Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fight continues over oil drilling in Arctic refuge

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 » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 09:43 AM
Original message
Fight continues over oil drilling in Arctic refuge
Monday, August 8, 2005
Fight continues over oil drilling in Arctic refuge

By H.JOSEF HEBERT
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Conspicuous by its absence in the sweeping energy bill that President George W. Bush has championed and will sign today is his top energy priority: opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling.

But the fight over the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will flare anew in Congress next month, with drilling advocates saying they have their best chance in more than two decades of making it happen.

(snip)

A coalition of most Democrats and a handful of moderate Republicans repeatedly has blocked attempts to open the refuge to energy development through the power of the Senate filibuster... But drilling advocates have a backup plan that is expected to unfold in mid-September. Domenici said he will include a provision authorizing refuge drilling as part of a budget procedure that is immune to filibuster. A similar maneuver is being planned in the House, although the final strategy is still being worked out.

Unlike normal legislation, the budget process is not subject to filibuster, so only 51 votes will be needed in the Senate for it to clear Congress and be signed into law by the president. The tactic was used a decade ago when Congress approved refuge drilling as part of the budget process, only to see the measure vetoed by then-President Clinton, a drilling opponent. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said her state's delegation is determined to push for opening the refuge, calling it "the final component" of a nation energy plan that she hopes will be put in place later this year.

(snip)

http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/08/08/sections/news/focus_science_environment/article_626483.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. GOP about to pull their usual tricks
to ram it through, pretty standard these days
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greybnk48 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
2. A question for those who know
I have a vague idea of the location of A.N.W.R. having seen it pinpointed on a map months ago. Given some of the stories that have come out in the past couple of years regarding global warming and temperature changes affecting the North country, is drilling even possible? I know I read within the past couple of years that the perma-frost is thawing in some areas (either in Nat'l Geo. or Discover Mag.). If this is the case at ANWR or surrounding regions would'nt this prohibit moving in the machinery to do this drilling?

Does anyone here know if the conditions in that area are still viable for drilling (or is this an area that does not have permafrost)? *I have a reason for asking this question.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The White Tree Donating Member (630 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. My understanding was that
according to Gail Norton, they would only drill for a certain portion of time during the winter when ice roads would be viable that would prevent damage to the tundra. This is an article about her lobbying for drilling talking about these "fact".

<http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\\Politics\\archive\\200204\\POL20020402b.html>

Norton's letter went on to explain the steps the administration has proposed to even further limit the potential environmental impact of exploration and production, including only allowing work between November and May, outside the normal breeding months for all species that might enter the area. The plan also requires companies to use "ice roads" that melt each spring, protecting the underlying tundra.

"Moreover, the administration will require directional drilling and smaller production pads, so that energy exploration can be accomplished utilizing just 2,000 of the 1002 Area's 1.5 million acres," Norton concluded.

So I would say that rising temperatures in Alaska could impact this plan considerably. However, I doubt that would matter to them. ANWR is a sacred cow that has nothing to do with the oil there and everything to do with flexing Republican muscle, hand outs to the oil industry and the citizens of Alaska and setting a precedence for circumventing the will of the majority of the people (I believe I read somewhere that much of the oil they get from there may actually be shipped to places like China and Japan though I don't have that link).

As a matter of fact I'd be surprised if Ms. Norton stayed at the Dept. of Interior much longer then it takes to finally get the deal done. This seems to be her particular payoff to the oil industry. She will probably then end up with a cushy and well paid job working for Exxon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greybnk48 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Thankyou so much for the info
and thoughtful reply. I guess what I was wondering is that given the conditions up there, are the "iceroads" even viable during the winter months at this point in time. Even with modified equipment? I understand that this whole adventure is a bullying tactic to set precedent that Big Oil will drill wherever it damn well pleases and that the oil itself is irrelevant--I believe Delay said something to this effect.

Maybe it is wishful thinking on my part, but wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to show conclusively that drilling is not even possible in ANWR at this time due to the conditions and that the whole ANWR threat is a red herring to detract from other issues. I would not put this past these creatures. It would be nice to expose this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The White Tree Donating Member (630 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-05 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. That would not only be wonderful but also
the ultimate irony, considering how much this administration has fought to deny the existence of global warming.

It would be like mother nature herself was saying no to the Bush administration.

Sadly, though, when the world says no either literally (as in the Iraq war) or figuratively (as in this case) the Bush Administration holds it's ears and says, "NYA, NYA, NYA".

I wrote this once in a LTTE to the NY Times and I think it is true regardless of whatever conditions are the reality: The Bush administration invaded Iraq because it was invade-able, they will drill in ANWR because it's drill-able.

Still, I'll hold out hope as well and good luck to you in whatever it is you are looking into. If it could be proven that drilling under the conditions that were to be imposed was not now possible and it got the administration to abandon drilling there, I think that would be awesome. I'll keep my eyes peeled but I don't have any other resources at this time.
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 Wed Apr 24th 2024, 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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