Offshore Oil Drilling Ban

[Guest Senator Chris Dodd]

For the President to call for new drilling on new and fragile lands when oil companies already do not use more than 75 percent of the acreage they currently have under lease is ludicrous. The time has come for Congress to tell these companies they can either ‘use it or lose it’ when it comes to their current leases. I call on my colleagues in the Senate, and indeed all Americans, to reject the President’s misleading statements.”

[Guest John McCain 2008]

The current federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. The Department of Defense will retain its power over any drilling in open waters that they feel might somehow interfere with their training operations. Also, each state has a natural buffer zone within 3 to 9 miles off its coastline where drilling is not allowed.

[Guest Senator Chris Dodd]

With 68 million acres already leased and unexplored, it is simply stunning that the oil and gas companies come hat in hand to the Congress, asking for tax breaks and preferential treatment to open new federal lands, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to drilling,” said Dodd, “Instead of padding the coffers of oil executives while American families struggle with ever-rising gas prices, the time has come for Congress to tell these companies they can either ‘use it or lose it’ when it comes to these leases.

[Guest The White House]

President Bush: We should expand American oil production by increasing access to the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS. Experts believe that the OCS could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil. That would be enough to match America's current oil production for almost ten years. The problem is that Congress has restricted access to key parts of the OCS since the early 1980s. Since then, advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills. With these advances -- and a dramatic increase in oil prices -- congressional restrictions on OCS exploration have become outdated and counterproductive.

 

Republicans in Congress have proposed several promising bills that would lift the legislative ban on oil exploration in the OCS. I call on the House and the Senate to pass good legislation as soon as possible. This legislation should give the states the option of opening up OCS resources off their shores, provide a way for the federal government and states to share new leasing revenues, and ensure that our environment is protected. There's also an executive prohibition on exploration in the OCS. When Congress lifts the legislative ban, I will lift the executive prohibition.

[Guest Miles Grant]

Gas prices have already shot up 250 percent under the Bush administration’s dead-end energy policies. Opening up America’s most precious places for more oil drilling would not lower gas prices this summer, but it would reap more profits for oil companies. It would also exacerbate our dependence on oil, increase global warming pollution and threaten our energy security. That’s no answer.

[Guest Pete Davis]

Congress is always looking for quick fixes to long term problems that can't be fixed quickly. High gasoline prices have aroused the voters, so, on Tuesday, June 17, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and President George W. Bush called for oil and natural gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States as if this would help lower gasoline prices soon. It would do nothing of the sort. First the restrictions on drilling have been in place since 1981 and have been repeatedly debated ever since. Environmental concerns won out, and those who live along our coastlines would not be happy to see these restrictions lifted. Second, it would be at least five years and probably much longer before drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf would yield the first barrel of oil or mcf of natural gas. Third, even when such drilling began to produce oil, it would be doubtful that enough oil could be lifted to markedly affect prices at the pump. Like it or not, there are no simple or quick fixes. Resolving our dangerous dependence upon foreign oil imports, which now account for 58% of our oil consumption, will require more energy efficient cars, more public transportation, a lot more conservation, and the development of alternative fuels. These take time. The sooner we get serious about these long-term solutions, the better.

[Guest Alan]

The 2-4 million barrels of oil that MAY be produced in about 10 years WILL HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON OIL PRICES.

[Guest My Opinion]

Americans better wake up and smell the coffee - we are going to be brought to our knees over the results of the price rise in oil and other natural resources that are scarce. Russia has planted their flag and claim to the mineral rights under the North Pole. Other countries will be swarming to our coastal regions regardless of "what our States think".

 

On ABC's "This Week -with George Stephanopoulos," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), a McCain friend and supporter, said the Arizona Republican would be open to talking about looking for oil and gas "in our own backyard."

"John McCain would allow offshore explorations, if the states consent," Graham said Sunday.

[Guest Congressman Maurice Hinchey]

"President Bush had six years to work with a Republican-controlled Congress on the issue of gas prices, yet the problem only worsened. During that time, the president and Republicans in Congress passed several major pieces of energy legislation that allowed for more drilling, yet prices did not fall.

 

"Oil companies have leased tens of millions of acres of federal land, but are simply not producing oil on them. Of the 91.5 million acres of federal land leased on and offshore by oil and gas companies, only about 23.5 million acres (just over 25 percent) are actually producing oil and gas. Those 68 million untouched acres could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day, nearly double current domestic oil production. That amount is also more than six times the estimated potential peak production from ANWR.

 

"President Bush and Republicans keep talking about the need to open up more federal land for drilling, but they ignore the fact that there are 68 million acres of untouched federal land that oil companies already control. The oil companies are simply sitting on those 68 million acres until oil prices rise to $200 or $300 a barrel when they can make even greater profits at the expense of Americans. In order to increase our domestic supply we need to pressure the oil companies to begin drilling on the 68 million acres they already control. That's exactly what I am doing legislatively here in the Congress. There is absolutely no need to talk about opening up ANWR or more parts of the Outer Continental Shelf when there are 68 million acres of less environmentally-sensitive land just waiting to be drilled.

 

"Today's proposal by President Bush to open up more federal land for drilling is absolutely unnecessary and is an attempt by oil companies to grab as much federal land as they can before one of, if not the most, oil-friendly administration leaves office. To address the supply side of the equation, we should increase energy production here at home, but let's do so on the 68 million acres the oil companies already leased. And when it comes to demand, it's critical that President Bush and Republicans in Congress join Democrats in our call for significant improvements in fuel efficiency and other conservation efforts along with major investments in solar and other forms of renewable energy."

[Luke_Wilbur]

Maybe there is a compromise that can be made. The companies that have existing leases should not be allowed to bid on new areas until they either revoke their lease or begin producing oil and/or natural gas from their existing lease. Companies that have no affiliation to these lease holders be allowed conditional leases to explore and produce oil and/or natural gas in federal lands adjacent to competing foreign exploration areas.

Edited June 22, 2008 by Luke_Wilbur

[Guest OBAMA FOR AMERICA]

At a press conference yesterday along the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, Florida, Senator Obama talked about the truth behind the politics of offshore drilling, and explained how John McCain's plan to lift the ban on offshore oil production would do little, if anything, to ease gas prices:

 

 

[Guest 420 Fuel]

Gas prices dont matter to me, I will have sold my car, and will move as close as I can to work. My bike needs no fuel.

[Guest BlingBling_*]

The Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act. The "Use it or Lose it" legislation would have forced oil companies to produce oil and gas, or diligently develop, the 68 million acres of public land they already have leased, but are not using to produce energy. This legislation was blocked by House Republicans and was not approved.

[Guest The White House]

President Bush Discusses Outer Continental Shelf Exploration

 

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Across the country, Americans are concerned about the high price of gasoline. Every one of our citizens who drives to work, or takes a family vacation, or runs a small business is feeling the squeeze of rising prices at the pump.

 

To reduce pressure on prices we must continue to implement good conservation policies, and we need to increase the supply of oil, especially here at home. For years, my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal -- and now Americans are paying at the pump. When members of Congress were home over the Fourth of July recess, they heard a clear message from their constituents: We need to take action now to expand domestic oil production.

 

One of the most important steps we can take to expand American oil production is to increase access to offshore exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf, or what's called the OCS. But Congress has restricted access to key parts of the OCS since the early 1980s. Experts believe that these restricted areas of the OCS could eventually produce nearly 10 years' worth of America's current annual oil production. And advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills.

 

Last month, I asked Congress to lift this legislative ban and allow the exploration and development of offshore oil resources. I committed to lift an executive prohibition on this exploration if Congress did so, tailoring my executive action to match what Congress passed. It's been almost a month since I urged Congress to act -- and they've done nothing. They've not moved any legislation. And as the Democratically-controlled Congress has sat idle, gas prices have continued to increase.

 

Failure to act is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me and it's unacceptable to the American people. So today, I've issued a memorandum to lift the executive prohibition on oil exploration in the OCS. With this action, the executive branch's restrictions on this exploration have been cleared away. This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress.

 

Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court. Democratic leaders can show that they have finally heard the frustrations of the American people by matching the action I've taken today, repealing the congressional ban, and passing legislation to facilitate responsible offshore exploration. This legislation must allow states to have a say in what happens off their shores, provides a way for the federal government and states to share new leasing revenues, and ensure the environment is protected.

 

This legislation should also take other essential steps to expand domestic production: Congress should clear the way for our nation to tap into the extraordinary potential of oil shale, which could provide Americans with domestic oil supplies that are equal to more than a century's worth of current oil imports. Congress should permit exploration in currently restricted areas of northern Alaska, which could produce roughly the equivalent of two decades of imported oil from Saudi Arabia. Congress should expand and enhance our domestic refining capacity, so that America will no longer have to import millions of barrels of fully-refined gasoline from abroad.

 

The time for action is now. This is a difficult period for millions of American families. Every extra dollar they have to spend because of high gas prices is one dollar less they can use to put food on the table or send a child to school. And they are rightly angered by Congress' failure to enact common-sense solutions. Today, I've taken every step within my power to allow offshore exploration of the OCS. All that remains is for the Democratic leaders in Congress to allow a vote. The American people are watching the numbers climb higher and higher at the pump -- and they're waiting to see what the Congress will do.

[Guest The White House]

Yesturday, President Bush lifted an executive ban on producing oil from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the Democratically controlled Congress. To reduce pressure on prices, President Bush recognizes the need to increase the supply of oil – especially here at home. For years, his Administration has called on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal – and now Americans are paying the price. When Members of Congress were home for the Fourth of July recess, they heard a clear message from their constituents: take action now to expand domestic oil production.

 

Increased Access To Offshore Exploration In The OCS Is One Of The Most Important Steps To Expand American Oil Production

 

Experts believe that OCS areas under leasing prohibitions could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil. We will not know for certain until exploration is allowed. The problem is that Congress has restricted access to much of the OCS since the early 1980s. Since then, advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills. With these advances – and the dramatic increase in oil prices – these Congressional restrictions have become outdated and counterproductive.

 

Last month, President Bush asked the Democratic Congress to lift this legislative ban and allow the exploration and development of offshore oil resources. He committed to lift an executive restriction on this exploration if Congress did so, tailoring his executive action to match what Congress passed. However, it has been almost a month since he urged Congress to act – and the Democratic leadership has done nothing. They have not moved any legislation, and as Congress has sat idle, gas prices have continued to increase.

 

This failure to act is unacceptable to American citizens – and it is unacceptable to President Bush. So today, he has issued a memorandum to lift the executive prohibition on oil exploration in the OCS. With this action, executive branch restrictions on this exploration have been cleared away, except for areas within existing marine sanctuaries. Areas near Florida are also off limits until 2022 under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act.

 

This is a difficult period for millions of American families. They are rightly angered by Congress' failure to enact common-sense solutions. Today, President Bush has taken every step within his power to allow offshore exploration of the OCS. All that remains is for Democratic leaders in Congress to allow a vote.

 

The Time For Democrats In Congress To Act Is Now

 

Democratic leaders can show that they have finally heard the frustrations of the American people by matching the action President Bush has taken today, repealing the Congressional ban, and passing legislation to facilitate responsible offshore exploration. This legislation must allow States to have a say in what happens off their shores, provide a way for the Federal Government and States to share new leasing revenues, and ensure the environment is protected.

 

Republicans in Congress have proposed several promising bills that would lift the legislative ban on oil exploration in the OCS. President Bush calls on the House and Senate to pass such good legislation as soon as possible.

 

This legislation should also take essential steps to expand domestic production from oil shale and in Alaska and to increase refining capacity. Congress should clear the way for our Nation to tap into the extraordinary potential of oil shale – which could provide Americans with domestic oil supplies that are equal to more than a century's worth of current oil imports. Congress should permit exploration in currently restricted areas of northern Alaska – which could produce roughly the equivalent of two decades of imported oil from Saudi Arabia. Finally, Congress should enable the expansion of our domestic refining capacity – so that America will no longer have to import millions of barrels of fully refined gasoline from abroad.

 

These Proposals Will Take Years To Have Their Full Impact, So We Should Move Quickly

 

For the long run, we are dealing with the demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies. President Bush's Administration has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hybrid vehicles, mandated a large expansion in the use of alternative fuels, and raised fuel efficiency standards to ambitious new levels. With all these steps, we are bringing America closer to the day when we can significantly reduce our reliance on oil.

[Guest White House Press Secretary Offi]

Q On that, why did the President change his mind? He was -- a month ago when this happened, everybody kept on asking him, why doesn't he do -- why doesn't he do it by himself? And there was this long defense, it wouldn't have any impact. So why did he change?

 

MS. PERINO: What President Bush wanted to do and still seeks to do is to get Congress to work with him because we talked about having two keys that need to be turned at the same time. There's a legislative ban and an executive branch ban. President Bush said that we should do these and we should do this in a way that -- at the same time that gets the keys turned. It's become increasingly clear that Congress is not willing to take that step on their own, so President Bush is going to lead, and we hope that they will follow us.

 

And there's actually a couple of pieces of legislation that are already introduced, and I think that Senator McConnell has one, as well, and they're planning to continue to try to push to get hearings on these bills. So it's not like they have to start from scratch; there's legislation that exists.

 

And all the legislation would allow for the states to decide whether or not they want to participate. It would get Congress to work with the states through the legislative process to figure out the amount of revenue sharing that would take place. And also, states would be allowed to try to -- to decide on their own for how far out the view shed should be, in terms of you're standing on the shore -- if you get over the horizon, that's where the wells would be.

 

Q Does his action today revoke entirely the executive order his father signed, or is it more nuanced?

 

MS. PERINO: It doesn't. It doesn't.

 

Q Okay.

 

MS. PERINO: Yes.

 

Q Given the reluctance of the Congress to turn the other key, is it fair to call this a symbolic gesture?

 

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that you have seen increasingly Americans are understanding the importance of this issue; they're becoming more educated about the advances in technology that have taken place that would protect the environment. I know that across Europe, especially in the North Sea, there's a lot of offshore oil drilling that takes place, and they've been able to do it in ways that has been able to be protective of the environment.

 

So there's three more weeks left of Congress, and you've been in town long enough to know that oftentimes Congress gets most of its work done in just the remaining weeks right before it goes off for August recess. One thing I know that the Democrats continue to recommend is that we -- or to suggest -- is that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is the answer to all of our problems. We strongly believe that it's not. That trick has been tried before and it doesn't work.

 

It's unfortunate that the only place Democrats in Congress seem to be able to think we can get oil is from our insurance policy, which is the extra supply that we have in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And to my knowledge, Speaker Pelosi or others have not indicated how long they would recommend -- or how many -- how long they would recommend taking oil out of the SPR. They've not said what the price point is they're trying to get to. They've not said how long it would last. And so I think those are -- a lot of questions have to be answered before they could even be taken seriously. I believe that Democrats believe a problem delayed is a problem half-solved -- and in this case, it doesn't work.

 

Q Are you seeing increased support from Democrats?

 

MS. PERINO: I think -- you can -- I won't speak for them, but I think you have seen increasingly there have been some Democratic members of Congress who are starting to change their position on this, and what -- in ways that they can look at the technology that has improved, the demand from Americans because they are paying record-high gas prices. And I will repeat again, there's no magic wand that's going to decrease prices overnight. But what we're trying to do is send a signal to the market that more supply would be coming on line. And we will work with Congress to try to do that.

 

Bill.

 

Q Well, how can you conflate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with offshore drilling? I mean, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, whether it's a good idea or not, would at least bring supply to the market immediately. What you're talking about in offshore oil is 10 years away.

 

MS. PERINO: Well, what we have seen in the past when people have tried to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to affect price is that it hasn't worked. It might bring it down a penny or two, and that's not enough. What we want to do is get to the root cause of the problem.

 

Q I'm not really arguing with you on that, I'm just saying that the two things don't match up.

 

MS. PERINO: I actually -- I totally agree with you. Because we're saying that we should do more in terms of domestic production and exploration, and the answer we get back is we should release more oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We're already not filling it at the rate that the President wanted to, because of a law Congress passed earlier this year that we agreed to go along with. It hasn't affected price. So I think we're in agreement.

 

Ann.

 

Q Same issue. Is the President lifting the ban -- the executive ban under the belief that the oil industry is currently exploring every inch of available lease out there, that there's nothing else that they could do, other than more leases?

 

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that it's -- I think you're referring to the -- Democrats have called it the "use it or lose it" provision. First of all, already in statute, that exists. I believe it's at the 5th, 8th, and 10th year companies have to have production or else they have to return their lease. And so first of all, that already exists. And secondly, it's nonsensical to think that anyone that has oil to sell is holding onto it right now when there's historic high oil prices. That's just not how the market works.

 

Q But does -- is the President satisfied that the oil industry is already doing everything it can to squeeze --

 

MS. PERINO: I've heard nothing to suggest otherwise. And I would say it's not only the offshore oil companies that are working on their -- to find oil that they could produce, but certainly, as one from the West, I know that it takes a while for these companies to be able to get through all the processes and the permits. So for example, if you go and get a lease, the next thing that you have to do is go through the Endangered Species Act permitting process, the Clean Air Act process -- I think that you have to get a permit for that. There's other -- the NEPA process, which takes a long time.

 

So it takes a while to get through all the environmental and conservation permits that you have to do, not to mention you're usually fighting in court because conservation groups have sued you. So by the time you're able to actually explore for the oil or the gas, it just takes a little bit of time. And what the President is wanting to do is speed that process up.

 

Q And has this administration enforced the "use it or lose it" provisions?

 

MS. PERINO: As far as I know, yes. There's been no changes in the law.

 

Anybody else on this? Wendell.

 

Q It's my understanding the congressional ban expires at the end of September without -- unless it's reauthorized.

 

MS. PERINO: Every year. It's a yearly ban that they do in the appropriations process.

 

Q So would what the President wants be accomplished by allowing the congressional ban to expire, or do you need new legislation?

 

MS. PERINO: You need new legislation. And in addition to that, one thing that's just a detail point, the President's ban or executive branch ban goes through 2012. And as Wendell said, the legislative ban is something that they repeat on a yearly basis.

 

Q So in the new legislation, are you willing to go along with the idea of giving states veto power over whether offshore drilling is allowed, how far out it's allowed, and willing to renegotiate the revenue sharing with them beyond -- what is it, 37.5 percent?

 

MS. PERINO: Yes. I think all of those things are up for discussion and there's legislation that is in front of Congress right now, and states would have -- most importantly, the states would have a chance to review the decision and make their own determination. And I think states across the board will take a good, hard look at it, and they all -- they have constituents and their citizens pay gas prices, too.

[Guest Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.)]

With millions of families hurting at the pump, President Bush continues to tell the American people to put their trust in Big Oil and hope things get better decades from now. He refuses to use the 700 million barrel Strategic Petroleum Reserve that could immediately help consumers, yet continues to sell the oil companies’ drilling proposal as if he worked in their PR department.

 

“The Bush administration’s own energy experts say that if Congress allowed drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines today, we could not produce a single drop of oil or gas there for at least 10 years, and we would not reach peak production until 2030. And even then, the additional production would have no significant impact on prices. Despite these facts, the President continues to try to fool the American public into believing that drilling in these areas will magically drive down prices at the pump this summer. This is a complete and total fraud.

 

“While continuing his crusade to help Big Oil exploit America’s beaches and pristine coastlines for offshore drilling, the president still has yet to answer why oil companies are not drilling now on the 68 million acres of land on which they currently have access. Bush continues to threaten a veto of any renewable energy legislation that will provide domestic energy for every American faster and cheaper than his beach-side drilling schemes.

 

“This summer, Democrats in Congress have pushed an immediate energy relief package that includes releasing millions of barrels of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve and cracking down on rampant oil market speculators. We will continue to push for long-term renewable solutions and immediate gas price relief .”

[Guest Fracture]

It makes me sick and the people need to take back the United States from the big corporations. These rich bastards need to be thrown in jail for what they are doing to the people!!!

[Guest Freedom Watcher]

Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, wants Americans to place another bad bet on oil drilling. So he funded Newt Gingrich's 527 organization, American Solutions, is promoting a "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less" campaign to petition to Congress to "act immediately to lower gasoline prices" by "authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves" off our coasts.

 

Adelson is one of several prominent conservatives and board members of the Republican Jewish Coalition funding Freedom's Watch, a new White House front group

 

Adelson has also been accused of pursuing "despicable business practices" and having "habitually and corruptly bought political favour" by the conservative Daily Mail of London, although Adelson successfully sued the newspaper for libel in 2008.

[jmn0730]

To drill on OCS is a harmful idea. There is no possible way to drill oil and not harm habitat. I also heard about Bush's idea to drill on the 800-mile-long Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

 

"Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), a pristine wilderness area in northern

Alaska, to oil exploration and drilling will have adverse environmental impacts and will not

solve the problem of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The section of ANWR presumed to hold

oil reserves is a critical habitat for the Porcupine caribou herd; the industrial blight that

accompanies oil exploration, such as toxic spills and chemical waste, may destroy the herd's

habitat. Using existing technology to increase automobile fuel economy will prove much more

effective at reducing dependence on foreign oil than domestic drilling, which will only reduce

foreign oil dependence from 56 percent in 2001 to 50 percent in 2011.

One of the most magnificent wildlife reserves [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)] in

America has been targeted for oil and gas development. It is threatened as never before, and will

lose its wild, untrammeled character forever if we do not organize to fight this threat. Today,

Representative Nancy Johnson (CT-R) and I are introducing the Morris K. Udall Arctic

Wilderness Act of 2001,1 with more than 120 cosponsors, Republican and Democrat, all united

in their goal to preserve this precious wilderness in its current pristine, roadless condition for

future generations of Americans.2

Protecting a bipartisan legacy

We have a bipartisan legacy to protect, and we take it very seriously. It is a legacy of Republican

President [Dwight] Eisenhower, who set aside the core of the Refuge in 1960. It is a legacy of

Democratic President [Jimmy] Carter, who expanded it in 1980. It is the legacy of Republican

Senator Bill Roth [Delaware] Democratic Representative Bruce Vento [Minnesota], and

especially Morris Udall [Arizona-Democrat], who fought so hard to achieve what we propose

today, and twice succeeded in shepherding this wilderness proposal through the House of

Representatives.

Now is the time to finish the job they began. Now is the time to say "Yes" to setting aside the

coastal plain as a fully protected unit of the Wilderness Preservation System.

Every summer, the Arctic coastal plain becomes the focus of one of the last great migratory

miracles of nature when 130,000 caribou, the Porcupine caribou herd, start their ancient annual

trek, first east away from the plain into Canada, then south and west back into interior Alaska,

and finally north in a final push over the mountains and down the river valleys back to the

coastal plain, their traditional birthing grounds. This herd, migrating thousands of miles each

year and yet funneling into a relatively limited area of tundra, contrasts sharply with the nonmigratory

Central Arctic herd living near the Prudhoe Bay oil fields.

The coastal plain of the Refuge is the biological heart of the Refuge ecosystem and critical to the

survival of a one-of-a-kind migratory species. When you drill in the heart, every other part of the

biological system suffers.

The oil industry has placed a bull's eye on the heart of the Refuge and says hold still. This won't

hurt. It will only affect a small surface area of your vital organs.

Nevertheless, the oil industry has placed a bull's eye on the very same piece of land that

Congress set aside as critical habitat for the caribou. The industry wants to spread the industrial

footprint of Prudhoe Bay into a pristine area.

Let's take a look at the industrial footprints that have already been left on the North Slope. Look

at Deadhorse and Prudhoe Bay. They are part of a vast industrial complex that generates, on

average, one toxic spill a day of oil, or chemicals, or industrial waste of some kind that seeps into

the tundra or sits in toxic drilling mud pits. It is one big energy sacrifice zone that already spews

more nitrogen oxide pollution into the Arctic air each year than the city of Washington, D.C.

Allowing this industrial blight to ooze into the Refuge would be an unmitigated disaster. It would

be as if we had opened up a bottle of black ink and thrown it on the face of the Mona Lisa.

An unnecessary invasion

But why invade this critical habitat for oil if we don't have to? The fact is, it would not only be

bad environmental policy, it is totally unnecessary. Here's why.

Fuel economy: According to EPA [u.S. Environmental Protection Agency] scientists, if cars,

mini-vans, and SUVs improved their average fuel economy just three miles per gallon, we would

save more oil within 10 years than would ever be produced from the Refuge. Can we do that?

We already did it once. In 1987, the fleetwide average fuel economy topped 26 miles per gallon

[mpg], but in the last 13 years [as of February 2001], we have slipped back to 24 mpg on

average, a level we first reached in 1981.

Simply using existing technology will allow us to dramatically increase fuel economy, not just

by 3 mpg, but by 15 mpg or more--five times the amount the industry wants to drill out of the

Refuge.

Natural gas: The fossil fuel of the future is gas, not gasoline, because it can be used for

transportation, heating, and, most importantly, electricity, and it pollutes less than the

alternatives. The new economy needs electricity, and it isn't looking to Alaskan oil to generate it.

California gets only 1 percent of its electricity from oil; the Nation gets less than 3 percent, while

15 percent already comes from natural gas and it's growing.

Alaska has huge potential reserves of natural gas on the North Slope, particularly around

Prudhoe Bay and to the west, in an area that has already been set aside for oil and gas drilling

called the National Petroleum Reserve. Moreover, we have significant gas reserves in the lower

48 [states] and the Caribbean. The coastal plain of the Refuge has virtually none.

Oil not in the Refuge: The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska has been specifically set aside

for the production of oil and gas. It is a vast area, 15 times the size of the coastal plain, and

relatively under-explored by the industry. Anything found there is just as close to Prudhoe Bay

as the Refuge, but can be developed without invading a critical habitat in a national refuge.

In fact, just last October [2000], BP [british Petroleum] announced the discovery of a field in

this Reserve that appears to be as large as Kuparuk, the second largest field on the North Slope.

While the potential for oil in the Refuge still appears larger than in the Reserve, the Reserve

holds much greater promise for natural gas, so that every exploratory well has a greater chance

of finding recoverable quantities of one fuel or the other.

Our dependence on foreign oil is real, but we cannot escape it by drilling for oil in the United

States. Energy legislation introduced in Congress [in 2001] attempts to set ambitious new goals

for independence yet it would only reduce our foreign oil dependence from 56 percent today to

50 percent 10 years from now, which simply underlines the futility of trying to drill our way to

independence.

We consume 25 percent of the world's oil but control only 3 percent of the world's reserves.

Seventy-six percent of those reserves are in OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting

Countries], so we will continue to look to foreign suppliers as long as we continue to ignore the

fuel economy of our cars and as long as we continue to fuel them with gasoline.

Sensible fuel economy should preclude domestic drilling

The public senses that a drill-in-the-Refuge energy strategy is a loser. Why sacrifice something

that can never be recreated, this one-of-a-kind wilderness, simply to avoid something relatively

painless--sensible fuel economy?

A 2001 poll, done by Democratic pollster Mark Mellman and Republican pollster Christine

Matthews, shows a margin of 52 to 3S percent opposed to drilling for oil in the Refuge.

The public is making clear to Congress that other options should be pursued--not just because the

Refuge is so special, but because the other options will succeed where continuing to put a

polluting fuel in gas-guzzling automobiles is a recipe for failure.

Sending in the oilrigs to scatter the caribou and shatter the wilderness is what I call "UNIMOG

energy policy." You may have heard about the UNIMOG. It is a proposed new SUV that will be

9 feet tall, 71/2 feet long, 3_ inches wider than a Humvee [a type of SUV], weigh 6 tons, and get

10 miles per gallon.

That's the kind of thinking that leads not just to this Refuge, but to every other pristine

wilderness area, in a desperate search for yet another drop of oil. And it perpetuates a head-inthe-

haze attitude towards polluting our atmosphere with greenhouse gases and continuing our

reliance on OPEC oil for the foreseeable future.

Now that our energy woes have forced us to think about the interaction of energy and

environmental policy, it is a good time to say "NO" to a UNIMOG energy policy and "YES" to a

policy that moves us away from gas-guzzling automobiles to clean-burning fuels, hybrid engines,

and much higher efficiency in our energy consumption.

If we adopt the UNIMOG energy policy, we will have failed twice. We will remain just as

dependent on oil for our energy future, and we will have hastened the demise of the ancient

rhythms of a unique migratory caribou herd in America's last frontier.

We have many choices to make regarding our energy future, but we have very few choices when

it comes to industrial pressures on incomparable natural wonders. Let us be clear with the

American people that there are places that are so special for their environmental, wilderness, or

recreational value that we simply will not drill there as long as alternatives exist.

The Arctic Refuge is Federal land that was set aside for all the people of the United States. It

does not belong to the oil companies, it does not belong to one State. It is a public wilderness

treasure; we are the trustees.

We do not dam Yosemite Valley [in Central California] for hydropower. We do not stripmine

Yellowstone [National Park] for coal. We do not string wind turbines along the edge of the

Grand Canyon.

And we should not drill for oil and gas in the Arctic Refuge. We should preserve it, instead,

as the magnificent wilderness it has always been, and must always be."

 

 

 

Source:

http://s29c.montgomerycollege.edu/cp/group...rgyreadings.pdf

[Guest Newt Gingrich]

The Left has offered all sorts of arguments for why they oppose drilling, including reasons why producing more American oil will not lower gas prices. These arguments are bunk, and the American people know it.

 

In last week's newsletter, I linked to a study by two economists that argued allowing drilling in ANWR would produce an immediate drop in oil prices even if the oil did not enter refineries for several years. The study was rejected for publication in The Energy Journal, not because the editors disagreed with their findings, but because they considered the study's conclusion so obvious that it was not worth publishing.

 

This week, noted American Enterprise Institute economist Kevin Hasset confirmed what we already know - drilling now would lower prices immediately:

 

If exploration can be expected to be successful and significantly increase oil production in the future, then it would cause producers to revise downward their estimates for future prices. This would increase the attractiveness of extracting more today. As producers respond with higher production, prices today would drop.

 

So why is Nancy Pelosi preventing votes that would allow for the production of more American oil - which would have the likely effect of lowering our gas prices today?