The Senate overwhelmingly adopted an amendment to the Senate energy bill Wednesday that calls for a proposed North Slope natural gas pipeline to be built along the Alaska Highway, a route that had wide bipartisan support in the upper chamber.

By a vote of 93 to 5, the Senate approved the proposal, sponsored by Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-SD), that endorses the so-called southern route for an Alaska pipeline over the competing northern route through the Mackenzie Delta in western Canada. The initiative mirrors a provision in the House energy bill (H.R. 4) supporting the Alaska Highway route.

The Senate spent the entire legislative session Wednesday arguing over the Daschle route proposal, which was only the first of numerous amendments that will be offered during what is expected to be very long and contentious debate over the bill.

On the Republican side, Minority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma urged Republicans to oppose the mandated route for an Alaska pipeline, but only a handful of senators joined him. Although he backed the pipeline project, he said, “I don’t think that Congress should choose” the route.

The Senate also adopted an amendment sponsored by Sen. Frank Murkowski of Alaska, which seeks to ensure that the proposed pipeline will deliver North Slope gas to growing Alaska markets — liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to the Far East and U.S. West Coast, and large petrochemical plants on the Kenai Peninsula. Although a sharp critic of the Democrat-slanted bill, Murkowski championed Daschle’s route proposal for the pipeline.

“While route selection is important, it doesn’t build the project,” however, the Republican lawmaker said. There has to be a “safety net” to shield the companies that build the pipeline in the case of low gas prices. The companies would pay tax benefits or loan guarantees back when prices rise, he noted, “so we’re not looking for a handout” from the federal government.

Under current gas prices, the three Alaskan producers who are studying the feasibility of building the pipeline — ExxonMobil, BP and Phillips Petroleum — have deemed the project to be uneconomic. The project, which would be the largest pipeline construction effort ever undertaken, would have an estimated price tag of $15-$20 billion.

Murkowski was wary of the price Alaskans may have to pay for the Senate leaders’ support for a long-line gas pipeline. “I sense an eagerness to accommodate a gas pipeline, and I wonder at what expense,” he said, suggesting perhaps it was oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

The pipeline shouldn’t be viewed as a “trade-off for ANWR,” Murkowski snapped. This “is not a quid pro quo issue.” The pipeline and ANWR “stand independently” of each other.

Other Republicans called for the Senate to “finally get serious about ANWR,” and allow a straight up and down vote on the controversial issue.

From the Senate floor, Nickles called the Democrat-crafted measure a “pretty crummy” energy bill. “The more I read [it] the less I like it,” he said, launching into a tirade against Daschle for wresting control of the legislation from the Senate Energy Committee last summer, and giving it to a “couple of people [Democrats] to put this bill together.”

Nickles noted that he “didn’t get to vote on…a single page of this energy bill” at the committee level. He accused Daschle of essentially shutting down the Senate Energy Committee.

Because of Daschle’s action, Nickles argued that 40% of the senators — mostly Republicans — were disenfranchised from contributing to the energy measure.

©Copyright 2002 Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news report may not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in any form, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.