Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Noncompliance
»
General Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jomama: [QB] Thought I'd bump this to the top with this article from the local paper up here. ANWR oil would cut U.S. need slightly ENERGY REPORT: Study requested by Murkowski is hailed by environmentalists. By Liz Ruskin Anchorage Daily News (Published: March 13, 2002) Washington -- It has been Sen. Frank Murkowski's (Republican-Alaska) main argument: Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling will reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and make the country less beholden to countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Now environmentalists are trumpeting a new report that they say proves him wrong. Ironically, they note, the document was produced at the request of Murkowski. The report, written by the U.S. Department of Energy, predicts that by 2020, if ANWR is not drilled, 62 percent of the oil consumed in the United States will be imported. If ANWR is tapped, the report says, dependence would drop to 60 percent. That's an insignificant difference, said Pete Rafle, a spokesman for The Wilderness Society. "We think it really puts a fine point on the argument that we've been making all along, that Senator Murkowski's claims about the impact of Arctic refuge oil have been wildly inflated," Rafle said. The U.S. Senate is in the midst of what is expected to be several weeks of debate on the energy bill, which includes Murkowski's proposal to open the refuge. Although Murkowski and the Bush administration say developing ANWR will boost the economy and create jobs, this report is one of several that say the impact of oil from the refuge would not be great on a world scale. A Murkowski aide said the important point is that the report predicts a decrease in dependence in foreign sources if ANWR is developed. "I guess it's better than going (from) 62 to 64 percent," said energy aide Dan Kish. If you take the maximum estimate for the amount of oil in the refuge, dependence on foreign oil would drop to 57 percent, he said, citing the same report. Rafle, though, said the high estimate is extremely unlikely -- a 1-in-20 possibility, according to previous government estimates on which the recent energy report relies. Even the median estimate of ANWR oil, the one that would reduce imports to 60 percent from 62 percent, doesn't tell the whole story, Rafle said. It assumes that every barrel of technically recoverable oil would be produced, Rafle said, regardless of cost. If only the barrels that could be produced economically are considered, the impact of ANWR oil would hardly register, he said. "We think it's remarkable that the study, even with it using numbers we think are much larger than the likely yield of the refuge, still shows that it barely makes a dent in our dependence on foreign oil," Rafle said. The study's authors said the report stems from a request that Murkowski made in December to evaluate several energy proposals. Kish, the Murkowski aide, didn't dispute the findings but noted that the same agency has called ANWR the country's best onshore prospect. As for the projected 2 percentage-point drop in foreign oil dependence, "We don't look at it that way," Kish said. ANWR would boost domestic production by 14 percent, he said. "And that's at the median level." It would also increase revenues to the state by boosting the amount of oil that goes through the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, he said. Senators spent much of Tuesday's energy debate arguing about stricter fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. Murkowski said his proposal to open the refuge would be among the last amendments that Republicans offer for the bill. Also Tuesday, he and Sen. Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., won approval of an amendment that could provide $120 million over seven years to rural communities with high energy costs, and $5 million a year for the Alaska Power-Cost Equalization Program. The money would still have to be appropriated through a separate bill. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
Noncompliance.com
Noncompliance Copyright 2005
Powered by
Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2