ok, show me the 1,000 scientists who back this. and show me how Gulf Coast dirlling has improved sea life. I would like articles from learned professionals, not just your opinion. thank you
Good news hopefully... Chron Arctic, offshore drilling out for now A deal on the eve of House budget vote a big win for environmentalists and a loss for Bush By JONATHAN WEISMAN Washington Post WASHINGTON - House GOP leaders agreed Wednesday night to strip their budget bill of plans to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil drilling, probably securing the votes to pass the measure today. The actions were a stunning setback for those who have tried for years to open a coastal strip of ANWR to oil development and a victory for environmentalists who have lobbied hard against the drilling provisions there and off the nation's coasts — regions currently under a drilling moratorium. President Bush has made drilling in the Alaska refuge one of his top energy priorities. At least 22 Republicans had told the House leadership they would not vote for the massive $54 billion budget bill unless the drilling provision was removed and they are given assurances that it will not return after House and Senate negotiators hash out a final measure. Even then, several moderate Republicans have said they still would oppose the bill, which would allow states to impose new costs on Medicaid recipients, cut funds for student loans and child support enforcement, trim farm supports, and restrict access to food stamps. Those measures and others would save $54 billion over five years, but moderates have complained that those savings would be more than lost if the House moved forward with a $70 billion tax-cut bill. In exchange for stripping the energy provisions, however, enough GOP moderates promised their votes late Wednesday night to all but ensure passage, said Sarah Chamberlain, executive director of the Republican Mainstreet Partnership, the moderate coalition that led negotiations. Assuming it does pass, the budget measure's future is still not assured. The moderates' firm stance, especially on Arctic drilling, has put GOP leaders in a bind. A few conservatives may vote against the bill without the drilling provisions. The Senate negotiators on a House-Senate conference committee will include Sens. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who have made it clear they will not agree to any final measure that does not include Arctic drilling. Some moderates were reluctant to even negotiate. "I want something more than a feel-good press release that will be operable for no more than a few hours," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y. Chamberlain said the members of her coalition stressed again Wednesday night that they would vote against any final agreement that reinstated the drilling provisions. House leaders have scoured the GOP conference for other votes. They may modify a provision that would restrict access to food stamps for some legal immigrants to win over balking Latino Republicans, said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla. They may also drop a measure that would end the channeling of some import duties to companies harmed by illegal trade practices, hoping to win over industrial-district lawmakers. No matter how much horse trading occurs, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., has warned this could be the toughest vote since the Medicare prescription drug benefit passed after a three-hour roll call. "We still have work to do," House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, said before the energy deal was struck. Stripping Arctic refuge drilling from the bill is a huge victory for environmentalists, who have made the House their last stand in the decades-long fight to keep oil firms out of the region. It is also a rare triumph for House moderates, who have often taken stands contrary to their leaders, only to buckle to pressure. In the Senate, a similar showdown will occur today, as the Finance Committee moves on a five-year, $60 billion bill that would extend expiring tax cuts from President Bush's first term. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, told Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., she would oppose the measure as fiscally unwise and an unfair boost to the affluent as Congress cuts programs for the poor. Snowe's opposition would sink the bill. Even if she changes her position, the bill faces an uncertain future on the floor. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, announced his opposition Tuesday. "I do not know how anyone can say with a straight face that when we voted to cut spending last week to help achieve deficit reductions we can now then turn around two weeks later to provide tax cuts that exceed the reduction in spending," he said.
I agree with you and this needs to be done sooner rather than later...Being isolated and in a remote area is exactly the place people like...You don't hear people complaining about all the drilling that is going on in the Deep Gulf of Mexico...Its remote and no one will be visiting that part of the Gulf, same principle...Go get my oil...
The main concern is the potential for an accident. If there were a leak or explosion, it could potentially be another ecological disaster like Exxon Valdez. If this happens, the wildlife population might never recover.
I'm not sure which post of his to prove wrong first. There are some astoundingly wrong generalizations...
What's funny to me is that we are talking about three square miles out of the coastal plain of approx 30,600 miles for this proposed drilling site. Are you freaking kidding me ???? I really dont understand how anyone cannot support this. Guess we can just continue to rely on the rest of the world to supply our oil.
Why not drill on the Florida or California coastlines? It is far cheaper to transport the oil, there is far more oil available, and it could be up and running far sooner. Oh wait, we wouldn't want to upset the beach vacationers. ANWAR is an incredibly inefficient place to drill oil - that is why it is stupid, beyond any environmental issues. The oil we get from there will have a net-cost higher than any of the oil we import.
Better to drill in the Arctic than to actually do something to reduce our dependency of fossil fuels.
as a firm states-righter i think that this is an issue that alaskans themselves must decide on. this is an issue that effects them directly. chances are, if they have a chance to get some jobs and $$$ pumped into the economy they are going to take it. i would rather not have these areas exposed to drilling and all that comes with it, but chances are most of us will never even go to alaska. if the people who live there want it than what buisness is it of a texan, iowinian or delawareian to say no?
California coastlines does get drilled upon. Long Beach used to have the second largest reserves on the continental US. They made the drills tolerable to the beachside residents, though it was a long compromise when most of the oil was still in there.
Yellowstone has unlimited geothermal energy production capability *and* it's a national park ~ are you guys thinking what i'm thinking... $$$
For the last 24 years, California's been unable to expand its coastal drilling. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/04/BAG7KFJ1I31.DTL Washington -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged on Thursday a fellow California Republican, Rep. Richard Pombo of Tracy, to back off his aggressive efforts to change the federal moratorium protecting California's coastline from offshore drilling. Pombo, the powerful chairman of the House Resources Committee, has been pushing legislation that would allow states to opt out of the federal moratorium and allow oil and gas drilling off their shores. In a letter to Pombo, Schwarzenegger said changing the current offshore drilling moratorium -- which is approved annually by Congress and bans drilling off California and a dozen other states -- could weaken protections for the state's coastline. "This moratorium has been in place for 24 years and enjoys widespread support from the people of California, including bipartisan support from elected leaders," the Republican governor wrote.
OK, did you even read my post? There are a supposed 10 billion barrels of oil under the Alaskan tundra, at most. The U.S. now uses more than 7 billion barrels of oil per year. Even if this is oil that we can use (light, sweet crude) that is enough oil to last the U.S. a year and a half at best and that is if these estimates are correct. It will not cutoff our relying on the rest of the world tom supply our oil needs. As I said before, oil is a non-renewable resource. Start pumping more money into finding methods to make alternative fuels cheaper to use and produce and lessen our dependency on non-renewable resources.
Technically speaking this is incorrect. It just takes a long time to renew. Bottom line is ANWR will reduce our foreign oil dependence at next to zero cost to Americans. Who can be against that? Only democrats who have been trained to b!tch about anything a republican proposes. Major - no **** it's going to be more expensive than many of our imports. Saudi Arabia can extract oil from the ground for around $0.50 per barrel. US based sources average ~$12 per barrel. Go google commodity markets and how they work and educate yourself.
