BCT Editorial – 3/21/05

This page was last updated on March 22, 2005.

Drop in the bucket; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 21, 2005.

Given that most new oil production comes from fields far smaller than those in ANWR, the logical extension of this editorial is we should stop exploring for new sources of oil because they “won’t mean a thing” and “would only be a drop in the bucket.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Here’s something to remember about the U.S. Senate voting last week to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to drilling:

“In the end, it won’t mean a thing.

“Not to the environment, not for the nation’s energy independence, not for lowering fuel costs.

“Not now, not in the future.

“Last year, the federal Energy Information Administration reported that while drilling in ANWR would produce 876,000 barrels of oil a day by 2025, the increase would be eaten up because of increasing demand. Because of that, oil imports will go up by 6.3 million barrels a day. ANWR would only be a drop in the bucket.”

[RWC] In case the Times missed it, “drop[s] in the bucket” fill the bucket. The editorial would like us to believe ANWR will be the only new source of oil. Though it may be true there probably are no more “giant” oil fields to be found, advancing technology and increasing prices make formerly inaccessible oil from existing fields accessible. We saw this in the 1970s when the artificial prices set by OPEC made production of North Sea oil economically feasible.

Will oil production ever keep pace with consumption? No. Does that mean we should stop exploration as the editorial leads us to believe? No.

“Also, more countries will be competing for that oil. Demand for oil by nations such as China and India is growing at a voracious rate, which will keep supplies tight and costs high.

“The most efficient way to reverse the situation is for Americans to drive more energy-efficient cars and trucks and develop alternate fuel sources. Nobody wants to hear that, though, so we’ll drill in a remote place that will give us a little more oil.”

[RWC] The most efficient way to determine our energy sources is to let the market decide. As the cost of one form of energy increases, either via increased consumption or scarcity, other forms become economically attractive.

At the risk of being picky, the author should have used “alternative” instead of “alternate.”

“Unfortunately, that’s what happens when politics and ideology and not practicality drive an issue.”

[RWC] I don’t understand the Times position on this issue. Any practical energy “policy” must include various actions. These actions include energy efficiency, increasing supply, and alternative energy sources. Telling, though, is many of the people who express opinions similar to the Times believe only in decreased consumption. At every step of the way, so-called environmentalists oppose increased coal usage, nuclear power, hydroelectric power, and even wind power. I’m sure they will oppose solar power if it becomes economically feasible for large-scale implementation.