#Obama’s incomplete #Arctic_energy approach RSS Feed

Obama’s incomplete Arctic energy approach

As President Obama tours Alaska this week, cries of hypocrisy fill the air. He is using these three days to highlight the effects of climate change and continue his call for action. Meanwhile, off the state’s northwest coast in the Arctic Chukchi Sea, Shell continues its exploration of offshore oil reserves in the wake of receiving its final federal permit to drill in the region.

At first glance, the dichotomy between the president’s words and actions in America’s “Last Frontier” appears stark. Obama is championing the weaning of the world off of dirty fossil fuels while allowing an operation that could result in the extraction and consumption of billions of barrels of these exact substances. But closer examination reveals that he is actually engaging in a considered and balanced approach to the country’s energy security. While other problems exist with the president’s overall Arctic energy approach, hypocrisy is not one of them. +

America is currently awash in oil due to the unanticipated and profound effectiveness of new technology to access shale oil reserves. Moreover, tapping shale reserves is a good deal cheaper than accessing those offshore in the Arctic. Yet prudent energy policy requires more than just a short-term view. As put by Steve LeVine of Quartz, “[C]rude oil remains scarce if you are thinking in terms of decades. At some point—perhaps toward the second half of the century—the cost of Arctic drilling will likely be more economical, and the need for its oil will probably be much greater.”

Even if America were to move away from fossil fuel reliance at Obama’s desired pace—or even faster, for that matter—it would still maintain quite an appetite for them for a good length into the future. In addition, the typical delay between exploration and pumping for an offshore oil well can approach a decade, and will likely approach two decades in the case of the relatively infrastructureless and harsh weathered Arctic. This means that Shell’s current exploits are unlikely to come to fruition until much closer to mid-century, and the oil supply situation is likely to have changed in the meantime.

It is therefore not hypocrisy to guide America and the world away from fossil fuels while ensuring that our still very fossil fuel dependent economy does not run out of domestically sourced—and therefore more secure—energy over the course of this transition. Arctic offshore reserves are some of the last substantial reservoirs of these fuels within the United States, and ensuring that they will be ready when needed—though hopefully needed in far lesser amounts—appears prudent.

It should also be noted that Obama was placed in a difficult position from the start in that Shell and other energy companies had already paid the U.S. government billions to secure their Arctic offshore leases under the Bush administration. Even if the President had wanted to, reneging on these contracts would have meant the return of large sums of money, which had more than likely already been budgeted and allocated.

Finally, alongside his allowance of Arctic offshore drilling, Obama has also closed additional Alaskan territory to developers and increased the safety measures that must be put in place in order to drill for offshore oil. This approach has ultimately led to vocal complaints from both environmentalists and industry. As a result, David Bolton, deputy assistant secretary for oceans and fisheries with the State Department, said, “Maybe that means we’re in the right place, given that people on both sides are unhappy with us.”

Read full article at The Hill