Spring Break
ANWR drilling not the solution
Issue date: 3/7/07 Section: Opinions
With the recent spike in gas prices and increased troop deployment to the Middle East, students may be rightfully concerned about the United States' dependence on foreign oil.
In fact, we as a nation are becoming more reliant on imported oil than ever before - approximately 56 percent of our oil comes from overseas. The Department of Energy estimates this dependence will increase to 68 percent by 2025 and will continue to rise.
We have not yet dealt with our long-term dependence on petroleum. We have merely attempted to satisfy our country's oil addiction with short-term, short-sighted solutions.
President Bush and many conservative interest groups have continuously promoted drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a pristine wildlife sanctuary in Alaska, to lessen our dependency on imports.
However, ANWR is an important treasure, and is a critical calving ground for a herd of caribou which indigenous Alaskans depend on for food.
Invading this habitat with equipment, pollutants and the inevitable oil spills that will occur, no matter what degree of caution is employed, would greatly affect these Native Americans.
Some believe drilling in ANWR is a "quick fix" to our energy predicament, but this is not the case.
First of all, the oil stores in ANWR are not sufficient to decrease foreign oil dependency to any significant degree.
The exploration in ANWR would not begin producing oil until approximately 2015, perhaps later, and would only churn out about 4 percent of the anticipated petroleum consumption each year.
Also, since 1995 when the export ban on Alaskan oil was lifted, oil production facilities in Alaska have exported 90 million barrels of oil overseas.
If the ANWR drilling proponents sincerely were concerned about supplying Americans with their own oil, they would re-impose an export ban on all Alaskan oil.
Moreover, a Senate bill passed in 2005 states even the oil in ANWR, if accessed, is not required to be sold domestically; therefore, rationalizations that the refuge would be used to satisfy our country's energy needs seem misleading.
So instead of questioning whether drilling in ANWR is advantageous, we should ask ourselves what the president and his administration are doing to support research and development of alternative energy sources.
In his 2007 State of the Union Address, President Bush addressed the importance of alternative energy sources such as ethanol, wind and solar power and promised a 20 percent reduction in gas usage in the next 10 years. However, actions speak louder than words, and his desire to pursue quick fixes (i.e. drilling in ANWR) calls into question the sincerity of these assurances.
The U.S. has always been on the cutting edge of technology, and alternative energy production should not be an exception.
The president has promoted research on hydrogen-powered cars, but with such a meager budget, it will be decades, if ever, before these will be affordable for the general public.
The bottom line is, until the U.S. develops a serious program on energy revolution and conservation, our country's foreign oil dependency and our everyday gas-guzzling habits will remain unchanged with or without drilling in ANWR.
- Susie Womick is a sophomore from Acworth majoring in pre-journalism
In fact, we as a nation are becoming more reliant on imported oil than ever before - approximately 56 percent of our oil comes from overseas. The Department of Energy estimates this dependence will increase to 68 percent by 2025 and will continue to rise.
We have not yet dealt with our long-term dependence on petroleum. We have merely attempted to satisfy our country's oil addiction with short-term, short-sighted solutions.
President Bush and many conservative interest groups have continuously promoted drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a pristine wildlife sanctuary in Alaska, to lessen our dependency on imports.
However, ANWR is an important treasure, and is a critical calving ground for a herd of caribou which indigenous Alaskans depend on for food.
Invading this habitat with equipment, pollutants and the inevitable oil spills that will occur, no matter what degree of caution is employed, would greatly affect these Native Americans.
Some believe drilling in ANWR is a "quick fix" to our energy predicament, but this is not the case.
First of all, the oil stores in ANWR are not sufficient to decrease foreign oil dependency to any significant degree.
The exploration in ANWR would not begin producing oil until approximately 2015, perhaps later, and would only churn out about 4 percent of the anticipated petroleum consumption each year.
Also, since 1995 when the export ban on Alaskan oil was lifted, oil production facilities in Alaska have exported 90 million barrels of oil overseas.
If the ANWR drilling proponents sincerely were concerned about supplying Americans with their own oil, they would re-impose an export ban on all Alaskan oil.
Moreover, a Senate bill passed in 2005 states even the oil in ANWR, if accessed, is not required to be sold domestically; therefore, rationalizations that the refuge would be used to satisfy our country's energy needs seem misleading.
So instead of questioning whether drilling in ANWR is advantageous, we should ask ourselves what the president and his administration are doing to support research and development of alternative energy sources.
In his 2007 State of the Union Address, President Bush addressed the importance of alternative energy sources such as ethanol, wind and solar power and promised a 20 percent reduction in gas usage in the next 10 years. However, actions speak louder than words, and his desire to pursue quick fixes (i.e. drilling in ANWR) calls into question the sincerity of these assurances.
The U.S. has always been on the cutting edge of technology, and alternative energy production should not be an exception.
The president has promoted research on hydrogen-powered cars, but with such a meager budget, it will be decades, if ever, before these will be affordable for the general public.
The bottom line is, until the U.S. develops a serious program on energy revolution and conservation, our country's foreign oil dependency and our everyday gas-guzzling habits will remain unchanged with or without drilling in ANWR.
- Susie Womick is a sophomore from Acworth majoring in pre-journalism
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 5
T. Hildebrandt
posted 3/07/07 @ 9:30 PM EST
I wonder if Ms. Womick has even visited Alaska or asked any Alaskans for their opinion on the ANWR issue. I grew up in Alaska, and I know that a majority of Alaskans favor drilling in ANWR. (Continued…)
ANONYMOUS
posted 5/09/08 @ 10:19 AM EST
You do realize that drilling ANWR would use only 1500 of the 19 million acres, right? Also, 75% of the local population is for drilling for oil, and of those people, only 220 people live in the area that would be affected. (Continued…)
Charles hill
posted 8/19/08 @ 1:23 PM EST
Saying that that some oil from ANWR may be exported is a very stupid reason for not drilling there! Take an class in economics. If we export a million barrels from ANWR and import a million barrels from somewhere else, it costs us nothing. (Continued…)
Ryan Klein
posted 9/25/08 @ 11:52 PM EST
ANWR is not a solution. It is a drop in the barrel (no pun intended). For those of you who have not dug into the numbers, check out:
http://blog. (Continued…)
Drilling Solutions
posted 8/10/09 @ 3:59 AM EST
Recent studies suggest that until the U.S. develops a serious program on energy revolution and conservation, other country's foreign oil dependency and everyday gas-guzzling habits will remain unchanged with or without drilling in ANWR. (Continued…)
Post a Comment