RSS
Home
Energy industry groups and eco-activists both utilize hyperbole in energy development debates
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Editorials and news articles endorsing Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar's decisions regarding oil and gas leasing and development on federal lands are often accompanied by scenic photos taken within national parks or horror stories associated with energy development. Secretary Salazar's decisions appear to have been made with due deliberation and equanimity and, in most cases, will probably result in eventual limited leasing and measured development on the subject lands. The pace will be slower and the amount of land available for leasing will be less than industry wants.
Unfortunately, advocates from opposite ends of the debate utilize advertising and lobbying techniques that inspire divisiveness rather than compromise. In articles supporting Secretary Salazar's decision to withdraw some oil and gas leases in Utah, conservationists consistently used a photo of Delicate Arch along with stories contemplating "that drills might have been visible through the center of the 33 foot wide span." Articles stated that the lease in question was 1.3 miles away. Industry's response..."the closest parcel to a national park is four miles away..." and "(With) this decision, our government is continuing to deny access to American energy that belongs to all Americans, and making it even more difficult to increase energy security and tackle climate change." It seems that someone should be able to accurately measure the distance and it is doubtful that one lease tract will solve the nation's energy demand.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling advocates state that about 8 percent of the entire ANWR area of 19,000,000 acres is prospective for oil and gas. Of this, only 2,000 acres or 0.01 percent would be utilized for the "footprint." Since the days of Prudhoe Bay (The "North Slope"), advances in drilling techniques (horizontal drilling, contained liquid systems, miniaturization of equipment) have dramatically reduced the environmental impact. Industry points out that the Central Arctic Caribou Herd, which migrates through and around Prudhoe Bay has increased from 3,000 animals to over 30,000 animals since the discovery. Preservationists and anti-development activists argue that any development sullies the pristine nature of the entire ANWR; that wildlife populations will be compromised and that there is a high probability of oil spills. Opponents equate Alaskan oil development, regardless of its location, with disasters such as the Exxon Valdez Prince William Sound tanker spill. The USGS, the government's geologists, estimates that as much as 9.5 Billion barrels and 30 Trillion cubic feet of gas may be recoverable from the ANWR. (Saudi Arabia has about 260 Billion barrels of reserves or about 25% of the world's.)
The discussion of a national energy policy is difficult enough without invoking emotional reactions to topics like national security, energy independence, job creation or loss, photos of drilling rigs atop Delicate Arch or oil soaked birds. A national energy policy needs to incorporate all potential sources including wind, solar, hydro, bio-mass, wave, geo-thermal AND oil, gas, coal and nuclear.
There doesn't need to be development within naked eyesight of a national park or monument to achieve "energy independence" but to put, literally, millions of acres permanently off limits that are not in that sight line is an unwarranted emotional reaction.
Which is more visually disturbing...A Wyoming or Colorado ridgeline extending several miles and covered with an array of wind turbines; a California Mojave desert or Utah salt flat with several twenty-five acre arrays of solar panels; an Oregon, Washington, Maine or Idaho hydro power dam; an ANWR drilling rig; an offshore Gulf of Mexico platform? The list could contain tens of more entries. To some, a 2000 acre cornfield devoted to ethanol production might not be as pleasing as the original tall grass prairie that it replaced.
Regardless of the proponents and opponents of any given point of view, to achieve any kind of coherent national energy policy much of the induced hysteria and the emotional appeals must be eliminated. That, of course, won't happen but it would seem that reasonable people could agree on some, or even many, issues. It remains to be seen if there are any reasonable people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/oil_reserves#OPEC_countries
http://www.afsbooks.org/x54018xm
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29017638/
