http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/04/anwr.drilling.ap/index.html

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate insisted Thursday on opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling after being blocked by environmentalists for decades, then voted overwhelmingly to prohibit exporting any of the oil pumped from the region. With a 51-48 vote, the Senate approved requiring the Interior Department to begin selling oil leases for the coastal plain of the Alaska refuge within two years. Repeated attempts to approve such drilling have failed in the Senate because drilling supporters were unable to muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster by opponents. This year, drilling supporters attached language ending the ban on drilling in the refuge to a budget measure that is immune from filibuster. Opening the refuge, which was set aside for protection 44 years ago, has been one of President Bush's top energy priorities. Bush, in Argentina for a two-day summit, hailed the vote. "Increasing our domestic energy supply will help lower gasoline prices and utility bills," he said in a statement. "We can and should produce more crude oil here at home in environmentally responsible ways. The most promising site for oil in America is a 2,000-acre site in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and thanks to technology, we can reach this energy with little impact on the land or wildlife." Bush and other drilling advocates argue that the country needs the estimated 10.5 billion barrels of oil that are believed to lie beneath the refuges coastal tundra in northeastern Alaska and slow the growing dependence on oil imports. The United States now uses about 7.3 billion barrels of oil a year."

11/4/2005 9:23:26 AM

So we'll get about 18 months of energy from this?


Seems worth it

11/4/2005 9:26:05 AM

It'll take 10 years to get the oil, and all of it will be shipped to Asia.

11/4/2005 9:27:21 AM

your an idiot ^

Quote :

"then voted overwhelmingly to prohibit exporting any of the oil pumped from the region."

11/4/2005 9:44:26 AM

I'm glad that when we're out of oil, we'll have a whole year or so worth (estimated - could be even less) on hand to, um... I dunno, drink?

11/4/2005 10:08:38 AM

Quote :

"your an idiot "

11/4/2005 10:31:02 AM

SURELY WE'LL BACK OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST BECAUSE OF THIS

11/4/2005 10:57:54 AM

He's not an idiot.

Drilling of the ANWR is attached to the current defecit bill in congress and cannot be filibustered.

If that bill passes, the ANWR is open.

11/4/2005 11:15:42 AM

Quote :

"your an idiot"

11/4/2005 11:17:08 AM

haha!

I just now got it

11/4/2005 12:24:56 PM

Quote :

"So we'll get about 18 months of energy from this? Seems worth it"

This tripe again.

Once we get the oil, there is enough there to keep us going for 18 months by itself. I don't think anyone is suggesting we rely solely on Alaskan oil for 18 months.

And is it worth it? Even if we aren't getting a lot, what are we sacrificing?

Quote :

"we'll have a whole year or so worth (estimated - could be even less)"

Well, since it's "estimated," it could be even more, too.

11/4/2005 1:33:30 PM

Quote :

"what are we sacrificing?"

11/4/2005 8:06:26 PM

^^agreed. The whole "we would only get X months of oil from it" argument is pathetic.

You hear the same argument as to why we shouldn't drill off the coast of Florida. And California. And several other areas.

Guess what? It adds up to a lot of untapped reserves. Increased drilling would lower oil prices and decrease our dependence on the middle east. Sounds like a good deal to me.

11/4/2005 9:04:21 PM

so heres a question... why the hell would you not want to ship the damn oil to asia... considering that it should be sold cheapest to the person that is usually the closest. my logic says that if we do this then that same barrel they would of used from the middle east is now coming for them cheaper, thus making the original barrel free again to be sold, dropping the price. if anything i dont see us banning exports as anything but hurting the very point we had in mind, lowering fuel prices.... maybe someone can answer that...

11/5/2005 12:52:17 AM

I thought gas prices were high because we didn't have enough refineries? Not because of not enough oil...?

The profit made by the oil companies will likely far outweigh any break in prices seen to us consumers, not to mention the further loss of natural area in Alaska (a small area, but still a loss, in another 40 years, they might decide they need to build some more wells). The only way I could support this is if they could guarantee a return to <$2 gas prices for at least five years.

11/5/2005 1:11:39 AM

I disagree with the tone that the government is "giving" something away, whereas in reality the govenrment "took" it away from the private citizens to begin with.

That is to say: the government should have to continually justify its exercise of eminent domain over a tract of land; it should not be the case that people have to lobby the government to end eminent domain.

In my view the government should face such strict scrutiny over eminent domain, that any reasonable objection to it should overturn it. In this case the objection is very reasonable: we are going to get a lot (not a panacea, but a windfall) of oil from this region. Oil is a matter of national and economic security.

Otherwise we basically settle on the viewpoint that the government can make up any pie-in-the-sky reason for eminent domain without regards for costs versus benefits. Do we really believe that wildlife conservation is adequate reason for eminent domain over real business, economic, and security needs?

Who here would have their house bulldozed or their business shut down to preserve some caribou?

[Edited on November 5, 2005 at 1:27 AM. Reason : foo]

11/5/2005 1:27:32 AM

^DirtyGreek

11/5/2005 10:08:59 AM

Quote :

"The profit made by the oil companies will likely far outweigh any break in prices seen to us consumers"

I know that sometimes this gets lost in the fray, but companies making profits isn't bad. Especially when they're American companies, for crissakes.

Quote :

"not to mention the further loss of natural area in Alaska"

Your tone here makes it sound like Alaska is short on vast, wide-open natural spaces. How many states are smaller than ANWR, again?

11/5/2005 5:31:11 PM

Quote :

"Your tone here makes it sound like Alaska is short on vast, wide-open natural spaces. How many states are smaller than ANWR, again?"

Except that I followed it with:
(a small area, but still a loss, in another 40 years, they might decide they need to build some more well)

We have to draw the line somewhere, and here is as good as any, IMO.

Quote :

"I know that sometimes this gets lost in the fray, but companies making profits isn't bad. Especially when they're American companies, for crissakes. "

It's not a bad thing, but the oil companies making money in this case isn't going to help the consumer significantly, it hurts the environment, and its suspicious that the Bush admin is pushing for this with all the ties to the oil companies. The oil companies already get big tax breaks, rake in big profits, and is the only major industry that has such dynamic pricing (which helps their profits more). They don't need any more help. What the gov. should be doing if they want to help with gas prices is build more refineries, not wells. This has a more direct benefit to us, the consumer.

But, if they could really force them to only sell the oil to America, and have it used here, that would be okay, but I don't see how they can enforce this. The oil companies will probably sell to asia and elsewhere anyway.

11/5/2005 7:59:26 PM

The problem with building more refineries is that the New Source Review and other EPA regulations make the process incredibly expensive and difficult. Not to mention, back when gas sold for less than $1.50, there really wasn't much money to be made in refining. The margins were just too small.

Its a lengthy process, but now congress is really aware of the problem and steps are being put into place to expand our refining capacity.

Don't make big oil the scapegoat just because they make a lot of money.

11/6/2005 12:36:37 AM

Not saying I support the idea or anything...but it could have helped alot during the katrina thing. the media saying "Don't worry, we have alaskan oil" could have prevented alot of the "hysteria" and the damn people hording gas.

11/6/2005 12:51:08 AM

^ Oil supply wasn't responsible for the high gas prices after katrina, it was gas supply, which is affected more by refineries than actual oil availability.

^^ Yeah, I understand that. But, the thing linked to makes it seem like the politicians are saying "this will give us cheap gas" which to me looks like they are trying to pull a snow job on Joe-Blow consumer. It won't give us cheap gas. What would be better than drilling in alaska is making the restrictions on refineries more reduced (although, I don't know how costly it would be to the oil companies, maybe they want to "have their cake, and eat it to" as they say).

11/6/2005 1:11:33 AM

The title of this thread sounds like a porno.



That is all that I have to say about the new ANWR oil thread.

11/6/2005 3:02:57 AM

http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/treasure-america-anwr-video-is-001522.php

a really informative video about this topic from my friends at triple pundit

11/7/2005 10:39:03 AM

I didn't find that video to be very informative. It was extremely one-sided, and reiterated the same tired argument that 10.5 billion barrels of oil is actually a tiny amount when compared to our enormous oil consumption. Then they tried their best to discredit everything else that the oil industry has said about ANWR drilling, while advocating fuel efficiency.

The video smacked of propaganda in the mold of a Michael Moore "documentary".

11/7/2005 9:10:28 PM