The costly symbolism of ANWR
The United States is in serious energy crisis today, in part because of the triumph of symbolism over substance in the United States Congress. Our political pundits have elevated the 19.6 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR (see map), into a sacred mythical land that no man dare tread upon, least they spoil its great natural beauty forever (picture of drilling area). In reality, any future ANWR oil exploration would only take place in the desolate, treeless area designated as "10-02," which represents just 8% of ANWR's land area, and which encompasses the Coastal Plain north of the Sadlerochit Mountains. Of that 8% of ANWR land, federal law states that only 2,000 surface acres could ever be used for actual drilling purposes. This 10-02 area was set aside specifically for oil and gas exploration and is not legally defined as a "wilderness" or a "refuge." None of Alaska's ANWR region is legally defined as a "park." We allow roads, campgrounds, hundreds of toilets, hotels, and hoards of tourists to violate the sanctity of Yellowstone (2.2 million acres) and Yosemite (.76 million acres), which are both legally defined as "parks," but do allow much needed oil drilling on just 2,000 acres of ANWR, which has 3.7 times the land area of the State of Massachusetts (5.3 million acres).
Does any member of the United States Congress really believe that drilling for oil on just 2,000 acres will destroy all wildlife and vegetation, leaving behind nothing but a smoldering toxic wasteland? Using directional drilling techniques, one single oil drilling station can snake underground pipes out to 8 miles in all directions, so the tiny footprint of oil recovery operations in ANWR would be inconsequential to the local ecology. When the oil is gone and the drilling equipment removed, any evidence that there was once oil exploration at ANWR would soon vanish. Drilling in ANWR would be like throwing a single peanut on the wall-to-wall carpet of a very large living room floor; hardly a cataclysmic event.
Why are we paying Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia so much money for imported oil when we could be producing that oil ourselves and giving Americans high paying jobs in the process? Some of the same environmentalists who oppose ANWR drilling support wild solar power schemes that would cover 21.76 million acres (34,000 square miles) of our beautiful Southwestern desert with of solar panels. Solar panels on a roof are fine, but when you cover virgin land with them you create a DEAD ZONE that will remain dead until the panels are removed and the land has time to heal itself. Other environmentalists support the building of thousands of wind turbines, which in addition to being unsightly are very effective bird and bat killing devices that end the lives of many thousands of our flying friends every year. Why is damage done by solar and wind power schemes politically correct, but benignly extracting oil from Alaska politically taboo?
The Congressional Research Service (see 76kb pdf) estimates that if oil recovery was allowed in the 10-02 area of ANWR, it would be worth at least $94.8 billion in federal income taxes and $42.8 billion in royalties, totaling $138 billion. This study uses the most conservative estimate of recoverable oil; 10.4 billion barrels. The actual oil treasure could climb to well over 20 billion barrels as new discoveries and improvements in oil drilling technology increase the size of extractable reserves. Oil drilling is supported by the Alaskan Native communities that live in ANWR, the State Government of Alaska, and over 75% of Alaskan residents. Declaring a huge area of land untouchable to oil recovery at a time of national energy crisis is irresponsible energy policy. As long as so many American political leaders place symbolism above substance, we will never solve our strategic national energy problems.
Christopher Calder
Christopher Calder is an ordinary American citizen who does not own any energy related stocks and does not work for any energy related business. He supports the use of oil until synthetic fuels can be manufactured through energy from truly "green" carbon free nuclear power.
