost.

Any one of these three approaches by itself is impractical. We need all three running in parallel at maximum capacity to solve the world's energy problems.

Things Everybody Should Know About Energy

by BILL HANNAHAN at 2:23 PM on 09 Jun 2008

If wishes were oil wells...

The "15 billion barrels" number is nothing more than speculation and wishes. The reality is almost certainly a lot less. Also, if the hoped-for flow rate is achieved it would only be a few percent of daily U.S. oil consumption at best. If the Jack field ever gets developed -- and that's a big "if," because the conditions are so difficult and the costs are so high -- it will not significantly increase U.S. oil production.

Sources:

Ped Shed Blog

by Laurence Aurbach at 2:43 PM on 09 Jun 2008

National Security Issue

As world instability, food riots, real wars, and natural disaster happen, we'll need more fuel. Until you make helicopters, tanks, and trucks that run on something besides distillate fuels, please stand aside - our watch our country self destruct.

I liked Bill H's response posted above. He's a realist. In the short-term we simply have no alternative. It is not helpful to say we had 25 years of a failed energy policy. We have to work our way out of the position we got ourselves in.

Unfortunately, that may include drilling in the ANWR. I don't agree with George Will's opinion but you have to admit, he is a top notch writer and a realist.

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 6:46 PM on 09 Jun 2008

Realist

U.S. oil production reached its peak in 1970. Over the past 20 years production has declined so precipitously that we are now around the 1951 level of production. Even if we drilled in every protected area of the U.S. it would only slow down the overall decline slightly.

Panicked rhetoric about a U.S. self-destruct may stampede popular opinion into the "drill, drill, drill" option and damn the environmental risks. But even if we do that, we are still left with the question, "what next?"

Ped Shed Blog

by Laurence Aurbach at 9:10 PM on 09 Jun 2008

Scrounging in the dirt...

..for every last drop of oil, and not long from now every last crumb of coal - this is what I call the Hitler-in-the-bunker scenario.
It's the absolute refusal to recognize the war is lost, or in this case the fossil fuel orgy is OVER. It's the grim, scorched-earth determination to rip up every last piece of ground however precious, just to drag out a miserable existence for a few more measly days.

And these are supposed to be the "realists"?!

The one and only realistic thing to do is accept imminent Peak Fossil Fuel and energy descent, and the soon-to-be-accomplished fact that the growth economy and all its luxury concomitants (including useless things like tanks and helicopters - what are they good for now except to make an oil grab to protract the bunker existence? And what will they be good for once there's no oil left to grab?) will soon be swept away. There may still be time to economically devolve and politically decentralize in an organized manner, and even to build small regional renewable energy systems.

It's a choice between orderly retreat or total rout. We can do this the easier way, or the hard way. Grimly digging with bloody fingers in the dirt for droplets, driving these stupid cars until they literally run out of gas on the freeway for good, is the hard way.

As for ANWAR, Rocky Mountain shale, and other places which may have a few drops worth of oil scattered about, yet which are places of such precious natural majesty, for America to even consider defiling them for the sake of dragging out the bunker existence, is like partiers having a kegger around a bonfire. Their firewood has run out, but they do have some precious paintings, and for the sake of keeping the just a small flicker lit for a few more minutes, they'll throw the paintings on the fire. It's just simple barbarism, the barbarism of decadence (with a streak of gleeful vandalism thrown in, as we see in the case of George Will).

by Russ at 12:50 AM on 10 Jun 2008

Do NOT increase refining capacity...

...why don't these people understand, we already refine most of our oil? We get it in crude, and then refine it here.

The only reason to increase refining capacity would be if we increase our consumption...and we should be decresing consumption, not increasing...even in the short term.

Otherwise intermediate and long-term goals become even more unobtainable.

by Tasermons Partner at 7:30 AM on 10 Jun 2008

Cable news with George Will......

......... would be much better served if they would invite a chimpanzee and a baboon to speak on any panel in which George makes an appearance.

George would shine, maybe.
~Rev El

by RevElMundo at 9:37 AM on 10 Jun 2008

Hopeless Cause?

I'm as environmentally passionate as anyone, but I fear that we're fighting a losing battle against the drill everywhere crowd. Gas prices are going to put unbelievable pressure on our politicians. Increased drilling is the most politically expedient solution. It allows politicians to say they're doing something now, and requires little sacrifice from John Q Public. Policy effectiveness is irrelevant.

We've never seen land use conflics like we'll see in the next few years.

Unfortunately I think this is inevitable and we need to be prepared to focus efforts on minimizing the footprint of drilling operations and maximizing the required investment in site remediation.

by JoeyJoeJoe at 9:50 AM on 11 Jun 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.