According to Jonah Goldberg, writing in the National Review Online:
Both the New York Times and Washington Post editorial boards enthusiastically supported drilling in ANWR in the late 1980s. The Post noted that the area “is one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other where drilling would have less impact on surrounding life. . . . ”
ANWR is roughly the size of South Carolina … however, the area where, according to Department of Interior estimates, some 5.7 billion to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil reside is much smaller and … would amount to the size of Dulles airport.
In the winter, it reaches 70 degrees below zero (not counting wind chill, which brings it to 120 below) and is in round-the-clock darkness.
In summer, the coastal plain is mostly mosquito-plagued tundra and bogs. (The leathernecks at Prudhoe Bay joke that “life begins at 40” — because at 40 degrees, clouds of mosquitoes and other pests take flight from the ocean of puddles).
So, we should sacrifice national security and pay more at the pump to save this pristine land ???
Photos from http://www.anwr.org/photo.htm
Article excerpts from http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTM2NzI5MmU5NTUwYzZjYTYxYWMxNjZhOWQ2NjNhODk=&w=MQ==
The Homa Files 
June 24, 2008 at 10:01 pm |
Ken-
Your thesis is reasonable, but recall that it will take ~10 years to bring ANWR online in any meaningful supply increase.
Interestingly, phased in CAFE fuel standards increases will create about the same decrease in demand (1M bbd) in 20 years time that drilling ANWR will.
The logical action is for the government to induce market distortions both by increasing domestic supply (through drilling incentives that have been on the books for years) and increase domestic mechanical device efficiency (aka incent car makers to make more fuel efficient cars).
June 30, 2008 at 12:42 pm |
Additionally, it should be noted that drilling is no longer a purely vertical activity these days. From a few central locations, drilling can be done at angles, thereby allowing for exploitation of much larger areas per drilling site than 50 years ago. Thus, any environmental impact is negligible compared to the benefit.
Frankly, the roads the beatniks create to get into ANWR and observe the pristineness of their latest political victory likely have a greater impact than any drilling would, especially if you transport the oil via the Arctic Sea. (I am just assuming there are roads, but illustrating the overall hypocrisy of the foes generally).
July 30, 2008 at 7:56 pm |
Ten years ago, the democrats were howling about how drilling would not decrease gas prices for at least ten years. Now they are trotting out the very same argument that caused this situation in the first place. It is not logical.