House GOP Members Urge Delay on ANWR

Associated Press via Fox News ^ | Aug 11, 2005 | AP

[PolishProud]

House GOP Members Urge Delay on ANWR Thursday, August 11, 2005

WASHINGTON — Two dozen House Republicans, including three committee chairmen, have asked Speaker Dennis Hastert not to use a congressional budget procedure to clear the way for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

They said in a letter to Hastert, R-Ill., that the budget process "is an inappropriate venue to be debating this important environmental issue" and warned that it would further complicate already difficult budget issues.

"We believe the debate on opening this unique land to oil and gas exploration should be done outside the budget process," said the group led by Rep. Jeb Bradley (search), R-N.H., in an Aug. 4 letter made public Wednesday.

[Iron Matron]

From what I hear, the reserves in ANWR won't affect the price of gas; there just isn't that much there.

It is not all about the price at the pump. The USA relies on Foreign oil way too much (Saudi Oil)and more countries are using more energy. So, without aggressive domestic drilling, it is conceivable that the USA could wind up being dependent on Arabs/Muslimes to provide us with energy during a shortage.

Do we want to depend on Islam for our future energy needs just so we can save a buck at the pump? I know I don't..but then, I am Pro-USA.

ANWR is a matter of National Security and should not be made a matter of National Debate by Socialist environMENTAL groups and average citizens who know absolutely Nothing about the industry and do not bother to learn about either.

Greed and environmentalism the way to bring the USA down.

[kellynla]

Refining Capacity 2002: 17.1 million barrels. (It was 17.6 million barrels in 1982).

U.S. Refining Capacity 2005 16.9 million barrels.

[thackney]

From what I hear, the reserves in ANWR won't affect the price of gas; there just isn't that much there.

ANWR Equals 30 Years of Saudi Oil

[Iron Matron]

The states that refuse to drill have only the right to govern the first 3 miles. They have NO right to say "boo" about the water beyond that point. It belongs to all the citizens of the USA.

I would propose that those States who have reserves, yet refuse to drill, can simply DO WITHOUT energy produced elsewhere..they would change their enviroWACKED minds real quick..

[RightWhale]

the debate on opening this unique land

Unique doesn't mean anything but worthless in this case.

[NC28203]

The EIA had 2002 at 16.8bbd.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_21.pdf

[NC28203]

>>> (It was 17.6 million barrels in 1982).

We haven't built any plants in the last 30 years, but we have expanded capacity at existing, more efficient plants. The current 16.9 billion bbd capacity is higher than at any point in almost 25 years. The peak capacity year was 1981 at 18.6bbd. Much of the decline in U.S. refining capacity resulted from the 1981 deregulation (elimination of price controls and allocations), which effectively removed the major prop from underneath many marginally profitable, often smaller, refineries.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_21.pdf

[RonF]

Well, after trading various posts back and forth I found this link, which posits about 10.8 billion barrels recoverable over a period of about 15 years (600 million barrels/year). It gives that as about 9% of annual usage, but I can't see what year they're taking their usage figure from.

Having said that, it really doesn't make any difference what percentage of annual American usage that oil represents. What's important is what percentage of annual world oil production it is. Because oil is a world commodity. Oil produced from the ANWR will go on the world market. Even if it was reserved for the American market only, it's still going to be priced according to the world oil market. The percentage the ANWR oil drives down gas prices will be a function of how much it increases the world's gas supply, not the American gas supply. And this also presumes that the other oil-producing nations don't change how much oil they are pumping to keep prices up.

From the link above, there's apparently a reasonable estimate that the maximum likely production of ANWR is 1.8 million barrels of oil a day. The EIA estimates world demand is going to be 86 million barrels a day. So we're looking at about a 2% increase in world oil, and that's apparently with OPEC pumping as much oil as it can. From all that, plus other factors (China and India increasing their consumption), it seems to me that putting ANWR online will, for about 15 years, slow down the increase of gas prices slightly (maybe 2 cents on the dollar), but won't stop the rise and certainly won't cause a drop.

Whether that's worth any environmental damage to the ANWR is debatable. Maybe the best thing to do is to drill for the oil but not extract it, using it as a strategic reserve should the shit really hit the fan in the Middle East.

[RightWhale]

the reserves in ANWR won't affect the price of gas; there just isn't that much there

There is oil there, most likely 6 billion barrels. ANWR will not affect the price of oil, nor gasoline.

[kellynla]

it's not rocket science
we are refining less than we did in the 80's while demand has continued to rise and rise and rise
next case...

[RonF]

See my post #48 for a decent link on how much oil there is in the ANWR. It appears that ANWR, if fully exploited, will boost world oil production by around 2%. That should make the companies involved a damn good dollar, but how much it'll drop our dependence on foreign oil will be a function of how much of the ANWR oil will be sold in the U.S., as opposed to being sold to China or Russia.

Mind you, I'm 100% for reducing our dependence on people who want to kill us. But this is a baby step in that direction, not a quantum jump. For the latter, we need to put a lot of time, money, and effort into eliminating the usage of oil altogether in the areas that consume it the most now, such as transportation. Yes, I propose the use of our money by the government to do this; but I justify it in the name of the common defense, which is a legitimate governmental concern.

[thackney]

we are refining less than we did in the 80's while demand has continued to rise and rise and rise

The impact of environmental requirements on refining/marketing return on investment (ROI) appeared to remain substantial. Calculations of ROI excluding environmental effects show that actual ROI was 42 percent lower than the ROI excluding the financial effects of environmental compliance, on average, over the period 1996 to 2001. In 1991 to 1995 the comparable reduction in ROI was 69 percent. In 1988 to 1990, prior to the implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the comparable reduction was 32 percent.

[thackney]

...how much it'll drop our dependence on foreign oil will be a function of how much of the ANWR oil will be sold in the U.S., as opposed to being sold to China or Russia.

100% of Alaskan oil is kept in America. This has been the case for all but 4 years of the nearly 3 decades of Alaskan oil production. Between 1996-1999 5.5% of North Slope oil was exported to Asian countries.

These exports were overwhelmingly supported by the US Congress and by the Clinton Administration to offset an oil glut in California at the time. In June 2000 Alaskan oil again ceased to be exported, and 100% of Alaskan production has stayed in America.

ALASKA EXPORTS NO OIL ABROAD

[NC28203]

>>>we are refining less than we did in the 80's while demand has continued to rise and rise and rise

We are refining more oil today than in the 80's. Look at the table I included in my link. Capacity today is higher than at any point since 1982 and production had increased from 12.1bbd to 15.5bbd.
I'm not opposed to new refinry construction, but it appears that we have been able to increase capcity through the 90s and 00s without building one.

[RobFromGa]

Maybe the best thing to do is to drill for the oil but not extract it, using it as a strategic reserve should the shit really hit the fan in the Middle East.

Should things get really out of control, it will provide fuel for the military at a bare minimum to take action against whatever is shutting down the oil.

[kellynla]

I'm not opposed to new refinry(refinery) construction

then I've made my point.
cyaaaaaaaaa

[AuH2ORepublican]

Of the five that we know of, only James Sensenbrenner's name is surprising---he's a strong conservative in the most Republican district in the Upper Midwest. Dave Reichert sits in a swing district in the Seattle suburbs, and I assume that many of his constituents are environmentalists. Tom Davis is quite liberal on social issues and sits in a swing district. And Jeb Bradley and Sherry Boehlert are RINOs (Boehlert being perhaps the #1 RINO in the House) who sit in districts that lean Republican and would have no problem voting for a non-RINO (the Bradley district routinely reelected conservative John Sununu, Jr. to the House, and Sununu is now one of the lead Senate sponsors of ANWR drilling).

Someone should take Bradley out in the 2006 primary; as for Boehlert, he should have been defeated years ago, and hopefully next year will finally be the year in which a conservative (or at least a moderate) wins the seat.

[Luke21]

You have just said something with great wisdom.

I'm an old timer, Reagan/Jesse Helms Republican, and the GOP is headed for a cliff next year if they don't begin to act.

People vote their pocket books in front of ANY other issue. We are now having to stop driving on weekends. Gas prices must be addressed even if it's as simple as refusing to collect the federal tax during a period of time. This is the kind of economic struggle we last had in the Carter years, friends. The GOP Congress could also pass emergency legislation giving states freedom from EPA oversight to use uniform blends of gas.

If things go as they are, the GOP will be toast next year. And I don't want to hear this "Go back to DU," canard that is leveled at anyone who disagrees with the herd.

[Soul Seeker]

Would everyone just stop freaking out?

Denny runs the House and Delay will get the votes.

Be mad at these Republicans, I sure was a week or so ago when it was first posted. But be sensible and not jump off the damn cliff unless there's reason to believe they'll sabotage passage. So long as Delay is there, I'm not too worried.

The real question is WHY some of these Republicans are doing this. My opinion is that either a) They were perfectly fine with voting for passage so long as they knew the Senate couldn't pass it or b) they want something in return. Could be both. Either way, I'm not happy with this group. One of the few times the Senate Republicans look better than the House.

Express outrage to the Leadership in the House to lean on them, though I'm sure they are already being whipped for this letter. Express outrage to these particular Republicans. But unless Delay's lost his touch, this will pass the House so calm down.

[hermgem]

This is looking at it the wrong way, or the way we get bombarded by Hollywood and a sheepish Congress.
When drilling and exploring oil on our soil, we will not spend money for importing.
Think of balance of payments, strength of $$$, and...creating jobs from steel to earth moving to installations of pipe, drilling rigs, electrical and numerous related industries.
Two Democrat presidential candidates, Gore and Kerry wanted to tap the national reserve while blocking drilling in Alaska at the same time.
Clinton in fact did attempt this but then found out to his consternation that there was no refining capacity and national reserve oil needs to be shipped to Mexico first for refinement.
We hear it's only 10% to be gained from drilling, without mentioning the billions of cubic feet of natural gas that come along, plus there still is the continental offshore shelf, similar to the Gulf of Mexico.
Over an extended time and with steadily increasing drilling techniques geared towards more as well as cleaner extraction methods we gain in good paying jobs, reductions of capital outflow, and an assured reserve that does not have to be bought first abroad and then stored underground.
Even if "only" 10%, go figure current daily US usage of 9.4 million barrels of gasoline and we come up with a sizable advantage for earned wages flowing into the economy plus savings of not importing 10% of a commodity that fetches nearly $2.70 at the pump per gallon, taxes included.
By the way, consumers looking at prices need to realize that some taxing bodies make huge profits by extracting their take on a percentage sales tax.
Have yet to hear of returning excessive tax takes.