Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Part of Alaska to be opened to oil and gas leasing

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
nitpicker Donating Member (125 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 07:29 AM
Original message
Part of Alaska to be opened to oil and gas leasing
Edited on Thu Jul-17-08 07:31 AM by nitpicker
Source: Rigzone.com

US Opens Alaskan Land for Fall 2008 Lease Sale
U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wednesday, July 16, 2008


In a Record Decision issued today, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced that it will make land available for oil and gas leasing in the northeast portion of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A).(snip) At the same lease sale, the BLM also plans to offer land in the northwest portion of the NPR-A.
(snip)

The lands made available for leasing under plans for NPR-A northeast and northwest could result in a much as 8.4 billion barrels of oil being developed. The lands could also provide trillions of cubic feet of natural gas for shipment to North American markets through gas pipelines currently in the planning stages.
(snip)

The plan includes protections for the polar bear, including requirements to consider impacts on areas used by polar bears for denning. Additionally, with the listing of the polar bear the agency will continue to work closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on future oil and gas activities.

According to the Record of Decision, the BLM defers leasing for 10 years on land currently unavailable for leasing north and east of Teshekpuk Lake.


Read more: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=64278



Various other sites claim 2.6 million acres or 3.9 million acres would be opened to leasing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. They've been talking about this for a long time as an alternate
to ANWR. I would love to believe this will shut the damn oil companies up for a while, but...probably not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freethought Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. The oil corps will probably only use these leases
to make their balance sheets look better just like they are doing with millions of other acres under lease. Leasing them but not doing a damned thing with them.

If anyone thinks this is going to bring gasoline prices down, I have bridges in Brooklyn and San Francisco that I would love to sell. Welcome to the new reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
booksenkatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
3. "Drill For American Oil NOW!!!"
That's the bumper sticker I saw on a huge gas guzzler yesterday here in Michigan.

It's just one of those folks coloring hard with his red crayon, trying to push our state into the R category in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
4. I have been talking about this for a while.
By allowing the oil companies more access (they already have some) to the NPR-A it effectively shuts down the "we need to drill in ANWR" yammering. Now when the repug enablers see that gas prices don't go down because of drilling, the Dems can point to this and DEMAND better conservation and alternitive energy policies.
I will not be suprised to see road blocks to the development of this from the villages that have hunted the area around the Teshekpuk Lake area. The have halted develpment in the past. But that is a totally different story.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
5. Democrats have been pushing for this for quite some time now.
Natural gas burns much cleaner than oil or coal and Alaska has buku natural gas. If you want a cleaner environment you should be for this as well..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
6. "could result in a much as 8.4 billion barrels of oil being developed."
and it could not as well. Just because a piece of land is leased doesn't mean that there is oil or NG there.

And if there is, I say, oh about 10 years from now something will come out of the ground.

ALL OUR PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED!!! :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 11th 2024, 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC