Loading ...
Revisiting ANWR
- Filed under: Uncategorized
- Date: Apr 25,2008
I was thinking last night again about drilling in ANWR while paying $3.49 for gas at Speedway in Montrose. I am not trying to single them out, it is just where I stopped. Thanks to many of our United States Senators, the drilling in question isn't going to happen, but it should. The closest it has come to passing was March 19, 2003. By a vote of 52-48, it failed.
All of us can argue how much oil would actually be there in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Democrats and their environmental friends like to use their low estimates; Republicans, their allies, and oil companies like to use higher numbers. No one knows for sure - but it would certainly be more than the 0 barrels coming out of there now. The part of ANWR they want to drill in is a wasteland - not the part where the nice animals and plants are.
We can't drill in Alaska - some caribou might have to move 3 miles away from a pipeline or something. Can't build nuclear plants. Can't do this. Can't do that. Sure, world demand is going way up (thank you India and China - probably using the oil to produce all the cheap goods we consume and purchase at Wal-Mart) but America is not doing enough here to help the whole "let's get off foreign oil" thing. Republicans tried to do something, but were unable to get the ANWR drilling passed. Democrats complain but won't let anything happen here that will help the problem so some of their major donors and Robert Kennedy stay happy and feel good about themselves while they fly around on their corporate jets.
The 2003 vote took place when there were 51 Republicans in the Senate and they still couldn't get it through…..now with only 49 GOP senators and seeing how they don't control the chamber anymore, it is not looking promising. 8 Republicans voted against the drilling - Linc Chafee, Mike DeWine, Peter Fitzgerald (all gone now), Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Norm Coleman, Gordon Smith, and the new GOP standard bearer John McCain. I wonder if any of them would have voted the other way now after they pulled into a local gas station while they were doing work in their home state and saw that $20 would barely get them 5 gallons.
With the same Senate in place right now as in 2003, I bet drilling passes, and we are closer to getting the oil. 2 senators would have buckled and voted yes. It is almost a sure thing. The week before the vote gas hit a "near record high" of $1.72. They are almost double today, a little more - $3.51.
I am driving to Pittsburgh tonight to see my favorite baseball team (not the Pirates). I will pay about $3.50 a gallon to get there. Bad times. Unless something is done, I am going to be A) broke, B) have to ride a bike which I don't have and will never get, or C) just never go anywhere.
For sure, I do know one party that isn't doing anything to help me. They also want to raise taxes on oil companies - now that is a surefire way to make gas prices go down! That always works, right? I also know that John McCain joined with some of the most liberal Republicans to prevent the Alaskan drilling. It makes me sick. Someone in the MSM media should take a break from helping Obama out during these tough times for his campaign and ask McCain if his opinion on this has changed. John, at least lie and say it has. Give me some hope. Give me some Fake Talk Express or something.
Related to driving - I see Ohio built a nice new rest area on I-71 near where it meets I-76 (at least new to me last night - but definitely new in the last couple of years). Good to see our state has the proper priorities during these tough times. I was really proud to be an Ohio resident when I stopped there! Maybe I will start going to this rest area to get stuff out of the overpriced vending machines and just hang out there because it is so much nicer than it used to be.
Click below to see my Senate vote math - and why the prospects for future drilling look so grim.
So doing the math……all 5 Democrats / their seats who voted for drilling you would think would vote the same way - both the guys from Hawaii (they stick together with Alaska), Mary Landrieu, John Breaux (replaced by Vitter), and Zell Miller (replaced by Johnny Isakson). The replacements for the Republicans who opposed the drilling would certainly vote the same way - Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, and Barack Obama. Democrats who voted to block drilling who are gone - John Edwards (Elizabeth Dole - yes), Tom Daschle (John Thune - yes), Bob Graham (Mel Martinez - yes probably, but who knows with him), Fritz Hollings (Jim DeMint - yes), Paul Sarbanes (Ben Cardin - no). {yes in this case means for drilling, no means against drilling}.
Republicans who voted to drill who are no longer in the Senate include: George Allen (Jim Webb - no), Conrad Burns (Jon Tester - maybe), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Ken Salazar - probably no), Bill Frist (Lamar Alexander - yes), Trent Lott (Roger Wicker - yes), Don Nickles (Tom Coburn - yes), Rick Santorum (Bob Casey - no), Jim Talent (Claire McCaskill - no), Craig Thomas (John Barrasso - yes).
That doesn't include potential losses of the Allard, Domenici, Sununu, and Warner seats that swing the vote even more. (I don't count Norm Coleman as a potential loser against Al Franken, because he is a joke candidate). Absolute best case scenario right now is that the ANWR bill would fail 52-48 - again, including McCain's no vote. It will be worse after the 2008 elections. So if ANWR was ever going to be opened to drilling it would have to be voted upon before the upcoming election. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't let that happen, so neither will the oil exploration. No problem for him though, he is making enough money on his land deals that he can pay more for gas.
30 Responses for "Revisiting ANWR"
"Others have suggested that the solution is to increase domestic supply by drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — ANWR. There are several reasons that cause me to oppose ANWR development. Aside from the adverse environmental impact of such drilling, even the most reliable estimates conclude that the refuge could only meet about 2 to 5 percent of the nation's oil needs, at best. Drilling in ANWR simply won't keep up with demand — our only real solution is to move away from our reliance on oil and towards other fuels." - John McCain May 8, 2006
I agree with Senator McCain.
I wrote a paper on this sometime in 2003 in some nonsense class called "Leisure and Recreation" or something like that. Of course I found a way to make my paper political. It is in some box of my stuff somwewhere in my basement - 99% certain of that - I am going to try and dig it out this weekend and get some more facts on this topic. Obviously I got an A on the paper.
5% of the total oil we have now is still better than none. It takes little steps to reach the goal.
I would be for drilling, if it was the part of some larger, more comprehensive/fundamental changes in our energy policies. But a straight decision to drill there and cause the environmental hazards seems nonproductive.
It will only drop prices 5%, so who cares anyway. the real issue is that we need a fundamental change. The problem with this Haneeler position is that they ignore the need for fundamental change…..or just say, 'we'll do that later'
Oh, and it is important to remember it will take 10 YEARS to get the first drop of oil….and then consider it will take several more years to have a net-gain of oil from such a project, because of all the energy needed to start the drilling.
Proposal: I am all for drilling in ANWR, if we quit giving subsidies to the oil industries drilling in the Middle East.
Also, there is a big elephant in the room that Haneeler ignore when they bang the drum about ANWR:
Bush/Cheney are freaking oil guys. The prices have gone up 400% during their regime. And its not like we didn't realize China/India were developing 8 years ago, so I don't want to hear all about the demand stuff….speculators 8 years ago were not retarded. So I think it is fair to assume the Bush/Cheney policies have directly affected the increase.
Bill Maher said it best:
"You know that since George Bush has become president, gas has basically tripled in price. Now, Bush is an oil man. I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m just saying that if we had elected Colonel Sanders president and the price of chicken had tripled, I’d be a little suspicious."
But somehow, Ben & Company (AKA Haneeler) ignore and dismiss these logical suspicions.
Also, Bill Maher on the McCain's solution….
Okay, but – but, wait a second, because there is one man who has a solution: John McCain this week—John McCain presented his proposal. He says that over the summer, we should have a "gas tax holiday." Ooh. For summer drivers, the 18-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax, he wants that lifted over the summer. Or as it used to be called, "Grandpa is giving you five dollars."
ANWR and other projects like the tract in the Dakotas and the North Bering project are not the answer. "The Answer" does not exist. Many small answers like more drilling, new technology, not burning food for energy, an emphasis on conservation, financial incentives for people to conserve - not penalties for non-conservation, and more are the path.
Chuck,
Do you have direct evidence that Bush is behind the rise in oil prices? Or is this another "I hate Bush" statement? Why do you bring up Bush in a post that talks about ANWR and future energy? Scanning through the post, I didn't see Bush mentioned once. You hate him, we get it.
Thinking it further, drilling will take a long time to happen here. There was a proposed land swap between the feds and a tribe on the end of the Alaskan Peninsula that was approved yesterday in a House subcommittee. The purpose of the land swap is to free-up land to build a fairly short gravel road to connect two towns now dependent on hovercraft service between the two, making medical care and transport to the outside world easier and cheaper. The usual enviro-lobby folks threw a tantrum when interviewed on NPR yesterday, even though the swap will give the feds more land, not to mention none of the anti-swap folk even live there. If the enviro-lobby will go to court, as they promised, to stop a single road, just imagine what will happen when it comes to time to drill.
Chuck,
Let me rephrase my statements above, made in a rush due to time constraints…
The post was about ANWR and future energy options, not Bush. I do agree with your position on ANWR drilling, as long as it is part of a large-scale solution.
PS. I hope your tickets to Hawaii are on Alaska Airlines, otherwise, you may have some trouble getting there. Congrats, by the way.
It is a rare day when both Chuck and Alaska agree on anything. Even rarer that I agree as well. This nation is in desperate need of a comprehensive energy policy. Hit and miss is not an option. I see painful times ahead for the American driver and consumer. It would be nice to see more people take individual iniatives.
The Colonel Sanders comment great.
Ben how were your seats for the game?
Ben:
The Bakken Oil Formation in North Dakota has the potential of making drilling in ANWR irrelevant, will make America energy independent and will put the Mideast oil fascists in their place. Furthermore, it shouldn't be a problem since oil drilling has existed there for years.
I'm sure, however, that a liberal will want to declare all of North Dakota a National Monument in order to preserve habitat of the rare "Jackalope". And, in doing so, will prevent further oil drilling.
Here's the link:
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html
No Alaska, I don't have direct evidence. but as i said, and the colonel sanders joke highlights, there is circumstantial evidence.
That comment above under "Ben Keeler" is not the real Ben Keeler, which is me. It is obvious it is not me because I would never be up at 8:04 on a Saturday morning.
Yes, drilling in ANWR may only drop prices by 5%. But combine that will driling somewhere else, adding some power plants somewhere else, doing something else small along the way, and it adds up. And in regards to the whole it "would take 10 years" to actually be able to get that oil….if we had passed rhe vote in 2003, then we would be halfway there now. It will always be 10 years away if we never start the drillng.
I also thought the KFC comment was funny…..and I would be real mad if KFC prices tripled. 2 piece meal for me on Thursday (green beans my side dish).
Oh yeah, we sat in the front row right behind third base last night at PNC. No big deal.
Gary Lewis,
I saw that discovery, but I didnt feel the need to mention it - because you are right, some reason will be found to not drill there or only allow drilling in 3% of the area or something. I would disagree that it would make ANWR irrelevant…all sources are important.
North Dakota is a wasteland and they should drill all over the state. I have been there and it is awful. South Dakota is fine, North Dakota is pretty terrible. Probably the state that brings the least to the table - except for the new oil discovery.
Check This Out!!!
The JohnMcCainUSA.com website is finally done!
http://www.johnmccainusa.com/
JohnMcCainUSA.com has been submitted to over 500,000 search engines along with over 140 "John McCain" URL domain names that are mirrored to the website.
JohnMcCainUSA.com will soon be the #1 website on the world wide web for information on presidential candidate John McCain.
Be sure to look for the mobile billboard trucks advertising JohnMcCainUSA.com coming soon!
JohnMcCainUSA.com is paid for by the American Dream Committee PAC.
Drilling in ANWR isnt going to help anything. It isnt worth digging up the land for oil that will help short term only but be tapped in too short of a period.
Ben:
I lived in North Dakota for over a year. The longest decade of my life!
"The amount of oil in ANWR would only increase the amount of oil reserve in the world reserve by 0.3% and there is not enough oil to make a slight difference in the world oil price. ANWR would produce about 3.3% of daily consumption of oil in America and we would still be dependent on foreign oil." http://www.people.carleton.edu/~cdavidso/Geo190/Case2Briefs/Tsang2.htm
Ben's entire post was on oil and gas prices and ANWR and all that stuff…..but no mention of the futures traders, you know, the ones who only pay 15% capital gains taxes, no mention of what part they are playing as they daily gamble in the Great Casino. Speculative oil options continue to see brand new "investor" money show up, continuing to artificially baloon the price of crude.
Jimmy Carter was the last guy to do something about energy that seemed like it came from an adult. The CAFE standards took leadership and they worked. Carter is villified still, ironically, he's the only president who knew how to lead. Then in came McDonald with his balls to the wall voodoo and every- freaking-body is driving an SUV. You know, entitled to it because gas prices came back down. And we haven't had any leadership since.
We need to use less energy. We need to conserve. We need to finance new energy methods. We need even stricter CAFE standards than 32 mpg by 2015. That isn't good enough.
But the first thing we need is new leadership. None of it, ANWR compromises, new methodologies, none of it will happen without new leadership. Vote Obama.
Chuck makes an excellent point about Bush and Cheney. They havent got tough with the oil companies as Obama pointed out. I am sure when Obama explains the facts to both the US companies as well as the international firms the prices will drop. Why not have the UN levy a tax on oil sales to distribute to those that suffer the most from the obscene prices. I am sure the Arab Sheiks, Chavez and the other producers that have lectured the US through the UN will be egaer to have the UN implement such a worthwile program.
Having the UN do anything is a detriment. Even if they could levy a tax the corrupt idiots that run the place would find a way to steal it.
Angry conservative, eh. Insane maybe. Conservative? Na-baba-na.
Sorry Gary I was just having a little fun. The UN is basically the forum other countries use to lecture us and I thought it might be fun to think of them actually spending their resources helping others. Your right it would just be another feeding frenzy by the corrupt.
If all these small amounts of oil were tapped, "No to Drilling," then it would add up to something.
just the threat that we are going to drill in alaska would drop the price of oil, what about the gulf coast of fl? oh yeah the rich dont want to look at those oil rigs 5 miles out to sea. and remember how many oil rigs flooded oil into the gulf when katrina hit? yeah 0.
let me know the next time you or anyone you know plan to visit anwr and snap some photos of caribu!
just like the big tree hugger kennedy wont allow the wind mills around his summer home …as he flies around in his private jet drinking god knows what?
its not gwb raising the oil, its the arabs, and the fact that china has become a industrial giant starving for fuel….wake up liberals! gwb didnt cause katrina,aids or the oil shortage…..aaarrrrggghhhh!!
I am an Arab so lay off
Good News!
I found my paper.
- An estimated 1,000-1,500 people visit every year - down by half since 1990.
-The area of ANWR which would be drilled in (8% of it) is on the coastal plain of it - known as the "1002" area. It has a 9 month winter and almost no plant or animal life. The area is dark 56 days a year. The vast majority of wildlife doesnt even dare venture into thos land.
-Not one polar bear has been injured or killed since drilling began in Prudhoe Bay in the 1970s.
-The only people who live in ANWR coastal plain are the Inupiat Eskimos, who overwhelmingly support the drilling.
-Hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created. A ton of tax revenue would be raised. Between 1980 and 1994 production at Prudhoe Bay contributed over $50 billion to the US economy.
You may want to consider driving a smaller car, walking more or taking public transit. There is no compelling reason to drill in ANWR. If you think that doing so will lower the price of gas you are dreaming. In reality the rest of the world pays this much for gas….but many places pay less for healthcare, food and shelter. So now that the USA is losing it's top dog status thanks to Bush and his buddies bilking us dry, we have to face hardship. Hopefully the next president will help restore some good things. In the meantime is is very important to preserve wild refuges and wilderness areas, even during rough times. Otherwise you will still be sighing at the high price of gas with one less area preseved and a sanctuary. by the way do you think the porcupine caribou care about the price of gas? Humans are not the only thing on this earth and if we do not stop being pigs, we won't make it.
There are other Natives there besides the Inupiats! do your homework! The Inupiats who support it get dividends!
To Kelly, again your wrong. I know because I have work on the NorthSlope for 32 years and you have not. No Caribou has been hurt drilling on the Arctic Plain. The central caribou herd has triple in size since drilling begain in 1968. The Central caribou herd range is amongst the producing field on the Slope. 385 million barrels of oil could be produced by 2015 if we were allow today to drill. Thats 385 million barrels per year that would benifit Americans and not some foriegn goverment thst wants to take away your freedoms. Humm now what if you still believe that ANWR is not worth drilling put your action behind it stay a week in the Refuge.
This is a no brainer
Leave a comment