It took the reckless absurdity of the Palin nomination to infuse the Sunday commentators with a jolt of reason. Almost all of them, that is. Maria Bartiromo of CNBC, though skeptical of how much Gov. Palin knows about the liquidity crisis, lauded her “expertise in energy.” In a recent BusinessWeek interview, Bartiromo accepted Palin’s number-intensive claim about the wonders of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Bartiromo didn’t mention any skeptics, like this 2004 AP report I located after a few seconds of Googling:

Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

“The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

“But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.

This report came out in 2004. Start drilling next year and the oil starts flowing in 2018. At the 2034 peak, estimates economist Dean Baker, ANWR oil would cut the price of a gallon of gas by twelve to eighteen cents.

It’s heartening that Gov. Palin wants to create drilling jobs in her home state, but even if her numbers are right, ANWR oil is a drop in the barrel—and Gov. Palin’s “expertise” is as well.

  • 1
  • 2