http://ens-news.com/ens/apr2003/2003-04-03-10.asp
House Pushes Supply Side Energy From Public Lands By J.R. Pegg WASHINGTON, DC, April 3, 2003 (ENS) - The House Resources Committee passed a bill Wednesday that broadens financial incentives for natural gas, oil and coal producers and opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Republicans on the committee contend that the measures are a vital part of a strategy to revive the American economy, but Democrats say the bill fleeces the nation's taxpayers and its natural resources. Corporations, not consumers, will benefit from this legislation, said West Virginia Representative Nick Rahall, the ranking Democrat on the committee. "Robin Hood is turning in his grave," Rahall told the committee. "America's natural resource heritage will be placed at risk under this legislation." Some contend increased offshore drilling can ease America's dependence on foreign energy sources. (Photo courtesy U.S. Minerals Management Service) The nation is in desperate need of additional domestic sources of energy and would be foolish not to use natural resources found on federal public lands, according to Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, a Republican from California. "Energy is the foundation of the U.S. economy," Pombo said. "With troops in Iraq, it makes sense to boost our energy security." "More and more of our energy will come from lands and waters owned by the federal government because that is where it is." The committee approved the "House Energy Security Act of 2003" by a vote of 32 to 14. The bill is an important piece of a broader energy plan being crafted in the House. The Senate is drafting a similar plan. A slew of Democratic amendments to water down some of the industry incentives in the bill were easily defeated, and Republicans managed to further extend the bill's royalty relief for deep drilling on previously issued shallow water leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The Bush administration recently announced its intent to encourage development of deep drilling on existing shallow water wells in the Gulf. Royalty relief is also provided for deep offshore well leases in the Gulf and off the coast of Alaska. How much money this could cost the federal government in lost or deferred revenues has not yet been fullly determined, but Democrats contend these measures are simple industry giveaways. "We can no longer afford to give such outrageous giveaways to the oil and gas industry," said Representative Ron Kind, a Wisconsin Democrat. A 2002 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate on the existing deep water royalty holiday alone would offset royalty receipts by some $91 million between 2002 and 2011. And CBO estimates that royalty relief for marginal properties would reduce royalties by some $491 million over the next 10 years. West Virginia Representative Nick Rahall, a Democrat, says the House bill is a premised on a "drill at taxpayer expense" approach to resource management. (Photo courtesy Representative Nick Rahall's office) Republicans say the industry would not attempt further offshore oil and gas development without these incentives and argue that the nation's economic slump will be sustained without increased domestic energy. "We have to offset the risk involved in extremely costly ventures," said Representative Billy Tauzin, a Louisiana Republican. There is additional financial relief for oil and gas companies within the bill. One provision would require the federal government to reimburse oil companies that reclaim orphaned gas and oil wells. Another requires the government to reimburse oil and gas lease holders for the costs of completing required studies mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill limits the timeframe for states to appeal federal decisions on offshore oil and gas leasing development under the Coastal Zone Management Act. California Representative George Miller, a Democrat, tried to amend this provision, which sets a 180 day deadline for the Secretary of Commerce to make a final appeal decision. The measure "walks all over state's rights," Miller said. Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is a key provision within the bill. ANWR has become one of the nation's keystone environmental issues, as many contend drilling in the refuge would shatter its pristine and fragile ecosystem. A Senate attempt to open ANWR was defeated last month by a vote of 52 to 48. "Not to drill [in ANWR] is wrong for this nation," said Alaska Representative Don Young, a Republican. "We need that oil." Democrats contend that drilling in the Arctic will cause irreparable harm. (Photo courtesy Arctic Power) Young told Democrats on the committee who challenged this provision to "quit listening to the rhetoric of interest groups." Massachusetts Representative Ed Markey, a Democrat, pointed out that the ANWR language calls for a 50/50 split of lease revenues between the federal government and the state of Alaska, something Alaskan officials have indicated is not acceptable. And the nation should embrace increased energy efficiency, Markey said, before it "ruins the crown jewel of the National Wildlife Refuge System." Drilling in ANWR will "cause some environmental damage," said Pombo. "But there has to be a balance between today's needs, today's technology and tomorrow's technology and ANWR is part of that." Other measures in the bill would lifts limits on how many acres oil and coal companies can lease, a move that Democrats contend will further monopolize these industries and could increase energy prices for some consumers. The bill would also streamline approval of hydroelectric dams and some $500 million in grants to the biomass industry over the next 10 years are tucked into the bill. It mandates the use of the byproducts of federal efforts to thin forests on public lands. Republicans contend that coal producers need incentives to encourage further development. (Photo courtesy Illinois State Geological Survey) "Some argue we can not have an energy policy without hurting our environment," Pombo said. "I disagree." At the core of a very partisan debate is how best to address the nation's growing energy consumption. Democrats are keen to push ahead with measures to reduce consumption and encourage renewable energy sources. Republicans contend that the nation's economy is closely tied to the availability of cheap energy and they believe fossil fuels must be the key component of the energy plan. Wind and solar energy have good potential, said Nevada Representative Jim Gibbons, a Republican. "But 10 years from now it will be too late for many of our communities and our economy." ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying! http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/9bTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
