-
Energy: National Energy Security

Issue
National Energy Security

A common misconception in the U.S. is that most of our energy comes from overseas.  This is blatantly not true, as over 70% of all of the energy that is consumed in the U.S. comes from domestic sources.  The source of this misconception is that the fuel source about which most of the press is written does rely heavily on imports.  The U.S. only produces about 45% of all of the crude oil that it consumes, meaning that we rely on foreign countries to provide us with other 55% of the crude oil that we use.  Upon which foreign countries do we rely?  The graphic below shows the country of origin for oil imported into the U.S. (Graph courtesy of the Department of Energy)


This graph shows another misconception about the oil business.  When talking about oil imports, many people confuse OPEC, Persian Gulf, and Saudi Arabia.  This graphic shows some of the differences in the amount of oil from these three different entities. OPEC currently contributes close to half of all of the imported oil to the U.S.  However, a large portion of this is coming from countries that are not in the Middle East.  Countries like Indonesia, Venezuela, and Nigeria are also member of OPEC, and they supply a large amount of our imported oil.  The OPEC members from the Persian Gulf only supply about 28% (a little over 3 million barrels of oil per day) of the total imports.  Of this, a little over half, or about 1.8 million barrels per day, comes from Saudi Arabia.  For a commodity that is so value, though, this is enough to cause a major disruption in our way of life if they were to embargo us again like they did in the 1970's.

Our reliance on energy from foreign countries for over 25% of our total consumption leads many people to question the security of our country.  Anyone that has lived through the 1970's can tell you that our economy and way of life can be severely impacted if our supplies of energy do not keep up to our demand. 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been proposed as one way to help America to achieve some sense of energy security.  This refuge was created in 1960 by President Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) and expanded in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter (Democrat) with the signing of the  Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).  It is one of the last untrammelled areas by mankind left in the world.  It is also relatively big.  

The refuge consists of 19 million acres of land, most of which has been designated as protected wilderness.  In 1987, the Reagan Administration's Department of Interior released a report that called for one area of the refuge to be opened to drilling, even though it noted that the Porcupine River caribou, musk ox, water quality, and subsistence hunting and fishing would be greatly impacted by this activity.  This area (Section 1002) is a coastal plain area of the refuge that is 1.5 million acres in size.  Even though it is not protected as wilderness, it would require an act of Congress in order to allow oil and gas drilling in this area.  In the late 1980's, debate raged in Congress for several years about opening this area to drilling.  It was only after the massive oil spill from the Exxon Valdez that this debate ended.  

While debate ceased for some time, the issue did not go away entirely.  Recently, the issue of drilling in the ANWR has resurfaced.  Even before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred, the Bush Administration had been pushing an agenda that would have opened this area up.  After the attack, the debate on this issue became more heated.  In the spring of 2002, the House of Representatives approved a measure that would have allowed drilling.  This measure, though, did not pass the Senate, which effectively stopped drilling in the area from becoming a reality.  However, this year, the House has once again passed an energy bill that includes drilling.  The Senate version of the bill does not include drilling in the ANWR.  If both pass, it will be left up to a conference committee to determine whether to leave the provision in or not.

The websites below provide some information about this issue.  The first site (DOE site) discusses the current energy situation in the U.S.  The second site is an analysis of the ANWR site that was done by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1998 that discusses the likelihood of finding oil there.  The last two sites represent two sides of this issue.  After reading through them, you might want to consult other sites that discuss this issue, as it has many sides.

After reading through these websites (and any others that you might find on the subject), answer ALL of the following questions
  • Supporters of drilling in the ANWR point out that the U.S. depends on oil imports for over half of our total usage.  They state that drilling in the ANWR is a matter of national security, since our reliance on foreign oil makes us vulnerable to demands by foreign governments.  People opposed to drilling in the ANWR point out that we would not need the oil in the ANWR if we just conserved energy.  They point to the 20% increase in oil usage over the last 15 years (due to increased miles driven and the introduction of inefficient vehicles like the SUV) as evidence that we are not doing all that we can to save oil. They also point out that the first drop of oil will not reach the gas pump for 10-15 years, by which time the oil may not be needed as other forms of energy become more economical.
    1. Is our dependence on foreign oil a matter of national security?  If so, is drilling in the ANWR a way to increase our security or should we be doing other things to make us more secure like banning automobiles that get poor gas mileage? 
    2. How much oil might be in the ground under the ANWR is actually irrelevant.  What we need to know is how much oil can be recovered economically from the ground.  Since we have not drilled in the ground everywhere and tried to extract oil from the region, we cannot be anywhere near 100% accurate about what this amount is.  However, we can give probabilities.  For the last decade, the price of oil has averaged less than $25/barrel, although it has been creeping upward in recent years.  Given estimates of the total amount of economically recoverable oil, will drilling in the ANWR help our situation?
  • The ANWR has been called a pristine wilderness that needs to be preserved for future generations by its supporters.  The claim is that the lifeforms in this ecosystem would be unduly disturbed by oil drilling and that irreparable damage will be done if the ANWR is opened up.   It has also been called an ugly swamp by those supporting oil drilling.  They claim that the proposed drilling will have little effect on the wildlife, and that, even if it did, who would care since nobody except the local natives ever see this barren, frigid area of the Earth.  Do you believe that the wildlife in the area will be harmed by oil drilling? If not, why not?  If so, do you think that this should be a consideration for why we should or should not drill in the area?