| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:06 pm Bush Renews Call for Alaskan Oil Drilling |
|
| Quote: |
Bush renews call for Alaskan oil drilling as oil prices spike
COLUMBUS, Ohio (CNN) -- With oil prices nearing last year's record highs, President Bush renewed his call for Congress to authorize oil exploration in Alaska's largest wildlife refuge as part of a broader energy bill.
In a speech Tuesday in Ohio, Bush urged lawmakers to pass the energy bill that has stalled in Congress since the beginning of his first term, saying it would wean the United States away from overseas sources of crude.
"We have had four years of debate about a national energy bill. Now's the time to get the job done," he said.
Bush spoke after a visit to the Battelle Memorial Institute, a non-profit research corporation that is working on developing hydrogen fuel cells. He said he said reducing U.S. dependence on oil imports will be good for the economy and for national security.
But the sticking point for his last energy bill was a provision that would have opened a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration.
"Developing small section of ANWR would not only create thousands of new jobs, but it would eventually reduce our dependence on foreign oil by up to 1 million barrels of oil a day," Bush said.
Advocates like the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's trade association, say the refuge sits atop enough oil to replace U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia for two decades.
Environmental groups like the Sierra Club say that figure is wildly overstated, arguing that any oil reserves beneath the refuge's coastal plain would last less than a year -- while opening the refuge to oil exploration would inflict irreparable damage to the vast wilderness area.
But Bush said oil exploration can be limited to a 2,000-acre site -- "the size of the Columbus airport" -- and could be done "with almost no impact on land or local wildlife."
He said drilling in ANWR should be part of an overall energy bill that would promote conservation, increase domestic energy production and modernize infrastructure such as power grids and pipelines.
Bush's proposed budget for 2006 would cut funding for research into energy conservation by 2.5 percent, from $868 million to $847 million, though some efforts -- like research into hydrogen-powered vehicles and fuel cell technology -- would see increases.
The overall request for "energy security" -- which includes funding for power grids and pipelines, nuclear, fossil fuel and hydroelectric research -- is down 2.7 percent from the 2005 budget, from $2.8 billion to $2.7 billion.
The president spoke as crude oil prices hit record highs in London and moved above $55 a barrel in New York, coming within two cents of the $55.67 record set in October before closing at $54.77.
The rising prices have prompted new calls by several senators for Bush to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and put off new purchases for the stockpile.
"We're asking that this be done, and I don't think we have much choice," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York. "The economy seems to be going along nicely now. But if you ask any economist what's the No. 1 thing that could stop it, it's oil prices."
Bush has rejected previous calls to ease price spikes by releasing oil from the reserve, which he says should be left intact for national emergencies.
But Schumer said tapping the oil reserve would be a money-making proposition for the government, since it would be releasing crude into the market when prices are high and could buy back those stockpiles when prices come down. And Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, said Bush's refusals amount to "a gift to the oil companies."
"Taxpayers are paying to fill the SPRO with the highest prices ever," she said. "That makes no sense while our consumers are facing this madness at the pump."
At least one Republican -- Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, whose state has a large number of heating oil consumers -- joined six Democratic senators in signing a letter to Bush.
The rising cost of crude oil drove gasoline prices up an average of 7 cents a gallon over the past two weeks to an average of $1.97 for a gallon of self-serve regular, according to the Lundberg Survey's nationwide canvass of filling stations.
In Los Angeles and San Francisco, prices at some gas station have topped $2.50 a gallon, Boxer said. And the U.S. summer vacation season -- which typically boosts demand for fuel -- has yet to begin.
Bush did not specifically address the rising cost of gasoline in his Columbus speech, but he noted that the United States now imports more than half its oil from abroad -- "and our dependence is growing."
Bush also called on Congress to back the development of "clean coal" technology, which would allow broader use of the most abundant U.S. energy source with less environmental damage; encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants; and overhaul aging electrical grids and pipeline networks.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/bush.energy/index.html
Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
|
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:08 pm |
|
Just what we should do. Drill in Alaska. That will lessen our dependency on foreign oil, etc and ultimately improve things, not to mention prices and our economy. Plus there isn't much there--I watched footage of it on Hannity and Colmes last night, and I see NO PROBLEM with drilling in part of Alaska.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:11 pm |
|
I don't have a problem with drilling in Alaska, but I wish we would hurry up and get away from fossil fuels. We have enough technology now that we should be able to come up with a workable source besides...the phasing-in of hybrid cars is almost non-existant with the prices of the things. Something does need to be done in the realm of developing new energy sources, and beyond that, actually using them.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:14 pm |
|
Suck Alaska dry.  
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:15 pm |
|
| Exalya wrote: | | I don't have a problem with drilling in Alaska, but I wish we would hurry up and get away from fossil fuels. We have enough technology now that we should be able to come up with a workable source besides...the phasing-in of hybrid cars is almost non-existant with the prices of the things. Something does need to be done in the realm of developing new energy sources, and beyond that, actually using them. |
I agree, but I do NOT think that government should be responsible for doing too much of that. Maybe a few incentives for business, but little more.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:18 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Exalya wrote: | | I don't have a problem with drilling in Alaska, but I wish we would hurry up and get away from fossil fuels. We have enough technology now that we should be able to come up with a workable source besides...the phasing-in of hybrid cars is almost non-existant with the prices of the things. Something does need to be done in the realm of developing new energy sources, and beyond that, actually using them. |
I agree, but I do NOT think that government should be responsible for doing too much of that. Maybe a few incentives for business, but little more. |
It doesn't matter as much who does it, just that it gets done. Scientists, private instiutes, whatever. We're going to have to face it sometime, and I would think sooner is better.
--Edit--
But, curious. If the government can promote the use of oil, why not the use of alternate resources?
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:26 pm |
|
Let them drill in Alaska, but only if they apply 50% of the profits to developing:
A cheap, workable catalyst for ethanol fuel cells.
Focus fusion (a simple fusion system).
Ultra-cheap water purification.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:35 pm |
|
I'm all for finding a new feuls to use so we become less dependant on fossil fuels.
But drilling on a National Wildlife Refuge.... That is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard.
He's willing to endanger the lifes of thousands of animals just for oil. PETA and greenpeace are going to go ape when they hear this.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:39 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | Let them drill in Alaska, but only if they apply 50% of the profits to developing:
A cheap, workable catalyst for ethanol fuel cells.
Focus fusion (a simple fusion system).
Ultra-cheap water purification. |
I like that idea, although 50% seems like quite alot. Perhaps lower it to the 10-20 percentile range?
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:41 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | webtaz99 wrote: | Let them drill in Alaska, but only if they apply 50% of the profits to developing:
A cheap, workable catalyst for ethanol fuel cells.
Focus fusion (a simple fusion system).
Ultra-cheap water purification. |
I like that idea, although 50% seems like quite alot. Perhaps lower it to the 10-20 percentile range? |
I play hardball.
How bad do they want that oil?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:50 pm |
|
Really it is not that I care, I just would imagine you would have a more difficult time getting people to do participate in that when you take away half of their revenue. But hey, I like the idea .
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:52 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | I'm all for finding a new feuls to use so we become less dependant on fossil fuels.
But drilling on a National Wildlife Refuge.... That is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard.
He's willing to endanger the lifes of thousands of animals just for oil. PETA and greenpeace are going to go ape when they hear this. |
Thousands of animals? There aren't THOUSANDS there, from what I saw. And who cares what PETA and Greenpeace think about it? I sure don't.
And I support alternate fuel sources. Agreed, Taz.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:41 pm |
|
oh my god.. why would you drill oil in alaska!? it would destroy their unique environment! and it would kill so many innocent animals. why not work harder for an alternate energy source and implement it? or just stay dependant without smudging the serene wild life of alaska. it would be a tragec day when they decide to condemn that unique and magnificent environment to industrial melanism and worse.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:49 pm |
|
{I know this one is going to generate snide remarks  }
I grew up in Texas. Texas has a LOT of oil and gas wells. Neither the landscape nor the wildlife has been "destroyed" by this. People should be more worried about the super-tankers.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:45 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: |
Thousands of animals? There aren't THOUSANDS there, from what I saw. And who cares what PETA and Greenpeace think about it? I sure don't.
And I support alternate fuel sources. Agreed, Taz. |
Ok, maybe not thousands. But you're not seeming to grasp some things.
Developing that area would not only disrupt the wildlife and the Inuit people that live close to it, but if anything ever happened.... It would make the Exxon Valdez look like an oil stain on your driveway.
And do you really think that groups like PETA and Greenpeace dont have power? Seriously? I'm guessing you've never seen how they get. Both politically and physically.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:52 pm |
|
Have you seen the land they want to drill? It's baron wasteland. Nobody around! In fact, the only town even remotely near the drilling site wholeheartedly supports the idea.
Wildlife preserve... pffft, that's a case of mistaken classification. There's oil in there, move over two deer and a seal! By the way, if I were trying to drill up there, and some idiots from PETA and Greenpeace (you know, the people who can't accept the real world, and live in their little utopian dreamlands) tried to get in my way, I would call in the national guard and put an end to it.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:59 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | Have you seen the land they want to drill? It's baron wasteland. Nobody around! In fact, the only town even remotely near the drilling site wholeheartedly supports the idea.
Wildlife preserve... pffft, that's a case of mistaken classification. There's oil in there, move over two deer and a seal! By the way, if I were trying to drill up there, and some idiots from PETA and Greenpeace (you know, the people who can't accept the real world, and live in their little utopian dreamlands) tried to get in my way, I would call in the national guard and put an end to it. |
Excellent points. Actually, let's list out some facts, clarified by Sean Hannity and validated by our Secretary of the Interior:
-Only 0.01% of the total acres would be used!
-That's only 2000 out of 19 million total acres!
-The US Geological Survey says that 1 million gallons per day could come up for the next 30 years (I think that's a bit of an exageration, but nonetheless)
-60% of our oil is dependent on foreign sources--that's more than EVERY BEFORE!
And yet the environmentalist/animal rights wacko views are that many animals will die in 2000 of 19 million acres! That's just crap and untrue! Keep in perspective, people.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:12 pm |
|
Although a very small area may be used up, you forget that there would have to be many miles of roads to be able to access the wells. Also although it is barren, it is also very beautiful in a wild way, and the ecosystem is very fragile.
| Exalya wrote: | | But, curious. If the government can promote the use of oil, why not the use of alternate resources? |
I have no evidence to back this up, but the answer is probably quite simple. The huge amount of money they make on taxing oil.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:54 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | Although a very small area may be used up, you forget that there would have to be many miles of roads to be able to access the wells. Also although it is barren, it is also very beautiful in a wild way, and the ecosystem is very fragile.
| Exalya wrote: | | But, curious. If the government can promote the use of oil, why not the use of alternate resources? |
I have no evidence to back this up, but the answer is probably quite simple. The huge amount of money they make on taxing oil. |
More directly, the huge amount of money (both over and under the table) paid to politicians by "energy" companies.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:05 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | Although a very small area may be used up, you forget that there would have to be many miles of roads to be able to access the wells. Also although it is barren, it is also very beautiful in a wild way, and the ecosystem is very fragile. |
Why is it fragile? Ecosystems have survived humanity before. Mother nature adapts to humans, she's a tough woman. I don't think there's much of an ecosystem up there anyway. No trees mean few mammals, and those who would be relocated would be better for it.
Gotta start looking at how we can help humans, before we worry about 3 deer and a handful of penguins. Those animals aren't going to look out for our interests, so we have to.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:42 pm |
|
Well, I'm wondering at some of those penguins. They're not normal. Are they on holida, because they don't live in the northern hemisphere normally, just antartica and some of south america. 
Just because there isn't many mammels doesn't mean that there isn't things up there. It's a land that is very finally balanced, far more than your local woodland. Permafrost affects a lot of the area and is the reason for the lack of tall trees, as they don't have the depth of roots to support themselves and so on.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:30 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | Jeremy wrote: | | Although a very small area may be used up, you forget that there would have to be many miles of roads to be able to access the wells. Also although it is barren, it is also very beautiful in a wild way, and the ecosystem is very fragile. |
Why is it fragile? Ecosystems have survived humanity before. Mother nature adapts to humans, she's a tough woman. I don't think there's much of an ecosystem up there anyway. No trees mean few mammals, and those who would be relocated would be better for it.
Gotta start looking at how we can help humans, before we worry about 3 deer and a handful of penguins. Those animals aren't going to look out for our interests, so we have to. |
Good points. Well, the Interior Secretary assured that they will do EVERYTHING possible to protect the wildlife there, and it is BARREN. There is LESS life than you think--I've seen footage. She made it clear, too, that they would make it so that they would NOT interrupt the mating season, etc.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:31 pm |
|
human presence and drilling oil will still *beep* things up.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:32 pm |
|
| Jemah wrote: | | human presence and drilling oil will still *beep* things up. |
There is already a lot of human presence!!! And remember, it's only 2000 of 19 million acres of the land! It won't do much. And why use an " " there?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:34 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Jemah wrote: | | human presence and drilling oil will still *beep* things up. |
There is already a lot of human presence!!! And remember, it's only 2000 of 19 million acres of the land! It won't do much. And why use an " " there? |
yeah but the people aren't drilling
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
