ANWR restrictions lifted in tax bill

Senate passes tax bill with ANWR drilling measure

Apparently there was a measure slipped into this tax bill to lift the federal restriction on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The measure to open ANWR, written by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, requires the federal government to hold two lease sales within seven years, in a 1.5-million-acre section of the coastal plain. The first lease sale must be held within four years, and could lead to drilling and oil production.

Of course environmentalists and some wildlife conservationists aren't too thrilled, and I'm sure this will get tied up in court for years.

Republicans are handing a "fat lump of coal" to Americans who worry about wildlife in the refuge or climate change caused by burning fossil fuels, said Brett Hartl, government affairs director with the Center for Biological Diversity.

I'm wondering how members who live in Alaska feel about this? I was stationed there from 2014-2016, my last assignment before I retired. From what I observed, the state could really use the potential economic benefits from this. What used to be a wealthy state has been struggling in recent years because of ballooning spending and entitlements. Of course there are some negatives to consider, but let's be clear this doesn't allow oil and gas companies to just run in and do whatever they want. I personally think the federal government never should've been involved in this in the first place. The state is more than capable of managing their resources and deciding where they want to allow drilling. From what I saw when I lived there, Alaskans are very appreciative of what they have, and they are mostly enthusiastic about protecting it. I'm confident they can strike a balance with allowing some drilling and still preserving the habitat and the wildlife.

On a side note, if you haven't been, I advise everyone to save up for a trip to Alaska. I've been to about 35 states and 5 countries, and it's far and away the most beautiful place I've ever seen. Don't just do the cruise either. Pretty much everything you can see on the cruise, you can see inland, and more. In my opinion, your best bet is to fly into Anchorage, explore that area for a few days (there is lots to do in and around Anchorage), and then take the Alaska Railroad to other parts of the state.

Isn't it amazing that GW was unable to do this when he had the Senate and House? Makes me wonder about GW. Best buds with the Clintons and so on.

Anyway, another Trump win.

I am fortunate enough to have visited Alaska. An unbelievably beautiful state. It is breath taking. I saw glaciers calving. Hike to top of a glacier where it was bright white with snow as far as the eye could see. Some straight out of National Geographic sh*t. Saw Denali. Bears. Ate salmon caught swimming upstream during spawning. Air was so crisp and clean it almost hurt to breathe. Saw like a billion stars in the night sky w/o the ambient city lights messing up the sky.

I am somewhat of a loner and have dreams of having a small cabin on a lake out in the middle of nowhere in Alaska. However, Alaska can keep them Skeeters. Good lord, need to drop an Atomic Deet bomb on the entire state.

a reply to: face23785

I for one thinks this is s shame and should not be implemented. This will equate to short term financial gain at the expense of long term environmental disaster.

a reply to: face23785

Meh.

Most people don't care about the national government up here. Except when they tie up fishing rights or sue a dude who's boat broke down and he "technically" landed in a wildlife refuge and was sued (suit was dropped).

I'm protective over our senators being slagged on by "outsiders" even if I totally disagree with them politically (or their decisions influenced/made from a political slant). Like this one. There was no need to pretend to give the appearance of "slipping one in" at all. If the oil is needed then follow process and have it voted on by the people's representatives. If it passes it passes; if it fails, it fails. Tax rider... sheesh.

I glossed over a story this morning saying something that the US is going to surpass Saudi Arabia in oil production in January of next year. We do not need ANWR. We do not need the headache of the ship load of lawsuits. Even if they discover oil how the h3ll are they going to get it to the pipeline?

Besides our a-hole of a governor thinks he spend Alaskan's money to get a gas pipeline built. He's done close door sessions. He's trying to sell no-bid gas to the East. He held the state senate over in special session demanding they vote to approve his pipeline. He is delusional. All Russia would have to do is open up one of their gas reserves they are sitting on and the price for natural gas would make the gov's beloved pipeline go bankrupt. He wants the state to have sole ownership! Which means sole liability! Brake the state? So much for vowing to uphold the state constitution!

So I vote, *meh*.

But don't let me speak for all Alaskans.

Remember, TEOT is a fusion fanboy. Nuclear fusion happens this whole point is moot.

I cede the floor!

It's really short sighted by some of you who think this is bad. These people need jobs and money, with that potential sitting right under their feet, and you want to tell them no. You do understand the people living there want this right? But, in your mind, behind your computer screen, in your cozy house, with the job you go to every weekday, they don't need it. Well, guess what, they do need it. I don't see any of you setting up a gofundme account for these poor to help them get by. These people in Alaska just want jobs, using their own land and you want to deny them that. Hypocrites.

I'm sure you have no problem turning your heat up when it's cold, or getting in your car to drive to work, burning gas. But, all of a sudden you're worried about the environment. Right.

Merry Christmas!

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: face23785

I for one thinks this is s shame and should not be implemented. This will equate to short term financial gain at the expense of long term environmental disaster.

Please show us some facts to back up this monumental claim.