Will Senate heed points made by Rep. Young on ANWR?

By MICHAEL R. McKAY


	Congressman Don Young (R-AK) recently toured the RTM STAR Center adjacent to AMO headquarters in Dania Beach, Fla. Pictured with him are Director of Training Tom Johnson (center) and Grant Thompson (right), a staff member with Rep. Young.

      At press time, the Senate was set to take up energy policy in a debate projected to take weeks, and which was to cover everything from corporate average fuel efficiency standards for cars (CAFE) to renewable fuels to alternative fuels to the most controversial issue of all--a proposal to drill for oil in a limited area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge adjacent to the active Prudhoe Bay oil field on Alaska's North Slope. The ANWR proposal is supported by AMO and all other seagoing unions because it would generate new cargoes for U.S.-flag tankers and tank barges and new jobs for American merchant marine officers and crews.
      Energy legislation filed last year by Alaska Republican Sen. Frank Murkowski and Louisiana Democratic Sen. John Breaux included a provision to open a small slice of the ANWR coastal plain to oil and natural gas exploration and recovery. But the bill due on the Senate floor as of March 1 was a substitute sponsored by the Senate's Democratic leadership, and it did not provide for ANWR drilling--which is opposed by environmental interest groups supported by many lawmakers. Meanwhile, Sen. Murkowski and his Republican colleague from Alaska, Sen. Ted Stevens, said they would introduce an amendment to authorize the ANWR project--despite the certainty of a confrontation hot enough to melt the tundra, including a filibuster inspired by the environmental movement.
      But concerns that ANWR development would spoil the natural beauty of the region and harm indigenous wildlife were addressed weeks earlier by Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young, whose bill to allow drilling in the ANWR coastal plain has already been approved in the House. Rep. Young, chairman of the powerful House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has in the past made a strong, sensible case for drilling in the interests of the U.S. economy and national security. But, this time, he focused primarily on the environmental objections, and he countered them effectively.
      Writing in a supplement to the Feb. 11 edition of Roll Call, a twice-weekly newspaper that covers legislative and political developments on Capitol Hill, Rep. Young demonstrated that the "green" case against ANWR drilling is rife with error and inconsistency--or, as the Congressman put it, "99 percent fact-free."
      For example, Rep. Young's timely and persuasive piece cited environmentalists' claim that oil development would occur throughout ANWR. As Rep. Young explained, the legislation supported by Alaska's Congressional delegation would in fact restrict drilling to a portion of the reserve's northern coastal plain known as 1002, which measures only 1.5 million acres-- "about the size of Delaware." The entire refuge spans 19.6 million acres.
      Responding to the common argument that drilling would yield no more than a six-month supply of crude, Rep. Young cited reliable data from the experts. "The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 1002 most likely contains 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, with a 95 percent chance that there are at least 5.7 billion barrels and a 5 percent chance that there are more than 16 billion barrels," Rep. Young wrote. "This is enough oil to significantly increase, perhaps even double, current U.S. oil reserves."
      And drilling often results in greater yield than anticipated, as was the case with Prudhoe Bay. The "initial reserve estimate" at Prudhoe Bay in the 1970s was 9.6 billion barrels of recoverable crude, but the volume is now projected to reach 15 billion barrels, Rep. Young noted. "There is no reason to expect that 1002 will be any different." Data indicate "a very good chance" that production at 1002 could top out at 1 million barrels a day, enough to replace "about 10 percent of current U.S. daily imports."
      The issue of oil volume led Rep. Young to refute another frequent claim: that ANWR development would turn the area into a busy industrial zone marred by a web of roadways and pipelines that would disturb or even destroy wildlife.
      The Congressman made the logical point that that argument cannot be reconciled with the one that says there is not enough oil at the site to make a real difference or to make development worthwhile. "Somehow, they (environmentalists) neglect to explain why oil companies would build a vast infrastructure if little or no oil is present," he wrote.
      In addition, current technology would reduce "the footprint of oil development" in the coastal plain "by almost 90 percent." Such technology is now applied at the new Alpine oil field on the North Slope, a project Rep. Young described as "a minimalist work of human ingenuity and environmental sensitivity."
      While the "green" lobby has warned that development would jeopardize ANWR's caribou herds, Rep. Young pointed out that the caribou at Prudhoe Bay have "increased fivefold since oil development--scientific data simply do not show that oil development has significantly impacted North Slope wildlife."
      Finally, Rep. Young challenged the environmentalists' "most misleading tactic" on this issue--the insistence that there is widespread native opposition to ANWR oil development, especially among the Gwich'in Indians. He pointed out that the Gwich'in "are not indigenous to the North Slope," and that their region in the U.S. and Canada is "more than 100 miles to the south on the other side of the Continental Divide."
      The Inupiat Eskimos, who are indigenous to the area, support oil exploration and recovery in ANWR, Rep. Young said. "Oil has created a modern economy on the North Slope," he explained. "Inupiat children once had to leave home to attend high school hundreds of miles away, resulting in the breakup of families. Now, tax revenue and income from oil means that the Inupiat have their own schools as well as health clinics, decent homes, roads and water supplies."
      After settling these environmental points, Rep. Young invoked the two-word rationale for ANWR drilling most likely to resonate with the average American--Saddam Hussein.
      "In October 2001, America imported more than 1.1 million barrels of oil a day from Iraq," he concluded. "Oil revenues are used by Saddam Hussein to support terrorist acts against the United States. What do you think is more likely to increase America's energy security? Prohibiting oil development in 1002 based on fact-free rhetoric, or developing this oil to replace the supply we are now buying from Saddam Hussein? Let us make the smart choice for America and allow oil development in 1002."
      The hope here is that a majority of Senate Democrats and Republicans and their legislative aides will have read Rep. Young's Roll Call piece before casting their imminent ANWR votes. The article would certainly change some minds, putting more lawmakers on the right side of this particular Senate divide.

Front Page