Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP pushes plan to open ANWR, expand offshore drilling
Fuel Fix ^ | March 31, 2011 | Jennifer Dlouhy

Posted on 03/31/2011 11:59:29 AM PDT by thackney

Senate Republicans are making another bid to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling — but this time they are trying to sweeten the offer by dedicating a quarter of the revenue to renewable energy projects.

The ANWR drilling plan is embedded in energy legislation unveiled Thursday by more than two dozen lawmakers, led by David Vitter of Louisiana and John Cornyn of Texas.

The bill also would restrict environmental groups from filing legal challenges to energy projects, force the government to approve a pipeline that would bring Canadian oil sands crude to the Gulf Coast and clear the path for Shell to begin oil drilling in Arctic waters near Alaska.

“This measure will take the boot off the neck of domestic energy producers and unlock our domestic energy potential,” Cornyn said.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the legislation “gets Washington out of the way of America developing its own energy resources.”

Republicans cast the measure as an immediate balm for rising oil prices, which have been pushed up by unrest in Libya, Egypt and other parts of the Middle East.

But Democrats and administration officials stressed that any new drilling projects — even if approved today — could take years to produce oil and gas. And even then, the added energy production might not make a difference in oil prices that they insist are set globally.

David Alberswerth, a senior policy adviser at The Wilderness Society, said the Republicans’ drilling bill “puts the foxes in charge of the hen house” by effectively ceding control of federal lands to oil and gas companies.

With crude oil above $100 per barrel, both political parties are advancing energy proposals that promise to ease pain at the pump for Americans.

President Barack Obama on Wednesday pitched his plans for slashing U.S. oil imports by a third over the next 14 years, including support for natural gas-powered vehicles and stronger fuel-efficiency requirements for cars.

House Republicans have unveiled bills that would expand domestic drilling. A House Natural Resources subcommittee is set to hold a hearing on the leading legislation by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., next Wednesday.

Although the House is expected to pass pro-drilling legislation, the chances in the Democratically controlled Senate are much slimmer. And proposals to tap ANWR have always been political hot potatoes.

But Vitter said he thinks the political pressure from rising gasoline prices could change the dynamic on Capitol Hill.

“Wait and watch,” he said. “As the price at the pump goes to four dollars, . . . attitudes can change pretty quickly. We saw that in the summer of 2008, and I think we’re about to see that again.”

Plans to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling are perennials on Capitol Hill, offered every time gasoline prices rise. Drilling advocates say opening the refuge would give the U.S. access to an estimated 11 billion barrels of oil in the region. But environmentalists say the oil gains would be small, especially given the risks of damage to wildlife and habitat.

In recent years, Republicans have tried new tactics to make ANWR drilling more attractive. The latest gambit, by Alaska’s senators — Republican Lisa Murkowski and Democrat Mark Begich — would have allowed oil companies to use new horizontal drilling techniques to explore the refuge’s reserves, as long as their footprint was not within the federally protected area.

The measure introduced by Vitter and Cornyn today would dedicate 25 percent of oil and gas royalties from ANWR drilling to a trust fund for alternative and renewable energy development.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Alaska
KEYWORDS: ak; anwr; drill; energy; gas; northslope; oil

1 posted on 03/31/2011 11:59:33 AM PDT by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney
But environmentalists say the oil gains would be small, especially given the risks of damage to wildlife and habitat. ..............
2 posted on 03/31/2011 12:04:18 PM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 1,698 threads and 63,835 replies, as of 03-29-2011......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I hate these traitors.


3 posted on 03/31/2011 12:08:04 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
but this time they are trying to sweeten the offer by dedicating a quarter of the revenue to renewable energy projects

Who owns that oil? Can Congress just take the revenue from the project and throw it away on silly Lib schemes? If the Fed has a right to it then use the revenues to pay down the debt.

4 posted on 03/31/2011 12:09:56 PM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

Royalties from Federal Land or Water goes to the Federal Government.

If ANWR was State land, it would have went into oil production 3 decades ago.


5 posted on 03/31/2011 12:12:04 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thackney
But Democrats and administration officials stressed that any new drilling projects — even if approved today — could take years to produce oil and gas. And even then, the added energy production might not make a difference in oil prices that they insist are set globally.

This is the standard claptrap the Dems trot out because, to them, if it doesn't produce results before the next election, they want no part of it. So, let's stand here and do nothing...ever. Let's just ship our wealth to the Arabs forever and, when they stick it to us even moreso down the road, we can finger-point the blame to someone else but still have the same problems. For Heaven's sake, politicians, get off your collective asses and start working on the problem TODAY. I don't really care if you're not in office when the new pipeline comes online. You clowns don't have the stones to do ANYTHING other than spend MY money on things I don't want. Now, get back to work on something I do want...primarily for the gov't to get the hell out of the way and let's start producing some energy once again.

6 posted on 03/31/2011 12:12:29 PM PDT by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Latest GALLUP Shows Majority Support for ANWR
http://www.anwr.org/Headlines/Latest-GALLUP-Shows-Majority-Support-for-ANWR.php

A March 14th 2011 Gallup public opinion poll shows a majority of those surveyed supported exploration in the 10-02 area of ANWR. The results to the question, “do you think the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska should or should not be opened up or oil exploration”, were: 49% of respondents said “yes, should”; 45% said “no, should not” and 6% had no opinion of the issue when asked. The poll was taken on March 3rd -6th 2011 of a random national sampling of 1,021 adults by telephone.


7 posted on 03/31/2011 12:13:37 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

8 posted on 03/31/2011 12:15:15 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Pretty crazy to see oil price goes up on the fear Libya oil would come off the market but claim actually adding a million or so barrels a day would have no effect.


9 posted on 03/31/2011 12:17:07 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain

Dear Republicans,

Rather than pi$$ing around with things you KNOW you can’t get done, why don’t you DE-FUND HusseinCare, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, NPR and the like...you know, things you DO have the power to do. Could it be that as limp-wristed weasels, you want to make it APPEAR you are actually doing something, while remaining scared to death of annoying the NY Times and the Republican hierarchy should you REALLY do something?


10 posted on 03/31/2011 12:20:10 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All

I still can’t believe the amount of people that are just taking it as a fact that we must pay more for energy and stop exploration. Some of the things I’ve read recently boggle the mind. Public school have done a great job indoctrinating the young minds full of mush.


11 posted on 03/31/2011 12:22:04 PM PDT by newnhdad (The longest of journeys begins with one step.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Good picture, since it shows what ANWR really looks like. The Sierra Club, however, has tried to make it look like some resort area you might find in Colorado. Even during summer, about the only thing that lives there are mosquitos. The fact is, ANWR is about the size of South Carolina and the proposed drilling sites wanted for leases is about the size of the LA airport. Seems to me that ANWR isn’t going to be a tourist hotbed anytime soon, unless there is a polar shift, and I really don’t have the time to wait around for that. My sentiment on the subject: Tell the Sierra Club to shove it and tell the politicians I can’t drive to work without gas in my tank. And, come to think of it, perhaps you could cut spending and taxes so people can get back to work.


12 posted on 03/31/2011 12:22:57 PM PDT by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Updated Assessment
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/analysisdiscussion.html#table 3

The USGS economic analysis of the ANWR 1002 Area calculates that once oil has been discovered, more than 80 percent of the technically recoverable oil is commercially developable at an oil price of $25 per barrel. In general, it is assumed that production from Alaska (including ANWR) would reduce oil imports by an equal amount. The imported refiner acquisition cost in 2020 is projected in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2000 reference case to be $22.04 (1998 dollars). At this price, the potential ANWR oil recovered would have a value between $125 and $350 billion (in 1998 dollars.)


13 posted on 03/31/2011 12:25:23 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
"dedicating a quarter of the revenue to renewable energy projects"

Why flush 25% of anything valuable down the drain?

14 posted on 03/31/2011 12:28:38 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (The 0bamaNation of America slides toward death as planned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

So we can get 75% of something instead of 100% of nothing.

Plus the oil goes into production and reduces our imports.


15 posted on 03/31/2011 12:30:00 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I wish them luck, but won’t hold my breath.


16 posted on 03/31/2011 12:33:06 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

I guess the only saving grace is that we are talking tax revenue, which pretty much all gets flushed down the drain anyway.

So it’s probably not a bad deal overall in order to open ANWR.

I put the odds of this deal happening at 5%. The only other good news is that when we finally drill all the possible areas, which we will eventually, the oil will be worth even more in today’s dollars, so ANWR and other American-held oil resources represent money in the bank.


17 posted on 03/31/2011 12:37:00 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (Throw away your papers, blow up your TV...and set yourself free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I wouldn’t call that a dedication of revenue. More like the payment of tribute.


18 posted on 03/31/2011 12:39:58 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

Very True


19 posted on 03/31/2011 12:40:34 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: thackney

You would think someone in Washington would point out what you just did.


20 posted on 03/31/2011 12:42:11 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (Throw away your papers, blow up your TV...and set yourself free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SaxxonWoods

Agreed. I’ve always viewed ANWR as our strategic petroleum reserve. WTSHTF, we can drill and send to the lower 48 in the middle of WW IV.


21 posted on 03/31/2011 12:45:19 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (The 0bamaNation of America slides toward death as planned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

It isn’t stategic unless it was already drilled, lifted and processed.

WW3 or 4 would be over before we got it flowing.


22 posted on 03/31/2011 12:48:13 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: thackney
President Barack Obama on Wednesday pitched his plans for slashing U.S. oil imports by a third over the next 14 years, including support for natural gas-powered vehicles and stronger fuel-efficiency requirements for cars.

Someone help me understand why natural gas, a fossil fuel, is acceptable to leftists, but gasoline isn't? If the answer is less CO2 emissions, hasn't CO2 been exonerated by the revelation that its relationship to warming is a complete hoax?

Measures designed to increase the fuel economy of our vehicle fleet have only proven to drive downward the cost per mile driven, then people tend to drive more miles, thereby negating the benefit. We have a history to observe here, it is the very definition of insanity.

23 posted on 03/31/2011 12:48:17 PM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

strategic, not stategic

sigh...


24 posted on 03/31/2011 12:48:49 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: thackney
But Democrats and administration officials stressed that any new drilling projects — even if approved today — could take years to produce oil and gas. And even then, the added energy production might not make a difference in oil prices that they insist are set globally.

That is the same excuse that the demonRATs have been using since jimah carter.

If we would have had the good sense to implement any of these plans 10, 20, 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the middle of this shit sandwich.

I'd love to get these tree huggers out in the woods with me, my son and grandsons, in the middle of winter and see how much they really love nature.

Let them sleep in a tent, when it's below zero, hang their fat naked butt over a frozen log and walk miles through a foot of snow.

They'd give their left nut to get close to a pipeline throwing heat.

They can't answer the fact that the caribou herd has increased by a factor of 10 because of the heat generation of the pipeline.

25 posted on 03/31/2011 1:08:19 PM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Before they EXPAND offshore drilling, they must first RE-LEGALIZE it!


26 posted on 03/31/2011 1:20:42 PM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Having worked on the “north slope” I can tell you that you are mostly right. The pictures the leftist media uses, mountains, etc., are bogus, the Brooks range is so far to the south that it can barely been seen against the horizon. Nothing at ANWR but bleak tundra.

But it would be incorrect to say it is void of wildlife. There are bears, arctic fox, etc., but, as has been proven by the trans Alaska pipeline, they do not impact the wildlife negatively, to the contrary, the pipeline and the drilling get along quite harmoniously on the slope. No reason at all for them not to drill.


27 posted on 03/31/2011 1:22:00 PM PDT by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska
a pipeline throwing heat

I've heard folks tell this tale before but it just isn't true. That Pipeline is well insulated. I've been next to it a few different times. It can set stopped without flow for several days before the cooling of the oil becomes a big problem.

Look at the picture below. The snow isn't melted on the pipeline. And the day is warm enough that the guy can put his bare hand on the steel vertical riser.


28 posted on 03/31/2011 1:26:57 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

Correction on my last paragraph, I meant to say:

But it would be incorrect to say it is void of wildlife. There are bears, arctic fox, etc., but, as has been proven by the trans Alaska pipeline, the pipeline and drilling platforms do not impact the wildlife negatively, to the contrary, they get along quite harmoniously on the slope. No reason at all for them not to drill.


29 posted on 03/31/2011 1:26:57 PM PDT by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

Most of my North Slope work was at Alpine. Where did you work?

30 posted on 03/31/2011 1:29:41 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Your post is absolutely correct. Milepost 450, that would be north of Fairbanks, somewhere around Livengood?


31 posted on 03/31/2011 1:31:04 PM PDT by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sasportas
It isn't my picture, just one I found that would demonstrate my point.

I know it must be between Pump Station 7 and 8 so it is near Fairbanks.


32 posted on 03/31/2011 1:40:07 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Pump Station number one, I am retired from the pipeline. I live in Valdez, the southern end of the pipeline. It’s a tad warmer down here.


33 posted on 03/31/2011 1:41:11 PM PDT by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: thackney
About damn time. They could have done this when they had the majority but nobody in the GOP ever really gave a damn from Bush 41 until (possibly) now.

We'll see.

34 posted on 03/31/2011 1:47:52 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sasportas
Tad warmer but a lot more snow.

I lived in Alaska from 2003~07. We miss it a lot but had to return to Texas partly for family, partly because of the declining work.

We lived in Eagle River. My office was in Anchorage but went to the slope for many site visits.

35 posted on 03/31/2011 1:47:56 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
25% Waisted? The GOP is out of their mind.

U.S. Gives Obama Donor $500 Mil For “Green” Projects

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2697627/posts

Westly bundles over a half Million for Obama's campaign and Obama pays him back over a half Billion in taxpayer dollars.

It seems it pays Westly well to do business with a crook.

36 posted on 03/31/2011 3:54:11 PM PDT by TYVets (Pure-Gas.org ..... ethanol free gasoline by state and city)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson