Quantcast

ANWR and why the Oil Companies don't Care.

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
22,755
2,405
In my pants
fluff said:
Beats me. What's ANWR?
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

It's a spot in Alaska that some USGS scouting was done in a while back and they found some oil pockets. Some companies want to drill there (which under the refuge status is illegal) while others have claimed there's not enough there to warrant developing wells.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
37,500
4,351
Sleazattle
DRB said:
Let's see if any of y'all are more than sound bite environmentalists.
They make larger profits when supply is lower and it would require large capitol investments to be able to get oil out of AWNR?
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,430
0
Charlotte, NC
actually it looks like it lost steam again (thankfully).

AP said:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-afladrill10nov10,0,7469198.story?coll=sfla-news-sfla
GOP leaders abandon U.S. plan to expand oil drilling in Gulf, Alaska




By Tamara Lytle
Washington Bureau

November 10, 2005



WASHINGTON · Republican leaders scrambling to pass a budget bill late Wednesday abandoned a deal that would have expanded oil and gas drilling off Florida's coast and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The House Rules Committee, on a voice vote, agreed to ditch both controversial proposals before sending the budget bill to the House floor for consideration today.

Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fort Lauderdale, said that House Acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt, R-Mo., had agreed to remove the drilling provisions as Republicans try to amass enough votes to pass the overall budget.

The issue had divided Florida politicians, with Gov. Jeb Bush and most of the GOP House members agreeing to allow drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico in exchange for a 125-mile buffer zone where states could prohibit it.

But Shaw and four other House Republicans from Florida, as well as the state's Democrats, have been trying to keep the offshore drilling measure out of the budget bill. The opposition by those five was enough to kill the Gulf drilling provision, which GOP leaders promoted because it would have brought in $900 million in drilling royalties to the federal treasury over five years. They said it would help ease the nation's shortage of energy supplies.

"We flexed our muscles and we were successful," said Shaw, chairman of the Florida House delegation. Shaw did not rule out another drilling deal in the future but said Floridians need more time to study how the issue would affect the Gulf.

Needing 218 votes to pass the overall budget bill, which contained $54 billion in federal spending cuts, Republican House leaders could afford to lose only 13 GOP members on the vote because Democrats were considered to be united against the bill.

"It's all a function of where the cheapest votes you can buy come from," said Rep. Tom Feeney, R- Oviedo, who is on the House leadership team and favors the drilling deal. By Wednesday afternoon GOP leaders did not have enough votes and were evaluating what they could add to or subtract from the bill to win over individual legislators.

The provisions for offshore drilling and for energy exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were two of the highest-profile sections of the bill, each with crucial Republican blocs of legislators lobbying against their inclusion.

Some Florida legislators who had supported the offshore deal said they wouldn't vote for the budget bill if it included drilling near Florida but not in the Alaskan refuge.

The offshore drilling would have given coastal states the right to vote down drilling within 125 miles of their beaches and would have paid states royalties if they approved the exploration. It would have opened up drilling beyond the 125-mile mark, including 2.4 million acres of the eastern Gulf of Mexico that have long been off limits.

Rep. Connie Mack, R-Fort Myers, led the GOP opposition, bucking Gov. Bush and most of the 18 Republican House members from Florida. Mack argued that drilling in the Eastern Gulf would not solve the nation's energy problems but could lead to environmental problems that could damage Florida's beaches and tourism economy.

Rep. Mark Foley, R- Jupiter; Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Long Boat Key; and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami, also pressured leadership to take the drilling out of the bill. Shaw said he felt strongly the drilling deal shouldn't be done in a massive budget bill with little debate.

The Senate, where Florida's senators Mel Martinez and Bill Nelson both vigorously oppose offshore drilling in the Gulf, did not include that provision in its version of the budget bill.

Tamara Lytle can be reached at 202-824-8255 in Washington, D.C., or tlytle@tribune.com.


Copyright © 2005, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
I wouldnt be surprised if they threw Alaska back in there and it wouldnt be such an issue(as in it would have stayed in the bill). I guess FL being a swing state has "some" advantages.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
There is a lot of oil there. It would be pretty easy to get to. At current oil prices, it would be very profitable. And in this case, no means no. There aren't any loopholes that would allow any drilling or invasive exploration.

I figured the sound bite thing might be a give away.

The thing that is happening while everyone is fighting over ANWR, is the BLM is slowly but surely leasing off the rest of the Alaskan coastline, including many areas that the great environmental Satan, James Watts put off limits. These were areas within the NPR-A that had been deemed environmentally sensitive but the protection wasn't formalized like ANWR. These areas are more than twice the size of the areas that would be opened up in ANWR. Additionally, there aren't any special protections or requirements being put in place like there would be in ANWR.

So while hardcore environmentalists saw this and have been trying to bring attention to it the sound biters have been screaming ANWR drowning out the real problem.

And oil companies sat back and laughed at the environmentalists again.
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
22,755
2,405
In my pants
Got any linky links to more info?

I hadn't heard much about it..........which makes sense with it being the legal and all.

Still sucks. Alaskans get nice checks every year from the pipeline so I don't suspect there would be much opposition to non-protected lands getting drilled.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
kidwoo said:
Got any linky links to more info?

I hadn't heard much about it..........which makes sense with it being the legal and all.

Still sucks. Alaskans get nice checks every year from the pipeline so I don't suspect there would be much opposition to non-protected lands getting drilled.
The state of Alaska is the biggest contributor to the lobbying efforts to open ANWR and 75% of the state is for the exploration of ANWR.

The Alaskan DNR and Fish and Wildlife have actually been against a number of the moves by the BLM in that they have identified many of these areas as more sensitive and more important than the stuff within ANWR. But see this is an example of outsiders telling the Alaskans what's good for them. A specific example of this is Teshekpuk Lake. Another is Yukon Flats.

As for links, do your own homework. Its not difficult to find.
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
22,755
2,405
In my pants
Thanks sweetie.

Here's one.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1213-03.htm

The NPR-A was set aside 80 years ago as an energy storehouse for the U.S. military, but the reserve has yet to send a barrel of oil to market.
Sounds like fair game.

I'm not sure what you're trying to elicit here but drilling in a place as unique and pristine in alaska still sucks. If they found gigantic veins of platinum running underneath of half dome in yosemite I would voice opposition to goin n' gitten 'er.

Which kind of touches on an interesting point I think you're trying to make. National Wildlife Refuges aren't soley state controlled land (hence the N word) and are in fact subject to national government. They can toss away state lands all they want with no influence from any sort of national consensus.........so maybe that's why it's not making the news?
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,027
3
Denver
DRB said:
The Alaskan DNR and Fish and Wildlife have actually been against a number of the moves by the BLM in that they have identified many of these areas as more sensitive and more important than the stuff within ANWR.
I'd say the Alaskan govt should fight to protec tthose lands too, but they're too busy getting a couple of $200mil bridges that aren't needed.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
kidwoo said:
Thanks sweetie.

Here's one.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1213-03.htm

Sounds like fair game.

I'm not sure what you're trying to elicit here but drilling in a place as unique and pristine in alaska still sucks. If they found gigantic veins of platinum running underneath of half dome in yosemite I would voice opposition to goin n' gitten 'er.

Which kind of touches on an interesting point I think you're trying to make. National Wildlife Refuges aren't soley state controlled land (hence the N word) and are in fact subject to national government. They can toss away state lands all they want with no influence from any sort of national consensus.........so maybe that's why it's not making the news?
No you still aren't getting it. Specific lands within NPR-A are much more important than ANWR and in the past the DOI, BLM and Alaskan officials viewed it as such. Even establishing areas of protection within them. BUT while everyone was focused on ANWR, these specific areas were basically abolished by BLM and were either leased or will be leased in the very near future. Additionally, while ANWR drilling would live by unprecedented regulations, the regulations for these areas are being relaxed beyond even what the rest of the developed areas on the North Slope already are held to.

My point is that ANWR is ugly proof of the sound bite mentality of the majority of people have today. They are satisfied with 15 second sound bites without looking at the big picture. Even you went no further than the first link you found and then no farther in that then the third sentence before you went "OK".

AND nothing within the NPR-A or ANWR or any of the northern coast of Alaska are under any real sort of state control. So its all National, hence the N in NPR-A.

And Opie, the state of Alaska (minus the congressional delegation) is fighting this but as usual NO one is listening.
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
22,755
2,405
In my pants
No I read the whole article. I have no idea what a "national petroleum reserve" falls under as far as jurisdiction other than what that article says so I can't really comment on it that's why I had a question mark in my previous post. But I said it sucks. Which it does.

You're kind of doing a damn true on this one. You're trying to get a canned response out of someone to poke fun at them and I already told you, before you brought it up, I'd heard little to nothing about it. I've also made the blanket statement that drilling at all up there is a shame. I'm not screaming about it or anything but I'm not doing that with the refuge land either.

So I guess you've succeeded in a way. I knew about ANWR because as you said, that's what's getting covered and so that's what I knew about. Sorry.

So um......you win?:confused:

Thanks for the info though.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
Good sheet DRB. Is true. And what is worse is that most people don't even know they are missing the big picture. It's an unknown unknown to them.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,184
13
TN
Lichens and caribou...who gives a ****? You can really get the oil without destroying those miserable life forms anyway. Im all for my SUV running a little cheaper.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
kidwoo said:
No I read the whole article. I have no idea what a "national petroleum reserve" falls under as far as jurisdiction other than what that article says so I can't really comment on it that's why I had a question mark in my previous post. But I said it sucks. Which it does.

You're kind of doing a damn true on this one. You're trying to get a canned response out of someone to poke fun at them and I already told you, before you brought it up, I'd heard little to nothing about it. I've also made the blanket statement that drilling at all up there is a shame. I'm not screaming about it or anything but I'm not doing that with the refuge land either.

So I guess you've succeeded in a way. I knew about ANWR because as you said, that's what's getting covered and so that's what I knew about. Sorry.

So um......you win?:confused:

Thanks for the info though.
You seem a little sensitve to be in here.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
Yippee!!!! When oil prices go back up, that means more money for me!!!

BTW, I used to work in the oil industry in New Orleans, where most of the domestic oil is drilled for. I hate hypocrites who complain about oil prices but are unwilling to allow drilling in their neck of the woods.

So when my stock goes up thanks to a limited domestic oil supply, it is a bonus for me.
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
22,755
2,405
In my pants
ALEXIS_DH said:
or like that simpsons episode, where burns drilled for oil beneath the school with a tilted oil rig....
I've heard people say that's why Iraq attacked Kuwait. Horizontal drilling. Plus it's a fun phrase to say out loud.
 

GumbaFish

Turbo Monkey
Oct 5, 2004
1,747
0
Rochester N.Y.
please dont even get me started on anwar...I ****ing hate our president and all that he stands for...I cant wait to not have a job after graduation after this administration.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
kidwoo said:
I've heard people say that's why Iraq attacked Kuwait. Horizontal drilling. Plus it's a fun phrase to say out loud.
Well, Iraq alleged slant-drilling (as opposed to horizontal which would be tricky). They also claimed that Kuwait is part of Iraq historically (an argument that is arguably true but not necessarily a valid reason for claiming current ownership).
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
GumbaFish said:
please dont even get me started on anwar...I ****ing hate our president and all that he stands for...I cant wait to not have a job after graduation after this administration.
Don't get worked up about ANWR. Do some real research and find what you should really be getting worked up about. It isn't ANWR. I promise you it isn't.

Slant and horizontal drilling are in essence the samething.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,184
13
TN
GumbaFish said:
please dont even get me started on anwar...I ****ing hate our president and all that he stands for...I cant wait to not have a job after graduation after this administration.
LMAO @ you.