Posted on 05/29/2006 12:57:02 PM PDT by Libloather
House approves oil drilling in Alaska refuge; Prospects in Senate slim.
By H. JOSEF HEBERT/Associated Press Writer
Published: Friday, May 26, 2006 3:51 AM CDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Citing the public outcry over $3-a-gallon gasoline and America’s heavy reliance on foreign oil, the House on Thursday voted to open an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, knowing the prospects for Senate approval were slim.
Drilling proponents argued that the refuge on Alaska’s North Slope would provide 1 million barrels a day of additional domestic oil at peak production and reduce the need for imports.
But opponents to developing what environmentalists argue is a pristine area where drilling will harm caribou, polar bears and migratory birds, said Congress should pursue conservation and alternative energy sources that would save more oil than would be tapped from the refuge.
The House voted 225-201 to direct the Interior Department to open oil leases on the coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — an area of 1.5 million acres that is thought likely to hold about 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
But the action may be little more than symbolic. Arctic refuge development, while approved by the House five times, repeatedly has been blocked in the Senate where drilling proponents have been unable to muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
‘‘We need to develop energy, here at home. ... We can’t say no to everything,’’ declared Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., who pressed for a House vote on opening the refuge that lies east of the declining Prudhoe Bay oil fields 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle.
Access to ANWR’s oil has been a key part of President Bush’s energy agenda, although over the last five years he’s been unable to convince Congress of its merits. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman on Thursday urged the Senate to pass a drilling measure ‘‘so we can strengthen our nation’s energy security.’’
Bush praised the House vote. ‘‘This project will keep our economy growing by creating jobs and ensuring that businesses can expand,’’ he said in a statement. ‘‘And it will make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy.’’
The refuge was set aside for protection in 1960 and expanded by Congress to 19 million acres in 1980 with a stipulation that its oil — limited to the coastal strip — could be developed, but only if Congress allows it.
The federal government would share revenues equally with the state.
While oil companies have long eyed the area where federal geologists estimate anywhere from 5.4 billion to as much as 16 billion barrels of oil may be recoverable, environmentalists consider it one of their top priorities for protection.
‘‘There are simply some places that should be off limits to drilling. The Arctic refuge should be one of them,’’ said Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif.
The coastal strip is a calving area for caribou, home to polar bears and musk oxen, and a seasonal destination for millions of migratory birds.
Drilling opponents cited an Energy Department analysis that ANWR’s oil would have little impact on gasoline prices and reduce imports by only a few percentage points. Currently 60 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil used daily in the United States comes from imports.
Advocates for opening the refuge to energy development said the tundra and its wildlife can be protected using modern drilling techniques and environmental restrictions. They contended the additional domestic oil would help move the country toward more energy independence.
Congress approved drilling in the refuge in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed the bill.
Had Clinton not issued his veto ‘‘we would have had a million barrels of oil today,’’ said Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska. ‘‘We should be drilling off shore, we should be drilling in the Rockies and most of all we should be drilling in the Arctic refuge.’’
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., countered that had Congress passed improved auto fuel economy measures 11 years ago when they were considered, today ‘‘we would save far more oil than ANWR would produce.’’
‘‘This Congress hasn’t voted on a single conservation measure since gasoline hit $3 a gallon,’’ said Boehlert.
‘‘Rather than debating how we could increase the fuel efficiency standards (of cars) over the next few years, we are debating about a bill that won’t produce the first barrel of oil for 10 years and it will come from a pristine wildlife refuge,’’ complained Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a leading drilling opponent.
The vote fell heavily along party lines. Twenty-seven Democrats joined the Republican majority in support of the legislation. Only 30 Republicans opposed the measure.
On the Net:
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: http://arctic.fws.gov/
Putting people first...
Sure would be interesting to see millions of migratory birds try to land on 2000 acres all at once.
Leni
The Senate is too liberal now, and it will be a lot more liberal in January.
Why would the oil companies want cheaper gas? They're enjoying record profits.
House approves oil drilling in Alaska refuge; Prospects in Senate slim.
House approves border security bill; Prospects in Senate slim.
We shouldn't have screwed with the system of the founding fathers who were 10 times smarter than the people we have in office now.
Keep putting the anti-ANWR Senators on record, and make them defend it in November.
We shouldn't have screwed with the system of the founding fathers who were 10 times smarter than the people we have in office now.
You are quite right.
So what if the Senate makes a deal with the house. You pass our immigration bill and we will pass your drilling bill. I ceartinly hope this does not happen, but with these people you never know. Recognize it if it comes along. I would not put it past the senate to blackmail the house.
Texas has a lot of oil wells and they don't seem to have bothered migratory birds or the deer population.
The environmental concerns of ANWR are just romantic, Gaia-worshipping nonsense.
"While oil companies have long eyed the area where federal geologists estimate anywhere from 5.4 billion to as much as 16 billion barrels of oil may be recoverable, environmentalists consider it one of their top priorities for protection."
The above should read ..."communists consider it..."
Please, this is Memorial Day, not April Fool's Day!
Has everyone developed amnesia? The Senate passed drilling in ANWAR last year, but 22 House members, including the RINOs Nancy Johnson and Boehlert, as well as Sensenbrenner blocked it from being brought to the floor in the House. Many angry posts followed on FR.
So basically, this is a well-worn political football that gets kicked from one body to the other, with zero result. The voters need to kick out every legislator that deprives them of the energy needs of this country.
We are being slowly being neutralized and drained in our access to energy and our ability to defend ourselves militarily. It's frightening. It's like the frog and boiling water.
And our senators and representatives are obsessed with protecting their rights to be above the law (Patrick Kennedy, McKinney, Jefferson, Hastert, Frist, etal) and to hold onto their seats forever.
Our own energy sources be damned.
Leni
The House of Representatives, having previously turned down drilling for oil in ANWR now passes it on to the Senate. It's unlikely that the Senate will approve.
It's also likely that key Senators are being paid by oil producing nations and oil interests to keep America dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
Where am I wrong?
Congress should pursue conservation and alternative energy sources that would save more oil than would be tapped from the refuge.
More than 11 billion gallons? I think not, but anyway
one must ask at what cost?
Just the ammount of titanium and rubber from all the bicycles needed would bankrupt our economy.
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.