Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Senate Prepares for Arctic Drilling Vote
2 hours, 24 minutes ago Politics - U. S. Congress
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Mindful of rising oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate is about to decide whether to give oil companies access to an ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge that could be one of the country's biggest oil fields.
"We believe we have the votes," said Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, who for more than two decades has tried to persuade Congress to authorize lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. President Eisenhower placed the 1.5 million acres of coastal plain under federal protection in 1960.
Drilling supporters argue that the refuge's oil will reduce U.S. reliance on imports. Opponents say it will hardly make a dent in the more than 120 million barrels of oil the country uses each day while posing a threat to what environmentalists regard as an ecological treasure.
Repeated attempts to open the refuge to drilling fell short as drilling proponents failed to muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster by Democrats and a group of moderate Republicans.
But this time Republicans have put the ANWR provision in a budget document that is immune to filibuster. Opponents were hoping to garner the 51 votes needed to strip the provision from the budget.
The tactic of using the budget process to enact legislation brought sharp criticism from Democrats.
"They want to sneak this into the budget," said Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., arguing that an issue of such importance should be debated as part of broader energy legislation.
Last week, the House refused to include an ANWR provision in its budget document, although any differences between the Senate and House versions would likely be resolved in negotiations.
The House has repeatedly passed measures over the years to allow drilling in ANWR only to see the legislation stalled in the Senate.
During several hours of Senate debate Tuesday night, supporters of drilling the refuge in the northeastern corner of Alaska argued that access to the oil was a matter of national security and that modern drilling technology would protect the region's wildlife.
"We know we've got to do it right. ... It's a fragile environment," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, maintaining that oil companies that would drill in the refuge would be subject to the most stringent environmental requirements in the world.
Environmentalists contended that while new technologies have reduced the drilling footprint, ANWR's coastal plain still would contain a spider web of pipelines that would disrupt calving caribou and disturb polar bears, musk oxen and the annual influx of millions of migratory birds.
Sen. Richard Durbin (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., said even at peak production the refuge would account for less than 2.5 percent of U.S. oil needs.
"How in the world can this be the centerpiece of our energy policy?" asked Durbin, arguing that more conservation and more fuel efficient automobiles would save more oil than the Alaska refuge would produce.
The refuge's oil represents "the most significant onshore production capacity" in the country, said Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M. "We should do everything we can to produce as much as we can."
Drilling proponents acknowledged that even if Congress gives the go-ahead for tapping ANWR's oil, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices and tight supplies. The first lease sales would not be issued until 2007, followed by development seven to 10 years later, Interior Secretary Gale Norton said.
President Bush (news - web sites) has made access to the refuge's oil a key part of his energy agenda. Last week, Bush declared that 10 billion barrels of oil are waiting to be pumped from the refuge and that it could be tapped "with almost no impact on land or wildlife."
However, how much oil will be found is in dispute. Only one exploratory well has been drilled within the refuge, and the results have been kept secret.
The U.S. Geological Survey (news - web sites), using seismic studies, estimated in 1998 that between 5.6 billion to 16 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil is likely to be found.
But how much of that oil would be attractive to oil companies would depend on the price of oil.
"Even at $40 per barrel ... the USGS (news - web sites) estimates there would be only $6.7 billion barrels that could be profitably brought to market, still less than the 7.3 billion barrels we consume every year," according to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group opposed to refuge drilling.
What exactly is "national heritage"? are not the natural resources of this nation part of our "national heritage"?menewa said:Who cares about natural heritage when you have fossil fuels?
CSM said:What exactly is "national heritage"? are not the natural resources of this nation part of our "national heritage"?
Kathianne said:While the amounts are debated, there is no doubt from any side that this would significantly reduce our dependence:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050316/ap_on_go_co/arctic_drilling
I believe our national heritage is much more than just scenery, though the awesome vistas are included. The land and its animals (to include minerals, timber, and other resources) and their use are part of our national heritage too. The problem is to balance the needs of our society with the preservation of that heritage for future generations as well as our own.menewa said:Natural heritage is national heritage once you strip away all the politics and people and leave simply the land and its animals. Buffalo, bald eagles, the grand canyon and the great old forest of the northwest are all examples of natural heritage. These are images that form America just as much the images of Washington crossing the Potomac or Jefferson penning the Declaration of Independence.
CSM said:I believe our national heritage is much more than just scenery, though the awesome vistas are included. The land and its animals (to include minerals, timber, and other resources) and their use are part of our national heritage too. The problem is to balance the needs of our society with the preservation of that heritage for future generations as well as our own.
menewa said:The way to create that balance, especially in the face of an indefinite rising population, is to switch to renewable everything. Considering we have some of the best schools in the world and we attract many of the brightest students and researchers, we could easily invest in enough R&D to make this possible in the very near future. Considering our system of valueing private enterprise over government enterrprise, it is really going to be up to our business men and women to push their companies in a this direction. However, government can help push things along with tax incentives and more R&D grants.
menewa said:Natural heritage is national heritage once you strip away all the politics and people and leave simply the land and its animals. Buffalo, bald eagles, the grand canyon and the great old forest of the northwest are all examples of natural heritage. These are images that form America just as much the images of Washington crossing the Potomac or Jefferson penning the Declaration of Independence.
Yurt said:I am amazed at the opponents arguments.
Well, it won't make that big of a dent in foreign dependence. Maybe around 3%. Mind you, this percentage could be higher. So therefore, we should not drill.
That's like saying, well, I don't want to save 3% of my earnings annually because it really won't make a difference, so I might as well spend it donating to third world governments who promote islamic hatred of america.
Silly, just silly. This could effectively cut our dependence on OPEC oil from 42% to 39%. At first blush it might not seem like a lot, but think in "millions" barrels at $50 a barrel.
Further, I would like to see a real unbiased environmental review that shows how this drilling would effect the natural environment to the degree spouted by people who want our money funding OPEC.
Yurt said:The dependence on opec oil was from a reliable source that I can't seem to find now, even typing in the same words. Ah, google. Will continue to look.
fuzzykitten99 said:funny it's that convenient that you just can't seem to find it now.
...1. The Need to Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Oil is Greater Than Ever
The US imports significantly more petroleum today than it did in 1992 when the Energy Policy Act was enacted. Net imports are up more than 2.5 million barrels a day while domestic production has declined by 1.24 million barrels a day. The combination of lower domestic production and increased demand means that oil imports also make up a larger share of total oil consumed in the US. In 1992, crude oil imports made up approximately 45 percent of domestic supply. Last year, crude oil imports accounted for 58 percent of total supply. The Energy Information Administrations (EIA) Short-Term Outlook (July 2000) forecasts that oil imports will approach 60 percent of total supply this year. EIAs long-term forecast (Annual Energy Outlook, 1999) has oil imports making up 66 percent of US supply by 2010, and more than 71 percent by 2020.
Persian Gulf and OPEC member countries supply an important part of US crude oil and petroleum imports. The EIA reports that in 1998 the US relied on OPEC members to provide approximately 50 percent of imported petroleum; Persian Gulf states alone provided more than 20 percent of total imports. While EIAs long-term forecast shows OPEC continuing to provide about 46 percent of US petroleum demand in 2020, the forecast shows Persian Gulf exports becoming a much more significant part of OPEC exports to the US, rising from 39 percent to 50 percent.
OPEC and Persian Gulf exports also make up a significant component of world oil supply. OPEC members currently provide about 40 percent of worldwide supply. OPECs share of world oil supplies is expected to reach 51 percent by 2020, according to EIAs forecast. Persian Gulf oil is even more key to world oil supplies. Persian Gulf exports in particular are of concern since this region has generally been unstable and continues to be the source of geopolitical conflicts...
menewa said:Natural heritage is national heritage once you strip away all the politics and people and leave simply the land and its animals. Buffalo, bald eagles, the grand canyon and the great old forest of the northwest are all examples of natural heritage. These are images that form America just as much the images of Washington crossing the Potomac or Jefferson penning the Declaration of Independence.
Key facts about ANWR's land, oil, wildlife
Source: Reuters
WASHINGTON, March 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Wednesday approved a Republican plan to allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
ANWR Refuge Facts
"Since North Slope oil resources represent a quarter of U.S. oil reserves, the need to access them has accelerated development of environmentally responsible, cost-effective practices and technologies. If Prudhoe Bay were developed with today's technology, its footprint would be 64 percent smaller: the drilling impact area would be 74 percent smaller, roads would cover 58 percent less surface area and oil and gas separating facilities would take 50 percent less space
