Posted on 03/16/2005 12:49:26 PM PST by sergey1973
The US Senate has given its de facto approval to a plan to open up a remote wildlife refuge in the northern state of Alaska to oil drilling.
Senators voted 51-49 against an amendment which would have struck the measure from the federal budget.
The plan has long been a key part of President Bush's energy plan, as a means to reduce US reliance on imports.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
tagline fix.....
BRILLIANT!
What's the deal with DeWine ???????
He's from from Ohio for *&%sake.
One of the great hopes for world oil supply is your historic country of Russia. When political and economic security are assured, I suspect there are tremendous new deposits to be found and old ones to be further exploited in Russia proper, and throughout the former Soviet Union.
Speaking of political and economic security, what's your take on Putin? I see him as a Fascist kleptocrat; but I'm not personally invested.
I think Akaka and Inouye are two Dems who are still national-security hawks for the most part. I would also suspect their foreign policy views are also a lot closer to ours than to John Kerry's.
ANWR lessens the effect of an OPEC embargo.
Hey! That reminds me, I have a new email address, so I can join DU. I was banned, for telling the truth. Their rules are a bit different.
The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said. The House has not included a similar provision in its budget, so the issue is still subject to negotiations later this year to resolve the difference.
Drilling supporters acknowledged after the vote that for refuge development to get final approval Congress must still pass a final budget with the Senate provision included, something Congress was unable to do last year.
Still, "this is a big step," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who said he had tried for 24 years to open the refuge, but failed because Democrats blocked the effort through filibusters. The budget is immune from a filibuster, meaning drilling supporters will need only a majority not the 60 votes required to break a filibuster to succeed when the issue comes up for final action later this year
See http://www.sergeywatch.blogspot.com. My views are pretty much the same as yours, especially in light of what happened with YUKOS.
Thanks
Good article today. I argued some of those points recently, with far less background, against somebody who was buying the Kremlin line that Mashkadov directed Beslan. The article in question had a clear Kremlin slant, and because it was nominally anti-Jihadi, folks here were buying it hook, line and sinker.
Good to meet you. I'll bookmark your page for when Russian bits come to my attention.
I agree, but DeWine isn't one of them. He has his little idiosyncracies on ANWAR and on a mandatory seat belt law, but he is very consistent in the rest of his votes.
DeWine has always been an "environmentalist." But he voted to convict Clinton; voted for ALL tax cuts; against CFR; for the war in Iraq; and for every pro-life bill that has ever come up. In short, to get worked up over this one vote for a guy who has been very consistent would be mistaken.
"No, I'm not a liberal whacko who wants to take away your V8 (SUV, etc.) I simply say that I'd like to see more energy efficient cars hit US and World Market and I think it would be great to simulate research, development, production and buying of energy efficient cars through let's say tax credits to companies who produce them and to consumers who buy them."
I would like the government to subsidize me, for live in a small building located in a moderate weather zone.
This behavior conserves energy, so I deserve a subsidy if anybody does.
Should the US government subsidize people, to get them to relocate to small houses in moderate temperature zones?
In fact I could argue the government should stimulate research, on encouraging people to live in smaller buildings, which conserve valuable and dwindling hydrocarbon resources.
What is different, between housing and transport? Nada.
As usual, the typical RINO's vote Yea to strike ANWR from the bill: wussy Chafee-RI, stupid Snowe and Collins-ME, worthless McCain-AZ along with Coleman-MN, Smith-OR, and DeWine-OH. What's with DeWine?
Only 3 Dem Senators voted with the majority: Akaka and Inouye-HI (what do the Hawaiins know the other stupid Dems don't?) and Landrieu-LA only because she's from a large oil and natural gas producing state and her vote against ANWR wouldn't look good to her constituents. They'd think they were next.
I spent my first 10 years of life living in Ventura, CA and surrounding cities and we had lots of oil pumps and offshore drilling. I remember playing at the beach and looking out at the platforms. Made no difference to me.
Thanks for the info. But since 3 dems voted for it, that means there are 3 more RINOS who voted against. Do you know them?
vaudine
Wednesday, 16 March, 2005, 20:54 GMT
Not sure how to convert GMT time.
***********************************************
Senators voted 51-49 against an amendment which would have struck the measure from the federal budget. The plan has long been a key part of President Bush's energy plan, as a means to reduce US reliance on imports. Democrats and some Republicans have opposed the plan, arguing that the wilderness should be left untouched. The 19 million acre (7.7 million hectare) Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, known as America's Serengeti, is home to caribou, migratory birds and other wildlife. It has been specifically protected by Congress from development. No longer promising New Mexico Republican Pete Domenici said before the vote that the refuge had the country's "most significant onshore production capacity".
"We should do everything we can to produce as much as we can," he said, quoted by the Associated Press news agency. But Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who proposed the amendment, said there was no way the US could drill its way out of its energy crisis. Correspondents say there is not much interest among the oil companies in drilling in the refuge, as its economic potential no longer seems promising. However, some Republicans see the plan as a political manoeuvre which could open the way for other environmentally controversial projects such as drilling off Florida or California. Filibuster Previous votes to remove the ban on drilling have failed, but the Senate's Republican majority increased after last year's elections. Democrats had tried to block the plan with a filibuster, but majority leaders put the provision into a budget document immune to these tactics. Opponents of the plan were then forced to seek an amendment stripping the mention of drilling from the budget, but fell short of the required 51 votes in the 100-seat chamber. The Senate is due to vote on the budget later in the week, and its wording still needs to be approved by the House of Representatives.
|
Thanks for the info, Ernest.
Geeeez, if they find 16 billion barrels that's equivalent to what we import from Saudi Arabia.
A million barrels a day for 43 years...
Of course it'll take ten years before we see a drop of it. LOL
And those that defect don't always defect on every issue - hence the cushion. Specter stayed in the fold this time allowing the good guys to win.
McCain, DeWine, and . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.