Senate Votes to Allow Arctic Drilling...

yahoo.com ^ | March 16, 2004 | JOSEF HEBERT

[crushelits]

WASHINGTON - Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush (news - web sites).
he Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster — a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said.

The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northern eastern corner of Alaska.

Environmentalists have fought such development and argued that despite improve environmental controls a web of pipelines and drilling platforms would harm calving caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the coastal plain.

Bush has called tapping the reserve's oil a critical part of the nation's energy security and a way to reduce America's reliance on imported oil, which account for more than half of the 20 million barrels of crude use daily. The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said.

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., a co-sponsor of the amendment that would have stripped the arctic refuge provision from the budget document. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist," she said.

Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., argued that more oil would be saved if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels and expanded oil development in the deep-water Gulf where there are significant reserves.

"The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," said Kerry.

But drilling proponents argued that modern drilling technology can safeguard the refuge and still tap the likely — though not yet certain — 10.4 billion barrels of crude in the refuge.

"Some people say we ought to conserve more. They say we ought to conserve instead of producing this oil," said Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., "But we need to do everything. We have to conserve and produce where we can."

The vote Wednesday contrasted with the last time the Senate took up the ANWR drilling issue two years ago. Then, an attempt to include it in the budget was defeated. But drilling supporters gained strength last November when Republicans picked up three additional seats, all senators who favored drilling in the refuge.

[Southack]

"How much of a supply would 10.4 billion barrels equal? 1 month? 6 months? 5 years? 20 years??? Anyone know?"

I suspect that we'll be producing 1 million barrels per day from ANWR alone in the next 24 months.

The U.S. uses 20 million barrels per day, so the ANWR will provide 5% of our daily useage, easily more than what we'll lose if we have to blockade Iran to keep them from getting nukes by ruining their economy.

That additional 5% will also knock the pricing power somewhat away from OPEC during peacetime, delaying the day we have no choice but to pay $3 per gallon on every fillup.

...And at $50 per barrel, that's $50 million per day, $18.25 Billion per year, that stays in the U.S. economy rather than goes into Saudi bank accounts.

[FourtySeven]

"10.4 billion / 20 million (our current daily usage) would give about 520 days (1.5 years)."

Thank you. Hardly seems worth it, but I won't be proven right for years.

I think it's important to remember the point Williams made above. It seems you, odoso, are not the only FReeper that is under the impression that since the total amount of oil in the ANWR area could only supply the oil needs for the US for approximately 1.5 years, that means it's not worth it.

This is flawed reasoning. It assumes that the US would switch to using ONLY the oil produced from ANWR. Right now, we don't rely on one source for oil, why would we do that with the ANWR oil? No, what would happen is that we would supplement our foriegn oil with that oil, thus doing exactly what Bush promised: reducing, not eliminating, but reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

ANWR was never about eliminating our dependence on foriegn oil, it was only about reducing such dependence. And as an aside, when you consider our oil reserves now (for supplying the entire country with its oil needs) is only in the range of a few weeks, a reserve that could supply more than a year of complete independence, if we needed it, is a rather attractive incentive in of itself, imo.

[Bogey78O]

According to the stats we could import not a drop of foreign oil and rely solely on US oil for 867 days. That's quite a long time with as much as we consume.

[wouldntbprudent]

And second, the mere knowledge that ANWR will be in production will drive the price of oil lower soon.


Amen. Now we have more cards in our hand.

[aruanan]

"The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," said Kerry.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[jslade]

This is what ANWR looks like in reality. Really pristine, eh?

[kms61]

The detail in the photo is not the best, but they look like musk oxen to me, which are native to Alaska.

[Slicksadick]

Muskoxen were eliminated from Alaska in the mid-late 1800s , most-likely due to overhunting. In 1935 and 1936, 31 muskoxen captured in east Greenland were re-introduced to Nunivak Island. That herd grew to 750 by 1968.
The herd in the 1002 Area (like all herds in Alaska) is descended from these animals in Nunivak Island that were re-introduced into that area in 1969 and 1970.
The muskoxen population in the 1002 Area grew rapidly and reached a peak of 400 in 1986 and has since declined to 200 in 2001 due to a steady drop in number of new calves. Indications are that a major cause of this decline is due to increased attacks by grizzly bears.

[demlosers]

ANWAR = ANWR

[VRWCmember]

10.4 billion / 20 million (our current daily usage) would give about 520 days (1.5 years).

Your calculation makes 2 incorrect assumptions:
1. production from ANWR would immediately replace all other sources including other domestically produced oil.
2. the ANWR oilfield would have capacity to produce 20 million barrels per day.

According to the article, production will be 1 million barrels per day (or about 5% of our daily usage). Based on this, the supply would be 10,400 days -- about 28.5 years.

[MeekOneGOP]

Well! It's a good start, then!!

---

From the article:

WASHINGTON - Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush (news - web sites). he Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster — a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said.

The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northern eastern corner of Alaska.

---

[Reason_and_Logic_Rule]

20-30 years worth of Oil? Sorry but unless the U.S Geological Department is a Liberal Front organazation, I think I'll trust there Data. more than any so called "Experts"

ANWR is going to be nothing more than one giant Corporate Welfare Give away. We would be a hundred times better off right now building new Refineries, to solve the Oil Bottle Neck were in right now, than we would drilling be ANWR

[DTogo]

Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., argued that more oil would be saved if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels and expanded oil development in the deep-water Gulf where there are significant reserves.

Like the Cape Wind Project you won't support Senator??

[george wythe]

That photo is so misleading. I think that FoxNews did a segment on this Arctic piece of land, it did not look like that at all.

Anyone, this is good news, even though I expect the media to accuse Republicans of all sorts of evil.

[wouldntbprudent]

thanks for the popcorn
this will be hilarious, indeed

[Blood of Tyrants]

Your thinking is faulty. First, the output of ANWR was never meant to completely replace all of our daily consumption. Second, you only have to replace half of the 20 million barrels/day consumption to replace all of the imported oil. Third, one million barrels of oil per day will replace TEN PERCENT of the imported oil for 28.5 years.

Now, let's start drilling off Florida and California and anywhere else we can find it. Then we will open up the coal reserves in Utah and finally we can encourage new nuclear plant construction by pre-approving the plans where the government has to show that the design is faulty before they can order a re-design in the middle of construction.

[7.62 x 51mm]

Finally, a glimmer of sanity in the US Senate. By 2 votes, no less.

[Darkwolf377]

BTW, even 60 Minutes had a story showing how these wells would be dug and there is MINIMAL environmental impact--even the roads are temporary. When capped, the wells take up about the space of a phone booth (they showed another such site not far from there as an example).

I'd be the first one to say we shouldn't unnecessarily destroy our natural resources for minimal gain, but 60 Minutes showed the area, and it's a big nothing.

[oldcomputerguy]

"Hardly seems worth it"

Well think of it this way, we can stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia for decades, make anymore sense now?

[epluribus_2]

not quite - we will only get 1 million/day so the burn rate will be 10.4 billion divided by 365 days = 28 years. Long enough to help out while we figure out how to run our cars on politician's hot air.