Energy Policy in America

ENERGY POLICY IN AMERICA -- (House of Representatives - May 20, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you to the gentleman from Utah for yielding me time so that we can have a bit of a conversation on energy. I truly believe that our country is lacking a balanced policy. I think that our country is lacking a commonsense policy, which certainly leaves consumers out of the mix for what they need with food, with fuel for their vehicles, energy to heat their homes, energy to run a small business. The list goes on and on.

But as we do address and look to the future, I think that utilizing today's technology and even tomorrow's technology so that we can certainly use the resources afforded our country, we can do that in a very responsible manner, and that we would not have certain issues become symbols of I think an extreme agenda that are endorsed by I think a relatively small group of Americans.

In 1980, the Congress, and President Carter, I will add, created the nearly 20 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but they set aside 1.5 million acres of ANWR's northern coastal plain for the purpose of future energy exploration and development. Let me repeat that. They set aside, this is Congress and President Carter in 1980, 1.5 million acres of ANWR's northern coastal plain for the purpose of future energy exploration and development. This parcel is known as the 1002 area, named after the section of the act that set it aside for its energy resources.

Energy exploration will be limited to just 2,000 acres of ANWR's 1002 area, an acreage limitation made possible by 21st century technology. This 2,000 acres, I will add, is equivalent to one-tenth of 1 percent of ANWR's total acreage.

According to the U.S. Energy Administration, the mean estimate of recoverable oil in ANWR is 10.4 billion barrels, all of which is now economically recoverable. That is more than the twice the proven oil reserves in all of Texas. That is almost half of the total U.S. proven reserves of 21 billion barrels. That represents a possible 50 percent increase in total U.S. proven reserves.

EIA also estimates daily ANWR would provide 1 million barrels per day for 30 years. Will that affect oil prices? Absolutely. Is that a government subsidy? No. I hope that we can get beyond the policies of just saying ``no'' to domestic sources of energy. This is equivalent to what the entire State of Texas produces daily. ANWR's 30 year, 1 million barrel per day supply, also equals 30 years of imports from Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Let's talk about the revenue. According to a recent CRS report, at today's prices of $125 per barrel, ANWR development would deliver $191.1 billion in corporate income tax and royalty revenue to the Federal Government. Let's talk about fiscal responsibility. Bonus bids alone would deliver close to $4 billion to the Federal Treasury.

Economically speaking, relating to jobs, ANWR energy production would create between 250,000 and 750,000 good jobs in America across the country. These are good, broad-based jobs in the energy sector that, in the end, help consumers. A study from the National Defense Council Foundation says that the figure could be as high as 1 million new jobs for Americans in all 50 States and the District of Columbia.

In terms of environmental protection, ANWR's leasing plan will be certainly environmentally sound. The Interior Department must administer the leasing program to result in no significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence resources or the environment. The leasing program will be subject to stringent regulations that at a minimum will require some of these details. Let me share them.

Meeting or exceeding environmental mitigation measures established in the prior environmental impact statement.

Limiting exploration generally to the period between November and May.

Imposing seasonal limits to protect breeding, spawning and wildlife migration patterns.

Using ice roads, airstrips and other low impact transportation methods while limiting air traffic to reduce disturbance to fish and wildlife.

Requiring pipelines and roads to be designed to minimize adverse effects on migratory caribou, other wildlife and surface water flow.

Protecting streams, springs, rivers, wetlands and riparian habitats from the effects of water used in drilling.

Treating and disposing of all waste products by use of a hazardous material tracking system and filing an annual report on waste management.

Educating crew members on environmental protection methods.

Complying with all applicable air and water quality standards and utilizing the best commercially available technology for the exploration and development, not only today, but in the future as well.

I could go on and on with many of these details that assure the responsible development, exploration and henceforth the development, but let me give some perspective to this briefly.

The size of the small wildlife refuges that currently exist barely measure as a fraction of ANWR's 19.6 million acres, yet the ecosystem and energy production in the refuges coexist without harm. Consider the size of these following National Wildlife Refuges supporting active oil and gas production, according to information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Montana, total size, 1,680 acres; Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge, Oklahoma/Texas, 11,000 acres; Kirtland's Warbler National Wildlife Refuge in Michigan, 6,543 acres; Delta National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, 48,000 acres. We are talking about a good chunk there. San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, 37,000 acres; Crosby Wetland Management District in North Dakota, 86,000 acres. But, my friends, ANWR in Alaska, the total size of the refuge is 19.6 million acres, and proposed development is 2,000 acres.

I would argue that what is best for consumers is a good, balanced energy policy that isn't just about petroleum. It is about many other sources. And the frustration from consumers in the Third District of Nebraska is getting higher and higher and higher, because they understand the economics of various sources of energy, whether it is biofuels that many people are speaking out against, or even nuclear power, nuclear energy that we know is friendly to the environment in terms of carbon emissions.

Hydropower, it was interesting to learn that New Zealand is one of the world's, I would say, most green countries in terms of energy. They are about 80 percent dependent on hydropower. And there is so much pushback here in America on the development of hydropower, consumers are getting frustrated. It is not just policymakers, but it is consumers as well, because they can do the math.

Clean coal technology, we have come so far with clean coal, and there is even greater promise in the future. Why would we want to sell ourselves short on that? Oil shale, that I know will be discussed here momentarily, certainly is a domestic source of energy. We heard earlier about some comments about becoming energy independent, oil independent, but yet there is so much pushback from developing our own resources in a very responsible manner.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source