Senate approves opening ANWR

[Texsox]

This will also be the most expensive oil ever. Conservative estimates place the price at over $65/barrel in today's money. At least that what Texas oil men have been saying. The remoteness, the weather conditions, etc. all work against this area. There are many reasons why this is the last area in the US opened to exploration and exploitation.

[KipWellsFan]

IIRC, the money is being spent by private businesses, no?  And those businesses will provide jobs Americans in the middle of a slowly-recovering economy, no?

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  This reeks of anti-Bush partisanship, IMO.

 

While on this issue I don't care who's in power its probably a result of the Republicans having more power.

 

The last time the Senate debated drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, two years ago, the attempt to include it in the budget was defeated. Since then, the Republicans picked up three more seats, all supporters of the drilling.

[Texsox]

Anti-Bush??

Learn some history. This fight has been going on for a long time.

 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge History

Your Guide, Lara Jill Rosenblith From Lara Jill Rosenblith,

Your Guide to Environmental Issues.

FREE GIFT with Newsletter! Act Now!

 

    * 1957— Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton makes 20 million acres of the North Slope of Alaska available for commercial oil and gas leasing. *This is in addition to the previously established 23 million-acre Naval Petroleum Reserve (NPR).

 

 

    * 1960— Secretary Seaton designates 8.9 million acres of coastal plain and mountains of northeastern Alaska as the Arctic National Wildlife Range, to protect its "unique wildlife, wilderness and recreation values."

 

 

    * 1978-1979— The U.S. House of Representatives passes legislation designating the entire original Range as Wilderness. The Senate's version, however, requires studies of wildlife, petroleum resources, and the potential impacts of oil and gas development within the northern part of the Range.1

 

 

    * 1980— Congress agrees to, and Jimmy Carter signs, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).

      Sponsored Links

 

      Save Our EnvironmentJoin 20 nat'l environmental groups in taking action on urgent issues.www.saveourenvironment.org

 

      Environmental NewsThe New York Times reports on the latest news on the changing Earth.www.nytimes.com

 

      Ways to Protect the EarthFree referral service for a wide variety of ideasgroups.msn.com/EarthHealingGroups

      ANILCA more than doubles the size of the Range to 19.6 million acres, renames it The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and designates most of the original Range as Wilderness.2

 

 

          o The section of the original Range that is not designated as Wilderness under ANILCA is referred to as the "1002 Area," and spans 1.5 million acres along ANWRs coastal plain bordering the Beaufort Sea.

 

 

          o Section 1002 of ANILCA directs the Department of the Interior to prepare a report on the oil and gas potential in the coastal plain, and the effect that oil development would have on the region's natural resources.3

 

 

          o Section 1003 of ANILCA states that oil and gas production or any oil and gas leasing from ANWR would require authorization by an act of Congress.4

 

    * 1987— a completed version of the Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) is delivered to Congress. The report concludes that oil development and production in the 1002 Area would have major effects on the region's Porcupine caribou herd and musk oxen. It further defines major effects as "widespread, long-term change in habitat availability or quality which would likely modify natural abundance or distribution of species."

      Furthermore, the study also shows that major restrictions on the subsistence activities of the Kaktovik residents are likely to be expected.

      Despite these findings, Secretary of the Interior recommends full-scale oil development on the coastal plain, and authorizes an oil and gas-leasing program that would avoid unnecessary adverse effects on the environment.5

 

 

    * 1991— The Senate Energy committee approves The National Energy Policy Act, Title 9, which would allow for the development of the Coastal Plain.

 

 

    * November 1991— Senate Roll call vote on Sen Wellstone amendment to cut off debate on ANWR, 50-44 (60 votes needed to defeat filibuster.) The National Energy Policy Act is shelved.

 

 

    * 1995— President Clinton vetoes the Balanced Budget Act, which includes a provision to open ANWR to drilling.

 

 

    * 2001— Sen Frank Murkowski carries the National Energy Policy Security Act of 2001, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to "establish and implement a competitive, and environmentally sound oil and gas leasing program for the exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources of the 1002 area of the Arctic Coastal Plain."

 

 

    * March 2002— Senator Daschle offers an omnibus energy bill not containing provisions to open ANWR for development.

 

 

    * April 2002— Senate does not have enough votes to pass filibuster, and debates on ANWR end.

 

 

    * January 2003— Six Republican senators announce thier opposition to inserting language that would give oil companies access to the refuge into a must-pass budget bill.

 

 

    * January 17, 2003— Representative Don Young submits H.R. 39. This bill would establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program that would result in an environmentally sound, job creating program for the purpose of exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain, and for other purposes.

 

 

    * February 13, 2003— Rep Edward Markey submits H.R. 770 to preserve the Arctic coastal plain of ANWR as Wilderness.

 

 

    * February 2003— George Bush submits his annual budget plan to Congress, which includes a proposal to open ANWR to oil drilling and the leasing to oil companies starting in 2005. Backers of the plan want to add enabling language to the budget bill, which cannot be filibustered, and needs only 50 votes to pass.

 

 

    * Feb 2003— In the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY2003 (P.L. 108-7), Congress leaves the door open to pre-leasing studies in the Refuge.6

      (See article: "The Environment Loses with FY 2003".)

 

 

    * March 5, 2003— Sen Joseph Lieberman submits S. 543 to designate a portion of ANWR as Wilderness.

[Gene Honda Civic]

I saw a Frontline(?) around the last time they voted on this, and surprisingly, most Alaskans were in favor of drilling.

 

Alaskan's are much more likely to take a resource like ANWR for granted than us. I lived in Colorado briefly. I woke up with a gorgeous view of the front range. After a week it was just another mountain. I'd pay just to see those mountains again. You don't realize what you have sometimes until it's gone.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I don't think some of you understand the relation between oil prices & inflation. The price you pay for gasoline is a drain on the economy. The higher the price the bigger the drain. There is little investment growth for the oil industry beyond pricing.

 

When prices are expected to reach near $3.00/gal in some parts of the US this summer it's a serious problem requiring serious solutions. Unless you can get the so-called green voters to give up their 18MPG SUV's for 30MPG cars there is much point in trying to protect that which is needed most.

 

Extinction of species is not a problem any more. We can clone that which we desire the most.

[Gene Honda Civic]

When prices are expected to reach near $3.00/gal in some parts of the US this summer it's a serious problem requiring serious solutions.  Unless you can get the so-called green voters to give up their 18MPG SUV's for 30MPG cars there is much point in trying to protect that which is needed most.

No problem... I put 4,500 miles on my car last year. I put 3,000 miles on my bike.

[Soxy]

Extinction of species is not a problem any more.  We can clone that which we desire the most.

 

 

 

When prices are expected to reach near $3.00/gal in some parts of the US this summer it's a serious problem requiring serious solutions.  Unless you can get the so-called green voters to give up their 18MPG SUV's for 30MPG cars there is much point in trying to protect that which is needed most.

There are other energy solutions. E-mail from MN's Repub Senator:

 

Dear Ms. Soxy :

 

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) provisions being included as part of the fiscal year 2006 Congressional Budget Resolution.

 

 

 

During consideration of the fiscal year 2004 Budget Resolution, I voted in support of the Boxer amendment to strip out a provision concerning ANWR drilling because I believe that the ANWR debate is a detour from the road we ought to be traveling if we want to maximize environmental protection, energy independence, and economic development dividends. I strongly believe the road to these dividends is renewable energy, including ethanol, biodiesel , wind, and even livestock waste.

 

 

 

In the 108 th Congress I cosponsored legislation that would require an increasing portion of our U.S. energy supply to be met by renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel . One study suggests that this legislation would displace more than 1.6 million barrels of oil at a crucial time when foreign oil imports account for 56 percent of domestic oil consumption a figure expected to climb to a staggering 70 percent in the future unless things change. The same study indicates that this legislation would also reduce the nation's trade deficit by more than $34 billion, increase our gross domestic product by $156 billion, create more than 214,000 new jobs, expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion, and increase net farm income by $6 billion annually. With fourteen ethanol plants already having more than a half billion dollars in positive economic impact on Minnesota , imagine the impact on our State alone under this legislation.

 

In short, renewable fuels offer a lot of promise a promise I want to help become a reality. I understand that those who support oil exploration in ANWR see it as an opportunity for economic development and energy independence, while those who oppose oil exploration in ANWR see it as important to environmental protection. Yet, while I support the important objectives of both sides, I happen to see renewable fuels and renewable energy as the optimal and most relevant way to advance all three.

 

 

Please know that, as you request, I will keep your concerns in mind when ANWR issues come before the full Senate for a vote and that I value your advice.

 

Thank you once again for taking the time to contact me. If I can be of further assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

Norm Coleman

United States Senate

[WilliamTell]

No problem... I put 4,500 miles on my car last year.  I put 3,000 miles on my bike.

 

 

Wow that's erie. In 2004 I put almost the exact same numbers, just under 4500 on my car and just under 3000 on my bike.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Wow that's erie. In 2004 I put almost the exact same numbers, just under 4500 on my car and just under 3000 on my bike.

I turned 25 too, so when my insurance was due, the small milage and the age caused my my insurance to be cut in half.

[WilliamTell]

I turned 25 too, so when my insurance was due, the small milage and the age caused my my insurance to be cut in half.

 

Sweet man, I'm only 19 so it didn't turn for me.

[Heads22]

f*** the environment. Not like it's ever done anything or provided anything for us.

[Heads22]

[supergreen]The cloning solution is rather elegant. You see, we can lower our dependancy on foreign oil with a solution from the good ol' days. We can use whales. That's right. Whales. Since we don't have to worry about extinction, we can just wring those gigantic mammals of their blubbery gold, thus solving quite a few problems at once. [/]

[EvilMonkey]

Let's see it's Patriotic to lower our dependence on foreign oil and thwarting terrorists. But we can not give up our Hummer's to go to market and lunch  :headshake

 

I think the 30,000 Hummers per year that are sold don't do as much damage to the environment as you might think. Especially considering that alot of them are bought by people with way too much money on their hands, and don't end up driving them that much anyway. Besides, the Prius is now beating the Hummer in sales, so some people are giving up their Hummers.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096191/

Here is a quote from the story: "sales rose to about 20,000 in 2002 and to 24,000 in 2003. Since the new 2004 model was introduced in the fall, the Prius has been stomping the Hummer. In November 2003, the Prius outsold the H2 by a 2-to-1 margin, according to Autodata."

[KipWellsFan]

I think the 30,000 Hummers per year that are sold don't do as much damage to the environment as you might think.  Especially considering that alot of them are bought by people with way too much money on their hands, and don't end up driving them that much anyway.  Besides, the Prius is now beating the Hummer in sales, so some people are giving up their Hummers. 

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096191/

Here is a quote from the story: "sales rose to about 20,000 in 2002 and to 24,000 in 2003. Since the new 2004 model was introduced in the fall, the Prius has been stomping the Hummer. In November 2003, the Prius outsold the H2 by a 2-to-1 margin, according to Autodata."

 

And sales comparing the Lincoln Navigator to the Prius? Or all Hybrids combined?

[EvilMonkey]

And sales comparing the Lincoln Navigator to the Prius?  Or all Hybrids combined?

Did he MENTION the Navigator? No, he said Hummer, the posterchild for consumption by those with too much money. But since you sort of asked, sales for all SUV's are down 21% from last month. But I am sure you can access google from that frozen waste of a country up north, so why don't you look it up for yourself? :finger

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?...gle&dist=google

[KipWellsFan]

Did he MENTION the Navigator?  No, he said Hummer, the posterchild for consumption by those with too much money.  But since you sort of asked, sales for all SUV's are down 21% from last month.  But I am sure you can access google from that frozen waste of a country up north, so why don't you look it up for yourself?    :finger

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?...gle&dist=google

 

Snap!

 

I'm aware of the decline in sales just saying that the Hummer probably isn't much worse than any of the largest SUVs.

[YASNY]

WILDLIFE REFUGE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE

 

This is a selfish act.

 

Selfish? Whatever. It's our oil and we can damn well do with it what we want to.

[knightni]

Why can't refineries just increase the amount of Ethanol in fuel?

 

Wouldn't that reduce the amount of oil that America uses?

[YASNY]

Seriously, there are all types of ways that the US can cut down on it's need for oil, but the powers that be ... regardless of who is in control in DC ... won't let it happen. 100 mpg carborators were available in WWII. The "Tucker" automobile was supposed to be very fuel effecient, and Tucker unded up dead. Ethanol? There's a chance that comes into play. They are using the oil profits to buy up American farmland. Hydrogen pwered vehicles? Nope, not till they can figure out away to make billions upon billions of dollars from them. And the band played on ...

[TheBigHurt35]

Selfish?  Whatever.  It's our oil and we can damn well do with it what we want to.

 

What else are we to do with a state that's over twice the size of Texas, but barely contains 600,000 people? If the oil's there, why not take it? Does anybody actually live near ANWR? Drilling in a remote area of northern Alaska is going to result in a much lower public health risk than drilling pretty much anywhere else in America.

 

It's been estimated that ANWR could produce 1 million barrels per day. That's half of Iraq's output prior to Saddam's overthrow. It's not going to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by any stretch, but it's still a pretty significant number. And some is better than none, IMO.

 

Nobody wants to see ANWR devastated (that's not going to happen anyway), but as I understand it, we're only drilling 8% of the refuge. Drilling 8% of a wildlife refuge to reduce our overall oil imports by 2.5%? That doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.

Edited March 17, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[TheBigHurt35]

Seriously, there are all types of ways that the US can cut down on it's need for oil, but the powers that be ... regardless of who is in control in DC ... won't let it happen.  100 mpg carborators were available in WWII.  The "Tucker" automobile was supposed to be very fuel effecient, and Tucker unded up dead.  Ethanol?  There's a chance that comes into play.  They are using the oil profits to buy up American farmland.  Hydrogen pwered vehicles?  Nope, not till they can figure out away to make billions upon billions of dollars from them.  And the band played on ...

 

Agreed, although ethanol burns at a much lower temperature than the higher molecular weight hydrocarbons in gasoline. IIRC, engines do not operate as efficiently on ethanol, although I'm glad that they're using it as an additive.

 

I was at a seminar a couple years ago where a guy from Cal Tech developed a paint that could harness energy from the sun and, theoretically, cars coated in this paint could run on solar power. The greatest drawback was that bright orange was the only color that worked and, of course, nobody is going to purchase a bright orange car.

 

For right now, the wife and I are going to purchase a hybrid car and hope that science can catch up before our fossil fuel supply runs out.

[southsider2k5]

What else are we to do with a state that's over twice the size of Texas, but barely contains 600,000 people?  If the oil's there, why not take it?  Does anybody actually live near ANWR?  Drilling in a remote area of northern Alaska is going to result in a much lower public health risk than drilling pretty much anywhere else in America.

 

It's been estimated that ANWR could produce 1 billion barrels per day.  That's half of Iraq's output prior to Saddam's overthrow.  It's not going to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by any stretch, but it's still a pretty significant number.  And some is better than none, IMO.

 

Nobody wants to see ANWR devastated (that's not going to happen anyway), but as I understand it, we're only drilling 8% of the refuge.  Drilling 8% of a wildlife refuge to reduce our overall oil imports by 2.5%?  That doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.

 

Its a million BPD, not a billion. All of OPEC itself is outputting 28.5 million BPD.

[KipWellsFan]

Selfish?  Whatever.  It's our oil and we can damn well do with it what we want to.

 

Ann Coulter: I take the biblical idea. God gave us the earth.

Democratic Strategist Peter Fenn: Oh, OK.

Coulter: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees.

Fenn: This is a great idea.

Coulter: God says, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."

Fenn: Terrific. We're Americans, so we should consume as much of the earth's resources...

Coulter: Yes! Yes.

Fenn: ... as fast as we possibly can.

Coulter: As opposed to living like the Indians.

 

While I don't know to what extent if any this will negatively impact animals in this region it sure worries me. A wild animal refuge is supposed to be a location of shelter and safety, and I'd think it's logical to say drilling is a threat to that. Call me a whacko but I personally think it's selfish to try to cut oil prices at risk of wildlife and the environment.

[Wong & Owens]

While I don't know to what extent if any this will negatively impact animals in this region it sure worries me.  A wild animal refuge is supposed to be a location of shelter and safety, and I'd think it's logical to say drilling is a threat to that.  Call me a whacko but I personally think it's selfish to try to cut oil prices at risk of wildlife and the environment.

 

 

The lesson, as always -- Ann Coulter is an idiot.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Above and beyond the actual footprint of the drilling operations is the road and pipeline infrastructure that will completely fragment the migratory and breeding caribou habitats.

 

The bigger issue is that we should be leading the world into an era of sustainable/renewable resource utilization and we are not. Instead we sell out the spirit of the National Parks Service in pursuit of another fossil fuel fix. We're going to rape ANWR for what may well be only enough recoverable oil to meet US needs for a few months.

 

According to syndicated financial analyst Malcom Berko (column from 1/9/05), in January 2005 US daily oil consumption was 19 million barrels while US daily oil production was 8 million barrels. In a decade now, we can look forward to paying for a very expensive extra million barrels a day, still import more than half our total, and that is teh 'centerpiece' of our 21st century energy policy? Doing some quick, back-of-the-envelope math tells you how shortsighted this is. Let's say that there are 10 billion barrels in ANWR (current guesses put it somewhere between 5-15 billion). Let's also be really optimistic and say that the entire mount is recoverable. 10 billion barrels or oil consumed at the current rate of 19 million barrels a day only supplies 526 days worth of oil (of course the fields will produce much less for much longer, but you get the point). And this is a best case scenario. If the actual reserves are at the 5 billion barrel side of things, and if we use a more realistic 80% recovbery (still probably too optimistic), we're only talking aboit supporting America's dirty habit for 210 days. Less that a year's worth of total US oil needs.

 

YAS is absolutely right when he says that we're not ready to move to a hydrogen fuel economy. But we'll never be ready if we don't make huge strides and therefore huge monetary investments toward that goal starting now. Solar, wind, and biodiesel need to be seriously supported or we're only a few decades from grinding to a halt.

 

Fun Fact: Did you know that the US consumes 26% percent of the world's oil production? We represent 5% of the human population. yet we consume more than a quarter of the oil.