|
Senate Votes to Allow Arctic Drilling
1 hour, 2 minutes ago Politics - U. S. Congress
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush. The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster — a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies. The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said. The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northern eastern corner of Alaska. Environmentalists have fought such development and argued that despite improve environmental controls a web of pipelines and drilling platforms would harm calving caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the coastal plain. Bush has called tapping the reserve's oil a critical part of the nation's energy security and a way to reduce America's reliance on imported oil, which account for more than half of the 20 million barrels of crude use daily. The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. "We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell D-Wash., a co-sponsor of the amendment that would have stripped the arctic refuge provision from the budget document. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist," she said. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., argued that more oil would be saved if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels and expanded oil development in the deep-water Gulf where there are significant reserves. "The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," said Kerry. But drilling proponents argued that modern drilling technology can safeguard the refuge and still tap the likely — though not yet certain — 10.4 billion barrels of crude in the refuge. "Some people say we ought to conserve more. They say we ought to conserve instead of producing this oil," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "But we need to do everything. We have to conserve and produce where we can." The vote Wednesday contrasted with the last time the Senate took up the ANWR drilling issue two years ago. Then, an attempt to include it in the budget was defeated. But drilling supporters gained strength last November when Republicans picked up three additional seats, all senators who favored drilling in the refuge. |
How they voted:
Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---49 Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCain (R-AZ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Wyden (D-OR) NAYs ---51 Akaka (D-HI) Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Inouye (D-HI) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Roberts (R-KS) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...00052#position |
I fall on the side of drill it now and get it over with. the sooner there is no fossil fuel, the sooner other fuel sources will be a viable option - why prolong the inevitable :shrug:
|
STUPIT BITCHES! :mad: :mad: :distress: :( :(
|
I got a letter from Chris Dodd saying that he opposed arctic drilling. And then he votes for it. Asshole. :distress:
|
I am crying. literally. :mad:
|
And the US Geological Survey says there's very likely only a six-month supply of oil there. Possibly ruining a national treasure for six months of oil?
Yep, that sounds about right for this administration. :rolleyes: :distress: |
Can't say I'm surprised. This country has been **** for five years, I see no reason why it won't continue to be for many more years to come.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The scientists said oil development could seriously harm caribou, polar bears, muskoxen and snow geese -- among other wildlife. They warned it could disrupt the fragile ecosystem of the coastal plain, which they said could lead to even more widespread injury to wildlife and its habitat. The signers categorically rejected the notion that the impacts of drilling could be confined to a limited footprint, as pro-drilling forces claim, noting that the effects of oil wells, pipelines, roads, airports, housing facilities, processing plants, gravel mines, air pollution, industrial noise, seismic exploration and exploratory drilling would radiate across the entire coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. "The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge encompasses 1.5 million acres of key wildlife habitat vital to the integrity of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We urge you, Mr. President, to permanently protect the biological diversity and wilderness character of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from future oil and gas development," the letter concludes. The scientists who signed the letter are experts in the fields of ecology, wildlife and conservation biology, natural resources management and cultural anthropology. They include Edward O. Wilson, winner of the National Medal of Science and two Pulitzer Prizes for his landmark books on social biology. "Hundreds of scientists are telling President Bush that throwing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge open to oil companies will harm wildlife and permanently disrupt the wild nature of this unique place. It simply does not make sense to destroy the Arctic Refuge for oil that won't lower prices and won't make a noticeable dent in our dependency on foreign energy, when it's so much easier to get the same amount of energy through common-sense conservation steps," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife." |
Quote:
Note - this is not an attack on Amber :cool: |
The oil isn't coming for ten years, in that amount of time alternatives are easily feasible, we already have the technology. But no, lets **** where we live, devastate the region for generations, for six months of oil, even though it is easily avoided. @*&^%!$#%^&%$&^%$^%&&%$#$^&*(^&%%$%&*!!!!
|
Quote:
Better yet, let's ruin the Middle East first then **** where we live? I mean I just do not get why Alaska is more important to people than the Middle East or the rest of America for that matter. Yet, despite our protesting this newest drilling project and the decades long cry for alternate fuel sources, who here realy alters their lives to conserve a significant amount of oil. I suggest no one. I mean did anyone think twice about buying a plane ticket to Stevie to save oil or that her concerts consume lots of power - I know I did not. Again, it will not be devastated :shrug: at least how that word is defined by www.merriamwebster.com |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The amount of oil that the U.S. Geological Survey estimates could be recovered from the Arctic Refuge would amount to less than a six-month supply for American consumers. Even less natural gas occurs under the Refuge relative to U.S. demand.
At no time would oil from the refuge be expected to amount to more than 2 percent of U.S. demand. It will take 7 to 10 years for any oil to make it to market. 95% of the Alaska's North Slope is already available for oil and gas exploration and development. Even if the highest predictions of oil in the refuge were to come true, oil from beneath the refuge would provide no more than a blip on the global oil market and would therefore have a negligible impact on the price of oil. Nor would drilling for oil in the refuge address our country's long-term energy problem. http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories.../reu_46823.asp U.S. government study says Alaska drilling is harmful Tuesday, April 02, 2002 Opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling could harm caribou, snow geese, and other wildlife, a new U.S. government study said Friday, despite the Bush administration's assurances that oil exploration would have little impact. The report, written by the Interior Department's U.S. Geological Survey, was published 10 days before the U.S. Senate is due to launch a contentious debate on whether to allow drilling in the pristine refuge on Alaska's northern coast. According to the government report, drilling in the refuge could especially hurt the Porcupine River caribou herd, which travels some 400 miles from Canada's Yukon Territory to the Alaskan coastal plain for calving in May and June. The herd, which has dwindled to an estimated 123,000 animals, uses the entire coastal plain area which the Bush administration wants to open to drilling. Pregnant caribou avoid roads and pipelines and calves have ''repeatedly shown to be sensitive to disturbance," it said. "Oil development will most likely result in restricting the location of concentrated calving areas, calving sites, and annual calving grounds," the report said. "Expected effects that could be observed include reduced survival of calves during June, reduced weight and condition of (pregnant) females, and reduced weight of calves in late June." While Bush and many Republicans have repeatedly endorsed drilling, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said recently that it would take about two decades before any crude oil pumped from the refuge could reduce U.S. oil imports. Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the new report showed why drilling is a bad idea. "The administration should take to heart the conclusive scientific findings of the U.S. Geological Survey and finally put aside plans to drill in the pristine wilderness of the Arctic," Kerry said in a statement. |
http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/...uge/facts2.asp
"Toxic spills and air pollution from permanent, year-round operations are destroying Alaska's fragile North Slope. Once part of the largest intact wilderness area in the United States, Alaska's North Slope now hosts one of the world's largest industrial complexes, spanning some 1,000 square miles of once-pristine Arctic tundra. Prudhoe Bay and 26 other oilfields include the following: 28 oil production plants, gas processing facilities, and seawater treatment and power plants 38 gravel mines 223 production and exploratory gravel drill pads 500 miles of roads 1,800 miles of pipelines 4,800 exploration and production wells All of this activity is taking place in an exceptionally fragile region. Because of the very short summer growing season, extreme cold at other times of the year, and nutrient-poor soils and permafrost, vegetation grows very slowly in the North Slope. Any physical disturbance -- bulldozer tracks, seismic oil exploration, spills of oil and other toxic substances -- can scar the land for decades. The National Academy of Sciences concluded it is unlikely that the most disturbed habitat will ever be restored and the damage to more than 9,000 acres by oilfield roads and gravel pads is likely to remain for centuries. A close look at how four decades of this sprawling oil development has destroyed Prudhoe Bay dispels the myth that drilling can take place in the nearby Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain without permanently damaging the landscape and the wildlife that depends on it. A toxic spill every day Each year, the oil industry spills tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other hazardous materials on the North Slope. In fact, every day there is on average at least one spill either in the oil fields or at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. From 1996 to 2004, there were some 4,530 spills of more than 1.9 million gallons of diesel fuel, oil, acid, biocide, ethylene glycol, drilling fluid and other materials. In the Arctic, the environmental damage from oil spills is more severe and lasts longer than in more temperate climates. Diesel fuel, for instance -- the most frequently spilled substance on the North Slope -- is acutely toxic to plants. Even after decades have passed, tundra vegetation has been unable to recover from diesel spills. Oil operations pollute the air with tons of emissions Each year, oil operations on Alaska's North Slope emit more than 70,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog and acid rain. (That's three times more than Washington, D.C.'s annual NOx emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.) Plumes of pollution from Prudhoe Bay have been detected in Barrow, Alaska, nearly 200 miles away. And pollutants from drilling operations, natural gas facilities and incinerators also have been detected in snow in the Prudhoe Bay area. Although the overall impact of these air pollutants on Arctic ecosystems remains largely unknown, some Arctic species are known to be especially sensitive to air pollutants at levels below national air quality standards. North Slope oil facilities also release greenhouse gases, which are a major contributor to global climate change. Each year, they emit 7 million to 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 24,000 to 114,000 metric tons of methane. Emissions climb even higher as North Slope oil is transported by tanker, refined, and eventually burned in engines or power plants. Hazardous waste contaminates water and wetlands For years, old reserve pits holding millions of gallons of drilling and other wastes pocked the North Slope. The pits typically contained a variety of toxic metals, as well as petroleum hydrocarbons and other harmful substances. Thanks partly to litigation by the Natural Resources Defense Council, handling methods for the waste in these reserve pits have improved. While the oil industry has closed many of the pits, more than 100 remain to be cleaned. And, despite advances in disposal methods -- in which most drilling wastes are ground up and re-injected into wells -- problems remain. In 2000, for instance, British Petroleum (BP) was ordered to pay $22 million in civil and criminal fines and establish a new environmental management program because its contractors had illegally disposed of hazardous wastes containing benzene and other toxic chemicals. These crimes only came to light because a whistle-blower reported them to the EPA. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation still lists more than 100 contaminated sites associated with oil industry operations on the North Slope. These sites contain a variety of toxic materials, including acids, lead, pesticides, solvents, diesel fuel, caustics, corrosives and petroleum hydrocarbons. Leakage from some sites has contaminated the surrounding tundra wetlands and waterways, which likely will be ruined for decades." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm still furious over not getting my hybrid. They called me to tell me it had come in, but when I went to the dealership, they said it had been a mistake and I was still way down on the list. :cool: It's now been a year on that ****ing list. |
Quote:
http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Do...ve-Summary.pdf |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Those jackasses, make Diss a hybrid, dammit! |
Quote:
I think you think I relish the idea of harming even a little but the Artic area. I do not. I just am calling a spade a spade by noting ther we (myself included) talk a great game, but we all do not really do anything about it :shrug: If just 5% of America refused to use oil in any fashion or for that matter turned exclusively to alt. fuel sources that are out there, the oil industry would have no choice but to support these other fuel sources. Yet, America, along with the rest of the world do not do this :shrug: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
BTW - do you work close to where you live or do you walk several miles everyday and in the rain :shrug: If you do - great and I stand corrected but still suggest you are the very limited exception to the rule. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1995-2003 Martin and Lisa Adelson, All Rights Reserved