Senate Defeats Arctic Drilling

[fluffhead]

I think it's a pretty scummy tactic to link controversial bills to widely supported ones. The pro-drilling folks attached their bill to Katrina relief and troop support to try to force passage. Amazingly, senators didn't bite, and defeated the bill. That is, it would have passed 56-41 but didn't have the 60 necessary votes to get past the filibuster.
The amount of oil in the wildlife refuge is estimated to be negligible on a larger scale, and would take a decade or more to develop. And yet there are still no federal programs encouraging people to insulate their homes, or encouraging large-scale research on alternative fuels.

Hey! I put this in the debate forum! wahoo!!!

[DCJenn]

Yay!

I know that Stevens and his peeps were up all night trying to get it passed. Glad no one bit.

Jenn

[SueC]

It's especially cheap that they tried to do it right before the holidays. You can't tell me that wasn't part of the strategy to attach it to bills they needed to wrap up before Christmas.

[Rapunzel]

That's a common tactic used by both major political parties. It's a cheap one, granted, but it's been around for a while.

[PrincessFiona]

FABULOUS...I hadn't heard this yet! I'm so glad that they finally stood up for what was best and not what was popular...even if it means not supporting some bills that are necessary. Hopefully, they'll get tacked on to something else.

[Rapunzel]

Now, somebody remind me why we shouldn't tap into the United States' own oil reserves again....

I guess Saudi Arabia is a better option given that we don't yet have a viable fuel source to replace the current oil/gas option? I thought we all hated the oil companies and their evil connections to middle eastern despots?

Anyway, it seems a bit hypocritical to have a heart attack over researching our options in Alaska while also being upset that we "stole" Iraq "for oil" (remember the No Blud 4 Oil thing?). And, I really don't know - but have any of the people opposed to researching the oil field in Alaska given a viable alternative to our current dilemma which involves the huge need for oil to run our nation and the fact that we get that oil from some fairly unstable totalitarian regimes?

I just see this as way more than a black and white issue. It involves foreign policy, national security, and the economy among many other subjects.

[Michele]

What about requiring car companies to make their cars/SUVs more efficient? And strongly discouraging people from driving tanks? I personally don't think the larger SUVs and Hummer's should be allowed on the road.

And wouldn't that Alaskan oil only last us about a year anyway?

[DCJenn]

The bottleneck isn't with the crude, it's with the production which isn't even done in Alaska.

There's no reason to drill for as Michelle points out, very little oil to start with.

AND, the car companies are once again asking congress for hand-outs because lo and behold they're all going out of business. AND when congress had the opporuntiy to require that all cars and trucks have mandatory increases in gas mileage, they balked. (and moved light pick-ups to the truck status instead of the same expectation as cars, even though there are cars that are bigger than the smaller pick-ups.)

So, no, there's no reason to start drilling when the answer lies in 1) making production more efficient and 2) decreasing our dependence in more environmentally friendly ways.

(and Congress can start by commuting to work. I'm tired of nearly getting run over by their limos. and Hastert has SEVERAL vehicles escort him AND the Capitol Police sit all day in their cars with the motors running.)

Jenn

[spotty_dog]

Now, somebody remind me why we shouldn't tap into the United States' own oil reserves again....

Assuming the most optimistic estimates and assuming we could extract the oil instantaneously, this is one year's worth of supply insofar as meeting all of the US needs for energy.

In reality, it will take 30 years to extract. It will provide hundreds of jobs to Alaskans. And it will offer a nearly imperceptible trickle of assistance to our mounting energy problem.

At best, ANWR offers a few years' delay of the inevitable. The peak is here, and if we make it a plateau instead, how does that help us in the long run? I'm the first to step up and say that any ideals of preserving a fabulous wild space are highly overinflated. But that doesn't mean that a bad precedent isn't being set when we view every single stretch of land in this country as a resource to be tapped rather than a heritage to pass untouched to our children.

Rather than sink money into developing (admittedly ecologically sound) oil fields in the far North, I'm much more in favor of using toward a PERMANENT solution to a serious problem.

[PrincessFiona]

Now, somebody remind me why we shouldn't tap into the United States' own oil reserves again....

I think the biggest problem here is that from 'tapping' to actual production of usable oil we'd have a 10-30 year wait like Allison said....then, the best estimates of oil there (by the US Geographic Survey are between ~1.9 billion barrels of oil...(95% chance) and 5.3 billion barrels (50% chance) http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm

Although this all sounds like a lot of oil, the US actually consumes something like 20 million barrels a DAY..... http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/internation ... nsumptionA

So...that would be...7.3 billion barrels annually......

The arctic reserves in Alaska just won't provide enough oil to justify the environmental impact as well as the cost of drilling, clean-up, refining, etc.....even if the best case scenario of 5.3 billion barrels were realized.

The bottom line is that the US has 3% of the world's energy reserves, but consumes 25% of the world's energy. We're not going to be able to just 'drill that away'. We need to become more energy conscious and conserve...this is a great opportunity for the US to become world leaders in the field of renewable resources, etc.....I think it's better to look at stimulating the economy by exploring development of 'clean' energy and innovation by creating jobs in new industries as opposed to throwing more money into the pockets of often corrupt big oil companies.

kris

This is BS.
Cars in 1985 were more fuel efficent than what is on the road now. If we would have just kept on the fuel efficency bandwagon this wouldn't be a big whoop.


Now, someone explain to me how the hell natural gas got to be just as, if not more, expensive than heating oil? NG isn't imported from overseas, is it?

[SueC]

I was wondering that about the natural gas thing too, Arborea.
Another thing I've been wondering about is why ethanol blends aren't more prevalent. In Iowa, you can buy gas that is partially made from corn, but we've not seen it anywhere else.

I think its a farmland thing, the ethanol. We've had it for decades here in WI.

[DCJenn]

Our summer gas is formulated with something else, but I forget what. It might be ethanol. If I were motivated, I'd look it up...

The winter gas is straight-up...

Jenn

[fluffhead]

Both ethanol and MTBE are oxygenates, which help reduce the carbon-monoxide in emissions, reducing smog.
Ethanol can be produced from corn.
MTBE is a huge moneymaker for petroleum refiners.
Guess which one is more popular?
In any case, people started reporting adverse health effects 10-15 years ago from MTBE fumes, and MTBE has been found in ground water in formerly pristine environments, because it travels so rapidly. It has been banned in a few states, and I believe the federal EPA may be considering writing a white paper looking into investigating the possibility of reports of some epidemiological evidence of a small segment of the population blah blah blah.

(by the way, I believe the earlier reference to our reserves was referring to the strategic oil reserves, not our untapped natural resources...Clinton had refused to release oil from the strategic reserves, and I guess that's now a point of contention)