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.

See, I disagree with the word ruin - no study suggests it will be ruined :shrug: But, I guess people will think that. I agree it will be altered, but that hardly is ruined, which I define as devastated, unihabitable, etc. I think maybe growing up in the oil rich SW Louisiana, I just know what I have seen with my own eyes, which is it is possible not to ruin (true def) an ecosystem with drilling for oil. But, people will think what they may.

"WASHINGTON -- More than 1,000 leading U.S. and Canadian scientists called on President Bush today to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. In a letter to the President, the scientists questioned assertions that oil could be safely extracted from the Refuge and urged President Bush to "support permanent protection of the coastal plain's significant wildlife and wilderness values." Read the letter.

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."

It will be altered, but that is price we pay for using oil. If you (general) are that pissed about it, live on candles and walk everywhere :shrug: I mean we use oil. Thus, I think it is rank hypocrisy to suggest that the rest of the world or even states use their oil but just not Alaska. And we are all guilty of it. I mena who does not use oil :shrug:

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. @*&^%!$#%^&%$&^%$^%&&%$#$^&*(^&%%$%&*!!!!

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

You are a very smart man, but i'm not sure if you have studied environmental issues as well as you should. And for the cost of doing this, we could make HUGE strides in alternative fuel. I just don't really think you know all the ramifications here. But, I don't want to attack you, or argue with you. so, I apologize. I'll just go find bunches of evidence.

It will be devestated. At least how it is defined by environmental scientists, ecology, etc. okay, I really can't argue with you about this, sorry again.