Single Page
The national security case for opening ANWRThe United States relies on foreign sources for almost two-thirds of our oil. While the good news is that we are making progress on alternative energy and conservation, the world still moves on oil – ships, planes, trucks, and soccer moms. Oil usage is growing world wide, not just in the U.S., but in China and India as well. Obviously, there is no national security problem with importing oil from Canada or Mexico. The difficulty arises with our dependence on the Middle East for oil. A portion of our wealth transfer to that region ends up in the hands of terrorists. We then need to send U.S. troops to quell the terrorism. This makes the cost of Middle East oil even more expensive. Alaska can offset the oil needed from the Middle East by opening up the Arctic Shelf, the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and NPR-A to oil exploration and development. There are tens of billions of barrels of oil in these areas which should be made available to flow through the trans-Alaska pipeline to the Lower 48. However, ANWR is the nation's best prospect for a conventional onshore oil discovery in North America. Its reserves are estimated at a mean of 10.4 billion barrels, possibly up to 16 billion barrels. ANWR is only 90 miles from TAPS, which will reduce the time it takes to get oil flowing to markets in the lower 48 once development starts. ANWR comprises a total of 18.9 million acres which was set aside by Congress in 1980. Nine million acres were set aside in wilderness, eight million acres were set aside in refuges, and two million acres (the 1002 area) are open for development and exploration, but only with the authorization of Congress. Sen. Lisa Murkowski has proposed to develop ANWR by using 2,000 acres of drilling pads connected by ice roads. This development would be about the size of the National Mall, or the Dulles airport. Today, poll after poll shows Americans supporting the opening of ANWR. Yet, at a time when our national energy security is at risk, the cost of imported oil is around $100 a barrel, and TAPS is running at only one-third capacity, the national environmental groups have managed to prevent even the minor amount of development in ANWR proposed by Sen. Murkowski. As a result of national environmental group pressure the current administration has failed to take the actions necessary to develop oil resources in Alaska and has the wrong attitude regarding oil development in ANWR. For example, Lisa Jackson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said recently that the impact on the U.S. of the moratorium on oil drilling ordered after the Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon disaster would be slight because there was spare capacity for production from OPEC. It is terrible national security policy for the administration to be relying on increased imports of energy from the Middle East when we could be developing our own resources in the U.S. Moreover, the administration has failed to take into account the huge boost in jobs opening ANWR would provide. Estimates are that opening ANWR would produce between 735,000 jobs in all 50 states in one forecast, and nearly one million jobs, according to a more recent National Defense Foundation Study. It would contribute $350 billion over the life of the field to the GNP. According to the Congressional Research Service, it would generate between $153 billion and $238 billion of federal revenues, if only the mean amount of oil was discovered and the price of oil stays at the current $100/barrel. If it rises to $125/ barrel as predicted by federal Energy Information Agency, the treasury would net nearly $300 billion dollars over the field's life. In 1995 Ted Stevens, Don Young and I successfully led the fight in Congress to open ANWR. President Clinton bowed to the environmental community and vetoed the bill. Their argument then was that because oil from ANWR would not be available for ten years, it would not help the economy in the near term. Had the President signed the bill oil from ANWR would be flowing today. We need to open ANWR now to provide energy for our kids and grandkids and to reduce the national security risks to the nation.
In just a few short months we will all realize the results of the devaluation of American currency. While the dollar will grow worthless, the resource of oil will grow more valuable. It could be a matter of losing it all, or simply staying warm. Those who can fly out anytime they want are hoping you will be duped. Dear former Governor Murkowski: Is too much to ask of a former US Senator that he -at least once - describe the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as exactly that? Isn't it just a wee bit cynical to continue to use the same old tricks and old exploded arguments, an example of which being using "ANWR" as a discussion term to disguise to the typical American what the intended use of that particular piece of protected land was originally set aside for? The problem with eZines is that they are that much harder to recycle as toilet paper, which would be an excellent sustainable use of this virtual "page." Please fade away governor. No one believes that national security would be changed one iota by access to that oil. Not even you. Most of us have known this since Jimmy Carter. So, Frank, please add to the sum total of public policy debate by telling us WHY the members of Congress don't know and act upon what is perfectly obvious to everyone else in the entire country? If we develop our own resources, we will all benefit. What do we do? Buy 435 dunce caps for Christmas? I'm not sayin' I'm for Murkowski or have or would (or wouldn't) vote for him. I'm not sayin' I think industry should be given carte blanche to run amuk. I'm not saying protecting the environment isn't necessary. What I AM SAYING is that balance is imperative and we simply do not have that. I'm just sayin' that's ALL I'm sayin'. Discourse with that and don't make it personal about the man or the woman. What's next? Dig up Stevens for a commentary on how to govern? This do-nothing traitor accomplished nothing except to increase his personal wealth and retire in luxury from multiple government pensions. One of the worst elected officials ever in the history of the U.S. acting as a shill for the Oil Monopoly dedicated to the destruction of the world environment and much of the populace within. Of all of the available intelligentsia for intelligent discourse on any current problems, Frank Murkowski wouldn't even be on the list. The true nature of the Dispatch ownership? Despite his obvious shortcomings Mr. Murkowski has written a serious article and raised some very valid and true issues. Since he is no longer in power and most probably will not be returning to any sort of elected office in the future perhaps Coyote1959 would consider writing a comment proposing solutions to the problems identified or, if he does not agree that they are problems attempt to refute them instead of resorting to cheap personal attacks that accomplish nothing except feed the writer’s ego. Murky, you wrote: "In 1995 Ted Stevens, Don Young and I successfully led the fight in Congress to open ANWR." What? That is your idea of success? If it didn't open, as you wanted, your ploy was not succesful. (Blame Clinton. Right. When he left office we had a budget surplus which under your Idol George Dubya and your RepPals was quickly shot through and we went into debt under REPUBLICAN control. PERIOD.) In all the years you were in the Senate you never accomplished your stated goal. National Security? If you can trot out that old saw, and mean it, why did you not work for energy alternatives and conservation also? Oil is NOT as finite as you Drill Bay Drill nits seem to think, even if we do dump it in the Gulf and Yellowstone River. Get real, Frank. You are a loser and your plans were losers...just review your popularity polls when you were Governor. A loser is a loser. (And raising taxes on your rich fat cat buddies, and YOU, would also help balance the budget.) Slip back into retirement, Pal, because nobody wants your style economics. kantishnan; I think I identified the thread of a proposed different idea in there somewhere but it disappeared into the personal attacks and subject changing. Either grow up or keep quiet. Children are to be seen, not heard from… You can see what the environmentalist extremism has done for America . We are sending trillions of dollars over to defend the countries that harbor terrorists that want to destroy our american way of life. I think I read that we have spent 3 trillion dollars on the wars in arab countries in the last ten years. Not to mention keeping the price of oil way up.We are putting our kids in harms way for a barrel of oil. I bet it is safe to say that these enviromental extremists are the same ones protesting the wars overseas when they are largely to blame for the lack of domestic production.I think that the federal goverment has as much do to with Alaska's problems , specifically the EPA. It seems they are the ones stopping any developement in our state . It's unfortunate, isn't it, that the environmentalists have so much sway? Not that I'm for outright rape of the planet, but progress comes with a price which can and should be reasonably negotiated. There is no negotiating with fanatics, however, which places us squarely in the predicament the U.S. finds itself in today. I'd like to see even one of them - just one of the rank and file, or even a lay supporter - square off in a public forum with regard to the will of the people, presentation of facts in contrast and comparison, and a solid vote to get progress back on track. The place for environmentalism is advocating for a healthy earth, but not halting progess for the sake of extremism. I dare say they would not be able to hold up their side of the discussion without resorting to accusation and threat of impending doom. We're reasonable people on this earth and no one group should dictate a future that puts people in a worse economic situation than previous generations. They're so sure they're right, but ... |
Comments