Oil in the Wildlife, Fire in the Sky

Bush smells oil, follows it to Alaska, discovers freedom

By Sam Cochran

Click to see full size
Illustration by Hilary Falb
Caribou

Caribou beware: Congress has taken significant steps toward opening protected Alaskan land to oil development. On Wednesday, the Senate voted 51-49 to include a provision to the annual budget resolution allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)-the 19-million acre wildlife preserve created under President Eisenhower. The Bush Administration, meanwhile, is salivating at the prospect of fulfilling the central component to its national energy policy. President Bush hopes the oil supplies yielded by ANWR drilling will greatly reduce US dependence on foreign oil, protecting America against the whims of OPEC and American consumers against rising oil prices. Democrats and some moderate Republicans argue that drilling would cause irreparable harm to the tundra-the yet unspoiled habitat of the caribou.

We'll use this budget process as we damn well please

At the rate things are moving, Greenpeace barely has time to make a banner. According to the federal budget process, both the House and Senate Budget Committees must submit target values for spending and revenue to the annual resolution. At the committee's discretion, revenue estimates may or may not include capital generated by oil royalties. Last week, Republican oil interests in the Senate Committee shrewdly exploited this freedom as an opportunity to assume and thus legalize ANWR drilling. Now that the Senate has endorsed the budget resolution, Congress must only approve the overall budget reconciliation bill, submitted by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, among others upon reviewing estimates, to officially reverse the law protecting the ANWR.

Whereas normal Senate rules require 60 votes to enact controversial policy changes-the number of votes necessary to overcome a filibuster-both Senate budget resolutions and reconciliation bills demand a simple majority of 51 votes. By introducing ANWR legislation as part of the Senate budget resolution, drilling advocates thus eliminated the risk of filibusters, which have thwarted similar efforts in the past. The Budget Act, furthermore, limits debate on the reconciliation bill to 20 hours, thus expediting policy changes. Drilling opponents have attacked this backdoor approach as an abuse of the budget process. According to the Sierra Club, it was not the intention of the Budget Act to facilitate controversial policy decision, but only to assist decisions regarding spending and revenue, and the 20-hour debate limit interferes with the normal legislative process by discouraging discussion and amendment.

These tactics, while clever, are hardly new. A similar attempt failed in March 2003, when the Senate voted to remove the assumption of ANWR drilling revenue from the budget resolution by a vote of 52-48. Since then, however, Republicans have gained four seats in the Senate for a total of 55, and now enjoy a comfortable majority over the remaining 44 Democrats and lone independent. While the issue does not break exactly along party lines-three Democrats voted with the GOP majority while seven Republicans, including Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, voted against drilling-Wednesday's vote proves the measure boasts necessary support.

Who needs caribou when you've got black gold?

During a speech in Columbus, Ohio last Wednesday, President Bush stressed the importance of ANWR drilling to national security and downplayed potential threats to the environment. He believes that the estimated ten billion barrels of recoverable oil from the region will secure energy independence for the United States and thereby protect the American economy against changes in the world oil market. "Higher prices at the pump and rising home heating bills and the possibilities of blackouts," he told crowds, "are legitimate concerns for all Americans." In short, ANWR drilling, he suggested, is necessary for national security. In response to widespread concern regarding the toll of oil development on the coastal plain, Bush insisted drilling would require only 2,000 acres and cause almost no damage to the land or wildlife.

His critics disagree on all points. According to the Sierra Club, current estimates of commercially recoverable oil do not take into consideration all necessary costs and are thus unrealistic. The US Geological Survey (USGS) totals the mean amount of recoverable oil at 3.2 billion barrels. Given that the US consumes seven billion barrels annually, ANWR oil would offer a mere six months supply of oil-hardly enough to eliminate American dependence on foreign oil. In contrast, earlier studies-coincidentally funded by the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing oil companies-estimated 9.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Drilling opponents meanwhile contest Bush's claim that oil development would bear little impact on ANWR land and wildlife. The Sierra Club says that drilling would require a network of oil platforms and support facilities in addition to hundreds of miles of roads and pipelines. The estimated 2,000 acres needed refers only to land physically broken by drilling equipment and not, for instance, any acreage spanned by above ground pipelines. Oil spills, environmentalists argue, pose an additional threat. At Prudhoe Bay in northern Alaska, a comparable industrial complex, hundreds of spills occur annually. The necessary infrastructure and likelihood of spills, critics charge, would indeed cause permanent damage to the terrain and endanger native wildlife.

Then there are the Alaskans themselves. Of the state's roughly 600,000 residents, an overwhelming majority support oil development in the ANWR. Alaska is a big place, and what happens in one far corner of the state is of little concern to residents given the amount of money they stand to receive upon tapping the soil. Alaska residents receive annual dividends on oil revenue-as much as $2,000 per person in 2000-thanks to the foundation of a state permanent fund. The Alaskans' allegiance to Republicans has deep roots: the state's electoral votes have gone to the GOP in every presidential election since 1968. Unfortunately for residents, Alaska currently produces only half as much oil as in the late 1980s, according to the American Almanac of Politics; the majority of state income now comes from investments rather than oil. Even in the absence of national security, ANWR oil would certainly ensure Alaskans' personal security.

Speak now or forever hold your peace

Wednesday's vote does not bode well for the ANWR. Like the budget resolution, the reconciliation bill requires only a simple majority of 51 votes-and apparently, oil interests have amassed necessary support in the Senate. While the House did not include a drilling measure in its budget-a discrepancy drilling advocates intend to quickly rectify-it has consistently voted in favor of drilling over the past years, according to the New York Times. Nonetheless, long-time oil enthusiast Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) anticipates a "long process" ahead.

Whatever the outcome, this legislative maneuver stands to end any and all future debate of ANWR drilling. Should it pass, the tapped Alaskan coastal plain will remain so. Should it fail, it is hard to imagine more favorable circumstances in which to further the oil agenda. Michael Musante, spokesman for Arctic Power, a pro-drilling group financed by the state of Alaska, agrees. He believes that if Congress does not pass this measure, "it will never happen," despite the wishes of oil interests and Alaskans.

Sam Cochran B'05 has never been to Alaska, but loves caribou meat.

Back to Top

the college hill independent

http://www.theindy.com