BCT Editorial – 5/6/05

This page was last updated on May 7, 2005.

Jogging around; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 6, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“OIL WRONG: The editors of The Economist summed up what is wrong with the energy bill being considered by Congress that would allow drilling for oil in wilderness areas of Alaska and hands out billions in subsidies for the oil and gas business. ‘This is mad,’ the editors wrote. ‘America has so little oil, and guzzles so much, that it will never again be energy independent while relying on oil. America’s best hopes for energy security lie in the resilience of global oil markets, in conservation and in alternative energy sources.’ They are right. We cannot drill our way out of our dependence of oil. The sooner the American people and their elected officials understand that, the better it will be for the nation’s future.”

[RWC] By only mentioning oil and gas energy, the editorial implies that’s all there is to the energy bill. In truth, the bill includes incentives (read: subsidies) for alternative energy sources and conservation efforts.

There’s no question oil and gas industry subsidies are unnecessary. I’m sure it was an honest oversight – not, but the editorial failed to note President Bush – that guy who’s allegedly beholdin’ to his oil and gas buddies – criticized Congress for providing these subsidies when he said, “with oil at more than $50 a barrel … energy companies do not need taxpayers-funded incentives to explore for oil and gas.”

What I don’t understand is the opposition to drilling in the U.S. No one believes we’ll become energy independent with new U.S. oil and gas production, but doesn’t it make sense to produce oil that’s economically viable? Shouldn’t any credible comprehensive energy plan include oil and gas?

Regarding new drilling in Alaska, the environmental objections are the same we heard in the 1960s and 1970s about drilling on the Alaska North Slope (Prudhoe Bay). We’ve been producing oil from the ANS for nearly 30 years – at an average of about 1.5 million barrels per day – and the predicted ecological disaster never occurred. Given that history, why should we expect different in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)? We also need to remember oil and gas production technology has progressed quite a bit during the last 30 years.

One last point. I’m not hot on subsidies for any kind of energy conservation or production. In general, I believe the marketplace will take us in the right direction. That said, there are national security considerations so I can live with some subsidies for true research. Research does not include production, however. For example, subsidies for ethanol production are nothing more than another farm subsidy.