Published: July 26, 2008 02:01 pm         

FLASHPOINT: Exploring, drilling for oil in country’s long-term interests

Recently, Prof. Donald G. Richards, professor of economics at Indiana State University, shared his thoughts on candidate Greg Goode’s energy policy. In his letter, published July 13, Prof. Richards stated he believed candidate Goode’s energy policies were “obsolete”, and that “there is no plausible basis” for believing our drilling for oil in ANWR would promote our “energy independence and relieving the upward pressure on domestic gas prices.”

What Prof. Richards failed to mention in his letter is that Greg Goode has never made such a claim. Our drilling for oil in ANWR would indeed not meet 100 percent of our energy demands. But it certainly would not make the problem worse. Had we started drilling for oil in ANWR when it was first proposed in the ’80s, we could be utilizing those energy resources within our country, creating hundreds — if not thousands — of jobs for Americans, and bringing literally billions of dollars back into our economy. I’m not sure what Prof. Richards thinks of more energy, more jobs, and more money in our economy, but that sure sounds like solid economics to me.

He continued: “It is a false promise and one that only works to postpone the search for energy solutions based on alternatives to a resource that renders us evermore dependent and vulnerable as a nation.”

What leaves us more vulnerable as a nation is when our own government makes it impossible for our domestic oil companies to drill for oil right here in the United States. According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, we have domestic supplies of at least 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is 10 times as much oil and 20 times as much natural gas as Americans use in one year. Currently, 85 percent of that resource-laden land area is off-limits for domestic drilling, thanks to excessive legislation from our Congress.

With that in mind, consider this: a few days ago, on July 18, the Wall Street Journal reported: “Utilities and industry analysts estimate that it will cost families 30 percent to 50 percent more to heat their homes with natural gas this winter. Families who use heating oil could face increases of between 50 percent and 100 percent.” I wonder, does Prof. Richards find heating one’s home to be obsolete as well?

Meanwhile, other nations of the world, like China and Russia, continue to drill to make oil and gas readily available for their countries. In a partnership with Cuba, the Chinese have commenced drilling a mere 60 miles off of the coast of Florida; they’re drilling closer to South Florida than any American oil company is allowed to do. And Russia continues relentlessly to expand oil production in the Arctic. Artur Chilingarov, Arctic explorer and a member of Russia’s parliament is quoted as saying, “The Arctic zone is a guarantee of Russia’s economic power. Oil, gas, gold, diamonds and phosphates — it’s all there.”

Meanwhile, we sit at home, hearing people like Nancy Pelosi tell us that President Bush’s energy plans are “a hoax”, and promising us that they will make the problem better. They have failed. It’s a shame that a communist nation like Russia has a better understanding of how to achieve economic power than we do.

Prof. Richards went on to write that “exploiting” natural resources found in ANWR alone would reduce our dependence on imported oil by 4 percent. I would agree that 4 percent sounds like a small number, but that doesn’t mean it’s insignificant. I’m sure Prof. Richards would enjoy owning 4 percent of the land in California, 4 percent of the sales tax monies collected on goods sold in Indiana for one day, or even 4 percent of the daily take at all the restaurants on the campus where he works.

But since the good professor thinks 4 percent is too low a number, maybe we should drill in other parts of the country too, like the Bakken Formation in North Dakota (200 billion barrels — largest in U.S. history), which alone could boost America’s oil reserves by 10 times the current amount. Kiplinger writes of this specific discovery: “That’s twice the size of Alaska’s reserves and potentially enough to meet all U.S. oil needs for two decades.” It’s funny how Prof. Richards never made mention of that find. I wonder if Prof. Richards would think drilling there is obsolete as well.

Prof. Richards eventually concluded his letter: “Eighth District voters should also think carefully before sending to Washington another representative whose energy-related thinking is so clearly obsolete.”

If Prof. Richards wants to talk about obsolete, let’s talk about all the planes, trains, automobiles and factories that would be rendered obsolete because they have no fuel. And while we’re at it, maybe we should talk about all the other petroleum-based products that would be in short supply as well, such as hearing aids, heart valves, golf balls, shoes, toothpaste, fishing lures, and thousands of other products.

As an engineer, I have yet to see a plane that was powered with a windmill affixed to its tail. Nor have I ever seen a train that was powered with solar panels mounted on the roof. No, these machines, the factories that manufacture these machines, (many of which are located here in Indiana), and the American economic engine that makes it all happen are all powered by oil and gas.

We would be providing ourselves a significant advantage by doing all we can to ensure these resources are available to power this engine for years to come. That will not happen with elected representatives who consistently vote to make sure this energy spigot is welded shut, then blame others for the problem.

— Andy Engle

Terre Haute