Senate votes to drill in Alaska

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » March 17, 2005, 1:42 am

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/T ... rief2.html

Senate votes for drilling in ANWR
Senators yesterday voted to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil companies, one of President Bush's biggest energy policy priorities.

The Senate voted 51 to 49 to reject an amendment offered by Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to remove the ANWR provision from the budget resolution, where drilling supporters had put the measure to prevent opponents from blocking it through a filibuster.

The budget resolution still must pass for the ANWR provision to go forward. The House Budget Committee, which did not put ANWR in its budget resolution, would also have to agree to the Senate position during a conference committee.

Support for drilling in the House is strong, however. The Senate has been the obstacle to recent efforts to open ANWR, which Congress has debated off and on for more than 20 years.

It is estimated that ANWR could eventually produce as much as 1 million barrels of oil a day. But environmental groups said drilling would threaten wildlife in the area, including a caribou herd.

Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope called the vote "an abuse of the budget process."

How do you all feel about it? Personally, I felt like this would eventually, but unfortunatly, happen.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 17, 2005, 1:45 am

Well, it's a lot less than what was originally set aside for drilling. I just wonder if once it's started, that will be used to justify enlarging the area used.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » March 17, 2005, 1:52 am

Umm hello, McFly..... The ANR at max capacity could only produce 2.5% of the US demand for oil.

We need to keep it untouched, because some day that reserve under the ANR is going to be what keeps our military fueled, and the US alive.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 17, 2005, 5:46 am

Yea but one of Bushies' friends is making money off it so when he got re-elected everyone knew it would happen...

Marb

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » March 17, 2005, 10:22 am

The "Fuck the Environment" mentality at it's finest.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 17, 2005, 12:08 pm

my problem is the lies and the propaganda regarding building the public support.

It will be years before any of that oil will be on the market in the form of gasoline. So to answer questions about the high energy prices of today with suggestions of drilling in ANWR, is misleading.

Moreover, as Kylere said, it is a tiny amount of our demand and will not have any real effect on the market.

Kylere also brings up an interesting military angle that I hadn't considered.

look, the oil companies are making record profits right now and are not being pressured to increase their refining capacity. The refineries are running at or above capacity and that is the bottleneck to getting gasoline to the marketplace, and is a huge part of driving the price. Nobody has built a refinery in over 20 years. Part of that is because refineries are an environmental nightmare, even by the petrochemical industry's standards, and no community wants one anywhere the fuck nearby.

In addition, both members of our government and the Saudi government have publically stated, the price of oil is artificially inflated right now due to a 'terror premium'.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 17, 2005, 1:22 pm

Apologies, fines and lawsuits for oil spills and ecological disasters don't do shit when it comes to fixing the environment they fuck up.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 17, 2005, 1:54 pm

Siji wrote:Apologies, fines and lawsuits for oil spills and ecological disasters don't do shit when it comes to fixing the environment they fuck up.

Well, supposedly Kuwait was slant drilling and stealing Iraq's oil so hopefully we can slant drill and suck up any oil Canada has!

Legenae · Post by **Legenae** » March 17, 2005, 3:31 pm

I think it sucks, for the same reason stated with other posters above me.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 17, 2005, 3:42 pm

Kylere wrote:Umm hello, McFly..... The ANR at max capacity could only produce 2.5% of the US demand for oil.

We need to keep it untouched, because some day that reserve under the ANR is going to be what keeps our military fueled, and the US alive.

I agree for this and environmental as well as fiscal reasons.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 17, 2005, 4:28 pm

Voronwë wrote:It will be years before any of that oil will be on the market in the form of gasoline. So to answer questions about the high energy prices of today with suggestions of drilling in ANWR, is misleading.

But it's stock options and bonuses for oil executives and money in politicians pockets today.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 17, 2005, 8:24 pm

I am against it. Nothing more to say really.

Kalohela · Post by **Kalohela** » March 17, 2005, 11:54 pm

As a biologist-in-training, this almost made me cry in RL. I am against opening up drilling in any Wildlife Refuges as we have so few of them compared to the vast majority of the planet that humans have -already- taken over like locusts. . . . .

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 18, 2005, 12:05 am

So, does ANYone agree with this? I just wonder what justifications someone would have for something like this. The only "good" thing I can see is what I mentioned in the first reply to the thread about it being a smaller area than Democrats originally set aside years ago.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 18, 2005, 12:09 am

i'm not against it.. but i'm also not sure we need to tap that reserve at this time.

Phugg_Innay · Post by **Phugg_Innay** » March 18, 2005, 12:50 am

I'm playing The Devils Advocate here ... just food for thought not a true opinion on my part.

Can someone on here post what the actual area ie the sq miles or acres that are actually going to be opened up. That in my opinion is the weighing factor here. Alaska is the Least populated state, Yet the Largest area. California is the most populated state and we have quite a bit of drilling with Very low incident rates. I live less than 15 miles from 4 YES 4 Refineries and have not been impacted by them. Will drilling in Alaska affect YOU personally in any way ? Will it affect one of your loved ones ?

In my previous job I dealt with a lot of Overzealous "enviromentalists" (more like freaks). They would do whatever it took to stop a program from hurting the ONE thing they cared about , but could give a rats ass about everything else. Its common sense here folks. At this time (meaning generations) we are completely OIL dependent. Why not use what we can while we can ?

I agree on both parts of the argument and feel there can be a balance put in place. Alaska is one of the most beautifull parts of the world , yet least hospitable as well. If we have the ability to extract the preciouse lifeblood of the American economy from it WITHOUT severly impacting I say GO FOR IT. I would be willing to wager that a lot of the locals are actually for the drilling , seeing as it will actually bring jobs to an area that has NONE at this time. So are you going to put Nanook on a welfare line or give him a job so he can maybe send one of his children to school and get an education to possibly create a fuel cell technology that will actually work.
Thats it for now , this is a rant, some people and their over reactions really get me worked up.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 18, 2005, 1:11 am

Will drilling in Alaska affect YOU personally in any way ? Will it affect one of your loved ones ?

Nope but it will impact things I care about and also make sure the needed move to other sources of energy will be even slower.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 18, 2005, 2:29 am

Phugg_Innay wrote:I'm playing The Devils Advocate here ... just food for thought not a true opinion on my part.

Can someone on here post what the actual area ie the sq miles or acres that are actually going to be opened up. That in my opinion is the weighing factor here. Alaska is the Least populated state, Yet the Largest area. California is the most populated state and we have quite a bit of drilling with Very low incident rates. I live less than 15 miles from 4 YES 4 Refineries and have not been impacted by them. Will drilling in Alaska affect YOU personally in any way ? Will it affect one of your loved ones ?

— 1960: President Eisenhower (search) declares that 8.9 million acres of tundra and mountains in the northeastern corner of Alaska be set aside as a protected wildlife refuge.

— 1980: Congress expands the refuge to 19 million acres and declares part of it wilderness. Also proclaims that potential oil reserves in the refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain be considered for development, but only if Congress specifically authorizes it.

— 1995: Congress, using the budget process, authorizes oil drilling in the coastal plain, but President Clinton (search) vetoes it.

— 2002-2003: The House repeatedly approves drilling in the refuge as part of broad energy legislation, but the Senate rejects drilling, unable to overcome a Democratic-led filibuster.

— November 2004: Republicans gain four seats in the Senate, expanding their majority to 55. ANWR drilling advocates predict the increased GOP strength will help to open the refuge to oil development.

— March 2005: The Senate inserts into the budget a revenue provision that anticipates oil lease sales in ANWR. A Democratic-led attempt to strip the provision from the budget measure falls short 49-51. The budget document becomes a vehicle for authorizing ANWR oil drilling.

Here is a link to a map of the area http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf

WHAT IS ANWR AND WHERE IS THE COASTAL PLAIN?
Most folks don't really understand where the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is located and the relatively tiny amount of space within ANWR, (the Coastal Plain), that's been set aside for potential oil and gas development. If exploration proves the area is worth developing, less than one half of one percent, 2,000 to 5,000 acres would actually be developed.

The 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) lies in the northeast corner of Alaska. The entire refuge lies north of the Arctic Circle and 1,300 miles south of the North Pole.

The Coastal Plain area, comprising 1.5 million acres on the northern edge of ANWR, is bordered on the north by the Beaufort Sea, on the east by the U.S. Canadian border, and on the west by the Canning River. The Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (both Alaska Native corporations) own 94,000 acres in the Coastal Plain surrounding the village of Kaktovik.

At its widest points, the Coastal Plain is about 100 miles across and about 30 miles deep and covers an area slightly larger than the state of Delaware. Along the coastal area, the plain is an almost featureless expanse, barren and dotted with thousands of unconnected small ponds; the area to the south becomes gently rolling, treeless hills which merge into foothills and then into the northern edges of the Brooks Range.

There is a Native population of about 220 residents at Kaktovik, a village on Native owned lands at Barter Island, adjacent to the Coastal Plain and within the boundaries of ANWR.

If ANWR was a state, it would be larger than 10 other states;

Size of ANWR relative to U.S. states:

1. ANWR 19.0 million acres
Portion of ANWR permanently closed to development (Wilderness & Refuge) 17.5 million
2. West Virginia 15.5
3. Maryland 6.6
4. Vermont 6.1
5. New Hampshire 5.9
6. Massachusetts 5.3
7. New Jersey 4.9
8. Hawaii 4.1
9. Connecticut 3.2
Area proposed for exploration 1.5 million
10. Delaware 1.3
11. Rhode Island .7

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 18, 2005, 10:17 am

This does not make sense " Why disturb the ANR?"

I mean do we really need the oil? I have to agree with Kylere on this one saving it in reserve is the best option, plus we invaded Iraq for its oil so we should have plenty!! Oh wait we didnt invade Iraq for its oil.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » March 18, 2005, 1:30 pm

I dunno, I don't see why we wouldn't want to do this. Minimal environmental impact using current technologies (plus it's a tundra - that means cold desolate wasteland). Lessened dependence on foreign oil. More cash in the US economy. Seems like a big W for all of us.

We wo'nt be dependent on oil forever. While we are why not capitalize?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 18, 2005, 1:58 pm

there will be no real impact on our dependence on foreign oil, specifically Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Nigeria.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » March 18, 2005, 2:17 pm

Rekaar. wrote:I dunno, I don't see why we wouldn't want to do this. Minimal environmental impact using current technologies (plus it's a tundra - that means cold desolate wasteland). Lessened dependence on foreign oil. More cash in the US economy. Seems like a big W for all of us.

This isn't as big a W as you might think. I tell you this as someone who has earned his living for the last 20 years in the field related aspects of the on-shore petroleum industry in Northern Canada. First off the economics: this may be cheaper than importing Arab Oil with the current "terror premiums" but it will still be 2-3 more expensive to develop than reserves in the Gulf, California or other more southerly climes. Some of this will be terrain and access related, other will be directly related to the actual climate in the winter and its effects on production.

As for the "plus it's a tundra - that means cold desolate wasteland" quip: could you please be more fucking ignorant? This is not just tundra being dealt with, there are forests, lakes and rivers as well, although tundra itself is far from a "wasteland": it is a delicate ecosystem that takes years to develop and recover from disturbances because of the shortened growing season. In these areas, dealing with permafrost means that by introducing heated drilling fluids (i.e. anything above ground temperature) you are creating a disturbance. I could go into more detail about some of the other issues but unless you work in the industry or have a true desire to learn, the jargon would be lost on you. Suffice it to say, drilling and production in these areas is not as easy (or as clean) as some
like to believe. However because it IS more remote, it is easier to hide some shit when it happens...

Don't get me wrong: the petroleum industry has been very good to my family and I. I know there are things that could be done to produce these reserves in an environmentally friendly manner but its not going to be cheap and it will always have an impact on a place that takes longer to recover than more southerly climes. And for the amount that your nation consumes, I don't see a lot of point to it.

Aabidano wrote:But it's stock options and bonuses for oil executives and money in politicians pockets today.

These are the only big winners here. Believe it.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » March 18, 2005, 11:47 pm

I have a feeling they will do the same with oil found there as they will with all the oil in Texas.

They will sit on it, and encourage any private land owners to sit on it. Hoping to cash in after we use up the world oil supply.

Which is bullshit.

I say take the money estimated to spend developing the land, and dump it in alternative energy source development.

BUT THAT'S JUST ME

nobody · Post by **nobody** » March 19, 2005, 3:13 am

and me

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » March 19, 2005, 4:28 am

Wulfran wrote:As for the "plus it's a tundra - that means cold desolate wasteland" quip: could you please be more fucking ignorant? This is not just tundra being dealt with, there are forests, lakes and rivers as well, although tundra itself is far from a "wasteland"

cold wrote:The 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) lies in the northeast corner of Alaska. The entire refuge lies north of the Arctic Circle and 1,300 miles south of the North Pole. Most folks don't really understand where the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is located and the relatively tiny amount of space within ANWR, (the Coastal Plain), that's been set aside for potential oil and gas development. If exploration proves the area is worth developing, less than one half of one percent, 2,000 to 5,000 acres would actually be developed.

desolate wasteland wrote:The plain is an almost featureless expanse, barren and dotted with thousands of unconnected small ponds; the area to the south becomes gently rolling, treeless hills which merge into foothills and then into the northern edges of the Brooks Range.

and then you cap with

wulfran wrote:I know there are things that could be done to produce these reserves in an environmentally friendly manner but its not going to be cheap

so you ultimately blow out your own argument by admitting the impact will be minimal. Thanks for agreeing with me but acting like you're better than me because you've worked in the industry.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 19, 2005, 12:39 pm

Rekaar. wrote:
Wulfran wrote:As for the "plus it's a tundra - that means cold desolate wasteland" quip: could you please be more fucking ignorant? This is not just tundra being dealt with, there are forests, lakes and rivers as well, although tundra itself is far from a "wasteland"

cold wrote:The 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) lies in the northeast corner of Alaska. The entire refuge lies north of the Arctic Circle and 1,300 miles south of the North Pole. Most folks don't really understand where the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is located and the relatively tiny amount of space within ANWR, (the Coastal Plain), that's been set aside for potential oil and gas development. If exploration proves the area is worth developing, less than one half of one percent, 2,000 to 5,000 acres would actually be developed.

desolate wasteland wrote:The plain is an almost featureless expanse, barren and dotted with thousands of unconnected small ponds; the area to the south becomes gently rolling, treeless hills which merge into foothills and then into the northern edges of the Brooks Range.
and then you cap with
wulfran wrote:I know there are things that could be done to produce these reserves in an environmentally friendly manner but its not going to be cheap
so you ultimately blow out your own argument by admitting the impact will be minimal. Thanks for agreeing with me but acting like you're better than me because you've worked in the industry.

No, having been involved with the industry, he knows that the money won't be spent to insure minimal impact and that ultimately the environment will be adversely impacted...

Also the oil company EIS's won't mention things like edge effects (cutting a road into pristine terrain opens an edge for invasive species which will fuck over species which developed in relative isolation for thousands of years.

There will also be Thermal edge effects...drilling for oil often involves steam injection...steam injection into permafrost tundra = melt.

Piping the oil out = cutting a pipeline = edge effects again in addition to thermal affects for the pipeline which must be heated to keep the oil flowing at those latitudes...

Then take into account the inevitable spills...not big ones...but hundreds of microspills...groundwater contamination during thaw...permafrost heaving...

Any biologist not paid by the oil company will tell you there will be serious destruction of habitat...Most biologists paid by the oil company will tell you the same in private...

I have walked/canoed the Louisiana Marshes at length...I know there is not a square inch that hasn't been adversely impacted by oil exploration/development...