The 10-02 Area is currently classified as neither “wilderness” nor “refuge” as defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act, and has been the source of intense debate in Congress for 15 years. The Governor’s letter states Alaska’s desire to develop the area responsibly and help to aid the nation in its energy woes. At the current world price of nearly $100 per barrel Alaskan oil would save the nation billions of dollar annually which currently is paid abroad to oil exporting nations.

Governor Palin states the benefits of jobs, national security, and pure economics in her defense of ANWR. The Lieberman bill will likely meet strong opposition and threats of filibuster in the Senate if it is ever released from debate in committee. The following is a copy of the Governor’s letter.

Gov. Palin letter to US Senators.

Despite that the 10-02 Area lies within Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it is currently designated as neither “refuge” nor “wilderness.” The 10-02 Area was created because it was recognized by Congress as having strategic importance due to its recognized signs of containing major oil and gas deposits. The Alaska National Interest Land Claims Act (ANILCA) which created the current ANWR border in 1980 mandates that no development within the 10-02 Area is allowed without approval from Congress.

The Lieberman bill will be referred to the Senate Natural Resources Committee and be debated there before being released to the floor of the Senate. However, it is uncertain whether the bill will make it far. A majority of Congress still supports the opening of ANWR and the threat of filibuster in the Senate by ANWR supporters is almost certain. Sixty votes are required to overcome a filibuster which is a very difficult political result to obtain. Congressman Ed Markey from Massachusetts submitted similar legislation (HR-39 Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act) in the House in January this year which was promptly shelved in committee due to the same political situation. If by remote chance anti-ANWR wilderness legislation would pass both the Senate and then House, the bill would almost certainly be voted by President Bush who is a strong ANWR supporter. The Alaska delegation of Senators Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski, as well as Congressman Don Young all denounced the Lieberman bill and have vowed to fight against it.

It is ironic that such a bill be introduced into Congress at a time when world oil futures are at $98 per barrel. Increasing domestic oil supplies by exploring for oil and gas in our own national territory is perhaps the best way to fight the flow of money abroad importing ever more expensive foreign oil.

Senator Lieberman, on his web site, announced his bill with some distinct errors. The bills press release claims that the Fish and Wildlife Service state that oil and gas drilling would harm wildlife including polar bears, caribou, and musk oxen. The Alaska Fish and Game biologist for polar bears, Steven Anstrup has stated in a number of scientific papers however that oil and gas exploration has shown no major effect on polar bear’s habits, hibernating or otherwise.

Thirty years of operation of the Prudhoe Bay oil field, 50 miles to the west of ANWR, has shown an increase in the Central Caribou Herd populations from 5,000 to over 32,000 animals. These animals migrate, calve and graze directly through the middle of the largest oil field in North America every year. The fact is not one species of animal, fish, bird or plant has shown signs of, or has been reported by US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency or the Alaska Department of Fish and Game as declining, or being harmed by oil production on the North Slope of Alaska. In fact the area in and around the Prudhoe Bay field sports a healthy and protected population of over 60 brown bear, dozens of musk oxen and tens of thousands of birds annually. One must also note that Senator Lieberman is also in error in his statement on the ANWR Coastal Plain in that no musk oxen currently inhabit the coastal plain of ANWR as they were all chased off and eat eaten by bears over 2 years ago.

The end is not in sight. Many in the commodities trading industry see a $100 per barrel price in the coming months as inevitable. Despite this, the price of gasoline in the US still lags greatly behind its western partners in Europe where prices of 7$ per gallon are commonplace and have been for years. This is partly due to the amounts consumed, and the taxes imposed by national and state governments. In the US, on average, 52 cents of every dollar spent on gasoline at the pump goes toward government taxes of one form or another. In Britain, by contrast, over 82 % of the price of gasoline is tax. That tax is more subject to inflation and the whims of local and national governments and economies than to the world oil price. Similarly, higher octane “boutique blends” of fuels required in certain states and urban centers in America increases the price at the pump.

The price of oil is determined on the world free market. Currently US consumption of petroleum products is nearly at 98% of its refinery supply capacity. A new refinery hasn’t been built in America for over 30 years and yet America’s consumption has increased dramatically. A situation that puts increased pressure on an already volatile market. The price of oil also varies by the type of oil (ANS, West Texas Intermediate, Brent, etc. ) which is often associated with the quality of oil from a specific geographic area. There are over 121 types of oil traded today. Some, like WTI, have fewer impurities and thus easier refining capabilities than others. Alaska’s ANS crude is of a medium grade with higher impurities and sulfur content than WTI oil. As mentioned in the causes and concerns above, the price of oil is affected by world political events, the weather, wars or unrest, consumption, threats to transportation, production, refining and transport and storage infrastructure available amongst other things. However, because a vast majority of oil companies throughout the world are nationalized state owned entities, politics plays one of most powerful behind the scenes roles in determining the price of crude. As for ANS oil from Prudhoe Bay, apart from the world market, its price varies by production levels, demand and capacity at refineries in Washington, California and Hawaii.

The current glut in oil prices has affected the profits of the industry greatly. BP stock prices (BP Exploration Inc. is Prudhoe Bay’s majority producer), rose to nearly $78 per share on the stock market. ConocoPhillips, Prudhoe’s second major producer was stable at $84.

The oil major’s profits resulting from the recent record commodity prices have become prime targets for states’ treasuries. Already this year Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has proposed increasing taxes levied on North Slope oil production. A battle is set to ensue between the oil majors, the Alaska State Legislature and the Administration this winter.

Contrary to popular opinion high profits of “big oil” does not solely remain in the hands of the industry. Most all of the oil majors are owned by hundreds of thousands of shareholders nationwide and internationally. On average 1.5 % of shares in the oil majors are owned by company staff; 70% of oil stocks are owned by mutual funds, private pension funds, and IRA accounts; private citizens with personal portfolios make up the remaining 28.5%. Increased profits mean increased dividends and share prices thus having a trickle down affect to the shareholders of companies making up the general public.

This September the Trans-Alaska pipeline pumped 650,000 barrels of oil per day(bpd) south, well below its capacity of 2.1 million bpd. ANWR oil is hoped in the future would boost input by over a million barrels a day. In the last 12 months 201,325,000 barrels of oil have flowed from the pipeline with an average of 737,000bpd supplying America with just under 16% of domestic production capacity. Since operations began, over 30 years ago, over 15 billion barrels of oil have been transported from Alaska’s North Slope oil fields to the nation. Nearly 90% of the State’s economy is generated from the production of oil on the North Slope. In the last twelve months that industry has generated $1,839,055,304 for the State and Federal Government.

For more on crude oil and the world market see the Energy Information Administrations informative explanation page on oil types and pricing.

Oil Types and Pricing

For more information on Alaska oil and gas revenue income see:
Alaska's oil and gas revenue
and…
More oil and gas funds received

and …
Sourcebook weekly update

The listing of the polar bear under ESA is significant as it will be the first time an animal is listed using global warming as reasoning. Using global warming creates a serious legalistic problem as the science within the discussion on global warming is highly controversial and often uses speculative and relative future projections from climate models to come to its conclusions. The question, is global warming man made, becomes central to subsequent action under this listing. At the moment, the polar bear listing does not tackle this question, but it is expected environmentalist’s litigation against fossil fuel development due to the listing will take just this view. The ESA listing would require the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to put in place a biological road-to-recovery plan for the bears. However, because the listing will be made by using global warming the FWS will have to solve global warming to protect the bears. This is something the FWS has no authority, nor expertise to do. To cloud the issue further Secretary Kempthorne has stated that neither the FWS, nor the polar bear listing will be allowed to be used to regulate greenhouse gases. That is the job of the EPA. If so, what will be done (by the FWS/DOI) to protect the bears is a much anticipated question.

It is expected soon that the 10-02 Area of ANWR be put on the block with a Congressional “wilderness” bill again this winter. This is the annually attempted and always failed way environmentalists have tried to lock up ANWR. Using the polar bear endangered species listing however, it is suddenly clear ANWR has a new threat. The 10-02 Area hosts on average 2 polar bear winter dens a year and is part of the normal polar bear habitat. The polar bear population that frequents the 10-02 Area is said to be currently in stable condition. Should the special 10-02 Area of ANWR be opened for oil and gas exploration some time in the future, it is certain the first line of attack of radical green groups will be to use the polar bear ESA listing to try and block development. It is interesting to note however, that the FWS study and announcement citing intention to list the polar bear as endangered also states that their studies have shown neither on or offshore oil and gas exploration has shown any noticeable affect on the polar bear population.

Recent legal battles conducted by the CBD show the future after a ESA polar bear listing clearly. The CBD is an environmental group dedicated to legal warfare against resource development of any kind, anywhere. Its website lists not programs dedicated to saving and studying wildlife, but rather lists of legal suits pending or past it has taken against everything from resource development, to farming, to recreational land or sea use. An example of this situation was seen recently in the Alaskan Arctic just near the 10-02 Area of ANWR with Shell oil. In September this year Shell was prevented from carrying out properly permitted and government regulated off shore oil and gas exploration activities in the Beaufort Sea north of ANWR. The CBD sued the Minerals Management Service (MMS) which issued the operational permits to Shell on grounds that the MMS failed to conduct proper assessment of environmental impacts towards the ESA listed bowhead whale which passes through the area. The ninth circuit court of Appeals ordered a halt to permitting proceedings until it could resolve challenges to the agencies environmental review. The future is clear: the CBD will, similar to its success with the bowhead lawsuit, use the ESA polar bear listing to tackle any proposed oil and gas development onshore.

The ESA listing process for the polar bear has been taking place over the past 2 years. The original pressure to list the species was initiated by a February 2005 proposal to list followed by a December 2005 lawsuit by CBD against the FWS for listing. This was followed by further lawsuits against FWS in 2006 to further coerce the FWS to list followed finally by a warrant finding for listing on February 9th 2006. Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne promptly requested further studies be conducted by the US Geological Survey. Throughout the spring and summer of this year the USGS produced nine reports on the polar bears and Arctic sea ice conditions which have proved highly controversial in the scientific and political worlds. The State of Alaska, along with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game have blasted the nine USGS reports as highly erroneous and recommended to Secretary Kempthorne that the issue be dropped. This is unlikely to happen.

Needless to say the polar bear listing process has garnered much press in the US and Canada as its significant use of global warming as a basis has such tremendous broad implications for energy development and land use. Canadian natives populations do not support the listing due to expected greater pressures on hunting the bears in their areas (allowed in Canada) and ill opinions of the science presented in the USGS reports. The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and the Inuit Circumpolar Conference representing the Arctic Native population also do not support the listing due to perceived inaccurate science in the USGS polar bear reports, threats to cultural ways of life and lack of native consultation in the decision making process which is required under the ESA regulations.

The future is uncertain on the polar bear and on Alaska’s Arctic. It is unlikely that the inevitable “environmentalist” litigation using the ESA polar bear listing will help or even affect in anyway polar bear numbers on Alaska’s North Slope regardless of impact on the industry, or state, or nation. It is certain, however, the job of the FWS to not only guide us toward fostering a more healthy population of bears, if that’s possible, but also to help work toward guiding the oil and gas industry and human populations toward having minimal impact on wildlife. The latter is something that has been successfully practiced in Alaska’s Arctic for 35 years at Prudhoe Bay with the caribou, musk oxen, brown bears, and dozens of species of birds and fish which are monitored by the FWS within the oil fields every week. America’s largest oil field is has also proved to be America’s best success story of industry’s interaction with nature.

Some of the groups opposed to the listing of the polar bear under the ESA include:

The State of Alaska

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

The Inuit Circumpolar Conference (representing Inuit Natives throughout Alaska, Canada and Greenland)

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (representing the native people of the Alaskan Arctic)

Department of Environment/Government of Nunavut, Canada (DOE/GON)

Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC), Nunavut, Canada

Polar Bear Administrative Committee (PBAC), Government of Canada

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI)

The Competitive Enterprise Institute

The National Center for Policy Analysis

Safari Club International

The Resource Development Council (Alaska based natural resource group)

The Alaska Oil and Gas Association

The American Petroleum Institute

Conservation Force et al. (representing 9 game conservation groups nationwide)

IUCN/North American Sustainable Use Specialist Group (NA-SUSG)

1) February 16, 2005 - The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) petitions the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to include the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The FWS had 90 days to make a decision to address the issue on the petition, and a one year deadline to make a formal finding.

3) December 15, 2005 - The FWS is sued in San Francisco court by CBD for a decision on dealing with the bear’s listing. As the case was about statutory deadline compliance a motion for summary judgment was filed.

4) On February 9, 2006 - The FWS published a response in the Federal Register. 71 Fed. Reg. 6,745 stating that the CBD petition filed showed that polar bear listing “may be warranted”, but that no other comment or decision is made. Period of public comment begins garnering over 140,000 responses. Public Comment

5) A week later the one year from initial petition deadline passes and the CBD filed an intent to sue the FWS on a polar bear “endangerment” finding.

6) On June 28, 2006 CBD sues the FWS for compliance with the 1 year rule under ESA petitioning regulations.

7) July 5, 2006 - Both parties negotiate an agreement and the court sets December 27, 2006 as the deadline for a FWS polar bear decision.

8) December 27, 2006 the FWS issues its decision that the polar bear is warranted a listing as an endangered species. Of note is the mention that from studies conducted the FWS has found that oil and gas exploration/production has shown no discernable threat to polar bears.
Proposed Rule

The Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne announces plans to consider the polar bear as endangered. Endangered Press Release

9) January 9, 2007 FWS issues a statement on polar bears warranting the listing of the bear under the ESA. 72 Fed Register 1,063. No mention of global warming is made. Dept. of Interior Secretary Kempthorne orders USGS to produce status reports on polar bear and arctic sea ice.

10) Spring / Summer 2007 - USGS publishes 9 reports (Amstrup et al. 2007; Bergen et al. 2007; DeWeaver 2007; Durner et al. 2007; Hunter et al. 2007; Obbard et al. 2007; Regehr et al. 2007a. Rode et al. 2007; Stirling et al. 2007) on status of the polar ice cap and polar bear for review. The reports are heavily in favor of listing. Polar bear reports

11) March 2007 - Public hearings held in Washington DC and Barrow Alaska on proposed listing.

12) April 9, 2007 State of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and Alaska Department of Fish and Game Special Assistant Tina Cunning write to Interior Secretary Kempthorne requesting removal of the polar bear from ESA listing process. The State states flawed science of the USGS reports including: speculative climate predictions, lack of adequate sea ice data, and a fundamental disagreement on the health of the polar bear population amongst other issues.

State Comments

Governor Palin asks for extension to public comment period to take in the science of the new USGS reports.

13) October 17, 2007 - Hearing held by the House Subcommittee for Technology and Innovation addressing the polar bear and Arctic ice pack status. USGS Biology Director Sue Haseltine and CBD Director Kassie Siegel testify to promote the listing of the polar bear.

14) October 22, 2007 Last day allowed for public comment on the proposed listing. Arctic Slope Regional Corporation issues a rebuttal statement to the FWS on the polar bear listing decision. The statement condemns the lack of consultation with Arctic Native peoples as required by ESA regulations, criticizes the controversial science of the reports connection to the global warming claim. It asks for Dept. of Interior reconsideration and USGS compliance on the letter of the law (ESA listing regulation) on how the polar bear consultation process had taken place. It further questions the projected resultant administrative and scientific conflicts between the FWS and EPA as to national carbon emissions regulations once a man made global warming ESA listing is made.

15) January 9, 2008 one year deadline set from Jan ’07 FWS decision for administrative action by Department of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to decide on listing of the polar bear.

The listing of any species as endangered takes a long and complex path to complete. The polar bear listing will be special amongst all current listings in that it will be based purely on the idea of man made global warming. If the bear is listed it will put the US Fish and Wildlife Service somewhat in a position to have an effect on regulating CO2 emissions nation wide, in that the listing assumes the bear’s environment is being destroyed by man made green house gases. The ESA rule states the FWS needs to put in place a plan of action to bring the species back from endangerment thus regulation to affect greenhouse gas output would be needed. This situation will create an administrative quagmire as the EPA is legally in charge of this process for the nation not the FWS. CAFÉ standards and power plant emissions are two major areas of potential impact and/or future targets of green litigation due to the polar bear listing. Dept of Interior Secretrary Kempthorne has stated that the FWS has no authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. He further states that oil and gas exploration in the Alaskan Arctic should not be affected by the listing. Other impacts the upcoming polar bear decision include listing of other possibly threatened species under the same scientifically controversial reasoning as the polar bear’s global warming listing. Following the trail of environmental (particularly by the CBD) litigation and subsequent land and project closures the impact on America’s use of natural resources, energy production and farming could be huge.

For more on the polar bears and the ESA listing please see:
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm

Sen. Joe Biden ( Delaware ) Senator Biden has been a staunch foe of ANWR. He has consistently voted, during his 34 years in office, against exploration in the 10-02 Area. Despite this he states his number one concern as president would be to solve the energy crisis. Other than being a strong supporter of bio-fuels and advocate to mandate a minimum 40 mpg flex-fuel cars, Biden does not state exactly how he would tackle his number one priority of energy, nor has he ever during his many years voting against the ANWR issue. Biden often combines his Foreign Relations chairmanship with the environment issue claiming that ignoring climate change will result in situations that could be touchstones for “new wars”. He has also voted against decreasing taxes on oil and gas exploration. Biden has never visited ANWR, but has visited Prudhoe Bay and traveled in Alaska with the National Guard. For more information on Sen. Biden's energy views visit: http://www.joebiden.com/assets/pdfs/energy_plan.pdf

Delaware is ranked 19 th in energy consumption per person yet produces no oil, gas, or coal. 100% of Delaware 's electrical supply comes from petroleum, gas or coal fired power plants. Despite some offshore and onshore windmills operating the EIA records 0% of Delaware 's electricity is produced by any renewable resource. Delaware sports one refinery and a natural gas pipeline. Delaware requires use of mixed bio-fuels for cars. For information on Delaware energy go to: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=DE

Senator Hillary Clinton ( New York ) – Although not a native New Yorker, Ms. Clinton has taken on the toughness of one on the ANWR issue. "The answer to our energy challenge does not lie under the plains of the Arctic Refuge, but in the minds that are ingenious in America ." Clinton goes on, "I continue to oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge because it would damage a pristine wilderness but do almost nothing to decrease our oil dependence or reduce energy costs. Instead, we need to pursue a sustainable energy policy that cuts our oil dependence by developing new fuels and more efficient vehicles, like the 'plug-in' hybrids that promise dramatic increases in fuel economy." Senator Clinton has rallied with the likes of Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Maria Cantwell on directly blocking ANWR legislation. Senator Clinton is vociferously against exploration for oil and gas pretty much nationwide. Instead falling back to the familiar cry for renewable resources, higher CAFE standards and bio-fuels. If we were to rank the presidential candidates on ANWR Clinton would be close to the bottom of the pile. The League of Conservation Voters gives Clinton an outstanding score of 90 on the green-o-meter, making her one of Alaska 's biggest resource development foes. Senator Clinton proposes a Strategic Energy Fund stating, “ by taking money away from the oil companies, by giving them the choice to invest in renewable energy or pay into the fund. We would take away their tax subsidies as well, and we would use this fund to create a clean-energy industry and millions of jobs in America .” On other energy alternatives, Clinton is big on wind, solar, and bio-fuels, but negative on coal and nuclear. It is interesting to know Clinton has traveled to and worked in Alaska although temporarily, and considers it a wonderful accomplishment in her life. For more on Clinton and energy see: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/

New York produces roughly 300,000 barrels of oil per year and 19 million cf of natural gas a year. This is a mere drop in the national bucket yet New York is a big producer of refined petroleum products and is the largest supplier in the Northeast (and the largest supply hub in America ). The Empire State is almost entirely reliant on imports of oil and gas to do so. New York , along with its NE neighbors, is heavily dependent on fuel oil for heating homes and is a subscriber of the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve, a smaller version of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. NY is one of the largest hydroelectric producers in the eastern US, but produces almost no solar or wind power. New York uses four nuclear reactors which supply most of its electricity. New Yorkers have one of the lowest energy consumption per capita levels (due to high number of apartment dwellers and high use of mass transit), and yet the state is one of the largest consumers of energy due to its refining and manufacturing industry. Boutique fuels are mandated in the Big Apple and other urban centers.

For more info on New York 's energy use see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=NY

Congressman Dennis Kucinich ( Ohio ) – The representative from Ohio is considered a “trailblazer” for the environmental movement. Often cited as the only true green in a field of green wannabies, Kucinich has championed being anti-ANWR, anti-nuclear, anti-coal and anti-timber as national sports. Kucinich has promoted legislation in the House declaring all ANWR a “wilderness” zone. Kucinich states as president he expects Americans to “ ratchet down their resource consumption and participate in a national conservation program”. He proposes a “Works Green Administration” that would be modeled after the FDR Works Progress Administration and puts millions of Americans to work retrofitting homes with solar panels and windmills. Locking up ANWR and Alaska would be the least of America 's worries as Kucinich wants US coal, timber, and nuclear industries completely shut down. An environmentalist could not ever ask for more. For more on Kucinich read : http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/a-sustainable-future/

Ohio's industry consumes 4% of the nations energy (ranked 4 th ) yet produces only .5% of our oil, .4% of our natural gas, and 2.2% of our coal. Ohio has a high national average use of gasoline and petroleum fuels resulting in no boutique fuel mandate. Similarly Ohio 's industry is highly dependent on oil, natural gas, and electricity for base products and energy. Almost all of Ohio 's electricity is generated with coal. Only ½ of 1% of Ohio 's electricity is generated with hydro or renewable energy sources despite that the Lake Erie locations is one of the most prime spots in the nation for wind power. Ohio produces, yet also imports, a large amount of electricity primarily for it heavy industrial use. It is highly venerable to black outs. Low volume stripper wells and small gas wells produce Ohio 's minor national hydrocarbon contribution. Two nuclear plants produce a small amount of the state's electricity. 17 ethanol stations and 20 alternative fuel stations supply 5000 bio-fuel vehicles state wide. For more on Ohio energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=OH

Senator Barack Obama ( Illinois ) – Often cited as one of the top presidential contenders. Barack Obama has an abysmal record on ANWR voting on the Cantwell Amendment in 2005 to lock it up. He has been opposed to exploration and has rallied with Sen. Clinton in that regard numerous times. Barack states, "I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernable impact on U.S. energy security.” In his two and a half years in the Senate he has been part of the introduction of over 100 pieces of “green” legislation from promoting ethanol use to increased car mileage. However despite this many in the left see Obama as a moderate as he is caught frequently citing the need for bipartisan support and dialogue on energy issues as the way forward. His support of corn derived ethanol and liquid coal do not win him support in the Green camp either, which when coupled with ANWR proves a weakness. Illinois is, after all, one of the top ethanol states in the nation. Obama has yet to visit ANWR or the Alaskan Arctic. By 2020 Obama hopes 20% of all US energy will come from renewable resources. For more information on Obama's energy platform visit: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Illinois is a key ethanol state, the key nuclear state, number three in coal, and a transport hub for petroleum and natural gas. Four large refineries make Illinois a huge consumer of oil (3.4%) and natural gas (4.4% of national consumption). In the past Illinois produced much oil but now is a minor producer (.4% nationally). Today Illinois imports oil from Canada and the Gulf of Mexico . Some urban areas require boutique fuels for use. Just over 1% of the nations renewable energy is produced in Illinois . Half of all Illinois ' electricity comes from nuclear power for which Illinois is number one in the nation. Seven Illinois ethanol plants producing over a quarter of the nations capacity, power over 3% of the nations green fuel cars. For more on Illinois energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=IL

John Edwards ( North Carolina ) The former senator of North Carolina has a strong anti-ANWR stance. "As a senator, I consistently cosponsored legislation to designate the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge s a wilderness area to put it permanently off-limits to development. As president, I will pass it." Edwards indeed: voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill (Mar 2003) ; voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds (Apr 2002); voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)

With Edwards as President ANWR wouldn't stand a chance.

Being one of the first out of the gate on the Democratic side, Edwards has made environmental protection a key issue for all his followers declaring early on an 80% reduction in green house gas by 2050, and ban on coal fired plants until carbon sequestration can be bettered. Similarly Edwards believes nuclear power has too many risks that need solving before he is willing to consider it. Edwards believes much of our energy needs can be met by solar and wind power. Edwards is also keen to increase the scope of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which would have dire consequences for North Slope development should Alaska's polar bear population be marked so. For more on John Edwards and energy see: http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/

North Carolina produces no oil, no natural gas, no coal, no ethanol. It consumes 2.4% of the nation's petroleum, 1.1% of the nation's natural gas, and 2.9% of the nation's coal. 3.9% of the nation's ethanol is used in a gasohol blend in North Carolina which fuels 10,000+ alternative fuel vehicles from 15 ethanol stations and 40 alternative fuel stations. There are three nuclear power stations in use in North Carolina . Hydroelectric and other renewable energies account for less than 3.3% of its energy generation.

For more on North Carolina energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=NC

Mike Gravel (Alaska/Virginia) To see former Senator Mike Gravel still stumping the block is a credit to his political stamina. With a long Alaskan political history he is probably the most intimately familiar candidate to Alaskans. Gravel served as a state senator to the Northland as well as representing the state in the nation's capital for nearly 20 years in the 60s and 70s. In the Senate he sat on the Environment and Public Works Committee throughout his tenure. He is proud of his Alaskan service in particular his introducing legislation enabling the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to be built. Later in his career though Gravel changed and rallied against key Alaskan land bills that may very have been the cause of his ousting. Gravel left the state in the early 80s having alienated “ almost every constituency in Alaska ”. Gravel, now retired to Virginia , is dead set against ANWR. Of all the candidates, he should be the most for it and most aware of how important it is to his formerly adopted home state. Sadly perhaps, beltway blues has gotten to him and he comes across as unenthusiastic on the issue as many of his colleagues. Gravel believes industry and deforestation are the cause of global warming and proposes a strict carbon tax, and hopes a high cost of gasoline will force the nation to embrace green fuels. Gravel would like to see higher CAFE standards and electrify (maglev) the nations entire rail etwork. He would like to see a US led global green energy program initiated to reduce greenhouse gases. He is very pro renewable energy resources yet is not sold on ethanol from corn instead proposes liquid hydrogen technologies.

For more on Gravel see: http://www.gravel2008.us/issues.php

Virginia produces a miniscule amount of oil (7000 bpy), but a substantial amount of natural gas for its own consumption. Virginia supplies coal to much of the Northeast and produces natural gas from coalbed methane. It imports all its petroleum and refined products. Areas near Washington DC and other urban centers require boutique fuels. Virginia produces no bio-fuels. There are two nuclear power stations in the state producing 1/3 rd of its power. Four fifths of VA's homes use electricity primarily to heat their homes. Virginia produces a small amount of electricity from hydro and other renewable energy sources. For more information on Virginia energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=VA

Senator Chris Dodd ( Connecticut ) Senator Dodd is dead set against ANWR. He outright voted in favor of locking up 10-02 Area with “wilderness” designation on numerous occasions. A supporter of Barbara Boxer and Cantwell amendments to anti-ANWR legislation. Arctic Power has met with Senator Dodd's staff and presented its case on ANWR yet to no avail. To his credit Senator Dodd has an ambitious and detailed green energy plan (much more so than any other of his colleagues) which has been praised by the likes of Senator John Kerry and Al Gore. Dodd wants to reduce US emissions by 80% by 2050, and e nhance national security by eliminating our dependence on Middle East oil by 2015. Dodd is for a corporate carbon tax with proceeds used for clean energy research. He is big on ethanol and wants all coal to be clean coal. He wants an increase in required car mileage, and mandate all government vehicles be flex-fuel or bio-fuel. Dodd also wants mandates on greater home energy efficiency. The Senator will award tax breaks for adaptors of clean energy technologies all around. For more information on Senator Dodd and energy see: http://chrisdodd.com/issues/energy_independence

Connecticut is highly reliant on oil for heating its homes. Nearly a third of Connecticut’s electricity is derived from oil or natural gas, the rest comes from nuclear power and coal. The rest comes from nuclear power and coal. Hydroelectric and other renewables account for less than 3% of its energy production. Unlike most states individuals are the prime consumers of energy in Connecticut , not industry. Connecticut receives oil products from the Northeast heating oil reserve and is highly venerable to oil shortages. Boutique fuels are required statewide.

For more information on Connecticut energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CT

Governor Bill Richardson ( New Mexico ) A self proclaimed “energy president” Richardson outdoes John Edwards by asking for a 90% cut in greenhouse gases by 2050 and an oil demand reduction of 50% by 2020. Richardson is dead set against ANWR as well as any oil or gas exploration nationwide. On ANWR Richardson remarks, “ this area is an ecological treasure. Let's keep it that way. And let's not stoke our oil addiction, and eliminate options for future generations, by drilling and digging everything we can find. I have vocally, strongly, and thoroughly opposed opening ANWR”. Indeed Richardson has garnered numerous national green awards for locking up New Mexico land and preventing natural resource use there. Similarly he has strongly supported endangered species legislation which has not endeared him highly with his western states colleagues. On nuclear and coal Richardson is only in favor if high emissions/safety standards can be imposed and is against any federal subsidies for development or production. He has blocked two coal plants in his state recently.

For more on Richardson and energy see: http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/energy

New Mexico is a leading producer of crude oil (3% of US) and natural gas (9% of US) with the largest proved gas field in America. One third of New Mexico gas is from coalbed methane. Despite this the state has a low energy demand due to its small and rural population. Boutique ethanol mixed fuels are required in urban centers. Two thirds of the state's houses use natural gas for heating. 90% of New Mexico 's electricity comes from coal. Despite a vast amount of sun, all New Mexico renewable energies in total make up just 2.5% of the state's electricity generation and this is mostly from hydro power. There are no nuclear power plants in the state. One ethanol plant supplies four ethanol and 5 alternative fuel stations around the state. For more on New Mexico and energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=NM

COMMENTARY:

Off all the arguments for and against ANWR by the candidates a few glaring points should be mentioned that have been missed.

No candidate mentions the timelines needed for realistic development of “alternative energy”, nor do they address the physical kilowatt capabilities of those energies. Oil has gained popularity simply because it is extremely efficient to make energy from. Alternative energies have consistently been shown to be inefficient and often very restricted at producing energy. The sun or wind, for example, don't always shine or blow. There is much talk of lithium-ion batteries, hydrogren fuel cells, solar panels on every roof and wind turbines yet little mention of the fact that these technologies either are not fully developed, or have exorbitant costs unaffordable to a majority of Americans. The best solar panels are 35% efficient and that decreases rapidly in a short time after set up. Installation also costs $30,000+ for the average home. Wind turbines need to be near their end users for lack of electrical transmission efficiency. They are also consistently vetoed by homeowners as being unsightly and by green groups as being bird blenders. We are 20 years off producing an efficient hydrogen fuel cell. Lithium ion batteries are similarly inefficient, very expensive and need to be constantly charged with electricity. They only work in light weight vehicles made from plastics produced from oil. Hydro power from dams is blocked by environmental groups. We simply have little or no experience producing these energy sources on a national scale. How much land will they take up? How long will they take to develop? How far can they effectively transmit their energy? What will the environmental impact be of their existence? All unsexy complex questions ignored by candidates addressing the energy issue.

A common theme of using federal funding to subsidize alternative energies runs through all the nay-sayers camps. That funding, many say, will come from a carbon tax on emissions and a tax on oil companies production. What is not addressed is the fact that in each and every home state of each candidate a vast majority if not all of the industry and home use of electricity is generated with coal, natural gas and oil. The cost of such a tax on production of energy will surely be transmitted by private energy companies right down to the consumer. The cost of one's energy bill would surely be set to rise and how many American's will swallow that?

To switch to any other form of electricity or energy would take decades. Currently no state in the nation supplies even one tenth of its energy from renewable resources. Their energy corridors and energy transmission systems and plants took decades to build. Attempting to cut carbon based energy supplies and dreamily believing in a rapid switch to renewables is simple fantasy. Taxing energy producers would simply bring the states industries and sooner or later, home consumers to their knees. Just as it takes years to develop energy technologies it also takes years to build big enough powerplants and infrastructure to make those technologies work. The quick and easy energy plans put forth by soundbite happy candidates simply is totally unrealistic in the real world.

As mentioned in the review of Republican presidential candidates, not one candidate here has addressed the issue that oil provides only half its usefulness to us in the production of gasoline and fuels. The other half of its use comes in the thousands and thousands of products we use everyday created from oil's polymers. Plastics being the biggest, yet what about paint, medicine, inks, detergents, etc…? None of these can be created by nuclear, wind, solar, or other proposed alternative energies. Oil is not just an energy source, it is a product source. Not having a supply of that raw material will mean we will not only have to do without cheap efficient fuel for transport, but thousands of objects and products we use in our homes everyday. The fact is, we will be using oil in our lives for many many decades to come. It is an unsexy, unentertaining fact that no politician or press reporter dares to address. It simply doesn't win votes or sells newspapers.

With the price of oil at $80 per barrel and rising America will shortly be paying the price at the pump. When prices reach the $7-$8 a gallon, long common in Europe , perhaps political views on ANWR will change. For certain whether Americans pay at the pump for regular gasoline or an even higher price for alternative energies it will mean politicians will have to get real about energy solutions and refrain from the bright sunny day all problems solved rhetoric.]]> 2007-10-16T05:08:16Z 2007-10-12T06:27:27Z tag:www.anwr.org,2007://1.116 2007-10-12T06:27:27Z

With the number of contenders for the 2008 Presidential election firming up Arctic Power has conducted research into the views of the candidates on the ANWR issue. In this two part series we will review the past history and current views of the candidates toward allowing exploration in the 10-02 Area. A quick overview of each candidate’s home states will also be made to compare their views with the realities of their constituent areas.

There are ten republican candidates whom have been traditionally linked with pro-ANWR 10-02 development. There are 10 Republican candidates currently making the rounds. All but one are committed to opening ANWR.

]]> Without further ado, here is how the candidates stack up:

The REPUBLICAN
HOPEFULS:

Mike Huckabee – Former Governor of Arkansas. "The first thing I will do as president is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence," says Huckabee. He continues, “achieving energy independence is vital to achieving success both in the war on terror and in globalization” and, “we have to explore, we have to conserve, and we have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, bio-diesel, and biomass…” To say the least Huckabee embraces most all forms of energy. He is clear about ANWR stating, “Our goal is to be non-dependent upon fossil fuels, but there will be an interim period in which we'll need to utilize all the domestic oil that we can generate by ourselves, whether it's from ANWR or the continental shelf.” Huckabee’s plans to achieve energy independence by a second term are ambitious, but his views on the environment and energy show he is taking a studied, all encompassing, approach. On global warming Huckabee is “not convinced” it is caused by humankind.

For more information visit Huckabee’s energy page at:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=21

A tiny amount of oil is produced from coal bed methane deposits in Arkansas. Two refineries operate off of imported crude oil from Mississippi and supply much of the state’s needs. Arkansas produces 1% of the nation’s natural gas. Coal is shipped in from Wyoming to operate its electricity plants. Natural gas, coal and nuclear are Arkansas main sources of electricity. Arkansas produces very little electricity from renewable resources such as hydro or solar. There is no capacity for bio-fuel production and a mere 3000 ethanol-burning cars on its roads. For more information on Arkansas energy visit: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=AR

Congressman Ronald Paul (Texas) – Congressman Paul has been a friend of ANWR for many years. He is supportive of exploration of the 10-02 Area and also of moving some federal Arctic lands back to the State. Congressman Paul has a caveat on ANWR that so long as it can be done without federal dollars he is for it. He also believes refuges should be privatized! The congressman’s voting record on ANWR includes consistent support throughout his career. For more information on Paul see: http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Texas is known for oil and with Alaska is top of production in the nation. The EIA ranks Texas as number one for energy production and consumption, that’s both in renewable and carbon based output. Texas produces more wind power than any other state. Twenty-five percent of America’s oil refining capability lies within its borders. Texas’ oil consumption is thus understandably high due to its refineries output. Texas is the source of many of the nation’s energy pipelines, feeding Colorado, the Northeast and Mid-west with petroleum products. Natural gas is used to provide half the state’s power. Coal fired plants supply most of the rest. Much coal is imported from Wyoming for this purpose. Texas produces no ethanol yet has 56,000 (2.4% of the nation’s) alternative fuel cars on the road. Half of Texans use electricity to heat/cool their homes, the other half mostly natural gas. For more on Texas energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=TX

Rudy Giuliani (New York) – The former famous mayor of the Big Apple is not surprisingly a strong advocate of energy independence in America. He is a supporter of clean coal, bio-fuels, and nuclear, yet has made scant mention of ANWR in any of his policy speeches. However, many in the press consider him an ANWR advocate despite his silence on the issue. Jonah Goldberg of the Washington Times once said, "first of all, if New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani learned that there were between 3 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil underneath Central Park, he would be out there first thing Monday morning laying down orange traffic cones to save parking spaces for the roughnecks."

Giuliani is perhaps trying to avoid the ire of the environmental movement by not mentioning ANWR. His views compared to his colleagues seem more middle of the road. "The idea of energy independence for the United States is maybe the wrong paradigm
--— I don't know if we can ever be independent," Giuliani said. But he added, "I think you can be independent by being diversified," arguing that Americans needed to depend more on home-grown fuels and energy resources.” Because of his lack of Congressional tenure Giuliani has no voting record on ANWR. For more information on Giuliani see: http://www.joinrudy2008.com/issues/

“New York produces roughly 300,000 barrels of oil per year and 19 million cf of natural gas a year. This is a mere drop in the national bucket yet New York is a big producer of refined petroleum products and is the largest supplier in the Northeast (and the largest supply hub in America). The Empire State is almost entirely reliant on imports of oil and gas to do so. New York, along with its NE neighbors, is heavily dependent on fuel oil for heating homes and is a subscriber of the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve, a smaller version of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. NY NY is one of the largest hydroelectric producers in the eastern US, but produces almost no solar or wind power. New York uses four nuclear reactors, which supply most of its electricity. New Yorkers have one of the lowest energy consumption per capita levels (due to the high number of apartment dwellers and high use of mass transit), and yet the state is one of the largest consumers of energy due to its refining and manufacturing industry. Boutique fuels are mandated in the Big Apple and other urban centers.

For more info on New York’s energy use see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=NY

Senator John McCain (Arizona) – Senator McCain does not currently support the opening of the 10-02 Area. He has consistently voted against provisions in the Senate that support exploration of ANWR for many years. Officially he understands ANWR contains energy resources, yet is unconvinced of the amounts, and believes they cannot be retrieved “without considerable costs to taxpayers." He is most supportive of nuclear power as the way towards energy independence, and wants to make strong use of America’s clean coal technology as well as ethanol. McCain does not support the Kyoto protocol on global warming.

For more of McCain’s views on energy and ANWR please see:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/65bd0fbe-737b-4851-a7e7-d9a37cb278db.htm

Arizona produces 3000 barrels of oil per year, much coal, but no natural gas. It is naturally suited towards solar energy production (the best sun in the nation) yet produces less than .01% of its energy from solar. Two pipelines supply Arizona from California and Texas with petroleum products and natural gas. An oil refinery is being built to alleviate supply problems. Nearly 100% of Arizona’s electricity comes from natural gas, nuclear, and coal. Arizona has no ethanol production capability and only 6 ethanol stations and 21 alternative energy fuel stations. For more on Arizona energy go to: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=AZ

Mitt Romney (Massachusetts) – The former Governor of Massachusetts has, until recently, played a reasoned moderate view on ANWR and oil exploration in America. Yet in the last year he has come out very much for it in his new presidential campaign. Mitt’s website states, “ We must become independent from foreign sources of oil.
… This will mean…finding more domestic sources of oil such as in ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).” That coming from a state that supports the likes of Representative Markey, perhaps ANWR’s biggest foe, is saying something. Traditionally the northeast of America has been politically dead set against ANWR legislation. This seems highly hypocritical when one takes into account their tremendous reliance on petroleum and natural gas for their lives and lack of willingness or ability to utilize “renewable energies” such as solar or wind. Romney is very much for alternative energies including ethanol, wind and solar, reasoning that all avenues of energy formulation must be pursued to help wean us from foreign oil imports. Romney openly supported President Bush’s push for opening ANWR in 2005.

For more information on Romney visit: https://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Energy

Massachusetts has been heavily criticized for being anti oil & gas and pro-renewable energy so long as its not produced in their back yards as the Nantucket Sound wind turbine debacle shows us. Massachusetts produces no coal, no oil, and no natural gas yet is nearly completely reliant on those fuels for its entire energy needs. The state has a blanket boutique fuel mandate yet no bio-fuel gas stations nor produces any bio-fuels. The only fuel produced in Massachusetts comes from gas extraction from municipal waste dumps. Coal fired power plants supply 25% of the state’s electricity needs. The state has one nuclear power plant. For more information on Massachusetts’s energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=MA

Fred Thompson (TN) – The former senator of Tennessee Fred Thompson is a strong supporter of opening the 10-02 Area. Thompson has made becoming less dependent on Middle East oil a rallying cry in his campaign. He sees domestic exploration for oil and gas as an answer to this crisis. Thompson voted consistently during his term in office supporting ANWR legislation: voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002), voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)

Thompson is not a believer in man made global warming, stating Mars and Pluto have been heating up recently too but there
are no cars or oil industry there that we know of.

For more on Fred Thompson visit: http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx

Since Tennessee was Thompson's constituency during his term in office it will be covered in this profile. Tennessee is renowned for its hydroelectric scheme is big on the list of renewable energy producers. Despite this sixty percent of Tennessee's electricity is derived from coal. The remainder comes from nuclear (of which it is a prime energy producer), and hydro. Tennessee is the nation's top consumer of electricity by per capita residential use and is high in electrical industrial consumption. Tennessee produces a small amount of crude oil and coal. Most all crude oil is imported and refined in a single small refinery. About a third of the state uses natural gas as its prime heating source. Tennessee has one ethanol plant producing 1.2% of the nations output. For more on Tennessee energy see:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=TN

Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas) "… I also want to use our reserves of oil, and to drill in a very limited area in ANWR in Alaska, not more than 15 square miles”, says Brownback. Senator Brownback has represented Kansas in DC since 1996 and calls for America to be “energy secure” by use of bio (read corn) ethanol, coal, and oil and gas. Brownback has an excellent record on ANWR voting (and sponsoring legislation) consistently throughout his terms. He also supports OCS and has, in the past, submitted a bill for Gulf of Mexico exploration. He was the former Commission for Agriculture in Kansas and understands well the importance of having a secure domestic energy supply. Brownback very much argues to decrease oil and gas usage over time and puts an importance on finding an alternative to petroleum, particularly for the transport industry. Brownback is a skeptic on the manmade global warming theory and opposes caps on emissions. For more information on Brownback’s energy views visit: http://www.brownback.com/s/Issues/tabid/60/Default.aspx#Energy

Kansas is a corn state and is understandably big on ethanol with 8 production plants and 11 ethanol stations for transport. Kansas is also a major oil, gas, wind, methane, power producer. Two percent of America’s oil is produced in Kansas and nearly 2% of the nations refining capability is there too. Kansas serves as a transport hub for natural gas from Texas on its way to the east. A large amount of natural gas is produced locally to add to the import/exports. Coal methane gas is targeted for future production. Three quarters of all homes are heated with natural gas (less than 20 from electricity) and three quarters of State power is produced from coal. Very little coal is actually produced locally though. Just a tiny fraction of Kansas’ electricity comes from wind, hydro or renewables. For more on Kansas energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=KS

Congressman Tom Tancredo (Colorado) – One of the strongest supporters of ANWR outside Alaska, Congressman Tancredo has co-authored pro-ANWR legislation a number of times with Alaska’s Congressman Don Young. Tancredo has been very active in his home state as well as on the floor of the House promoting ANWR legislation and the benefits of domestically produced oil and gas. The congressman has met with natives from Kaktovik, Alaska (ANWR’s only settlement) in support of the ANWR issue. Congressman Tancredo also supports the continued research and development of alternative energy supplies stating, “supply (of oil) is limited” and “we should be actively looking for alternatives.” For more on Congressman Tancredo visit: http://teamtancredo.org/index.php

Colorado produces 1% of America’s oil supply and 5% of our natural gas supply. Colorado is full of shale oil (largely untapped) and coal bed methane. There are two refineries producing petroleum products and three refineries producing ethanol from various sources. Fourteen fuel stations statewide supply 12,000 hybrid vehicles. Colorado produces wind and hydropower in amounts much smaller than its potential. Less than 20% of houses use electricity to heat their homes. The state has no nuclear power. For more on Colorado energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CO

Congressman Duncan Hunter (California) – A staunch and consistent supporter of exploration in ANWR for his entire career, Congressman Hunter has met with Arctic Power staff and proved knowledgeable and supportive on the issue. He is a strong supporter of increasing our domestic production of oil and gas as well as fast tracking refinery construction. Despite not covering the energy or ANWR issue on his website you can read more about Congressman Hunter here: http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=4 
An in-depth interview with Congressman Hunter can be found here: http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/duncanhunter.php

California produces 1/10th of the nations crude oil. It also is the nation’s top refiner of petroleum mostly direct from Alaska (40% of California oil is imported from abroad). Despite this there is a permanent moratorium on offshore oil exploration. California produces fewer than 2% of the nation’s natural gas (less than 5% of its own needs). Half of the state’s electricity is derived from natural gas power plants. The State is the largest producer of renewable non-hydro power in the US boasting the world’s largest solar plant and numerous large wind farms. One fifth of its power comes from nuclear. A few small coal power plants are in operation. The state uses more ethanol than any other state for its blended fuels mandate. California imports more electricity than any other state, much of that from coal and oil fired sources. California boasts 3 ethanol and 464 alternative fueling stations.

For more on California energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA

Alan Keyes ( Maryland ) Alan Keyes is a Harvard graduate, a former assistant Secretary of State, and former member of the National Security Council. Keyes has traveled the world representing America in many foreign countries and bodies including as the US Ambassador to UNESCO. Keys is very bullish on ANWR, “Yes I would (explore for oil/gas there)… we want to do it in a way that’s responsible-respecting ecological requirements and at the same time exploiting God’s precious resources for the good of our people. It’s also important because if we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it buys us time in order to make use of our ingenuity to develop alternative energy resources.” Keyes has maintained this position since his political career began, (two time Republican nominee in Maryland ’88 ‘92, for President in 1996 and 2000, and running against Obama in Illinois in 2004). Keyes is very conservative in his views and has a strong republican connection on all social and economic issues.

For more on Keyes and energy see: http://www.alankeyes.com/issues.php

Maryland is a small natural resource producer. Maryland produces no oil, or ethanol, a trickle of natural gas, and only a small amount of coal. Maryland has a large LNG plant processing imported natural gas. Maryland requires ethanol blended fuels in urban areas. Half of Maryland’s electricity comes from coal; a quarter from nuclear and the rest from oil and gas. The state uses alternative energies (primarily hydro) to supply 2% of its electricity needs.

With an 9 to 1 ratio of support the Republican candidates show just how polarized this issue has become. Despite ANWR being traditionally supported by a majority of the members of the House and Senate (both Ds and Rs), it has become more and more partisan throughout the years. Rather unfortunately this has been translated by the environmentalists, and to a large extent by the press, as being either for the environment or against it.

This situation has made it extremely difficult for a reasoned and rational argument to be heard. In the quest for sound bites and the 5-second digestible answer on the campaign trail candidates rarely have time to address the complexities of supply and demand of energy, or realities of production, transportation, distribution and usage of energy to support their positions. One fact that is consistently missed is the fact that oil produces a myriad of products we use everyday, not just gasoline or fuel. Those other products cannot be produced by any other energy source, which in this writer’s opinion makes the phrase “addicted to oil” seem out of touch. Oil, in our current society, is a necessity.

With the political makeup of Congress being as it is, it is vital that an ANWR supporting politician being voted into the Presidency. The opposite could very well see ANWR lock-up legislation be initiated and put through. We encourage all concerned to vote appropriately.

]]>

“We’ve developed only a fraction of our known reserves, and have many times this known amount awaiting discovery and commercialization.” This, primarily in reference to Arctic oil and gas reserves in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska (NPR-A) and the yet to be tapped “10-02 Area” of ANWR.

“The same foreign powers that control the world’s oil supply are beginning to control the supply of natural gas,” she said. “Alaska stands ready and able to supply our fellow Americans with an abundant, cheap clean source of energy for the future.”

The Governor talked extensively on the State’s most recent project of building a natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez following the current Trans-Alaska oil Pipeline. Natural gas, which along with water, is mixed in with oil and is currently pumped back into the ground. This is done simply because no way to get the gas to market exists and also it serves to increase the pressure of oil reservoirs for more complete extraction. Alaska has more potential natural gas reserves than any other state in the nation.

The Alaska Governor signed a memorandum of understanding with North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven and the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to improve regulatory cooperation between states and improve interstate governance and communication with FERC.
For more information on this event and other oil and gas related issue visit the IOGCC web site at http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/

Here are some images of Gov. Sarah Palin.

The 10-02 Area of ANWR includes 92,000 acres of rural private land owned by the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. Money from Arctic Slope oil development has long been the major source of revenue for the Alaskan Arctic community, providing jobs, schools, clinics, and public works such as sewer systems and water systems that never existed before. The residents of Kaktovik Alaska overwhelmingly support opening the 10-02 area knowing the economic benefit it will bring to their area for decades to come. They also argue the right self-determination to use their private lands as they please and not be put under the restrictions imposed by inclusion within the ANWR borders.

The defeat of this amendment is a good illustration of the difficulty in passing ANWR legislation in a Congress under Democrat control. The Democratic party has most often been in favor of blocking ANWR legislation despite that not all Democrats are against the cause.

A press release from the Majority Offices of the Committee is listed as follows:
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=292&Itemid=1

The Votes on Accepting the ANWR inclusive Bishop Amendment are as follows:

Yay
Tancredo (CO)
McMorris Rodgers (WA)
Gohmert (TX)
Bishop (UT)
Heller (NV)
Sali (ID)
McCarthy (CA)
Pearce (NM)
Young (AK)
Cannon (UT)

Nay
Napolitano (CA)
Grijalva (AZ)
Bordallo (GU)
Boren (OK)
Sarbanes (MD)
Kennedy (RI)
Capps (CA)
Baca (CA)
Solis (CA)
Sandlin (SD)
Shuler (NC)
Markey (MA)
Costa (CA)
Abercrombie (HI)
Christensen (USVI)
DeFazio (OR)
Rahall (WV)

Not Voting
Miller (CA)
Saxton (NJ)
Kildee (MI)
Duncan (TN)
Gilchrest (MD)
Faleomavaega (ASM)
Ortiz (TX)
Flake (AZ)
Pallone (NJ)
Brown (SC)
Fortuño (PR)
Holt (NJ)
Jindal (LA)
Cole (OK)
Shuster (PA)
Hinchey (NY)
Kind (WI)
Lamborn (CO)
Fallin (OK)
Inslee (WA)
Udall (CO)
Gallegly (CA)

Arctic Power has maintained a presence in Washington for over 10 years now, working with the Alaska delegation on the Hill, as well as helping to organize national energy interested coalition partners and the general public in promoting ANWR legislation in Congress. Arctic Power is the only private non-governmental organization that is dedicated to the opening of the 10-02 Area of ANWR to responsible oil and gas exploration. It maintains its non-profit status with donations from the general public and its grant association with the State of Alaska.

This year’s activity will primarily focus on reporting of events on Capital Hill and continuing our outreach program of educating the American public on the benefits and facts of oil and gas development in the Alaskan arctic. Despite that there is little chance on any pro-ANWR legislation reaching the congressional floors for debate this year it is never known when anti-ANWR “wilderness-designation” lock-up legislation might be introduced by the environmental lobby. With a Democrat controlled congress the likelihood of this happening is much higher and many of America’s best energy sources may be put off-limits forever. Herrera describes the radical green movement as merely “waiting in the wings” for the right opportunity to strike, “and it is expected that opportunity to be very near.” Already a Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) sponsored lock-up ANWR bill was introduced in the House this February, but due to its contentious nature it was temporarily shelved by the Natural Resources Committee. That does not mean to say more is not coming. Since the change in party dominance of Congress this year, more federal land has been earmarked for “wilderness” lock-up designation than in the entire reign of the Republican party for the past 2 terms. This next year it is expected that bills to lock up the 10-02 Area of ANWR will be reintroduced.

The presidential election next year has already made its mark on ANWR with many candidates openly stating their views of the issue in many early debates. It is likely the general public will hear ANWR mentioned frequently as concerns over the environment and energy become more of an issue during the race. Arctic Power will play a part in providing factual information on resource development in the 10-02 Area of ANWR to any candidates. “Rather sadly, what you get is the radical environmental lobby shouting lies and disinformation with their multi-million dollar media campaigns, and the average American, or candidate, who has never studied the issue, or been to ANWR, believe this because there is no one there to tell them otherwise”, Herrera states. “Arctic Power is here to level the playing field and is well known on both sides of the aisle to be a level headed and fact based voice, not propaganda based and biased,” Herrera continues. “We represent all Alaskans, and have the top experts from an environmental perspective as well as industry and government perspectives to draw on as a resource base in presenting our facts and figures.”

Other factors that will have an effect on ANWR are the rising price of oil and the situation in the Middle East, particularly with Iran. Both are volatile issues that in the past have spurred instant debate on America’s energy dependence and solutions in Congress. America imports over 60% of its petroleum needs and in such important sectors as transportation is 98% dependent on that oil for its operation. Arctic Powers constant battle has been to explain to the public and politicians that development of the 10-02 Area of ANWR can be done with great respect and care for the environment. It is not a “this or that” choice between oil and gas development and protecting the environment as the radical green lobby propagates. “No matter how you stack it or what report you read, ANWR oil and gas represent the safest, best, and economically most realistic answer to help us solve our energy demands,” Herrera concludes, “that is why we continue the fight and eventually will win it.”

For any questions or comment please contact Mr. Herrera at the Arctic Power Washington D.C. office open 8am-8pm EST.

At a news conference this afternoon here in Anchorage, Stevens said he wants to make ANWR part of the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Democrats have blocked oil drilling in ANWR for years, but Stevens says it only makes sense to tap the area's vast reserves for the nation's emergency energy supply.

"I think it is in the national interest to be able to produce from ANWR, and certainly, by the time we could get it ready to produce it would be a ready reserve," said Stevens, R-Alaska.

AMERICA'S future depends on an energy strategy that combines using known oil and gas resources, developing new fuels and technologies and common-sense conservation.
It would be great if scientists discovered a wonder energy source that's clean, inexpensive and inexhaustible. Absent such a breakthrough, it would be wise to use available resources while continuing the hunt for the next generation of practicable fuels.

For the United States that means developing domestic oil and gas reserves. Unfortunately, many known reserves lying beneath federally owned lands are completely off-limits by law or are effectively inaccessible because of stringent leasing requirements.

The largest and best known of these is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), on Alaska's northernmost shore. More than 10 billion barrels of oil are believed to be there. With the United States consuming about 21 million barrels a year, The Oklahoman long has argued ANWR should be opened for sensible, environmentally friendly development.

A recent Bureau of Land Management (BLM) survey of 99 million acres of government lands, estimated to hold 21 billion barrels of oil and 187 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, showed about half the oil and more than a quarter of the gas are blocked from full development.

The BLM study showed just 3 percent of the oil and 13 percent of the gas is accessible under standard lease terms that require basic precautions against damaging the environment or surrounding culture. An additional 46 percent of the oil and 60 percent of the gas is subject to additional restrictions.

BLM changed its survey methods from its last analysis three years ago. What's noticeable is the amount of oil that's accessible without limits declined from 2.2 billion barrels to 743 million barrels in the new inventory. Likewise, accessible natural gas declined from 87 trillion cubic feet to 25 trillion cubic feet.

It would be easy to quibble over the BLM's survey methodology, and environmentalists claim the new survey favors the oil companies. That misses the larger point: Federal prohibitions are keeping vast energy resources buried underground. Indeed, the American Petroleum Institute says there's enough oil under federal lands to run 35 million American cars and heat 14 million American homes for 30 years.

Our sense is most Americans would favor a review of restrictions — prohibitions in the case of ANWR — that make the country more vulnerable to price spikes and the whims of foreign suppliers than it ought to be. No one argues America can drill its way to energy independence. It will take the comprehensive approach described above, which also includes technological advances and conservation, to reach that level of security.

But it makes little sense — especially considering the lead time required to put a potential reserve into actual production — to heighten America's energy vulnerability by keeping domestic sources out of reach.

Courtesy of http://www.newsok.com

It is expected Democrat obstructionist senators such as Cantwell, Kerry, and Clinton will filibuster the bill, effectively killing it unless 60 votes can be achieved. The irony to the American public, that even with a majority support on ANWR in both houses of Congress, it still doesn’t allow legislation to become law. A minority handful of obstructionist senators can, and do, prevent the votes of the clear majority to become reality. However no one can deny that, in this historic tenth time ANWR legislation has come to the floor and passed the floor of the House, the message could not be more clear: the Congress of the United States supports ANWR!

We urge all readers to visit the ACTION ANWR webpage to voice your support in the Senate for the successful continuation of this bill in Congress. Visit http://action.anwr.org for more information on the vote and what you can do to help.

You can see the final vote tally for todays vote by Representative at the following website:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll209.xml