Could a land swap solve the ANWR standoff?
posted at 11:30 am on August 24, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Congress has repeatedly refused to allow drilling on the 2,000 acres set aside for that purpose in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a tiny portion of tundra in a 19-million-acre preserve. That parcel had been created with the specific intent of extracting oil from the area when ANWR first received its federal protection, but environmentalists have continually blocked oil companies through other federal action. Sean Parnell, the Lieutenant Governor of Alaska, has a proposal to end federal oversight on that stretch of barren land:
Sean Parnell, lieutenant governor and a Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed a land swap as a way of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
“I propose a land swap of 2,000 acres of state land to the federal government in exchange for 2,000 acres of the coastal plain in ANWR into state hands,” Parnell said at a press conference Tuesday in Fairbanks.
Parnell said he could work with Gov. Sarah Palin and the administration to identify the 2,000 acres of state land that would be traded, perhaps extending a portion of ANWR by 2,000 acres.
Could this defuse the controversy? In a land swap, the federal government would not lose an inch of overall land. If Alaska offered adjoining land from an area with actual wildlife on it, it would serve to bolster the preserve’s actual mission. The state would then take responsibility for the parcel where oil extraction would take place, and Alaska would have little trouble overcoming any objections from state groups to get oil flowing as soon as possible from that spot.
Normally, Congress would not be likely to let go of such a potentially lucrative spot, nor would the opponents of drilling on ANWR be willing to stand aside as the parcel passes out of their control. However, the energy debate this year has had a significant effect on both Capitol Hill and the American electorate. The latter is angry over the former’s unwillingness to increase domestic production, and while voters remain ambivalent about ANWR, the momentum for drilling there has grown tremendously this summer.
A land swap would allow Congress to graciously eliminate ANWR as an ongoing issue. Enough Democrats in both chambers want to get this debate in their rear-view mirrors, and a land swap would allow them to save face, especially if it added more significant preserve space to ANWR. Parnell may have a compromise that will allow everyone, perhaps even the environmentalists, to declare a victory on ANWR. (via Instapundit)
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Graciously, almost never comes to mind when talking about liberals but hopefully there is enough heat on Washington to make this viable.
Cindy Munford on August 24, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Better idea…
Use the States Emminent Domain power, and SEIZE the land.
It was set aside for a specific purpose, as mandated by Congress, and it is NOT being used for that purpose… thus the Feds should LOOSE that land….
Romeo13 on August 24, 2008 at 11:38 AM
It sounds like a solution rational people could agree on, but I don’t think the environmentalists are rational.
backwoods conservative on August 24, 2008 at 11:40 AM
It will not defuse the controversy. The problem with the proposal, from the environmentalist perspective, is that the 2,000 acres does not exist on one parcel. It is the sum of the land area for a number of smaller parcels, which would have to be connected with pipelines and other oil industry infrastructure.
Big S on August 24, 2008 at 11:43 AM
It might solve it from the feds perspective but the environmental loons want nothing short of driving the human race back to the Stone Age. If we want reasonable and cost effective energy the best place to start is by limiting access to the courts by environmental groups. The problem is that it’s a cash cow for lawyers and they are not about to let any of it go.
jmarcure on August 24, 2008 at 11:44 AM
I doubt it. The people who are opposed to American energy independence are not sane to begin with.
Guardian on August 24, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Make it 4000 acres. That way, the reserve actually grows in size, and it becomes that much harder for the environmentalists to object to losing that tiny portion.
jic on August 24, 2008 at 11:46 AM
In addition, I think we need a fence along the Southern US Border with Oil Rigs stationed every 100 yeard upon which Border agents can sit to scope out the fence jumpers.
EJDolbow on August 24, 2008 at 11:51 AM
It just hit me: Three square miles. We’re talking about three square miles, or three sections of land, for those in the farming know. I deliver almost that much land in a single day. Sheesh.
bikermailman on August 24, 2008 at 11:52 AM
“Normally, Congress would not be likely to let go of such a potentially lucrative spot, nor would the opponents of drilling on ANWR be willing to stand aside as the parcel passes out of their control.”
Well, that’s really the problem isn’t it? Why should these clowns have control over this land?
perroviejo on August 24, 2008 at 11:52 AM
There is a lot of precedent for this at the state level. Where I used to live, Southwest Florida, a large condo development was being considered on Fla. “wetlands”. Confronted by environmentalists, they decided to swap out all of Little Pine Island with the condo development. It was actually really funny, because Little Pine Island, as its name indicates, was covered with pine trees. But pine trees are not indigenous in that area, so the deal was the condo developer had to tear out all the pine trees and replace them with native greenery. It was weird to see hundreds of acres of trees cut down in the name of environmental protection.
Weight of Glory on August 24, 2008 at 11:57 AM
The government uses eminent domain only if the land is in private hands. Since ANWR is (I believe) government land, there’s no need to do that.
Frankly, I’ve never been fond of eminent domain, even if it’s concerning a private landowner refusing drill for the oil under his house. As a matter of policy, the government shouldn’t be going around forcing law-abiding landowners off their lands just to hand the lands over to big businesses. It just seems un-American to me.
NorthernCross on August 24, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Which is why he should replace that disgrace Don Young for Rep.-at-large for Alaska.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 24, 2008 at 12:12 PM
A practical idea if:Do the lands abut? Could wildlife move easily from one parcel to the other? Would the new habitat be so differnt from the old that some plant and animal species could not adapt? Would oil companies still be held to rigid drilling standards on the old 2000 acres that was traded? These are just a few of the many,many questions that will have to be hammered out before this thing actually happens I think.
jeanie on August 24, 2008 at 12:16 PM
You miss my point… the STATE has emminent domain power in and of itself…
So does the Fed… BUT… it would be interesting to see the STATE try to use emminent to seize it from the FED, since it is not being used for its stated intention…
As Economics have been used in the past and the Supremes have said that it is a good enough reason for Emminent… its a win- win… either the STATE looses, and emminent takes a hit… or the State wins, and we drill.
Romeo13 on August 24, 2008 at 12:16 PM
How about we give then San Francisco for ANWR?
PattyJ on August 24, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Only if we wall it off first. We wouldn’t want the local ‘wildlife’ to escape out into the general population.
trigon on August 24, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Sounds like a plan. Hope it works. But, Pelosi, et. al. won’t go for it.
CP on August 24, 2008 at 2:14 PM
A land swap is not the answer, a brain swap would be more apropos – from the lobotomized Democrats bent on reducing the country to third-world status, to those who understand the thought process required to move the country forward.
Oil is the engine that make the country work and prosper, but the Democrat thought process thinks only of the next election by pandering to the left’s environmentalists and blogs for maintaining their cash flow.
The success of the country is the Democrat’s lowest priority.
pocomoco on August 24, 2008 at 2:26 PM
That’s just it. The enviro left has become more interested in controlling our daily lives by controlling our energy use than anything to do with preserving the quality of our environment. To this end, the left has become committed to a no-growth energy policy. The only energy sources they’ll agree to develop are those remotest from economic feasibility, such as wind and solar (rather than nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, etc.).
But still this is an offer that should be pursued, as it will spotlight the fraud of the carbonazis when they refuse it.
petefrt on August 24, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Super.
I wish these solutions would stop popping up. This is best left as a wedge for the elections.
drjohn on August 24, 2008 at 2:45 PM
If the real issue was protection of wildlife, this would be a viable proposition but the real issue is the blocking of oil production. Since this proposal would allow oil production, it will not be looked upon favorably by those who have been putting roadblock after roadblock in the path to the development of this resource. It will only serve to expose them for what they really are, using wildlife as a “shield” to prevent drilling but they won’t care because everyone knows that is the game anyway.
How long has drilling been going on in neighboring Prudhoe Bay without a single environmental “disaster”? Also, people have an obsolete vision of oil production. They have visions of a forest of derricks as was common in the first half of the 20th century. These days many wells can be driven in many different direction from one location. You can easily have a dozen wells from one central rig, each one going off in a different direction. We are probably talking less than 10% of the surface impact for the same amount of production was was the case in the 1950′s. And when you have fewer rigs, you have less chance for accident. If one in a thousand rigs has a spill per year, if you have a thousand rigs, you have one spill per year. If you have 100 rigs, you have one spill every ten years.
And as for offshore … more oil seeps naturally off the coast of California’s Coal Oil Point in one month than was spilled from ALL North American offshore drilling over the entire decade of the 1990′s.
People have no idea of what they are afraid of, they are subjected to this constant drumbeat of misinformation that oil production is dirty and destroys the environment. It doesn’t. It is about the cleanest, most environmentally friendly mining activity there is on this planet.
crosspatch on August 24, 2008 at 3:36 PM
For the centrists and rationals it will. And this is genius, there are far more of them then there are extreme environmentalists. For them, “They’re doing to the caribou what they did to the Native Americans!”
- The Cat
P.S. I just wish someone would point out the staggering amount of Caribou in Canada.
MirCat on August 24, 2008 at 3:57 PM
The only land swap the boobs in our congress would agree to is one where we give ANWR to another country, and they get to drill on it instead of us. It’s pointless to hope anyone is going to do the right thing about this.
austinnelly on August 24, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Brilliant idea. I don’t expect the environazis to give up that easily, though.
flutejpl on August 24, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Article I Section 8:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…
Where does the constitution give congress the power to lock up state lands? This is all I can find that even comes close.
Akzed on August 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM
I believe that if the land already was designated “federal lands” under the management of the BLM, it is trivial to transfer it to the DOI.
crosspatch on August 24, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Constitution, we don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution.
Johan Klaus on August 24, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Sorry, Ed. I think the leftists will block this to the degree they can. They want the debate over, sure; but they really want what they want–which is “no drilling.” They can end the “debate” with the “fairness doctrine,” or just outlast it. If they allowed this to go forward, it would be blatantly obvious that they were allowing drilling with this land swap idea, and their enviro-fascist supporters would scream to high-heaven. I don’t think this is going anywhere. If I’m wrong, I’ll be pleasantly surprised.
urbancenturion on August 24, 2008 at 11:51 PM
crosspatch @ 3:36 pm said:
They don’t want a single rig with many wells (octopus like, but underground) and they do want wind farms. Wind farms have to be “a forest of wind turbines” and can NOT be utilized from a “many to one” relationship as described above.
Besides, wind turbines can kill migratory birds.
kimsch on August 25, 2008 at 12:20 AM
The purpose of ANWR has mutated. It’s no longer about protecting wildlife, it’s new mission is to prevent the drilling of oil at all costs.
MarkTheGreat on August 25, 2008 at 7:20 AM
It is silly to give the opponents of ANWR drilling the benefit of the doubt for good intentions. They don’t object to drilling in ANWR. They object to any drilling, anywhere, any time for any reason. They are opposed to anyone burning fossil fuels, but not because of concerns for pollution. Opposition to drilling = power to them, even if it’s just dog-in-the-manger power, and they won’t surrender it voluntarily. They’ll have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, off off the shores of ANWR. Fortunately, Alaska is full of Oil men who are capable and eager to do the dragging.
Immolate on August 25, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Alaskans get dividends from oil, to the tune of about $2,000 a year I think. But, its their state, they should certainly have a say in how it is utilized, even if this is federally owned land. I think that this idea is really not that big a deal, because it isn’t the land the environmentalists care about, its just the drilling *anywhere*.
Environmentalists oppose drilling because they think any drilling would negatively impact the environment there. Throw in the hype that the radical groups spout and you have a lot of people that “care about the environment” thinking that this is just a big land grab that will result in massive environmental destruction and huge losses in animal population. My sister and I had a 3 hour discussion about this Sunday, and I got to hear first hand the kind of crap that radical environmental/animal rights groups try and scare people with.
Just as reference, ANWR is 19.8M (that’s Million) square acres, and the area 1002 (1.5M acres) was set aside specifically for the purpose of investigating oil resources for drilling. Of that area, only 2000 acres would be used. And, in case no one knew it, the largest oil field in North America, Prudhoe Bay, is just 100 miles west of ANWR. Prudhoe Bay says that their Porcupine/Artic Caribou population has grown seven-fold in the 25 years of its operation. If the area is going to be ruined by drilling, Prudhoe Bay would have already ruined it.
Does anyone have any recent studies/figures on the suspected recoverable oil supply in ANWR? I think that the OCS is something like 90B barrels, but the only studies I could find on ANWR were from 1998 and looked like it would be anywhere from 4-14B barrels…doesn’t seem like as good as investment as OCS drilling if so.
Geministorm on August 25, 2008 at 11:17 AM
First off you are wrong. Dividens are part of the Stock market and commodities base. There is a very interesting way of how Alaskans get our Perm Funds. This year we expect it to be over 2K, but that is DUE to interest off Stocks, Bonds and Commodities that is also from an interest account that is managed into the Stocks etc.
Please ask before hand, do not speculate on the Perm Fund and Alaskans.
BLM is very wary about drilling and only permit very little. Most of Alaska is Federal Land, then State land then Private. Sean (my Lt Gov) has a great idea. Only problem is what does the BLM want to trade for it? And will the BLM trade fairly with the State of Alaska. We may “get” the trade BUT that doesn’t mean we will get the area we want where we know oil and gas are.
I have refered this many times. Go to the USGS in your area and ask for ANWR information.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
The link I have posted is a study of the 1950′s Study of ANWR. You can get a copy of it for yourself or order it. It is called the 305 publication. You will also have to ask for the whole series and they are expensive.
upinak on August 25, 2008 at 12:14 PM