Why not drill? Seriously, can anyone make a cogent argument against it? Oil's expensive. We need it. Alaska has it. And to be frank, contrary to popular perception the area in which drilling is proposed, based on what I've seen, is not all that attractive. I mean, if that's what counts for stunning natural beauty we might as well declare the entire state of Kansas a national park.
Sure, there are costs for drilling, but there are also costs to not drilling. For argument's sake let's say that there are 100 fewer caribou after drilling. And let's say that oil revenue is $10 billion (actually it is likely to be more than that, with the George Will column citing production of 1 million barrels per day -- at $50/barrel that's over $18 billion per year). That means you have to believe each caribou is worth $100 million. Need I remind you, this is what a caribou looks like.
Or maybe the solution is just to take a percentage of the oil revenue and use it to expand ANWR by adding 2,000 acres elsewhere, perhaps in the more attractive southern region. In any case the reflexive, unbending opposition is ridiculous.
Sure, there are costs for drilling, but there are also costs to not drilling. For argument's sake let's say that there are 100 fewer caribou after drilling. And let's say that oil revenue is $10 billion (actually it is likely to be more than that, with the George Will column citing production of 1 million barrels per day -- at $50/barrel that's over $18 billion per year). That means you have to believe each caribou is worth $100 million. Need I remind you, this is what a caribou looks like.
Or maybe the solution is just to take a percentage of the oil revenue and use it to expand ANWR by adding 2,000 acres elsewhere, perhaps in the more attractive southern region. In any case the reflexive, unbending opposition is ridiculous.
No comments:
Post a Comment