H.R. 39 and the case for oil drilling in ANWR's coastal plain

By MICHAEL R. McKAY


	House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young, shown in a file photo with AMO National President Michael R. McKay. Rep. Young, a Republican from Alaska, is the leading House advocate of oil exploration and recovery in a portion of the coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

     On Feb. 23, I joined the presidents of 10 other maritime and construction unions in asking the House of Representatives to support limited oil exploration in a small portion of the coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "You have a tremendous opportunity to put tens of thousands of Americans back to work while strengthening the energy and economic security of our nation," we wrote in a letter to each House member.
     Our letter followed legislation filed by Rep. Don Young, chairman of the important House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Rep. Young, a powerful Republican from Alaska and a longtime supporter of the American merchant fleet, wants to open ANWR to "environmentally sound" energy recovery because it would be good for his state and, more importantly, because it would be good for the whole country. Rep. Young's bill, H.R. 39, was referred to the House Resources Committee.
     The Congressman's legislation makes perfect, practical sense for several reasons:

The U.S. is increasingly dependent upon foreign countries for its crude--58 percent of the oil consumed by Americans is produced overseas. Much of the oil shipped to our shores (in foreign-flagged tankers) comes from the Middle East and Venezuela, which are not models of stability.
The cost of imported crude oil is rising at a record rate, draining money from the U.S. and cutting into capital necessary for job growth and economic expansion.
Some alternative fuels are not widely available, and others remain in experimental or even theoretical stages.
Controlled ANWR drilling and recovery would result in what the unions' letter characterized as "an abundance of new, good-paying skilled jobs" in Alaska and throughout the United States. Alaskans would build local rigs and pipelines, and U.S. citizens in the Lower 48 would build power plants and their components, with the positive effects felt in the steel and aluminum industries.
Many of the new jobs would fall to the U.S. merchant mariners, truck drivers and railroad crews who would deliver ANWR crude and its refined products to points on all U.S. coasts.
As our letter to the House of Representatives explained, "shipbuilders will be busy developing the new vessels (self-propelled tankers, tugs and barges) necessary to safely move the cargo on our inland waters and on the high seas."
In all, ANWR energy development would create an estimated 1 million productive, revenue-generating jobs at sea and ashore in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

     In a "Dear Colleague" letter to House members, Rep. Young said ANWR oil fields could yield more than 10 billion barrels of "secure domestic oil produced by American workers, with a value approaching half a trillion dollars at today's oil prices." The projected output is "twice as much oil as Texas' proven reserves."
     ANWR drilling would reduce the U.S. trade deficit by "an equal amount" because the new Alaskan crude "will displace imported oil from unreliable foreign sources" and trigger "$2.15 billion in immediate payments to the federal government," Rep. Young explained.
     "The issue of ANWR is very important to me," Rep. Young said. "I know that, for the foreseeable future, America's economy will run on conventional energy, including oil. It also pays the taxes that build the bridges, roads and airports so important to our quality of life. Secure, affordable and reliable energy like that available from ANWR is thus an energy and a transportation issue."
     Would ANWR drilling have an adverse effect on the regional environment? Oil production at the North Slope field at Prudhoe Bay some 80 miles west of ANWR and the shipment of North Slope crude via pipeline to the U.S.-flagged tanker port of Valdez since the early 1970s has not spoiled the region or displaced wildlife like caribou and polar bears. In addition, drilling would be held to only 2,000 acres within ANWR's 19.6 million acre mass.
     "When Alaska's North Slope opened for development, there were many legitimate concerns raised by those who would be most affected--the native people who live there," the unions' letter recalled. "They forced environmental and safety concessions from the oil producers," resulting in "the safest oil-producing property in the world." The technology is much cleaner and less invasive than it was 30 years ago, and there is "a culture of smart development" around the ANWR proposal.
     Our letter to the House of Representatives concluded: "The issue is not whether ANWR will be completely closed to development, as environmental extremists propose, versus full-bore roughshod development by the oil and gas interests. In our view, the real issue should be a balanced, proportional policy permitting needed oil and gas development in an environmentally sensitive, limited manner."

Editor's note--Signing the letter with AMO National President Michael McKay were Seafarers International Union and AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department President Michael Sacco, International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots President Timothy Brown, AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department President Edward Sullivan, International Brotherhood of Teamsters President James Hoffa, United Association of Plumbing and Pipefitting General President William Hite, International Association of Iron Workers General President Joseph Hunt, International Union of Operating Engineers General President Frank Hanley, Laborers International Union of North America President Terence O'Sullivan, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners General President Douglas McCarron and Marine Engineers Beneficial Association President Ron Davis.

Front Page