Summer 2001 Issue
|
IN THIS ISSUE:
Keeping the Lights On Editor's
Note
|
Keeping the Lights On
by Marty McElhaney It has been front-page news the last several months. California has suffered three seasons of rolling blackouts, with energy companies frantically trying to keep pace with demand, at the same time they are trying to comply with the California government’s version of deregulation. While much attention has focused upon the shortages of electricity and the high cost of natural gas, little, if any, space has been devoted to the major causes of the problem, namely, government over-regulation and the demands from the environmental community that the general public use only clean-burning, environmentally friendly, fuel. The current situation has been made worse by the fact that there have been no new power plants built in California in the last thirty years, and not many have been built in the rest of the United States, either. The demand for affordable power has not lessened over thirty years, but, rather, has increased. So why the lack of new power plants? It has become increasingly fashionable among certain groups, to blame modern civilization for the ills of the world, both real and imagined, and as a result, the “greenies” have interfered in the production of energy at every level. They charge that oil-fired plants produce contaminants that defile the environment and destroy “fragile ecosystems.” Likewise, they oppose hydro-electricity because the dams, which produce cheap electricity, are an impediment to the movement of salmon. They even oppose exploration for new energy sources, citing irreversible harm to the environment and loss of critical habitat for thousands of endangered species. In short, they are against modern technology and the presence of mankind. The full-scale assault on fossil fuel use
began in earnest when a theory, called “Global Warming” was advanced
by green groups in Rio in 1992. The doomsayers cried that the world was
in eminent danger of frying because Mother Earth was having hot flashes
due to industrialized nations’ intemperate use of fuel. Hence, the
headlong rush by the vocal green groups to call for a switch to cleaner
burning energy sources, namely natural gas. Thus began the eight-year campaign to curb exploration for fossil fuels and to make it “politically incorrect” to use anything stronger than natural gas. Former President Clinton himself struck a major blow against affordable energy when he unilaterally made a national monument of 1.7 million acres of clean burning coal, now known as the Grand-Staircase, Escalante National Monument in Utah, during his 1996 Presidential campaign. There is hope on the horizon, however scant it may be. With the new administration in place there has been renewed talk of opening some areas to oil exploration. George W. Bush has made no secret of his approval of drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and some Republican Congressmen have already ventured forth with legislation to allow such action. Senator Frank Murkowski, (R-AK), is promoting
legislation to drill for oil in a small portion of the 19.8 million acre
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is estimated there are billions of
barrels of oil for the taking in a mere 1.5 million acre corner, a small
section which was set aside, by Congress in 1980, for a study to
determine its potential as a reliable oil source The announcement of the proposed legislation
was greeted by howls of protest from the preservationists. They have
trotted out their shop-worn slogans that ANWR is the “Crown Jewel”
of wildlife refuges and that drilling for oil will The facts, however, do not support such nonsense. When drilling began in the Prudhoe Bay area, twenty-three years ago, similar arguments were made that the pipelines would disturb the caribou calving areas and that the animals would soon disappear from the face of the earth. Studies have shown quite the opposite. The caribou herds have grown by leaps and bounds. The Central Arctic Herd has quadrupled in size, from 5,000 animals in 1975, to 19,000 today. Similar increases in Alaska’s three other herds have occurred, as well. The Western Arctic Herd; 100,000 in 1970, 463,000, today. The Teshekpuk Herd has increased from less than 5,000 to 25,000 today, and the Porcupine Herd now numbers 129,000, up from less than 100,000 in 1972. Clearly, the argument that oil exploration and production adversely impact caribou, and other animals, is false. The case for drilling the ANWR is made stronger when viewed in light of current U.S. dependency on foreign oil. In 1973 the U.S. imported 37 percent of its oil, but today that figure has risen to 56 percent. Driven by environmentalists’ demands, the federal government has increasingly placed more and more land off limits to oil exploration during the last twenty-five years. Demand for fuel and heating oil has only grown during these years, however, leading to today’s dilemma and leaving the U.S. vulnerable to a full blown oil crunch should OPEC or the likes of Saddam Hussein decide to close the spigots. Another casualty of heavy-handed over regulation is the deplorable state of oil refineries, whose numbers have fallen from 231, in the last few years, to a mere 151 and which many blame for last summer’s $2.00 a gallon gas prices. The case for drilling the ANWR is strong, as evidence a 1998 study in which the U.S, Geological Survey estimated the Coastal Plain of the ANWR could hold as much as 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil, comparable to thirty years of importing Saudi oil and saving Americans millions of tax dollars and exported jobs. The preservationists’ unsubstantiated claim, that drilling the ANWR will cause irreparable environmental damage, doesn’t hold water because technological advances made since the Prudhoe Bay discovery have made it possible to extract oil deposits while leaving a very small footprint. By using 3-D seismic technology, oil and gas
prospects can be pinpointed with amazing accuracy and by using one
production “pad,” rigs can drain 64 square miles of subsurface,
instead only 16 square miles, twenty-three There is strong support for drilling the ANWR among Alaskans, as well, including the Native people. George Ahmaogak, mayor of Alaska’s North Slope Borough knows how much benefit the oil development means to Native Alaskans and expresses resentment over the intrusion of environmentalists who insist that an oil-based culture will wreak havoc upon the fragile cultures of the Eskimos and Gwich’in Indians. He says, “I believe that Native people in the 21st century are not well served by the attitude that indigenous cultures cannot survive unless their world remains untouched. All healthy cultures continually adapt to changes in their environment. Native people are not ‘noble savages’ and neither we nor the non-Native people who seek to save us from a changing world should cling to that Hollywood stereotype.” Oliver Leavitt, chairman of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, which represents 8,000 pro-development Eskimos, shares that view. He explains that when the Prudhoe Bay project was begun, many of the Native people believed their way of life was doomed. They believed that the caribou and fish would go away and all the other wildlife would disappear. Nothing was further from the truth. He is now anxious to show another Indian tribe, the Gwich’in, which opposes oil exploration, the benefits derived from industry. However, it is not an easy sell. “The North Slope was the Third World before they found oil. We’d like to show them [the Gwich’in ] we haven’t lost our culture and what oil has done for us, the schools and services. But every time we get close to bringing them up, the environmentalists step in and the Gwich’in back out. They are afraid what the Gwich’in will see.” The quest for additional energy sources is commendable, but just how firmly the administration is dedicated to keeping America’s lights on is called into question by statements from the EPA head. Christy Todd Whitman, the new Environmental Protection Agency chief, has recently been quoted as saying; “the administration is considering limits on carbon dioxide emissions as part of a broader anti-pollution strategy.” Even more disturbing, Ms. Whitman essentially hinted that Mr. Bush might favor legislation that would regulate carbon dioxide, which the global environmentalists claim is the major cause of so-called “global warming.” She said, “There’s no question but that global warming is a real phenomenon, that is occurring.” America needs affordable and reliable energy sources to continue to prosper and it would be disastrous if the Bush administration were to fall prey to the propaganda spouted by radical environmental groups, here and abroad. Let’s work to keep the lights on in America. California’s energy problems don’t need to become America’s problems. |
