Freewrite: The (Untamed?) North

First off, a shout out to mpathytest of the Eight. I never realized another Jerseyan was in on this until I read your blog. Perhaps we can talk on AIM sometime. On top of that, shout-outs to Hymir and Timantha. The North Atlantic needs some support, so keep on posting.

Today's freewrite focuses on an understated topic in this time of oil shock. I am referring to the potential oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This controversy seems appropriate for the situation, and it is bound to flare up again as the crisis continues. We ought to be discussing this out in the open, yet I have yet to see a Netizen refer to it.

For those new to the controversy, there have been attempts as recently as 2005 to allow for drilling in the Refuge. The government thinks there might be anywhere from five billion to sixteen billion barrels of oil to be had from drilling operations. Of course, there is the obvious controversy of drilling near the homes of wildlife and violating the sanctity of the refuge just for our own greed. The opponents of any attempts to drill think the amount of oil to be had from the reserve is around three billion barrels; a much smaller amount than the government predicts.

As usual, it's the environmentalists against the energy lovers here. How are we to discern a more reasonable position from the two extremes? Well, I could start by saying that we don't need to drill everywhere on the refuge for oil. Pick a few spots, put drilling operations down, and when they are tapped, move along to other areas, all while restoring the drill site to as close to its untouched state as possible. We minimize wildlife disturbance and get our oil at the same time.

As for moving the drilling site, perhaps we ought to turn to our good friend ingenuity for a response. New drilling technology should focus on portability; that is, the drill site can be assembled from pre-made parts and taken down and moved when necessary. I don't think this is as far-fetched as it sounds; If we could make airplanes, portable computers and portable food, we can at least try to make portable drilling equipment.

As for the use of that oil, I wouldn't be so hasty as to turn it into gasoline. We need to divide it as necessary; some to agriculture, some to energy, some to fuel. I feel that despite the lack of versatility of alternative energy options, they could be put to use in areas like farming and natural energy production. The only real place that they cannot work as well is in plastics production and fuel for our machines. Oil has too much energy to make up for with bio fuels as it is, and the production of large quantities of such fuel is impractical. Our best bet is to work on a mixture if conventional and unconventional energy, at least until we have made satisfactory progress in kicking our oil dependence.

All I'm trying to say is that such drilling cannot be the answer to our crisis, but it might be able to help us along if done in a practical and eco-friendly manner. Once we have obtained the oil from the refuge, then it should be divided appropriately, with basic human needs like food and warmth in winter coming before our luxuries. When the issue undoubtedly comes up again in Congress, we ought to push for the middle road, as opposed to the left or right path.