House Approves Oil Drilling in Alaska Refuge

[LiberalHeart]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Citing the public outcry over $3-a-gallon gasoline and America's heavy reliance on foreign oil, the House on Thursday voted to open an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, knowing the prospects for Senate approval were slim.

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4950686

[pinto]

1. Yeah. They know it won't pass the Senate. Showboat vote.

[Beaverhausen]

2. It better not pass the senate.

:mad:

[drm604]

3. Surely they realize that it won't change the price of gasoline.

But they still cite that as their reason. :grr:

[primavera]

13. Well, you know, the $36 billion in profits Exxon brought in last year...

... just don't go as far as they used to, so you can see we have to do something to help the poor, struggling oil industry.

[killerbush]

4. BREAKING: House votes to open Alaskan arctic for drilling

http://www.newshounds.us

[Up2Late]

5. AGAIN!?!?

OH PLEASE!!!!

Why do they KEEP wasting time on this!?! :mad:

[KansDem]

9. Because they have nothing else to waste their time on...

Why do they KEEP wasting time on this!?!

That, and they're a group of evil f**** who will stop at nothing to please their corporate masters.

[pinto]

6. Showboat vote, imo. Thay know it won't pass the Senate.

[lindisfarne]

8. Midterm elections coming up. Gotta look like they've done something to

lower gas prices (forget about calling for conservation and alternative fuels - those approaches would actually make a difference).

This is nothing more than a big money transfer to oil companies. There's no good reason to drill in ANWR.

Arctic Drilling Won't Lower Prices at the Pump. Misplaced priorities have kept Congress from pursuing new, forward-looking energy policies for long enough. America has less than 3% of the world's proven oil reserves, but we account for 25% of the world's oil consumption. Even if we were to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Americans wouldn't see more than about a penny per gallon difference at the pump, twenty years.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is too Precious to Lose. Some places should be off-limits to oil drilling and industrial development, and the Arctic Refuge is one of them. The harm to polar bear, caribou, millions of migratory birds, and to the subsistence way of life of the Gwich'in people would be permanent and irreparable. We have a moral responsibility to save wild places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for future generations. That's why our country has remained committed to its protection for nearly 50 years.

There are Cleaner, Cheaper, Safer and Smarter Energy Solutions That Safeguard Special Places Like the Arctic Refuge. Energy experts agree that the best ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil are to make cars go further on a gallon of gas and invest in clean renewable forms of energy. Americans deserve a cheaper, quicker, safer and cleaner energy policy that safeguards the wild places we care so deeply about. We cannot drill our way to energy independence, but we can embrace responsible measures and real, 21st Century energy solutions that make cars go farther on a gallon of gas, promote conservation, invest in clean renewable energy like wind and solar, and protect our natural heritage.

http://www.sierraclub.org/arctic/overview.asp

[lindisfarne]

7. *sigh*. If we all cut our consumption by just 2%, it would save more

oil than we'll get out of ANWR in the short time we'll be getting anything at all.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. If I understand correctly,

if everyone drove a car that got 35-40 mpg we wouldn't have to import oil at all.


:think:

[lindisfarne]

27. Yes, I'll bet that's right. It's probably at least equivalent to a 2%

decrease in consumption. What if people road bikes one day a week, and combined errands? Even more! Not too difficult - unless you're a Repug - to figure out.

[Baclava]

33. But every family deserves 3 cars in the garage.

It's the American dream.

[OKNancy]

10. Please provide a news link

as soon as possible.

Thank You
OKNancy
LBN Moderator

[lindisfarne]

11. Here's one.

How is it that the American public is so STUPID that these sorts of ineffectual and idiotic "solutions" have enough of a political effect to make them worthwhile for Congress? There was an article in a hunting magazine about hunters/fishers being concerned about global warming: they have been observing signs with their own eyes. Surely it's possible to convince the public of the stupidity of drilling in ANWR?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Arctic-Oil.html

While oil companies have long eyed the area where federal geologists estimate anywhere from 5.4 billion to as much as 16 billion barrels of oil may be recoverable, environmentalists it as among its top priorities for protection.

Drilling opponents cited an Energy Department analysis that ANWR's oil would have little impact on gasoline prices and reduce imports by only a few percentage points. Currently 60 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil used daily in the United States comes from imports.

Advocates for opening the refuge to energy development said the tundra and its wildlife can be protected using modern drilling techniques and environmental restrictions. They argued the additional domestic oil would help move the country toward more energy independence.

(My commentary: How will it move us toward energy independence? It won't do much of anything. Even at the upper estimate of 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil (highly doubtful), it wouldn't even supply a year's worth. At the low estimate of 4 billion barrels, it won't even supply 3 months worth of oil. And then, you need to subtract out the oil necessary to drill, transport, build pipeline. Even without the fact it will destroy an important part of the caribou migration area and calving area, it makes absolutely no sense.)

<snip>
''Rather than debating how we could increase the fuel efficiency standards (of cars) over the next few years, we are debating about a bill that won't produce the first barrel of oil for 10 years and it will come from a pristine wildlife refuge,'' complained Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a leading drilling opponent.

[OKNancy]

12. thanks, this is a duplicate thread, so it will be moved in a sec

[lindisfarne]

20. Thanks for closing the other thread - the person should have checked

before posting. It was just a few threads down (and >10 minutes later, so it wasn't a case of being posted at exactly the same time). I wish people in the other forums would read before posting; yesterday there was one topic that had at least 5 different threads.

[dkos refugee]

14. losing issue

It is going to happen eventually, there can be no doubt about that. Oil could go up to $100 a barrel right around November, ostensibly due to a hurricane. It is possible that the democrats could actually lose seats this November. Make no mistake, the media will convince millions that ANWR drilling would have reduced gasoline costs by a significant enough amount. The GOP website has a calculator that tells you how much money the democrats would cost you at the pump. It may be total nonsense, but people are going to believe it.

[lindisfarne]

18. I hope not. This is so patently stupid (see my message 11) that a

concerted public effort to show the stupidity just might work. (I appreciate why you are so pessimistic though- so much idiocy in general in this country).

[Bridget Burke]

21. Gosh, do we Democrats have any winning issues?

Surely we do...

[jseankil]

15. Addicted to oil, Republicans answer? More Oil! Can't trick us assholes!

Really care about the American people? Nationalize Alaska oil assholes.

[brentspeak]

16. 10 years to drill for 6 months worth of oil...

...that will end up being sold to Japan or China anyway.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

17. Is there a breakdown of the vote?

[lindisfarne]

19. 225-201, almost certainly party line for almost everyone; breakdown

will be available at www.house.gov soon.

The House voted 225-201 to direct the Interior Department to open oil leases on the coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- an area of 1.5 million acres that is thought likely to hold about 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

H.R. 5429:
to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program that will result in an environmentally sound program for the exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain of Alaska, and for other purposes

[Pastiche423]

22. Roll Call votes

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll207.xml

[The_Casual_Observer]

23. No end to this until the Dem's take over. It's a cancer that will be excis

after November with any luck.

They vote on this bastard bill about once a week anymore.

[truthisfreedom]

24. idiots.

[Ezlivin]

25. Yeah! Now we'll have all the oil we'll ever need for the rest of eternity!

Don't you love the smell of infinite resources?

We'll never run out now....

:sarcasm:

[Buttercup McToots]

28. Bastards

Bloody Bastards...:mad:

[WePurrsevere]

29. The 10 Pro-Global Warming, Pro-Big Oil Democrats that voted YEA

They are either that or they are totally ignorant of the FACTS... or it's a stupid play to the voters knowing it won't get past teh Senate. Hopefully it will backfire. From what I've seen more and more Americans are becoming increasingly concerned (if not alarmed) about Global Warming and learning more about the causes. As they learn that, they'll look more into how to stop the seriouos problems that this is causing how to fix the problem... and it AIN'T by pumping more oil and buying bigger gas hogs. (and then again of course or those IDIOTS who have their head so far up their backsides they can't see past their own crap and will continue to live in denial or a "so what I'll be dead when it gets to bad" mentality).


Boren
Cramer
Cuellar
Murtha
Melancon
Kanjorski
Green, Gene
Ortiz
Reyes
Skelton

[Clarkansas]

30. Remember all the "Murtha for president" threads?

[WePurrsevere]

31. Yes, that name stuck out for me because of his stance on the war. I don't

know that any politician is going to be 100% fit for everyone.. I guess it depends on what is important to you and can you accept the bad with the good and what is the balance of positive to negative.

The only candidate that at this time I feel I could 100% get behind for the presidential race is Al Gore but I'll vote for whomever gets the Dem nod. Right now though... I'd rather concentrate what little energy I have on getting Dems back in the majority in both Houses so there's a chance that we can fix this mess the 'CONs have made (besides I have a feeling, a hope, that from the way he's wording things that if the cards were stacked in Gore's favor and we asked him "loud" enough he would run, and win, again). B)

[zann725]

32. Once again, they roll-over...like a dog for a 'treat'(approval from Chimp)

Do they ever 'just say NO?'

[Massachusetts]

34. House Approves Oil Drilling in Alaska Refuge

They'll be sorry............Assholes!