Senate Committee Approves Drilling in ANWR
Earlier today, the Senate Energy Committee voted 13-9 to approve oil drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge:
Within weeks, the measure could become law. By attaching the language to the budget bill, Republicans have made it impossible for Democrats to block it with a filibuster. And the House of Representatives has repeatedly voted in favor of opening the refuge to energy development....
Under the drilling plan, ANWR’s 1.5 million-acre coastal plain would be opened for energy exploration.... The Interior Department would be required to hold two lease sales before Oct. 1, 2010, to lease tracts in ANWR to oil companies.
Credit where credit is due: the lone dissentor on the Republican side was Gordon Smith. Ron Wyden also tried to pass a provision that would have kept the oil from going overseas, but the committee voted it down.
|
Oct. 19, 2005
Posted in in the news 2005. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
1:40 p.m.
Oct 19, '05
As an editorial comment, let me add: not only have the GOP been pathologically unwilling to pass conservation measures (lower CAFE standards and so on), but now they're willing to sell the oil overseas. Whatever tiny claim they may have about linking this to "energy independence" is thus punctured. Can we call this bill what it is: yet ANOTHER giveaway ('entitlement?') to Halliburton and Co.
It stinks all around.
2:02 p.m.
Oct 19, '05
We'll see if Gordon Smith votes for it on the floor.
2:16 p.m.
Oct 19, '05
Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that the Rs would push forward with this given the recent visibility of "peak oil." Even USA Today got into the act a few days ago, publishing an article about the concern among oil experts that we're soon to run out. I guess the Senate Republicans haven't read their copy yet.
2:51 p.m.
Oct 19, '05
one hopeful note: after this becomes law, it will end up in court. i don't see how that battle won't last at least 2 years, unless they legislation has anti-litigation aspects. by then, we may have replaced bush and the Rs in the senate. this is a battle that's been lost in congers, unless someone thinks enough Rs will vote against the final bill. we have to give our support to those who'll fight this in court.
Oct 19, '05
I think there are two possible attacks on this legislation, the non-environmental one being the most effective. People are angry with high gas prices, and effective messaging would be to press this issue as a 'giveaway' to highly profitable oil companies rather than any form of relief to the American people. If major news media can finally cover the fact that oil companies raise prices independent of oil shocks, I believe many people will be angry. Its one thing to talk about protecting the environment, another to tell people who traditionally vote conservative that those they voted into office are in essence stealing their money. Many conservatives interviewed by the national media have expressed disapproval at the high profit margins of big oil, and high cost at the pump. Its time for the people at the national level to start attacking the GOP on those grounds ... and be loud about it.
Andrew
Oct 19, '05
Once again Wyden displayed his ignorance of basic economics. Oil is a worldwide commodity. When the original Alaskan pipeline was built, a similar provision was inserted to prevent the Japanese from benefiting from our pipeline. It only means that we and our ally the Japanese end up paying more in transportation costs. If the Japanese, or now the Chinese, are willing to pay more FOB Alaska than what it costs us to import that oil, why should we shoot ourselves in the foot?
7:44 p.m.
Oct 19, '05
i don't have nearly enough information, but i've heard that a lot of our refined petrol is going offshore. maybe that's not china, but i've heard that our refineries send gas, etc, to south america and other places. if this is true, at least wyden (for a change) was on the right track.
when bill says we should sell our oil overseas, 1) "we" is the oil companies, not the american public, and 2) that does nothing to bring down prices. did i misunderstand you?
Oct 19, '05
As destructive as it is, drilling in ANWR is inevitable, given our addiction to oil and the ever rising price per barrel. The oil derived will not be worth the environmental loss, but accounting never means much to a junky.
Oct 19, '05
Hawaii's and Alaska's senators have long teamed together on political efforts, so it's probably not much of a surprise that Akaka (D-HI) voted for the drilling. What's Mary Landrieu's excuse (D-LA)?
Oct 19, '05
Tom wrote "As destructive as it is, drilling in ANWR is inevitable, given our addiction to oil and the ever rising price per barrel. The oil derived will not be worth the environmental loss, but accounting never means much to a junky."
When the destruction doesn't happen will that make you a liar?
Not to be nasty or anything but suppose the destruction does not come about?
If not, then is there any other reason not to use our own supplies of crude?
Oct 20, '05
Is Marilyn asking... what if there are no weapons of mass destruction?
Oct 20, '05
Despite your circular reasoning, Marilyn, I will venture an answer.
Yes, there is a reason not to drill in ANWR now, even if environmental protection can be guarunteed [it cannot]. The US should save as much of its petroleum reserves as possible for the future when oil will be needed as a raw material and not an energy source. If we are going to continue burning oil with reckles abandon, it makes sense to burn someone else's oil. The present cost of crude, though it seems dear to Americans used to dirt cheap oil, is a bargain.
Oct 21, '05
A couple of predictions: 1)Smith will either vote for it on the floor and exact his pound of flesh from the GOP on something more important to him
or
2) Smith will vote no, but only after assuring that there are enough votes to ensure its passage. He will then play it up big time during the next election cycle as testament to his moderate environmental position.
Re Gordie's question. I would have thought anyone noting the oilslicks and dislodged drilling platforms left by Katrina and cancer rates and life expectancy of downstream Louisianians wouldn't have to ask. For further confirmation, watch how she votes on the waiving of environmental regs to site new oil refineries. Aye, Aye anyone?
Lastly, for Marilyn, the destruction is already happening. Remember Prince William Sound? For Pete's sake, the permafrost is melting and the polar ice cap is the smallest on record. Whether it's the Artic National Wildlife Refuge or Point Barrow, the more of this stuff we pull out of the ground, the faster and more dramatic will be the effects on our climate. We may make it through for a while (although there a probably tens of thousands of Mexicans in Quintana Roo who might differ), but in the end, we'll all suffer.
Not to mention the Caribou, Musk Ox and Polar Bear. But you can show your grandchildren pictures so what's the loss? I hope you like tropical diseases, because they won't be relegated to the Tropics for long. Dengue fever on Denver Avenue doesn't that sound fun? But you'll be able to fill the car, so WTF?