To The Editor:
Stanley Gershbein (“It’s Only My Opinion”), in your recent columns you have been advocating for drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, as well as offshore drilling.
Well, to quote the late Senator Moynihan, “You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.”
First, you incorrectly describe the debate on offshore drilling by implying that the US currently does not drill off shore. It does. American oil companies currently hold over 7,000 leases accounting for 68 million acres that are not being developed. Eighty percent of our anticipated off-shore oil is available for drilling. So the federal ban is not on all offshore drilling, only on drilling in specific areas. And the ban need not be lifted because there are plenty of other areas in which to drill.
Second, any oil coming from the protected areas would take decades to reach the market and have little to no impact on prices. The Energy Information Association, a division of the US Department of Energy, wrote the following:
“The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher – 2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.” Source.
So the difference between drilling in the protected areas versus the unprotected areas is 200,000 barrels per day, (see the 2.2 million barrels per day – 2.4 million barrels per day in the above quote.) To put that in perspective, the United States currently consumes about 21 million barrels of oil per day. This is such an insignificant amount so far in the future that it is not worth the cost in time, money, and environmental impact. And it is certainly not the panacea that the Bush administration is passing it off as.
Get ready for the world of $500 oil.
Lee Wilson
Bay Ridge
Stanley Gershbein responds:
Dear Mr. Wilson,
At the risk of dueling with quotes, the statement about facts and opinions from the late Senator is matched by the wise man that said, “As the facts change I change my opinion.”
I note the facts changing as I watch the elderly gentleman at the Hess Station climbing that tall ladder three or four times a week to change the gasoline prices.
We are told that the leases held by the American oil companies are for areas that are not profitable. It seems to me that these companies are in business to make as much profit as possible. Why should I not believe them?
We heard your second point about “decades” way back in the seventies and everybody knows now that we should have started drilling way back then. With all of the modern technologies developed since, the decades number has become debatable. There are sources, all easily available on the Internet, that tell us we can see production from ANWAR in under five years and from the coastal shelf in under three. Maybe. Maybe not. But sitting on our tuchuses arguing about it will accomplish nothing. It is imperative that America takes a chance now and moves forward. Drill, and at the same time, investigate alternative energy sources.
The information from the Energy Information Association that you are quoting comes from charts that are almost six years old. With charts that old one has to wonder how long it took to acquire that data and how old the information really is. A July 23, 2008 Bloomberg article tells us that the U.S. Geological Survey reported there may be 90 Billion – that’s Billion with a capitol B – barrels of oil in the Arctic. One-third of that is in Alaskan territory. If the tree-huggers and Caribou-coddlers don’t stand in the way with their time consuming legal battles, we just might be able to see a significant drop in price. The United States needs to start drilling in Alaska, drilling offshore and constructing refineries. All will take an act of congress.
Most readers who disagree with me tend to jump into the gutter and lose credibility by presenting themselves as angry individuals. I want to thank you for taking the time to write a reasonable commentary.
