Cate Morgan's role on Team 9
21 Oct 2003
British Petroleum (BP) stopped lobbying for drilling in ANWR, claiming
it was up to the American people to decide what to do in 2002. They pulled
out of Arctic Power. As they 2nd largest oil company in the world, this has
greatly reduced the strength of the lobbying group. Arctic Power is the lobbying
group pushing for drilling in ANWR. They receive 5% funding from oil companies
and 95% from the state of Alaska. Oil companies support the Senate Energy
Bill, but not ANWR directly. Exxon Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch, Shell, and Chevron
Texaco all agree that the amount of oil in ANWR is a scientific uncertainty.
They would face many environmental damage lawsuits if they drilled, and they
feel that the loss from these lawsuits would not necessarily be made up for
by the profit of drilling. All oil companies have a voluntary ban on exporting
Alaskan oil. This was a law, but it was repealed in 1995. Companies still
do it, and they get a corporate tax break for supporting American national
security. Before drilling, all oil companies have to follow risk reduction
rules. They need to research and determine the way to drill that would cause
the least amount of environmental damage. Company executives will not allow
for drilling to take place until this has been done, and it is one of the
largest parts of any major international oil company.
25 Oct 2003
My job in Group 9
Each of us chose a specific topic to research and made an hour long presentation
to the rest of the group. Mine was about lobbying efforts of the pro-drilling
and anti-drilling components about ANWR. I looked specifically at NGO’s,
the international oil corporations, Arctic Power, the state of Alaska, and
the senate. Each of these groups has a different approach to lobbying, and
different expectations. I also looked at the Energy Bill. I hadn’t realized
it had so many parts. Judging by what has happened in the past, and by lobbying
efforts, the Energy Bill will be severely compromised before it is passed.
Lobbying could have a big impact on whether or not drilling in ANWR is a
part of that compromise.
30 Oct 2003
NGO’s and Lobbying
NGO’s have to be more activist, because they need funding, but they have
to be careful as well, because they can be destroyed by popular opinion,
and they have less regulations and less protection.
The Gwich’in nation lobbies against drilling in the “sacred place where life
begins” – where the Porcupine Caribou herd birth and raise their calves.
Oil Companies don’t want to waste time lobbying for drilling in ANWR because
there are many better fields in the world with cheaper development and less
political conflict.
They are more interested in another part of the Energy Bill- the curtailing
of government regulations on how gasoline is blended for pollution control.
Teamsters support drilling.
The state of Alaska would get half the royalties from oil development.
Groups claiming that drilling will make us less dependent on the Middle East
have no proof to back it, groups that claim it won’t have stats.
Alaska has given $5 million to the effort over the past 2 years.
The Inupiat nation owns part of the land on the coastal plain of the refuge
and want development.
Arctic Power- developed in 1992 to “expedite congressional and presidential
approval of oil exploration and production within the Coastal Plain. All
regions of the state of Alaska are represented, and the state works closely
with Arctic Power, making up most of it’s board of members.
Republicans offered to use ANWR drilling fees to pay for worker benefits
in the steel industry, which is struggling, and sell ANWR oil to Israel.
Democrats say we should look at alternative energy sources or drill somewhere
else, such as offshore waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Republican plan limits drilling to 2,000 acres at a time, this doesn’t
say too much.
Republican lawmakers may abandon the energy bill if it does not allow drilling
in the refuge.
12 November 2003
Summary
People who support drilling
Teamsters support drilling because they see it as opening up new jobs for
people in Alaska.
The Inupiat nation supports drilling. They own part of the coastal plain
that would be used for drilling and as an industrialized nation, they see
it as an opportunity for their nation to make a profit out of land they would
not otherwise use.
Arctic Power is the main lobbying group for drilling at ANWR. It was developed
in 1992 to “expedite congressional and presidential approval of oil exploration
and production within the Coastal Plain. All regions of the state of Alaska
are represented, and the state works closely with Arctic Power, making up
most of it’s board of members.
Republicans support drilling, mainly because of Stevens, from Alaska. He
sees it as a chance for Alaska to make money, and lives up to his motto “I’ll
do whatever’s best for Alaska.” They claim that it would help our national
security by making us less dependent on the Middle East, but have no statistics
to back this. Also, Republicans offered to use ANWR drilling fees to pay
for worker benefits in the steel industry, which is struggling, and sell
ANWR oil to Israel. This has never been done before. In the past, all Alaskan
oil has been kept within the U.S., not because of a law, which was repealed
in 1995, but due to an agreement of oil companies. The fact that they’re
willing to use the money on something like workers benefits shows that they
are not just using drilling to get money for themselves. A part of their
plan for drilling is to only open up 2,000 acres at a time for drilling,
but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything, because it depends on where the
2,000 acres are and what shape they appear in. Republicans are willing to
make many compromises within the Energy Bill if drilling in ANWR is passed,
and Republican lawmakers have even considered dropping the bill if drilling
is no longer an option.
The state of Alaska is the biggest supporter of drilling. They have given
Arctic Power 95% of it’s funding, and if drilling is allowed, they stand
to gain 50% of all royalties of drilling. In the past 2 years alone, they
have given $5 million to the drilling effort. Alaska would be the most obvious
political beneficiary of drilling at ANWR. While it doesn’t necessarily hold
enough oil to effect things on a global level, Alaska would gain much power
as a state, and economically would double their GDP.
People who do not support drilling
The Gwich’in nation lobbies against drilling in the “sacred place where life
begins” – where the Porcupine Caribou herd birth and raise their calves.
They claim that if drilling is allowed, their way of life will be destroyed,
and they are probably right. Even if it were possible for them to live off
the land again after drilling, which would be unlikely for several years,
their culture could be destroyed by outside influences and possible social
problems, such as alcoholism.
Democrats say we should look at alternative energy sources or drill somewhere
else, such as offshore waters in the Gulf of Mexico. They also claim that
the oil in ANWR would do nothing for our national security, which they have
backed with numbers.
Oil Companies don’t want to waste time lobbying for drilling in ANWR because
there are many better fields in the world with cheaper development and less
political conflict.
They are more interested in another part of the Energy Bill- the curtailing
of government regulations on how gasoline is blended for pollution control.
Oil companies support the Senate Energy Bill, but not ANWR directly. Exxon
Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch, Shell, and Chevron Texaco all agree that the amount
of oil in ANWR is a scientific uncertainty. They would face many environmental
damage lawsuits if they drilled, and they feel that the loss from these lawsuits
would not necessarily be made up for by the profit of drilling. All oil companies
have a voluntary ban on exporting Alaskan oil. This was a law, but it was
repealed in 1995. Companies still do it, and they get a corporate tax break
for supporting American national security. Before drilling, all oil companies
have to follow risk reduction rules. They need to research and determine
the way to drill that would cause the least amount of environmental damage.
Company executives will not allow for drilling to take place until this has
been done, and it is one of the largest parts of any major international
oil company. This does not mean that they wouldn’t proceed with their tests
and drill if ANWR was opened up.
Other nations are against drilling for oil in ANWR. They disagree with U.S.
policy towards the environment. Drilling in ANWR wouldn’t have much impact
in the international level, because the oil wouldn’t last long. BP actually
stopped their lobbying effort, saying that the American people had to be
the ones to decide how much damage they were willing to do to their environment.
Canada is not supporting drilling, but could potentially benefit from it
if the U.S. built a pipeline through Canada. The proposed plan is to build
a pipeline above the 68th parallel. Canada has oil up there, but no efficient
way of bringing it down. The U.S. would allow Canada to use any pipelines
they built through Canada, with a tax. In this case, both countries would
supposedly benefit, Canada because they would have less restricted access
to their oil, and the U.S., because they could sell oil cheaper and still
make a profit.
Mission Website
Team 9 Website
Sources:
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
BP
Stops Lobbying for ANWR Drilling