Elections 2014: Would a GOP win open up Arctic drilling?

If Republicans win the US Senate in Tuesday's midterm elections, it's likely the party will move to open up Arctic drilling for oil. The controversial issue has come back in this year's midterm elections in Alaska. 

Subhankar Banerjee/AP/File
A polar bear is shown in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The debate over Arctic drilling has reignited in Alaska's midterm elections.

The Republican Party has a very clear vision for America’s energy independence, which could become America’s vision for energy independence if polls suggesting the GOP will take control of the U.S. Senate in Tuesday’s midterm elections prove correct. (They have held the majority in the House of Representatives since 2010.)

That vision is based on the idea that all of the country’s natural resources should be fully tapped in order to reduce energy imports from countries like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, including oil, natural gas and coal. Republican lawmakers argue that while efforts to reduce carbon emissions are necessary, Americans are paying more than they should for energy and any prohibition on the exploitation of extractable sources could threaten the country’s new status as one of the world’s foremost oil producers.

While that message can be turned into a nice sound bite during an election campaign, it ignores economic and environmental consequences. (Related: More Oil Companies Abandoning Arctic Plans, Letting Leases Expire)

Republicans have long eyed the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) as a potential energy jackpot. As the GOP sees it, the aggressive protection of ANWR’s fragile ecosystem prevents it from becoming a fully participating resource in the country’s energy security. In 2008, the issue divided the party when then-presidential candidate Sen. John McCain opposed opening up ANWR, saying it would be like drilling in the Everglades or Grand Canyon.

Under President Barack Obama, the federal government has reduced the amount of drilling on federal land and slashed by more than half the amount of new permits it grants for offshore oil and gas drilling. Obama has come out strongly against drilling in ANWR, saying it would “irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernible impact on U.S. energy security."

The issue has come roaring back in this year’s Senate race in Alaska. With the strong support of the national party, Republican Dan Sullivan is seeking to oust incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Begich. Begich is an oddity among Democrats because he supports opening ANWR to drilling – a position Republicans agree with but have found a new way to attack, by blaming Begich for not persuading the White House to change its stance.


Last year, Begich threatened to “bang” Obama over the head until he agreed to open up ANWR. “I’m going to take him to the Arctic, show him ANWR, tell him why we need to drill in ANWR, change his mind on that if I can, bang him over the head a few times on it,” Begich told CNN. Despite Begich’s showboating, the White House has not budged on its position, which has made the Alaskan senator politically vulnerable.

Alaska’s other senator in Washington, Lisa Murkowski, has long argued that drilling in ANWR would help reduce the national deficit. But that view glosses over the economics of the issue.

The Department of Energy has repeatedly warned that estimates of oil in ANWR, ranging from 5.7 to 16 billion barrels, are not proven. The United States Geological Service came up with its wide range by comparing proven reserves at nearby oil deposits. (Related: Five Regions Where Big Oil Is Foolishly Chasing Profits)

Furthermore, in 2010, a reassessment of the nearby National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska showed that many deposits thought to contain oil contained natural gas instead. Overall estimates for natural gas reserves in the region were also lowered.

Finally, the argument that drilling ANWR would help reduce American dependence on energy exports is not watertight. If the high-end of the estimates proved to be true, at full capacity, ANWR would contribute about 1.2 percent of global oil production, which would not be enough to drastically alter oil prices – which are already at modern lows -- or to halt American imports of oil products that are remaining steady.

Sarah Palin’s ‘Drill, baby, drill’ battle cry may have been retired in the wake of the disastrous Deepwater Horizon spill, but a GOP-led Senate could easily revive it. To fully discover the reserves within ANWR would take exploratory drilling which, quite apart from threatening more ecological disasters, flies in the face of the wishes of local communities and threatens to destroy an ecosystem that has long been seen as an treasured American wildlife refuge. If a Republican-led Congress is determined to pursue new sources of hydrocarbons, then surely Obama’s recent, controversial shift on offshore drilling is a less risky proposition.

By Chris Dalby of Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Drilling-In-ANWR-Likely-To-Resurface-If-GOP-Wins-Congress.html

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Elections 2014: Would a GOP win open up Arctic drilling?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today