Fishing Forum

Full Version: Bye-bye wilderness
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 12:00 AM |
Bush looking anew at oil drilling in Alaska wildlife refuge
H. Josef Hebert THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- Republican gains in the Senate could give President Bush his best chance yet to achieve his No. 1 energy priority -- opening an oil-rich but environmentally sensitive Alaska wildlife refuge to drilling.
If he is successful, it would be a stinging defeat for environmentalists and an energy triumph that eluded Bush his first four years in the White House. A broader agenda that includes reviving nuclear power, preventing blackouts and expanding oil and gas drilling in the Rockies will be more difficult to enact.
Republicans in the House and Senate said this week they plan to push for Alaska refuge drilling legislation early next year, and they predict success, given the 55-44-1 GOP Senate majority in the next Congress. Democrats and some environmental activists say continued protection of the refuge has never been as much in doubt.
"It's probably the best chance we've had," Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., chairman of the House Resources Committee and a vocal drilling advocate, said in an interview.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he will press to open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as part of the government's budget deliberations early in 2005. That would enable drilling proponents to skirt an otherwise certain Democratic-led filibuster that would be difficult to overcome.
"With oil trading at nearly $50 a barrel, the case for ANWR is more compelling than ever," said Domenici. "We have the technology to develop oil without harming the environment and wildlife."
Bush is also expected in his second term to renew his call for action by Congress on a broader, largely pro-production, energy agenda -- from easing rules for oil and gas drilling on federal land in the Rocky Mountains to expanding clean-coal technology and improving the reliability of the electricity grid.
New tax incentives to spur construction of next-generation nuclear power plants also will be back on the table after Democrats and some moderate Republicans scuttled it last year. Greater use of corn-based ethanol in gasoline also has wide support at the White House and in Congress.
Drilling in the Alaska refuge has been all but dismissed as unachievable since drilling opponents two years ago beat back a pro-development measure by a 52-48 vote. Bush did not make an issue of the refuge during the presidential campaign.
But with four new GOP senators expected to support ANWR drilling and the loss of a Republican moderate who opposed it, drilling advocates believe they now have at least 52 votes in the Senate, enough to get the measure through Congress as part of the budget process. By Senate rules, opponents of drilling cannot filibuster a budget measure. ANWR qualifies as a budget measure because it will generate income for the government from oil companies.
Environmentalists already are gearing up to wage an intense lobbying campaign to keep oil rigs out of the refuge's coastal plain, a breeding ground for caribou, home to polar bears and musk oxen and site of an annual influx of millions of migratory birds.
"This is as serious a threat to the refuge as any that has come before," said Jim Waltman of the National Wildlife Federation. "But the facts haven't changed. This is still a magnificent area and it can still be damaged by oil drilling."
But geologists believe 11 billion barrels of oil lie beneath the refuge's tundra and ice, and drilling supporters contend they can be tapped without damage to the environment or wildlife.
Regardless the outcome in the Alaska refuge dispute, the path to getting a comprehensive energy bill is likely to be full of potholes. Twice in the last four years lawmakers have agreed on 85 percent or more of an energy package only to see final action derailed over narrow, although intensely contentious, issues.
Some lawmakers, including Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, senior Democrat on the Energy Committee, which will write the legislation, argue that lawmakers should focus instead on passing separate bills on the most urgent and widely supported measures.
Some of that already has occurred, such as the recently approved loan guarantees for a proposed $20 billion natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 states.
Despite the GOP's new strength, Senate Democrats can still put the brakes on energy measures they strongly oppose through filibusters such as the one that blocked an energy bill in 2003. The issue then in dispute was liability protection for makers of the MTBE gasoline additives, which have been found to contaminate water systems.
However, given the stronger GOP majority, sustaining such filibusters may be more difficult.
This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A7.
[signature]
Interesting article. For the sake of argument, lets not drill in alaska or anywhere else within the U.S. But the question still remains, How should we provide relief for the energy crisis? Do we decerease demand or increase supply? The pres. is trying to meet the needs of the american people. Opponents of the drilling still drive cars, ride on buses and fly in airplanes, which increases demand. Advocates of the drilling don't seem to have a plan for protecting the wilderness areas in question. I don't neccessarily agree with either side. I also don't see a viable solution for the negative impact each side has. Quite the pickle.. Thanks for sharing that article catman.
[signature]
You're totally right Bearclaw, and I don't know the answer either. Unfortunately, I don't trust that they will do the drilling in an environmentally safe way -- I don't think it's reasonable to think that we will have no effect on wildlife. Of course we need fossil fuels for everything from home heating to car fuel to engine oil. So do we go back to the dark ages and everyone use horse and carriages? I don't think so. But we have to do something. I think we definitely are not doing anywhere near enough spending on research for alternative cleaner sources of energy. That alone still might not be enough either, so that leaves more drilling. Lets hope that however it gets done that extreme care is taken.
[signature]
We are seeing a lot more entries in the Hybrid car market. Ford is even planning on releasing a small hybrid SUV here soon.

The big problem is that nobody has come up with a viable alternative that has any amount of power. Americans love their speed and power, two things you just can't get with hybrid.

Also, for people like me that have toys to tow, there is no alternative at all. I'm paying nearly $2 for a gallon of gas that will get me about 15 miles if I'm lucky. I'm about ready to sell the 96 Bronco and go buy one of the new Nissan Titans, another big gas guzzler.
[signature]
It's just a fact of life that our modern world runs on oil. I think 9-11 again showed that we need to develop all the resources we can within the U.S. and our allies. Doing so will decrease our dependence on Middle East oil which will give us more political options in the future. As it is what will we do if Saudi Arabia erupts into civil war? We will have to go in to secure the oil fields that we and the rest of the world rely on. It's also a fact that more fuel effcient cars will help but never solve our need for oil. It takes more oil to make a car than that car will use in oil and gas in its lifetime. I also support a persons right to buy the biggest baddest gas sucking vehicle around if they so choose but if they (car companies) can make them more efficient or scientists come up with viable alternative fuels then more power to them.

FM
[signature]
If everyone was to cut the wire that goes from the wall to their TV, then go out in the garage and start tinkering. We would have alternate fuel vehicles in no time.
[signature]
Wish I did have the energy answer I would be rich. I do know that the pictures in the news aren't of where they want to drill. The oil is in a flat, barren, desolate part of the state that the caribou only pass through as there isn't much there even for them. The facts of life as they are today are we need more oil and they will eventually drill. Just costs more to do it later. Just my thoughts.