Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
View Poll Results: Should we drill for oil in ANWR? POD
House GOP Members Urge Delay on ANWR
Thursday, August 11, 2005
WASHINGTON — Two dozen House Republicans, including three committee chairmen, have asked Speaker Dennis Hastert (search) not to use a congressional budget procedure to clear the way for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (search) in Alaska.
They said in a letter to Hastert, R-Ill., that the budget process "is an inappropriate venue to be debating this important environmental issue" and warned that it would further complicate already difficult budget issues.
"We believe the debate on opening this unique land to oil and gas exploration should be done outside the budget process," said the group led by Rep. Jeb Bradley (search), R-N.H., in an Aug. 4 letter made public Wednesday.
Among those signing the letter were three committee chairmen: Science Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y.; Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Government Reform Chairman Thomas Davis, R-Va.
The letter also was sent to Budget Committee Chairman James Nussle, R-Iowa, and Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif. Pombo strongly supports opening the 1.5 million acre coastal plain of the Alaska refuge to oil development.
A Pombo spokeswoman said he had not yet decided whether to include a provision authorizing oil lease sales in the Alaska refuge in a so-called budget "reconciliation" document. Under congressional rules, drilling could be authorized if the Resource Committee decides to rely on an expected $2.4 billion from potential oil lease sales in the refuge to meet budget targets.
The House has repeatedly approved ANWR drilling in recent years only to have the matter die in the Senate where opponents have used filibusters to block the legislation. The budget reconciliation document, which has the force of law if approved and signed by President Bush, is not subject to filibuster.
ANWR drilling supporters failed to get an ANWR provision into the recently enacted energy bill. They were assured the issue would be taken up again as part of the budget process next month.
Most Democrats oppose developing the estimated 5 billion to 10 billion barrels of oil believed to lie beneath the refuge's coastal plain because they contend drilling would harm the wildlife there. If they gain the support of a significant number of Republicans, it could turn the tide against drilling when the issue comes up as part of the budget process next month.
While raising concerns, the 24 GOP lawmakers who signed the letter did not all say they would vote against the budget if an ANWR provision were included.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
To me the whole thing is overblown, everytime they talk about this on the news they show you some scene of a pristine snowbank with polar bears and herds of moose walking around and then say Bush wants to drill for oil here. The reality is the Refuge is a fairly large plot of land, it's 19 million acres, and the area they want to drill is roughly 2000 acres, that means less than 1 % of the total refuge. about 8%of the total refuge will be explored for oil but less than 1% would ever actually be affected.
It's not like they're drilling right though a herd of caribou where they are drilling is so remote it's unlikely that a single human being has ever set foot there except those in the oil industry. I'm all for protecting the environment but this is really a mountain out of a molehill. They have already pledged to work with enviro groups to help lessen the impact. For example the largest oilfield in North America is Prudhoe bay and the Caribou population has increased more than 10 fold since they opened that oil field(from about 3000 to over 30,000) due to efforts by enviros and the oil companies.
The reality the potential benefits to the US economy far outweigh the very small impact it's likely to have on the environment.
the roads needed to service that "1%" will cut across a large swath.
__________________
"Seachicken - it's what's for dinner" - me (until the 'Hawks sweep the Cards)
Every man has at least a bit of womanizer in him.
Check out Dephinger and Stoutpounder on our respective MySpace pages.
And all the other support structures, it's not just the drilling. Also it would be lot's of small sites spread across a wide area. So impacting a far greater area. Last but not least there is very little oil up there in the grand scheme of things.
We could save more and reduce our dependance on middle eastern oil far more but adding gasoline tax and spend the cash on alternatives and research. The increased price would make buyers insist on more fuel efficient vehicles and the research.
And all the other support structures, it's not just the drilling. Also it would be lot's of small sites spread across a wide area. So impacting a far greater area. Last but not least there is very little oil up there in the grand scheme of things.
We could save more and reduce our dependance on middle eastern oil far more but adding gasoline tax and spend the cash on alternatives and research. The increased price would make buyers insist on more fuel efficient vehicles and the research.
"Studies of the ANWR coastal plain indicate it may contain between 6 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil (between 11.6 and 31.5 billion barrels in-place). With enhanced recovery technology, ANWR oil could provide an additional 30 to 50 years of reliable supply. Natural gas, produced with the oil, could be reinjected or added to a new gas pipeline originating in Prudhoe Bay."
Estimates range all over the place from survey to survey they say they may get as much as 70 billion barrels they can't be sure because they've never been allowed to do more accurate surveys.
As for the total impact, again the only area of impact is 8% of the area(that will be explored) and less than 1% impacted. It's on the coast so the idea that they have to make roads across hundreds of miles of pristine land is wrong, they just have to come inland from the coast. One of the arguments being used against it showing how much area is used for the Prudhoe Bay area, completely ignoring that was done ages ago, using current technology they estimate that if they built Prudhoe Bay today its "footprint" would be 64% smaller.
I'm not saying there will be zero impact, but the stuff you see on tv or read about how bad this is going to be for the environment up there is highly overblown. Anytime you're dealing with oil there's the potential for pipeline leaks, oil spills in water etc. Nothing is totally safe, but a modern plant is going to be much less invasive and much more efficient than Prudhoe Bay now.
Or we can just keep getting gouged by the Middle East. Taxing gasoline to pay for research is fine with me, if they are doing the research scientifically, and not based on politics. If they're going to spend that money looking for "hydrogen mines" I'd rather skip the tax.
Or we can just keep getting gouged by the Middle East. Taxing gasoline to pay for research is fine with me, if they are doing the research scientifically, and not based on politics. If they're going to spend that money looking for "hydrogen mines" I'd rather skip the tax.
lol, me too.
But seriously the main reason for this would be to drive vehical economy by market forces.
Do that and show real commitement to driving up vehicle economy, then I'll be more receptive to ideas like drilling in ANWR. Right now it just looks like a giveaway to Bush's campaign supporters
...only12 % of consumed/purchased oil comes from Middle East.
But 58% of our oil use is imported, who cares who's gouging us?
It's not going to make us self contained with oil, I'm certainly not arguing that, but it will help in a lot of ways.
People that say the gas price going up is good apparently don't go to the grocery store, it's not just gas going up it's everything else because the people that deliver your milk are paying more for gas too, as is the bread truck and the guy that delivers my bottles of soy sauce to the store. It's all going up because of gas prices.
Moon Lander Champion!
All Hell is breakin loose!!!!!
Linear Mode
