ANWR DIES AN UNFORTUNATE DEATH
The Senate's defeat of ANWR represents a loss for US energy independence, though more a symbolic one than that of pure gallonage. There were two main areas of disagreement between the oilers and environmentalists.
1) How much oil is in the refuge: Environmentalists say little, supporters say a lot. From what I understand of the matter the environmentalists are probably correct insofar as the ANWR supporters have overoptomistic views of how much can be obtained. However, we know it's there. Oil drilling is generally a gamble. You set up a derrick and hope for the best, sometimes you find nothing and lose money, but when you win you win big. This was a sure thing for the oil companies and why they tried so hard for it, but in the greater scheme of things and the goal for US independence, it likely didn't mean much on its own. More on this later.
2) How much damage would it do to the environment: Oil companies have come a long way in recent years towards environmentally safe drilling. The National Academies of the Sciences released a report on the similar North Slope drilling, which produced few of the negative consequences feared by environmentalists. What damage was caused was not by the drilling itself, but rather by the necessary commodities of the employees working on the site. This means that a compromise could have been struck on restoring the area once the drilling had finished, but unfortunately the environmentalists were not interested in any compromise whatsoever.
That's unfortunate, because Gregg Easterbrook recommended one not so long ago in various publications. In exchanging ANWR drilling for tougher automotive standards, both sides could have achieved a victory and both environmental and energy concerns could have been met.
One of the more interesting aspects of the vote were the defectors. Many of which could have been predicted, but others could not have:
Republicans against:
Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island,
Norm Coleman of Minnesota,
Susan Collins of Maine,
Olympia Snowe of Maine,
Mike DeWine of Ohio,
Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois,
John McCain of Arizona and
Gordon Smith of Oregon.
Democrats in favor:
Daniel Akaka of Hawaii,
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii,
John Breaux of Louisiana,
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana,
Zell Miller of Georgia.
I suppose Norm Coleman and Mary Landrieu got an opportunity to demonstrate the bipartisan credentials. I'm sure this will play well in Minnesota for Norm, though I'm still disappointed by his defection. Kudos to Landreiu, though, for following her fellow Louisianan's lead and supporting the worthwhile bill.
I have no idea why DeWine and Fitzgerald, two of the more conservative Republicans in the Senate, defected. Same goes for Akaka and Inouye, both from one of the most liberal states in the nation. Can anyone else draw a connection that would explain two Hawaiians voting for drilling in Alaska?
Owen Courreges agrees, Kris Lofgren does not.
[Full disclosure: The oil products company I work for manufactures tools for drilling on the Alaskan soft-ice and therefore had a stake in the Senate's vote. The company specializes in off-shore drilling and therefore ANWR's defeat benefits us indirectly. That said, an informal poll around the office represents near-unanimous support for the bill]
The Senate's defeat of ANWR represents a loss for US energy independence, though more a symbolic one than that of pure gallonage. There were two main areas of disagreement between the oilers and environmentalists.
1) How much oil is in the refuge: Environmentalists say little, supporters say a lot. From what I understand of the matter the environmentalists are probably correct insofar as the ANWR supporters have overoptomistic views of how much can be obtained. However, we know it's there. Oil drilling is generally a gamble. You set up a derrick and hope for the best, sometimes you find nothing and lose money, but when you win you win big. This was a sure thing for the oil companies and why they tried so hard for it, but in the greater scheme of things and the goal for US independence, it likely didn't mean much on its own. More on this later.
2) How much damage would it do to the environment: Oil companies have come a long way in recent years towards environmentally safe drilling. The National Academies of the Sciences released a report on the similar North Slope drilling, which produced few of the negative consequences feared by environmentalists. What damage was caused was not by the drilling itself, but rather by the necessary commodities of the employees working on the site. This means that a compromise could have been struck on restoring the area once the drilling had finished, but unfortunately the environmentalists were not interested in any compromise whatsoever.
That's unfortunate, because Gregg Easterbrook recommended one not so long ago in various publications. In exchanging ANWR drilling for tougher automotive standards, both sides could have achieved a victory and both environmental and energy concerns could have been met.
One of the more interesting aspects of the vote were the defectors. Many of which could have been predicted, but others could not have:
Republicans against:
Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island,
Norm Coleman of Minnesota,
Susan Collins of Maine,
Olympia Snowe of Maine,
Mike DeWine of Ohio,
Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois,
John McCain of Arizona and
Gordon Smith of Oregon.
Democrats in favor:
Daniel Akaka of Hawaii,
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii,
John Breaux of Louisiana,
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana,
Zell Miller of Georgia.
I suppose Norm Coleman and Mary Landrieu got an opportunity to demonstrate the bipartisan credentials. I'm sure this will play well in Minnesota for Norm, though I'm still disappointed by his defection. Kudos to Landreiu, though, for following her fellow Louisianan's lead and supporting the worthwhile bill.
I have no idea why DeWine and Fitzgerald, two of the more conservative Republicans in the Senate, defected. Same goes for Akaka and Inouye, both from one of the most liberal states in the nation. Can anyone else draw a connection that would explain two Hawaiians voting for drilling in Alaska?
Owen Courreges agrees, Kris Lofgren does not.
[Full disclosure: The oil products company I work for manufactures tools for drilling on the Alaskan soft-ice and therefore had a stake in the Senate's vote. The company specializes in off-shore drilling and therefore ANWR's defeat benefits us indirectly. That said, an informal poll around the office represents near-unanimous support for the bill]
posted by R. Alex at
2:14 PM
