News & Politics - Congress Budget Plan Moves ANWR Drilling Ahead

*Natalie* · 05-10-2005, 10:50 PM

Source: Congress Budget Plan Moves ANWR Drilling Ahead

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A $2.6 trillion federal budget blueprint approved by Congress late Thursday may clear the way for a Republican plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, according to congressional aides.

The budget plan does not specifically mention ANWR drilling by name.

But Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican who heads the Senate Budget Committee, indicated its language was carefully crafted to ensure that Senate legislation to give oil companies access to the Alaskan wildlife refuge would not be subject to a filibuster.

The budget blueprint included instructions to Senate and House energy panels to find about $2.4 billion in new revenue over five years, an amount roughly equal to what the federal government has estimated it could raise by leasing ANWR to oil companies.

The budget plan for fiscal 2006 sets general parameters for Congress to use in writing specific federal spending bills for the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1.

Last month, the Senate passed its version of the annual budget plan and included a provision that would raise more than $5 billion by offering drilling rights in the Alaska refuge to oil and gas companies. Alaska would keep half of the money.

The Senate inserted the ANWR language in its budget resolution because budget bills are passed with a simple majority and cannot be filibustered under Senate rules. A coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats in the Senate has previously blocked drilling in the refuge.

The House passed an $8 billion energy bill this month that included selling drilling rights in the refuge.

ANWR, about the size of South Carolina, sprawls across more than 19 million acres in northeastern Alaska. The government has estimated energy companies would find it cost-effective to recover at least 6 billion barrels of oil from ANWR, if prices were at or above $35 a barrel.

Environmental groups oppose drilling in ANWR, saying that road building and industrial activity would hurt caribou, polar bears and other animals that use the refuge's coastal plain as a nursery.

*sighs*

Lorna · 05-11-2005, 08:19 AM

I am SO p!ssed off about this. What exactly does congress not understand about the words "Wildlife Refuge"?!!!

Surely the money they are using to do the drilling would be better used trying to set up alternative fuel sources as the oil wont last forever.

*Natalie* · 05-11-2005, 09:23 AM

Le sigh.

mh67511 · 05-11-2005, 08:58 PM

Well of course it wont lower gas prices now, but I think it's dumb to just leave a possible natural resource. Yes we should be looking for alternative options, but in the meantime we might as well use this oil. My Geography teacher was talking about the caribou and something about the coastal winds and mosquitoes, but I don't really know. Odds are I'll never get to Alaska to see these animals anyway. Alaksa is a HUGE state and the drilling will be in a small portion of it. Plus, we've still got the national parks. I wonder how people from Alaska feel? They said Alaska would get half the money, plus it would probably provide jobs.

In Fair Verona · 05-11-2005, 10:31 PM

It doesn't matter if I get to see those animals or not to me, but that is their home and not only does it destroy their home and habitat, it destroys them. There's been such a good effort to prevent this and it's sad to see it all happen for nothing, or just to prolong it for a few years.

It's not just the caribou; you eliminate them and you ruin that entire ecosystem and deprive life from that area of land. It's frustrating to see the interest of wildfire pushed aside for oil. We treat animals like second-class species, and perhaps they are but the disdain for their species is horrible.

*Natalie* · 05-12-2005, 01:08 PM

Do you know that is estimated, according to some written and oral sources, that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), in many, many ways, supports at least one of the most expansive variety of animals, vegetations, and some other important living beings/natural resources than any other environmentally-related refuge, nature park, et cetera, in the circumpolar arctic?!

Do you know how much some native tribes in Alaska depend upon the ANWR annually for food, like caribou, and other things?!

mh67511 · 05-12-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by In Fair Verona

It doesn't matter if I get to see those animals or not to me, but that is their home and not only does it destroy their home and habitat, it destroys them. There's been such a good effort to prevent this and it's sad to see it all happen for nothing, or just to prolong it for a few years.

But see the ANWR is HUGE and only about 8% of it will be opened for drilling. Despite what you say, the majority of will NOT be "destroyed." And even those areas that could possibly be developed don't necessarily mean that all the animals will die and the land will be destroyed. Obviously there are assumptions about the evil oil companies and that they will mean destruction for the land. Not true! Oil and animal populations have coexisted in other areas of Alaska!

In 1970’s when oil development began on the North Slope of Alaska, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd, which calves within the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil fields, was roughly 3,000 animals. Today the herd has increased to almost 32,000 animals! An increase of almost 11 times its size since responsible oil and gas development began.

Oil drilling and technology have come a long way since the 70's. There are ways to do is reponsibly, while minimizing the impact on the environment.

mh67511 · 05-12-2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Natalie*

Do you know how much some native tribes in Alaska depend upon the ANWR annually for food, like caribou, and other things?!

But if the natives are allowed to hunt, then how is this a "protected" area? Isn't the whole point of creating a refuge to PREVENT hunting? Maybe they allow Indian tribes to hunt there? I don't really know. Doesn't bother me either way, I was just a little confused.

*Natalie* · 05-12-2005, 03:49 PM

Like Ansel Adams stated, "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment."

**TheAngel** · 05-12-2005, 06:16 PM

What really pisses me off is what the American Government did at the end of WWII. Germany had put millions into developing alternate fuel sources because the Tiger Tanks took like, 1 gallon of gas per mile and they couldn't import as much fuel as they wanted to. They nearly had a formula too, I don't remember if it was hydrogen or the alcohol based fuel, but then we went in an destroyed the research because we didn't think of it. Grrrr.....American egos anger me...and I'm an American.

In Fair Verona · 05-12-2005, 07:52 PM

Even drilling in a relatively small proportion will have its repurcussions on the entire environment. Regardless of where the location is, it is still a part of what is (or soon to be 'was') as protected region, it was protected for a reason and each square acre may be as vital as the next to the ecosystem.

I think the Eskimo/Native American tribes are included in this whole 'protected' thing, it is partially protected for them. Though I am against hunting, that is their way of life and they have the right to preserve their culture. The area is protected from drilling corporations so that they still have the ability to do that. Their culture pretty much implements them as a part of the ecosystem, so I think of them as organisms under the same protection as the animals they are hunting. I honestly admire them, though they do hunt, they do it for food and it's clear that they have an appreciation for nature which many hunters lack.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Congress Budget Plan Moves ANWR Drilling Ahead