BCT Editorial – 5/23/06

This page was last updated on May 28, 2006.

Tapped out; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 23, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The United States cannot drill its way to energy independence.”

[RWC] Wow, most of us didn’t know that!

“On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 217-203 to continue a ban on oil and natural gas drilling that has been in effect for 85 percent of the nation’s coastal waters for a quarter of a century.”

[RWC] Just one week later, the House voted 234 – 184 “to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program that will result in an environmentally sound program for the exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain of Alaska [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)].” I wonder when we can expect an editorial decrying that vote.

“The vote should not have been that close.

“What advocates of off-shore drilling and tapping the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge don’t understand is that the amount of oil that will be extracted from those sources would literally be a drop in the bucket of the nation’s needs.

“The best ways to achieve energy independence are through conservation and the development of alternative energy sources. The longer elected officials and the American people continue to think otherwise, the more dependent our nation will become on imported oil.”

[RWC] Unless we want the U.S. to go back to the days before the Industrial Age, it is impossible for the U.S. to achieve energy independence via conservation. Conservation has a role, but the real answer is greater energy supply, whether from traditional or alternative sources.

“The choice is ours. We can choose wisely or we can continue an energy policy that is tapped out.”

[RWC] This is the latest in a series of four editorials (The previous three were “Drop in the bucket,” “Oil wrong,” and “Dead end.”) in the last 14 months lobbying against domestic exploration for and production of oil and natural gas supply. Given the idiocy of this position, when can we expect editorials lobbying for domestic oil and natural gas fields to be shut in?

If U.S. oil companies don’t spend money on domestic exploration and production, where does the Times think that money will go? In its naivete, the Times probably believes the oil companies will take the money that would have gone into domestic exploration and production and invest it in “alternative energy sources.” Not exactly.

Most or all oil companies already fund research into alternative energy sources and believe they have a risk-balanced strategy. For example, over 25 years ago Texaco developed coal gasification technology to allow energy generation from low-grade, low-cost coal in an environmentally friendly manner. Other oil companies are investing in other alternative energy areas.

Where will money not spent on domestic exploration and production go? It will go to foreign exploration and production, of course. The editorial doesn’t explain how redirecting domestic investments to foreign exploration and production will help us “achieve energy independence.”

While I believe common sense dictates a policy that includes increased supply, conservation, and alternative energy sources, the Times completely opposes increased supply. How could the Times come to that conclusion?