Drill-and-Burn Energy Victory

[Rojo]

Senate Votes to Allow Arctic Drilling

Senate Votes to Allow Arctic Drilling

2 minutes ago Top Stories - AP


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 (news - web sites).

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 (news, bio, voting record), 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 (news, bio, voting record), 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.

[zombie-a-go-go]

With gasoline prices upward of 2.10 a gallon right now, I'm finding tears for the Alaskan caribou hard to come by.

[Ravenlord]

heh...doesn't matter how much oil is there. it wouldn't matter if the US somehow got direct control of 100% of the World's Oil Supply. it still avoids the biggest problem with the price: not enough refinerys.

[Reds4Life]

With gasoline prices upward of 2.10 a gallon right now, I'm finding tears for the Alaskan caribou hard to come by.

Me either bro. Let the drilling begin. :gac:

[pedro]

With gasoline prices upward of 2.10 a gallon right now, I'm finding tears for the Alaskan caribou hard to come by.

That may be true, but drilling in the ANWR isn't going to do diddly to curb gas prices. We won't see any of that oil for 10 years.

High gas prices right now are due to uncertainty in the middle east caused by the Iraq war and competition for oil with countries like china who are increasing their consumption of oil. Oh, and some old fashioned price gauging for good measure.

We should be investing that money in alternative sources of energy.

[pedro]

oh, and what ravenlord said.

[Rojo]

With gasoline prices upward of 2.10 a gallon right now, I'm finding tears for the Alaskan caribou hard to come by.

After all, why not make the wildlife pay for our Humvees.

Pray that we really do have a merciful God.

[Ravenlord]

High gas prices right now are due to uncertainty in the middle east caused by the Iraq war and competition for oil with countries like china who are increasing their consumption of oil. Oh, and some old fashioned price gauging for good measure.

there's something else that people forget too about the jump in price each spring and fall. refinery production is reduced for about 7-10 weeks to retool the refineries to make the different mixes of gas (winter and summer formula). we've been discussing this heavily since the start of my econ class.

the 20 centish jump in gas prices doesn't really have much to do with instability, rather than the built in cost of re-tooling. anything beyond that point is your normal market panic about things in the Mid East. the conclusion we came up with in class is that if you take out the re-tooling cost and most of the markets irrationalities (i mean c'mon, prices shoot up today for the threat of terrorism in the Mid East? when isn't there a threat of terrorism in the Mid East???), gas would actually be about $1.75ish at it's equilibrium price, ceteris paribus.

We should be investing that money in alternative sources of energy.

something i found out recently that i thought was kind of interesting is that Shell actually spends more money than anyone/anything on alternative energy solutions...including $20million/year for Wind Farms and $30million/year for research on water/hydrogen blends.

[Ravenlord]

something else i found kind of interesting...a dude i work with found some of his dad's Popular Mechanics magazines from the 70's...in one of them there was this guy who built this attachment onto his carberator (sp) and got a massive jump in his gas milege...talking a jump of more 20 miles/gallon.

i would much like to hear more about that.

[Reds4Life]

After all, why not make the wildlife pay for our Humvees

Just so you know, there are plenty of cars out there that get just as poor gas mileage as SUV's.

[westofyou]

We should be investing that money in alternative sources of energy.

Something that could convert Caribou into pure energy would be nice.

[WrongVerb]

For one, I"m not entirely against ANWR drilling.

HOWEVER...

I would only want it under the following caveats:

1.) Oil companies work WITH environmentalists to find the most ecologically sound way to do the drilling
2.) ALL oil that comes out of ANWR can ONLY be consumed by the United States for fuel.

[Red Heeler]

Diesel engines could help U.S. beat fuel crunch if feds wake up


By Daniel Howes / The Detroit News

FRANKFURT, Germany--There's a word in German that says an awful lot about how many Europeans regard America's growing energy-crisis angst.
The word is "schadenfreude," which means broadly means feeling joy at someone else's pain or misfortune. Many here are looking on with gleeful bemusement and outrage as Americans, branded the world-champion consumers of natural resources, are staring at a fossil-fuel comeuppance.
Take the man who stopped my wife in the park Monday and asked where she was from. Upon hearing her answer, he launched into a tirade about selfish Americans, irresponsible energy policy and a slavish devotion to, of all things, air conditioning.
Such stereotypical ranting aside, Europeans are right to think something is wrong when they see the global evangelists for free choice in the free market effectively denying American citizens the option to drive diesel-powered cars, perhaps the single best way to reduce fuel consumption over the next decade.
Diesel engines, the hottest auto trend in Europe, are being regulated out of existence in the United States. Only one automaker, Volkswagen AG , offers diesel engines as an option in the U.S. market. The rest don't bother because they figure restrictive regulations and the expense associated with persuading Americans don't justify the investment.
That's too bad. Diesels like the one my Canadian friend Tim Gray is driving, a 2001 VW Jetta powered by a 1.9-liter TDI diesel, can cut fuel consumption by 30 percent, reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and save money without sacrificing the performance Americans expect of their engines. But given the current regime, you won't be able to buy them at all come 2004.
"I'm surprised how quiet it is, how smooth it is and how much pep it has," says Gray, a tax consultant who drives about 6,000 miles per month to cover his region of eastern Ontario. His cost for a fill-up has dropped 33 percent while the distance he can travel on a tank of fuel has nearly doubled.
The argument that Americans won't try diesels because they remember the disastrous diesels of the late 1970s and early '80s is silly. Times and technologies change. It's like saying Americans won't buy Volvos or Chevys because they recall the problems in, say, 1981.
VW's TDI diesels pack a wallop of torque, scream down the highway and can run forever on a tank of fuel. They meet California's strict requirements for carbon dioxide and hydrocarbon emissions, but fail to meet the guidelines for nitrous oxide -- a precursor of smog -- and particulate, or soot, emissions. That could change.
With low-sulfur diesel fuel like that already burning in European diesels, VW thinks it could meet California's air-quality rules, which are to be adopted by the federal Environmental Protection Agency in 2004. The sooner oil companies deliver low-sulfur fuels to the U.S. market, the better.
What should end, but won't, is the snide condescension from environmentalists and their allies in the talking classes. They exude German-style "schadenfreude" at a potential U.S. energy reckoning, then belittle Americans for the cars they drive, the food they eat and the houses they live in.
Saying no -- to diesel engines, nuclear power, energy exploration and more sport-utility vehicles -- isn't an answer. It's a cop out.

[jmcclain19]

I still haven't heard any solid evidence that people have any idea exactly how many millions of barrels worth of Oil is in ANWR anyway.

Sad day for the environment.

Thumbs down on this one.

[GoReds]

I still haven't heard any solid evidence that people have any idea exactly how many millions of barrels worth of Oil is in ANWR anyway.

Sad day for the environment.

Thumbs down on this one.

Agreed. Wonder what would happen if we invested the money slated for ANWR into alternative fuel sources?