Green Car Congress  
Go to GCC Discussions forum About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« Volvo Trucks Announces Complete Diesel Engine Family to Meet 2007 Specs | Main | Advances in Lower-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Could Lead to Eventual Use in Vehicles »

Print this post

Senate Energy Committee Approves ANWR Drilling

20 October 2005

Anwr_map
ANWR. Click to enlarge.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday approved legislative language instructing the Secretary of the Interior to create and implement an oil and gas leasing program in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that impacts no more than 2,000 surface acres.

The legislation approved by the committee today is Title IV of the budget reconciliation bill to be marked up by the Senate Budget Committee on October 26. The committee passed Title IV in response to instructions from the Budget Committee to raise $2.4 billion in revenue for fiscal years 2006-2010. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the competitive sale of oil and gas leases in the plain will raise $2.5 billion during that time.

During the meeting over the ANWR provision, three amendments were offered and defeated.

  • Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wa), offered an amendment to ensure the payment to the US Treasury of 50% of revenues from oil and gas leasing and production on the Coastal Plain. Defeated 9–13.

  • Senator Ron Wyden (D-Or), offered an amendment prohibiting the exportation of oil and gas produced under ANWR leases. Defeated 10–12.

  • Ranking Member Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), offered an amendment to limit the authorization of oil and gas development on the Coastal Plain in the same manner as in other units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Defeated 8–14.

The time is ripe for ANWR. Global and national conditions mandate the environmentally-sound development of oil and gas in the Arctic. The Senate first passed ANWR legislation in 1996. If that hadn’t been vetoed, I don’t think we would be paying $3 a gallon for gasoline today. The hurricanes in the Gulf underscored what Congress has known for along time: We must produce more of our own oil and we must diversify the places where we produce it. We must do it for our economy and our energy security.

—Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), Chair, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee

In March of 2004, the Energy Information Administration, at the request of Representative Richard W. Pombo, Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Resources, published a report using government figures and analyzing—to the extent that anyone can without sinking a well shaft down through the coastal plain—the effect of drilling in ANWR.

Given the uncertainty over the exact amount of oil in place, the report lays out three scenarios: one for low-oil resources, one the mean case, the other for high oil resources.

Some of the report’s findings:

  • The mean-case estimate is that there are 10.4 billion technically recoverable barrels of oil in ANWR, divided into many discrete fields. This estimate includes oil resources in Native lands and State waters out to a 3-mile boundary within the coastal plain area. The mean estimated size of oil resources in the Federal portion of the ANWR coastal plain is 7.7 billion barrels.

  • It will take approximately 10 years to bring the first field on-line (comparable to other Arctic drilling).

  • Assuming sequential development of the fields, rank ordered by size, ANWR production would peak, in the mean case scenario, in 2024 at 870,000 barrels of oil per day.

Today the US imports some 10.5 million barrels per day. In 2025, the EIA estimates that almost to double to some 20 million barrels imported per day.

Using the EIA’s projections of declines in domestic oil production and increases in oil consumption (mostly from the transportation sector), by 2025 ANWR would reduce US reliance on imported oil by four percentage points—from 70% to 66%.

In other words, ANWR oil would make a small difference, but not a substantive, strategic difference. It doesn’t come close to solving the problem or providing “energy security.” Even if peak ANWR oil were available today, the US would still be importing more than 9 million barrels per day, and climbing.

As an aside, the 2,000 acres don’t need to be contiguous, and only the equipment that touches the ground (i.e., the pipeline stanchions, not the pipelines, which are in the air) count toward the figure. Since a drilling platform can occupy as little as 10 acres, there’s still the possibility of having several hundred platforms, with a maze of interconnecting roads and pipelines, spread throughout the 1.5 million acre reserve.

October 20, 2005 in Oil | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d8349c892d69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Senate Energy Committee Approves ANWR Drilling:

Comments

Ahhhh! I'm tired of hearing such utter hogwash out of Republicans regarding domestic oil exploration and the hurricanes. Sen Domenici says "[If we had been in ANWR already] I don’t think we would be paying $3 a gallon for gasoline today." This is absolute bullshit. The reason we are paying $3.00 gallon today is NOT because we are short on crude oil supply after the hurricanes. The problem is lack of refining capacity due to several large refineries being shut down in the wake of Katrina and Rita amounting to a sizable portion of our domestic refining capacity (which is already running at a deficit - we already import refined product from Canada and Mexico to make up the gap). Drilling in ANWR would have had no effect at the pump as they are planning on exporting the bulk of the oil produced their anyway (as is evidenced by the defeat of Sen. Wyden's ammendment). And finally, there's no such thing as "environmentally-sound development of oil and gas in the Arctic." Anything we do up there will have its impact on the extremely fragile ecosystem.

I'm tired of the excuses and the lies. Let's hear the truth: Exxon and other oil exploration companies want to drill in ANWR for the simple reason that they want to MAKE MONEY! It has nothing to do with domestic security etc. Republicans have pushed this bill for almost a decade now, facing continued opposition. Yet they continue to push it because they want a slice of the oil money for their next comapaign.

If we really wanted to do something about domestic energy security or prices at the pump, we would be talking seriously about energy conservation, investment in renewable energy and clean coal technology (making sure it is manufactured in the United States) and a transition to an electric powered vehicle fleet of some kind - be it hydrogen, EVs or plug-in hybrids - thus ensuring that domestically produced energy can power our transport fleet. This would truly grant us energy independence and security and would lower the price at the pump - or should I say plug.

Don't buy this hogwash. Call your senator and tell them to oppose this attempt to open up ANWR ... again. I'd call my senator but he's already on it (i.e. Senator Ron Wyden D-OR).

I can't say how disappointed I am in the judgement of the Senate. I'm almost speechless.

10 years from now when the oil is available, ANWR reserves won't even make a dent in the crisis which is our dependence on oil. All for the price of oil they show their disregard of nature and the world by ruining their own wildlife reserve, in an area that won't recover.

Jesse, I'm with you on conservation and alternative technology, I'm trading in my SUV for a Prius or a new Civic once I sell my house, but we need to pump more of our own oil. Better the caribou have to walk around the pipelines than our money going to bastards like Hugo Chavez and the wahhabists.

Interesting to note 1996 was the same year they stopped increasing the CAFE requirements..

----------------------------------------------------
The time is ripe for ANWR. Global and national conditions mandate the environmentally-sound development of oil and gas in the Arctic. The Senate first passed ANWR legislation in 1996. If that hadn’t been vetoed, I don’t think we would be paying $3 a gallon for gasoline today. The hurricanes in the Gulf underscored what Congress has known for along time: We must produce more of our own oil and we must diversify the places where we produce it. We must do it for our economy and our energy security.

Golden Boy, you write, "We need to pump more of our own oil. Better the caribou have to walk around the pipelines than our money going to bastards like Hugo Chavez and the wahhabists."

Then lets invest our money in domestic energy supplies that make sense. If it will take ten years for the first drop of oil to flow from ANWR and if even then it only amounts for less than 4% of our total imports, I see that as a wasteful investment of our money. If instead we invested that money into an infrastructure to recharge plug-in hybrids and the domestically produced electricity to fuel them - in the form of solar, wind and clean coal (i.e. IGCC plants w/ sequestration) - then we could see a MUCH more substantial decrease in our money going overseas to " to bastards like Hugo Chavez and the wahhabists." Like I said before, increasing the fuel efficiency of our fleet by a factor of 2 from ~18 mpg to 36 mpg would cut our demand for petroleum by 1/3rd (transport needs account for ~2/3rds of our petroleum consumption). This gain would be easily achievable even without plug-in hybrids which could see mileages on the scale of 60-100 mpg. 33% versus 4%. Which one would you rather invest in?

Obviously the $ investments don't equate since Im not sure what either would be exaclty. Anyone know how much it will cost to get that oil out of ANWR? The point still stands that investing in efficiency and domestic electricity supply to run EVs or Plug-in EVs is a real path to energy independence, NOT ANWR!

Golden Boy, you write, "We need to pump more of our own oil. Better the caribou have to walk around the pipelines than our money going to bastards like Hugo Chavez and the wahhabists."

Then lets invest our money in domestic energy supplies that make sense. If it will take ten years for the first drop of oil to flow from ANWR and if even then it only amounts for less than 4% of our total imports, I see that as a wasteful investment of our money. If instead we invested that money into an infrastructure to recharge plug-in hybrids and the domestically produced electricity to fuel them - in the form of solar, wind and clean coal (i.e. IGCC plants w/ sequestration) - then we could see a MUCH more substantial decrease in our money going overseas to " to bastards like Hugo Chavez and the wahhabists." Like I said before, increasing the fuel efficiency of our fleet by a factor of 2 from ~18 mpg to 36 mpg would cut our demand for petroleum by 1/3rd (transport needs account for ~2/3rds of our petroleum consumption). This gain would be easily achievable even without plug-in hybrids which could see mileages on the scale of 60-100 mpg. 33% versus 4%. Which one would you rather invest in?

Obviously the $ investments don't equate since Im not sure what either would be aexaclty. Anyone know how much it will cost to get that oil out of ANWR? The point still stands that investing in efficiency and domestic electricity supply to run EVs or Plug-in EVs is a real path to energy independence, NOT ANWR!

Golden Boy, you write, "We need to pump more of our own oil. Better the caribou have to walk around the pipelines than our money going to bastards like Hugo Chavez and the wahhabists."

Then lets invest our money in domestic energy supplies that make sense. If it will take ten years for the first drop of oil to flow from ANWR and if even then it only amounts for less than 4% of our total imports, I see that as a wasteful investment of our money. If instead we invested that money into an infrastructure to recharge plug-in hybrids and the domestically produced electricity to fuel them - in the form of solar, wind and clean coal (i.e. IGCC plants w/ sequestration) - then we could see a MUCH more substantial decrease in our money going overseas to " to bastards like Hugo Chavez and the wahhabists." Like I said before, increasing the fuel efficiency of our fleet by a factor of 2 from ~18 mpg to 36 mpg would cut our demand for petroleum by 1/3rd (transport needs account for ~2/3rds of our petroleum consumption). This gain would be easily achievable even without plug-in hybrids which could see mileages on the scale of 60-100 mpg. 33% versus 4%. Which one would you rather invest in?

Obviously the $ investments don't equate since Im not sure what either would be aexaclty. Anyone know how much it will cost to get that oil out of ANWR? The point still stands that investing in efficiency and domestic electricity supply to run EVs or Plug-in EVs is a real path to energy independence, NOT ANWR!

Sorry about the double post... didn't think the first one went through...

Jesse,

I'm all for doing both. We use around 20 million barrels of oil a day. The almost 1 million daily barrel potential of ANWR is nothing to sneeze at. Further, if we open up offshore drilling in places like Florida and the West coast, we will be talking about a significant increase in domestic energy production while cutting consumption via plug-ins, solar, etc..

"I see that as a wasteful investment of our money"

What investment are you talking about? The article clearly states that 2.5 billion will be raised from oil and gas leases. I'm for alternatives as well but I think most of the opposition to ANWR has been far to emotional and ideological. In some ways I think this type of overreaction undermines the efforts of those that are serious about encouraging energy independence.

Yes, but at the same time the "pros" have been misguided and deceptive. As Jesse points out increasing fuel efficiency would vastly out-strip the impact of ANWR on energy independence. It's not that ANWR is necessary terrible but the way that it's being "sold" is completely misleading. If ANWR is online in 10 years and peaks 9 years after that it's not going to really help us much. Government needs to have a long range vision (markets won't help us solve the oil problem because their horizon is too short) that it's willing to implement that looks beyond the short term market pressures. It's really sad that it's probably going to take an energy crisis to force the solution. It really comes down to sloth (anger, envy, pride, etc are all bad too, but only greed also factors into this problem). People want their SUVs and F-350 supercabs because they're cool, not because they're needed for some useful purpose. We'll get through it, but it's really lame that we'll end up torturing ourselves needlessly in the process.

You have two choices.
Energy efficiency or Incease supply by pumping more oil

Efficiency should come first. Tell me how our govt is really pushing seriously for gasoline efficiency and then I will consider needing to pump more oil.

You dont get a choice bub. They push what they can and avoid what minefields they dont have the political clout to plow through.

Remember folks bush actauly raised milage standards on light trucks early in office and you can bet your ass even that little raise took some serious time on his part to get enough votes for.

About the best he can manage with congress and the senate is insentives for hybrids and such.

To be blunt the only way anyone will get enough clout to push a sizable cafe rate increase through is if gas starts running out in alot of places. AND even then its gona be a freaking drag out fight no matter what party that pres belongs to.

That's why America is screwed. By the time the oil crises hits, the solutions that should be preventative are going to be (finally) implemented, but they (CAFE) take several years to make it to the market because of the design cycle of automobiles, so meanwhile the whole economy will be in tatters from over consumption of a limited resource. There's no way around it, at some point consumption has to be reduced, will it happen via progressive madates, or a big energy crises? I guess the answer is clear enough.

A 1905 Model T Ford was (in some ways) more efficient than the latest 2005 F-150. You could drive it for 40 miles for about 1 gallon vs 2.5 gals for the F-150. There lies part of the problem.

Some will say that the F-150 is bigger and faster but that doesn't mean much in downtown trafic with one to four passengers.

Where is the real progress? Ah yes the price went up from $350 to $35000 but considering the progressive devaluation of the $$ it may be much the same price.

What we may really need is a real change in technology and that could be the plug-in hybrid followed by fully electric vehicles 10 to 20 years down the road. North Americans must find a way to reduce OIL consumption drastically and stop importing more and more from abroad.

At the same time, we must produce more CLEAN electricity for future hybrids and full electric units. It seems obvious that it will have to be from solar, wind or nuclear energy sources and not from dirty COAL power generating units.

At $65 an hour for every GM and Ford worker, the future hybrids may not be built locally. That is another problem to be addressed soon. GE may soon have the same problem with Wind Farms equipment for the local market. Have we priced ourself out of the market? Well...maybe..... specially in certain fields like TV, radios, appliances, shoes, toys, phones, printers, computers, laptops, cars, trains, buses, commercial airplanes, etc etc etc??? Can we survive or services ONLY and rely on other countries to produce all the goods and energy that we consume? Who has the answer?

"A 1905 Model T Ford was (in some ways) more efficient than the latest 2005 F-150. You could drive it for 40 miles for about 1 gallon..."

The Model T is certainly getting a lot of mention these days. I've seen recent claims that it could get 30 and even 35 miles per gallon, but 40 MPG - that takes the cake! Try about 25 miles per gallon when driven at speeds no greater than 45 MPH.

I don't mean to be harsh, but repeating something you saw on the internet does not count as research.

Not to mention a model t getting into an accident now adays would be certain instant death. A stupid friend of mine who is no more was killed driving one of those when they got hit by off all things a vw bug. The model t was annialated. You know things are bad when your burried in a bucket.

Anyhoo yes im all for using less oil but we also AT THE SAME TIME need to be getting more of our own supply. We wont wait for the general masses to wake up we simply dont have that time.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2013 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group