Home \ Issues \ Inglis on the Issues \ Energy: Drilling in ANWR
What about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Shouldn’t we be doing that to get more oil?
What is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)?
(Background Congressional Research Service Report RL33523)
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) consists of 19 million acres in northeast Alaska set aside as a natural reserve in 1960 shortly after Alaska became a state. Oil and gas development were expressly reserved at the time.
Its 1.5-million-acre coastal plain (often referred to as the 1002 area for the section of the code referring to it) is viewed as a promising U.S. onshore oil and gas prospect and has been the subject of debate for more than 40 years.
The conservative resource
The Refuge, especially the nearly undisturbed coastal plain, also is home to a wide variety of plants and animals. The presence of caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, migratory birds, and other species in this wild area has led some to call the area “ America’s Serengeti.” Some advocates have proposed that the Refuge and two neighboring parks in Canada become an international park, and several species found in the area (including polar bears, caribou, migratory birds, and whales) are protected by international treaties or agreements.
The pressure for oil
Sharp increases in energy prices from late 2000 to early 2001, terrorist attacks, more price increases in 2004-2007, and energy infrastructure damage from hurricanes have intensified debate about drilling for oil in the ANWR coastal plain.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the mean estimate of technically recoverable oil on the federally-owned land in the Refuge is 7.7 billion barrels (billion bbl), and there is a small chance that over 11.8 billion bbl could be recovered on the federal lands. That amount would be nearly as much as the field at Prudhoe Bay, found in 1967 on the state-owned portion of the coastal plain west of ANWR, now producing at less an 1 million barrels a day.
Development arguments can be found at:
Opponents’ arguments are at:
Previous Developments
On May 25, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5429 by vote of 225-201 to open ANWR to development. On March 16, 2006, the Senate passed its Fiscal Year 2007 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 83) 51-49. Its sole reconciliation instruction directed the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to reduce the budget authority by an amount equal to predicted revenues from ANWR development. Neither the House or Senate was able to act on the other’s proposal. No new developments have occurred in the 110th Congress.
Bob Inglis’s position
I realize we have a valuable oil and gas resource and improvements in drilling technology will make it safer to extract that oil for really useful purposes (like pharmaceuticals and plastics).
To drill now involves some risk and relatively little reward. Ten years from now ANWR may produce 1 million barrels of oil a day. Right now, we’re burning 20 million barrels a day (12 million of which is imported). Ten years from now, though, it won’t be 1/20; it will be more like 1/25 or 1/27 as we will have increased usage.
While it makes some sense to get what you can, my concern is that a decision to drill in ANWR will distract from the larger challenge of developing fuels of the future. Our need is not so much for more oil; it’s for new energy. Exxon Mobile said they expect world energy demand to increase by 60% over the next 25 years.
In order to meet that demand, Exxon Mobile expects that OPEC will need to increase production by 40%. I wonder if they have the capacity. Even if they do, who wants to be even more dependent on the Middle East for oil, especially when—once it’s been burned up in our cars—there would be no more for plastics and pharmaceuticals?
We need to be talking about the full range of efforts to move toward energy security. Rather than merely talk about drilling, if more Members of Congress were saying, “Let’s drill in ANWR but let’s really get with it on hydrogen,” I might be inclined to vote for drilling in ANWR.
Instead, we are hearing too much of the false hope that ANWR oil will somehow significantly improve our position. I’m not so sure how gaining 1/25 or 1/27 of our supply can improve our position if it takes us deeper and deeper into reliance on oil—oil that in the main will come more and more from OPEC.
In the Fourth District office we’re keenly focused on smart cars and fuels of the future. We’re making some progress and I’m encouraged, but we’ve got miles to go straight ahead. I’d rather not take a loop to loop into ANWR oil..
Drilling is not an either or, but a both. We should have been drilling in Artic and off shore long ago. At the same time look for alternatives. We have debated so long we are in a corner that we can not escape. Lets start to get out of the box.
Wrilling in ANWR will not lower gas prices. 10 years from now the 1 million barrels/day will not help when gas is 7,8,10 dollars a gallon. OPEC does not care how much Americans pay for gas. We should not let crazy Venezuelan Dictators or Middle East turmoil run our economy. The elimination of our oil dependence needs to be the focus over the next ten years. We will also still have those precious oil reserves to tap into for future generations. Keep working on the H-prize.
Why can we not use the oil we have in the ground while we look for a viable alternative(and none has been found as yet)? What about the 1-3 trillion bbl found in WY and SD? This world runs on oil, from gas to plastics. We need it, let's go get it, wherever it is!!
I support H.R. 6107, because it legislates more focus on long-term alternatives to oil. Drilling in ANWAR out of desperation holds-on to the past instead of embracing the future. Trust the market. The market for oil is telling us to look for alternatives.
ongressman Inglis' stand on energy independence ignores this fundamental truth: the American economy is an engine that runs on oil. Someday, the market will provide a replacement, but until then we need to drill for as much of our own oil as possible. France and Japan provide great examples of what can be done with nuclear power. We need to follow their example and step up our use of this renewable form of energy. The ethanol goals set by recent legislation have greatly contributed to high food prices and hunger on the world stage. Rising corn prices have also upset the American farm economy with falling cattle prices. We need to fill our gas tanks with petroleum, not corn. Alternatives are great, let's keep looking for them, but we must be realistic while we pursue these goals.
Since we are still arguing about if we should or not; we would have had the oil we needed when Clinton vetoed it the first time. The other thing we need to do is get rid of E85. Look at the gas and food prices. Looking toward the future is great but what are we doing today. Let’s look at nuclear which is clean and safe. The US is more than capable now to take care of itself. If things do not start changing in our government I will be running for office. Look for my name soon.
As usual our elected officials are avoiding doing the right thing but averting the focus to long term goals. Aren't our elected senators and congressman smart enough to multi-task and focus on both the long and short term goals and results.
I agree that everything possible must be done to reduce dependence on oil. However, suppose in 10 years we need the 1 million barrels of oil daily. Won't we still be 10 years away. There are no guarantees viable substitutes will be available. Once again you point out the deficiencies of our elected representation. I say drill in Anwar and let's elect people that are intelligent enough to work on long range solutions while short range solutions are in process. If we had them 10 years ago, look how much better off we would be today.
Martin Jones (7/30/08)
As for higher food costs from Ethanol, couldn't congress eliminate some of the farm subsidy bills which encourage farmers not to produce. Couldn't we eliminate some of the subsidies that keep food prices high? As for oil, I say DRILL NOW!!! But also lets keep working on alternatives. I wonder how difficult it would be to convert the US military to Bio Diesel?