‘The Case for Conservation’
Your call for energy conservation (“The Case for Conservation,†editorial, April 17) is a welcome message, but diluted by the back of the hand you give the other half of the equation--energy development. The truth is we need both.
You say that the only potentially promising sites for oil and gas exploration left in the U.S. are “expensive and environmentally risky areas†on the outer continental shelf. That’s strange, considering the space The Times has given to the debate on opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The ANWR Coastal Plain, located on the North Slope of Alaska, is rated by the U.S. Department of the Interior as by far the most promising on-shore exploration site in America. DOI estimates 600,000 to 9.2 million barrels.
Congress will decide whether the industry will be given access to ANWR. If oil is found in the multibillion-barrel range, the North Slope will continue to provide a major share of domestic production well into the next century. Otherwise we will be forced to more and more imported oil.
If Congress had forbidden development of Prudhoe Bay 15 year ago, we would be even more dependent on OPEC, and our bill for imported oil would be at least $28 billion a year higher.
This country can and should do many things to improve its energy prospects, including enhanced conservation. But the most logical supply option is ANWR.
ROBERT E. WYCOFF
President and CEO
ARCO
Los Angeles
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
