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.
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.
It isn’t stategic unless it was already drilled, lifted and processed.
WW3 or 4 would be over before we got it flowing.
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.
strategic, not stategic
sigh...
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.
Before they EXPAND offshore drilling, they must first RE-LEGALIZE it!
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.
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.
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.
Most of my North Slope work was at Alpine. Where did you work?
Your post is absolutely correct. Milepost 450, that would be north of Fairbanks, somewhere around Livengood?
I know it must be between Pump Station 7 and 8 so it is near Fairbanks.
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.
We'll see.
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.
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.
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.