Bush Looking Anew for Alaska Oil Drilling

Ithaca 37

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
5,427
Location
Home of the free, Land of the brave
That didn't take long, did it!?

"Republican gains in the Senate could give President Bush (news - web sites) his best chance yet to achieve his No. 1 energy priority — opening an oil-rich but environmentally sensitive Alaska wildlife refuge to drilling.

If he is successful, it would be a stinging defeat for environmentalists and an energy triumph that eluded Bush his first four years in the White House. A broader agenda that includes reviving nuclear power, preventing blackouts and expanding oil and gas drilling in the Rockies will be more difficult to enact.


Republicans in the House and Senate said this week they plan to push for Alaska refuge drilling legislation early next year, and they predict success, given the 55-44-1 GOP Senate majority in the next Congress. Democrats and some environmental activists say continued protection of the refuge has never been as much in doubt.


"It's probably the best chance we've had," Rep. Richard Pombo (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., chairman of the House Resources Committee and a vocal drilling advocate, said in an interview.


Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he will press to open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as part of the government's budget deliberations early in 2005. That would enable drilling proponents to skirt an otherwise certain Democratic-led filibuster that would be difficult to overcome.


"With oil trading at nearly $50 a barrel, the case for ANWR is more compelling than ever," said Domenici. "We have the technology to develop oil without harming the environment and wildlife."


Bush is also expected in his second term to renew his call for action by Congress on a broader, largely pro-production, energy agenda — from easing rules for oil and gas drilling on federal land in the Rocky Mountains to expanding clean-coal technology and improving the reliability of the electricity grid.


New tax incentives to spur construction of next-generation nuclear power plants also will be back on the table after Democrats and some moderate Republicans scuttled it last year. Greater use of corn-based ethanol in gasoline also has wide support at the White House and in Congress.


Drilling in the Alaska refuge has been all but dismissed as unachievable since drilling opponents two years ago beat back a pro-development measure by a 52-48 vote. Bush did not make an issue of the refuge during the presidential campaign.


But with four new GOP senators expected to support ANWR drilling and the loss of a Republican moderate who opposed it, drilling advocates believe they now have at least 52 votes in the Senate, enough to get the measure through Congress as part of the budget process. By Senate rules, opponents of drilling cannot filibuster a budget measure. ANWR qualifies as a budget measure because it will generate income for the government from oil companies.


Environmentalists already are gearing up to wage an intense lobbying campaign to keep oil rigs out of the refuge's coastal plain, a breeding ground for caribou, home to polar bears and musk oxen and site of an annual influx of millions of migratory birds.


"This is as serious a threat to the refuge as any that has come before," said Jim Waltman of the National Wildlife Federation. "But the facts haven't changed. This is still a magnificent area and it can still be damaged by oil drilling."


But geologists believe 11 billion barrels of oil lie beneath the refuge's tundra and ice, and drilling supporters contend they can be tapped without damage to the environment or wildlife.


Regardless the outcome in the Alaska refuge dispute, the path to getting a comprehensive energy bill is likely to be full of potholes. Twice in the last four years lawmakers have agreed on 85 percent or more of an energy package only to see final action derailed over narrow, although intensely contentious, issues.


Some lawmakers, including Sen. Jeff Bingaman (news, bio, voting record) of New Mexico, senior Democrat on the energy committee that will write the legislation, argue that lawmakers should focus instead on passing separate bills on the most urgent and widely supported measures.


Some of that already has occurred, such as the recently approved loan guarantees for a proposed $20 billion natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 states.


Despite the GOP's new strength, Senate Democrats can still put the brakes on energy measures they strongly oppose through filibusters such as the one that blocked an energy bill in 2003. The issue then in dispute was liability protection for makers of the MTBE gasoline additives, which have been found to contaminate water systems.

However, given the stronger GOP majority, sustaining such filibusters may be more difficult.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=544&e=2&u=/ap/20041109/ap_on_go_pr_wh/second_term_energy_1
 
Sounds smart to me. See that other thread, r>0.44 for a positive correlation of SAT scores and percentage voting for Bush in 04, state by state.
 
Good....tap that shat. Oil is good. Feeds my wife and kids. If you don't like our oil....stop driving your cars and make a real statement.

Hypocrits.
 
So do we really "have the technology to develop oil without harming the environment and wildlife."
And if we do, what would be the objection ?

I'm on the fence regarding drilling ANWR, if we can do it with no harm, it would be a great benifit, but we all know you can't really trust the oil companys when they promise to "do no harm" because the amount of bullchit they will spread is directly related to the amount of money they stand to make.
 
Have you been to any of the North Slope oil fields?

Alpine, the newest field developed on the Slope is an incredile place. Small footprint with large oil output.

Todays technology allows for responsible development. Don't fall for the usual liberal/greeny crap that says all development is bad.
 
Originally posted by AKHighmark:
Have you been to any of the North Slope oil fields?

Alpine, the newest field developed on the Slope is an incredile place. Small footprint with large oil output.

Todays technology allows for responsible development. Don't fall for the usual liberal/greeny crap that says all development is bad.
SMALL FOOTPRINT WITH LARGE OIL OUTPUT.

Don't drive, turn of the furnace, wear a jacket. That will make the oil last longer.
 
Drill away .

"Todays technology allows for responsible development. Don't fall for the usual liberal/greeny crap that says all development is bad."

Good post AKHighmark.
 
I cant wait for this one, soon as they start bulding all the roads I will finally be able to hunt alaska


Thanks for the update Ithaca ;)




Delw
 
You guys act like this is some kind of victory. A victory for who? Wildlife is the loser if the ANWR gets opened for oil developement. You think that's a victory?

How proud can you be to take habitat from a bunch of helpless animals? I bet you're happy when winter range is developed and animals starve, too. Right?
 
Ithaca 37 said:
You guys act like this is some kind of victory. A victory for who? Wildlife is the loser if the ANWR gets opened for oil developement. You think that's a victory?

How proud can you be to take habitat from a bunch of helpless animals? I bet you're happy when winter range is developed and animals starve, too. Right?

What do you base this on Ithaca, besides left wing envirowacko so called science.
 
I base it on the fact it's a NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE. Show me any kind of development in any WILDLIFE REFUGE anywhere that does not negatively affect wildlife.

What's a WILDLIFE REFUGE for, anyway?

"Environmentalists already are gearing up to wage an intense lobbying campaign to keep oil rigs out of the refuge's coastal plain, a breeding ground for caribou, home to polar bears and musk oxen and site of an annual influx of millions of migratory birds.


"This is as serious a threat to the refuge as any that has come before," said Jim Waltman of the National Wildlife Federation. "But the facts haven't changed. This is still a magnificent area and it can still be damaged by oil drilling."
 
Uhhhhhhh WHAT ?

Some of the Most Highly developed areas harbor the best sanctuaries for "a bunch of helpless animals". Look at any of the Golf courses, big developments such as H.P., they have more geese around their building then most undeveloped places.

Lowman’s sourdough lodge has Deer running through it daily. Matter of fact the critters are better of with the grass that is planted for food. I could go on with allot of other examples.
<O:p</O:p
I don't think the plan is to PAVE the entire area. I'm guessing some roads will be put in. Some structures will be erected but they aren't going to start hunting animals and they aren't destroying the entire habitat.


Winter range developement put's in Track houses, Paving all the land and leaves the animals pushed up back into the snow. Nothing like the drilling in AK.

Comparing Development in winter range to drilling in AK is like comparing boinking a dude instead of a chick... Sure you can put it in the same topic, but it's definately not the same thing.
 
IT -

We have had this discussion in the past. I have posted numerous factual studies to demonstrate how this is just another example of "the sky is falling" mentality by a bunch of bozos who have probably never even been to Alaska. I can post those studies again, if you like, but I won't, because you will just badmouth them as being puppets of big oil and denounce everything I say, so I just don't see the point. I do find it interesting that when you post statements made by environmental groups that we must take them as chapter and verse, but when someone posts a study to the contrary, they are suddenly right wing whackos who want to pave paradise to put up a parking lot (If I may quote Joni Mitchell?).
 
I can't believe guppie wants to pave paradise to put up a parking lot. What's your source for that? Without your references, all we can do is badmouth your post. No sources, just a junk post. I'd like to see you post those studies, but you won't. Typical junk post, even I will badmouth that. Put up your source links, if they are relevent.

There should be an environmental impact study for this ANWR project, I think. Where is it? It will have the facts being contested here, won't it?

That's what we need, the environmental impact study for this project.
 
LOL Moosie , Your insensitive .
"Comparing Development in winter range to drilling in AK is like comparing boinking a dude instead of a chick... Sure you can put it in the same topic, but it's definately not the same thing."






Guppie9 ,Very good post.
 
Tom2, you might want to check out this link.

http://www.anwr.org/


TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR
"1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates in 1995 on bonus bids alone were $2.6 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1980 and 1994, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 943,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil too Costly The U.S. imports over 64% of the nation's needed petroleum. Currently we are spending more than $120 billion dollars a year on importing oil. This does not include the amount spent on military to defend that same oil. Including defence costs the number would be nearly a trillion dollars.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain. "
 

Forum statistics

Threads
111,498
Messages
1,960,817
Members
35,202
Latest member
mowglimadness
Back
Top