Published: February 25, 2012
AN e-mail came in the other day with a subject line that I couldn’t ignore.
It was from the oil economist Phil Verleger, and it read: “Should the
United States join OPEC?” That I had to open.
Verleger’s basic message was that the knee-jerk debate we’re again having
over who is responsible for higher oil prices fundamentally misses huge
changes that have taken place in America’s energy output, making us
again a major oil and gas producer — and potential exporter — with an
interest in reasonably high but stable oil prices.
From one direction, he says, we’re seeing the impact of the ethanol
mandate put in place by President George W. Bush, which established
fixed quantities of biofuels to be used in gasoline. When this is combined
with improved vehicle fuel economy — in July, the auto industry agreed to
achieve fleet averages of more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025 — it will
inevitably drive down demand for gasoline and create more surplus crude
to export. Add to that, says Verleger, “the increase in oil production from
offshore fields and unconventional sources in America,” and that
exportable U.S. surplus could grow even bigger.
Then, add the recent discoveries of natural gas deposits all over America,
which will allow us to substitute gas for coal at power plants and become a
natural gas exporter as well. Put it all together, says Verleger, and you can
see why America “will want to consider joining with other energy-
exporting countries, like those in OPEC, to sustain high oil prices. Such an
effort would support domestic oil and gas production and give the U.S. a
real competitive advantage over countries forced to pay high prices for
imported energy — nations such as China, European Union members, and
Japan.”
Indeed, Bloomberg News reported last week that “the U.S. is the closest it
has been in almost 20 years to achieving energy self-sufficiency. ...
Domestic oil output is the highest in eight years. The U.S. is producing somuch natural gas that, where the government warned four years ago of a
critical need to boost imports, it now may approve an export terminal.” As
a result, “the U.S. has reversed a two-decade-long decline in energy
independence, increasing the proportion of demand met from domestic
sources over the last six years to an estimated 81 percent through the first
10 months of 2011.” This transformation could make the U.S. the world’s
top energy producer by 2020, raise more tax revenue, free us from
worrying about the Middle East, and, if we’re smart, build a bridge to a
much cleaner energy future.
All of this is good news, but it will come true at scale only if these oil and
gas resources can be extracted in an environmentally sustainable manner.
This can be done right, but we need a deal between environmentalists and
the oil and gas industry to lock it in — now.
Says Hal Harvey, an independent energy expert: “The oil and gas
companies need to decide: Do they want to fight a bloody and painful war
of attrition with local communities or take the lead in setting high
environmental standards — particularly for “fracking,” the process used to
extract all these new natural gas deposits — “and then live up to them.”
Higher environmental standards may cost more, but only incrementally,
if at all, and they’ll make the industry and the environment safer.
In the case of natural gas, we need the highest standards for cleanup of
land that is despoiled by gas extraction and to prevent leakage of gas
either into aquifers or the atmosphere. Yes, “generating a kilowatt-hour’s
worth of electricity with a natural gas turbine emits only about half as
much CO2 as from a coal plant,” says Harvey, and that’s great. “But one
molecule of leaked gas contributes as much to global warming as 25
molecules of burned gas. That means that if the system for the
exploration, extraction, compression, piping and burning of natural gas
leaks by even 2.5 percent, it is as bad as coal.”
Hence, Harvey’s five rules for natural gas are: Don’t allow leaky systems;
use gas to phase out coal; have sound well drilling and casing standards;
don’t pollute the landscape with brackish or toxic water brought up by
fracking; and drill only where it is sensible.
I’d add a sixth rule for crude oil. No one likes higher oil prices. But —
perversely — the high price benefits America as we rapidly become a
bigger oil producer and it ensures that investments will continue to flow
into energy efficient cars and trucks. If we were smart, we would establish
today a floor price for any barrel of crude oil or gallon of gasoline sold or
imported into America — and tax anything below it. A stable, sufficiently
high floor price serves the environment, our technology investments and
our energy productivity. As our producers succeed, we would become
increasingly energy self-sufficient, keep a lot more dollars at home for our
Treasury, stimulate innovation on renewables and drive down
the global oil price that is the sole source sustaining Iran and other petro-
dictators.
But all of this depends on an understanding between the oil industry and
the environmentalists. If President Obama could pull that off, it would be
a huge contribution to America’s security, economy and environment.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on February 26, 2012, on page SR11 of the New York
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário