Gregg, Sununu Against Arctic Drilling Ban
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — The Senate voted yesterday to ban oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with New Hampshire’s two senators voting in favor of drilling.
The 52-48 vote was on a measure to delete language in President Bush’s budget proposal for next year that would open up the refuge to oil drilling. The issue was seen as so close that on the eve of a likely war, Vice President Dick Cheney came to the Capitol to lobby Republican senators to vote for the drilling.
The ANWR area in question covers 1.5 million acres along the coastal plain in northeastern Alaska. It is home to more than 160 species of birds, 36 fish species and 36 mammals, including caribou, wolves and polar bears.
Eight Republicans, including Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, voted against opening up the refuge to oil exploration. Five Democrats voted in favor of the drilling.
During Senate debate on Tuesday and yesterday, oil drilling supporters argued that only a small portion of the refuge would be subject to drilling and that doing so would also create jobs throughout the United States. Furthermore, these supporters said, the drilling wouldn’t harm the refuge’s animals or the environment.
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said he supports drilling in ANWR. “I believe that a comprehensive energy plan is absolutely critical to the security and economic well-being of this nation,” he said in a statement. “A national energy policy needs to balance our growing demand for energy. I believe that this balance should include limited, environmentally-sensitive exploration in a small fraction of (ANWR).
“On a larger scale, development of ANWR could reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil,” Gregg said. “We cannot afford to rely on rogue nations like Iraq for oil, a resource vital to the economy and security of our country. The fields in ANWR are the best bet for significant oil finds in the United States.”
New Hampshire’s junior senator, Republican John E. Sununu, also supports Alaskan oil drilling.
“Today especially, given the uncertainty in global energy markets, it makes sense to take a balanced approach to energy policy that includes support for conservation, reliable infrastructure and domestic exploration,” Sununu said in a statement. “Setting 2,000 acres aside in the northernmost part of Alaska in order to access the third-largest energy find in U.S. history is good energy policy and good economic policy.”
Those against drilling in ANWR said doing so would harm the environment and wildlife in one of the world’s most “pristine” refuges. Furthermore, they said, such action would reduce U.S. oil imports by just 2 percent.
Both New Hampshire House members oppose drilling in Alaska. Rep. Charlie Bass, R-N.H., has always been against ANWR drilling. He said that the oil supply from that part of Alaska would be enough to support the United States for only six months. Bass also said that the oil from the refuge might not even go to America.
“I don’t really think that drilling in the wilderness in Alaska is really justifiable given the time frame that it would take to develop the resource and the amount of resource oil and gas that would be retrieved,” he said in an interview.
“Oil is such a fungible item,” Bass said. “It’s almost like currency. Just because we’re producing more oil in Alaska doesn’t mean that we’re gonna have greater energy supplies in America. The overall global supply of oil is all one big pool.”
Although Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., does not support oil drilling, he said he does not think the refuge should be closed permanently.
“It’s not the right time to designate ANWR as something that’s off limits from drilling forever and a day,” Bradley said in an interview. “Given the world international situation, the fact that we’re importing ever-more quantities of oil, we need to embark on a policy of conservation, energy efficiency, more efficient use of technology and more production of American resources.”
Bradley also said he believes these goals can be achieved without opening up ANWR to drilling. However, closing ANWR to drilling forever would be “premature,” Bradley said.
If ANWR were to be opened to drilling, the oil wouldn’t be able to reach the rest of the United States for 10 years, Bradley said.
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
