Drilling in ANWR
We should do it for the money.
There’s a lot of oil in a very small part of a very big wilderness that 99.9% of Americans will never visit. There are, however, some reasons why making the decision to go get it is not likely to reduce prices people pay at the pump this summer. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), it would take about 10 years to get much oil flowing. It’s also not likely to be enough oil to dramatically change supply / demand (it would represent something like 0.5 – 1% of total global production for several years). Though it should be noted that at the time of peak ANWR production, around 2027, this would be equal to something like 10% of U.S. crude production, which is nothing to sneeze at, and comparable to various realistic cases for predicted energy production in this time period from some much-hyped alternative energy sources.
There’s an argument that just by signaling that we’re going to drill, we’d drive the oil market lower. There’s might be something to that, but such a prediction is highly speculative, both because the traders that set oil prices are aware of the size of U.S. conventional reserves, and because the market psychology arguments cut both ways – e.g., “Look, the U.S is committing to long-term dependence, and therefore demand will stay high”.
On the other hand, a very safe prediction is that it will be worth a lot of money to dig that oil up and burn it. The EIA estimates that there are about 2.6 billion barrels of oil in ANWR that could be expected to be extracted between 2018 and 2030. Even using the EIA’s long-term forecast for oil price – which is much lower than today’s price per barrel – that much oil would be worth about $200 billion. As an added bonus, that is almost a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the U.S. trade deficit. In the end, this is the rational argument to drill. America is a very wealthy country, but not so wealthy that we can afford to give up $200 billion as a potlatch.
Once again, as with cap-and-trade, McCain has thrown away a key part of the energy issue, which should be one of his strongest issues in this campaign. Public opinion is moving very rapidly in favor of drilling in ANWR, as you would expect given what’s happened to the price of gas over the past couple of years. According to Pew Research polling, just in the last 6 months there has been a 15-point swing in support. It is now a majority position. Imagine what could happen if a presidential candidate were actually arguing for it.
Well at least you’re not pretending to have other than fiscal reasons.
Just because it’s now a majority position (a status quo purely driven by current oil prices, which means that when oil prices drop and we’re drilling, a lot of people will look back and say, gosh that was a stupid idea) doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Or are you of the opinion that politicians should kowtow to every changing whim of the electorate? If true, I suppose Clinton was your favorite President? No? Hmm…
— AndrewN · Aug 7, 12:35 PM · #
AndrewN:
I’m crass like that :)
I don’t think that “polls are at 51% or more” = “should do it”, just that the political calculus makes it plausible.
— Jim Manzi · Aug 7, 01:12 PM · #
I think Obama is moving towards the Hilton Plan (!) in trading off ANWR for green energy infrastructure/investment credits. Like you, I think ANWR is highly profitable, something we can drill cleaner than when we protected it, and a marginal source in global supply/demand, and perhaps unlike you, I’m concerned about market forces finding cleaner R&D substitutes through price incentives.
My favorite analogy I’ve heard for drilling for more oil is that it is like solving a weight problem by buying bigger pants. It should be noted that, as far as I can see, this is a growing issue not because people are rooting for the NPV of an excel spreadsheet at BP, but because of the dreamscape of American political psychology, issues related to resentment, globalization, wages, inequality etc.
Thanks for noting that behavioral arguments can often cut both ways when it comes to guessing market ‘psychology.’ I think the oil markets are responding to fundamentals better than most give it credit for. (As a footnote, behaviorally, markets have trouble processing events that are more than 5 years out – if it interests you, the best behavioral finance paper I’ve seen – to this effect, and in general – is “Attention, Demographics, and the Stock Market” by Dellavigna/Pollet.)
— Mike · Aug 7, 01:50 PM · #
Just out of curiosity, do you take a position on the environmental implications of ANWR drilling?
— Will · Aug 7, 02:12 PM · #
$200 billion over 12 years is about $16 billion a year. The 2007 trade deficit was about $700 billion. That’s a 2.2% reduction (assuming all the oil is in fact used in the US and not exported). It’s not chump change, but at this level of magnitude, it’s pretty close.
— Steven Donegal · Aug 7, 02:59 PM · #
Another thing that gets ignored is this sort of thing provides good jobs. There aren’t a lot of opportunities that far up North. For people that want to stay in Alaska, or want a ticket out of Alaska, working in the oil patch provides a viable means for accomplishing either goal.
— mark · Aug 7, 03:28 PM · #
We should not consider $200 billion for American oil companies to count as a “win” for America. I don’t personally know or care about anyone working or owning stock in an oil company, and I kind of think of them somewhere between drug pushers and vultures.
We should drill, yes, but we should have higher taxes/fees in place so that we all get our piece of the pie.
— Consumatopia · Aug 7, 03:47 PM · #
Yes, we should get that ANWR oil… sometime. It’s not urgent. It won’t make a big difference. The longer we leave it there, the more valuable it’ll be.
— johnw · Aug 7, 03:49 PM · #
Will:
I have only second-hand readings on that front. Everything that I’ve seen in terms of drilling (and pipeline transport) in other areas, indicates that it would be minimal, but nothing is risk-free. Even if one were to stipulate that we would permanently destroy all of the 1002 Area of ANWR, I would still trade that for $200BB.
Steven:
I agree that the impact on oil imports and so forth would be small on a % basis, but I think what matters for my argument is the absolute value. $200BB is a lot of money vs. what we would expect to give up. It is a reasonable fraction of what the War in Iraq has cost and is half the cost of the S&L bail-out, as examples. The fact that it is less than one year’s oil imports actually highlights how gigantic an issue energy, and specifically oil, is for us.
Mike:
I have come out foursquare in support of Hilton for President.
— Jim Manzi · Aug 7, 03:51 PM · #
ANWR: When it goes it’s gone.
“various realistic cases for predicted energy production”: The gift that keeps on giving.
What would a Rational Actor do?
— felix culpa · Aug 7, 04:37 PM · #
Jim
Enjoyed reading your global warming pieces. Do you have a response to Martin Weizman’s piece about the small risks of catastrophic global warming?
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/weitzman/files/REStatFINAL.pdf
E.g.
“The next section argues that, were one forced to specify a best guess estimate of the extreme bad tail of the relevant probability density function (PDF) of what might eventually happen if only gradually-ramped-up remedies are applied, then mean global surface temperature change relative to pre-industrial-revolution levels will in two centuries or so be greater than 10C with a ballpark probability estimate somewhere around .05 and will be greater than 20C with a ballpark probability estimate somewhere around .01. Societies and ecosystems in a world whose average temperature has changed in the geologically-instantaneous time of two centuries or so by 10C-20C (for U.S. readers: 10C=18F and 20C=36F) are located in terra incognita, since such high temperatures have not existed for hundreds of millions of years and such a rate of global temperature change might be unprecedented even on a time scale of billions of years. However measured, the planetary welfare effect of climate changes that might accompany mean temperature increases from 10C up to 20C with probabilities anything remotely resembling 5% down to 1% implies a non-negligible probability of worldwide catastrophe.”
— otto · Aug 7, 05:22 PM · #
What on earth is the purpose of declaring certain areas National Wildlife Refuges if we can simply eliminate the designation whenever we please? What possible value is there in declaring a place a national park, or historical building, or national heritage site, etc., if we can abandon them because of fickle concerns like the first minor energy trouble in 30 years— and it is truly minor, if we can keep a little perspective in this ignorant country. ($4 dollars for a 12 ounce latte, cool. $4 a gallon for gas— historically still incredibly low, on balance? ARMAGEDDON.)
Conservatives are the people who are actually supposed to take the institutional integrity of the United States seriously, but their insatiable lust for oil, I guess, trumps all other concerns.
— Freddie · Aug 7, 06:05 PM · #
But Freddie, it’s for a good cause. McCain can talk it up and score some cheap points!
— johnw · Aug 7, 06:12 PM · #
$200BB is a lot of money vs. what we would expect to give up.
But who gets to make the $200 billion? ANWR belongs to everyone. Who will the $200 billion belong to?
— Consumatopia · Aug 7, 07:40 PM · #
Jim,
I know you say do it for the money, which is fine if you’re of that mindset. I wonder though what your thoughts about the concept that Aldo Leopold put forward about the value of wilderness…that in our mechanized and industrial society, wilderness has value merely by its existence, regardless of whether anyone ever visits. The fact of wild, unspoiled places, no matter how desolate or remote, is important for the human spirit. That concept resonates with me, particularly as there are fewer and fewer of these places left.
— Steven Donegal · Aug 7, 07:49 PM · #
otto:
Here’s my reply to Weitzman’s paper.
Steven:
Of course I see value in wilderness even if it’s not widely visited. I just don’t see every piece of wilderness as infinitely valuable.
Freddie:
Everything involves trade-offs. Is there an amount of money that you think would make it worth drilling in ANWR?
— Jim Manzi · Aug 8, 12:38 AM · #
I say leave the ANWR oil in the ground now, as a strategic petroleum reserve. We might need it for military defense one of these days, e.g. to fight off landing craft from the other side of the Arctic Circle. If we gobble up that oil now, it just destroys the market incentives to develop energy alternatives.
— The Reticulator · Aug 8, 01:19 AM · #
It’s too small to make any impact on future demand or function as any kind of strategic reserve. About 1,000-1,500 people visit it each year, compared to 3 million for Yellowstone. Leaving it be for defence purposes seems a bit paranoid. Who would be nuts enough to make an amphibious assault on US territory?
— Ali Choudhury · Aug 8, 05:07 AM · #
I was kind of kidding about the amphibious assault, but I was not kidding about saving it for military needs. Russia is becoming more aggressive in asserting control over the Arctic ocean, now that more of it is open to its navy. Right now Russia is coming up with a way to push the envelop and assert control over a little more territory and political space each week (not just in the Arctic). Someday somebody is going to have to tell it there are limits. And we beat the Germans in WWII in part because we had oil and we cut off Germany’s access to its supply.
If the ANWR is too small to make any impact on future demand or to act as a strategic reserve, what’s the point of digging it up? If all we’re going to get is the ability to drive our SUVs a little longer and to allow the oil company stockholders to have a little more money to save for retirement, I say it’s hardly worth it.
I don’t know what the number of annual visitors has to do with anything.
— The Reticulator · Aug 8, 12:09 PM · #
US military expenditure is ten times that of Russia’s which is depopulating by the minute. It’s not a strategic threat any more.
The Allies beat Germany because the US had more money. Ergo, approving projects that make the US economy better off would be the best means of defence.
The bit about visitor numbers was about it’s use as a nature reserve. Is it worth preserving for a minute number of tourists when development would benefit the livelihoods of far more Alaskans?
— Ali Choudhury · Aug 8, 12:47 PM · #
Russia not a strategic threat? That’s the problem. It feels it needs to become one again, and it has oil money to finance ambitious to control a lot more than it does now. The fact that Russia’s military is one tenth as expensive as ours at the moment is not all that relevant for where we’ll all be 5-10 years from now. Its is growing, ours is not. It’s now busy absorbing Georgia and flexing its strength elsewhere, and we do not have the resources, military or otherwise, to say no.
If the ANWR is not big enough to be a strategic reserve, it’s not big enough to grow the U.S. economy. To grow the U.S. economy in a way that we’re going to maintain any world influence, we need to figure out how to do it without Mideast and Venezelean oil. Sucking the ANWR dry for short-term gain is not going to help us with that goal.
As for the number of tourists, I didn’t realize that was the environmental basis for preserving the ANWR. Alaska will benefit more from a U.S. economy that doesn’t go putting off the day of reckoning until a few years further in the future.
— The Reticulator · Aug 8, 01:01 PM · #
As to the statement about the Allies having more money than the Germans, that money was used to buy things like planes and guns. You can’t defend yourself with money alone. With Ben Bernanke driving the dollar down the U.S. has less and less money to buy things. And the people against whom we might need to defend ourselves are the ones who have the oil we’d need in order to resist them.
(BTW, by Allies I presume you mean the U.S. Britain bankrupted itself fighting the war and basically lost, now having adopted a lot of social policies and legal mores, such as nationalized healthcare and anti-social-behaviour ordinances, like those of the country it was then fighting.)
— The Reticulator · Aug 8, 01:07 PM · #
Jim, we fight over ANWR and the OCS because they are public lands; if the lands were in private hands, it would be entirely up to those who own them what to do and when (and what deals to cut with others with differing preferences).
Most of the arguments about what our country should do with ANWR/OCS and why are one-sided nonsense. Decisions that trading wildlife and tourist economy values trump drilling is certainly NOT a “potlatch”, as the resources are not being destroyed but left for a later day when the political balance changes.
What you and others ought to be arguing for is BETTER MANAGEMENT of public lands – via quasi-privatization – not that one set of preferences for how the public lands are used is better than another.
As I’ve suggested here: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/07/16/breaking-the-senseless-impasse-on-anwr-and-ocs-exploration-and-development-a-tax-and-rebate-proposal.aspx,
we could see much improved management of federal lands if we’d start to rebate a hefty chunk of the royalties directly to citizens, instead of sending them all to Washington for our politicians to play with.
Come to think of it, we would find long-term support among citizens for carbon taxes if the proceeds were similarly rebated.
— TokyoTom · Aug 21, 03:43 AM · #