Congressional Budget for the United States Government for the Fiscal Year 2006

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to continue with the discussion about the wilderness and designation within the refuge. Senator Stevens certainly defined it during his comments, but I think it is worth a few minutes so people understand what ANWR is, what the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is.

It is this colored section up on the northeastern part of the State. It is an area in total of 19.6 million acres. It is an area the size of the State of South Carolina.

Within the refuge itself, there are three different designations. You have down here in the orange the refuge itself, which is about 10 million acres. You have the wilderness designation area here, which is 8 million acres. Then up here, you have the reserve area, as Senator Stevens has indicated, that portion, the 1.5 million acres that was set aside for the purpose of study for exploration of potential oil and gas.

When we talk about ANWR, there is, I think, a confusion. The Gwich'in people, who are referred to as living within ANWR, are separated by a massive mountain range, the Brooks Range, which is here. They are down here in this section of the refuge, nowhere near the Coastal Plain. The 1002 area has been specifically set aside.

It is important that we talk about the specifics within the refuge designation, and recognize that as far as wilderness goes, those areas that are set aside for wilderness will not be subject to any kind of exploration activity. The area within the refuge will not be subject to any exploration, or any production activity. It is only this area up here. It is within this area here that we
are talking about exploring on 2,000 acres. Out of the total area the size of the State of South Carolina, we are looking at a coastal plain about the size of the State of Delaware. And within that size of the State of Delaware, we are talking about 2,000 acres, or literally the size of a medium-sized farm in South Dakota.

It helps to put it into perspective when we are talking about oil exploration on the northern plain.

I want to focus my comments tonight on three areas: energy security, economic security, and environmental security.

Senator Stevens touched on the energy security component, recognizing we are currently 58 percent dependent on foreign oil; that we here in this country are waiting to see what the OPEC nations are going to do and how that will affect us and our economy.

This dependence is expected to pass the two-thirds mark within 20 years. This is a threat to our national security. We are in a position to do something positive. We need to recognize that by moving forward on the domestic level to produce our own resources--our own oil--we can make a difference.

There have been those who have suggested that the amount of oil potential up in the Coastal Plain is miniscule; that somehow or other it is not worth it to explore and to drill in this region.

Let us talk a little bit about what is there for us in terms of the resources, the jobs that can be created, and the economic benefit with the potential we have in ANWR right now.

To suggest this amount of oil is not going to help us in this country is akin to suggesting that all of the oil we receive from east Texas isn't worth it because it is not able to sustain this country, it is not able to give us the energy independence we need. That is a ridiculous argument.

Putting into context where we are getting our oil right now, if we are 50 percent accurate with our projections of the potential in ANWR, we are looking at a million barrels a day going into our pipeline. That is about 25 years worth of oil that we currently receive from Saudi Arabia. Twenty-five years worth of oil that we are receiving from Saudi Arabia is equivalent to what we could expect out of ANWR, if we are half right on our projections.

To suggest somehow this is not something we should do because there is not enough there is not an argument that makes sense. Giving up ANWR's likely oil is like saying we as a nation should never have bothered opening up the Prudhoe Bay oilfield in Alaska because Prudhoe would only supply us with 3 years' supply of oil. In fact, Prudhoe has provided America up to a quarter of our domestic oil supply for the past 28 years.

With our recovery methods, when we thought initially Prudhoe was going to be recovering 35 percent of our oil, we are now up to a recovery rate of about 65 percent. To suggest that the amount is minimal is not being realistic.

Let us talk about the economics in terms of our ability to stabilize our energy crisis: generating more than $30 billion in Federal revenue, probably several billion dollars within 4 years of opening of ANWR.

Talking about our deficit, as we are dealing with the budget, it would reduce our payments of deficit--the remainder of our payments of deficit--because we are not going to be buying as much oil overseas. Last year alone, we paid nearly $166 billion for oil overseas. That is a quarter of our trade deficit.

When we talk about $30 billion-plus a year, it is important to America. The jobs will come. We keep talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs, but the fact is when we produce domestically, everybody benefits. The jobs across this Nation will increase.

The other economic benefits, the reason that organized labor is supporting us, the reason the farmers are supporting us on opening ANWR, is it stabilizes everything, from the cost of planting in the springtime to the thousands of products that are made from oil, whether it is antihistamines, cosmetics, or compact disks, or heart replacement valves. The list goes on and on, to recognize the economic benefit to us as a nation of opening ANWR. American farmers last year lost $6.2 billion of income because of higher fuel and fertilization costs.

We recognize we have an opportunity here to make a difference. To downplay it and say, Well, it is only so many months' worth of oil, or it is not enough to make a difference--again, if you would suggest the oil we have received from Texas for these many years is not significant, if you would suggest the oil we have received, 20 percent of our domestic supply from the North Slope from Prudhoe Bay, is not significant, we have to put all of this into perspective.

You have energy security. By producing more of our energy needs here in the country, you have economic security that ANWR brings.

We also have the environmental side. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have talked about the caribou and the effect on the environment. I live there. My family lives there. I am the last person in the world who wants to see my State spoiled. I want to make sure that what we do when it comes to development is going to be done in balance with our environment. We figured out how to do it up there. We have been perfecting the Arctic engineering up north for 30 years.

We have seen a tenfold increase in the central Arctic caribou herd since Prudhoe Bay was opened 30 years ago. Our wildlife studies show that several herd species have grown. Polar bears were mentioned. With the science and the technology we have, we use infrared sensing, and we pinpoint where the bears are denning so we do not go near them.

There is a sensitivity to the environment that we pay attention to. We are using 3D and now 4D seismic technology so we know where to explore. We are using underground directional drilling that allows us to put the plug in and explore out 3 or 4 miles in every direction so we are not disturbing the surface. We have decreased the size of the pads 70, 80 percent over the past 30 years.

What this picture shows is an exploration rig that is connected not by road but connected by ice roads. It was described earlier by Senator Bennett. This road will disappear in the spring. This pad that this exploration rig is sitting on disappears in the spring. What is left is a plug, a cap, in the ground.

I need to make a quick comment about the spills that have been mentioned by a couple of my colleagues. What they do not mention is that the companies up North have to report all spills, all spills of any nonnatural occurring substance, whether this is a spill of saltwater or anything that is more than a gallon of oil or chemical such as lubricating oils or hydraulics. The vast majority of oil spills at Prudhoe Bay have been saltwater used in water floating to enhance oil recovery, not oil spills.

In 1993, one of the worst years for spills at Prudhoe Bay, there were 160 reported spills, nearly 60,000 gallons of material, but only 2 spills involved oil, and all but 10 gallons were in secondary containment structures and were easily cleaned up.

We know we have to do it right up there. It is a fragile environment. It is an environment that we know we must care for. But look at what we do in Alaska with the toughest environmental safeguards anywhere in the world. I challenge anyone, anywhere, to come up with more stringent standards when it comes to development. Alaska will beat them every time.

I suggest that we need to be global environmentalists. If we are not taking the oil from ANWR, we will still need it elsewhere. If we do not take it in an area where we know we are going to monitor it and do it correctly, it will come to us from across the water, from Russia, from Venezuela, from Africa, where they did not care for their environment. To use the phrase of some on the other side, think globally but act locally. This is a perfect example of where we need to do just that.

I look forward to the rest of the comments from my colleagues and further debate tomorrow.

http://thomas.loc.gov