Posted on 01/05/2007 2:21:09 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Opponents of oil drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge are going on the offense after playing defense for a quarter of a century. They want the new Democratic Congress to make an oft-challenged drilling ban permanent.
Legislation introduced in the House on Friday would make the oil-rich 1.2 million-acre coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a permanently protected wilderness and end repeated efforts to open the area east of the Prudhoe oil field to energy companies.
"The consensus is that there should not be drilling in the refuge, so the logical next step is to pass legislation which turns it into a wilderness," Rep. Edward Markey (news, bio, voting record), chief sponsor of the legislation, said in an interview.
Markey has introduced similar legislation in each of the last three congressional sessions. However, the House has approved drilling in the refuge a half dozen times, only to see the effort die in the Senate were supporters couldn't muster the 60 votes to overcome a likely filibuster.
This time, with Democrats in the majority and a number of moderate Republicans on record as opposed to drilling, Markey believe he has a good chance in the House to go one step farther and declare the refuge permanently off-limits to oil development.
A co-sponsor of the bill is Rep. Jim Ramstad (news, bio, voting record), R-Minn.
Cindy Shogan, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, also says this time is different.
"What's changed is we won't have those daily assaults" from pro-drilling forces, she said. "We are definitely on the offense."
Environmentalists said they plan to mobilize the same people that have fought drilling proposals in past years behind the Markey-Ramstad legislation.
Two years ago, when Republicans expanded their majorities in both the House and Senate, the likelihood of opening the refuge to oil development gained new momentum. It already had been a top energy priority of President Bush since 2001.
"Many people had written the obituary for the refuge," said Melinda Pierce, legislative director of the Sierra Club. But a concerted push by pro-drilling forces fell short.
Now Markey believes the momentum is going the other way.
"We now have a majority of House members that have publicly said they oppose any drilling in the refuge. In the previous Congress we were battling the Republicans in the majority who wanted to drill."
Environmentalist know that in the Senate they will need 60 votes to get the wilderness designation, with the filibuster threat coming from Republicans this time. Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, who has battled to open the refuge to oil drilling for a quarter century, has not given up.
The coastal strip of ANWR, as the refuge is commonly referred to, is believed to contain 10.5 billion barrels of oil, approaching the size of the Prudhoe Bay field to the west. At peak production the refuge could supply 1 million barrels a day by 2025, according to the Interior Department.
On the other hand, to environmentalists and conservationists the refuge's coastal strip represents the ultimate wild place to be protected. They compare it to the Serengeti in Africa because of the wildlife that abound: polar bears, musk oxen, caribou and millions of migratory birds that fly there as part of their annual migration.
Drilling proponents argue that modern technology can limit the footprint on the coastal tundra and develop the oil without disturbing the wildlife.
Bush, who called for opening the refuge during his 2000 presidential campaign, repeatedly has said its environment can be protected alongside oil rigs. He views the refuge's oil as essential to lessening America's dependence on foreign energy sources.
Markey disagrees.
"Our addiction to oil is real (but) drilling in the refuge would amount to a declaration that we remain in denial about this addiction," he said.
"There are some places in our world that are so rare and so special, that we have a responsibility to protect them."
Quote: "after listening to Mitch McConnell on H&C last night, I don't see much hope of blocking this in the senate."
Don't mistake style for substance. Mitch will smile for cameras, talk softly but drop the hammer nonetheless. Something from that interview that came out was that McConnell admired Mitchell's style. Mitchell seemed a nice enough fellow, spoke softly, and preached comity, but in a heart beat he would stab the Republicans in the back or front.
Give McConnell a chance, he may shock you.
Don't underestimate how much of the Democrat machine is being "oiled" by Arabs.
Conservatives: Domestic oil!
Liberals: GAaaaa! Absolute, positively, passionately NO!
Conservatives: Nuclear energy!
Liberals: @$#^ no!
Conservatives: Wind turbines!
Liberals: Not in my back yard!
Conservatives: Coal!
Liberals: Noooo! Not if you have to mine it.
These people have no conscience. I hope God makes them answer for what they are doing to America.
we have had oil drilling and coal mining in Pennsylvania for a hundred years (Penzoil, etc.). I've been all over this state and never seen a hint of it. And these morons want to prohibit all drilling in a wasteland the size if 1/3 of the lower 48.
The Alskans vote that they would like all the oil/gas revenues to stay in the State so they don't have to listen to this tripe about bridge to nowhere anymore.
A permanent ban? How does congress make anything permanent? Seems to me that a future congress can do anything it wants with regard to oil exploration. Laws can be changed (or overturned).
Excellent point! :)
I'll bump that.
Elections have consequences and this is one of them.
Are "they" still glad they stod home because the enviromental groups are
"My parents paid $300 for a half a tank of oil..."
I'm in Germany, and the last time I bought heating oil it was 50 cents (Euro-cents) per liter, and I have a 4000 liter tank. (I know - it's huge). I bought half a tank for 1000 euros, or about $1300. It would have been worse if I hadn't used a VAT form, which saved me the 16% tax (19% as of 1 Jan)
The title should be "Democrats Vote For High Oil Prices"
http://www.cafenetamerica.com
I guess the questions are:
"Will the GOP filibuster?"
"Can the dems find 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate?"
"Will G.W. Bush sign it or veto it?"
Yes, better the 'handbasket' option for America than some acreage in Alaska being tainted by 'big oil'.
Another proud moment for the "let's teach the bastards a lesson, and stay home" crowd. We are literally one Al Queda attack away from losing ALL mideast oil, and these geniuses won't let us drill offshore or in Alaska. Something stinks in Denmark.
Been working in the oil patch for longer than I had hoped. We got an old saying about the public when it comes to the oil industry....goes like this..... "When they finally have to walk home to their cold, dark house, they just might change their attitude on 'BIG OIL'.
LOL! Put it to a vote! This Alskan agrees with you.
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.