Apparently Alaska is the solution to the oil crisis.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Bush: Oil drilling plan vital to national security

Source: Reuters
By Patricia Wilson

COLUMBUS, Ohio, March 9 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Wednesday America's dependence on foreign oil posed a national security problem and urged the U.S. Congress to open an Alaskan refuge to drilling "for the sake of our country."

With oil prices hovering around $55 a barrel and the United States more dependent than ever on foreign supplies to meet its energy needs, Bush called on lawmakers to allow oil and natural gas exploration in "a small corner" of Alaska's environmentally sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR.

"Congress needs to look at the science and look at the facts and send me a bill that includes exploration in ANWR for the sake of our country," he said in a speech on energy policy.

Environmentalists oppose drilling in ANWR, saying it would destroy the habitat of the area's polar bears, caribou and other wildlife.

Democrats and some moderate Republicans in the U.S. Senate also oppose such drilling and say more emphasis ought to be placed on energy conservation and exploration of new technology to help quench America's thirst for oil.

Bush rejected the idea that ANWR exploration and environmental protection were incompatible, calling it a "false choice."

He said drilling would be carried out on a parcel of land in the 19-million-acre Arctic refuge "the size of the Columbus airport" with almost no impact on land or local wildlife.

"We need to work together in Washington," he said. "We have had four years of debate ... now is the time to get the job done."

The United States imports more than half its oil from abroad. According to the Energy Department, that amounted to 11.8 million barrels of crude oil a day last year, with 2.4 million barrels a day coming from the Persian Gulf.

"Think about that," Bush said. "More than half of the oil that we consume in order to maintain our lifestyles comes from overseas or abroad and our dependence is growing."

"I believe that creates a national security issue and an economic security issue for the United States and that's why its important for us to utilize the resources we have here at home."

Giving oil companies access to ANWR's potential 16 billion barrels of crude is a key part of Bush's overall energy plan but the Senate has rejected multiple attempts to open it to drilling. With 55 Republican senators -- four more than in the last Congress -- some lawmakers are hopeful about getting it through.

In a show of confidence that it will win the battle, the White House included in its 2006 budget $2.4 billion in fees it expects the Interior Department to collect from leasing land in the refuge for oil drilling.

Bush sent Congress a national energy plan four years ago he said would increase domestic crude oil and natural gas supplies, modernize the electric grid, build more nuclear power plants, develop alterative energy sources and promote conservation.

The federal government has predicted retail gasoline prices this spring will hit a record high -- reaching a national monthly average of $2.15 a gallon -- on the heels of soaring crude oil prices.

Bush called the extra cost to consumers "a drag on the economy."

"Higher prices at the gas pump and rising home heating bills and the possibility of blackout are legitimate concerns for all Americans," he said. "It's hard to plan with confidence if you're not sure the lights are going to stay on." (Additional reporting by Tom Doggett in Washington)

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[BETO74 0]

On top of things, the president of Venezuela threat Bush with cutting the oil for the USA, I really don't know how old this article is but the barrils the Vzla is selling to the US is going for $80 and they believe can go up to $100 before the end of the year.

The Vzla political problems, also following the steps of Cuba only a lot more dangerous since the contry has money coming from oil, which interest China, Cuba and other south american countries who are now becoming Socialist contries or soft communist.

Yes I do believe is a matter of National Security become energy/indepent from others countries.

I'm not an expert but last year we paid up to $2.30 per/gal due to the political problem in Vzla after they cut the oil production on a strike against the goverment, as I write this the Vzlan goberment is trying to sell CITGO to what I believe is a plan fron Chavez to stop giving oil to the US, he already had marketted the oil to India and China to supplement the revenue when this cut happens.

http://web.mac.com/ac057a/iWeb/AC057A/H0M3.html

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Bush made this speech yesterday, March 9th 2005.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[steve1 5]

Quote

Bush: Oil drilling plan vital to national security

reply]

What a grand excuse to rape a protected area....Steve1

• Quote

[billvon 3,080]

>President George W. Bush . . urged the U.S. Congress to open an
>Alaskan refuge to drilling "for the sake of our country."

Exactly! Why eliminate our dependence on foreign oil with new transportation technologies when we can offset it slightly by drilling in a preserve?

If we don't drill in Alaska, then the terrorists will have won. Only someone who hates american could be against drilling. Oh yeah, and we're protecting freedom, too. How can anyone be against freedom?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

What a grand excuse to rape a protected area....Steve1

Yeah better to let middle east and Venezuela, etc "rape" their areas.

I mean if we drilled for our own oil, then the drilling would be subject to our laws and controls and probably be done cleaner and more enviro-friendly than the other countries. They can do whatever they want and we can't establish standards. If oil is needed, what do you think is better for the world, not just the US?

It's a lot like throwing your trash into the neighbors lawn. Except these countries get rich off it while we just keep sending our dollars out of the country.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DrunkMonkey 0]

For once I agree with Rush Limbaugh. There was a shitfit thrown by the environmental lobby when we put in the pipeline in AK. They thought it would decimate the Caribou. (can you say "Caribou" and not sound Canadian?) Turns out the Caribou flourished, as they flocked to the warmth the pipeline put out...

If it means 10,000 fewer dead soldiers because we dont invade Venezuela or Syria, I've got one thing to say: "Move over Rudolph, I gotta put a drilling platform here..."

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

>President George W. Bush . . urged the U.S. Congress to open an
>Alaskan refuge to drilling "for the sake of our country."

Exactly! Why eliminate our dependence on foreign oil with new transportation technologies when we can offset it slightly by drilling in a preserve?

If we don't drill in Alaska, then the terrorists will have won. Only someone who hates american could be against drilling. Oh yeah, and we're protecting freedom, too. How can anyone be against freedom?

Don't even need new technolgies, just closing the loopholes in the CAFE fuel efficiency standards would make a big difference. Why are SUVs and minivans exempted?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

What a grand excuse to rape a protected area....Steve1

Yeah better to let middle east and Venezuela, etc "rape" their areas.

I mean if we drilled for our own oil, then the drilling would be subject to our laws and controls and probably be done cleaner and more enviro-friendly than the other countries. They can do whatever they want and we can't establish standards. If oil is needed, what do you think is better for the world, not just the US?

It's a lot like throwing your trash into the neighbors lawn. Except these countries get rich off it while we just keep sending our dollars out of the country.

Drilling in ALaska will produce estimated around 10 billion barrels. If we took 1.5 billion each year, that would take around 15% away from foreign consumption sure, but ONLY FOR 20 YEARS. Until that dries up and we are forced to search for more elsewhere. In the end, the amount of oil in Alaska is not that significant.


Instead, maybe we should change how we use oil. We could start by getting rid of the loophole that allows SUV's to be gas guzzlers with no tax punishment. THat would make SUV's more expensive and probably result in less production of gas hogging vehicles.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

"instead"

Why instead, why not both? (is it only Alaska? what about the Gulf, off shore, other states - that's being restricted domestically......)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,080]

>If it means 10,000 fewer dead soldiers because we dont invade
>Venezuela or Syria, I've got one thing to say: "Move over Rudolph, I
>gotta put a drilling platform here..."

Here's the problem.

We will eventually run out of cheap oil. The entire world will be drilled and there will be no cheap oil left anywhere. On that day, if we have not planned for it, World War III will start. The alternative is to watch our economy collapse - and our economy is the one thing that makes us a superpower.

If, on that day, we have a reserve left in Alaska, we will be able to prop up our oil-based economy for just a little while - get enough oil to run our military and some minimal amount of transportation while we scramble to get nuclear power and gravity powered transportation on line. Will it be enough? Just maybe - if we leave it alone. Right now we have the cheapest gas on the planet; we sure as hell don't need it now.

So you're trying to save 10,000 soldiers. I'm trying to save ten million americans. Americans do not like planning for the future, but this one time, I think we should make an exception.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

"instead"

Why instead, why not both? (is it only Alaska? what about the Gulf, off shore, other states - that's being restricted domestically......)

For the very reasons billvon just stated.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[steve1 5]

I suppose it's only a matter of time before further drilling is done on the North Slope. I've hunted and camped up there and I personally hate to see the place roaded up and covered with construction camps, any more than it is.

I think we've already ruined enough states in the name of greed. Lot's of people think why not ruin just one more area, even though it's probably one of the last places like it anywhere in the world. I've never thought about myself being called an environmentalist. I spent over ten years working as a timber faller, but maybe I am kind of a tree hugger now.

An important question is how much oil is really up there. I've heard it will only be a very temporary solution to our oil crunch.

To people who care little about nature and wildlife this probably sounds great. It's kind of like Bush's master plan to log the shit out of our remaining forests in the name of combating forest fires.
I still can't figure out how that's supposed to work.

I love my country, but I don't trust it's leadership....Steve1

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

and more enviro-friendly than the other countries

You honsetly think this administration would do anything to make it enviro friendly? The same one that rolled back changes and made huge cuts at the EPA?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

We could start by getting rid of the loophole that allows SUV's to be gas guzzlers with no tax punishment.

What gets me is the technology for better, more fuel efficient yuppie vehicles (aka oversized minivans) exist. We could start by putting that into production NOW! Instead we have loopholes that has all the money makers in no rush to implement changes. This time next year we should be at $3/gallon for 87 octane. Who here is ready to pay that?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

and more enviro-friendly than the other countries

You honsetly think this administration would do anything to make it enviro friendly? The same one that rolled back changes and made huge cuts at the EPA?

Do you honestly think that other countries have cleaner or more restrictive enviro requirements than we do? If you travel abroad, go ahead and smell the air. We do a better job in relative sense than most. Could we do better? sure, should we? that's the question


I like Bill's reasoning - strategic reserve is a good idea and makes logical sense. the enviro-friendly argument is a herring and only good for emotional argument as we could do it clean enough without "camps" and excessive roads etc.

Come up with the alternate power source and a cost effective way to distribute it. You'll be mistunderstood and ignored today, but in 20 years you are rich.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Casurf1978 0]

Read the DOE report of the impact of drilling in the refuge. Just some tid bits from that report:

"The increased production [from the refuge] is projected to reduce net share of foreign oil used by the US consumer in 2020 (2020 not 2005 or 2006) from 62 to 60 percent"

At peak production (reached in 2020) oil from the reserve would be 800K barrels a day.

The first drop of oil woud not flow till 2011, if drilling were started in 2002.

Why does this admin have a boner for this region when the same report states the refuge only has 7.7Billion barrells compared to the 136Billion barrells available outside the Artic refuge.

It seems that this admin is only looking at one side to this equation: drill for more oil. Like Kallend said why are SUVs and mini vans exempt from the fuel effiency tax. Why dont we start on the consumption side rather than just looking for more oil.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Why does this admin have a boner for this region when the same report states the refuge only has 7.7Billion barrells compared to the 136Billion barrells available outside the Artic refuge.

Because Bush has friends that will make money from it. Plus he can claim he is doing something about the energy crisis and people will believe him. If it fails he then has something he can pin on the democrats (can't you just hear him now "they don't want to protect our economy and create jobs but I do").

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[steve1 5]

Quote

[
the enviro-friendly argument is a herring and only good for emotional argument as we could do it clean enough without "camps" and excessive roads etc.
.

Most certainly this is an emotional issue! If the government said we need to turn your front yard into a garbage dump in the name of national security...wouldn't you get emotional? Sure you could probably get used to the clutter and stink, but would you really want to? Is this really a matter of national security, or just more double talk by a slick politician?

That's kind of how I feel about it. This is one of the last places left that hasn't been spoiled by man. New pipelines, roads, and camps, are a necassary part of oil production. So I wonder what you mean when you say "we can do it clean enough without camps and excessive roads".....Steve1

[crozby 0]

Quote

Do you honestly think that other countries have cleaner or more restrictive enviro requirements than we do? If you travel abroad, go ahead and smell the air. We do a better job in relative sense than most. Could we do better? sure, should we? that's the question

if that were the case maybe the USA would have got involved with the Kyoto agreement. but it isn't.

[billvon 3,080]

>Come up with the alternate power source and a cost effective way
>to distribute it. You'll be mistunderstood and ignored today, but in
>20 years you are rich.

I agree - IF we start pricing energy for its total cost, not just the cost to extract it. Coal is cheap right now because the cost of burning it (around 30,000 deaths a year, and millions of cases of asthma, emphysema etc) is not included in its cost. If you came up with a source of energy that was three times more expensive than coal, but produced absolutely no pollution, it would (in the long run) be far cheaper than coal. But it will never sell in the US until we start figuring out how to include external costs in energy costs.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Come up with the alternate power source and a cost effective way
>to distribute it. You'll be mistunderstood and ignored today, but in
>20 years you are rich.

I agree - IF we start pricing energy for its total cost, not just the cost to extract it. Coal is cheap right now because the cost of burning it (around 30,000 deaths a year, and millions of cases of asthma, emphysema etc) is not included in its cost. If you came up with a source of energy that was three times more expensive than coal, but produced absolutely no pollution, it would (in the long run) be far cheaper than coal. But it will never sell in the US until we start figuring out how to include external costs in energy costs.

I read something recently about research into filters that would extract many of the harmful contaminent and carcinogens from coal. This type of research will hopefully produce at least a short term solution. I also hope that with the price of gasoline at the pump increasing, we will invest in the research we should have been doing for the last 30 years.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

if that were the case maybe the USA would have got involved with the Kyoto agreement. but it isn't.

I don't understand where you're going here - are you saying that the US is the dirtiest country on the planet? Again, go to Bangkok/Tokyo/London/Paris and breath the air. Come back and tell me what you think.

The Kyoto discussion is a bad tactic - it doesn't relate to the environment. Do a ton of searches here on Kyoto - it wasn't about every country pitching in and cleaning the environment it was about who had to pick up the bill and allowing the worst offenders to waive the requirements. Why do you think congress overwhelmingly rejected it?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,080]

>I read something recently about research into filters that would
>extract many of the harmful contaminent and carcinogens from coal.

That's good; it would keep metals like mercury, arsenic, uranium, thorium etc out of the air. The bad news is that now you have millions of tons of ash containing mercury, arsenic, uranium, and thorium to put somewhere. And we're talking millions of tons - in 2001 we produced 120 millions tons of ash, and it's both toxic and somewhat radioactive. And that's without those better filtration systems you mention above. Where do you put 120+ million tons of toxic radioactive waste? Right now it just goes in unlined pits, but that's not a good idea.

There are many programs out there trying to use coal combustion products in cement, primarily as a way to get rid of it (it replaces sand and limestone) but that leaves you with slightly radioactive and toxic structures. Probably OK for overpasses, but not schools or dams. And you have to handle it very differently than normal concrete in terms of controlling dust.

So you still have the same problem in the long run (although the stuff is easier to deal with as a solid.)

[billvon 3,080]

>it wasn't about every country pitching in and cleaning the environment it
> was about who had to pick up the bill and allowing the worst offenders to
> waive the requirements.

We ARE the worst offenders, and we didn't have the reqirements waived.

>Why do you think congress overwhelmingly rejected it?

Because it was politically unpopular. The prisoner's dilemma again.