Here's a link to a CNN article on the subject. He certainly doesn't waste any time does he?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/...y.ap/index.html
Another disgusting abuse of power!
Full Version: Bush Looking to Drill in Alaska Refuge
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Energy Independence, Environment, Science and Technology > Energy, Environment, Science and Technology Issues Archive
QUOTE(rebsmom @ Nov 9 2004, 06:04 PM)
Here's a link to a CNN article on the subject. He certainly doesn't waste any time does he?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/...y.ap/index.html
Another disgusting abuse of power!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/...y.ap/index.html
Another disgusting abuse of power!
Well, he got political capital, goddammit, and he's gonna spend it.
And, as the past four years have shown us, he spends and spends and spends......
What is wrong with drilling in Alaska?
Drilling in Alaska is very risky, big potential for accident (~33% according to BP)
What we haven't learned is that the reserves in Alaska are pretty useless to us. The oil in Alaska is pretty high-sulfur I believe, and it is pretty hard for US refiners to use it. Right now I think we ship most of the Alaskan 'sour' oil to South Korea and Japan.
What we haven't learned is that the reserves in Alaska are pretty useless to us. The oil in Alaska is pretty high-sulfur I believe, and it is pretty hard for US refiners to use it. Right now I think we ship most of the Alaskan 'sour' oil to South Korea and Japan.
QUOTE(maddyfish @ Nov 9 2004, 08:49 PM)
What is wrong with drilling in Alaska?
There is nothing wrong with drilling in Alaska! There is nothing wrong:
With mucking up the last pristine wilderness area in the U.S. for a maximum of no more than a six (6) months supply of oil for this country!
With giving Halliburton, Exon-Mobil, and some more of the Bush/Cheney oil friends the chance to make billions in the process!
Well, at least Alaska voted for Bush, If they want to screw up their own wilderness...let them..
(note: I'm tired...I may regret posting this in the morning)
(note: I'm tired...I may regret posting this in the morning)
QUOTE(PoconoLiberal @ Nov 9 2004, 11:19 PM)
Well, at least Alaska voted for Bush, If they want to screw up their own wilderness...let them..
(note: I'm tired...I may regret posting this in the morning)
(note: I'm tired...I may regret posting this in the morning)
No, don't let them. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge does not belong to Alaskans. It belongs to all the people of the United States of America. It's a NATIONAL legal construct. And the ANWR should rightfully belong to generations of Americans yet unborn.
Bush would drill in Jerusalem if he thought it would make money for his family buddies.
Next thing I think Bush has in mind is to arrest all environmental protesters and place them in prison/consentration camps. Under the patriot act he can just claim they are terrorists.
QUOTE(leftofcenter @ Nov 10 2004, 12:13 AM)
There is nothing wrong with drilling in Alaska! There is nothing wrong:
With mucking up the last pristine wilderness area in the U.S. for a maximum of no more than a six (6) months supply of oil for this country!
With mucking up the last pristine wilderness area in the U.S. for a maximum of no more than a six (6) months supply of oil for this country!
That's what I was thinking -- Bush doesn't care if he ruins the wilderness, so long as he makes a few bucks while he's at it. Does the man really care about anything?!
Here's a few tidbits in the story
Interesting that he will support clean coal technology as long as he can let all of his friends get away with polluting our environment. Neat.
The ethanol issue is a little questionable; while it can be manufactured domestically, it does not have the kick that petroleum has and it might also raise the price of corn.
I had no idea that that had been approved, of course you can get natural gas from raw sewage, but that's only done in sweden apparently
QUOTE
sh is also expected in his second term to renew his call for action by Congress on a broader, largely pro-production, energy agenda _ from easing rules for oil and gas drilling on federal land in the Rocky Mountains to expanding clean-coal technology and improving the reliability of the electricity grid.
New tax incentives to spur construction of next-generation nuclear power plants also will be back on the table after Democrats and some moderate Republicans scuttled it last year. Greater use of corn-based ethanol in gasoline also has wide support at the White House and in Congress.
New tax incentives to spur construction of next-generation nuclear power plants also will be back on the table after Democrats and some moderate Republicans scuttled it last year. Greater use of corn-based ethanol in gasoline also has wide support at the White House and in Congress.
Interesting that he will support clean coal technology as long as he can let all of his friends get away with polluting our environment. Neat.
The ethanol issue is a little questionable; while it can be manufactured domestically, it does not have the kick that petroleum has and it might also raise the price of corn.
QUOTE
Some lawmakers, including Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, senior Democrat on the energy committee that will write the legislation, argue that lawmakers should focus instead on passing separate bills on the most urgent and widely supported measures.
Some of that already has occurred, such as the recently approved loan guarantees for a proposed $20 billion natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 states.
Some of that already has occurred, such as the recently approved loan guarantees for a proposed $20 billion natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 states.
I had no idea that that had been approved, of course you can get natural gas from raw sewage, but that's only done in sweden apparently
QUOTE(maddyfish @ Nov 10 2004, 12:49 AM)
What is wrong with drilling in Alaska?
As Kerry said the last time that Bush proposed this, there isn't enough oil there to make it worth our while. For an energy pov it's like butting a bandaid on a massive headwound. Also, it's the equivalent of putting a factory in a nature reserve, no one would put up with this shit if it was planned for the grand canyon.
I expect Kerry to filibuster this, he said he would last time this came up ...
QUOTE(clay @ Nov 10 2004, 07:36 AM)
Next thing I think Bush has in mind is to arrest all environmental protesters and place them in prison/consentration camps. Under the patriot act he can just claim they are terrorists.
Funny if it wern't for the fact that he actually could due it legally 
.And it wont be Concentration camps, it will be re-education camps, were the misguided can learn the true way to happiness :o
There is more greater amount of fuel made by biofuel industries then there is crude oil in the ANWR. There is no need to drill ANWR.
QUOTE(rebsmom @ Nov 9 2004, 06:04 PM)
Here's a link to a CNN article on the subject. He certainly doesn't waste any time does he?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/...y.ap/index.html
Another disgusting abuse of power!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/...y.ap/index.html
Another disgusting abuse of power!
At least he's killing Mother Earth in the name of God. As if
QUOTE(belgiangoth @ Nov 10 2004, 06:23 AM)
As Kerry said the last time that Bush proposed this, there isn't enough oil there to make it worth our while. For an energy pov it's like butting a bandaid on a massive headwound. Also, it's the equivalent of putting a factory in a nature reserve, no one would put up with this shit if it was planned for the grand canyon.
I expect Kerry to filibuster this, he said he would last time this came up ...
I expect Kerry to filibuster this, he said he would last time this came up ...
If there isn't enough oil to make it worth it, then why do it? If President Bush is only out to make money for his friends then why set them up to fail where there is no oil?
The big oil companies are in buisness to make money, they are beholden to investors, if they think that it is worth it, then likely it is.
Seems like this push to drill for oil in a protected area is important to BushCo for at least three reasons:
1) It is pay back to Alaska repubs as any increase in oil drilling is a boost to the Alaskan economy.
2) While it won't provide enough crude oil to make any dent in our dependence on middle eastern oil, it will be enough to make a profit for oil companies, especially now that the price per barrel is at an all time high.
3) It will mark serious encroachment into federally protected lands by private corporate interests. When we fight for the beautiful wild land in Alaska, we're fighting for all federally owned/occupied land in America including national parks and BLM land.
1) It is pay back to Alaska repubs as any increase in oil drilling is a boost to the Alaskan economy.
2) While it won't provide enough crude oil to make any dent in our dependence on middle eastern oil, it will be enough to make a profit for oil companies, especially now that the price per barrel is at an all time high.
3) It will mark serious encroachment into federally protected lands by private corporate interests. When we fight for the beautiful wild land in Alaska, we're fighting for all federally owned/occupied land in America including national parks and BLM land.
QUOTE(maddyfish @ Nov 15 2004, 09:10 AM)
If there isn't enough oil to make it worth it, then why do it? If President Bush is only out to make money for his friends then why set them up to fail where there is no oil?
The big oil companies are in buisness to make money, they are beholden to investors, if they think that it is worth it, then likely it is.
The big oil companies are in buisness to make money, they are beholden to investors, if they think that it is worth it, then likely it is.
Not sure unless the oil companies would get some kind of "deal."
QUOTE
Study: ANWR oil would have little impact
Heavy reliance on foreign imports would continue, agency finds
A caribou walks across Dalton Highway near the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline south of Prudhoe Bay on Alaska’s North Slope.
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:45 p.m. ET March 16, 2004
WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.
advertisement
The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.
But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.
At the same time, the report said new Alaska production would stem the expected dramatic decline in domestic production and extend the economic life of the Alaska oil pipeline as production from other North Slope areas declined significantly.
But even the additional domestic production would not be enough to overcome increased demand, meaning continued heavy reliance on imports, the EIA said. Currently, the United States imports about 56 percent of the oil it consumes.
Refuge a political football
Congress has grappled for years over whether to allow oil companies access to the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain in the Alaska refuge, which geologists believe harbors about 10.4 billion barrels of crude.
Last year, the House, citing the need for more domestic oil to ease the reliance on imports, gave a green light to drilling in the refuge, but the Senate refused to go along.
Many Senate Democrats, joined by a handful of moderate Republicans, have repeatedly blocked pro-drilling legislation, arguing that the refuge would be harmed ecologically. The coastal plain, which includes calving areas for caribou, is home to polar bears and other wildlife, as well as being a stopover for an annual migration of millions of birds.
Both sides see ammunition
Both sides in the issue likely will use the EIA report as ammunition in the next round of debate over energy legislation in Congress.
Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., chairman of the Resources Committee, seized on the finding Tuesday that development of the refuge would boost domestic oil production by 20 percent over what it otherwise would be in 2025.
“Given America’s energy crunch, ANWR production is a must,” Pombo, who requested the analysis, said in a statement.
But environmentalists said the findings debunked arguments pushed by the Bush administration and other pro-drilling advocates that the refuge was important for national security and economic independence.
“It underscores what we’ve been saying all along, that oil drilling in the refuge would do next to nothing to actually meet America’s energy needs,” said Justin Tatham of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, an environmental organization active in protecting the refuge from development. “... We’re still going to be reliant, if not more reliant, on foreign sources of oil.”
The EIA study also noted the importance of the refuge’s oil to Alaska.
Without the refuge’s development, oil flowing from the North Slope would fall to 500,000 barrels a day — half of current levels — by 2025 and approach levels at which the pipeline may no longer be economical to operate, the report said.
Production to increase anyway
U.S. domestic oil production will increase over the next four years, from the current 5.7 million barrels a day to 6.1 million barrels a day, largely because of additional oil coming from the Gulf of Mexico, according to the EIA report.
But after that, domestic production will decline steadily without access to the Alaskan coastal plain, and it is expected to fall to 4.6 million barrels a day by 2025. With demand increasing, imports will continue to play a larger role, jumping from 9.7 million barrels a day to nearly 16 million barrels a day, about 70 percent of what is consumed by 2025.
With the 876,000 barrels the refuge could provide a day, the reliance on imports would drop to 66 percent of domestic consumption, the EIA analysis said. The study said it would likely have little impact on world oil prices — perhaps reducing the price by 30 to 50 cents a barrel if prices were in the $27-a-barrel range.
The price of light sweet crude was $37.48 per barrel Tuesday on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
James Kendell, one of the authors of the study, said the refuge would add to domestic production, but “when you’re talking of a world oil market of over 75 million barrels a day, adding 900,000 barrels by 2025 is a drop in the bucket.”
No one is certain how much oil is beneath the Alaskan coastal plain. In assuming 876,000-barrel-a-day production, the EIA assumed the “mean” estimate provided by geologists of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable reserves. Geologists say there could be less or much more. Environmentalists argue that much of that oil may not be economically recoverable if oil prices decline.
© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Heavy reliance on foreign imports would continue, agency finds
A caribou walks across Dalton Highway near the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline south of Prudhoe Bay on Alaska’s North Slope.
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:45 p.m. ET March 16, 2004
WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.
advertisement
The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.
But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.
At the same time, the report said new Alaska production would stem the expected dramatic decline in domestic production and extend the economic life of the Alaska oil pipeline as production from other North Slope areas declined significantly.
But even the additional domestic production would not be enough to overcome increased demand, meaning continued heavy reliance on imports, the EIA said. Currently, the United States imports about 56 percent of the oil it consumes.
Refuge a political football
Congress has grappled for years over whether to allow oil companies access to the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain in the Alaska refuge, which geologists believe harbors about 10.4 billion barrels of crude.
Last year, the House, citing the need for more domestic oil to ease the reliance on imports, gave a green light to drilling in the refuge, but the Senate refused to go along.
Many Senate Democrats, joined by a handful of moderate Republicans, have repeatedly blocked pro-drilling legislation, arguing that the refuge would be harmed ecologically. The coastal plain, which includes calving areas for caribou, is home to polar bears and other wildlife, as well as being a stopover for an annual migration of millions of birds.
Both sides see ammunition
Both sides in the issue likely will use the EIA report as ammunition in the next round of debate over energy legislation in Congress.
Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., chairman of the Resources Committee, seized on the finding Tuesday that development of the refuge would boost domestic oil production by 20 percent over what it otherwise would be in 2025.
“Given America’s energy crunch, ANWR production is a must,” Pombo, who requested the analysis, said in a statement.
But environmentalists said the findings debunked arguments pushed by the Bush administration and other pro-drilling advocates that the refuge was important for national security and economic independence.
“It underscores what we’ve been saying all along, that oil drilling in the refuge would do next to nothing to actually meet America’s energy needs,” said Justin Tatham of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, an environmental organization active in protecting the refuge from development. “... We’re still going to be reliant, if not more reliant, on foreign sources of oil.”
The EIA study also noted the importance of the refuge’s oil to Alaska.
Without the refuge’s development, oil flowing from the North Slope would fall to 500,000 barrels a day — half of current levels — by 2025 and approach levels at which the pipeline may no longer be economical to operate, the report said.
Production to increase anyway
U.S. domestic oil production will increase over the next four years, from the current 5.7 million barrels a day to 6.1 million barrels a day, largely because of additional oil coming from the Gulf of Mexico, according to the EIA report.
But after that, domestic production will decline steadily without access to the Alaskan coastal plain, and it is expected to fall to 4.6 million barrels a day by 2025. With demand increasing, imports will continue to play a larger role, jumping from 9.7 million barrels a day to nearly 16 million barrels a day, about 70 percent of what is consumed by 2025.
With the 876,000 barrels the refuge could provide a day, the reliance on imports would drop to 66 percent of domestic consumption, the EIA analysis said. The study said it would likely have little impact on world oil prices — perhaps reducing the price by 30 to 50 cents a barrel if prices were in the $27-a-barrel range.
The price of light sweet crude was $37.48 per barrel Tuesday on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
James Kendell, one of the authors of the study, said the refuge would add to domestic production, but “when you’re talking of a world oil market of over 75 million barrels a day, adding 900,000 barrels by 2025 is a drop in the bucket.”
No one is certain how much oil is beneath the Alaskan coastal plain. In assuming 876,000-barrel-a-day production, the EIA assumed the “mean” estimate provided by geologists of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable reserves. Geologists say there could be less or much more. Environmentalists argue that much of that oil may not be economically recoverable if oil prices decline.
© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
I was thinking the exact same thing, so I had to chuckle when I read your post. A lot of them up there already have worked on the Alaskan pipeline, maybe they need jobs?
I would rather put our money into developing biodiesel. It is already sold in gas stations in California.
I don't understand why people aren't using it more around the country. You can make it out of left over fat from french fries.
I would rather put our money into developing biodiesel. It is already sold in gas stations in California.
I don't understand why people aren't using it more around the country. You can make it out of left over fat from french fries.
QUOTE(PoconoLiberal @ Nov 9 2004, 09:19 PM)
Well, at least Alaska voted for Bush, If they want to screw up their own wilderness...let them..
(note: I'm tired...I may regret posting this in the morning)
(note: I'm tired...I may regret posting this in the morning)
Monday, November 15, 2004 Posted: 8:09 AM EST (1309 GMT)
Drilling approved for Alaska oil reserve
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The U.S. Interior Department on Friday gave final approval to a plan by ConocoPhillips and partner Anadarko Petroleum Corp. to develop five tracts around the oil-rich Alpine field on Alaska's North Slope.
The department's Bureau of Land Management authorized the first commercial development of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, allowing the companies to go forward with developing the tracts, which are located in the northeastern corner of the reserve.
Production from these fields, which together hold more than 330 million barrels of oil, will start by 2006, according to the BLM. They will supplement production from the Alpine fields, which hold 429 million barrels and have a daily oil output of about 100,000 barrels.
Environmentalists have criticized the plan to develop these Alpine satellite fields as a rollback of environmental protections promised during the Clinton administration.
The BLM said it modified the original development proposal to offer greater protection to wildlife and sensitive habitats in the reserve.
Some of the major changes include relocating portions of the gravel access roads and pipeline routes, moving power lines and raising pipelines an additional 2 feet to 7 feet to help migrating caribou.
"It allows for the energy development our country needs, while protecting the land, water and wildlife. It will show that this, and future Arctic development, can and will be done in an environmentally sensitive way," said Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Rebecca Watson.
The petroleum reserve, the size of Indiana, was set aside in 1923 for its energy potential, but until recently it has been ignored in favor of the region to the east, around the giant Prudhoe Bay field.
The Bush administration believes the new Congress next year will approve oil drilling in the separate Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which may hold up to 16 billion barrels of crude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/15/energy.al...reut/index.html
Drilling approved for Alaska oil reserve
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The U.S. Interior Department on Friday gave final approval to a plan by ConocoPhillips and partner Anadarko Petroleum Corp. to develop five tracts around the oil-rich Alpine field on Alaska's North Slope.
The department's Bureau of Land Management authorized the first commercial development of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, allowing the companies to go forward with developing the tracts, which are located in the northeastern corner of the reserve.
Production from these fields, which together hold more than 330 million barrels of oil, will start by 2006, according to the BLM. They will supplement production from the Alpine fields, which hold 429 million barrels and have a daily oil output of about 100,000 barrels.
Environmentalists have criticized the plan to develop these Alpine satellite fields as a rollback of environmental protections promised during the Clinton administration.
The BLM said it modified the original development proposal to offer greater protection to wildlife and sensitive habitats in the reserve.
Some of the major changes include relocating portions of the gravel access roads and pipeline routes, moving power lines and raising pipelines an additional 2 feet to 7 feet to help migrating caribou.
"It allows for the energy development our country needs, while protecting the land, water and wildlife. It will show that this, and future Arctic development, can and will be done in an environmentally sensitive way," said Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Rebecca Watson.
The petroleum reserve, the size of Indiana, was set aside in 1923 for its energy potential, but until recently it has been ignored in favor of the region to the east, around the giant Prudhoe Bay field.
The Bush administration believes the new Congress next year will approve oil drilling in the separate Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which may hold up to 16 billion barrels of crude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/15/energy.al...reut/index.html
QUOTE(belgiangoth @ Nov 10 2004, 09:23 AM)
As Kerry said the last time that Bush proposed this, there isn't enough oil there to make it worth our while. For an energy pov it's like butting a bandaid on a massive headwound. Also, it's the equivalent of putting a factory in a nature reserve, no one would put up with this shit if it was planned for the grand canyon.
I expect Kerry to filibuster this, he said he would last time this came up ...
I expect Kerry to filibuster this, he said he would last time this came up ...
Kerry's pledge to filibuster on the ANWR issue is precisely what made me jump on board the Kerry bandwagon, before there was a wagon, and way before there was a band. Now, however, with all that "political capital" to be spent, the few Democrats we can really count on to fight furiously for what really matters in this great nation of ours are going to be very tired very soon if all they can do is filibuster.
I'm thinking of calling Dunkin' Donuts to see if they will be sponsors....
From the article:
"We have the technology to develop oil without harming the environment and wildlife."http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/second.term.energy.ap/index.html
If we could be assured this is true, I'm for it, as long as the animals are protected and we continue to develop alternative fuel sources.
But its a big "IF." I don't trust the Bush administration or their supporters to keep their word.
"We have the technology to develop oil without harming the environment and wildlife."http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/second.term.energy.ap/index.html
If we could be assured this is true, I'm for it, as long as the animals are protected and we continue to develop alternative fuel sources.
But its a big "IF." I don't trust the Bush administration or their supporters to keep their word.
Bush will drill in reserves all of them, for natural payback for support from oil industries. It is amazing how we can disregard our enviornment for profit.ann lewis arkansas
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.