The Oakland Tribune
February 22, 2005

By John Krist

Since he was named chairman of the House Resources Committee two years ago, Rep. Richard Pombo has focused with single-minded intensity on issues near and dear to his fellow westerners: energy development, the Endangered Species Act, forest management, property rights.

And since winning re-election in November to his seventh term, the Central Valley Republican has turned his committee into one of the most energetic purveyors of misinformation in the nations capital, no mean feat. In recent weeks, Pombos staff has unleashed a blitz of reports and press releases (the two are indistinguishable) about such topics as endangered species and fossil fuels. The barrage seems intended as the political equivalent of a pre-invasion saturation bombing campaign, intended to soften up the defenses.

In this case, the invasion consists of pending legislation that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, remove the feeble remaining impediments to natural gas exploration in wilderness study areas and national monuments, and amend the Endangered Species Act in a such a way as to render it more convenient to farmers, developers, loggers and miners.

In every instance, the assertions Pombo and his supporters have made to justify their efforts either distort scientific data, misinterpret statutory language or misrepresent opponents arguments. Sometimes they encompass all three.

Take the ESA, for example. On Feb. 10, Pombo joined fellow Republicans in the House and Senate to announce creation of a partnership to improve and update the 1973 law, the most far-reaching of the nations bedrock environmental statutes. The ESA is a complete failure, Pombo declared, because it has a success rate of only 1 percent.

It is true that of the roughly 1,300 species listed as endangered or threatened over the past three decades, only 40 have subsequently been removed from the list and only 13 have been delisted because the population was deemed to have recovered. (The law defines an endangered species as one that is in imminent danger of extinction; a threatened species is regarded as likely to become endangered in the near future.) If the purpose of the law were solely to restore nearly extinct plants and animals to health, Pombos 1 percent figure would be correct. But while the ESA embraces recovery as the ultimate goal of protection, the statutory language makes it clear that preventing extinction was the laws immediate and primary purpose. Achieving robust populations of listed species relies on actions outside the scope of the ESA, for they are developed separately as part of each species recovery plan.

Judged in this light, the ESA has a 93 percent effectiveness rate, as only nine of the listed species have become extinct. Most of them received protection too late to be saved.

The Resources Committee has reserved its most creative efforts, however, for its propaganda blitz regarding energy exploration.

In their zeal to thwart energy production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the committee asserted in one of its weekly energy broadsides, environmental special interest groups, editorial writers, and other opponents consistently claim that it holds only a six month supply of oil.

To arrive at such an estimate, opponents must rely on outdated, low-end estimates of reserves and old recovery technology and artificially low oil prices and assume we will stop producing oil in Texas, Louisiana, Wyoming, the Gulf of Mexico and all other places in the U.S. and decide that we will cut off all imports from foreign countries.

Well, no. Opponents of ANWR drilling have not said the field will be exhausted in six months. What theyve said is that the quantity of oil believed to lie under the refuge is equal to the amount Americans consume in six months, a gauge of ANWRs potential contribution to the nations overall energy portfolio. And regardless of whether you support or oppose ANWR drilling, theres currently only one source of information about the quantity of crude oil there: the U.S. Geological Survey.

The amount of recoverable oil in any field depends on the profits it will bring. When prices are low, it can cost more to pump those last elusive barrels than they will bring on the market, so they might as well not exist.

According to the USGS, the most likely statistical scenario - taking into account the probable size of the field and the historical range of prices for Alaskan crude - is that ANWR holds 3.6 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, annual U.S. petroleum consumption is 7.3 billion barrels and rising. You do the math.

John Krist (krist@insidevc.com) writes for the Ventura County Star.

The Oakland Tribune
February 28, 2005

False assumptions, facts taint criticism

By Richard Pombo

The Ventura County Star's John Krist accused me of "playing loose with the truth" in a recent article published in the Oakland Tribune. As chairman of the House Resources Committee, he says, I have been a purveyor of misinformation on the Endangered Species Act and energy production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Absolutely not true. Mr. Krist should be careful not to cast aspersions or make judgments about policy matters he quite obviously does not understand completely.

When it comes to the Endangered Species Act , he concedes the law has posted a less than one percent success rate for species recovery in its entire 30-year history, according to official U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data. He charges I have been "loose with the truth" and disingenuous, however, in highlighting this statistic alone, without considering its record on preventing species extinction.

"Judged in this light," Krist writes, "the ESA has a 93 percent effectiveness rate, as only nine of the listed species have become extinct."

Assuming all of the species on the list have been saved from extinction would make this a plausible argument, but this is not a safe assumption, and Krist should remember what happens when one assumes.

According to the Fish & Wildlife Service's most recent report to Congress, about three dozen currently listed species are believed to be extinct; roughly 60 percent of the remaining species on the list are officially classified as "declining" or in "unknown" status (some of which therefore could also be extinct already).

The fact of the matter is the federal agency in charge of the ESA cannot tell Congress with any degree of certainty how effective the law has been in preventing extinction. It does not know. How can Krist? Even the little the service does know in this regard is not encouraging, as the data illustrates.

With regard to oil production in ANWR, Mr. Krist's charges are no less inane and again come dangerously close to accusing my committee of dishonesty, though it is clear he is without all the facts.

His accusation stems from one of the committee's attempts to dispel a popular misconception that ANWR's reserves would only amount to a "six month" supply of oil. To arrive at such an estimate, we assert opponents of production rely on outdated, low-end estimates of the reserves, artificially low oil prices and other variables that skew the net result downward.

Mr. Krist does explain the "economically recoverable" side of a complex equation correctly, as the figure derived from prices per barrel; the higher the price, the higher the economically recoverable amount of oil. But he defends the "six-month" supply figure nonetheless by, ironically, relying on outdated, low-end estimates and artificially low prices of oil. (3.2 billion barrels are economically recoverable, which is half of total U.S. annual consumption.)

Had Mr. Krist not overlooked a report from the Clinton administration in 2000, which updated some of the figures he uses, he would understand this argument is not a plausible one.

The Department of Energy report detailed that above $24 per barrel, 85 percent of the mean estimated 10.4 billion barrels of ANWR oil are economically recoverable. With ANWR's high-end estimate standing at 16 billion barrels and oil prices at $50 per barrel today, does he care to continue the discussion?

Thirty years ago, the very same rhetorical tactics were used to oppose energy production in Prudhoe Bay, just seventy miles to the west of ANWR coastal plain. There was not enough oil in Prudhoe, opponents said, to justify the effort.

Today, production levels have surpassed the estimates by billions of barrels and counting. American ingenuity and advanced technology get us better and better results every year.

Differences of opinion are to be expected and respected in public policy debates. One can argue the ESA should not be modernized, just as one can argue we should not produce oil in ANWR. However, for one to accuse the Resources Committee of "playing loose with the truth" when he is not familiar with all bodies of evidence is, to put it simply, no more honest or constructive than crying "Liar, liar, pants on fire" in the course of debate.

As the Ventura County Star's senior reporter and columnist, Mr. Krist should be more careful not to let his own opinions interfere with his journalistic responsibility to research and report the facts.

Richard Pombo represents California's 11th Congressional District in the House of Representatives.