@DCGoldPants Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 I know this is a War about to happen, I just thought this was interesting since we talked about it before Senate rejects oil drilling in Alaska wildlife refuge Defeat for White House WASHINGTON (AP) --The Senate on Wednesday narrowly rejected oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, rebuffing the Bush administration on a top energy goal it had hoped to win with a wartime security appeal. Despite intense lobbying by pro-drilling senators and the White House in the hours leading up to the vote, Democrats mustered the support needed to remove a drilling provision from a budget resolution expected to be approved later this week. An amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, to strip away the provision passed 52-48. Development of the millions of barrels of oil beneath the 100-mile coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Alaska has been a key part of President Bush's energy plan. Environmentalists contended drilling there would jeopardize a pristine area valued for its wildlife. All but five Democrats voted against refuge drilling. There were eight Republicans who joined the Democrats in favor of barring oil companies from the refuge. With one or two senators holding the balance, both sides stepped up their lobbying to try to sway anyone thinking of shifting. Freshman Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minnesota, under intense pressure, signaled he might vote in favor of drilling. But in the end, Coleman, who succeed the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, an ardent opponent of drilling, sided with the Democrats. Drilling supporters failed last year to open the refuge to the oil industry because they couldn't get 60 votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, although the House approved oil development. This year, Republicans made the measure part of a budget resolution, which is not subject to filibuster, forcing Democrats and a handful of anti-drilling GOP senators, to try to strip the provision from the budget document. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, argued that Congress in 1980 made a commitment that the oil beneath the coastal plain -- part of a 19-million-acre refuge -- eventually would be tapped. Stevens and other drilling supporters also said that with government-imposed restrictions and the use of modern technology the oil could be pumped without harming the coastal plain's wildlife. "We're not using a lot of land," said Stevens, maintaining that the "footprint" left by the oil wells would be less than 2,000 acres. Environmental concerns But environmentalists countered that the footprint would be scattered over 1.5 million acres of coastal tundra, disturbing polar bears in their dens, affecting calving grounds for caribou and interfering with millions of migratory birds that swoop down on the plain each summer. In the hours before the vote, the White House stepped up pressure on Republicans who might be wavering. With war looming in Iraq, proponents of pumping the oil in the refuge have focused on energy security, arguing the ANWR oil would help America reduce its reliance on precarious foreign supplies. It's the largest untapped reserve of oil in North America, declared Stevens. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico, said lawmakers must not "throw away" the refuge's oil. "It's almost impossible to prove that ANWR will be damaged" by development he said. Democrats disagreed, arguing the refuge's oil was not nearly enough to significantly impact imports. "While endangering one of the most pristine areas in the world, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would do nothing to make our country more energy independent," said Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. He said none of the oil would flow out of the refuge for 10 years. Boxer argued that the United States could save more oil than the refuge would produce "by just getting the SUVs to have the same fuel economy as autos." "This is a national treasure," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, one of the Democrats who successfully blocked attempts to lift the drilling ban last year. "God only gave us 3 percent of the world's oil. The Middle East has about 65 percent ... and a 2 percent difference for the destruction of the wilderness does not solve America's problem." How much oil is beneath the refuge's coastal plain is uncertain because only one exploratory well has been drilled and its results have not been made public. The Interior Department estimates that the plain could have anywhere from 5.7 billion barrels to 16 billion barrels. Environmentalists argue that much less oil than that -- no more than about 3.2 billion barrels -- is likely to be useful for oil companies to pursue. Major oil companies, in fact, have begun to lose interest in the refuge. The United States uses about 20 million barrels of oil a day. Democrats who voted against Boxer's amendment were John Breaux and Mary Landrieu, both of Louisiana; Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye, both of Hawaii, and Zell Miller of Georgia. All five had voted in favor of drilling last year as well. The eight Republicans who voted against oil development were Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine; Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; Gordon Smith of Oregon; Mike DeWine of Ohio; Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois; John McCain of Arizona, and Coleman. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/19/anwar.vote.ap/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 Thus ensuring future dependancy on foreign oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 19, 2003 Author Share Posted March 19, 2003 notice that some Dems votes for it and some Repubs voted against it. How about we focus on Alternative Energies so Oil doesn't matter as much? Plus the cheap stock I bought in the Fuel Cell company can go through the roof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 How about we do both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 19, 2003 Author Share Posted March 19, 2003 hmmm, interesting. Isn't there another country who isn't connected to wanting us dead who we could buy it from and really push the advancement of a new technology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 Let's do that as well. The less we become dependant on OPEC the better. I dont care how we get there. I just think it's silly to ignore the resources within our own country. Whether it's FLA, ANWR, CapeWinds etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 I didn't read the other Alaska drilling post so if this has already been posted, I appologize in advance........................... There is more oil in the Rocky mountain states than has been consumed in the history of the use of fossil fuels. Think I'm wrong................ It is called Shale oil. The reason that it is not being tapped is because it is too expensive to extract right now. Even with oil at $40 a barrell, it is still not cost efficient. It would cost about $50-$60 per barrell to extract the Shale oil in that region. However, once supply forces the cost of oil to a point that the Shale oil will be affordable, you'll see wells popping up all over Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico etc. We do have domestic oil possibilities that far outweigh foreign sources, but, they aren't cost effective at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 I've got one word for you....... Telecommute. Another way to conserve our resources is to get companies, those that have resisted up to this point, to allow their employees to telecommute at least part-time. Think of the savings in terms of oil consumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFunky1 Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 Originally posted by TheKurp I've got one word for you....... Telecommute. Another way to conserve our resources is to get companies, those that have resisted up to this point, to allow their employees to telecommute at least part-time. Think of the savings in terms of oil consumption. I agree we could save some serious resources. With the availability of DSL and cable internet, I even have DSL and live out in the middle of no where, people would be able to do many jobs from home. From an economic stand point I don't see gas prices declining if this were to happen. I say this because all OPEC has to do is reduce the amount of available oil and supply equals demand again. I'd like to see an alternative fuel source, If one were found and found economically, that could replace fossil fuel without having to drastically change internal combustion engines. Too many people with limited resources would be unable to afford a new "alternate energy" vehicle early on. I know it would have to be a gradual shift from fossil fuels. But as we lessen our dependance on fossil fuels and foreign oil, I think we could see one of two things happen OPEC would flood the market with oil to get what they can for what they have, or they would restrict flow during our implementation of alternate fuel vehicles to drive prices up and eat up the resources of people to be able to buy the new vehicles. Some day it would be nice to be self sufficient in our energy needs. Until that day though we could see some crazy crap come down the pike. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 The down vote has me feeling a little peevish so no comment from me at the moment. On a brighter note trip 7s are good. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSF Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I'm as giddy as a schoolboy right now. :high: Finally, something intelligent in regards to the environment coming from the government.. No hard feelings Tex, I doubt this is a dead issue but this battle albeit a small one for now goes to the refuge. I understand your view but in no way would ever support the drilling there. Its just time to put our money into some other forms of energy and stop looking at Alaska as a crutch for 6 additional months of oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Thus ensuring future dependancy on foreign oil. Dependence on oil means dependence on foreign oil. The oil market is a global market. OPEC controls roughly 50% of production (and ANWR is a drop in the bucket), and therefore has their hand on the spigot of supply. The only way to reduce dependency on "foreign" oil is to to our dependency on oil. PERIOD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Who needs a few billion barrels of oil anyway, especially when you have no money. The U.S. has borrowed $638 billion in the last five quarters; $420.8 billion borrowed in the four quarters of fiscal 2002 and $217.5 billion in the first quarter of this fiscal year. Since January, the U.S. Treasury has been trying to hold down borrowing and we hit the national debt limit on February 20th of this year. Since that time, the government has been unable to borrow additional money and there is nothing in Congress, not even a scheduled debate, to raise the debt ceiling for the umpteenth time. This means that John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury, is scurrying all over the place to make ends meet while paying off roughly $500 million in interest due investors daily plus replacing bonds, bills, notes, savings bonds or U.S. Treasury securities maturing at the rate of about $5 billion a day, weekends included. That's what happens when you've got a national debt of $6.4 trillion. Every State, County, City and other governmental function in the nation is suffering serious shortfalls in federal money that would otherwise be to some extent available in normal times. Everything from housing to school districts and infrastructure is suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuckinIA Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 It was reported on O'Reilly tonight that the problem is not supply, but it actually the processing of the oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Originally posted by TheKurp I've got one word for you....... Telecommute. Another way to conserve our resources is to get companies, those that have resisted up to this point, to allow their employees to telecommute at least part-time. Think of the savings in terms of oil consumption. I agree 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 The Oil Nazi: "No oil for you!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.