[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 14, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6248-S6249]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEVELOPING ALASKA OIL
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Murkowski, recently
wrote an article entitled ``Developing Alaska Oil Is Good for the
Global Environment,'' which was published on May 4, 2003 in the
Anchorage Daily News.
[[Page S6249]]
Senator Murkowski made extremely astute observations and concisely
detailed the hard truths of the United States' current energy
condition.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Senator
Murkowski's article.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Anchorage Daily News, May 4, 2003]
Developing Alaska Oil Is Good for Global Environment
(By Lisa Murkowski)
As Congress continues to debate whether to permit some
limited oil development on Alaska's Arctic coastal plain, we
must ask whether America is doing everything it can to
protect its energy security in the future.
As a new Senator from Alaska, I may shock some by
acknowledging some hard truths. First, this nation needs to
do a far better job of energy conservation and needs to
develop innovative energy technologies to meet our growing
need for clean and efficient fuels.
For example, overcoming the technical hurdles of hydrogen-
powered vehicles could be very beneficial in meeting our
future energy needs. Second, opening a tiny part of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by itself will not solve all
our energy woes, as it will take time to develop the area's
potential. But ignoring the area's huge energy potential
equates to hoping that foreign sources will supply our winter
heating oil and summer gasoline needs at reasonable prices
into the distant future. That's like students avoiding
studying for finals in hopes that a snowstorm will force
schools to close in May.
It also ignores the limitations of the refining process for
crude oil and the growth in demand for aviation fuel, diesel,
plastics and other items made from oil. The truth, according
to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, is that there's a 50-
50 chance the Arctic coastal plain holds about 10 billion
barrels of economically recoverable oil--enough to produce
about 1 million barrels a day for 30 years.
Rather than some inconsequential amount, such a find would
be the largest oil field discovered in the world in the last
three decades and would equal nearly one-fifth of America's
domestic production by 2010.
Equally important, at current prices, it represents $15
billion a year that we won't have to spend on buying oil
overseas, in some cases enriching dictators who wish us ill.
Producing more energy at home would strengthen our economy by
producing jobs and tax revenues here. It would foster our
national security in the midterm by lessening the potential
for America to be subject to blackmail from foreign oil
boycotts.
And allowing more oil development in Alaska would honor the
promises Congress thrice made to my state, first at our
statehood, later in 1960 when President Eisenhower created
the Arctic National Wildlife Range and most recently in 1980
when 131 million acres of Alaska was withdrawn as parks and
refuges. Each decision specifically permitted oil development
to take place on the coastal plain, unless such development
would harm Alaska's environment. And the truth is that
tapping into a tiny percentage of ANWR's vast acreage won't.
According to the recent environmental impact statement for
reauthorization of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, less than 1
percent of the vegetation of the Arctic coastal plain likely
will be impacted by future oil development. Safeguards in
congressional legislation will guarantee that no more than
2,000 acres of the 40 million acres of coastal plain will be
touched.
Directional drilling underground allows oil wells to be
placed up to seven miles apart, preventing disturbance to the
animals that breed and graze in between. New procedures on
seismic work prevent ocean noise when bowhead whales are
passing.
Some worry about the impacts on calving caribou. But
Alaska's experience at the nearby Prudhoe Bay oil field,
where the caribou herd has grown sixfold, shows that caribou
can not only tolerate but flourish in oil fields. That is
especially the case since restrictions will prevent any
drilling noise during the two months when the caribou might
be present.
Developing oil domestically actually is good for the global
environment since it reduces the importation of oil on
foreign-flagged, single-hulled tankers, requiring the oil
industry to meet America's stringent environmental
safeguards.
Alaska's beauty certainly is not threatened as 192 million
acres of Alaska remain protected--nearly the size of all East
Coast states combined. The truth is that America needs to
both conserve and produce more energy.
If we can, as some have argued, reduce our foreign reliance
on oil by 1 million barrels per day by increased
conservation, and also increase production from ANWR by
adding a million barrels, the 2 million barrels resulting
from this two-pronged approach would substantially improve
U.S. energy policy.
The government predicts that U.S. oil production will
continue its steady decline unless we act now. By 2015
America will be producing just 30 percent of the oil we
consume daily. We've wasted a quarter century on this debate.
Let's help ourselves by developing our own oil reserves
now.
____________________