Hungry for energy, politicians try to drill it home
A major stretch of the Alaskan wilderness rumbled yesterday with an announcement by the Bureau of Land Management that the government has made millions of acres in the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve available for oil and gas exploration. The move toward more leasing on the reserve, which--like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--is at the center of a tug of war over the country's natural resources, suggests that the global oil crunch is shifting political tides toward homegrown spigots.
While the initiative basically invites industry to feed on perhaps billions of barrels of untapped oil, the government handed environmentalists one victory--an agreement to shield some of the reserve's most sensitive and ecologically rich swaths, surrounding the Teshekpuk Lake, from leasing for another decade.
The Wilderness Society and other mainstream conservation groups saw that as a triumph, after waging a legal battle to make the government's development plans more protective of the local ecosystem.
But pro-drilling interests may have more to be giddy about: the government's announcement comes just as lawmakers are scrambling for new ways to sate the country's relentless energy appetite.
Some Democrats, feeling squeezed by both consumer demand as well as the environmental movement, seem to be warming up to drilling. Even as they resist calls to dig into political hotspots like the Outer Continental Shelf, when it comes to drilling in places already marked for exploitation, some Democrats share the enthusiasm of oil-friendly Republicans.
Pushing back against the momentum behind offshore drilling, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pitched a so-called "Use it of Lose it" bill, which would encourage drilling on lands currently open to exploration.
An article in today's Environment and Energy Daily says "[Democratic] party leaders are going out of their way to say their arguments are nothing new," and quotes Texas Democrat Rep. Gene Greene’s optimism that Democrats are embracing the prospect of sucking more fuel from within US borders:
“we have seen some change in leadership. They do agree we need to produce more domestic oil and gas."We are still not to the point where we can get expanded areas in the outer continental shelf, but I am going to continue to work on that… I am just glad they are willing to say, 'Hey, we are willing to drill for oil domestically, and natural gas.' "
Roy Blunt is glad, too. With what-took-you-so-long aplomb, the House Republican Whip took the BLM's initiative as an opportunity to boast that both sides of the aisle are lining up around increased domestic production, and that the country's reserves are ripe for extraction.
“Today’s announcement from BLM should serve to remind Democratic leaders that [National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska] is already open for energy production...“Democrats brought forth their 'Use It or Lose It' bill without knowing it was already the law of the land.”
As politicians start looking underground to escape crippling energy costs, the rhetoric of drilling "responsibly" threatens to dampen growing public consciousness of conservation, efficiency and renewable sources as an alternative to the fossil-fuel status quo.
Kate Smolski, a legislative coordinator with Greenpeace, told E&E Daily:
"We don't support additional drilling even in areas already leased, because we think that increased oil drilling offshore and bringing more fossil fuels online is not the way we are going to deal with high gas prices or the global warming crisis.”
If the fuel-hungry populist pull is steering Congress toward domestic energy development, others want to see a full 180 on the country's oil dependency.
Al Gore today challenged politicians to move the country toward an electricity system based completely on “renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources” within a decade.
But for now, policymakers seem more focused on November than on 2018, and wherever there’s oil to be drilled, they may be more inclined to use it than lose it.
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (8)
I am not sure what your point is here. Are you referring to the northeast portion of the National Petroleum Reserve? The area that is being prepared for lease bids this summer? It is administered by the Bureau of Land Mangement and is being made available for oil leases in late summer or fall.
You seem to confuse it with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge which is administered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife. The two are very different areas with very different attributes.
I think you want to present your argument thoughtfully, but you fail because of the errors in your facts.
Actually, if you go back to the first paragraph, ANWR and the NE NPR-A are compared and distinguished, so we are not confusing them. Yes, we are referring specifically to the BLM announcement that you mention, and yes, that is precisely our point.
Our Representatives need to remember what they are. And what is that? You got it,,,, our representatives. That means they need to start listening to the majority of the people of the land who say Drill Here and Drill Now. We are not so simple that we can't see through their BS when they say that drilling is not the answer, we need alternative energy. They keep separating the two. We need to drill here and drill now and at the same time continue trying to develop alternative energy from something other that our food sources like Solar, wind, and nuclear power. Too bad our representatives can't see past their politcal motives to understand that if they continue not listening to the people they represent, they will find themselves out of a job.
We gave the Oil Billionaires everything they wanted under the BUSH-CHENEY energy policy, crafted in secret with only them represented. How did they repay the favors they got of tax breaks, relief from pollution responsibility, and global warming inreases without even token retraints? They screwed us -- and they plan to do it over and over and over again, always lying that it's somebody else's fault that prices are sky high and their profits are record breakers -- yeah, the Demoncraps made gasoline $10 a gallon, it's all THEIR FAULT!
This country is not experiencing a disruption in supply. Why are the democrats so intent to use that which is our fallback? Why replace the oil we have with more costly oil from foreign countries who will use the money to destroy us. It seems to me that this thinking is like dringing all the bottled water before the hurricane.
The ability to distinguish facts relevant to a situation should be a requirement of political office.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve is the largest stockpile of government-owned emergency crude oil in the world. Established in the aftermath of the 1973-74 oil embargo, the SPR provides the President with a powerful response option should a disruption in commercial oil supplies threaten the U.S. economy. It also allows the United States to meet part of its International Energy Agency obligation to maintain emergency oil stocks, and it provides a national defense fuel reserve.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Secretary of Energy to fill the SPR to its authorized one billion barrel capacity. This required the Department of Energy to complete proceedings to select sites necessary to expand the SPR to one billion barrels.
Even if gas prices were 2 dollars a gallon, drilling for our own oil would be a good idea. The US went from importing 24% of its oil in 1970, to 43% in 1990. Today we import 70% of our oil. The $700 million dollars we send to our enemies every year for crude oil is the largest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen. Any oil we drill for is oil we don't have to buy from our enemies.
Oil exploration and production shouldn't be simply driven by price. We should be drilling our own oil anyway, while we downsize what we drive, and while we fund alternative energy development. This has to get past the partison politics and elected officials need to begin working in our best interests as a country.
You wrote: "The move toward more leasing on the reserve, which--like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--is at the center of a tug of war over the country's natural resources, suggests that the global oil crunch is shifting political tides toward homegrown spigots."
The point is that one area is being managed for oil exploraton -- National Petroleum Reserve -- the other is a wildlife refuge -- not quite locked up as a preserve. Your editorial equates the two. NPR-A has been an oil preserve since President Harding set it aside. Oil and gas leases have been let there for years. None are being worked.
ANWR is supposed to be on its way to preservation, and most of it is, except for the coastal plain which is where the Bushies etc. want to drill.
Your facts are fudgy.
Windfall profit taxes and prohibiting domestic oil production hurts Americans. Robert J. Shapiro of the former Clinton administration, indicates that "Big Oil" is largely middle class. Almost 43 percent of oil and natural gas company shares are owned by mutual funds and asset management companies that have mutual funds. Mutual funds manage accounts for 55 million U.S. households with a median income of $68,700.Twenty seven percent of shares are owned by other institutional investors like pension funds. In 2004, more than 2,600 pension funds run by federal, state and local governments held almost $64 billion in shares of U.S. oil and natural gas companies. These funds represent the major retirement security for the nation’s current and retired soldiers, teachers, and police and fire personnel at every level of government. Fourteen percent of shares are held in IRA and other personal retirement accounts. Forty five million U.S. households have IRA and other personal retirement accounts, with an average account value of just over $22,000. As for those conspiracy fanatics who contend the President has rigged high oil prices for his Texas oil buddies consider that from Mexico to China, more than 75% of the world's oil reserves are controlled by national oil companies. Of the world's top 20 oil-producing firms, 14 are state-run. Chavez has now stripped foreign oil companies like Exxon Mobil of any majority stakes they had in Venezuelan oil production projects — mandating that his state-run company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), have at least 60% ownership For more than half a century the national oil companies of Mexico and Saudi Arabia, the world's largest petroleum exporter, have barred U.S. and other foreign oil businesses from production ventures. Americans could blunt the effects of policies like Chavez's by lessening their dependence on foreign oil. But that, it seems, would be too radical.