| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/17/2005 08:19:52 PM · #1 |
Senate votes for ANWR oil drilling
Senate votes for ANWR oil drilling
Thursday, March 17, 2005 Posted: 3:17 PM EST (2017 GMT)
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 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. (Map)
Environmentalists have fought such development and argued that despite improve 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. The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said.
"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, 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-Massachusetts, 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.
"Some people say we ought to conserve more. They say we ought to conserve instead of producing this oil," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico, "But we need to do everything. We have to conserve and produce where we can."
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.
"It's the only way around a filibuster" which requires 60 votes to overcome, countered Stevens.
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.
Bush, who has urged Congress repeatedly to allow oil companies to tap the refuge's crude, said Wednesday it's "a way to get some additional reserves here at home on the books."
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 08:23:04 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 08:36:37 PM · #3 |
| This is very unfortunate...whatever damage is done, and it will be done, can never be repaired...instead of looking for alternatives to fossil fuel this administration supports destruction of the environment. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 08:38:49 PM · #4 |
| By the way, how are the Alaskan caribou doing since we put in that nasty old pipeline? |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 08:46:39 PM · #5 |
I've always thought that if science and government could meet on the right ground, it would be possible to pull off something like this. History certainly doesn't speak optimistically, but perhaps technology has advanced... Only time will tell.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 08:47:21 PM · #6 |
At least some good will come out of it. Entities such as The Carlyle Group and Haliburton should make a nice profit and the net worth of the Bush family will increase considerably..
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 08:47:27 PM · #7 |
I like how "they" sold the idea by quoting gas prices. watch people. do you really think they are going to get lower?
drake |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 08:51:02 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
At least some good will come out of it. Entities such as The Carlyle Group and Haliburton should make a nice profit and the net worth of the Bush family will increase considerably.. |
It seems the Bush family's wealth increase considerably with everything these days...even the war.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 09:05:20 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by dragonlady:
This is very unfortunate...whatever damage is done, and it will be done, can never be repaired...instead of looking for alternatives to fossil fuel this administration supports destruction of the environment. |
I do believe we are looking for alternate fuels, however this does not happen over night. I think the Hi-bred cars are a great step in the right direction and most auto makers will have at least one model to chose from in the near future. You cant just say...lets make fuel out of corn...then make a car that runs off corn fuel. It just does not work like that.
As far as Alaska, I really have mixed feelings. On one hand they are taking such a small part, it would never really be noticed and it really may help our dependence on oil form the middle east, even if it is a small help.
On the other hand, it is the Govt. and if they smell money, they very well could expand it just for the royal buck.
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 21:07:32. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 09:13:15 PM · #10 |
| The article I read about this issue had a quote from someone, I think Bush, that said it was a matter of national security to drill for oil in the refuge. It seems that if you scare people enough you can get pretty much anything approved. It truly is a shame. :( |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 09:29:09 PM · #11 |
As a side note, its estimated it will take 10 years before oil from this drilling will start flowing into economic production.
The day this was voted on, oil prices hit a record high. Probably part of the reason it passed. Though I fail to see how this drilling will ease that pressure given the time frame.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 09:31:58 PM · #12 |
It passed before, but Slick Willie vetoed it, so why the surprise folks.
I guess I do may part I'll walk to work. Will you?
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 09:45:30 PM · #13 |
Lets all wake up to some reality here. Worldwide energy consumption is growing - to a great extent due to the growth of very large 3rd world nations such as China and India. Conservation is not going to solve all of our problems. Solar, wind, other "eco-friendly" sources are not going to be widespread solutions in the near or intermediate future. We are not willing to consider nuclear power in the US. And to top it off our primary source of oil is controlled by a large terrorist cult.
So what choices. I guess its try a little of everything - and yes that includes additional drilling and exploration. It doesnt mean it cant be done safely and with care and caution.
We once had a president who told us to wear sweaters. He's turned out to be a much better house builder and election monitor than president - and I for one dont like sweaters. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 09:56:14 PM · #14 |
The US population, at four percent of the total global population, accounts for more than a quarter of yearly total global energy consumption.
The US population consumes nearly as much energy per year as all of Asia and Oceania put together.
The US population, on a yearly basis, consumes more than twice the amount of energy consumed by China (six times the US population), nearly 10 times the amount of energy consumed by India (at least four times the US population) and roughly 25 times the amount of energy consumed by Indonesia (nearly 90% of US population). (All the counterpoint countries are "very large third-world countries).
Let's get real here: Global energy consumption is growing CHIEFLY due to America's appetite for energy. W can point fingers at others, but most people can read and digest information (and not rely on getting information spoonfed).
We Americans over-consume energy, have the greatest energy need of any country in the world, and are doing our best to rape the world of its energy sources. Our energy companies bribe, cajole and force their way around in order to tap countries' energy sources, and our government does its best (through "trade negotiations" among other things) to help our energy companies defecate on other folks' backyards. Our politicians don't dare tell us these things because they want to get elected. A vast majority of Americans may know these statistics, but won't do anything about it because they want their SUVs, high-powered microwave ovens, the magic billboards of NYC, etc.
I, for my part, am a member of that vast majority of Americans. At least right now I wish I hadn't dismissed my mother's rantings when I was growing up that I'd again left the lights on in the den with nobody in it as those of a penny-pinching, frustrated parent.
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 22:41:47. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 09:59:52 PM · #15 |
its shame that they are going into a wild life refuge. I just hope they use some of that sdways drilling techniques so they dont have to damage as much land.
Oh and some other estimates show that as early as the year 2029, we will have reached the halfway point on the oil supply. So that means the glass will be half empty and fuel prices will be so high that about 3/4 the world population wont be able to afford fossil fuels
James |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:01:41 PM · #16 |
This has made me physically ill. I belong to a few environmental groups and have written letters, called my NJ representatives and even called that bastard Murkowski in Alaska. I knew it wouldn't help but what the Hell, at least I did something.
This administration's own energy department all but said this is pointless, that the amount of oil they could hope to find there is negligable, and that it isn't going to make a dent on price.
BUT, it should make a few SELECT people very very rich. And I guess that's all it takes.
I'm not surprised it was not resisted by Murkowski ( governor of Alaska). this is a state that allows wolves to be hunted by helicoptors. Basically the helicopters find a pack of wolves, and run them through the deep snow until they are too exhausted to run anymore, then they shoot them to death from the helicopter or drop down and have themselves a turkey shoot.
Nice.
I wish I was God for just 5 minutes. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:40:13 PM · #17 |
sounds as if this discussion should in the rant form to me
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:48:36 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
It passed before, but Slick Willie vetoed it, so why the surprise folks.
I guess I do may part I'll walk to work. Will you? |
200 mile round trip fro me. Not much choice in the matter. For what It's worth I drive a 4 cylinder 4WD. I wouldn't buy a new toyota this year because they made them bigger and they now look like Dodges and they cut the gas milage. If I wanted a pig of a Dodge I would have bought one.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:01:04 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
By the way, how are the Alaskan caribou doing since we put in that nasty old pipeline? |
That is an interesting question. The latest research shows that the caribou and polar bears are adversely affected by pipelines and associated roads that connect current drill sites. The "small" area referred to in this legislation is non-contiguous. In fact it lays out wells throughout the entire coastal plain. These wells would then be interconnected by pipelines and roads. The pipelines and roads interrupt caribou migration routes and they will not calve in the vicinity of a drill site. Unfortunately under this administration all scientific data presented by government agencies is “edited” by admin hacks. Read the data. Do a Google search.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:10:58 PM · #20 |
Come on people, we all use oil in some form or another. I,as you enjoy the creature comforts of electricity, tires on my car, food from the supermarket, factories that have built my camera, the computer I use, the processing of my pictures and thousand and thousands of useful process we ALL come to rely upon. Fossil fuel has its place today and will be useful for discovering better, cleaner more efficient energy sources for the future.
Give China a chance, which they are getting and their consumption of oil will surpass the USA... and if any other county had the chance they two would surpass all others for the sake of progress. It is human nature to go forward.. Forward we will go with oil now and when we consume it all away.
So please understand you just like me need and USE oil products every day and you just like me will not stop consuming these products.
SO, in my hunble opnion the best course of action it to continue drilling for oil, and if you have ideas of how to make the process earth friendly please by all means set the standard. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:11:48 PM · #21 |
I'm not even going to share my views on energy consumption because it involves over-population and survival of the fittest. Let's just say my idea would work just fine to fix the problem.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:48:16 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by PhotoRyno:
Come on people, we all use oil in some form or another. I,as you enjoy the creature comforts of electricity, tires on my car, food from the supermarket, factories that have built my camera, the computer I use, the processing of my pictures and thousand and thousands of useful process we ALL come to rely upon. Fossil fuel has its place today and will be useful for discovering better, cleaner more efficient energy sources for the future.
Give China a chance, which they are getting and their consumption of oil will surpass the USA... and if any other county had the chance they two would surpass all others for the sake of progress. It is human nature to go forward.. Forward we will go with oil now and when we consume it all away.
So please understand you just like me need and USE oil products every day and you just like me will not stop consuming these products.
SO, in my hunble opnion the best course of action it to continue drilling for oil, and if you have ideas of how to make the process earth friendly please by all means set the standard. |
The issue is not if we are oil dependent or not. Of course we are. The issue is what are we doing to minimize the damages caused by fossil fuels and what are we doing to prepare for the day when the supply is outstripped by demand. I will not bore you speaking of the damages being caused by our reliance on fossil fuels.
The fact is that this country has done very little to promote alternative fuel sources. If we put the same efforts and government support into this issue as we did going to the moon in the 60's we could solve the problem within the decade. Problem is that the oil industry owns our congress at the present time and has no intent to let up until they have milked every dime they can out the recourse and infrastructure they control. This includes support for war.
As the US continues to fall behind economically what will be our recourse? More war while we still have a military machine? I for one do not want to see my children live in a world dominated by war because we continue to fight over oil that is fast becoming harder to keep up with demand. That is if we continue to have a world as we know it when we discover that there was something to this global warming thing after all.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:48:43 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I'm not even going to share my views on energy consumption because it involves over-population and survival of the fittest. Let's just say my idea would work just fine to fix the problem. |
Everyone pick a number, 1 or 2. All those that picked 2, kill those that picked 1.
Now burn the bodies.
Is that the idea?
As for gas prices, what i heard today was that demand has outstripped capacity at the refineries. Drilling for more oil is not the fix if that is the problem, now is it?
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:50:17 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
It passed before, but Slick Willie vetoed it, so why the surprise folks.
I guess I do may part I'll walk to work. Will you? |
No need to walk. Dump the 14mpg SUVs for 25 mpg neons and cobalts and such. do that in sufficient quantity and we'll be fine. (for a while)
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 02:28:00 AM · #25 |
What a shame that in a community of photographers, beauty appreciators and nature lovers of all types; it has to be pushed into a category called "Rant" (per dictionary.com: "To speak or write in an angry or violent manner; rave.") serious discussion about our wonderful and beautiful biosphere and the current news that it is further being exploited and contaminated, especially after 20 years of purposeful protection.
This, on a smaller level, is what’s happening in the bigger picture and all around us that creates these problems in the first place.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 08:39:04 AM EDT.
