The Arctic Refuge May Spoil Obama’s Energy Plan
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge symbolizes
the American philosophical divide, environmentally
speaking. There, advocates say that huge oil
reserves are waiting to get tapped while opponents
say that the region is much too pristine for such
development.
While the refuge is a high priority for those living
in Alaska that would benefit from the influx of
capital and the associated jobs, the region has
drifted from the limelight in recent years. Now,
though, it is indirectly making its way back to
center stage by becoming a bargaining chip in
President Obama’s quest to take oil and gas
royalties and to allocate them to clean energy
programs.
In March, the president announced he would propose
an “Energy
Security Trust” whereby $2 billion would get
re-allocated to those alternative fuel technologies.
The objective, he says, would be to reduce the
country’s dependence on oil imports by one-half
before the end of the current decade. Oil and gas
developers would favor the proposal, he reasons,
because they would have easier access to places
where red tape has slowed production.
A leading Republican says that she is generally
onboard with the plan.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who is the ranking member
of the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, however, would insists that sacred
regions also be open to drilling. That includes the
Alaskan Refuge, and those waters off the Atlantic
and Pacific Oceans, and in the Gulf of Mexico.
“There is an idea I may agree with in the
president’s State of the Union address – an Energy
Security Trust,” says Murkowski. “Under my Advanced
Energy Trust Fund proposal, new production on
previously-closed federal lands could provide a
substantial source of new revenue to fund research
on the most promising new energy technologies, while
paying down the national debt.”
The Alaskan senator has released a
broader energy plan that she says would go a
long way toward making this country more energy
independent while still pursuing the goals of clean
air and clean water. If new exploration would be
allowed in the Alaskan wilderness and along the
coastlines, then her blueprint would re-direct some
of the associated revenues so that they could
finance green energy programs, as well as to help
reduce the federal debt.
Start Small
The two sides could be within striking distance of a
deal. But don’t bet on it. The Arctic region has
long been a hotbed of disagreement.
Advocates of drilling in the Arctic Refuge say that
the Obama administration needs to consider that new
exploration technologies -- directional drilling --
would leave a minimal footprint. Meantime, they are
emphasizing that the nation must become more
independent and that the area provides access to a
plethora of oil and gas. Just 2,000 acres of the 1.5
million coastal plain would be disturbed, they add.
The U.S Department of Interior estimates that more
than 1 million barrels of oil exist within eight
miles of the western side of the Arctic Refuge, all
of which is within reach of directional drilling.
The U.S. Geological Survey, furthermore, says that
the area could hold 10.36 billion barrels of oil and
8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and possibly
more. As the technology improves, more of the
refuge's resource potential could be realized,
drilling proponents say.
But environmentalists maintain that millions of
acres around the country have already been leased to
oil and gas developers and they have yet to explore
in those regions. Pursuing untouched areas is not
only unnecessary but also unproductive. That's
because it would take at least a decade for such
supplies to come online.
As for the Arctic Refuge, green groups emphasize
that Congress acted twice in 2005 to prohibit
drilling there. The main reason is because the oil
deposits are not concentrated in a given area;
rather, they are spread throughout the coastal
plain, and would require a vast network of roads and
pipelines. If the Arctic were developed, they add,
it would open up other national treasures to
drilling.
What’s the downside in starting “small” with the
Obama administration’s plan? If all sides are
satisfied, then the concept could be expanded to
include the refuge as well as the Outer Continental
Shelf?
Oil and gas groups say that they would be financing
the growth of their competition while the odds of
winning new drilling access would remain distant.
Green groups, meanwhile, are remiss to give any
added development rights to producers. Better to
close their tax loopholes, they add, and to
re-position those funds.
The Arctic Refuge will remain the symbol that has
long divided the American energy producers and the
environmental movement. The Obama administration,
however, is feeling the consequences of that
separation now that it is trying to push through its
Energy Security Trust to advance the cause of green
technology.
EnergyBiz Insider has been awarded the Gold for
Original Web Commentary presented by the American
Society of Business Press Editors. The column is
also the Winner of the 2011 Online Column category
awarded by Media Industry News, MIN. Ken Silverstein
has been honored as one of MIN’s Most Intriguing
People in Media.
Twitter: @Ken_Silverstein
energybizinsider@energycentral.com
Copyright © 1996-2013 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.energycentral.com
To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.energybiz.com
http://www.energybiz.com/article/13/04/arctic-refuge-may-spoil-obama-s-energy-plan