BS: Need Oil? Drill in the Arctic!

Subject: BS: Need Oil? Drill in the Arctic!
From: GUEST,WYS
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 10:40 PM

Just heard there's a big vote due tomorrow that is supposed to "save" us from these awful oil/gas prices in the US. (I'm agin it, in case you missed the sarcasm dripping from the thread title.)

Best get ready to fight for the wilderness (again) before the hysterial over Delay catches folks napping.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Need Oil? Drill in the Arctic!
From: GUEST,WYS
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 10:48 PM

House votes for oil drilling in Alaskan refuge
Stage set for clash with Senate; Bush wants energy bill by summer
The Associated Press

Updated: 10:28 p.m. ET April 20, 2005 WASHINGTON - The House voted late Wednesday to allow oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge as part of a broad energy bill that Democrats said would funnel billions of dollars to highly profitable energy companies while doing little to promote conservation or ease gasoline prices.

The bill's sponsors said oil from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as much as a million barrels a day, will be needed to help curtail the country's growing dependence on oil imports. Opponents argued the oil wouldn't be available for a decade and even then at levels that would not significantly affect oil prices or imports.

The bill calls for $8.1 billion in tax breaks over 10 years, most of it going to promote coal, nuclear, oil and natural gas energy industries.

Final vote expected Thursday

A final vote on the energy legislation is expected by the House on Thursday.

Bush wants 'important signal'

President Bush called for Congress to give him an energy bill by this summer and "send an important signal" that the country "is serious about solving America's energy problems." Congress has failed to agree on energy legislation, despite repeated tries, during the last four years.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California accused Bush of trying to exploit people's anxiety over high gas prices to gain support for a bill that she said "was written by energy lobbyists for the benefit of the energy industry." She said it would neither lower energy prices nor curtail America's growing reliance on oil imports.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the legislation's floor leader, called the bill balanced and said if it becomes law it will provide for a more diversified array of domestic energy sources from coal, oil and gas to nuclear and renewable such energy from biomass, ethanol and wind.

The $8 billion solution?

"Midterm and long term, if the bill becomes law, we'll see prices stabilized," Barton said at a news conference with Majority Leader Tom DeLay, also of Texas, who accused Democrats of being "obstructionists."

"There are those that do not want a solution, they just want the bill to fail," DeLay said.

The House bill would include more than $8.1 billion in tax breaks, almost all directed at traditional energy industries; allow oil exploration in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska; and make it easier to build liquefied natural gas import terminals, even if states or local communities oppose the project.

Some lawmakers were incensed that they could not debate on the House floor a provision in the bill that would give makers of MTBE, a gasoline additive that is contaminating drinking water, a shield against product liability lawsuits by communities facing expensive cleanup costs.

The bill gives MTBE makers "safe harbor" and will leave communities and water districts with billions of dollars in cleanup costs, said Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., who had prepared an amendment to remove the MTBE section. She also wanted to remove a provision that gives MTBE makers, including some of the biggest oil companies, $2 billion in transition assistance as MTBE is phased out over the next nine years. GOP leaders did not accept either amendment.

Additive issue a DeLay priority

The MTBE liability issue has been a top priority for DeLay, who was instrumental in getting into the legislation a measure that would funnel $2 billion over 10 years for research into recovering oil and gas from extremely deep areas of the Gulf of Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: Need Oil? Drill in the Arctic!
From: GUEST,katlaughing coming in through the backdoor
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 11:15 PM

As far as I know, the facts I wrote way back in 2000, when the shrub first took to the scene, still hold true: click here. One of the most important points being:

During the Reagan administration, the Department of Interior found there was a chance of less than one in five of ever finding recoverable oil in the ANWR. If oil companies beat those odds and strike pay dirt, both the Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey have said it would most likely amount to a mere 3.2 million barrels, which would only last a few months in meeting the needs of American consumers. It would also take about ten years to even hit the market. Ninety-five percent of Alaska's North Slope is available for oil exploration. Oil companies expect to step up their production on the North Slope with forecasted increases of 15-17%, all without opening any of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. © Oobraughloo Press

Subject: RE: BS: Need Oil? Drill in the Arctic!
From: GUEST,WYS
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 07:54 AM

Folks, this needs action TODAY.

Subject: RE: BS: Need Oil? Drill in the Arctic!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 08:00 AM

Supposedly we are using 6 barrels for every new one we find.

Doesn't take much to figure out what is going to happen eventually!

Subject: RE: BS: Need Oil? Drill in the Arctic!
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 09:08 AM

This thread is off to some inaccurate statements. I'm going to revive my ANWR thread right now. Meanwhile, enjoy this other thread which you are about to re-create:

Oil Will Run Out Thread

Subject: RE: BS: Need Oil? Drill in the Arctic!
From: GUEST,WYS
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:11 AM

Thanks, robo!!!!!

ANWR THREAD

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Need Oil? Drill in the Arctic!
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 03:18 PM

Need Oil? Discover fuel efficiency.

Subject: RE: BS: Need Oil? Drill in the Arctic!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 02:06 PM

Need oil?.......Run the vacuum cleaner over Toady B Liar.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Need Oil? Drill in the Arctic!
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 02:25 PM

The experts also told us that there was little possibility of finding oil when we originally drilled in Alaska.   Today it is the largest oil reserve in North America.

In 1971 the non opec oil reserves were estimated at 200 billion barrels.   Since than we have drilled 400 billion barrels and have an estimated oil reserve at 209 billion barrles.   (Stephanie Battles survey manager for the EIA division of the department of Energy as reported at the Fed Reserve bank energy seminar last month)   Our reserve is larger today than in 1971.

California showed that conservation alone can't do it.   They were the largest conservers or energy but has numerous blackouts and skyrocketing rates.   We need new oil reserves until a transition can be made to renewable energy.

BTW- I celebrated earth day today by setting a guniness record by planting 4200 trees within one hour between Detroit, Atlanta, and Seattle.   Detroit Lion all pro returner Eddie Drummond was at the event.    He was a real good guy and went out of his way for the kids.   I was very impressed.