WaPo Calls Out the NRDC for Misleading Ad on Drilling
By Don | August 12, 2008
The head of the NRDC may have a heart attack this morning when she reads today’s Washington Post editorial pointing out some “untruths” in their ad on offshore drilling. An excerpt from the editorial; THE NATURAL Resources Defense Council Action Fund has taken out full-page ads in this newspaper and others to decry offshore drilling for oil as "George W. Bush's Gasoline Price Elixir" that is "100% Snake Oil." The environmental group calls on supporters "to stop the giveaway of our coasts." It is urging visitors to its Web site to send a pre-written letter to their members of Congress that says, "I am not buying the lie . . . that sacrificing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and America's coastal waters to oil drilling would make a real difference in gas prices -- either today or twenty years from today!" And the missive adds, "With just three percent of the world's oil reserves, our nation simply doesn't have enough oil to impact the global market or drill our way to lower prices at the pump." The NRDC's arguments above neatly encapsulate the position taken by environmentalists and other opponents of offshore drilling. And they include a couple of good points. Contrary to the baldly political suggestions regarding lower gasoline prices by President Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), drilling would make no impact on today's pain at the pump because it would be years before any oil flowed from the Outer Continental Shelf. We agree that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with its varied and sensitive ecosystems, should be preserved. In the quest for new sources of energy, there are trade-offs. That pristine area must remain off-limits. But there are three "truths" masquerading as fact among drilling opponents that need to be challenged: · Drilling is pointless because the United States has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. This is a misleading because it refers only to known oil reserves. According to the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS), while there are an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil in the off-limits portions of the OCS, those estimates were made using old data from now-outdated seismic equipment. In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, the data were collected before Congress imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling in 1981. In 1987, the MMS estimated that there were 9 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. By 2006, after major advances in seismic technology and deepwater drilling techniques, the MMS resource estimate for that area had ballooned to 45 billion barrels. In short, there could be much more oil under the sea than previously known. The demand for energy is going up, not down. And for a long time, even as alternative sources of energy are developed, more oil will be needed. What the Post should do is call on the NRDC to correct their misleading statements and run another ad apologizing for lying to the public to further their agenda.
3 Comments | Post a Comment
Both the lying with figures and the deceptive
designs of the radical environmentalists should be
enough to convince reasonable people that they
and their specious “red-herrings” are looney. The
“green movement” has long been a haven for
leftist and Marxists rejects. We should remember
that their ultimate goal is still to conquer the
U.S. in whatever way(s) they can. They know that
“oil” is a key component in our econcmy and
culture and are seeking to weaken our nation at
one of its most vulernable points. Patriotic Americans see an opportunity to upgrade our nation’s society and militarly structure by
utilizing OUR OWN God-given resources. Latest
estimates place our oil reserves in the trillions
of barrels. ANWR’s oil could be added to that of
Pruhoe Bay’s in several months by connecting it with the Artic Pipeline, which is only pumping at
half capicity of 100 million barrels a day. That
could reach full capacity and double the daily
output. Americans need to unite and fight for our
own domestic oil production. “Long Live the USA.”
What the Post failed to mention, truthfully, is the fact that ANWR is not “Pristine” and its eco system would be enhanced by drilling, not harmed.
August 13 at 9:32 am | #1 | Link
Too bad that WaPo can’t get their act (and facts) together, too.
Approval of drilling will immediately impact the price of gasoline, because it’s largely determined by the prices bid by the speculators for future deliveries.
And ANWR may be “pristine,” but it’s ecosystems are hardly worth not affecting by drilling. Have they seen pictures of the actual areas proposed for drilling, rather than the pictures of inland Alaska that the radical environmentalists foist on the unsuspecting public as being ANWR.