Tight vote on arctic refuge oil drilling expected

[Jolie Rouge]

GOP backers aim to evade filibuster threat by adding plan to budget
The Associated Press
March 15, 2005

WASHINGTON - Despite increased GOP strength, the Senate appeared to be evenly divided Tuesday in advance of a key vote on whether to allow oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge.

A flurry of last-ditch lobbying suggested a close vote Wednesday when senators take up the refuge development issue in the first major environmental vote of this Congress.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who for more than two decades has been unable to persuade Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil companies, said he was optimistic this time. “We believe we have the votes,” Stevens said at a news conference. Alaska officials view the refuge’s oil as replacing dwindling shipments from the aging Prudhoe Bay fields on the North Slope.

Seeking to sidestep a Democratic filibuster that would require 60 votes to overcome, Republican leaders have put the Alaska refuge provision into a budget document that is immune to a filibuster under Senate rules.

During several hours of Senate debate, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said that even at peak production the refuge would account for less than 2.5 percent of U.S. oil needs. “How in the world can this be the centerpiece of our energy policy?” asked Durbin, arguing that more conservation and more fuel efficient automobiles would save more oil than the Alaska refuge would produce.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a staunch supporter of drilling, said the refuge’s oil represents “the most significant onshore production capacity” in the country. “We should do everything we can to produce as much as we can,” he said, citing the country’s growing dependence on oil imports.

‘Fragile environment’

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, rejected claims that oil rigs and pipelines would ruin a national environmental treasure, as critics charge. “We know we’ve got to do it right. ... It’s a fragile environment,” said Murkowski, adding that oil companies in Alaska are subject to the most stringent environmental requirements in the world.

However, Democrats vowed to fight the measure. They complained that an issue as divisive as opening a pristine area of wild land, specifically protected by Congress from development, should be debated independently and not as part of the budget process.

“They want to sneak this into the budget,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. She predicted a “very close vote” on a proposal she and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., offered Tuesday to strip the refuge language from the budget document.

Drilling supporters have tried for years to allow oil companies access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the refuge’s 1.5-million acre coastal plain.

President Bush has made access to the refuge’s oil a key part of his energy agenda. Last week, Bush declared that 10 billion barrels of oil could be pumped from the refuge and that it could be done “with almost no impact on land or wildlife.”

Environmentalists argue that while new technologies have reduced the drilling footprint, ANWR’s coastal plain still would contain a spider web of pipelines that would disrupt calving caribou and disturb polar bears, musk oxen and the annual influx of millions of migratory birds.

‘No effect’

Developing the oil “is going to have no effect in the long-term on America’s energy future,” Kerry told reporters. Even if the refuge were to supply 1 million barrels of oil a day, at its peak expected production, the United States would remain heavily dependent on foreign oil unless there were serious efforts to reduce consumption, he said.

How much oil would be economically recoverable from the refuge is still unclear.

Only one exploratory well has been drilled, and the results have been kept secret. The U.S. Geological Survey, using seismic studies, estimated in 1998 that between 5.6 billion to 16 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil is likely to be beneath the refuge’s tundra.

But how much of that oil would be attractive to oil companies would depend on the price of oil. In recent years a number of major oil companies have stopped lobbying for opening ANWR, focusing their activities elsewhere in the world.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton said she has no doubt that oil companies would seek out exploratory leases in the Alaska refuge. If given a go-ahead from Congress, she said, she would expect to begin offering leases in 2007 with refuge oil beginning to flow down the Alaska pipeline “seven or 10 years after that.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7195164

[Jolie Rouge]

Confused about the ANWR? Read MSNBC.com's Q&A
A look at the battle over oil drilling in the Alaska wilderness
MSNBC
March 15, 2005

What to do with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Maps/Americas/Arctic_refuge_wildlife.gif

In the past decade, no single environmental issue has been more explosive. Should it be shielded from the oil industry? Or should a section be opened to extract oil for a hungry economy?

Those policy questions aren't answered here, but below are some answers to background questions to frame the debate among Republicans, Democrats, industry and environmentalists.

What is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

Often referred to by the acronym ANWR, the refuge in northeast Alaska covers 19.6 million acres, an area about the size of South Carolina.

It is home to 45 species of mammals, ranging from the small pygmy shrew to the large bowhead whale. Others include caribou, wolves, Dall sheep, moose, musk oxen and polar, grizzly and black bears. Waters in the refuge are home to 36 species of fish, and 180 species of birds live in or pass through the refuge on their migrations, including snow geese and peregrine falcons.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages ANWR, says one factor that makes the refuge "a very special place is that, as far as we know, there are no species that should be here but are not, and no species that should not be here, but are. In other words, no species of plant or animal is missing, and no outside species has invaded the refuge."

To the west of the refuge lies Prudhoe Bay and existing oil fields that account for 15 percent of domestic production. Farther west is the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, an area designated by Congress for oil production and which the Bush administration is now opening up to exploration. The reserve, Prudhoe Bay and ANWR's coastal plain make up the geographical area known as the North Slope.

Where would ANWR drilling take place?

By law, only a specific area on ANWR's coastal plain may be opened to drilling should Congress vote to do so. Known as the 1002 Area, it covers 1.5 million acres. Any production wells there would be connected to the existing Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

Drilling supporters say the total area needed for the drilling facilities would be just 2,000 acres. They also cite technical improvements that have slashed the size of drilling sites.

Environmentalists counter that the 2,000 acres don't take into account the miles of roads and pipeline that would be needed to support each drilling site.


How much oil is thought to be in ANWR's 1002 Area?

The only data for estimates comes from 1984-85 seismic tests done by industry. In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey went through the data and came up with these estimates for ANWR's 1002 Area:

Oil: 95 percent probability of 4.25 billion barrels of technically recoverable resources. Five percent probability of 11.8 billion barrels. That comes out to a mean probability of 7.7 billion barrels.

Natural gas: 95 percent probability of zero technically recoverable resources. Five percent probability of 10 billion barrels. That comes out to a mean probability of 3.5 billion.

Why are environmentalists, and most Democratic lawmakers, against drilling in ANWR?

They see the refuge as a unique ecosystem that's worth protecting. Porcupine caribou cross into the coastal plain from Canada to give birth in the summer months, they note, while muskoxen live there year-round and pregnant polar bears use the coastal area as a den habitat. Snow geese and other migratory birds travel through the refuge as well.

Environmentalists note that whatever oil is there would not reduce U.S. reliance on foreign supplies by very much, and instead want the government to do more to promote cars that get better mileage and to develop alternative energy sources.

Why do President Bush and most Republican lawmakers favor drilling there?

Energy independence has become an important theme, especially following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and amid general instability in the Mideast.

Drilling supporters note that ANWR has the most oil potential of any U.S. onshore area and could shave U.S. reliance on foreign oil. The Energy Information Agency estimates that 62 percent of oil needed in 2020 will be imported, and if the high end of ANWR oil estimates are accurate, the oil from the refuge could reduce that to 60 percent.

If high-end estimates of natural gas are accurate, supporters note, ANWR could produce more than 150 billion cubic feet a year, about what South Carolina uses in the same period.

What impact has Prudhoe Bay drilling had on the area?

At the request of Congress, the National Academy of Sciences convened a panel of experts to study the effects of existing North Slope drilling.

The panel, noting that its findings could be useful in the ANWR debate, issued a report in 2003 that included these conclusions:

Oil industry and government efforts have reduced many environmental effects, but have not eliminated them.

Oil spills on the tundra so far have been small, and the damaged areas have recovered.

Caribou populations have not shown a dramatic decline, but drilling has affected their geographical distribution and reproductive success at times.

When drilling has ceased, equipment, buildings, roads, pads and other installations will probably remain in place because of the high costs of dismantling and restoration, so some environmental effects are likely to persist.

Bowhead whales have taken a different route in their fall migration to avoid the noise of seismic exploration. As a result, Inupiat Eskimos, who have been hunting the whales for centuries, have had to travel farther out to sea.
More people on the North Slope has meant more refuse for scavenging bears, foxes, ravens and gulls. Their numbers have increased, but some of these animals also prey on bird species, some of which are listed as endangered or threatened.

The panel made clear that its task was not to decide whether the economic benefits outweighed the environmental and cultural consequences. "Society as a whole must debate and decide that issue," the panel said.




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7159486/

[Jolie Rouge]

Senate Votes to Open Alaskan Oil Drilling
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush.

The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster — a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.


The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said. The House has not included a similar provision in its budget, so the issue is still subject to negotiations later this year to resolve the difference.


The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northern eastern corner of Alaska.


Drilling supporters acknowledged after the vote that for refuge development to get final approval Congress must still pass a final budget with the Senate provision included, something Congress was unable to do last year.


Still, "this is a big step," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who said he had tried for 24 years to open the refuge, but failed because Democrats blocked the effort through filibusters. The budget is immune from a filibuster, meaning drilling supporters will need only a majority — not the 60 votes required to break a filibuster — to succeed when the issue comes up for final action later this year.

Environmentalists have fought such development and argued that despite improved environmental controls a web of pipelines and drilling platforms would harm calving caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the coastal plain.

Bush has called tapping the reserve's oil a critical part of the nation's energy security and a way to reduce America's reliance on imported oil, which account for more than half of the 20 million barrels of crude use daily. It's "a way to get some additional reserves here at home on the books," Bush said Wednesday.

The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices and tight supplies. The first lease sales would not be issued until 2007, followed by development seven to 10 years later, Interior Secretary Gale Norton said. "We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a co-sponsor of the amendment that would have stripped the arctic refuge provision from the budget document. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist," she said.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., argued that more oil would be saved if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels and expanded oil development in the deep-water Gulf where there are significant reserves. "The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," said Kerry.


But drilling proponents argued that modern drilling technology can safeguard the refuge and still tap the likely — though not yet certain — 10.4 billion barrels of crude in the refuge.


The vote Wednesday contrasted with the last time the Senate took up the ANWR drilling issue two years ago. Then, an attempt to include it in the budget was defeated. But drilling supporters gained strength last November when Republicans picked up three additional seats, all senators who favored drilling in the refuge.


Opponents of drilling complained that Republicans this time were trying "an end run" by attaching the refuge provisions to the budget, a tactic that would allow the measure to pass with a majority vote.


The 19-million-acre refuge was set aside for protection by President Eisenhower in 1960, but Congress in 1980 said its 1.5 million acre coastal plain could be opened to oil development if Congress specifically authorizes it.

The House has repeatedly passed measures over the years to allow drilling in ANWR only to see the legislation stalled in the Senate. But last week, the House refused to include an ANWR provision in its budget document, although any differences between the Senate and House versions would likely be resolved in negotiations.

Drilling supporters argued that access to the refuge's oil was a matter of national security and that modern drilling technology would protect the region's wildlife.

Environmentalists contended that while new technologies have reduced the drilling footprint, ANWR's coastal plain still would contain a spider web of pipelines that would disrupt calving caribou and disturb polar bears, musk oxen and the annual influx of millions of migratory birds.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20050316/ap_on_go_co/arctic_drilling

[Jolie Rouge]

John Kerry, Inventor, Wizard
--- Paul Jacob

To allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or not?

It is an easy question for Senator John F. Kerry ... because he's magic!

Magic in what way, you ask? Perhaps you fail to understand the wonders that Mr. Kerry would have performed had he been elected president last fall. For starters, America would probably already be energy independent under a President Kerry.

If you're having trouble accepting this, don't fret. You're probably just not attune to wizardly ways. Perhaps you don't believe in magic. You might have some distrust of Washington politicians. For goodness' sake, you could even be so suspicious of power that you support the system that the powerful almost always oppose, free enterprise.

To Kerry and his fellow wizards and magicians, that means you're a muggle.

What does all this talk of wizards and muggles have to do with drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Plenty. Kerry has helped lead the fight against drilling in ANWR because he has a better solution.

Many who support drilling think of ANWR as a much better place to drill than off the coast of California or Florida or in downtown Manhattan or in your back yard. But in a column for Outside Magazine, Kerry writes, "Like many incomparable treasures of the West, ANWR sounds desolate, uninhabited." That could be because ANWR is 19 million acres and very few people live there or anywhere close.

But Kerry points out there are caribou and bears and birds there. "The environmental risks of drilling in ANWR are devastating," he says. Now I know you're thinking that the caribou have been cited before as a species that would be hurt by oil drilling and the pipeline. And that hurt hasn't materialized . . . despite a very big pipeline bisecting the Last Frontier.

Still, when those with a crystal ball warn something is risky, who are we to argue?

On Kerry's Senate website he points to yet another reason to bar drilling in ANWR, arguing that drilling could ruin "the opportunity for local residents to continue their subsistence way of life." Wizards or not, Democrats are always big on maintaining subsistence living. Kerry pooh-poohs the oil under the snow of Alaska's North-eastern coastal plain. It is hardly a six-month supply, and would likely only reduce our use of imported oil by about three percentage points. And, if there were to be some even more terrible chaos in the Middle East, what good would it be to have a six-month supply of oil at the ready? C'mon, really.

Even the oil companies admit that it will take seven to ten years before they can start pumping out the oil. Again, non-magical folks like those in the current administration and the muggles running oil companies can't just snap their fingers and make the oil appear at the pump. If Kerry were president, he could wave his wand and make that oil appear immediately or, better yet in his view, never appear at all.

Which brings us to the main reason Kerry opposes oil drilling in ANWR. Silly ol' President Bush thinks that our need for foreign oil might be lessened if we were to have this additional 3.2 billion barrels of crude at home. Seems simple enough, but it is too simplistic. It presupposes that we'll still be an oil-based economy next month, next year, even ten years from now.

You see, Kerry has a better plan: Let's invent something spectacular to replace oil completely! Something that never causes any environmental concerns. A perfect energy source. "We can't drill our way to energy independence," Kerry tells us. "We have to invent our way there, by harnessing the entrepreneurial spirit that made our country great."

By "harnessing the entrepreneurial spirit" Kerry doesn't mean what, say, I mean when I write about it in my Common Sense e-letter. Nope, he means grabbing lots of tax dollars and giving those dollars to politically favored scientists and inventors (and, sssshhh, big corporations, too, for their research and development departments) so that they can find this new magical energy source. Then, all our energy problems will be solved.

This seems so much better for us energy-consuming muggles than to make energy suppliers do research on their own nickel. Better to let the government do it, with our money. Perhaps they can call the program something catchy, like "Leave No Scheme for a Magical Energy Solution Behind."

The best part would be if this new energy source could even make it possible for Kerry to keep driving the SUVs he owns — er, his family owns. He doesn't own them. Enough of big oil. Let's opt for magic from John F. Kerry and the wizards in Washington, let's spend a few extra trillion on new, perfect technology. Then — hocus, pocus — in a week or two, that silly ol' oil-based economy will be a thing of the past.

Now, why didn't we think of that?

[stresseater]

Whew... dodged that bullet. :eek: :D :D ;) :D

[Jolie Rouge]

Drill rights sold offshore from arctic refuge
Shell denies it's a move to get into sensitive area
Updated: 3:19 p.m. ET March 31, 2005



http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050331/050331_beaufort_hmed_12p.hmedium.jpg
Department of Interior : Drilling in the Beaufort Sea off the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would look something like this — an island platform built in winter by driving equipment over the ice.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The Royal Dutch/Shell Group, which has not been active in Alaska since the 1980s, bid over $44 million for rights to explore for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea, mostly in an area offshore from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Shell Exploration and Production made the bids in a federal Minerals Management Service lease sale Wednesday that reaped a total of $47 million in bids for tracts in federal waters scattered over a wide swath of the Beaufort Sea.

The tracts that got the most attention from Shell stretched from waters off the yet-undeveloped Point Thomson unit west of the refuge to areas northeast of Kaktovik, an Inupiat Eskimo village on the eastern edge of the refuge.

Congress could soon approve drilling in the refuge, a move opposed by environmentalists who along with Inupiat Eskimos also oppose offshore arctic development because of possible risks to migrating whales and other wildlife. “This is just an indication that in the current political climate, they are trying to lease every single acre in the arctic, regardless of the concerns of the North Slope community for subsistence,” said Eleanor Huffines, head of The Wilderness Society’s Alaska office.

Shell: No refuge connection

The attraction to the eastern Beaufort is not the location possibility of ANWR oil development but the known oil discoveries that were abandoned in the past for economic reasons, said Shell spokeswoman Kelly op de Weegh.

The bids were offered “solely on the merits of the lease sale without regard to whether or not ANWR will be opened in the future,” she added.

The offshore acreage leased by Shell includes discoveries called Hammerhead and Kuvlum, previously drilled by Unocal and Arco Alaska Inc.

Op de Weegh said improved technology, some of it honed by Shell in Sakhalin, Russia, and a better business climate, including high oil prices, might make those relatively remote discoveries economic. “We believe that the volumes there really do have a chance to meet our investment criteria,” she said.


'Frontier acreage'

Ken Boyd, a former director of the Alaska Division of Oil and Gas who is now working as an industry consultant, agreed that the Shell bidding was probably motivated by the known offshore discoveries rather than recent moves to open ANWR to development. “The politics might have something to do with it, but the geology doesn’t,” said Boyd, who attended the lease sale.

Those and other tracts remain challenging because of their distance from existing fields or pipeline, he said. “This still is very frontier acreage. You can’t call them satellite plays,” he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7349160/