House GOP Drop Artic Drilling From Budget Bill

Yahoo breaking News

[Dane]

The primary reason that the caribou prefer the 1002 area for calving is that it helps them avoid mosquitoes and bot flies.

And getting the oil out will affect this how? BTW if the area is so dry, how can there be mosquitoes?

[cogitator]

This is just a stupid maneuver to allow vulnerable politicians to claim that they voted against ANWAR. Their votes will not be needed in the final bill, which only requires 50% approval.

It won't be that easy.

From the WashPost this morning:

"But the Democrats did not budge, and at least 22 Republicans told the House leadership they would not vote for the sweeping bill unless the drilling provision was removed and they were given assurances that it would not return after House and Senate negotiators hash out a final measure." ... "In exchange for stripping out the energy provisions, however, enough GOP moderates promised their votes last night to all but ensure passage, said Sarah Chamberlain, executive director of the Republican Mainstreet Partnership, the moderate coalition that led negotiations." ... "One senior GOP aide in the Senate said Domenici and Stevens are willing to bottle up the budget package well into next year if the House does not relent on Arctic drilling." ... "Chamberlain said the members of her coalition stressed again last night that they would vote against any final agreement that reinstated the drilling provisions."

We're in for a lot of continuing resolutions, it appears.

[CharlesWayneCT]

We lost a million barrels of oil production from the gulf, and the price shot up 7 bucks a barrel.

If Clinton hadn't vetoed the bill in 1995, we would have a million barrels a day coming from Alaska.

If we had the million barrels a day, maybe we could take a slightly different approach in Iraq, rather than having to devote so many resources into keeping their 1.8 million barrels a day flowing.

And if it turned out ANWR was bigger than expected (which happens) we might be looking at up to 2 million barrels a day.

The 2,000 acres that they want to open to drilling IS a wasteland. And even if it wasn't, we have oil wells in downtown Los Angelos. Ohio has oil wells all over the state, including INSIDE a wildlife refuge. Oil wells just aren't a big deal -- a pump and some pipes. 2,000 acres out of 11 MILLION acres.

Eventually we will run out of oil. Before that happens, we WILL drill for every last drop of oil we can find. Only a FOOL will believe that, long before we reach that point, we will be drilling in ANWR, off the coasts, and anywhere else we can find oil. And we will be rushed to do so, and not nearly so concerned about the environment.

We should drill ANWR now, when we can do it right, and patiently. If nothing else, we can empty it out so people can stop thinking we have oil, and then we can move on to making synthetic oil.

[cogitator]

And getting the oil out will affect this how?

Calving success will be reduced. One page that I read indicated that a 5% reduction in calving would result in a decrease in the population of the herd. That's probably not a definitive statement, but the presumption is that oil development and drilling would cause the does to move elsewhere for calving, and reduce the calving "success rate".

As for mosquitoes, I've heard that they're the Alaska state bird. The coastal plain has meltwater and drainage ponds all over it in the summer -- presumably that's where the mosquitoes come from.

[Pukin Dog]

We wont need their votes in the final package. There will be enough Democrats voting with us to beat them.

[Stultis]

The "Blue Dog" Dems also all sided with the larger 'Rat party, and the phony, knee-jerk enviro-hyprocite side of this issue. It might be worth contacting some of them also:

The Blue Dog Coalition is a group of 35 moderate to conservative Democrats in the 109th Congress.

Rep. Joe Baca (CA)

Rep. John Barrow (GA)

Rep. Marion Berry (AR)

Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA)

Rep. Dan Boren (OK)

Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA)

Rep. Allen Boyd (FL)

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA)

Rep. Ed Case (HI)

Rep. Ben Chandler (KY)

Rep. Jim Cooper (TN)

Rep. Jim Costa (CA)

Rep. Robert E. “Bud” Cramer (AL)

Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN)

Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (TN)

Rep. Jane Harman (CA)

Rep. Stephanie Herseth (SD)

Rep. Tim Holden (PA)

Rep. Steve Israel (NY)

Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC)

Rep. Jim Matheson (UT)

Rep. Charles Melancon (LA)

Rep. Mike Michaud (ME)

Rep. Dennis Moore (KS)

Rep. Collin Peterson (MN)

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (ND)

Rep. Mike Ross (AR)

Rep. John Salazar (CO)

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (CA)

Rep. Adam Schiff (CA)

Rep. David Scott (GA)

Rep. John Tanner (TN)

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA)

Rep. Gene Taylor (MS)

Rep. Mike Thompson (CA)

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, I agree.

[cogitator]

Eventually we will run out of oil. Before that happens, we WILL drill for every last drop of oil we can find.

I dispute this assumption. Drilling for oil in ANWR will be expensive. If there are less-expensive alternative (I think there is an immense future for cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass and other feedstocks), then ANWR doesn't have to be drilled, and won't be. (Furthemore, modest increases in vehicle mileage would do a lot more to reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports than ANWR oil.)

See my post above this for more information on ANWR.

[Dane]

Calving success will be reduced. One page that I read indicated that a 5% reduction in calving would result in a decrease in the population of the herd. That's probably not a definitive statement, but the presumption is that oil development and drilling would cause the does to move elsewhere for calving, and reduce the calving "success rate".

Yeah that's why Caribou huddle next to the Alaska pipeline for warmth, since they are so damn scared of the thing.

[cogitator]

There will be enough Democrats voting with us to beat them.

Why should the Democrats support a Republican budget bill that cuts entitlement spending? They want the Republicans to twist in the wind on this.

[CharlesWayneCT]

And how does having a 2000 acre space with a fence around it keep them from doing their thing? Or 20 areas of 100 acres each? These aren't refineries, they are just pumps and pipes. I bet they already have pumps and pipes in the area, for water.

And I get the natives hunt these animals in the area.

Do you think that an oil well on a tiny piece of land in this vast area is going to be MORE of an impact than the oil wells in the middle of the wildlife refuge in Ohio, or in people's back yards, or in the gulf?

Is there ANY place in the USA where you could drill for oil where there wouldn't be SOME animal that might stumble across the site? Do you drive on a road where you live? Don't you know that animals used to walk freely there, and sometimes cross the road and get hit by cars just like yours?

Should we stop driving cars and building roads because there are animals around?

It isn't enough to say that there are animals in ANWR. You have to give us some reason to believe that putting in an oil well is going to be a major irreversable impact to the animals living there.

[agrace]

The drilling would affect 2000 acres out of 19.6 million (ANWR.org) - are you suggesting that the caribou all congregate to calve in that tiny percentage?

PDF image - proposed drilling area is the tiny red square.

[Godzilla]

Your map shows a considerable calving area available to the herd. As the Alaskan pipeline has shown, the caribou are a very adaptable creature and have actually benefited from it. If there are initial reductions in successful calving, that will likely be made up once they've adapted to man's presence and activities. BTW, climate has significant impacts to calving too. Weather will probably have a bigger impact upon calving than drilling and oil production.

[CharlesWayneCT]

This is the true tragedy of the democrat leadership. It used to be that except for rare occasions, the democrats were allowed to vote their conscious. Now they are NEVER allowed to vote against the party line.

You can't tell me that there is not a single democrat elected in the country who would support this budget, but the leadership forbids it. God only knows how they keep their people in line, but it must suck to be a democrat house member, you pretty much just sit around and give Pelosi your votes.

Because of that, the republicans have to compromise with their own people, and the dems get to say that everything is partisan and they are shut out.

The press meanwhile ignores the facts, like that the republicans compromise in committee with democrats, and then the democrats vote against the bills anyway.

[CedarDave]

Marnie Funk, a spokeswoman for Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., said that Domenici considers the ANWR provision, which the Senate approved, "one of the most critical components" in the budget package. "He is committed to coming back to the Senate from the conference with ANWR intact," she said.

Thank God for Pete. He has been a rock in the senate all these years. On both the budget and natural resources. Some have called him too "moderate" but if anyone can pull this together, he can in spite of opposition from Senator Bingaman (D-NM) and King Bill (Richardson, D-NM gov) who is bashing the proposal at home to curry national favor for '08.

[Spiff]

"But the Democrats did not budge, and at least 22 Republicans told the House leadership they would not vote for the sweeping bill

I've been searching through the threads here and Googling, but I can't find the names of the 22 RINOs who signed the letter. Anyone?

[cogitator]

You can do more research yourself (I suggest Googling the phrase "USGS calving caribou study").

You can also read this (which is from a liberal source, but it sums up some of the issues):

U.S. Rejects Study by Its Own Arctic Scientists

If you want the full story:

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain
Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries

There is an entire section on the Porcupine caribou herd. Especially read this section:

Potential Effects of Development on June Calf Survival

[cogitator]

See post 277 to address your questions.

[CedarDave]

Bring it on!

I'm as pissed as the rest of the folks here. Twenty years ago, I was against opening ANWR. Since then the low oil prices that that took its toll on American jobs in the oil patch have passed. We now get about 60 percent of our oil from overseas and our trade deficit, between that and China, has never been higher. We can make a dent in it by opening ANWR and environmentally it will be even safer for the surrounding area than it was 20 years ago.

Go Pete Go!!

[CedarDave]

Thanks to you, I have a new tag line.