Special Report

 

Industry hopes its centralized assets aren't in the crosshairs.

When the topic of U.S. energy security comes up, OPEC typically springs to mind. Sure enough, following the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, politicians and energy executives quickly rallied before the public for less reliance on oil supply from OPEC member nations, and for bolstering domestic energy production.

Some politicians saw the timing as perfect to promote the Bush administration's agenda to open environmentally sensitive areas-including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska-to oil and gas production. They pointed to the fact that, as of this past summer, the United States relied on imports for 57 percent of its oil supplies, and that 25 percent of these imports came from the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia, whose oil accounts for 14.5 percent of U.S. imports, could face instability from militants angry over U.S. military attacks on fellow Muslim countries, thereby jeopardizing U.S. access to oil in the country.

At the same time, other Republican backers of opening ANWR to production, most notably Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, showed restraint, stating that the time was not appropriate to advance the ANWR issue, given the circumstances in New York and Washington, D.C. Some industry executives also backed away from commenting on the ANWR controversy, fearing they would be viewed as opportunists.

Consensus on Safeguards

While timing appears to be a divisive issue among interested parties on ANWR, another energy security provision-safeguarding the nation's existing energy infrastructure-has received almost unanimous support inside the Beltway.