GOP, Teamsters Plug Away for ANWR

CNSNews ^ | 3/15/02 | Jason Pierce

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Having settled one blockbuster item in the energy bill - fuel efficiency standards -- members of the U.S. Senate now turn to the question of whether to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), the ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said Thursday the importance of ANWR drilling is not just about reducing American dependence on foreign oil. It is about the safety of Americans, he said.

Murkowski pointed out that Iraq is "a country we are basically at war with," yet Saddam Hussein's regime continues to export billions of barrels of oil into the U.S. each year.

And there are other trouble spots, where the U.S. gets its energy supply, Murkowski said.

"Look at Venezuela. We've got a miniature Castro down there in [Hugo] Chavez, supplying this country with an ever-increasing supply of oil.

"This is going to be the debate in the U.S. Senate," Murkowski said, referring to ANWR.

"It is going to be a vote on doing what's right for America, doing what's right for American jobs, but more importantly, American lives."

Jim Waltman, spokesperson for the Wilderness Society said making ANWR out to be a life-and-death situation may be going too far. He said any military action the U.S. launches has "nothing to do with drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

"That is an outrageous statement," Waltman said. "This has nothing to do with our war on terrorism, and to suggest that if we drill in the Arctic Refuge that we wouldn't fight to stop terrorism is a very cynical statement, and one that I'm sure the American public would reject.

"And to suggest that if we drill in the Arctic Refuge that it has anything to do with importing oil from Iraq is crazy," Waltman said.

Murkowski addressed environmental concerns, insisting that with American technology, the U.S. can drill for oil more safely than the other countries it relies on for imported crude.

"It is in the national interest to generate energy at home where we can do it safely," he said.

Murkowksi added that it is the "extreme environmental community" that is holding up the ANWR issue, and accused some environmental groups of "using this issue to milk it for all it is worth for membership and dollars."

Jerry Hood, spokesman for the Teamsters Union, said drilling in the ANWR could be done safely while hundreds of thousands of American jobs would be created.

"Teamsters believe that job creation and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive," Hood said. "We have the technology to explore the ANWR with no negative impact on the environment.

"This can ease America's energy costs while creating good jobs for working families," he said.

How Much Oil Would ANWR Produce?

The Wilderness Society this week hailed a report from the Energy Information Administration, which is an independent agency within the Department of Energy. According to the Wilderness Society, the report states that the "increased production (from the refuge) is projected to reduce the net share of foreign oil used by U.S. consumers in 2020 from 62 percent to 60 percent."

Among the report's other findings cited by the Wilderness Society:

-- Oil production in Alaska outside the refuge is projected to increase by 22 percent by 2020;

-- The amount of technically recoverable oil from areas of the U.S. outside the Arctic Refuge (136 billion barrels) is projected to be 17.7 times the amount that is expected to be recovered from inside the refuge (7.7 billion barrels);

-- At peak production in 2020, oil from the Arctic Refuge would amount to only 800,000 barrels a day, roughly seven-tenths of one percent of projected world oil production.

-- The first drop of oil from the Arctic Refuge would not flow until 2011 if drilling is approved in 2002.

Waltman said the report proves that the ANWR project is not worth the risk to the environment.

"What that report does is back up past reports by federal agencies that show in fact that drilling in the Arctic refuge will have a small impact on our oil imports," Waltman said. "So it makes no sense whatsoever to sacrifice such a natural area as the Arctic Refuge to gain just a small amount of oil compared to what we consume."

Murkowski, however, disputed the findings of the Energy Information Administration report, claiming its outcomes were significantly "off" compared to the projections from other studies. And even a two percent increase in domestic oil production, which the report claims would be the result of ANWR drilling, "is significant," according to Murkowski.

All Eyes on the Senate

Murkowski would not say when he would introduce his amendment to include ANWR drilling in the Senate energy bill. But Democrats have already planned to filibuster such an amendment, because Republicans have secured the majority of votes necessary for passage.

James Hoffa, president of the Teamsters, called on the Senate to invoke cloture in order to cut off such a filibuster being promised by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).

"We understand that some of our friends in the Senate have already publicly declared their opposition to opening Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," Hoffa said. "However, we ask them to support our call for a fair process-meaning an opportunity to have an up or down vote on the ANWR Amendment."

Hoffa, who met with Senators Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Thomas Carper (D-Del.) earlier in the day, warned that the Teamsters would be keeping track of the vote on ANWR.

"We will remember in November," Hoffa said.

Both the Teamsters and the Republican team working on ANWR have remained tight-lipped about whether they have the necessary 60 votes to end a filibuster.

When asked Thursday, Murkowski said his side had "less than sixty and more than fifty."

[hchutch]

If we can get the teamsters, this will help us in 2002.

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[Stand Watch Listen]

ANWAR

Taken from the February issue of Oil & Gas Investor, page 11:

EIA estimates total US production at 5.78 million barrels of oil per day (BOD).
Shell Oil's Brutus offshore platform (Gulf) is expected to peak at 100,000 BOD this year. Production from the Mars, Troika, Ursa, Dianna-Hoover and Brutus offshore Gulf fields could account for 9.7% of total lower 48 oil production by fourth quarter 2003.

Alaska will produce 17.2% of total US production (including Gulf production) in 2003 with the addition of the Colville River, Aurora, Polaris and Borealis satellite fields located on the North Slope.

LET ME BE CLEAR: with TOTAL US production at 5.78 million BOD, the addition of modest ANWR estimates of 1 million BOD, is equal to 17.3% of TOTAL US PRODUCTION

ANWR Fact Sheets http://www.anwr.org/

ANWR Oil Estimates

Myths of ANWR

Arctic Shoreline

ANWR Wilderness

Arctic Oil Technology

Native Alaskans and Development

Jobs,Jobs, Jobs

Caribou in ANWR

Which is the Real ANWR?

National Security

Oil Exports

• ANWR total area: 19,600,000 acres
• ANWR designated wilderness part: 8,000,000 acres
• ANWR coastal plain (not part of wilderness area) designated long ago by Congress for oil exploration study: 1,500,000 acres
• Coastal plain area needed for oil extraction: 2,000 acres (0.01% of the total ANWR area)

In 1998 the USGS did a study that concluded that there are between 5.7 billion to 16 Billion barrels of recoverable Oil in the "1002" Area of ANWR. That is a LOT of oil!

and it doesn’t even take into consideration the nearly 200 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas there (over 150 years supply at the current rate of use in the U.S.)

A little perspective on the size of ANWR development:

An exploration rig on the tundra and the absence of any wildlife in this region

Beautiful Spring day in this coastal plain

Coastal Plain
      spring                                             summer                                       winter

Only 2,000 acres out of 19.5 MILLION are even under consideration for drilling. And those 19.5 million acres are but a FRACTION of the total land mass of Alaska. Also, contrary to dire predictions of the devastating impact on wildlife that would occur when the pipeline in Prudhoe bay, the caribou herd there have actually grown to record numbers.

SITE MAP (background / technology)

http://www.anwr.org/sitemap.htm

FROM http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm

TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR

1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates in 1995 on bonus bids alone were $2.6 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1980 and 1994, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 25% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 1.4 million barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil too Costly The U.S. imports over 55% of the nation's needed petroleum. These oil imports cost more than $55.1 billion a year (this figure does not include the military costs of protecting that imported supply). These figures are rising and could exceed 65% by the year 2005.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) at Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3,000 to as high as 23,400 during the last 20 years of operation. In 1995, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd size was estimated to be 18,100 animals.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

RELATED ARTICLES

Bush Renews Campaign For Arctic Oil
Source: AP; Puublished: February 25, 2002;
Author: AP

Fresh from Asia ~ Bush bonks Daschle head with ANWR club
Source: Reuters / Whitehouse.gov; Published: February 23, 2002

Inupiat Views Ignored in ANWR Debate
Source: ANWR; Anchorage Times Editorial;
Author: Tara MacLean Sweeney

INUPIAT LEADER ASKS SENATORS TO . . .Visit ANWR
Source: Anchorage Daily News; Published: February 17, 2002
Voice of the Times

ANWR Showdown -- Liberal Caught Playing Loose With The Facts [My Title]
Source: The Fargo Forum and the Grand Forks Herald; Published: February 14, 2002;
Author: Chris Beachy; John Bluemle

Kerry and Lieberman ignore invitation from native villagers in ANWR
Source: USNewswire; Published February 13, 2002;
Author:| Village of Kaktovik Alaska

ANWR Survey
Source: City of Kaktovik, Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Web Page;
author: City of Kaktovik

Listening to Alaska
Source: National Driller; Published: September 27, 2001

ANWR and Oil
Source: Town Hall.com; Published April 11, 2001

Bush Is Right: Opening ANWR To Oil Exploration Would Help Consumers Without Hurting Environment
Source: The National Center for Public Policy Research; Published: January 23, 2001
Author: John Carlisle

Time To Permit Oil Drilling In the Arctic Refuge
Source: Heritage Foundation; Published: October 17, 1995
Author: John Shanahan

It has been mentioned that the caribou herd had over tripled near the pipeline!

Seems other species have flourished as well

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Very well done. Must see. Thanks.

[LarryLied]

From Welcome to Teamsters Online

Hoffa Lobbies Senators for ANWR Passage

March 14, 2002
General President James P. Hoffa today led the Teamsters' efforts on Capitol Hill to pass a comprehensive energy policy in the U.S. Senate. Hoffa met with Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-NJ), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE). Hoffa urged the senators to pass an energy bill that includes provisions for petroleum exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Before the meetings began, Hoffa appeared at a press conference in front of the U.S. Capitol to publicly support the energy bill. "We strongly support the opening of ANWR to oil development and look forward to the hundreds of thousands of jobs it will create," said Hoffa. "We understand that some of our friends in the Senate have already publicly declared their opposition to opening ANWR, but we ask them to support our call for a fair process—meaning an opportunity to have an up or down vote on the ANWR amendment."

Hoffa was joined at the press conference by supporters of ANWR exploration, including Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-AK), Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"This is a bipartisan issue," Hoffa added. "Senators in both parties support ANWR exploration because they have listened to the facts—ANWR can be explored cleanly and safely while lessening our oil dependence on the Middle East."

Click here to view a video clip from the event.

Send your comments to:
feedback@teamster.org

[Dog Gone]

Nice job. Notice how those figures compare to what was reported in the story.

I want to make two points that aren't in the Republican talking points, but they are still true.

First, even if we did damage the environment in ANWR (something that WILL NOT happen), we are likely to be there for 100 years or less. After that, we're gone, possibly never to return. Within a couple of years, it will be impossible to tell that we had ever been there. The earth repairs itself. It is impossible to permanently damage ANWR, no matter how careless we are.

The other point is oil prices are going to have to be higher than they are now to justify exploring ANWR. You don't see the big oil companies joining this lobbying effort right now, because they couldn't do it economically. The expense, especially of doing it to the satisfaction of the Wilderness Society, is going to be enormous, and today it's cheaper to buy the oil from overseas.

That's the short-term outlook. If oil prices rose to the $30 per barrel level, then things would be completely different, and ANWR would be a high priority for them. If their projections are that oil will be that high before actual drilling began, they would certainly buy the leases and conduct initial seismic exploration. But right now, you couldn't drill an ANWR well and make any money doing it, no matter how good a well it was. Imported oil is just too cheap.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for this post.

I wonder if the teamsters have checked out the shoe size of Mullah Shorty Da$$hole, Kerry, Bryd, ChiFi, Boxer and other senators who have pledged their loyalty to the Opecker Princes instead of America! These clowns/anti Americans do more damage to this country each day than the al Qeada thugs do.

Hopefully one day we find the money trail from the Opecker Princes to their mullahs in our Senate and the enviral groups. Both the senators and the enviralists since the 1970's have worked 24/7/365 to make us more dependent on Opecker Oil under the guise of caring for the enivronment. They certainly have not been working for America/Americans by increasing our dependence to Opecker oil since the 1970's!

There is an excellent front page article of today's WSJ on reducing our dependence to Opecker oil that ties in with this and other threads!

To finally win the war on terrorism besides killing all of the al queda, we must have zero dependence to the super rich princes of the Opecker Nations. When they have to leave their chauffered Mercedes by the side of the road, hop on a camel and herd goats again due to zero petro $'s, the middle east financed terrorism will die down and disappear! In the meantime Mullah Shorty Da$$hole continues to work for his masters, the Opecker Princes and keeps us from drilling for oil to reduce our dependence on Opecker Oil.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Stand Watch Listen did the valuable work, that must be available for future reference.

[GuillermoX]

Too bad you're preaching to the choir. It would be nice if all Americans were aware of this. Can't count on the Media to do it, even though they are well aware.

[Grampa Dave]

What a great post/thread! Thank you!

Hopefully some senators will take this and run with it to shut down the enviral/Opecker senators who don't want us to be independent of Opecker Oil!

Those poor animals obviously hate all of the pipelines up there in Alaska!

[Shermy]

Thanks for the pics. People against ANWR for environmental concerns somehow think that the area is like Yosemite or somethng. Not.

Slipping below the mainview is Natural Gaas. There was a thread a while back showing even Daschle dealing with the Alaska Senators for a deal on a gas pipeline from the region (and adjacent Canada) through Canada to the U.S. The "Alaska Highway" line. The Alaskans, I heard, wanted a line down to Valdez, "the "Alaskan line" the gas to be LNG'd and shipped by sea. More expensive. If not, they were threatening to tax and otherwise make extra profits. Essentially extortion.

Here's a site I found the Alaska Natural Oil & Gas Reporter - Natural Gas Page.

Seems to show the truth of such.

Natural Gas is a big story. (Which, Grampa D., the WSJ article did not cover well, IMO.) Another reason why you might be hearing less push for the oil line than one would expect. Give Daschle a victory for the "environmentalists" - The deal's done for gas in the same region!

[Grampa Dave]

Actually, the WSJ had a good blurb on the importance of Natural Gas and up to recent years expensive or hard to get oil! Remember we need all the pieces, not one piece of the oil puzzle to break the tyranny of the Opeckers. I get a little concerned when people start to push Natural Gas as an immediate substitute. That will come in time. Now we need the oil to use tomorrow!

We have the technology, ships and plants to convert our new oil to useful products as soon as it gets to America!

Natural gas has a role now and will have an expanded one in the future if its future use costs don't exceed that of oil. This has been the problem of all so called alternatives in the past 3 decades, they have needed special funding (high prices on oil at the pump and higher taxes) and then super high prices at the final consumer end. Wrong, that is socialism or facism. Let the market determine the best product at the best price for our energy needs!

[Shermy]

My take on the article:

A little bit heavy on the wonky improvements in oil extraction in South America. Necessary, good, but not the "big picture"

Tar sands? Expensive and only "500,000" barrels per day in "2007".

The best line in the article, mostly because it's so absent elsewhere, is the comment "A key to Russia's production surge is a change in mentality." I'd add to that a communist mentality of being paid now (taxes, bribes), a lack of not capitalism, but a capitalist mentality (at least as it should be!)

The Sakhalin deal, which is for Japan, and will replace OPEC resources, was pushed thru right after 9/11. For years the local bureaucrats finangled over contracts, taxes, and the like.

Where is Central Asia in this article? The Capsian, the lines now being built through Turkey, etc.? Perhaps avoided because that oil and gas will go to Europe (and still effecting the world's markets, though). But he does talk about "gas" as "future promise". And a "liquid" scheme in Asia. I hate to break the news to this guy, but a big chunk of vehicles in Italy and Pakistan, among others, run straight off Natural Gas. So do buses, etc. in our country. In that regard I think this writer is an oil-biased writer. Electricity plants in California are converting to natural gas in apparently a big rush.

As you've said, the target is to use both oil and gas as much as possible to lower prices in general. And natural gas is a more efficient source than oil for hydrogen for fuel cells.

Interesting article in some specifics, but I think we get a bigger picture at FR. Anyway, it's just one article. You're right about the article on AA. That guy is great. I'll have to reread it about Hillary - did it explain why she cast the lone nay vote?

[Liz]

Shermy's right on the mark....(1) the Caspian Sea find was critical....(2) we need NG and oil.
Business (I mean, of course, the US economy - GNP and stuff like that) is not going to go on standby
while envirotrash and their political sycophants figure it out. The engines of business need to be powered
up. This is America. Consumerism prevails. Market forces will decide.