Log in

View Full Version : USA to drill for oil in Alaska



Kia
17th March 2006, 18:18
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....ONGRESS-OIL.xml (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-03-17T180938Z_01_N17264636_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENERGY-CONGRESS-OIL.xml)

Senate panel to OK ANWR drilling bill by mid-May
Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:09 PM ET13

By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will approve legislation by mid-May to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, according to the panel's chairman.

The U.S. Senate late on Thursday approved in a close 51-49 vote a $2.8 trillion budget bill that calls for the government to raise $6 billion over 10 years in leasing fees from allowing oil companies to drill in ANWR. The revenue would be split between the federal government and the state of Alaska.

The budget bill instructs the Senate's energy panel to draft legislation to open the refuge to drilling in order to raise the required $6 billion.

Sen. Pete Domenici, the Republican chairman of the energy committee, said he will send the ANWR-opening legislation to the Senate Budget Committee by mid-May.

Republican leaders, with White House support, used budget legislation to give oil companies access to the refuge, because budget bills can't be filibustered under Senate rules.

Opening ANWR is a key part of the Bush administration's national energy policy. The White House says tapping the refuge's potential 16 billion barrels of crude would boost domestic petroleum supplies and help reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil imports.

Senate Democrats abandoned their plan to offer an amendment to strip the ANWR leasing fees from the budget bill after it became clear they didn't have enough votes to succeed.

"Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will do nothing to bring gas prices down, but it provides special interests with a sweet deal at the cost of real energy independence," said Democratic Sen. John Kerry, a strong opponent to ANWR drilling.

Environmental groups also slammed the Senate vote.

"Orchestrating a federal budget plan to allow Arctic drilling ... only serves to pay back big energy companies that have been hauling in record profits," said Karen Wayland, legislation director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"The American public wants real solutions to our energy challenges, not more drilling that only perpetuates our nation's unsustainable dependence on oil," said League of Conservation Voters legislative director Tiernan Sittenfeld.
The House of Representatives has yet to vote on its budget legislation. But two dozen Republican House lawmakers have said they oppose putting ANWR drilling language in the budget bill.

"This fight is a long way from over," said William Meadows, president of The Wilderness Society.

Drilling supporters hope consumer anger over high gasoline prices and rising oil imports this election year will encourage more lawmakers to vote for drilling in the refuge.

ANWR stretches across 19 million acres (7.7 million hectares) in the northeast corner of Alaska. The White House wants to offer 1.5 million acres in the refuge's coastal plain for energy exploration leases.

The Interior Department estimates the refuge could hold between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

If the refuge were opened to drilling, it would take about eight years before the area reached full production of 800,000 to 1 million barrels per day, the Energy Department said.





Fucking wonderful. Its sickening that the US senate would be so corrupt these days to even allow such a thing to happen. ANWR needs to be preserved for as long as possible! Not used to fund cheap US senator whores who wish to make more money for the already filthy rich corporations. They even try to justify this by saying it will help solve the countries energy crisis. Hmm, maybe if the government actually took a step back and thought for one second they would realize that there are many potential renewable energy sources that with the right use could easily help fix the USA's so called "Energy Crisis".

Dimentio
17th March 2006, 21:23
During this autumn, we may see the prices on fuel increase a bit more, due to the events in the Nigerian delta, Iraq and the Iranian threat of sanctions against USA. But I wonder, how mch of the current oil crisis is really caused by over-demand from the Chinese [they have forced the prices on metals too].

ÑóẊîöʼn
17th March 2006, 21:28
If I may be blunt, why should I care more about moose than oil?

redstar2000
17th March 2006, 22:12
At the present time, oil is the most profitable source of energy available...and therefore the preferred ruling class option.

The consequent environmental degradation is regrettable...but a modern technological civilization cannot exist without abundant energy on demand.

Want to see what the alternative is like? Turn off all of your electrical appliances for a week and give up your car (if you have one). And no fair cheating by going to restaurants or grocery stores...only buy food from places that use no electricity.

Don't bother going to work unless you work in a place without electricity.

In other words, try living like people in southern Louisiana and Mississippi did after the hurricanes.

You won't have a good time. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Kia
18th March 2006, 01:36
If I may be blunt, why should I care more about moose than oil?

So youd rather have a bit of extra oil and continue the use of a non renewable resource then protect land which hold thousands of species of animals? Should we let loggers and brazilian farms destroy the rainforests around there just so we have extra 8" by 11 1/2" white paper to write on, or so the farmers can have a little bit more room for their cattle to live on? Should we allow the coral reefs to be dredged just so we can have a little bit more fish on the market?




Want to see what the alternative is like? Turn off all of your electrical appliances for a week and give up your car (if you have one). And no fair cheating by going to restaurants or grocery stores...only buy food from places that use no electricity.

Don't bother going to work unless you work in a place without electricity.

Oddly enough i have sort of experienced some of that. Spent 3 weeks in Ireland when i was young with no electricity (we did go to the grocery store, so that is cheating). And I do realize how difficult it is to live with electricity for even a day. What angers me i the fact that the US government has stated that they would work towards using renewable energy resources, and instead of really pushing these alteratives they have gone ahead and made a 2.8 TRILLION dollar bill to destroy land that people have been fighting to protect for the last 30 years, just so they can get to a fuel source which is already dramatically depleted.

Ironhammer
18th March 2006, 22:20
Cars, all of it. Not needed. In all God's Great Green Earth there is nothing that has done more damage. Cars spew out more crap than volcanoes. That is true.

ÑóẊîöʼn
19th March 2006, 02:23
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 10:23 PM
Cars, all of it. Not needed. In all God's Great Green Earth there is nothing that has done more damage. Cars spew out more crap than volcanoes. That is true.
Complete nonsense of course, since volcanoes have been around almost as long as the Earth has :rolleyes:

Nothing Human Is Alien
19th March 2006, 03:02
The power goes out for 20 hours a day daily in the Dominican Republic.