Go ANWR!

[Nineveh]

US President George W. Bush called Wednesday for development of US oil reserves in Alaska, including within the bounds of a wildlife refuge, to contend with the US undersupply of petroleum.

"To produce more energy at home, we need to open up new areas to environmentally responsible exploration for oil and natural gas, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," Bush said, as he made a speech here.

"The Department of Interior estimates that we could recover more than 10 billion barrels of oil from a small corner of ANWR that was reserved specifically for energy development."

The amount of oil Bush said could be accessed would be equivalent to that currently obtained "from 41 (US) states combined."

The Republican president in 2001 presented a bill seeking to develop US petroleum reserves at the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Congress never voted on it due to opposition from Democrats and environmentalists.

But following Bush's second term presidential victory last November, party officials suggested that the vote might go through thanks to a larger Republican majority in Congress.

Developing...cite (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3ba.htm)

Shale oil (http://www.infinitebang.com/patriotenergycorp.com/index.php?view=shale_oil) is another resource we have.

[Nineveh]

March 16th 2005

Environmental activists say Republicans are making a sneaky, "backdoor" attempt to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- and it just might work.

Instead of crafting another ANWR drilling bill or amendment, Senate Republicans have included an ANWR provision in the budget resolution, and they believe they have enough votes to get it passed as is.

Don't let it happen, 14 environmental groups said in a joint press release.

The possibility that some type of oil drilling language may finally emerge from the Senate has oil-drilling critics very worried and oil-drilling supporters more hopeful than they've been for a long time.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) has introduced an amendment that would strip the ANWR language out of the budget resolution, and environmentalists are lobbying for passage of the Cantwell amendment. A vote could come as soon as today.

But environmental groups not only oppose Arctic oil drilling; they also oppose the way Republicans are going about it.

"Drilling in America's Arctic Refuge has nothing to do with a balanced budget," the environmental groups said in a press release.

"Abusing the budget process to drill the Arctic Refuge would be bad business and bad precedent," they said. "If the Senate were to allow Arctic drilling through this end-run scheme, the door of the federal budget would be open to all kinds of controversial proposals that could never pass through the normal legislative process."

As written, the budget resolution assumes that the nation will earn revenue from ANWR oil drilling. Under Senate rules, laws written to make that happen may not be filibustered.

"Not only does this backdoor maneuver threaten the integrity of the federal budget, but it would ruin one of America's last great refuges for wilderness and wildlife," the environmental groups said.

They say the stakes are too high not to consider the ANWR debate on its own merits. But previous attempts to do that have gone nowhere in the Senate.

Environmentalists say a "steady majority" of Americans support measures to protect the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.

"Places like the Arctic Wildlife Refuge should be passed on to our children, not sacrificed for an amount of oil that would not dent our imports or affect oil prices for consumers. America's future demands real solutions to our energy needs, such as making our vehicles more efficient and investing in clean renewable technology."

The environmentalists are calling on senators to support the Cantwell Amendment and reject attempts to sneak Arctic Refuge drilling through the budget process.

But supporters of oil drilling say environmental protection can be balanced with oil production.

In his message to congressional Republicans Tuesday night, President Bush once again mentioned the need to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

"This party understands that to keep our economy growing, we need reliable supplies of affordable energy. We need to pass legislation this year that makes this country more secure and less dependent on foreign sources of energy," the president said.

Ever since he took office, the President has urged Congress to send him a bill opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuges to oil drilling. The House has twice approved President Bush's energy plan but the Senate has blocked it.

The environmental groups lobbying against Arctic oil drilling include the Alaska Wilderness League, Appalachian Voices, Audubon, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Friends of the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, US Public Interest Research Group, The Wilderness Society, Trustees for Alaska and World Wildlife Fund.cite (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200503\NAT2005 0316a.html)

[BillyBob]

"Not only does this backdoor maneuver threaten the integrity of the federal budget, but it would ruin one of America's last great refuges for wilderness and wildlife,"

The sky is falling, the sky is falling! :darwinsm:

[Sleepy Time]

...IMHO this administration (to be fair tho quite by accident) has fostered a bit of democracy building in the mideast (only die-hard lefty libs could dispute this)
This, of course, is a good thing; however the US: Clinton, W, seemingly the whole US policy is to promote democracy only when it suits our interests...Ex: Jordan (our ally Heusein (sp.) and, after his death his son have been staunch US allies (Clinton brought a cancer stricken dad over to overcome the empasse between Israel and Palestine in 99?)
Do we really want democracy in Jordan when the monarchy loves us? Our actions as a nation say a big fat NO for obvious reasons.

My main complaint with this administration is their total unwillingness to admit ANY, repeat, ANY mistakes at all since the invasion of Iraq.

Why do the TOL regs label anyone who questions US policy in ANY way, post-3/03 commie? left wing? un-American? What kind of substance have you neo-cons been a' smokin'???
Billybob, you're right to point out the thousands of poor Iraqui's found in mass graves after the invasion may well have justified our attack.
But why didn't we have a plan to secure those sites prior to the invasion (Answer: ignore a battle tested Powell and rely on
that knucklehead "Rummie" and his high tech "we don't need no stinkin' post-war maintenance" strategy)
What was Don's comment? "Stuff happens"?
I guess what evidence we may have uncovered that may have convicted those involved in these mass graves now will go
forever unsolved. Heck, in the rebuilding process we might well elect someone involved in the killings mayor of some Iraqi township
:mad: :kookoo:

Again IMO, at the start of the war, why didn't W impose a, say, 10 cent on the gallon "war tax" on gasoline in support of the war effort? Granted the lefty libs would have wanted some cheese with their silly "whine" but it could have been an effort by Georgie to get the country behind our mid-east efforts.
But no, thanks to our President, and Karl Rove a.k.a. "the guy who pulls the puppet's strings" it was basically: "hey, we can handle this, just keep on driving your SUV's, etc...etc...

Now we're wanting to pressure Iran.
I agree.
However, that country is ready to implode with democacy. (does anyone remember the night after 9/11 that 4,000 or was it 40,000 Irani's took to the streets in candlelight vigil in support of the US?)

If Bush/Rove had initiated a policy of energy conservation from the get-go (which would have let the rest of the world know our committment and sincerety) we wouldn't have (as I speak) the moolahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and Sudan taking NO steps to curtail their, one-sided, oil first. economic plans which include NO reforms i.e. more women employed in key fields, more non-oil professions, more pro-west endevours, etc...
And yes, we wouldn't be paying well over $2 a gallon for gas now...

In short, the "Bush Doctrine" in many ways is feeding the Oil Ayatolla doctrine in the non-democratic regimes of the Mid-east.

Come on guys, get a brain here!

Comments welcome but please make some sense no extreme right or left wing moronic horse ****

[BillyBob]

Do we know you by another name, Sleepy Time? :think:

[Skeptic]

This has got to be one of the most deceptive pro-ANWR-drilling sites:
How Long Would Your State Run on ANWR Oil? (http://www.anwr.org/archives/how_long_would_your_state_run_on_anwr_oil.php)
Then click on "View how you state would do." (opens a pdf file)

ANWR has about 10 billion barrels of oil.

The U.S. consumes almost that much per year.

What's the point of saying that ANWR has enough oil to supply the District of Columbia for 1710 years?

The point is the short-term financial gain of the oil companies, and the long-term loss of ANWR's habitats.

It's time to think long term by moving away from oil as fast as we can.

Read this (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/BreakingNews.html).

Then this (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Introduction.html).

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Skeptic

ANWR has about 10 billion barrels of oil.
Skepoleon, like anyone can even know that.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Lucky

Skepoleon, like anyone can even know that. What are the best estimates you have seen?

Has the Bush administration presented a much different estimate?

Surely you are not suggesting that we start drilling in ANWR without any scientific estimate of how much oil is recoverable.

[BillyBob]

If there are 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, what the heck are we waiting for?


:sozo: Start Drilling!!

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by BillyBob

If there are 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, what the heck are we waiting for?


:sozo: Start Drilling!!
YEAH! And we can expand our refinery capacity at the same time.

[BillyBob]

Senate Votes to Allow Drilling in Arctic Reserve (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/politics/17arctic.html?th=&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1111061147-MUUlJmZcvUzp1fKfLOKgFw)

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: March 17, 2005




WASHINGTON, March 16 - President Bush's long-stalled plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling cleared a major hurdle on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, when the Senate voted to include the proposal in its budget, a maneuver that smoothes the way for Congress to approve drilling later this year.

By a vote of 51 to 49, Republicans defeated an effort by Democrats to eliminate the drilling language from the budget. The vote does not ensure that drilling will be approved. But if the budget is adopted, Senate rules would allow the passage of a measure opening the refuge with a simple majority of 51 votes, escaping the threat of a filibuster, which has killed it in the past.

The vote was a major turning point in one of the most contentious energy debates in Washington at a time when Senate Republicans, using the power of a newly expanded majority, have been pushing through bills that businesses had sought. In another victory for the White House, the Senate also narrowly beat back an effort by Democrats and moderate Republicans to make it harder to extend Mr. Bush's tax cuts for the next five years.

Drilling in the Alaskan Arctic is a central component of President Bush's energy policy. In a statement issued after the vote, Mr. Bush praised the Senate and also called on Congress to enact a comprehensive energy bill, which has stalled over Arctic oil exploration in the past.

"This project will keep our economy growing by creating jobs and ensuring that businesses can expand," Mr. Bush said, "and it will make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy."

Senate Republicans were ebullient after the vote. "Another example of where the strength of the majority matters," said Senator George Allen, Republican of Virginia.

Mr. Allen, who last year was chairman of the committee responsible for electing Republicans to the Senate, called it "the best win."

At issue is whether oil companies should be permitted to explore in 1.5 million acres of coastal plain on Alaska's North Slope, north of the Arctic Circle, part of the larger 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Proponents of drilling, who include Alaskan development interests and the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing oil companies, say drilling would reduce dependence on foreign oil and lower soaring oil prices, which reached $56 a barrel Wednesday.

"It's as important to me as the first step Armstrong took when he stepped off on the moon," said Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, who has been working on the drilling issue since the 1950's when he was lawyer in the Interior Department during the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The vote was a bitter defeat for environmentalists, who have railed against Arctic drilling for decades, arguing that opening the refuge would threaten the caribou and other wildlife that roam the coastal plain. Opponents said the Senate was subverting its own procedures.


:banana:

[Four O'Clock]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Do we know you by another name, Sleepy Time? :think:

Yes, Jack Bruce...

(actually, I'm pretty computer stupid so I have an address at home and at work - don't know how to tie anything together) :doh:

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Senate Votes to Allow Drilling in Arctic Reserve (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/politics/17arctic.html?th=&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1111061147-MUUlJmZcvUzp1fKfLOKgFw)

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: March 17, 2005




WASHINGTON, March 16 - President Bush's long-stalled plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling cleared a major hurdle on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, when the Senate voted to include the proposal in its budget, a maneuver that smoothes the way for Congress to approve drilling later this year.

By a vote of 51 to 49, Republicans defeated an effort by Democrats to eliminate the drilling language from the budget. The vote does not ensure that drilling will be approved. But if the budget is adopted, Senate rules would allow the passage of a measure opening the refuge with a simple majority of 51 votes, escaping the threat of a filibuster, which has killed it in the past.

The vote was a major turning point in one of the most contentious energy debates in Washington at a time when Senate Republicans, using the power of a newly expanded majority, have been pushing through bills that businesses had sought. In another victory for the White House, the Senate also narrowly beat back an effort by Democrats and moderate Republicans to make it harder to extend Mr. Bush's tax cuts for the next five years.

Drilling in the Alaskan Arctic is a central component of President Bush's energy policy. In a statement issued after the vote, Mr. Bush praised the Senate and also called on Congress to enact a comprehensive energy bill, which has stalled over Arctic oil exploration in the past.

"This project will keep our economy growing by creating jobs and ensuring that businesses can expand," Mr. Bush said, "and it will make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy."

Senate Republicans were ebullient after the vote. "Another example of where the strength of the majority matters," said Senator George Allen, Republican of Virginia.

Mr. Allen, who last year was chairman of the committee responsible for electing Republicans to the Senate, called it "the best win."

At issue is whether oil companies should be permitted to explore in 1.5 million acres of coastal plain on Alaska's North Slope, north of the Arctic Circle, part of the larger 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Proponents of drilling, who include Alaskan development interests and the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing oil companies, say drilling would reduce dependence on foreign oil and lower soaring oil prices, which reached $56 a barrel Wednesday.

"It's as important to me as the first step Armstrong took when he stepped off on the moon," said Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, who has been working on the drilling issue since the 1950's when he was lawyer in the Interior Department during the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The vote was a bitter defeat for environmentalists, who have railed against Arctic drilling for decades, arguing that opening the refuge would threaten the caribou and other wildlife that roam the coastal plain. Opponents said the Senate was subverting its own procedures.


:banana:

*~WooHOO!!!

:jump: :bannana: :jump:

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Sleepy Time

In short, the "Bush Doctrine" in many ways is feeding the Oil Ayatolla doctrine in the non-democratic regimes of the Mid-east.

Come on guys, get a brain here!

Comments welcome but please make some sense no extreme right or left wing moronic horse **** Why would Bush change doctrine? He was an oil man (albeit a failure), and he has surrounded himself with oil people (note: I didn't say oilmen in deference to Condi). They love to hear the sound of oil rushing through pipelines, the louder the better; it sounds like money to them.

[BillyBob]

Nothing wrong with money!

[Just ask John Kerry]

[On Fire]

This way to Cuba, Mopeyus

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by On Fire

This way to Cuba, Mopeyus
:Commie:


[Oh, look who is waiting there for you!]

[Sleepy Time]

Originally posted by BillyBob

:Commie:
[Oh, look who is waiting there for you!]

That little cinnamon jai alai player? He's in Cuba too?
Didn't know the little fellow was so prolific...

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:Moribundus

Why would Bush change doctrine? He was an oil man (albeit a failure), and he has surrounded himself with oil people (note: I didn't say oilmen in deference to Condi). They love to hear the sound of oil rushing through pipelines, the louder the better; it sounds like money to them.
Seems that oil flowing through the Prudhoe Bay pipeline has provided a source of warmth to the caribou herd. Result is a large increase in the numbers of caribou.

I understand they are very tasty. We could spin off some caribou ranches and add a little variety to the meat supply.

By the way, :Commie:, the very same arguments you are using now about ANWR, were cycled around when Prudhoe Bay was first proposed.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Seems that oil flowing through the Prudhoe Bay pipeline has provided a source of warmth to the caribou herd. Result is a large increase in the numbers of caribou.

I understand they are very tasty. We could spin off some caribou ranches and add a little variety to the meat supply.

By the way, :Commie:, the very same arguments you are using now about ANWR, were cycled around when Prudhoe Bay was first proposed. What arguments are you talking about? The one about Bush being a failed oil man surrounding himself with other oil people?

[BillyBob]

What's wrong with oil? Don't you use petroleum products?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

What's wrong with oil? Don't you use petroleum products? You sure would be gripin' if the other Bush, (the beer baron), ended up president and his policies were designed to double or triple the price of Bud.

[Nineveh]

For anyone who really cares to know how things are (http://www.doi.gov/news/anwr/ANWRtestimony.htm).

ANWR (http://www.doi.gov/news/anwr/2.jpg) in perspective.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Morpheus

You sure would be gripin' if the other Bush, (the beer baron), ended up president and his policies were designed to double or triple the price of Bud.

The price of gasoline has not tripled, doubled or even been increased by half.


By drilling in ANWR we become a little less dependant on foreign oil supplies, nothing wrong with that.


But this isn't really about oil for you, is it? It's just another way for you to bash our beloved President. :down:

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Sleepy Time

That little cinnamon jai alai player? He's in Cuba too?
Didn't know the little fellow was so prolific...

Not you again!

[Four O'Clock]

Originally posted by On Fire

Not you again!

Come on, don't any of you guys have a sense of humor? He's cute...

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Four O'Clock

He's cute...


:flamer:

[Nineveh]

We call it the Play of the Week but for one senator, it was the play of a political lifetime.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has been at this a long time, as he acknowledged a week ago.

"I'm seriously depressed, unfortunately, clinically depressed," said Stevens. "And I've been told that [it's] because I've been at this too long."

It's the fight to allow oil drilling in a portion of ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

When the issue of opening ANWR last came up for a Senate vote in 2003, it lost by four votes.

Stevens took it personally saying, "People who vote against this today are voting against me. And I'll never forget it."

This week, wearing the same Incredible Hulk necktie he wears for major congressional battles, Stevens celebrated a different outcome -- a two-vote margin of victory. Again, Stevens took it personally.

"It's as important to me as the first step that Armstrong took when he stepped off on the moon," Stevens said this week.

The Senate voted to keep ANWR oil revenues in the budget, which means the vote on oil drilling cannot be filibustered. Democrats cried foul.

"This is a back-door scheme for drilling, because the drilling proponents don't have enough votes to deal with the issue in the energy bill," Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin, said.

The fact that oil prices are at a record high may have helped get votes for drilling. But Stevens can tell you what really made the difference.

"My friends, it's called an election. We won that election. And we promised to do this when we won that election," Stevens said.

The nine new senators elected last November voted 7 to 2 in favor of drilling. The senators who held those seats in 2003 had voted 5 to 4 against drilling. There's the margin of victory.

Is Stevens still depressed?

"If you went down that same track for 24 years, wouldn't you be a little depressed? I was. I'm backing off of that now," Stevens said .

For this senator, it's a Play of the Week that's been a long time coming.

The battle is not over though. There are more votes yet to come, but they can't be filibustered.

The biggest danger for Stevens is that the budget process itself will collapse, as it often has in recent years. And that will kill the drilling measure.cite (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/18/stevens/)

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:Morpheus

What arguments are you talking about? The one about Bush being a failed oil man surrounding himself with other oil people?
Nice try, Moribundius! :chuckle:

[Nineveh]

A House panel yesterday backed drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, advancing a key element of the Bush administration's energy plan. More... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51215-2005Apr13.html)

[Nineveh]

The U.S. Senate finally passed an energy bill on Tuesday, which must now be reconciled with a competing House version - no easy task, given the differences in the two versions, various lawmakers said.

Unlike the Senate bill, which does not mention the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the House bill backs ANWR oil exploration - and even projects revenue from ANWR oil and gas leases.

President Bush is a strong advocate of Arctic oil exploration as a means of reducing America's dependence on foreign sources of energy.

The president has urged Congress to send him an energy bill by August, but press reports quote lawmakers as saying that may not happen, given the difficult negotiations that lie ahead.

Also on Tuesday, environmentalists announced an "unprecedented, coordinated nationwide summer campaign" to block passage of legislation that would allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The campaign against ANWR oil drilling includes the Wilderness Society, religious leaders, Native American representatives, and grassroots field organizers from all over the country. More details will be released on Wednesday, said Wilderness Society President Bill Meadows.

In a press release, the Wilderness Society said the battle to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling is entering a new phase this summer -- with a pivotal vote expected in Congress in September.

According to the Wilderness Society, the fiscal 2006 budget resolution that Congress passed this spring set the stage for a showdown over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge this fall. That's when Congress is expected to take up a reconciliation bill that may include language opening the ANWR's Coastal Plain to oil drilling.

The campaign to keep ANWR pristine coincides with record-setting oil prices and price creep at the gasoline pump. On Monday, crude oil futures hit a record high of $60.95 a barrel.

"Energy prices are way too high," Treasury Secretary John Snow told CNBC on Tuesday. "Clearly, it's hurting," he said -- adding that energy is his "biggest concern." cite (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200506\NAT2005 0628c.html)

[Nineveh]

When Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski took office in 2003 facing a $1 billion budget deficit, he made clear how he would pull this resource-rich state out of its fiscal crisis.

"What is our plan for increasing revenue?" Murkowski said in his first address to the state Legislature. "In a single word -- oil."

The newly elected Republican governor said Alaska needed to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and elsewhere to make up for declining revenues from Prudhoe Bay, with oil flowing at only half-capacity through the trans-Alaska pipeline.

This fall, Murkowski and other Alaskan officials are expected to get their wish: Congress appears likely to approve a budget bill that would allow drilling on the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the refuge.

While environmentalists have pledged to fight it, budget bills can't be filibustered and an enlarged Republican majority in the U.S. Senate has given proponents confidence it will pass this year. ... Much More... (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/29/MNGLGEEKSF1.DTL)

[Nineveh]

People in polar bear suits will be among those gathering in Washington on Tuesday to protest the Bush administration's plan to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. More... (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200509\NAT2005 0919a.html)

[Granite]

Yeah. Well. Whatever. Unless this lowers gas prices I don't really care.

[BillyBob]

People in polar bear suits will be among those gathering in Washington on Tuesday to protest the Bush administration's plan to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I hope none of them accidentally get shot by a confused hunter... :angel:

[Nineveh]

Kuwait is in talks with the Bush administration to build an oil refinery in the United States, seeking to construct the nation's first new plant in three decades as gasoline and diesel prices surge to records. More... (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1487168/posts)

Pretty sad... "we" dress up like polar bears when "we" should be building refineries...

[Gerald]

Pretty sad... "we" dress up like polar bears when "we" should be building refineries...It's more profitable for US companies to build and run them overseas, where the labor is cheaper.

You can bet that refinery, if it gets built, will be staffed primarily by Kuwaiti nationals...