W. Henson Moore
Deputy Secretary of Energy
Washington
Just 6 months ago, President Bush released the National Energy Strategy (NES), the most thorough analysis of America's energy needs and capabilities ever completed.
The NES is the first document to balance the differing forces of the energy picture: energy security, environmental stewardship, and economic growth.
In the 2 years of testimony, debate, and analysis that went into crafting the NES, one fact stood clear: Oil will be a critical energy source well into the next century--beyond 2030.
Under NES, oil use as a share of total U.S. consumption will decrease from 40% of consumption today to 35% in 2010.
But in terms of absolute numbers, consumption is projected to rise from 17 million b/d in 1990 to 19.2 million b/d in 2010 and about 18 million b/d in 2030.
WHERE'S THE OIL?
Where to find that oil is one of the key challenges American policy makers will face in the new century.
This will require an aggressive international energy policy that seeks imports from a diverse group of stable countries. But more important, we must halt the decline in domestic production through broad application of enhanced oil recovery technology and by opening access to promising area--federal land, forests, offshore tracts, and in a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
The U.S. cannot increase its production while at the same time decreasing access to federal land--a seemingly simple truth, but one that has been lost in the tide of concern for the environment in recent years.
While countless studies by public and private groups demonstrate that responsible energy development is compatible with environmental stewardship, we nevertheless see more and more areas excluded from development in the name of the environment.
For example, about 170 studies have concluded that development can be managed safely in the Coastal Plain of ANWR. Yet critics of ANWR have ignored these scientific studies. Instead, they have seized upon an objective we all share--protecting the environment--in an effort to promote a no growth, no development agenda.
GOOD VS. EVIL
A myth is being promulgated. Its hallmarks are a distorted sense of the Coastal Plain's ecological worth and an exaggerated sense of the environmental risks that development would pose.
Opponents are attempting to frame the debate not in factual terms but in the context of "good vs. evil."
One official of the Wilderness Society recently accused ANWR development advocates of "talking about going in and destroying the heart of the ecosystem." The extremists' crusade is one of misinformation and fear, and the net effect could be the loss of a great energy resource.
The opponents don't base their arguments on scientific evidence.
Nor do they accept the lessons of experience. Twenty years of exploration and production at Prudhoe Bay show that development need not cause permanent harm to the environment.
LOUISIANA EXAMPLE
Perhaps even more telling is the experience of the National Audubon Society with oil and gas leasing its Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary in my own state, Louisiana.
Rainey is a 26,800 acre wildlife refuge, home to an assortment of protected animal and plant life and a breeding and nesting ground for a variety of migratory birds.
In addition, for more than 25 years it has been home to oil development. Oil companies in the Rainey Refuge are developing its bountiful resources in a responsible manner without damaging the natural habitat.
But those who oppose ANWR are not concerned with facts of experience. Like the boy who cried wolf, they continue to raise public fear through a campaign of distortion and exaggeration.
The American people are increasingly sensitized to environmental risk. But what of the economic and national security risks of oil imports at possibly twice today's levels in 2030?
The blind opposition to ANWR is symptomatic not of ecological concern but of environmental extremism--blind and ceaseless opposition to all development, anywhere, under any circumstances.
It goes, of course, beyond ANWR.
The Outer Continental Shelf is virtually shut in by congressional moratoriums except for the western Gulf of Mexico. Of the two thirds of our national forests theoretically available for oil and gas leasing under the "multiple use" mandate--about 126 million acres, according to the U.S. Forest Service--only 11 million acres are under lease today.
This is down from a peak of 35 million acres under lease just 8 years ago, and the number is likely to continue declining so long as environmental pressures render legal "multiple use" provisions moot.
WHAT'S NEEDED
It is time for responsible people to engage the environmental extremists--to set the record straight. No one advocates sacrificing our environment for economic growth and energy security. The choice is between environmentally sound energy development, or a no growth, no development agenda.
Decisions are not made in a vacuum. The American people must begin to understand the long term implications of individual energy decisions. If we don't proceed with environmentally sound development in ANWR, its repercussions are likely to reach far beyond Alaska, negatively influencing development decisions on federal lands in the Lower 48 states and offshore.
The battle over ANWR is the manifestation of a more harmful trend: a "no development on public lands" policy that is without precedent.
It is clearly time for those with an interest in responsible energy development to engage the extremists in debating the facts of economic growth, environmental stewardship, and national security. The ANWR vote is more than a vote on ANWR. It is a vote to accept or reject the nondevelopment agenda of an extremist minority.
Copyright 1991 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
