What BOEM really said about Arctic development
May 19, 2015
ICYMI: There’s been lots of misinformation out there about what the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has said about the safety of offshore Arctic development in Alaska. Let the attached fact sheet from BOEM set the record straight – it is not accurate to say there is a 75 percent chance of an oil spill from Shell’s Arctic exploration. Period.
The fact is that Alaska has a long history of safe and responsible oil and natural gas production in the Arctic. Some 35 wells have been drilled in Alaska’s Arctic waters since the 1980s. But you wouldn’t know that by listening to the opponents of oil production who claim Arctic drilling can’t be done safely. Hogwash.
To date, Alaska has produced and shipped more than 17 billion barrels of Arctic oil through the trans-Alaska oil pipeline. We’re already producing oil from federal waters at the Northstar field, which was discovered in 1984 and has produced more than 150 million barrels of oil since 2001.
And our state – with an estimated 46 billion barrels of conventional oil reserves and 430 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves – has much more to offer the nation. Studies suggest that increased leasing and development in Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi seas and in Cook Inlet could, by 2035, create nearly 840,000 jobs, raise more than $200 billion in revenue for the government and increase U.S. energy production by 3.5 million barrels.
Even President Obama agrees that Alaska production is good for America: “I would rather us – with all the safeguards and standards that we have – be producing our oil and gas, rather than importing it, which is bad for our people, but is also potentially purchased from places that have much lower environmental standards than we do.” – President Obama, May 14, 2015.
ICYMI: Commerce Updates Incorrect Oil Export Data
May 5, 2015
ICYMI: The Commerce Department has updated its database on U.S. trade statistics after erroneously reporting that U.S. producers had exported thousands of barrels of domestic crude oil to South Korea and Mexico in 2011-2012.
Chairman Murkowski’s energy committee staff noticed the error on the U.S. International Trade Commission's Interactive Trade DataWeb, which provides monthly data on national trade, including imports and exports and the balance of trade, and alerted the Census Bureau.
The Interactive Trade DataWeb incorrectly reported shipments of U.S. produced crude oil to South Korea in 2011, and to Mexico in 2011 and 2012.
While current law allows for the routine licensing of foreign re-exports from the United States to other countries, exports of crude oil produced in the United States are generally prohibited. Alaska oil production is exempted from the export ban, but no exports from Alaska occurred in 2011.
At our request, the Census Bureau reviewed the Mexico data for December 2014, and of the South Korea data for March 2015. The reviews were completed in March and April of this year, respectively, and concluded that the data had been incorrectly entered.
All of the shipments tagged as “crude oil” were actually exports of petroleum products or chemical products, which are allowed under the law. Commerce has revised the database.
The corrections are an important reminder that any analysis is only as good as the reliability of the underlying data. The attached PDFs show the corrected data.
ICYMI: Kick the Bucket: Health implications of Third World conditions in Alaska (KNBA)
Apr 30, 2015
ICYMI: Life in rural Alaska can be unimaginable for many who have never seen its beauty or its challenges. Our state’s nearly 300 remote villages, scattered over an area more than twice the size of Texas, are strongholds of traditional culture and community spirit, but in many the residents lack access to basic infrastructure, face exorbitant energy costs, and have few economic opportunities. Imagine having no running water and using a white five-gallon bucket with a heavy duty trash-bag liner for a toilet. Now imagine that scenario while raising children.
Alaska public radio station KNBA has been running a series on the social and health costs of living without the basics that most Americans take for granted. Take a look: the series offers a glimpse at the challenges many Alaskans grapple with every day. It also highlights one of the main reasons we stress the importance of listening to Alaskans when it comes to federal policies that limit our ability to create economic opportunities from the state’s vast energy and mineral resources on the 62 percent of Alaska under federal management. - Dillon
Kick the Bucket: Health implications of Third World conditions in Alaska (KNBA)
CDC studies show Alaskans without plumbing get invasive pneumococcal infections up to 11 times more often than other Alaskans. In Southwest Alaska, where 40 percent of the homes lack plumbing, one in four infants is hospitalized for severe respiratory infection.
By Joaqlin Estus, KNBA - Anchorage | April 28, 2015
You don’t have to go to a foreign country to find Third World conditions. You can find more than six percent of Alaskans living in those conditions – without modern running water or sewer systems.
The so-called “honey bucket” situation has frequently been deplored and millions of federal and state dollars have been devoted to dealing with it. But the reality remains that people in 3,300 households in the state live without running water and flush toilets and have much higher rates of hospitalization for respiratory and skin infections. Are there solutions? Maybe? Are we getting closer to those solutions? Maybe not.
Today we begin a five-part series entitled “Kick the Bucket,” in which we’ll get a closer look at the water and sewer situation in rural Alaska. In part one, we look at the public health implication of inadequate water supplies.
Adolf Lupie of Tuntutuliak laughed as he advised caution “Make sure it’s not slippery around here or we’ll slip and the honey bucket will be over us.”
If you’re one of Kwethluk’s 750 residents, you’re 400 miles from the road system that serves Anchorage and Fairbanks, 120 miles from the Bering Sea, and near a branch of the Kuskokwim River. In the winter, this is how you get water for your household.
“You have to chip the ice away. You have to chip and chip, especially when it was really cold and the ice was thick,” said Claudia Hansen.
Until Hansen’s home gets hooked up to a new piped water and sewer system, her son continues to haul ice from the Kwethluk River. Once it melts and the silt settles, it’s ready to use — and drink.
Fifty miles up the Kuskokwim River, in Tuntutuliak, Lucy Lupie says fetching water is a young man’s job.
“Since my husband is getting older, it is harder for him to get ice,” said Lupie.
Alaskans without plumbing also collect rainwater, or buy water at a central watering point, often carrying home 5-gallon jugs weighing about 40 pounds each. After all that effort, people use water sparingly – as little as two gallons per person per day. Fifteen gallons a day is considered necessary to stay clean, and the average American uses 80 to 100 gallons of water a day. One way villagers conserve water is by sharing a basin of soapy water for hand washing.
Especially for little ones, this can foster respiratory infections, as Kivalina Community Health Aide Isabell Booth explains.
“A lot of respiratory illness,” said Booth. “We had a lot of pneumonia and bronchiolitis in like two and under.”
In Northwest Alaska, Kivalina gets its water from a river, and sometimes can’t get enough to last all year. Booth says she sees the effects when the water tanks are closed.
“Every time our water gets low when they shut down, I start to see abscess, skin problems like abscess start coming around and go on for probably a month or two to where they have to be treated with antibiotic,” said Booth.
When people can’t use outhouses due to permafrost or boggy ground, for instance, they use a bucket fitted with a toilet seat, a “honey bucket,” which gets emptied every day — or so. In Tuntutuliak, Adolf Lupie carries his family honey-bucket down a boardwalk leading to an underground bunker. He laughs as he advises caution.
“Make sure it’s not slippery around here or we’ll slip and the honey bucket will be over us.”
After emptying the bucket, and back indoors, Lupie says it’s worse when it’s warmer.
“When the spring time comes, it’s really gross and smelly,” he said.
People are frustrated but most say they wouldn’t move just to have plumbing. Many villagers have strong ties, like Lucy Lupie who says she doesn’t know who she’d socialize with in larger communities.
“It’s where our relatives are,” said Lupie. “Like if I was in the city, where would I turn to for help or even to socialize?”
And, many rural communities have thrived for centuries because they’re ideally situated for food gathering. Stanley Hawley, of Kivalina, says he’s driven by the imperative, and rewards, of supporting his family with food from nature.
“Once we get exposed to that livelihood, that way of living, it gets ingrained in our spirit, and in our soul, and in our psyche,” said Hawley.
Health experts say near-universal piped water and sewer is one of, if not the most important American public health achievement of the 20th century. It helped cut U.S. mortality rates by 40 percent, and raise life expectancy from 47 to 63 years. Later we’ll hear about some of the reasons so many Alaskans still live without plumbing
ICYMI: The Oil Export Ban - A Relic of the 1970s (WSJ)
Apr 30, 2015
ICYMI: The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by John Hess on Friday in favor of ending the 40-year prohibition on exporting most U.S. crude oil production. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has long advocated for lifting the export ban. In a speech to energy leaders last week, Sen. Murkowski said it was time to overhaul outdated policies, including the export ban. “The United States has a general prohibition – a 'ban' – on exports of domestic crude oil. To me, this equates to a sanctions regime against ourselves,” Murkowski said last week. “It hurts American producers, who have to sell oil at a significant discount to Brent, and it hurts American consumers, whose prices at the pump are higher than they would otherwise be.”
- Dillon
The Oil Export Ban: A Relic of the 1970s (WSJ)
Lifting it would help keep rigs running and workers working—and it would even lower gas prices at the pump.
By JOHN HESS
April 25, 2015
While one can debate the reasons for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries’ decision in November to continue flooding the oil markets, the fact is that this is squeezing many U.S. shale oil producers out of business. Oil prices have dropped by 50% in the past six months, and crude oil inventories in the U.S. have grown from 350 million barrels last year to more than 480 million barrels today.
Part of the reason inventory has ballooned is that crude produced in the U.S. is literally trapped here, because American firms are not allowed to sell it overseas. An antiquated rule bans crude oil exports from the lower 48 American states, even though producers could earn $5-$14 more per barrel by selling on the world market. At this moment the U.S. government is considering lifting sanctions on Iranian crude oil exports. Why not lift the self-imposed “sanctions” on U.S. crude exports that have been in place for the past four decades?
The export ban is a relic of a previous era, put in place around the time of the 1973 Arab oil embargo against the U.S., when Washington thought very differently about ensuring America’s energy needs. Other measures related to the 1973 embargo, such as price controls and rationing, were eliminated decades ago, as policy makers realized that they impeded, rather than aided, American energy security. But the ban on crude oil exports persists.
There is no defensible justification for the continued ban on the export of U.S. crude oil. Some hold a misplaced fear that the price of gasoline at the pump would rise if our crude were able to be exported, but the opposite is true. Gasoline prices in the U.S. are correlated to the global price of crude oil. Repealing the export ban would increase global oil supplies, which would put downward pressure on prices and therefore help lower U.S. gasoline prices, as numerous studies, including ones by the Brookings Institution and IHS, have shown.
The U.S. already exports more than 3.5 million barrels a day of refined products such as gasoline and diesel fuel. American producers export natural gas and soon liquefied natural gas as well. Why not crude oil? The U.S. is the only major oil-producing country in the world that bans the export of crude, putting U.S. producers at a competitive disadvantage. No other industry is treated this way. Jobs are being lost and investments cut. The number of operating rigs has already dropped to 932 rigs from 1,900 in September. One Forbes analyst suggests the oil and gas industry has shed 75,000 jobs worldwide, most of those in the U.S. At Hess, our company has reduced our rig count in the Bakken oil basin in North Dakota from 17 a year ago to eight today to preserve our financial strength.
The key point is that what is good for shale energy is also good for the U.S. economy. “Lifting the ban on crude oil exports from the United States will boost U.S. economic growth, wages, employment, trade and overall welfare,” two scholars with the Brookings Institution, Charles Ebinger and Heather L. Greenley, wrote last year.
Ten years ago, almost no one would have predicted America’s transformation into an energy powerhouse. But the shale revolution has been a great success, buoying the national and state economies, filling tax coffers, and cutting energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions by more than 10% since 2007 as natural gas replaces coal in electricity generation. The U.S. shale industry employs two million people, about 25% of the jobs created since the 2008 financial crisis. Shale firms invest about $100 billion a year, or about 7% of our country’s total annual capital investment. Any shakiness in this sector will cause serious headwinds for the economy as a whole. We need to act now.
While the U.S. cannot control global oil prices, it can allow American oil producers to compete on a level playing field. The government could lift the federal ban on crude exports, eliminating a hardship and allowing the industry to get back on its feet. All it would take is a presidential executive order or an act of Congress.
Thanks to the boom in shale oil, the U.S. has become an energy powerhouse. It is time to start acting like one by giving the green light to crude oil exports.
Mr. Hess is CEO of the oil and gas company Hess Corp.
ICYMI: In Pitch to End Crude Export Ban, Drillers Promise Cheaper Fuel (Bloomberg)
Apr 30, 2015
ICYMI: Multiple studies have shown that lifting the ban on exporting U.S. crude oil would lower the Brent or international benchmark price of oil, which is the price used to set U.S. gasoline prices. It would also provide American companies with a powerful incentive to increase production, further reducing U.S. dependence on oil from the Middle East.
We have seen analysis from the Government Accountability Office, EIA, Brookings Institution, Heritage Foundation, Council on Foreign Relations, Center for Strategic & International Studies, Cato Institute, Aspen Institute, Center for New American Security, Resources for the Future, Peterson Institute for International Economics, ICF International, IHS, NERA, and more.
The respected research firm IHS found that ending the ban would have wide-ranging benefits to the economy:
The US oil system is nearing “Gridlock” with the mismatch between the rapid growth of light tight oil and the inability of the US refining system to economically process these growing volumes. Lifting the export ban and allowing free trade will, in our base case, increase US production—from 8.2 million B/D currently to 11.2 million B/D—and add investment of nearly $750 billion. The resulting increase in domestic oil production would be so great that it would cut the US oil import bill by an average of $67 billion per year….
The increased economic activity resulting from the rise in crude production would support an average of 394,000 additional US jobs over the 2016-2030 period, with highs of 811,000 additional jobs supported in 2017 and a peak of 964,000 jobs in 2018. The average disposable income per household would increase by an additional $391 in 2018 as benefits from increased investment, additional jobs and lower gasoline prices are passed along to consumers. - IHS Crude Oil Export Special Report.
And then there’s the report by the Brookings Institution, which found that lifting the ban on crude oil exports from the United States will boost U.S. economic growth, wages, employment, trade and overall welfare.
Finally, a number of reports have focused on the foreign policy and national security benefits of allowing U.S. oil production to compete openly on the world market.
Lifting oil export restrictions will yield a variety of security dividends to the United States. These include stoking U.S. oil production growth, which will strengthen the U.S. economy and better support the ability of our nation to play a strong leadership role on international security and economic affairs. Stimulating U.S. oil production growth also expands energy security by increasing global oil supply from a stable producer, via maritime transit routes free from the threat of conflict. … Another significant security benefit associated with lifting oil export restrictions is the greater flexibility this will provide to impose energy sanctions in the future. - Michele Flournoy, Center for New American Security.
In Pitch to End Crude Export Ban, Drillers Promise Cheaper Fuel (Bloomberg)
http://bloom.bg/1P9t8vi
The oil industry has a new sales pitch for you: Support efforts to lift the 40-year-old ban on U.S. crude oil exports, and reap the reward of cheaper gasoline.
If you’re dubious, you’re not the only one. And that’s the challenge for critics of the export ban, who know they won’t get anywhere unless they can persuade consumers to come on board.
The politics are clear. Because voters think the ban saves them money at the pump, most lawmakers won’t touch it. The industry’s top leaders and Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, the Republican chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, hope to offset that idea using reports from the Brookings Institution and the U.S. government that say the opposite is true.
“As long as lawmakers are fearful that there will be political retribution because of the price at the pump, it’s going to be hard to get the votes we need to lift the ban,” Murkowski told the industry’s largest annual conference in Houston last week.
Murkowski, who plans to bring a bill forward this year to overturn the ban, was part of a full-court press at the conference that included some of the wildcatters who sparked the shale revolution, including Harold Hamm of Continental Resources Inc. and John Hess of Hess Corp. With storage tanks brimming, the ban is emerging as a major policy battleground.
Critics say the 1975 ban is a relic of an era in which an OPEC embargo could bring a foreign oil-dependent American economy to its knees. They argue it’s out of sync with a free-trading nation that has overtaken Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world’s largest oil and natural gas producer.
Iran Sanctions
“At a time when the U.S. government is considering lifting sanctions on Iranian crude oil exports, it’s high time that we lift the self-imposed sanctions on U.S. crude exports,” Hess told attendees at the IHS CERAWeek conference in Houston. “Our crude oil is trapped here with no relief in sight.”
A poll released in December by Reuters/Ipsos showed 77 percent of voters thought oil produced domestically should be used at home to make U.S. gasoline prices cheaper. The Brookings Institution, in an analysis released in September, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in an October report, both concluded that ending the ban would lead to lower pump prices.
And perhaps not surprisingly, the reason, like just about everything else related to energy in the U.S. these days, goes back to the astounding growth of shale oil production.
International Price
The amount paid by U.S. consumers for gasoline is closely linked to the international price of oil. If the ban was lifted, and crude stockpiles in the U.S. were suddenly pushed into markets abroad, the international price of oil would fall and gasoline would likely follow suit, the two reports concluded.
While the argument has been verified repeatedly by people in the know, explaining it in a 30-second sound bite has been tough, according to Continental’s Hamm.
When the industry began pushing the idea on Capitol Hill, “people thought it was almost unbelievable,” Hamm told the audience in Houston last week. “It’s going to take a little while to change the mindset of Americans.”
Refiners’ Views
At the same time, the idea is being undermined by U.S. refiners, who want domestic crude to remain at home. Jay Hauck, executive director of the CRUDE Coalition, which is comprised of four independent U.S. refineries, has pushed to keep the ban.
“It doesn’t make economic sense for the producers at the wellhead to get an extra $1 or $2 a barrel and somehow, at the receiving end. users are going to pay less,” Hauck said in a telephone interview.
From the outset, there have been exceptions to the ban. Producers can ship crude to Canada, as long as it’s used within the country and Alaskan oil can be sent out via the Trans-Alaskan pipeline.
Last year, drillers were granted permission to ship abroad lightly processed crude, known as condensate. That’s raised hopes within the industry that the government is at least open to thinking about whether the ban could be lifted. Such exceptions may soon become broad enough to sail a supertanker through.
ICYMI: The U.S. Needs to End Its Ban on Crude Oil Exports
Apr 14, 2015
Original article appeared in Foreign Policy Magazine
A crisis flares in the Middle East. Russian military forces subjugate a nation desperate for freedom. Europe searches for new sources of energy.
Such was the situation in 1956. War raged over the Suez Canal, blocking shipping for half a year, and a crucial pipeline from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea was sabotaged. Meanwhile, the Hungarian people rose up against their communist oppressors in October, precipitating a Soviet invasion days later. The Cold War turned hot and, as winter approached, American allies in Europe lost access to Middle Eastern oil.
President Dwight Eisenhower’s response was swift and resolute. Domestic oil production skyrocketed and shipments from the Gulf Coast stabilized world markets during this critical period, all to relieve what the press termed“Europe’s oil famine.” A study by the Rand Corporation in 1962 noted, “Both economically and politically (as was seen at the time of Suez), Europe’s essential energy needs involve the United States and other Western Hemisphere suppliers.” By July 1957, the crisis was over. American energy had come to the rescue.
Today, U.S. allies are once again under threat and, once again, our nation’s resource abundance places us in a position to render vital assistance.
Some of America’s oldest allies are heavily reliant on incredibly unappealing sources of oil. The International Energy Agency estimates that in 2012 the United Kingdom depended on Russia for some 12 percent of its crude oil imports, a relatively modest proportion when compared to the Netherlands (31 percent) and Poland (96 percent). All told, Russian barrels account for approximately one-third of European Union imports. Meanwhile, Italy — a refining giant in its own right — receives some 21 percent of its imported crude from Libya, one of the most unstable producers in the world. Other key partners — India, Japan, and South Korea — bank on steady access to the Middle East for some two-thirds of their oil imports, and even continue to purchase Iranian petroleum under the sanctions regime.
We can fix this, but it requires action. For more than 40 years, U.S. laws have tightly restricted crude oil exports. This regulatory architecture is a decrepit edifice that must be modernized. Sales of U.S. crude oil are uniquely prohibited by outdated statutes and regulations. Full congressional repeal of these restrictions would still duly preserve the emergency authority of the executive branch to intervene in cases of national security. Oil export policy may be liberalized without infringing on the president’s emergency powers, which derive from entirely separate laws.
The benefits to global security of allowing oil shipments to our trading partners are obvious and indisputable. Our friends in Asia, eager to comply with Western sanctions against Iran, would have a new alternative source for their energy needs.
European allies, struggling to diversify away from Russia, would be able to receive U.S. domestic oil almost immediately. Unlike liquefied natural gas projects, which take years to build and cost billions of dollars, large-scale infrastructure is not necessary for the oil trade.
Allowing American companies to compete with Russian and Iranian energy will also decrease the revenues currently enjoyed by the mullahs in Tehran and Vladimir Putin in Moscow. All of this can be done without touching sanctions. Any environmental impact would also be negligible, as American oil is produced under some of the strictest safeguards on the planet.
The executive branch retains the authority, explicitly delegated by the legislative branch, to allow for shipments of domestic oil. This would be consistent with the White House’s 2015 National Security Strategy, which calls to “promote diversification of energy fuels, sources, and routes.” The president may make exemptions “based on the purpose for export, class of seller or purchaser, country of destination, or any other reasonable classification or basis,” as provided for in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. Companies may submit applications, and the Commerce Department will consider them “on a case-by-case basis,” according Part 754 of the Export Administration Regulations, known as the Short Supply Controls. With production and storage at record highs, crude oil is arguably no longer in “short supply.”
Past administrations led by presidents from both parties — Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton — used executive authority to boost exports of refined products or crude oil when market conditions warranted. Should President Barack Obama make such a determination today, he would have our full support.
The United States is producing more energy today than at any point in its history. There is simply no reason — legal, political or economic — for our nation to refuse to sell energy to our friends and allies. We have played this role before and can do so again.
ICYMI: PEMEX Negotiating Crude Swaps With Eagle Ford, Bakken Producers
Mar 31, 2015
Petroleos Mexicanos “completely ready to start operating the swap,” negotiating with light-crude producers as co. awaits permit from U.S. Commerce Dept, PMI CEO Jose Manuel Carrera says in a phone interview.
- Pemex to sell directly to U.S. refiners that can process heavy crude to avoid reselling of Mexican crude.
- Pemex negotiating light-crude imports with producers in Eagle Ford, Bakken and Permian Basin.
- Mexico negotiating prices to import as much as 100k b/d, Carrera said.
- Light crude to be received at Pajaritos, Dos Bocas ports, which have enough capacity to handle imports, Carrera said.
NOTE: Commerce Dept has to approve swap due to existing ban on U.S. crude exports.
ICYMI: Our land video - Ketchikan Daily News
Mar 24, 2015
The Ketchikan Daily News on Sunday ran an editorial on an effort by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to educate the denizens of Capitol Hill and beyond on the challenges Alaskans face in developing a healthy economy in a state that only joined the Union 56 years ago and that is still largely controlled by the decisions of distant federal land managers. The Obama administration continues to burden Alaska with land withdrawals, including 23 million acres placed off limits in January alone. Sen. Murkowski’s video and the editorial are below.
Our land video
Ketchikan Daily News opinion
Sen. Lisa Murkowski has taken Alaska's economic situation to YouTube; it might be the perfect venue.
With all of the young people in tune with YouTube, the next generation might listen to a highly credible United States senator from Alaska and be sufficiently informed to correct the situation — at least not exacerbate it as they become the next generation of U.S. leaders.
The strength of Alaska's economy runs in tandem with development of its natural resources. Oil, gas, timber, minerals, fish — it's what Alaskans produce, harvest, mine or catch to make a living and fill the state coffers.
State and Native officials understand that. On the land and water they control, economic development is king. But that's only 39 percent of Alaska, the largest state, which is twice the size of the second largest and about a fifth of the United States territory.
The challenge for Alaskans is that the federal government controls nearly 61 percent of the state. Federal officials make it next to impossible to develop the resources, and the concern among Alaskans is that that isn't about to change for the better, and might get worse.
Murkowski labeled the YouTube video “ThisIsOurLand,” which explains the Alaska situation to the nation — or anybody who has Internet access.
The senator uses a color-coded map in the two-minute video to illustrate the breakdown of land ownership in Alaska.
Only one-quarter of 1 percent of Alaska is private land. If it weren't for the state's 27 percent and Alaska Natives' 12 percent, economic development would be nearly non-existent.
Much of the federal land is off limits to development, some is only lightly developed and restrictions impede development on other federally controlled land in Alaska. The tune coming out of Washington, D.C. is further restrictions and limitations.
The Obama administration has created an additional 12.2 million acres of wilderness in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, withdrawn 9.8 million additional acres from development in the Arctic's offshore, and removed half the National Petroleum Reserve from leasing for production, according to Murkowski.
The administration plans to set additional land off limits to development before the end of its second term, she says.
Alaskans aren't a threat to the land on which we live. But Obama's administration is very much one to Alaskans; to our economy and livelihoods.
The video briefly explains Alaska's land ownership and the economic limitations that come with not being allowed to develop the majority of the land, which is federally owned. It also should create an understanding of how low the probability of Alaska being exploited is and the lack of necessity to further limit land development in Alaska. A graphic, like a picture, can be worth 1,000 words.
Hopefully, the YouTube audience will be open-minded to the message.
ICYMI: New Study Makes the Case for Crude Oil Exports
Mar 17, 2015
ICYMI: A new study (attached below), from the respected research firm IHS, shows that the current ban on American crude oil exports is having a chilling effect on investment, job creation and domestic oil production. Right now, America’s energy renaissance has spurred a dramatic increase in domestic oil production on state and private lands. The increased supply has meant lower oil prices and lower gasoline prices for American drivers. At the same time, restrictions on exporting excess oil that the U.S. market cannot absorb is forcing producers to limit exploration and lay-off workers, which is hurting the overall economy. Without the ability to export oil to other markets, production of American crude oil will eventually decline – raising prices once again.
Ending the current ban on crude oil exports would bring American crude oil to the world marketplace, which would in turn increase American crude oil production, keep energy prices affordable, and create new jobs.
Chairman Murkowski has long recognized the importance of ending the current ban on crude oil exports, which is why this Thursday the committee will hold a hearing that will examine the U.S. crude oil export policy.
Additional information on Sen. Murkowski’s position on energy exports and the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports is available on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources website. Details on Thursday’s hearing are available there as well.
ICYMI: And another thing on King Cove
Mar 12, 2015
ICYMI: One additional note today on King Cove. This quote from Secretary Jewell, which was at the end of this morning’s Energy Guardian story, is classic misdirection and speaks volumes to her lack of interest in helping the people of King Cove.
“To suggest that the Izembek refuge is the same as other lands acre for acre is inaccurate,” Jewell said. “There are many villages that struggle in the case of medical evacuations, and I appreciate that it is part of our job to work on that.” – Energy Guardian.
No one has suggested that the Izembek refuge is “the same as other lands acre to acre.” That’s why the offered land exchange was literally 300-to-1 in the refuge’s favor.
And while it’s true that “many villages struggle in the case of medical evacuations,” none are less than 20 miles from an all-weather airport. Absolutely none. And none are cut off from safe access to an all-weather airport because the federal government decided to designate their backyard as wilderness without consultation. The people of King Cove literally woke up one morning and found that an area their ancestors had stewarded for thousands of years was suddenly under new management.
Remember, Jewell said she rejected the road in December 2013 because “someone has to speak for the animals.” Below is a picture of the animals in Izembek the Interior Secretary claims to be protecting by denying the people of King Cove an 11-mile gravel, one-lane connector road with Cold Bay. We’re proud of our excellent hunting in Alaska, and Izembek certainly is a great place to hunt birds, but Jewell’s claim begs the question of exactly how much of a disturbance a road that’s reserved for emergencies would really cause?
Screen shot of a simple Google search for: “Izembek National Wildlife Refuge hunting.”
And in case you’ve forgotten the kind of conditions the people of King Cove have to deal with on a regular basis, here’s a video of a U.S. Coast Guard medevac from last February. Can you see the Helo? Neither can we. (God bless the Coasties.) More on King Cove is available on our website. - Dillon
(Click photo to play video)
Murkowski keeps up pressure on Jewell over Alaska road (Energy Guardian)
By Kevin Rogers
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee chair is renewing criticism of Interior Secretary Sally Jewell over her 2013 decision to reject construction of a medical access road through an Alaska wildlife refuge. And Sen. Lisa Murkowski is making a new push for the road to be built.
In a letter, the Alaska Republican blasted Jewell for lacking awareness of the total number of medical evacuations from the community of King Cove since the road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge was turned down. Jewell admitted that she wasn't aware of the exact number at an energy committee hearing last month.
“Compounding my frustration was your inability to name any concrete action that you have taken ¬– or intended to take – to protect the health and safety of the nearly 1,000 Alaskans who live in this isolated community,” Murkowski wrote.
The 11-mile extension to a gravel road would have connected King Cove to an all-weather airport in Cold Bay. Jewell ruled against the road after her department’s review found that it would damage the refuge and pose a threat to wildlife.
Murkowski, also chair of the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees Interior's funding, noted that 23 medical evacuations have taken place since the road was rejected, seven of them being carried out by the U.S. Coast Guard at a “very high cost to taxpayers” and at heavy risk for flight crews. She added that the road still remains the best option for evacuees.
“Whether operated by the Coast Guard or another agency, a helicopter base would be costly, dangerous, and infective at providing all-weather emergency medical transport,” Murkowski wrote.
Her letter was accompanied by a list detailing the 23 evacuations, a 2014 letter she sent to Jewell and a 2014 Coast Guard estimate of how much a permanent air base near King Cove would cost.
“As Secretary of the Interior, you have authority and responsibility to ensure that King Cove’s residents have reliable medical transport during emergencies caused by illness or injury,” she added. “I again urge you to make this one of your top priorities—and to work expeditiously toward what is now a long-overdue resolution.”
At a hearing last month, Jewell voiced sympathy for King Cove residents and pledged that Interior is working with the Army Corps of Engineers and the community to develop alternatives evacuation systems.
She also stood by her decision to reject the road, saying the Izembek land deserved to be protected.
“To suggest that the Izembek refuge is the same as other lands acre for acre is inaccurate,” Jewell said. “There are many villages that struggle in the case of medical evacuations, and I appreciate that it is part of our job to work on that.”
