Tsongas Rebukes Drilling on Conservation Land

Press Release

Today, Congresswoman Niki Tsongas discussed the negative environmental impact of drilling in one of America's most expansive conservation land preserves, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Tsongas discussed the issue of Alaska drilling and the importance of petroleum reduction initiatives at a hearing of The Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, entitled, Energy Independence: Domestic Opportunities to Reverse California's Growing Dependence on Foreign Oil.

The late husband of Congresswoman Tsongas, Senator Paul Tsongas, worked in conjunction with Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska to pass the Alaska Lands Act, which sought to protect the vast quantities of unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational values in ANWR.

Republican leadership has since cited drilling in ANWR as a potential new source of oil for the state of California, even though reports have shown California expects to see petroleum use reduced by up to 26% by 2022.

Below please find the Congresswoman's remarks as prepared for delivery

I do not represent California here in Congress, but I am troubled that one of the issues raised in the summary of this hearing by the Majority is a call for drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

My husband, Senator Paul Tsongas, working with Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, was instrumental in passing the Alaska Lands Act, one of our most significant land conservation measures, seeking to preserve unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values, among other goals. The vision and importance of that momentous legislation is equally critical today. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is a national treasure. It covers over 19 million acres in northeast Alaska and is home to caribou herds, polar bears, gray wolves, and numerous other animal and plant species unique to the region.

The United States Congress has consistently--and often on a bipartisan basis--re-buffed attempts to drill for oil in ANWR, recognizing its huge ecological value.

The Majority's belief that ANWR is to be a potential new source of oil for California is short-sighted and completely unnecessary to meet California's energy needs.
Back in 2008, the Energy Information Administration did an analysis of full-scale development of ANWR. They found that ANWR would generate, at peak production in 20 years, about 780,000 barrels of oil per day, affecting the price of a barrel of oil by less than a dollar.

Over the past 10 years, approximately 40 percent of Alaska's oil has gone to California. So, with additional drilling California might see an extra 300,000 barrels a day.

Mr. Olson, I believe California uses about 1.7 million barrels a day of petroleum -- does that sound right to you? And with the policies California has in place, what sort of petroleum reduction have you seen and expect to see going forward?

So even if it's just 20 percent, that's almost 350,000 barrels a day that you're not using, which is more than the state could expect to receive from production in ANWR.

It seems to me that California has the right idea. You fully implement these policies, and you save energy, you save money, you emit fewer greenhouse gases, you improve air quality, and you don't have to destroy the pristine environment of our Arctic wilderness. Drilling in ANWR will provide no solutions to California, or our nation as a whole.

Source