Senators push drilling in refuge to offset oil costs
Published Friday, March 14, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens introduced legislation Thursday that would permit oil and gas development in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if the price of oil tops $125 a barrel.
The rising cost of energy prompted Murkowski and Stevens to introduce the measure, despite the likelihood that it will fail under the Democratic majority.
“Americans are fed up with astronomical oil prices being imposed by unstable foreign governments, and the problem is getting worse every day,” Stevens said Thursday. “Oil at more than $125 a barrel will force higher prices on basic necessities like food and gasoline, and forces many Alaskans, especially fishermen, out of work.”
Stevens said opening a portion of the 19 million acre refuge to oil drilling would provide some relief to the growing domestic energy crunch.
A portion of the money raised by leasing in ANWR would be used to provide incentives for renewable energy sources.
“We can no longer afford to be at the mercy of OPEC,” Stevens said. “This bill advances true energy independence, redirecting billions of American dollars away from OPEC and toward alternative energies made possible through the responsible development of our own available natural resources.”
Conservation groups that have long battled to keep drilling out of ANWR dismissed the bill as a “stunt” and said any new crude oil from the refuge wouldn’t reach the market for at least 10 years.
Pam Miller, of the Fairbanks-based Northern Alaska Environmental Center, called the proposal “another desperate scheme to sacrifice a special place that Americans have protected for nearly 50 years.”
“I think it’s probably a stunt to raise attention to an issue that is clearly out of synch with what the public is thinking, which is that we need clean, renewable sources of energy,” Miller said.
Conservation groups called the idea of paying for renewable energy incentives by allowing drilling for oil in ANWR perverse.
The 1.5 million acre coastal plain is believed to hold between 5 billion and 10 billion barrels of oil, according to federal estimates.
It’s unclear whether Murkowski and Stevens could muster the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate. It’s also uncertain how far the legislation would advance under the next administration. All three major presidential candidates — Democrat and Republican — have come out against drilling in ANWR.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Maybe we should have started 10 years ago. So called "Conservation" groups wont be happy until were all walking and eating tofu 3 times a day.
Let's just wait...when light sweet crude is over 200 a barrel, they will be knocking our doors down to drill!! I bet they will not be nearly as interested in environmental safeguards then either!! I had a friend tell me the other day..."how can anyone fault Geo Bush? He is the best thing that has ever happened to Alaska....Gold is at $1000 an OZ. and oil is over $100 a barrel!!" That all sounds nice on paper, but fuel oil, gas and groceries are killing me!!!
If Stevens is really serious about his statement: "“We can no longer afford to be at the mercy of OPEC,” Stevens said. “This bill advances true energy independence, redirecting billions of American dollars away from OPEC and toward alternative energies made possible through the responsible development of our own available natural resources.”
Then why not introduce a bill for alternative energy and help Alaskans lessen their oil addiction. The use of oil will always be necessary, but its use could be reduced. Each little bit counts especially at these prices.
Because Stevens is not interested in keeping America safer or more independent in this global government of banks and oil. He's interested in getting his kitchen remodeled.
Gee, I'm pretty sure I just read articles this week that said the recent price jump WASN'T due to a shortage in oil but rather due to financial speculatators inflating the price.
And no one ever mentions the oil we send to the Far East. Alaskan oil. How about doing a story on that?
Alternative energy in Alaska? Geothermal home heating sounds like the only way to go... Now with home heating oil more expensive than gasoline...WHAT UP WITH THAT? I'm very interested and I bet you are too...I can find very little about this option locally,Go figure. Ethanol? good concept but it's been proven to be horrible ideal once weighed and measured, Again alaska has limited options. No sugar cane, soybeans or corn fields,Damn. If only we could make it out of willows in our garage. We would all be driving around on the cheap and it would be hard to tell the water haulers from the free willow juice consumers. Solar? Sorry, Nuclear? Sure why not. See you in line at walmart to pick up our cans of weapons grade uranium. Wind power? Nope, I'm not willing to move to Prudoe to get hooked up to the grid.
Natural gas? Unless you live in town it will always be a pipe dream even if they do build a gas line. For me, thats a carrot I am tired of chasing.
Ok I'm running out of ideals. FIREWOOD! Have you ever looked at the pictures of early Fairbanks? What was missing? That's right, all the trees within reach were cut down for heat. Rats! I just realized were at the mercy of "them" and Were all screwed!
Speaking of alternative energy, there's some pretty notoriously windy places near Fairbanks there, for example, Healy and Delta Junction. GVEA even tested the feasibility of wind power at Healy a number of years ago!!! Unfortunately, some nimrods kept SHOOTING at the wind turbine, causing it to frequently have to be taken out of service and GVEA eventually discontinued the test. However, during the time it was running, the turbine recorded some impressively high sustained wind speeds. Wind power is not a complete solution in itself, but it sure would help. Given the inherently finite nature of oil supply, the fundamentally small quantity of oil in ANWR, and slow-starting development of biofuels that can actually be efficiently grown and is not overly deleterious to the soil, we have to do something. And it not going to help to yell some uninformed derogatory remarks about 'environmentalists' and then bury our heads in the sand. We might all find ourselves inconvenienced to contribute to the good of us all...
It is time to BREAK OUR ADDICTION TO OIL not continue it by drilling a national wildlife refuge. How low are we going to go before we accept reality? The solution will be a suite of alternative energy sources rather than any one: geothermal, wind, sun, biofuels from perennial plants instead of corn, and so on. We should be pushing hard for dependence on renewable energy sources instead of sucking the earth dry of nonrenewable fossil fuels.
Whether you are pro-environment or pro-development I'm sure no one is for spending any more money on gas than they need to. Stevens, Murkowski, Bush and friends keep talking about how we need to open ANWR to reduce the cost of oil but none of them advocate for significantly more fuel effecient automobiles. Is it really feasable to believe the folks that tell us that opening up this little swath of the arctic is going to reduce oil cost? Really? By how much?.. a dollar?... a quarter?... a few cents? Who out there notices a drop in oil prices every time a new oil field is open in the U.S.A.? The talk sounds good but lets use some critical thinking skills please.
Blah,Blah,Blah! This is a campaign scam Ted uses "re-elect me and i will open ANWR". I belong to ASRC, we been pushing ANWR forever, this aint' gonna happen. Besides oil companies promise jobs for Alaskans that never happens, then start complaining about State taxes to lein their pockets for (BP) British shareholders. I'm all for opening ANWR if done right, but i'm not sure if i'll see it in my lifetime.
It will only be a matter of time before all of the folks that are getting tired of high oil prices "allow" (beg the stupid government) the oil companies, one of whom I work for, to drill more holes up on the slope. We will eventually be using more natural gas, crude and whatever we find that will burn. We are on a downward spiral as far as fossil fuels goes but there is NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING to replace it in the near future with the exception on NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION. It's clean, reliable and no matter what the greenies say, it is safe. Many nuke plants operate safely today in our country despite eronious claims of another Chernobyl or Three mile island (or whatever it's called?) that's waiting to happen. I'd personally double my federal taxes voluntarily if we could have a Nuclear power plant in or near Fairbanks.
I could care less how pristine the ANWR land is if there is oil there we could use then drill for it if it will bring the price of gas and fuel oil down drill it. I know alot of people wont like this but i could care less. The bottom line is big oil is the one responsible for sending this country in to a recession period. I'm sure noone will like this statement and you can make all your claims that we are too oil happy and its because china has so much money they can bid higher as with india they both can bid higher than us for oil. You think big oil does not like that they can just raise the price for what ever reason such as oh we got to shut a refinery down to clean it so hey hears an idea lets raise the price of oil. As far as GVEA using alternative fuel so our electric can go down take a second and think about it if they did that think how much money they would lose when your bill went from say two hundred a month to say one hundred do you honestly think they want to lose that money if you do i have a great piece of ocean front property in arizona i would love to sell you.
It's not just ANWR that is off limits, it is any new oil drilling nationwide. And previously capped wells remain capped. No new nuclear plants in decades. We have crippled ourselves with, dare I say it, environmental straight jackets.
Sure, renewable energy sounds delightful. But it's not here yet. Hydrogen sounds like the answer, but it's not here yet. Fossil fuel is. Cars, and machinery, are more efficient than in the past, but so too we have more people and more demand.
More than an energy question, we have put ourselves at incredible risk by depending on OPEC, and communist dictators like Chavez. So while we sit here contemplating our navels, we are on the verge of catastrophe. If that is what you call burying my head in the sand, calling environmentalists what I see them to be...then I'm guilty. Just some crazy old redneck.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.