Senate Approves Oil Drilling in ANWR

[Makalakumu]

The U.S. Senate has approved oil drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge by a vote of 52-47.

For those who were unaware that it was being voted on, it was because it was slipped into a budget cutting bill of the type that would prevent filibuster.

Here's the story from the Star Tribune. Coleman kept his promise to vote against drilling there...

By a provision also passed by the senate(to the chagrin of oil companies), none of the ANWR oil can be exported.

The house still has to approve drilling, and that could prove tougher, but we are now 1 step closer.

I wonder if this will pick up any media attention given all of the other issues that are swirling about. Remember when I asked the kinds of things that would be passed by congress during this scandalous period...ie cutting food stamps...here's another one.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Brother John]

Sounds good to me.






Your Bro.
John

 

[RandomPhantom700]

*Sigh* Three more years....

I mean, drilling from a wildlife refuge? How much more contradictory do you get?

 

[mrhnau]

As long as its not -too- invasive and destructive (which they claim it should not be), then I have no problem with it. Helps stabalize our oil supply, which is always good. Honestly, I even like the fact that the oil must stay domestic. We have large enough needs, we will be able to handle it.

I wonder if this will pick up any media attention given all of the other issues that are swirling about. Remember when I asked the kinds of things that would be passed by congress during this scandalous period...ie cutting food stamps...here's another one.

Securing your oil supply is a scandal? Really? Or is it the fact that money will be made by someone? Don't like lower oil prices? I can see the problem -IF- nature is totally destroyed, but otherwise, whats the issue? In order to live where you do, land was probably "destroyed" in the same fashion. Land was once all natural. You probably have wood in your house, use gas in your car, natural gas heating (perhaps) or electic (has to be produced somewhere). Willing to remove all modern technology and structure to have something more pristine? I'm not advocating destroying all nature, but realizing that at times we need to take advantage of the natural resources where they exist. If places that are pristine, take measures to preserve it as much as possible.

Based on previous posts, I think you don't like it simply because its being done under Bush's term

MrH

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

odd feelings abound.

I'm incensed that drilling will be allowed in the Alaskan refuge; but, after years of clear-cutting national forests, mining and every other bit of environmental fraud and abuse, I'm not at all surprised.

On the other hand, not allowing the oil to be exported does suggest a lessening of reliance on OPEC, et al.

On the third hand, it may all be political hogwash.

Shigata ga nai.

 

[Brother John]

Based on previous posts, I think you don't like it simply because its being done under Bush's term

MrH

Mr. H
That seems to me to be a very insightful observation; and quite probably true.

Your Brother
John

 

[arnisador]

I think we have to look for oil where we can find it.

That someone designated it a wildlife refuge doesn't make it sacrosanct.

 

[shesulsa]

Based on previous posts, I think you don't like it simply because its being done under Bush's term

Actually, I would think it's abhorrent under ANY president.

 

[mrhnau]

Actually, I would think it's abhorrent under ANY president.

If thats your stance, thats fine... I think the issues should be argued based on the facts, not on "gee, the republicans like this, so lets be against it." Argue the point, not the politics. Educate yourself, and don't let the prevailing or loudest political voice be your only source of opinion.

As to the point in question, what do you pose as an alternative?

Here are some points I can offer... lets spend more time/money on alternative energies. Lets focus on hydrogen cars, nuclear fussion, look back into nuclear fission, solar. There are alot of options out there. However, until these new technologies are employed, we need a source of energy. We need to take advatage of those resources until we can wean ourselves off of them. We also need to be careful and ensure we pursue them actively, and not be complacent thinking "we have enough energy until X date". A few ways to do this would be to offer tax breaks/incintives for alternative energy research/companies and actually helping finance some of the projects. Personally, I'd love to see our dependance on foreign energy go WAY down... It stinks that energy policies are dependent on foreign politics and opinion.

MrH

 

[Makalakumu]

Mrhnau - I'm not a "Bush hatin' fool" and I've spent a little time reading about this over the years. I will always be able to give you specific reasons why I don't like this or that policy.

This policy isn't going to do much but make some money for a small group of people and it will do "nothing' to cut our dependence of foriegn oil.

After Katrina, American's cut consumption by 2% and just watch how fast our prices have dropped. With that in mind, wouldn't a policy that advocates decreases in consumption make more sense? Wouldn't a policy like that do MUCH more to cut our dependence on foriegn oil? Wouldn't a policy like that ensure that just may have more oil on hand in the future when it becomes even more scarce?

Why does the Bush administration and the Republican leaderhship favor solutions that won't acheive the best results?

upnorthkyosa

 

[Flatlander]

Based on previous posts, I think you don't like it simply because its being done under Bush's term

MrHMr. H
That seems to me to be a very insightful observation; and quite probably true.

Your Brother
John

Irrelevant to this specific topic. Debate the merit of the idea. Ad Hominem is illogical.

 

[arnisador]

Looks like the House disagrees:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051110/ap_on_go_co/arctic_refuge_11

House Drops Arctic Drilling From Bill

A solid phalanx of Republican moderates drove House GOP leaders to drop a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wilderness area to oil drilling as a sweeping budget bill headed toward a vote Thursday.

 

[rutherford]

For those who were unaware that it was being voted on, it was because it was slipped into a budget cutting bill of the type that would prevent filibuster.
. . .
I wonder if this will pick up any media attention given all of the other issues that are swirling about. Remember when I asked the kinds of things that would be passed by congress during this scandalous period...ie cutting food stamps...here's another one.

upnorthkyosa

As hotly contested as this issue has been and will probably remain, I am both amazed and unsurprised that it was buried in a larger bill and that the media hasn't brought it to the foreground.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

 

[dubljay]

While I am not really fond of the idea of invading the Wildlife refuge for oil, I think perhaps there are some benifits. First it could ease the strain on the economy that current gas prices are causing. Second it may lessen our dependence on forign oil, which is a good thing. By giving some economic breathing room with a domestic oil reserve perhaps there will be a chance to bring about more reliable and cost effective alternative energies. One can still hope that the federal government will come around to the idea. Logically speaking if the US corners the market for alternative energy technologies we will become more powerful than OPEC after oil reserves become too scarece to make drilling cost effective.

Again I'm not condoning this action, I think that it is in contradiction of the purpose of a wildliefe refuge (refuge meaning a place free from human interferance). Even with minimal impact there will be effects felt by the ecosystem there for years after drilling has ceased.

*sigh* Sometimes the shortsightedness of the government really irratates me.

 

[mrhnau]

Mrhnau - I'm not a "Bush hatin' fool" and I've spent a little time reading about this over the years. I will always be able to give you specific reasons why I don't like this or that policy.

Then my statement regarding your opinion being based on Bush was incorrect, and for that I do apologize.

This policy isn't going to do much but make some money for a small group of people and it will do "nothing' to cut our dependence of foriegn oil.

After Katrina, American's cut consumption by 2% and just watch how fast our prices have dropped. With that in mind, wouldn't a policy that advocates decreases in consumption make more sense? Wouldn't a policy like that do MUCH more to cut our dependence on foriegn oil? Wouldn't a policy like that ensure that just may have more oil on hand in the future when it becomes even more scarce?

The policy would help our supply of oil. otherwise whats the point? it would make money for people. of course it would. we live in a capitalistic society. it would also create jobs. making money in some form is not evil. for a corperation to consider drilling, they need to potential for making back the money they invest.

cutting consumption is a great way to cut dependancy. however, thats not the only thing that affects prices. commodity sentiment affects things alot. Hurricanes, natural disasters, refinement capacity, OPEC supply, political relations with supply countries and investor paranoia all play parts. We also have to consider world wide consumption with India and China ramping up oil consumption. Its not simply "lets cut oil consumption 10%". Regarding cutting demand, see post #9. Until we get good alternatives of practical ways of cutting consumption, we still need oil. I prefer domestic dependance whenever possible.

Why does the Bush administration and the Republican leaderhship favor solutions that won't acheive the best results?

What is best is what is being argued. The Bush administration is not simply sitting there thinking "how can we achieve the worst results". Its a battle of their experts vs someone elses experts. They believe they are correct. You have strong opinions, so do I. I think ANWR drilling would provide the best results for reasons I've stated, as long is caution is used for the environment. I thought the first paragraph of the latest dubljay was good regarding potential benefits.

As hotly contested as this issue has been and will probably remain, I am both amazed and unsurprised that it was buried in a larger bill and that the media hasn't brought it to the foreground.

It was not "buried", hence it being brought up now. It was attached to a budget bill so it could not be filibustered. We can argue the merit of that if you want, but it seems a bit backhanded. Then again, I don't like the democrats throwing the threat of a filibuster towards anything they don't like. I don't recall Republicans doing that during the Clinton years (at least not with as much press paid). Regardless of it being "buried", its already been shot down by the house as Arni pointed out. Sort of a moot point now. I hope it comes back up in future legislation.

Irrelevant to this specific topic. Debate the merit of the idea. Ad Hominem is illogical.

Not sure if you were referencing me since you double quoted, but if me, see post #9.

*sigh* Sometimes the shortsightedness of the government really irratates me.

Based on the first paragraph of your post, I'm a bit confused. I assume your view of short sightedness deals only with the potential environmental impact and not your paragraph regarding potential benefits?

 

[7starmantis]

This policy isn't going to do much but make some money for a small group of people and it will do "nothing' to cut our dependence of foriegn oil.

I dont think it will do nothing, maybe not the final solution, but its a start. The estimated producable product from these "reserves" is pretty large.

After Katrina, American's cut consumption by 2% and just watch how fast our prices have dropped. With that in mind, wouldn't a policy that advocates decreases in consumption make more sense? Wouldn't a policy like that do MUCH more to cut our dependence on foriegn oil? Wouldn't a policy like that ensure that just may have more oil on hand in the future when it becomes even more scarce?

I completely agree with you here. However, I dont think one course of action or one solution will every really work. We need to address many issues from many different angles. Cutting consumption is good, of course the issue with it have allready been addressed, but we can't cut enough of something we use so heavily. Increasing our reserves while cutting consumption is a big step.


7sm

 

[michaeledward]

The estimated producable product from these "reserves" is pretty large.

How large is 'pretty large'?

 

[Tgace]

Well if its not a sizable ammount I guess the drilling will be short lived then...

http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/potent.html

U.S. Geological Survey - 1980. In 1980, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Coastal Plain could contain up to 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

U.S. Department of Interior - 1987. After several years of surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys (in 1983-84 and 1984-85), the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), in its April, 1987 report on the oil and gas potential of the Coastal Plain, estimated that there are billions of barrels of oil to be discovered in the area. DOI estimates that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more).

U.S. Geological Survey - 1998. The most recent petroleum assessment prepared by the USGS in 1998 (OFR 98-34), increased the estimate for technically recoverable mean crude oil resources. (See Oil in the ANWR? It's Time to Find Out!)

 

[Makalakumu]

Well if its not a sizable ammount I guess the drilling will be short lived then...

Drilling an oil well and pumping the oil isn't like emptying an empty cavern under the earth. It takes a lot of work to get the oil out. The oil is trapped in granular capillary spaces. Whether its a small or large amount, they'll be there awhile.

 

[arnisador]

Yeah, it's a big investment of time and effort. It'll be disruptive.

But until we have nuclear-powered cars to go with our nuclear-powered submarines, what else can one do?