YAY!! Let's drill in Alaska!! :) woot!

dmp

Senior Member
May 12, 2004
13,088
750
48
Enterprise, Alabama
:)


I wrote this all myself ;);)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush.

The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster - a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said. The House has not included a similar provision in its budget, so the issue is still subject to negotiations later this year to resolve the difference.

The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northern eastern corner of Alaska.

Drilling supporters acknowledged after the vote that for refuge development to get final approval Congress must still pass a final budget with the Senate provision included, something Congress was unable to do last year.

Still, "this is a big step," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who said he had tried for 24 years to open the refuge, but failed because Democrats blocked the effort through filibusters. The budget is immune from a filibuster, meaning drilling supporters will need only a majority - not the 60 votes required to break a filibuster - to succeed when the issue comes up for final action later this year.

Environmentalists have fought such development and argued that despite improved environmental controls a web of pipelines and drilling platforms would harm calving caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the coastal plain.

Bush has called tapping the reserve's oil a critical part of the nation's energy security and a way to reduce America's reliance on imported oil, which account for more than half of the 20 million barrels of crude use daily.

It's "a way to get some additional reserves here at home on the books," Bush said Wednesday.

The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, 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.

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a co-sponsor of the amendment that would have stripped the arctic refuge provision from the budget document. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist," she said.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., argued that more oil would be saved if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels and expanded oil development in the deep-water Gulf where there are significant reserves.

"The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," said Kerry.

But drilling proponents argued that modern drilling technology can safeguard the refuge and still tap the likely - though not yet certain - 10.4 billion barrels of crude in the refuge.

The vote Wednesday contrasted with the last time the Senate took up the ANWR drilling issue two years ago. Then, an attempt to include it in the budget was defeated. But drilling supporters gained strength last November when Republicans picked up three additional seats, all senators who favored drilling in the refuge.

Opponents of drilling complained that Republicans this time were trying "an end run" by attaching the refuge provisions to the budget, a tactic that would allow the measure to pass with a majority vote.

The 19-million-acre refuge was set aside for protection by President Eisenhower in 1960, but Congress in 1980 said its 1.5 million acre coastal plain could be opened to oil development if Congress specifically authorizes it.

The House has repeatedly passed measures over the years to allow drilling in ANWR only to see the legislation stalled in the Senate. But 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.

Drilling supporters argued that access to the refuge's oil was a matter of national security and that modern drilling technology would protect the region's wildlife.

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.
 
this was a long time coming. pisses me off that it was such a narrow vote.
 
Ya. China and Japan need the oil and big oil sure needs to boost their profits by selling it in Asia at higher prices than they can charge here.

You don't think any of that oil is coming down to the lower 48 do ya?

Wait. Let me just say that George Bush and the oil companies promise they will not export all that oil to Asia. That ought to be enough to convince ya!

Time to tighten those political blinders and have another drink of that corporate/government kool-aid! Or .... how about a refreshing drink of oil? Add some gasoline and you'll have yourself a tasty molotov cocktail!
 
Itsthetruth said:
Ya. China and Japan need the oil and big oil sure needs to boost their profits by selling it in Asia at higher prices than they can charge here.

You don't think any of that oil is coming down to the lower 48 do ya?

Wait. Let me just say that George Bush and the oil companies promise they will not export all that oil to Asia. That ought to be enough to convince ya!

Time to tighten those political blinders and have another drink of that corporate/government kool-aid! Or .... how about a refreshing drink of oil? Add some gasoline and you'll have yourself a tasty molotov cocktail!
you might want to read that particular portion of the bill. I understand that every barrel that comes out of ANWR STAYS in the US.
 
Bout time for us to start drilling. glad to see some people are getting smart. By relieving our dependence on foriegn oil we can put more pressure on those foriegn nations to establish Republics and fight with us against terrorism. Besides which it will greatly stimulate the economy. Booya!
 
Itsthetruth said:
Ya. China and Japan need the oil and big oil sure needs to boost their profits by selling it in Asia at higher prices than they can charge here.

You don't think any of that oil is coming down to the lower 48 do ya?

Wait. Let me just say that George Bush and the oil companies promise they will not export all that oil to Asia. That ought to be enough to convince ya!

Time to tighten those political blinders and have another drink of that corporate/government kool-aid! Or .... how about a refreshing drink of oil? Add some gasoline and you'll have yourself a tasty molotov cocktail!

Dude you need to get off the us v them mentality. Chill. Drilling for oil and reducing our dependence on foriegn oil is not going to destroy the world.
 
Oh? I'm sure they will introduce new "reform" legislation, if they actually find oil, to "reform" that "restrictive" legislation. They got their foot in the door!

First things, first. After all, we can't have such "big government" restrictions on a "free market economy", can we now?
 
Mr. P said:
Now, all W has to do is tell his lil brother we're drilling in the gulf off
the Fla. coast too!

I believe that is up to the state of Florida. The reason Anwar has been so actively pursued is because the Alaskans have been lobbying for it for a while. I dont believe the Floridan's have been lobbying to drill off their coasts so the President has been respecting the wishes of the people.
 
The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northern eastern corner of Alaska.


Great, I read in another post here that the people against this stated that drilling is futile because it would take years and years to get the oil ready for consumption. Fools! After they have stalled this for years and years they now complain that it won't do any good because it will now take years and years.

Ignorance for some is truly bliss.

Oh, and ITT, stop your angry boisterous Kennedy type rantings and have some constructive criticism, if you have any. You simply spout stuff that you believe might happen with zero proof to back it up. Honestly, it makes you look childish, but you probably don't care.
 
Avatar4321 said:
I believe that is up to the state of Florida. The reason Anwar has been so actively pursued is because the Alaskans have been lobbying for it for a while. I dont believe the Floridan's have been lobbying to drill off their coasts so the President has been respecting the wishes of the people.

I don't know the details of what has been proposed off the Fla. gulf coast AV. But as far as I know 3 miles off shore is not in state waters (not talking international which is 12 I think) But even if it is 12..lets go..DRILL.
 
Itsthetruth said:
Ya. China and Japan need the oil and big oil sure needs to boost their profits by selling it in Asia at higher prices than they can charge here.

You don't think any of that oil is coming down to the lower 48 do ya?

Wait. Let me just say that George Bush and the oil companies promise they will not export all that oil to Asia. That ought to be enough to convince ya!

Time to tighten those political blinders and have another drink of that corporate/government kool-aid! Or .... how about a refreshing drink of oil? Add some gasoline and you'll have yourself a tasty molotov cocktail!

Never mind that the people of Alaska - Inuit and American - have been wanting to drill there for years.

Or that it will have little to no environmental impact.

Or that it will help the US lessen its dependence on OPEC oil.
 
gop_jeff said:
Never mind that the people of Alaska - Inuit and American - have been wanting to drill there for years.

Or that it will have little to no environmental impact.

Or that it will help the US lessen its dependence on OPEC oil.


Or that Canada will be supplying China with their oil.
 
I saw this story on the news today. They basically had 2 things to say:
1. When it is fully operational, it will supply the US with 1% of its oil needs. That statement is supported by the post:
The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices and tight supplies.

2. By passing legislation encouraging people to purchase more fuel efficient cars, the US could reduce its oil requirements enough to completely end its dependence on Saudi Arabian oil.

Am I saying that the US shouldn't drill in Alaska? Absolutely not. But don't kid yourselves, this all by itself will do nothing to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. I don't believe that the US has access to enough oil to do that on the supply side. The only way the US could ever become more self-sufficient is to reduce its demand for oil.
 
I'm sure a few of you on the board know, I've been a member here for awhile.
I don't speak a whole lot, but I love the board. I've lived here in Alaska for 12 yrs, all of it, Way up North in Fairbanks. I can tell you all, we are all for drilling for oil. If you lived in the northern parts of Alaska, we don't have all the same opportunites, as they do down south, like fishing, timber, and industries.
Part of the reasons for that is we have long and extreme winters up here. Our first snow can come in September, and by the end of November, thru January, we only have four hours of daylight. On top of that we are sitting at 30 to 50 below zero( and thats not with a Wind Chill).
Where they want to drill is very barren, and under winter conditions for most of the year.
We already have drilling up here, and if the people who don't live here, could see how, when they drill, they completely restore the site that they've drilled, to it pristene self. But I have to wonder, if most of the people, who are against this, have ever been to Alaska? I doupt it!
It takes a hearty soul to live up North in Alaska, and I know most of the people here ask, that you all down there who are against this,just stay out of our lives. We need this, to make a living for our families. Thanks for everyone who is in favor of us Alaskans making a living, off our own land. :salute:
 
Hey now Steph , who do you think you guys are ? Just because you live there doesn't mean you own it . There are millions of tourists around the world just dying to head up to the Pristine Mountains and forest that the Democrats have shown us on TV. . . . I want to be the first to ski those beautiful slopes! When will they begin construction of Aspen North?
What I don't understand is how these "Oil guys" think they could drag a drilling rig up those 14,000 foot peaks . And once they get it up there how will they drill through all of that rock to get to that dry hole . Even if they actually get to oil , how will they pump that frozen stuff out of the ground?
I've also heard the beaches are pristine too and the surfing is excellent . :teeth:
 
HorhayAtAMD said:
The only way the US could ever become more self-sufficient is to reduce its demand for oil.

Horhay, I agree with this, but until the day comes when America develops a viable alternative energy, we still need oil, and every bit helps.
 
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
March 16, 2005

In the Northwest: The Arctic refuge and public are about to get drilled
By JOEL CONNELLY


The final push to drill the Arctic Refuge has a curious resemblance to America's politics of 100 years ago, only in reverse.

Under President Theodore Roosevelt, America was coming out of the Gilded Age. Given its name by Mark Twain, the Gilded Age was the opulent, corrupt era of the late 19th century in which corporate moguls ruled the country. The trust-busting Roosevelt inaugurated a progressive era.

He created our national forest system and designated national monuments in the Grand Canyon and Olympic Mountains. He protected the vast estuary of Alaska's Copper River Delta from exploitation by greedy coal barons. America today is entering a new Gilded Age. The Arctic Refuge and the American public have this in common: Both are about to get drilled.

President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, created what was then called the Arctic National Wildlife Range in 1960 as one of his last acts in office. A bill in Congress would name the coastal plain after Ike. Susan Eisenhower, the president's granddaughter, last week called for preservation of the coastal plain, and appealed for the GOP not to turn its back on this legacy.

"I believe the Republican Party has had an outstanding historical tradition, when you think of the leadership it gave to civil rights, when you think of the leadership it gave to the environmental movement, to the balanced budget process," said Eisenhower. "These are solid Republican traditional values." "I don't believe good stewardship goes out of style, frankly," she added.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/216148_joel16.html
 

Forum List

Back
Top