The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

VisibilityMissing · Postby **VisibilityMissing** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:29 pm

I really think they're looking for the giant whoopee cusion.  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> March 17, 2005 Senate Votes to Allow Drilling in Arctic Reserve By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG WASHINGTON, March 16 - President Bush's long-stalled plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling cleared a major hurdle on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, when the Senate voted to include the proposal in its budget, a maneuver that smoothes the way for Congress to approve drilling later this year. By a vote of 51 to 49, Republicans defeated an effort by Democrats to eliminate the drilling language from the budget. The vote does not ensure that drilling will be approved. But if the budget is adopted, Senate rules would allow the passage of a measure opening the refuge with a simple majority of 51 votes, escaping the threat of a filibuster, which has killed it in the past. The vote was a major turning point in one of the most contentious energy debates in Washington at a time when Senate Republicans, using the power of a newly expanded majority, have been pushing through bills that businesses had sought. In another victory for the White House, the Senate also narrowly beat back an effort by Democrats and moderate Republicans to make it harder to extend Mr. Bush's tax cuts for the next five years. Drilling in the Alaskan Arctic is a central component of President Bush's energy policy. In a statement issued after the vote, Mr. Bush praised the Senate and also called on Congress to enact a comprehensive energy bill, which has stalled over Arctic oil exploration in the past. "This project will keep our economy growing by creating jobs and ensuring that businesses can expand," Mr. Bush said, "and it will make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy." Senate Republicans were ebullient after the vote. "Another example of where the strength of the majority matters," said Senator George Allen, Republican of Virginia. Mr. Allen, who last year was chairman of the committee responsible for electing Republicans to the Senate, called it "the best win." At issue is whether oil companies should be permitted to explore in 1.5 million acres of coastal plain on Alaska's North Slope, north of the Arctic Circle, part of the larger 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Proponents of drilling, who include Alaskan development interests and the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing oil companies, say drilling would reduce dependence on foreign oil and lower soaring oil prices, which reached $56 a barrel Wednesday. "It's as important to me as the first step Armstrong took when he stepped off on the moon," said Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, who has been working on the drilling issue since the 1950's when he was lawyer in the Interior Department during the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The vote was a bitter defeat for environmentalists, who have railed against Arctic drilling for decades, arguing that opening the refuge would threaten the caribou and other wildlife that roam the coastal plain. Opponents said the Senate was subverting its own procedures. "Today we saw a Republican sneak attack on one of our most treasured natural wonders," said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, who made opposition to drilling a theme of his presidential campaign. With 55 Republicans in the Senate, the vote did not break precisely along party lines. Three Democrats - Daniel K. Akaka and Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana - voted in favor of drilling. Six Republicans voted against it. Among them was Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, who was elected in 2002; his predecessor, the late Senator Paul Wellstone, had strongly opposed Arctic drilling. "I made a campaign promise," Mr. Coleman explained. The budget language assumes roughly $5 billion over the next five years in oil drilling revenues from the Arctic over the next decade, with the state of Alaska and the federal government to split the money. But advocates on both sides of the debate dispute how much oil is underneath the tundra, and how much the oil companies care about drilling there. Senator Pete V. Domenici, the New Mexico Republican who has been a leading proponent of drilling, has said the refuge could produce up to one million barrels of oil per day. He and other proponents of drilling say it could be done with modern equipment that would minimize the disturbance to the environment. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said, "We have the highest environmental standards of anywhere that you will find in the country." But opponents, like Senator Maria Cantwell, the Washington Democrat who sponsored the provision that would have eliminated the drilling language, argue that drilling in the Arctic would not substantially reduce American dependence on foreign energy because there is no guarantee that the oil drawn from the refuge could be exported. Some cast their opposition in moral, even religious, terms. Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, showed pictures of caribou and a polar bear, its reflection shimmering on the ice. "To me this is a God-given environment," she said. Wednesday's vote did not put an end to the drilling debate. The Senate must pass a budget, its budget must be reconciled with the one passed by the House, and then Congress must pass a second budget-related measure that includes the drilling in a larger package of provisions. "It's a long process," Mr. Stevens said. But none of these bills can be blocked by filibuster. The drilling issue has been raging in Congress at least since 1980, when President Jimmy Carter, in a compromise, signed legislation that both expanded the Arctic refuge and allowed a small slice of it to be opened to oil exploration, subject to Congressional approval. In 1995, Congress gave that approval, using the same budget maneuver that Republicans used on Wednesday, but the measure was vetoed by President Bill Clinton. Two years ago, Republicans tried the maneuver again, but with only 51 Republicans in the Senate, some of whom opposed drilling, it failed. In recent weeks, advocates have been conducting an intense lobbying campaign. President Jimmy Carter has also made phone calls urging Democrats, like Ms. Landrieu, who had supported drilling, to oppose it. As senators were voting on Wednesday, Ms. Landrieu stood at the back of the chamber, talking to colleagues on both sides of the aisle with a conflicted look on her face. At one point, moments before she cast her vote, she tapped Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat who opposes drilling, on the arm and whispered to him. He said later that she told him she would be supporting drilling. "I was disappointed," Mr. Lieberman said. "I feel it personally." Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company</td></tr></table>

Richard K Niner · Postby **Richard K Niner** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:44 am

Not. Good. <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... ns/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' />

VisibilityMissing · Postby **VisibilityMissing** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:46 am

Well, we can trust the House to hold it up for a while, can't we?

Arloest · Postby **Arloest** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:23 am

This is stupid. Sure, it produces millions of barrels a day, but in return we get a wrecked wildlife refuge. Also, since the oil is shared with the whole WORLD, it will only last for a short amount of time, but still altering the refuge.

VisibilityMissing · Postby **VisibilityMissing** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:46 am

Yep, this is seriously bad precedent. I'm divided about it: I worked a couple summers on the Prudhoe Bay field during college. I suspect that the operations in the wildlife refuge will be a lot messier if done after Prudhoe Bay closes. And, I'm positive this refuge will be opened sooner or later. Parts of the Prudhoe Bay operation were closing when I worked there 13 years ago. On the other hand, there are the Gwi'itchen that have deep spiritual links to the caribou herds that range there (and food, shelter, clothing, etc). They are being overshadowed by the Inupiat of the North, who are wealthier, have much wider subsistence connections, and are much more savvy to politics (and I have lived with). Unfortunately, the Native American community is not united on this, either. It really will be a shame to drag modern technology into the refuge.

Tom Flapwell · Postby **Tom Flapwell** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:06 pm

This is sorta like robbing a convenience store for crack money.

VisibilityMissing · Postby **VisibilityMissing** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:28 pm

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Arctic Alaska:  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Water and crude oil leak on the North Slope 111,300 GALLONS: Workers cleaning up large industrial spill. By WESLEY LOY Anchorage Daily News (Published: March 29, 2005) As many as 80 workers were hustling Monday to clean up oily water in what ranks as one of the largest industrial spills ever seen in the North Slope oil fields. The spill came from a buried pipeline at a gravel production pad on the western side of the Kuparuk oil field. Kuparuk is the Slope's biggest oil field after Prudhoe Bay. Dawn Patience, a spokeswoman for Conoco Phillips Alaska Inc., which runs Kuparuk, said the spill is estimated at 111,300 gallons of "produced water" covering about two acres. Produced water is water that's been separated from the mixture of crude oil and liquid natural gas that comes out of producing oil wells. The leaky six-inch pipeline was carrying the produced water from a separating plant back to Kuparuk production pad 2H, where it was to be injected back into the ground to help maintain pressure in the oil field so that more oil can be produced. The spilled water contains only a trace of crude oil, and the amount of actual oil spilled is believed to be slightly more than one barrel or about 50 gallons, Patience said. But much of the water is seawater, and the salt can kill tundra plant life just as crude oil can, said Leslie Pearson, spill prevention and emergency response manager for the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. It's good, however, that the ground is frozen, she said. "That frozen layer is a protective zone to the root systems of the tundra," Pearson said. The spill, if the size estimate holds firm, ranks as the third largest saline or oil spill ever recorded on the Slope, according to a 2003 report by the National Research Council on cumulative environmental effects of oil activity on the region. The largest water spill involved nearly 758,000 gallons of diluted seawater in March 1997, according to the report. The largest spill of crude oil was nearly 39,000 gallons in July 1989. Conoco employees, contract workers as well as cleanup workers with Alaska Clean Seas were expected to work on the spill 24 hours a day, Patience said. Alaska Clean Seas is a consortium of equipment and staff paid by the North Slope oil industry to handle spill cleanups. Patience said a contract worker making a routine check on the production pad noticed wet snow about 10:45 a.m. Saturday. Conoco immediately notified the DEC of a possible spill, she said. Pearson confirmed that the company made quick and proper notification to state pollution authorities, as required by law. As of Monday afternoon, Conoco reported that about 10 percent of the spilled liquid had been recovered, although some of that might be melted snow taken from the spill site. Conoco workers used infrared equipment to help estimate the scale of the spill. The cause of the pipeline leak still hadn't been determined as of Monday, Patience said. Corrosion has been the culprit in some spills. Investigators won't know for sure until they dig up the pipe. "The first step is going to be clearing off the snow overburden and then getting down to where the mess really is," Pearson said. The pipeline had an internal inspection last October, when workers put a sensor known as a pig through it, she said. Pigs can help identify thin spots in a pipeline wall. The pipe had an external inspection in 2001. No problems were found and the pipe didn't have a history of trouble, Pearson said. The DEC, which has people on the scene, is estimating the spill cleanup could take three weeks, she said. Conoco is majority owner of Kuparuk, with BP having a large minority interest. The other owners are Unocal, Exxon Mobil and Chevron Texaco. Daily News reporter Wesley Loy can be reached at wloy@adn.com or 257-4590. Copyright 2005 The Anchorage Daily News (www.adn.com) </td></tr></table>

VisibilityMissing · Postby **VisibilityMissing** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:07 pm

This is bad news . . .  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> December 19, 2005 House Backs Arctic Drilling at End of Marathon Session By CARL HULSE WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - Working through the night, the House early today voted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling as part of a military measure and narrowly approved a $40 billion budget-cutting plan as bleary-eyed lawmakers concluded a marathon weekend session. The Pentagon spending bill, adopted on a 308-106 vote shortly after 5 a.m., also included a $29 billion hurricane recovery package for the Gulf Coast, a $3.8 billion proposal to prepare for a potential flu pandemic and a 1 percent across-the-board cut that shaved a total of about $8 billion from current federal spending. Democrats assailed majority Republicans for using the Pentagon bill to win approval of the drilling plan after objections by moderate Republicans led to it being eliminated from the budget measure. "A can't-pass measure has been added to a must-pass measure in order for the Republicans to give an early huge Christmas gift to the oil companies of the United States," said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts. But Republicans said the drilling had been approved in the past by both the House and the Senate and that adding it to the military bill was a legitimate legislative approach. "Easing our dependence on foreign oil is central to our economic and national security, and this provision puts us on the right path," said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. The Pentagon measure faced significant procedural hurdles in the Senate. The budget cuts were approved 212-206 just after 6 a.m. After assembling the budget plan Sunday, congressional Republicans had pegged the savings over five years at nearly $42 billion but last-minute changes on health and agricultural policy made to attract more votes lowered the figure to $39.7 billion - about $10 billion below the initial House target. The Senate could take the measure up as early as today. Earlier this morning, the House voted 374-41 to approve a broad military policy bill after House Republicans dropped their push to add campaign finance law changes. That measure establishes new rules for the treatment of terror detainees and provides the armed forces with a pay raise and new health benefits. The agreement between the House and Senate on the $40 billion in budget cuts and revenue increases put Republicans on the brink of a significant political victory after struggling for months to reach a deal sought by conservatives as a way to demonstrate a new willingness to control federal spending. "This bill is a good first step towards addressing the long-term spending challenges in the federal budget," Mr. Hastert said. "I am proud that House Republicans have put in the long hours and hard work necessary to make this happen." Negotiators softened the impact of some provisions that had drawn objections from Republican moderates, including cuts in food stamps. But the plan reduces spending on Medicare by $8 billion and Medicaid by nearly $5 billion, and wrings savings out of several other programs like agriculture and student loans. Democrats said the cuts were unfair and meant little for the deficit because Republicans were trying to advance next year nearly $100 billion in tax cuts that would more than erase any savings. "This entire exercise imposes sacrifice from Americans least able to afford it in an attempt to camouflage far larger Republican tax breaks for the wealthy," said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa. The budget agreement came only after the proposal to allow drilling in the Arctic was stripped from the measure and added to the military bill. But passage of the budget cuts in the House, which planned to meet into the early morning hours, was not assured because some Republicans who had balked at the Arctic drilling plan were threatening to oppose the budget legislation to protest the decision to incorporate drilling into the must-pass military bill. That move also infuriated Democrats and other drilling opponents, raising the prospect that the military spending bill would face a filibuster and other obstacles in the Senate. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, accused Republicans on Sunday of ignoring Senate rules to enhance the chances for approval of the drilling initiative that was a long-standing goal of Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska. "This is a dark day in the history of the American constitutional form of government," said Mr. Reid, who threatened to slow the Senate over the next few days and block any votes on nominations as Republicans try to wrap up the session before Christmas. Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, disputed the notion that Republicans were subverting the rules, though he said a specific provision in the military bill would declare that any new precedent created by including the drilling plan would not alter the rules for future legislation. He said it was acceptable to include the drilling in a Pentagon measure because the Senate had endorsed the oil exploration in earlier votes as a way to increase domestic oil production.The senior lawmakers putting together the military spending bill agreed Sunday to add the drilling plan at the insistence of Mr. Stevens, who has been relentless in his effort to enact the plan this year. In trying to round up votes, Mr. Stevens added language that would direct billions of dollars from the sale of drilling rights to Gulf Coast recovery. Separately, $10 billion from the sale of rights to analog broadcast spectrum freed up by a switch to digital would be parceled out for hurricane relief, domestic security, home heating aid and other areas. One of the last items added to the military spending bill was a provision sought by Mr. Frist that would shield drug makers from lawsuits related to vaccines that protect against biological agents or viruses like the one that causes the avian flu. The language would allow lawsuits against vaccine makers only if they engaged in "willful misconduct." The government would pay medical expenses and benefits to those injured or killed by vaccines. Mr. Frist contends that the provision is necessary to encourage drug companies to make vaccines. But it is likely to draw criticism, with some arguing that it would be a windfall for those companies. The second Pentagon policy measure for military pay raises and new health benefits had been stalled by a fight over the effort by House Republicans to use it to enact new campaign spending restrictions that Democrats believed would hurt their fund-raising efforts more than those of Republicans. But Republican authors of the measure in both chambers encouraged the House leadership to relent in its push for the campaign finance changes to allow the otherwise popular bill to be approved. Like the military spending bill, it incorporates the newly negotiated agreement on banning torture of terror detainees and lays out the legal rights of those held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. It would have been the first time in 40 years that a Pentagon policy measure had not been approved, and Democrats assailed Republicans for threatening to hold it up. Despite the bickering on Capitol Hill, some legislation was moving through. On Saturday, the House sent President Bush a measure promoting the creation of banks to store umbilical cord blood, which yields stem cells that are useful in treating blood and bone marrow disorders. Congress also approved legislation extending terrorism risk insurance and gave final approval to a measure providing new money for programs to curb violence against women. Lawmakers also approved a Justice Department measure that would require an annual report from the attorney general on the legal status of all people detained on suspicion of terrorism. A huge spending measure for health, labor and education programs had yet to clear the Senate. It and the military spending bill were the final annual appropriations measures awaiting passage, and the federal programs they cover were running under a newly passed stopgap bill that would expire Dec. 31. Republicans said the overtime wind-up was extraordinary, but they attributed the crunch to the extra work that had been forced upon Congress by the hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast at the end of the summer. "It all went out the window when you get hit by a Category 5, another Category 5 and another Category 4," said Representative Adam H. Putnam, Republican of Florida. "Unusual factors have impacted this unusual year." </td></tr></table>

Gizensha · Postby **Gizensha** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:24 pm

*shakes head* Ruin the environement so that we can ruin the environment for longer. Yeah, great logic. Yes, this is a knee-jerk reaction, and for that I appologise, but, sorry, this comes across to me as both abuse of the earth and abuse of democracy (sticking a oil-drilling-in-wildlife-refuge proposal onto an unrelated military-spending proposal, iirc).

norsenerd · Postby **norsenerd** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:39 am

This is just capitalist exploitation of our natural resources. The drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, while being environmentally heinous, will do absolutely nothing to help out the vast majority of Americans. The oil companies that do drill in ANWR will make money off of this while not doing anything o lower oil prices for the consumer. All that this will end up doing is destroying a precious piece of environment while making investors even richer. ANWR is public property. Our Representatives and Senators are spending the money that Americans have earned with their labor to further enrich the capitalist class. Anything done in ANWR should be done for the benefit of all Americans and any profits from this exploitation should be shared by all Americans, not for or by a select few. Drilling in ANWR is not only an environmental tragedy it is plutocracy at work. If this nation

DesertFoxCat · Postby **DesertFoxCat** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:20 am

This is the kind of thing that makes me wish that the oil could hurry up and run itself out. Then there'd be more than a vague, "uh-oh, we're killing ourselves with this junk" to motivate the research on other energy sources.

Zaaphod · Postby **Zaaphod** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:40 am

No worries, it's been blocked. For now anyway.  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Senate Blocks Alaska Refuge Drilling By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The Senate blocked opening the nation's largest untapped oil reserve in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, denying President Bush his top energy priority and delivering a victory to environmentalists who said drilling would threaten wildlife. It was a stinging defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, one of the Senate's most powerful members, who had hoped to garner more votes by putting the measure onto a defense spending bill. That forced senators to choose between supporting the drilling measure, or risking the political fallout from voting against money for the troops and hurricane victims. Instead, Stevens found himself a few votes shy of getting his wish. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who led the floor debate in opposition to the drilling provision, called it "legislative blackmail" and said Democrats agreed they "were not going to get jammed" by the tactic. Republican leaders could not break a Democratic filibuster threat over the drilling issue, falling three votes short of the 60 votes need to advance the defense spending bill to a final vote. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., left the bill in limbo as he, Stevens and other GOP leaders gauged their next move. The measure was widely expected to be withdrawn and reworked without the refuge language, although Stevens warned he was ready to stay until New Year's if necessary to fight for the drilling, a cause he has pursued for 25 of his 37 years in the Senate. Democrats as well as a number of Republicans were already angered by Stevens' tactic that delayed action on the $453.5 billion defense bill including $29 billion for hurricane relief, the war and border security, and $2 billion to help low-income households pay this winter's heating expenses. "Our military is being held hostage by this issue, Arctic drilling," fumed Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader. But Stevens, 82, the Senate's most senior member known for his sometimes cantankerous nature and fiery temper, expressed frustration, but had no apologies. "Every time this subject comes up ... the minority has filibustered," Stevens complained, reminding colleagues of his 25-year campaign to get Congress to allow development of an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil beneath the coastal tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the far northeastern corner of his state. After the vote, Democrats celebrated as did environmentalists, knowing they had tangled with one of the Senate's toughest members and won. "It took a lot of guts for a lot of people to stand up," Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said after the vote. He said he expects the 43 senators who voted against drilling, all but four Democrats as well as GOP Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, not to yield to further pressures and change their vote. But no one believes the issue, which has galvanized environmentalists determined to protect the refuge from development, is going away. "I expect to see it again next year," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a longtime drilling opponent. "Yes, it'll be back," agreed Lieberman. Environmentalists rejoiced, aware that never before had drilling proponents come so close to victory. The House already had approved the defense bill with Steven's drilling measure included and President Bush was eager to sign it. Congress approved ANWR drilling in 1995 as part of a budget package that was immune from Senate filibuster, but President Clinton, a drilling opponent, vetoed it. The Sierra Club called it "an against-all-odds" victory. "Drilling proponents pulled out all the stops, and tried every trick in their playbook," said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope. "This is a tremendous victory for all Americans and proof that the fate of the Arctic refuge must be debated on its merits, not as part of a sneak attack." Stevens argued that Congress in 1980 agreed to allow ANWR's oil to be developed at some future date as part an a compromise he supported that expanded the federal refuge to 19 million acres. It was a commitment, he maintains, that has not been met. Those who advocate drilling contend the oil - an estimated 1 million barrels a day during peak production - is needed for national security to reduce the country's dependence on imports. Drilling opponents say ANWR's oil would do little to curtail imports. Steven's proposal would have required the Interior Department to issue its first oil leases in the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain of the refuge within 22 months and another package of leases in 2010. Oil was not expected to flow before 2015. Developing the Arctic refuge's oil has been one of Bush's top energy priorities and the administration stepped up lobbying for the ANWR provision this week. Interior Secretary Gale Norton has said repeatedly that the oil can be developed without harming wildlife given environmental safeguards in the bill and use of the most modern drilling techniques. But drilling opponents argued that ANWR's oil should not be exploited because of the coastal plain's fragile ecosystem and wildlife. While the region looks bleak during its long winters, and oil can be seen seeping from some of its rock formations, the coastal strip also is the calving ground for caribou and home to polar bears, musk oxen, and the annual influx of millions of migratory birds. "Destroying this wilderness will do very little to reduce energy costs nor does it do very much for oil independence," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. </td></tr></table>

Muninn · Postby **Muninn** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:52 pm

What would Teddy Roosevelt say?

VisibilityMissing · Postby **VisibilityMissing** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:08 pm

Pretty sure he wouldn't be too impressed with all this . . . otherwise, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

norsenerd · Postby **norsenerd** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:01 am

I cant; ream all of that!!! <!--emo&

--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... ns/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' />

Define Cynical Fan Forums

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Who is online