(Alaska Sen.) Stevens less upbeat on ANWR

[kskiska]

CAUTION: Other concerns will take away from effort to allow drilling.

WASHINGTON -- Despite Republican gains in Congress and greater political support for oil exploration on federal lands, Sen. Ted Stevens said Friday that opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling will still be a difficult task in the 109th Congress.

The cautious tone he used in a conversation in his Senate office with Alaska reporters was a contrast to his upbeat predictions of success back in October when he was campaigning back home for Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Stevens, a Republican, said difficult national issues, such as changes to the Social Security system and the huge federal deficit, will steal time and effort that otherwise might have been available to get an ANWR measure to the president, who has vowed to sign one.

"I can't tell whether we're going to be able to overcome a minority again this time," Stevens said, referring to the ability of a minority of senators -- mostly Democrats, but a few moderate Republicans -- to block ANWR legislation.

more…
http://www.adn.com/front/story/5995962p-5892114c.html

[bluestateguy]

1. They lost two pro-drilling Democrats too

Breaux and Miller. I think Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Peter Fitzgerald were also pro-drilling, so the numbers are still the same on the drilling issue.

[sandnsea]

2. "moderate" Republicans

Protecting ANWR is a liberal value. When we talk about liberal issues that "moderate" Republicans support, we should call those people "liberal" Republicans. Quit letting them hide behind the "moderate" label.

[cornermouse]

3. Don't look at me...

I'm still infuriated at him over the Omnibill and his personal performance at that time.

[jamesinca]

4. Maybe because the oil companies are pulling out

Conaco Phillips has pulled its desire to drill there. There was one other large oil company that recently pulled its interest from ANWAR. Maybe Stevens sees this as a no "special interest/campaign money" issue and hence not worth the fight. I would bet that if somebody gave him a million dollars for the fight in congress he would take it up, even if a million of his constituents wrote and called to say no. The mouth breathing, knuckle dragging SOB and his ilk don't care about America, they care about money. Follow the money.

[hatrack]

7. BP already gave up their concessions on the edge of the refuge

I don't think they're terribly interested anyway. The abandoned Arctic Power a couple of years ago, I think.

[Racenut20]

5. Means he isn't going to personally get any money out of it if they drill.

[noamnety]

6. I got a letter from Sen Levin (MI-D) yesterday on this

Some highlights from it:

"I believe opening the refuge to drilling is the wrong approach to addressing our energy problems. The actual reserves in the area are too small to either ensure the US's energy independence or have a significant impact on energy prices. It is estimated that the refuge could produce only about 4% of our daily supply of oil Consequently, most analysts agree that opening the refuge would have little impact on energy prices, particularly the cost of gasoline. Another critical factor is the devastating effect drilling could have on this fragile system."

... "The Senate passed a comprehensive and balanced energy bill in each of the past two years, most recently in July 2003. I supported both of these bills. Then, after months of closed-door meetings with no input from Democratic conferees, the majority put forward a "take it or leave it" energy bill that is drastically different from the bill the Senate passed. Senators had no opportunity to amend the bill or to choose among its good and bad provisions. It was all or nothing. The vote on this bill occurred in Dec 2003, and while it was difficult to oppose a bill that had a number of provisions that I not only supported but worked to include in the bill, the process and the product were deeply flawed and on balance I could not support it. If you would like a more detailed statement on my concerns with the Energy Policy Act of 2003, you may visit my website at levin.senate.gov.

On Feb 13, 2004, Senator Dominici introduced a new pared down energy bill. Unfortunately, as with the bill that the majority wrote in December, this bill still did little to protect consumers from fraud and manipulation of energy markets, promote energy conservation, or enhance renewable energy technologies."

I'm posting those excerpts because it was a good reminder on the energy bills that it's not only the ANWR issue, but also market manipulation that we need to keep an eye on, when it comes to these bills.

[leesa]

8. Maybe because it's a really stupid idea, Ted.

However, since Venezuela has signed an exclusive gas/oil rights contract with China, and Iran has signed the same with India, and certainly, once Iraq kicks us out THEY will never agree to contract with us, we certainly are running out of options, now aren't we?
Our only option is Saudi Arabia and I doubt THAT will go well.

Perhaps the idiots in the Republican party will get a clue one day.

[MasonJar]

9. I thought that I heard back when Stump started promoting this

that the oil cos. were not excited about it....too little oil, too much trouble to extract it for so little return.