WASHINGTON — The congressional super committee searching for ways to pare at least $1.2 trillion from the federal deficit should open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas drilling instead of increasing taxes, a top House Republican said Wednesday.
Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., the head of the House Natural Resources Committee, said he would make that ANWR recommendation to the 12-member panel, which holds its first public meeting today.
Under Congress’ debt ceiling deal, the newly created deficit reduction committee has until Nov. 23 to approve a plan to cut $1.2 trillion or more from the deficit over the next decade. If the committee fails to reach a compromise or it doesn’t pass Congress, automatic, across-the-board cuts in domestic and defense spending would start in 2013.
Since Republicans on the panel and in the House are unlikely to support any plan that hikes taxes to raise revenue, the lawmakers on the joint committee need to search for other solutions, Hastings noted.
“They need to find a means to increase revenue to the federal government without raising taxes (and) this is a logical extension of that,” Hastings said at a wide-ranging summit on energy-related jobs sponsored by The Hill newspaper and the American Petroleum Institute.
“Increasing American energy production is one of the easiest ways to generate federal revenue.”
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there are an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil harbored in the Arctic refuge’s coastal plain. At peak production, that could supply the U.S. with up to 1.45 million barrels of oil daily.
Hastings said over the life of production in the refuge, that could generate $150 billion to $296 billion in royalties to the federal government and translate to several billions in new revenue over the next 10 years.
But opening up ANWR is a political hot potato even in an ordinary year, and the 2012 presidential campaign is in full swing. Hastings’ idea is unlikely to gain much traction with the six Democratic members on the joint deficit-cutting committee, including Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who has been a vocal critic of allowing drilling in the region.
Environmentalists say the potential oil gains from drilling in ANWR would be small and aren’t worth the risks of damage to wildlife and habitat.
Hastings insisted his ANWR idea isn’t far-fetched and stressed that there may be a chance to build new support for the idea by capitalizing on recently high oil prices and motorists’ anger over costs at the pump.
“Maybe with the price of oil and where it is, the price of gasoline and where it is … some of these members will have an epiphany,” he said.
Oil and gas industry leaders generally supported Hastings’ plan.
“We have vast portions of this country – federal acreage – that is off limits to development, whether it’s ANWR or the OCS, or certain areas of the lower 48,” said Chevron CEO John Watson. “I think it’s important that all these areas be made available over time for energy development.”
Since other areas could provide similar revenue dollars to the federal government even if ANWR remains off limits, energy policy should be part of the super committee’s deficit-cutting work, Watson added.
“There is an opportunity for our industry to contribute both jobs and to deficit reduction through the activity that our industry conducts,” he said. “So I hope that energy policy will be considered (by the panel).”
American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said even modest steps to expand domestic drilling could help trim the deficit while bolstering the U.S. economy. API unveiled a study Wednesday touting the benefits of new drilling currently off-limits of the outer continental shelf, ANWR and other regions.
“Even some portion of that could make a significant contribution to our debt issues, job creation matters and energy security,” Gerard said.
More oil for China and Japan when ANWR is tapped. Why should oil companies build more pipelines when it will be easier to ship the oil to Chinese and Japanese ports. It’s all about profits.
Agreed, rat18! We must strive to both reduce the world’s supply of oil and business profits. This is the only way to simultaneously lower energy prices and increase employment!
A good chunk of Alaskan crude already goes to Japan.
Oil companies need to change their energy source and invest in huge programs of solar and wind energy, not more oil or gas. They have the money to do it and our country could be back in the competition. The only problem is that they tend to build American companies in other countries to take advantage of poor labor practices. Profits over patriotism is discusting.
The reason oil and gas still win is because of the cost. It is much cheaper to use oil and gas to supply our needs than any other source. When the other sources of energy can compete monetarily, you will see wider use. Is it fair to people who can’t afford gas to put in their cars now to force them to use even more expensive energy? If you are willing to subsidize their gas tank, then go for it, but leave me out of it. Am I willing to subsidize research for alternative energy sources? Sure, but even that has a limit since the free market can find it’s own way. Don’t you think if someone could find a way to make or harness energy cheaper they would be wealthy? This whole argument about alternative energy is a simple common sense argument. Follow the money…. When you’re willing to pay more, the alternative energy sources will come. Simple…
What was the name of the tanker that run aground in 1989? Exxon (something). Alot of the oil goes to refineries in the United States. Alot of people have it in their heads that the Oil produced in up North ends up in Japan or somewhere else but the United Sates. Get you facts straight.
Have a nice day!