Senate Votes to Open Alaskan Oil Drilling

[jamotto]

Link

quote:

---

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - 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 ÔÇö 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 ÔÇö not the 60 votes required to break a filibuster ÔÇö 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 (news, bio, voting record), 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 ÔÇö though not yet certain ÔÇö 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.

---

[jamotto]

kansas city star May. 18, 2004

I wonder if they have stopped sending oil to this Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

quote:

---

WASHINGTON ÔÇö With oil prices still climbing, President Bush is coming under increasing criticism for his handling of the burgeoning political issue of gasoline costs.

Half a dozen Senate Democrats plan to call on Bush today to begin releasing as many as 60 million barrels of oil from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Such a move would inject supplies into a market choked by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and pulled tight by rising world demand, they say.

The Democratic call will echo some oil industry officials, who say Bush should at least stop shipping about 170,000 barrels a day to the Louisiana salt caves that hold the emergency supply. The reserve currently holds nearly 660 million barrels, a record. The administration intends to keep filling it until it reaches its 700 million-barrel capacity, Energy Department spokeswoman Jeanne Lopato said.

Our policyhas been clear for a long time, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said Monday. Oil will be released only for genuine emergencies, not price fluctuation, he said.

The national average price of a gallon of gasoline has jumped to a record $2.017, up 1.8 cents from the previous week.

Executives at refiner Valero Energy Corp. have repeatedly urged a stop to the transfer of oil into the petroleum reserve.

---

[jamotto]

I am also curious why they are not pursuing the 377 Billion barrels of oil that are located in existing oil wells that could be tapped with Enhanced Oil Recovery/CO2 Injection methods?

[Soback]

170,000 barrels that he sends daily is a drop in the ocean, and 60 million that they want released is what? 3 days worth? All that is is a back scratcher deal for the dems. No, and no, you don't raid the reserve, it's like living off of your savings, and you don't stop the 170,000 shipments to it, that's like not saving for retirement. Both lead to you, with your butt on the street and no $ in the bank (metaphorically).

So what Bush doing is right, developing in Alaska is giving US something to fall back on in 10 or 15 years if #@$%T hits the fan. That oil, 1mill barrels a day of it, will probly be barely enough for the military use in 10 years, that's why it's being developed now. You gotta think ahead, not just what today brings.

There's no way to solve the oil problems, especially with the China bulging at the seams with it's population and growing economically. Just wait till that bubble bursts. Why aren't people noticing that? It's like being in a room with a dynamite stick, and everyone just averts their eyes, like not looking will save you when it blows.

[jamotto]

ok, However there is at best 10 billion barrels of oil in Alaska, spit in the rain compared to what is already here that could be tapped, but that is not being done.

quote:

---

You gotta think ahead, not just what today brings.

---

Exactly! where is all the great alternative energy policy's promised during the Presidential campaign?

Even in 10 years if we drill all we can get. If OPEC decided to shut off the oil supply. The US would be in as sorry as a shape as we where in '73. The U.S. uses too much oil too fast.

[Guest]

Bah, there is far more then that in ANWAR, and there is far more then that within the US.

We can actually be self sufficient for the next 40 years if we actually drilled for the oil instead of listening to a bunch of panties in a wad environmentalist whackos.

[LostInSpace]

In the next 40 years, we may not even need oil anymore. 40 years is a long time (in terms of human life) and no telling what wonderful energy technologies will emerge.

[jamotto]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Bah, there is far more then that in ANWAR

---

and your source is? Here is mine

quote:

---

We can actually be self-sufficient for the next 40 years if we actually drilled for the oil

---

Well, if we only produce 5.4 million bbl/d and the country is using 20.4 million bbl/d, that is a big gap for the U.S. to close for us to be self-sufficent.

Link

[jamotto]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

In the next 40 years, we may not even need oil anymore. 40 years is a long time (in terms of human life) and no telling what wonderful energy technologies will emerge.

---

I hope so, but I am not going to hold my breath.

[Soback]

Look, the simple truth is, we have to drill, to get more oil. Yes it's not enough for the general public use, but when it hits the fan, and we will need to power our military so that they can go out and provide our country with fuel by other means, then that fuel (from Alaska, and the reserves) will be enough for the military. Don't you see that? It's our country's security and independence that we are securing for the future.

On the global scale it's not how loud you scream, it's how big a stick you cary. WWII should've taught you that. The situation that Israel is in should've taught you that. The Afghanistan and Iraq should've taught you that. And with this new oil, US will have a bigger stick. Simple...

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soback:

Look, the simple truth is, we have to drill, to get more oil. Yes it's not enough for the general public use, but when it hits the fan, and we will need to power our military so that they can go out and provide our country with fuel by other means, then that fuel (from Alaska, and the reserves) will be enough for the military. Don't you see that? It's our country's security and independence that we are securing for the future.

On the global scale it's not how loud you scream, it's how big a stick you cary. WWII should've taught you that. The situation that Israel is in should've taught you that. The Afghanistan and Iraq should've taught you that. And with this new oil, US will have a bigger stick. Simple...

---

Most definitely, ANWAR is the largest reserve ever found in the United States.

But we still have untouched reserves in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of California, and off the coast of Florida, we also have HUGE coal reserves that Clinton locked up with a federal land grab, which we can still get to if we really need it.

We have PLENTY of fossil fuel available, that would last us at least for the next 40 years, if not longer, because more is being found all the time.

Also, the reason I say that Anwar is so huge is because the USGS always gives conservative estimates, in Prudo Bay, it turns out that there was over 35-40% MORE oil then they actually thought was there.

You also need to remember all the capped oil wells in Texas and Oklahoma, and the massive amounts of Oil shale out there, that oil can be extracted from.

Yes, alternative fuels are wonderful, hydrogen is GREAT, BUT, it takes as much fossil fuel to CREATE the hydrogen, then if you just burned the fricking fossil fuel.

Once we can come up with a way that takes less energy to get the hydrogen, then we can talk about alternative energy.

The private market is going to come up with a solution, government subsidies and taxes etc, will NOT do it. Private industry will come up with something if it is profitable, and once hydrogen and othere alternative fuels become profitable, you will see us switch over in a BIG way.

Government cannot and will not speed up this process.

If it's profitable, it will happen, if it's not, no matter what government does, it won't.

[Cc]

quote:

---

We have PLENTY of fossil fuel available, that would last us at least for the next 40 years, if not longer, because more is being found all the time.

---

Cool....40 years....what after that? We might be dead,but your kids wont be.

Ever consider looking ahead?

And don't give me a 'pie in the sky answer'.

We were suppose to have controlled nuclear fusion by this time,per the scientific and non scientific media.

[Guest]

quote:

---

IsnÔÇÖt that where the government is for? To protect the general interest of the people?

---

Not in the US it isn't. It is what free enterprise is for.

quote:

---

Cool....40 years....what after that? We might be dead,but your kids wont be.

Ever consider looking ahead?

---

I do look ahead, I have faith in the free enterprise system, and the industriousness of the profit motive.

When it is truly needed, a profitable and workable alternative will be found and exploited.

[trenth00]

Too much to quote! I think everyone has good points and everyone is missing some points WHICH (not witch, dude) needs to be addressed:

1) Oil is not only used to make our machines go vroom vroom; oil is used to make most plastics and lubricants (hu-hu, you said lubricants) and more.

2) Oil powers our economy; if the military has it and we don't: it doesn't matter. We buy all the bullets, armour, etc and without an economy EVERYTHING shuts down even if every fighter, bomber, tank, ship and rocket has gas in its tank.

Two things spark invention: necessity and boredom. I am sure many scientists have been bored enough to think of some cool energy alternatives. But even if they have them, releasing them now would destroy our economy. The conspiracy theorist in my would say that a new technology will 'spring' up when it is economically feasible. But who knows.

Sorry about the bail out on the hydrogen fusion research: we're too busy playing 'world cop' to care. Besides, we got all the energy we need in Iraq-provided by our friendly neighboorhood oil company and or course Haliburten (sp?)

The upside to all this crap? The US's position is weakening and we can finally go back to being Americans once the EU starts running things...unless you mess with our crack, I mean oil.

Now, lets get back on topic: Oil vs the environment: your position?