ANWR debate continues in Washington
Published Sunday, July 20, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!WASHINGTON — Sen. Lisa Murkowski joined her Republican colleagues last week in denouncing Democrats’ efforts to block proposals to allow oil and natural gas drilling in areas now off limits.
The pitched partisan battle about what to do about soaring energy prices continues in both the Senate and the House as Republicans’ “all of the above” strategy shows signs of gaining ground with centrist Democrats but continues to be opposed by the Democratic Party’s leadership.
Democrats have instead focused on legislation aimed at reducing market speculation and forcing energy companies to produce oil and gas from their existing leases.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., introduced legislation last week aimed at curbing what some see as “excessive” speculation in oil and gas futures markets. The bill would close a number of loopholes in current legislation and increase the authority of the market regulator to set limits on speculation in oil and gas derivative markets.
Federal regulators believe at least 30 percent of the recent increase in the price of a barrel of oil is the result of excessive speculation, though some economists dispute that number.
Republicans, however, showed little interest in letting the bill advance without an opportunity to add provisions that would increase domestic production.
In a press conference Thursday, Murkowski and her GOP colleagues said the proposals offered so far by Democrats were insufficient to address the nation’s long-term energy needs.
“I want to see more than market speculation,” Murkowski said.
Murkowski said she supports efforts to address speculation — though she has concerns aboutpotential unintended consequences from meddling with the markets — but she also wants to see new drilling.
It’s an opinion shared by a growing number of Democrats from conservative states who are beginning to break ranks with their leadership to support Republican calls for increased domestic production.
A number of recent national polls have found that record-high gasoline prices remain a chief concern of most Americans and Congress is eager to appear to be doing something to knock down prices before going home to face constituents. Time is tight, though, with only a couple of weeks remaining before the August recess and just two more weeks available on the congressional calendar once lawmakers return in September.
While oil prices nosedived in the last half of the week — oil was trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange just below $129 a barrel at the end of the day Friday, a drop of more than $16 dollars from the start of the week — drivers continued to pay dearly at the pump.
The average national price for regular unleaded remained above $4 a gallon, according to the motorist group AAA. In Alaska, the statewide average price for regular unleaded was $4.67 a gallon. And in Fairbanks, drivers were paying between $4.44 and $4.57 at the pump.
“It’s clear that the American people are suffering and deserve our attention, and hopefully, some solutions,” Reid said Thursday.
But Democrats appeared in no particular hurry to strike a bargain on drilling with their Republican counterparts to break the current logjam.
Reid allowed senators a three-day weekend after spending most of Thursday trying to negotiate a deal with Republicans to allow a vote on the speculation bill without amendments. Republicans objected, saying there was plenty of public support for a vote on expanded drilling.
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, called Democrats’ focus on speculation legislation a “smokescreen.” Excessive speculation may be part of the problem but it’s not a solution, Voinovich said.
Republicans are pressing for kitchen-sink legislation combining increased energy conservation, efficiency and investment in renewable energy technology as well as more domestic development of oil and gas in federal areas now closed to drilling.
“We need to have a full-court press — and that means everything,” Voinovich said.
Reid now says debate on an energy bill won’t happen until Tuesday, setting up a busy calendar in the two weeks remaining before lawmakers head home for the extended August recess.
Congressional aides said prospects for overcoming the partisan stalemate in the Senate before the break are slim.
Sen. Jon Kyle, R-Ariz., said Republican leaders would meet with Reid at the beginning of the week to discuss how to proceed with the speculation bill. He’s hopeful Reid will agree to allow at least one or two GOP amendments.
Reid has suggested Republicans offer separate legislation, a move that would make it easy for the Democratic majority to defeat drilling proposals.
Republicans want to offer amendments that would allow drilling in new offshore areas and out West in oil shale deposits. Murkowski and Sen. Ted Stevens are also expected to offer an amendment that would grant energy companies access to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, if given the chance.
Murkowski said reducing demand through greater conservation and energy efficiency needs to be part of the solution, but Congress should also increase incentives for oil and gas companies and give them access to areas with the greatest potential.
“The solutions we have available are not easy ones,” Murkowski said. “They are controversial and they will require more (sacrifice) from us.”
In a nod to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and in an effort to win broader support for drilling among centrist Democrats, drilling in ANWR remains a no-go zone for GOP Senate leaders.
Murkowski believes McCain, who has already switched his position on offshore drilling, can be brought around to support limited development in the refuge.
“I still believe there is an opportunity for McCain to do right on ANWR and I look forward to talking to him about it,” she said.
Murkowski also voiced confidence that her fellow Senate Republicans would be on board if she and Stevens can get an amendment on ANWR to the floor.
“Our leadership recognizes how important ANWR is for both myself and Sen. Stevens, but they also recognize how important it is to the nation,” she said. “We have not been shut down (on ANWR).”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he was optimistic Republicans could find enough Democrats to support a broader approach to the energy crisis than simply passing Reid’s bill.
“There are a number of Democrats who don’t agree with Sen. Reid that more drilling is unrealistic and unfair,” he said Friday. “We think virtually all Republicans and a significant number of Democrats have a good chance of coming together next week and actually passing a bill that would, as I said, both find more and use less.”
Reid seemed intransigent, even while he acknowledged there were other factors contributing the growing energy crisis.
“Speculation is where we’re starting,” he said. “It’s not the only problem, but it’s certainly a major problem.”
Reid said he opposed GOP proposals to allow states the choice of whether to allow drilling off their coasts and he does not intend to hold debate on ANWR.
Murkowski said she’s undecided on whether she’ll vote for Reid’s speculation bill if he continues to block amendments.
“I hope that’s not where we are,” she said. “It doesn’t deliver on what the public is asking for.”
Stevens has his own bill addressing speculation, but he doubts the Senate can pass legislation before the recess.
Lawmakers grumbled that it’s no surprise Congress’ approval rating is at an all-time low when party leaders on both sides of the aisle have focused more on using the energy debate to score political points with constituents back home instead of seriously looking for solutions.
Murkowski said lawmakers need to stop wagging their fingers at each other and find some middle ground that will deliver legislation the president can sign.
“We gain nothing at the polls or anywhere else by continuing to beat each other up and not accomplishing something,” Murkowski said. “There’s lots of pockets of good-intentioned members working on compromises.”
Murkowski pointed to a House bill by Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, that would turn over ANWR to the state. Murkowski, smiling, said the proposal sounded like a good idea.
Medicare veto
Sen. Murkowski voiced frustration last week with President George W. Bush’s handling of legislation to prevent cuts in Medicare payments to doctors.
Bush vetoed the bill — a decision quickly undone by Congress. It was the third override of a presidential veto in two months.
The Bush administration’s primary disagreement with the bill was about how it was funded — though a cut to payments for private insurance companies.
Murkowski said the White House should have done a better job of communicating its reasons for blocking the bill with GOP leaders. She said the administration failed to grasp the pressure senators were under from the American Medical Association.
“For the White House to say hang tough because the president’s going to veto it wasn’t good enough,” she said. “That’s not enough for people to hang their hats on.”
“The White House put a lot of people through a difficult time with their constituents. It could have been handled a lot better so people weren’t hanging in the wind,” said Murkowski, who consistently voted in favor of legislation preventing reductions in Medicare payments to doctors.
The White House said there wasn’t miscommunication, but basic disagreement on the issue.
Palin appointed to resources committee
Gov. Sarah Palin was named chair of the National Governors Association’s Natural Resources Committee last week during the organization’s annual meeting in Philadelphia.
The committee is charged with pursuing legislation to make sure state needs are considered as federal policy is formulated in the areas of agriculture, energy, environmental protection and natural resource management.
And finally…
Stevens’ spokesman Aaron Saunders has moved to Stevens’ re-election campaign full time and will be spending most of his time in the state through the November election. Saunders has worked for Stevens since 2003.
Steve Wackowski, originally of Anchorage, has been named press secretary of Stevens’ congressional office to replace Saunders.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
The market does not serve individual Alaskans. It benefits the producers and the state at the expense of the people. Alaska should sell royalty oil and refined products to residents at below-market prices. The market is no longer tied to the cost of production, so the only cost is a reduction of the excessive profits. It would have a ripple effect through the whole economy by reducing the cost of groceries and building materials and everything else that must be transported.
We can say it until we are blue in the face - drilling off the coast and in ANWR will only benefit oil companies and their political lapdogs. It will not be online for 10 years and it will not reduce the cost of gas at the pump. Murkowski is a smart lady. I was hoping for more honesty and integrity from her.
akjak,
"It will not be online for 10 years and it will not reduce the cost of gas at the pump."
I'm am so sick and tired of people with your mind set saying that it won't do any good for 10 years. I'VE BEEN HEARING THAT FOR OVER 20 YEARS. If people with your mind set hadn't blocked drilling 20 years ago we would have had the benefit of that oil for over 10 years now. I suppose that you don't want any new power plants built either because we won't get any electricity from them for over 5 years. Don't start to build a house because you can't live in it for three or four months. Your logic just doesn't make sense.
If you never allow anything to get started, then nothing will ever get done.
I think akjak is missing the big picture. Nobody minds the producing companies benefiting from what they do for us. They are for-profit companies, and that's the American system. Nobody would do anything for anyone else if it didn't somehow benefit them personally. We are not socialist here.
More to the point, Alaska right now produces just over 20% of domestic oil consumption for the entire United States of America. And we are doing it while running the pipeline at under half capacity. ANWR could easily double that, which would be good for the entire country, and for Alaska, and for everybody else involved. If it is going to take 10 years, we need to decide when that 10-year development cycle should begin. Myself, I would prefer to pick 1990. But given the reality of the situation, the simple answer is that we will never finish unless we start.
The other point is that offshore oil development can tap the entire ANWR field area, and offshore leases have already been let. The President has authorized it, and we are now waiting for congress to rubber-stamp it with legislation. However, offshore production is the most environmentally dangerous method of oil production. It is also more expensive not only because it is in the arctic but also because of the distance to the far reaches of the production area. There is no need to do it other than the tree-huggers who are trying to protect the forest in the tundra. And the animal-lovers who want to protect the caribou which live 400 miles from there.
I myself went to Prudhoe in 1981 and watched a caribou crouch down and crawl under some production pipes. We're talking 18-inch pipes, 12 wide, 5 feet above the ground. It was a major crawl for a caribou that had antlers. (yes, there was a gravel burm built over the pipes every few hundred feet but this caribou apparently didn't want to be so visible) I went away shaking my head that that dumb caribou hadn't read the million-dollar study that said he would be afraid of the pipes. (that's sarcasm , for the no-child-left-behind folks) I think he would have shied away from sudden noises, but the pipes are just part of the landscape.
We need to deal with reality, people. Not imagination.
ANWR is dead. Get off the drug.... drillling all day long to benifit the Oil companies who can care less aboput Alaskans....EXXON anyone. I have switch over to a more fuel efficent car/truck.
The animals are not the issue anymore.... oil wells oil spills how many do they have up in Prudhoe? It has to do with landscape. The beauty of ANWR is beyond belief... with or without the ctitters. Winter summer no matter. Having oil wells drilling pads I do not care where it is...ugly. We have options folks... there are so many options and we sound like a bunch of Kids...WAAAAA More OIL...WAAAAA.
Next time you go into WalMart and buy cheap garbage..you end up paying at the pump. Man the Oil companoes and the Fat corporate cats are playing us big time.
Instead of drilling let us put the energy into alternative options.
There is an old saying "the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago and the second best time is today"
Qui No!N intel Ligit Aut Dis Cat Aut Taceat
Taxes from the oil industry puts more money in the AK's government coffers than any other industry. It also enriches the borough's coffers, and Federal Government's as well. These taxes include property tax such a the ones being paid by the mining companies around Fairbanks. On top of that, governments make a killing at the pump for every gallon of fuel sold. The largest producer of revenue to the State of AK is "oil," so regardless of how much some of you argue about it, Alaska depends on oil. Without oil, you and I would not be receiving a PDF check every year.
Some of you should take the time to understand how property and other taxes, specifically taxes related to the oil industry keep Alaska moving. To get an idea of what I am talking about, check the local property taxes in the North Star Borough, or any other borough through which a pipeline runs or a refinery stands. Also, ask for a receipt the next time you pump fuel in your car, and then look at what you are paying for (don't miss the taxes shown).
Again, oil has lubricated the economy of Alaska for a long time. Hot air won't.
Those who believe that more oil output will lower the oil price are simply misguided. The market has shown that $4 per gallon of gas is sustainable, in fact, Europe has been paying $4 per gallon of gas for decades and is now at close to US$10 per gallon.
More crude oil output will not lower the price of gas and heating oil. Why some have a difficult time to understand this is troublesome. More developing economies world-wide come to the point where they need more fossil fuels. The domestic price for fossil fuels will go up, no matter whether it's Alaskan crude, or Russian crude, or Saudi crude that is used to make our gas, heating oil, plastic, etc.
Will drilling in ANWR create jobs? Yes it will.
Will drilling in ANWR damage that environment? Definitely.
Will that damage be irreversible? For sure, the seismic tracks from the 60's are still seen on the tundra today, 50 years later.
Is it worth to damage the environment to create a few hundred jobs (permanent jobs, not the transient jobs during construction)? To me it isn't. I am not a treehugging Greenpeace potsmoking dude, but I have been up at the North Slope, and I have flown over ANWR, I have seen and experienced the land.
I am not a religious person, but if I were, then I would say that no where else on Earth I have been so far (and I have traveled quite a bit) I felt so close to God.
The land up there is mighty, and it's harsh, and it's frail, it's beautiful and unforgiving, yet so full of life. Under some of the most difficult environmental conditions on Earth, life is everywhere you look.
It's not up to man to destroy that just because we can, and just because it will provide jobs for a few hundred people.
Man is a steward to the planet, and only because we have no natural predators we feel that we can do whatever we like, unpunished, but as we do that, we punish those who will be here in times to come.
It's our selfishness that leads to the destruction of the natural order. Again, I don't believe in God, and I am certain that I never will, but when I walked the tundra up North, I felt that for all of our tools and technology, man is small, nature is grand, and in comparison man just doesn't matter.
Jobs can be found elsewhere, not so with nature like it is up North.
let the Iraqis produce more oil for us! After all we are spending 14 billion dollars a week on them. Why tap into our supply reserves? We will need that reserve for back up because someday
Russia or China will have their own oil wells also.
shallnotkill,
What are you going to drive when there is no gas to put in your more efficient vehicle? Oil is a crutch and we are all crippled no matter how efficient we claim to be. These computers and the wires and just about everything you touch that is man-made is made with petroleum products. Petroleum is used to produce or transport 99% of everything we consume, so stop.
Stop and think about it. If you want a loaf of bread, someone has to plant the seed, fertilize, harvest, and process the wheat into flour. If you use all your seed to make a loaf of bread, that will be the last loaf ever made. If you stop production of oil or development of fields, eventually we will run out of oil and we won't have enough left to run the machines to get more out of the ground.
The argument that if we authorize drilling today we won't see any oil for years or it won't affect prices is ignorant and short sighted. Of course authorizing drilling will affect prices. It will affect oil supply. Every proof well that is positive will affect reserves, and there is already a proof well in ANWR. Reserves are those billions of barrels still underground on the leases and not yet being sent to market. Speculators see the lack of exploration as a reason for oil prices to go up because they think they can reliably predict when a company has to tap their reserves to meet demand and just how long those reserves will last. When more reserves are discovered or acquired, the price goes down because the oil supply is not what's being refined, the true supply is the accessible oil not being removed from the earth.
New technology on shale oil might work, but if it doesn't, then the supply is much less than the current price suggests. Drill now, or wait until we have to force a company to drill. When that happens, we will have to pay them to drill and that's not a road we need to travel.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.