http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=543440
Senate GOP Ready to Push Arctic Drilling
Senate Republicans to Use Budget Measure
to Push for Arctic Refuge Drilling
By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON Mar 2, 2005 — A Senate showdown over an Alaska wildlife refuge is expected within weeks as Republicans plan to use a budget measure to overcome strong opposition to allowing oil drilling in the protected area.
It will be first big environmental issue facing the new Congress.
Republican leaders indicated Tuesday that they plan to press the issue of drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of a so-called budget reconciliation process, which cannot be subject to a Democratic filibuster a tactic that has blocked the refuge's development in the past.
Given the wider GOP majority in the Senate, Republicans said they think they have the best chance yet to open the presumably oil-rich but environmentally sensitive Alaska refuge to oil drilling, which has been one of President Bush's top energy priorities.
Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. said it was reasonable to assume ANWR, as the refuge is commonly called, would be part of the budget measure.
"The president asked for it, and we're trying to do what the president asked for," Gregg said Tuesday after meeting privately with Republicans on his panel.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Energy Committee and a strong supporter of refuge oil development, said he was "very optimistic we're going to get the ANWR provision in this budget."
Gregg's panel was expected to begin work on the budget measure next week. Senate floor action including a vote on the ANWR provision was likely before the congressional Easter recess March 19.
Supporters of pumping the refuge's oil believe they have the 51 votes needed to get the measure through as part of the budget process. Opponents aren't ready to concede that, although they remain certain that GOP leaders don't have the 60 votes needed to overcome a certain filibuster by opponents if ANWR drilling is in separate legislation.
A small group of senators and key administration officials is flying to Alaska's North Slope this weekend to try to dramatize their argument that the refuge can be developed in an environmentally sound way, using modern drilling technology. They will visit the refuge and North slope oil drilling activities west of the protected area.
-----------------------
What's it going to take to stop this madness?
Full Version: GOP's Big Play: drill ANWR or no budget
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Energy Independence, Environment, Science and Technology > Energy, Environment, Science and Technology Issues Archive
It is so sick!
They will stop at nothing for oil
http://www.alaskawild.org/campaigns_arctic_whatyoucando.html
save the refuge!
They will stop at nothing for oil
http://www.alaskawild.org/campaigns_arctic_whatyoucando.html
save the refuge!
take a visual tour of the land that these repukes want to destroy for oil 
http://www.alaskawild.org/Slideshow_AT_files/frame.htm
and the pics of what they have done already
http://www.alaskawild.org/Slideshow_PB_files/frame.htm
http://www.alaskawild.org/Slideshow_AT_files/frame.htm
and the pics of what they have done already
http://www.alaskawild.org/Slideshow_PB_files/frame.htm
Why care about the environment when you can just drill it up to pollute the world with oil?
I can't stand it, and the thing of it is, oil company interest in the site is dwindling. ConocoPhillips, BP and ChevronTexaco have pulled out of Arctic Power, the pro-drilling lobbying group. Oil companies probably figure, why spend all that money and take a risk in Alaska, where it's not even known how much oil is there, when you can have easy pickins in Iraq where the oil is just laying there in pools on the ground?
It's almost like Bush is just trying to prove a point, or maybe it's Ted Stevens who's pulling the strings.
It's almost like Bush is just trying to prove a point, or maybe it's Ted Stevens who's pulling the strings.
QUOTE
Senate showdown looms over wildlife refuge
GOP ready to press Alaska drilling measure
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:15 a.m. ET March 2, 2005
WASHINGTON - A Senate showdown over an Alaska wildlife refuge is expected within weeks as Republicans plan to use a budget measure to overcome strong opposition to allowing oil drilling in the protected area. It will be first big environmental issue facing the new Congress.
Republican leaders indicated Tuesday that they plan to press the issue of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of a so-called budget reconciliation process, which cannot be subject to a Democratic filibuster — a tactic that has blocked the refuge’s development in the past.
Given the wider GOP majority in the Senate, Republicans said they think they have the best chance yet to open part of the presumably oil-rich but environmentally sensitive Alaska refuge to oil drilling, which has been one of President Bush’s top energy priorities.
Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. said it was reasonable to assume ANWR, as the refuge is commonly called, would be part of the budget measure.
“The president asked for it, and we’re trying to do what the president asked for,” Gregg said Tuesday after meeting privately with Republicans on his panel.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Energy Committee and a strong supporter of refuge oil development, said he was “very optimistic we’re going to get the ANWR provision in this budget.”
Vote likely before Easter
Gregg’s panel was expected to begin work on the budget measure next week. Senate floor action — including a vote on the ANWR provision — was likely before the congressional Easter recess March 19.
Supporters of pumping the refuge’s oil believe they have the 51 votes needed to get the measure through as part of the budget process. Opponents aren’t ready to concede that, although they remain certain that GOP leaders don’t have the 60 votes needed to overcome a certain filibuster by opponents if ANWR drilling is in separate legislation.
A small group of senators and key administration officials is flying to Alaska’s North Slope this weekend to try to dramatize their argument that the refuge can be developed in an environmentally sound way, using modern drilling technology. They will visit the refuge and North slope oil drilling activities west of the protected area.
The group includes Interior Secretary Gale Norton, who has been there a number of times; the new energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, making his first trip; James Connaughton, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; and GOP Sens. Domenici, John Thune of South Dakota, Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Robert Bennett of Utah.
All are strong supporters of allowing companies to develop the millions of barrels of oil believed to lie beneath the tundra along the refuge’s northern coastal plain.
Opponents fight hard
Environmentalists have been lobbying hard to keep oil rigs out of the refuge’s coastal plain, a breeding ground for caribou, home to polar bears and musk oxen, and site of an annual influx of millions of migratory birds.
They concede that this year they face the most difficult challenge in their efforts to protect the refuge.
Development of ANWR’s oil has been approved repeatedly in the House as part of broad energy legislation, only to run into staunch opposition in the Senate from most Democrats and a handful of moderate Republicans.
In 1995, an ANWR drilling provision made it into a budget measure — the same tactic now surfacing again — only to have the bill vetoed by then President Clinton, an opponent to drilling.
President Bush strongly supports ANWR development. He argued for it in two election campaigns and made it a key part of the energy blueprint issued in 2001 by Vice President Dick Cheney.
Industry interest waning
But it is Alaska’s congressional delegation that has pushed hardest for opening the refuge as Prudhoe Bay oil production continues to dwindle. In recent years, however, major oil companies have shown only modest interest as they focus on oil projects in other parts of the world.
ConocoPhillips and BP, both companies that have been prominent in Alaska North Slope oil development, have pulled out of Arctic Power, a pro-drilling lobbying group financed by the state of Alaska. ChevronTexaco left the group earlier.
Norton, in an interview with The Associated Press, downplayed the significance of these actions, but she acknowledged some oil companies aren’t as interested in lobbying on the issue as they once were. She said she is confident oil companies would bid on leases.
“You’ve got companies that have facilities 30 or 50 miles from ANWR. It seems like a natural extension” of their current North Slope activities, said Norton, who called getting at the refuge’s oil “a national security issue.”
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7054142/
GOP ready to press Alaska drilling measure
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:15 a.m. ET March 2, 2005
WASHINGTON - A Senate showdown over an Alaska wildlife refuge is expected within weeks as Republicans plan to use a budget measure to overcome strong opposition to allowing oil drilling in the protected area. It will be first big environmental issue facing the new Congress.
Republican leaders indicated Tuesday that they plan to press the issue of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of a so-called budget reconciliation process, which cannot be subject to a Democratic filibuster — a tactic that has blocked the refuge’s development in the past.
Given the wider GOP majority in the Senate, Republicans said they think they have the best chance yet to open part of the presumably oil-rich but environmentally sensitive Alaska refuge to oil drilling, which has been one of President Bush’s top energy priorities.
Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. said it was reasonable to assume ANWR, as the refuge is commonly called, would be part of the budget measure.
“The president asked for it, and we’re trying to do what the president asked for,” Gregg said Tuesday after meeting privately with Republicans on his panel.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Energy Committee and a strong supporter of refuge oil development, said he was “very optimistic we’re going to get the ANWR provision in this budget.”
Vote likely before Easter
Gregg’s panel was expected to begin work on the budget measure next week. Senate floor action — including a vote on the ANWR provision — was likely before the congressional Easter recess March 19.
Supporters of pumping the refuge’s oil believe they have the 51 votes needed to get the measure through as part of the budget process. Opponents aren’t ready to concede that, although they remain certain that GOP leaders don’t have the 60 votes needed to overcome a certain filibuster by opponents if ANWR drilling is in separate legislation.
A small group of senators and key administration officials is flying to Alaska’s North Slope this weekend to try to dramatize their argument that the refuge can be developed in an environmentally sound way, using modern drilling technology. They will visit the refuge and North slope oil drilling activities west of the protected area.
The group includes Interior Secretary Gale Norton, who has been there a number of times; the new energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, making his first trip; James Connaughton, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; and GOP Sens. Domenici, John Thune of South Dakota, Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Robert Bennett of Utah.
All are strong supporters of allowing companies to develop the millions of barrels of oil believed to lie beneath the tundra along the refuge’s northern coastal plain.
Opponents fight hard
Environmentalists have been lobbying hard to keep oil rigs out of the refuge’s coastal plain, a breeding ground for caribou, home to polar bears and musk oxen, and site of an annual influx of millions of migratory birds.
They concede that this year they face the most difficult challenge in their efforts to protect the refuge.
Development of ANWR’s oil has been approved repeatedly in the House as part of broad energy legislation, only to run into staunch opposition in the Senate from most Democrats and a handful of moderate Republicans.
In 1995, an ANWR drilling provision made it into a budget measure — the same tactic now surfacing again — only to have the bill vetoed by then President Clinton, an opponent to drilling.
President Bush strongly supports ANWR development. He argued for it in two election campaigns and made it a key part of the energy blueprint issued in 2001 by Vice President Dick Cheney.
Industry interest waning
But it is Alaska’s congressional delegation that has pushed hardest for opening the refuge as Prudhoe Bay oil production continues to dwindle. In recent years, however, major oil companies have shown only modest interest as they focus on oil projects in other parts of the world.
ConocoPhillips and BP, both companies that have been prominent in Alaska North Slope oil development, have pulled out of Arctic Power, a pro-drilling lobbying group financed by the state of Alaska. ChevronTexaco left the group earlier.
Norton, in an interview with The Associated Press, downplayed the significance of these actions, but she acknowledged some oil companies aren’t as interested in lobbying on the issue as they once were. She said she is confident oil companies would bid on leases.
“You’ve got companies that have facilities 30 or 50 miles from ANWR. It seems like a natural extension” of their current North Slope activities, said Norton, who called getting at the refuge’s oil “a national security issue.”
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7054142/
Where are the environmental freedomfighters
when ya need 'em?
This is just way out of hand. I've heard they
will try to use the War in Iraq as an excuse
(we need to be energy independent) for
this B.S.
Now there's some pretzel logic for ya.
Destroy countries and people for oil,
then just go ahead and ruin the rest
of the earth while you're at it. Just
trash one of the last wilderness areas,
and drive the eco system over the edge
as fast as you can. Can you say "Greenhouse Gases"?
Oh I forgot, Global Warming is an unproven theory,
like evolution...and the world being round.
when ya need 'em?
This is just way out of hand. I've heard they
will try to use the War in Iraq as an excuse
(we need to be energy independent) for
this B.S.
Now there's some pretzel logic for ya.
Destroy countries and people for oil,
then just go ahead and ruin the rest
of the earth while you're at it. Just
trash one of the last wilderness areas,
and drive the eco system over the edge
as fast as you can. Can you say "Greenhouse Gases"?
Oh I forgot, Global Warming is an unproven theory,
like evolution...and the world being round.
“With oil trading at nearly $50.00 a barrel, the case for Alaska National Wildlife Rescue (ANWR) is more compelling than ever,” Senator Pete Domenici (Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee) stated. “We have the technology to develop oil without harming wildlife.”
Geologists believe the refuge holds 11 billion barrels of oil.
Pete, Pete, Pete. The effect of the ANWR on world oil prices will be next to nil, and you know it. Eleven billion barrels sounds like a veritable ocean of the bubblin' crude, but it represents only about 134 days total at our present global consumption rate of 82 millions mbpd (million barrels per/day). By the time the field is developed and producing, that demand will be much higher. Try harder, Senator.
Geologists believe the refuge holds 11 billion barrels of oil.
Pete, Pete, Pete. The effect of the ANWR on world oil prices will be next to nil, and you know it. Eleven billion barrels sounds like a veritable ocean of the bubblin' crude, but it represents only about 134 days total at our present global consumption rate of 82 millions mbpd (million barrels per/day). By the time the field is developed and producing, that demand will be much higher. Try harder, Senator.
I believe big oil does not want to do Alaska anymore. It would cost around $20 to$25 a barrel to drill and transport the oil in Alaska. I dont know the exact costs (I am guessing). It would cost about $.5 to produce a larger volume of oil in Iraq. The easy profit is in Iraq once the shooting stops. Or I should say if the shooting stops.
Shutting down government for oil profits? Gee that doesn't rate even a 3 on my death for oil meter.
Before Texas was free, before
the oil companies ruled, there was
a flag that flew over The Alamo.
A flag fought for by Tennessians,
Louisianians, Alabamans, and
Mississippians. A Flag of freedom.
If Texas can remember who made
them free they will remember the
first Lone Star flag, which was first hoisted
in the Florida Parishes of La.
If they can't remember Jim Bowie and
his brothers, damn them. Rebels made
Texas, not GWB.
the oil companies ruled, there was
a flag that flew over The Alamo.
A flag fought for by Tennessians,
Louisianians, Alabamans, and
Mississippians. A Flag of freedom.
If Texas can remember who made
them free they will remember the
first Lone Star flag, which was first hoisted
in the Florida Parishes of La.
If they can't remember Jim Bowie and
his brothers, damn them. Rebels made
Texas, not GWB.
here's the facts as I know it... most oil companies have bowed out on this effort
with the exception of one.........this is an effort by Alaskan legislators to provide jobs... even if it means destroying the Arctic Refuge and the fact that there is not enough oil that could be had from this endeavor..........
they want to destroy the environment just to provide jobs.....and in essence there is not enough oil anyway.......this is a ruse
with the exception of one.........this is an effort by Alaskan legislators to provide jobs... even if it means destroying the Arctic Refuge and the fact that there is not enough oil that could be had from this endeavor..........
they want to destroy the environment just to provide jobs.....and in essence there is not enough oil anyway.......this is a ruse
Although I believe that the environmental impact would be minimal, the rewards reaped would also be minimal. It just delays the need to perfect alternatives.
Pete is just thinking of his political capitol in Alaska.
Pete is just thinking of his political capitol in Alaska.
"they want to destroy the environment just to provide jobs.....and in essence there is not enough oil anyway.......this is a ruse "
Well said. Will they defeat the Senate?
If so, the Senate of the US is an impotent body.
An impotent body is...weak, sorry, unworthy
of fire support. F*ck 'em.
Well said. Will they defeat the Senate?
If so, the Senate of the US is an impotent body.
An impotent body is...weak, sorry, unworthy
of fire support. F*ck 'em.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Mar 3 2005, 05:17 PM)
"they want to destroy the environment just to provide jobs.....and in essence there is not enough oil anyway.......this is a ruse "
Well said. Will they defeat the Senate?
If so, the Senate of the US is an impotent body.
An impotent body is...weak, sorry, unworthy
of fire support. F*ck 'em.
Well said. Will they defeat the Senate?
If so, the Senate of the US is an impotent body.
An impotent body is...weak, sorry, unworthy
of fire support. F*ck 'em.
I don't know Indian.......but most of the American public doesn't understand what these Republican Alaskan officials are really interested in.........I guess they want to look like they are creating jobs......but these jobs are empty....because there is not enough oil there to do this or to justify this.....
what does it mean if most oil companies are not supporting this? I guess it means that their studies indicate there is not much there....otherwise wouldn't they be aggressive?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.