ANWR Drilling Passes Senate

The famous, perhaps infamous, project to drill for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge has passed the Senate. The senate was very divided on the matter. Ultimately the final vote was 51-49. Specifically, the Senate passed a provision in next year's budget for the project.



This is the first step in the process. Alaska has large oil reserves. The US consumes lots of oil. Oil is now very expensive. Oil is an economic and industrial resource, but is also a strategic resource.
The cost of dependence on foreign oil is a geostrategic programme the requires massive attention to oil producing regions, the support of stabilization over progress in oil rich regions, and an investment in major military installations throughout the globe to ensure that oil fields are protected and that oil tranportation is uninterupted.
No one thinks that ANWR will stop any of this, but it will in theory lessen the cost. Apparently ANWR can be drilled without wreacking environmental havoc, which is helpful also.

Personally, I'd prefer to see ANWR drilled, and for gas and oil prices given a lowest cap of what they are right now, along with a tax of, say, a dollar, on top of that, for every gallon of gasoline sold, perhaps more so for 'premium' gas. I see no reason to allow global policy be dictated by the strategic demands of dependance on a single resource. Such measures can make gas and oil less effective than alternative resources.

Related News Links:
hosted.ap.org

arcticcircle.uconn.edu
www.democrats.org


[edit on 16-3-2005 by Nygdan]

[edit on 16-3-2005 by pantha]

This is awesome! Should have been done long ago.

Kerry loses again!

www.johnkerry.com...

I actually get mail from John F'n Kerry.

Come to think about it I get mail from the DNC and Howard Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaarrgggghhhhh Dean also.

It's aways good to know what the enemy is up to!

Dean's a little loopy in my opinion, but the guy's certainly got a spine. Nothing wrong with a victory cry.

Im no enviromentalist and I cant stand Peta but I do not think drilling is the best idea. For one it will effect wildlife regardless of what anyone says. This is one of the few untouched places certain animals have to live in. Honestly I do not see how some posters are so happy about it. Making an extra buck and causing poor animals to die out is not a worth cause. Id rather live without the extras in life then to kill off species of animals. I may be wrong here but the earths already being screwed with enough. Why not let one little piece of it rest in peace?

I have to say the Alaskan tundra is not all that exciting. A few oil wells here and there won't hurt anything.


What objectors don't seem to know is that the big oil companies are the ones behind the big research projects on alternative energy sources. More profits for them makes for more R&D.

[edit on 3/17/2005 by BeefotronX]

Id like to research this further. It passed by a very slim margin. I want to find out what enviromental gains and losses will come of this. How much oil will we benefit from and so on.

It seems that big oil may no longer as interested in the site as they once where.

A Bush adviser says the major oil companies have a dimmer view of the refuge's prospects than the administration does. "If the government gave them the leases for free they wouldn't take them," said the adviser, who would speak only anonymously because of his position. "No oil company really cares about ANWR," the adviser said, using an acronym for the refuge, pronounced "an-war."

As for the amount of oil

Advocates cite a 1998 government study that estimated the part of the refuge proposed for drilling might hold 10 billion barrels of oil. But only one test well has been drilled, in the 1980's, and its results are one of the industry's most closely guarded secrets.

This states atleast 10 billion though i have heard some estimates as high as 40 Billion to as little as 500 Million.

For the Interior Department, however, the refuge is the best land-based opportunity to find new oil. Any lease revenues, estimated by the department to be $2.4 billion in 2007, would be split between the federal and state governments. Advocates say oil production could reach one million barrels per day. In a decade from now, when the site might be fully developed, that would be about 4 percent of American consumption, according to federal forecasts.

I dont think its mentioned in this article but they may not start lease bidding for 2 years and it may take around 7 years to develpe the site.

David L. Bernhardt, deputy chief of staff to the secretary of the interior, cited a 1998 study by the United States Geological Survey estimating that the refuge might hold 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. (The estimate for offshore oil is 76 billion barrels.)

But that study has significant weaknesses, which Mr. Bernhardt acknowledged. Its estimates are of "petroleum resources" - potential oil deposits - instead of "petroleum reserves," which refers to oil that has been discovered.

Ken Bird, a geological survey official who worked on the study, said the federal geologists did not have access to test data from the only exploratory well drilled on the refuge, by Chevron Texaco and BP in the 1980's. An official with one of the companies, speaking anonymously because of the confidentiality of the test, said that if the results had been encouraging the company would be more engaged in the political effort to open the refuge.

There has not been much discussion about the refuge between the companies and the Bush administration, according to industry and government officials.

Another qoute on amount of recoverable oil (dont know if the offshore is in alaska or not)

Mr. Hunt, through an aide, declined an interview request. Others who advised Mr. Bush on his energy plan said including the refuge was seen as a political maneuver to open the door to more geologically promising prospects off the coasts of California and Florida. Those areas, where tests have found oil, have been blocked for years by federal moratoriums because of political and environmental concerns.

"If you can't do ANWR," said Matthew R. Simmons, a Houston investment banker for the energy industry and a Bush adviser in 2000, "you'll never be able to drill in the promising areas."

Seems to be more of a test to see just how far they can go(or get away with).

Link

Link to NYT Origional Requires registration

let me know if this is exessive qouting (or bad spelling).

Another Link that mentions some possible environmental damage.

www.tierramerica.net...

I was very angry when I read about this. That place may not look like much, but it really is a delicate area. I don't understand why we need to drill there. Is it so Mrs. Smith can fill up the gas tank of her Ford Exlocusinator for 3 cents cheaper on her way to drop the kids off at soccer?
Because I don't see why this is going to make gas any cheaper. In 10 years when we can use this oil, gas prices may very well match the prices in Europe, making the whole operation a complete waste!

The point is there, only clouded.

It would be nice but only one thing, all that oil is exported to Japan and Asia, and does nothing to alleviate high oil prices.

You can cheer the leadership for what appears to be its effort to make the supply of oil increase in our favor, but the facts are the facts as stated. We are exporting that oil, and it only shows as a blip on the balance of payments screen, while it does next to nothing for the people of the United States. All those environmental arguments are from organizations sponsored by guess who, the Oil Companies. Hey supply and demand, whoops those environmentalists want to basically cut down supply, what a rich idea, until prices rise even higher then comes the contradiction.

[edit on 18-3-2005 by SkipShipman]