I've been in Alaska a few years ago and I became enchanted with the state and its breathtaking beauty. I think most of the Alaskan residents support the measure as long as the proper protections to the environment is provided.
wow...see what 4 Senators with a spine gets you?
I agree.
Although ANWR will not solve our oil dependency issues, it is a great start.
The last I heard, most Alaskans were in favor of drilling in ANWR.
About farkin' time!
NOW, Eco-wackos of America, do you REAL jobs and watch the drilling companies to detect REAL problems.
This "you can't drill here because you MIGHT cause problems" crapola reall ticks me off.
Dig we must
I thought this was voted down???
there was an earlier post this a.m. that said just the opposite?
The DU'ers are all on suicide watch now. Spewing hate towards Mary Landrieu and the other Rat senators who voted for it. Hilariousssss!
If you go to www.anwr.org and look at the photo gallery you will see that this isn't exactly the "pristine wilderness" the environmentalists always misrepresent it to be. In the winter it looks about like the surface of the moon. And we're only talking about 2,000 acres. That's less than 4 square miles.
Where did you go in Alaska?
Oil has an international market, with all sources of supply and all end user demands affecting the world-wide price.
This one addition to world-supply will put slight downward pressure on world prices for oil. If we really want much lower oil prices, then lots more sources of supply have to come on-line.
Alternatively, we could demand less, which would pretty much only occur in a depression economy scenario. Virtually all reasonable conservation measures have been taken. China and India's new demand for oil is a primary driver of recent price increases. I doubt we'll see much letup in demand.
So, unless you hear of many other new sources coming on stream, or we get a world-wide economic depression, get used to relatively high gas prices.
I still think the modern peak price for gas was 1983 in inflation adjusted dollars. So, we're not doing to bad a $2.05, and I'll keep running my V8 quite happily, thank you.
Unfortunately, we are still not clear on this. The House has been on board with this for several years in a row, only to have the Senate block it. Now that the Senate is on board, the House is not!
Just heard on the ABC news that there is another vote later this year before this is a done deal. Is that another Senate vote or the House vote?
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.
Can someone tell me how to find which Republicans voted AGAINST ANWAR drilling ... I have been unable to identify them ... HELP
Alaskans Wary of Vote on Oil Drilling (posted 3/17/05)
Alaskans Issue Wary Response to Senate Vote on Oil Drilling at Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
3/17/05 Associated Press/ABC news. Most media bias is done covertly, by omission or distortion. This story is just about an outright lie. The impression given is that the natives are being exploited and/or have an unfavorable view of the recent Senate vote. The exact opposite, of course, is true. The natives and all Alaskans were being exploited by the Democrats in the Senate and the environmentalists across the country. This story says: The tiny north coast town of Kaktovik officially supports responsible development of oil and gas. But many reacted warily to the Senate vote to allow drilling in their back yard. <..> Mayor Lon Sonsalla said just about everyone has concerns about changes that could accompany any work in the 1.5 million-acre stretch, where billions of barrels of crude oil are believed to rest beneath the tundra. First, the story gives the impression that 1.5 million-acres are going to be drilled on. ANWAR is 19 million-acres and only a small percentage of the 1.5 million-acre costal area will be affected. Secondly, contrast the above Associated Press rot with actual opinion polls:
Seventy-five percent of Alaskans told a February 2000 Dittman research survey that they wanted to open up the refuge for drilling, with only 23 percent opposed.
A 1995 Dittman survey yielded similar results, with 75 percent of Alaskans saying they backed ANWR drilling, and just 19 percent opposed.
In the Inupiat Eskimo villages near ANWR, support is even higher. A January 2000 survey in the village of Kaktovik found that 78 percent of residents back more energy exploration in their own backyard. Only 9 percent were opposed.
In 1995, the Alaska Federation of Natives, which represents 80,000 Eskimos, adopted a resolution supporting ANWR drilling, calling it a “critically important economic opportunity for Alaska natives.”
More evidence comes from a previous post of mine (which in fact first alerted me that this AP story was fishy):
Casting a Cold Eye on Arctic Oil
9/10/03 New York Times - Nicolas Kristof goes to Alaska to investigate ANWAR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge) and offer his opinion on the Bush administration's proposal to open it to energy exploration (aka - oil drilling). A vast majority of Alaskans, both Democrats and Republicans, support the plan. Of course, Kristof opposes the drilling, but what is most interesting, besides the fact that only 7% of ANWAR would be open to drilling (and perhaps only a small percentage of this 'spoiled' by the drilling), is this statement in his story: It's also only fair to give special weight to the views of the only people who live in the coastal plain: the Inupiat Eskimos, who overwhelmingly favor drilling (they are poor now, and oil could make them millionaires). One of the Eskimos, Bert Akootchook, angrily told me that if environmentalists were so anxious about the Arctic, they should come here and clean up the petroleum that naturally seeps to the surface of the tundra. (all emphasis mine!)
Am wondering any of you might have come across something that shows the scale of "disturbace" the drilling will have on all of Alaska. I'm thinking like if you had a page of printer paper with one period in the middle it would be close -- but would like something a bit more accurate.