It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Senate endorses oil drilling in Arctic wildlife refuge

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 01:50 AM
The U.S Senate has finally voted to allow oil drilling in the arctic wildlife refuge, with the caveat that it will not be exported, but held solely for U.S consumption.
"Increasing our domestic energy supply will help lower gasoline prices and utility bills," he said in a statement. "We can and should produce more crude oil here at home in environmentally responsible ways. The most promising site for oil in America is a 2,000-acre site in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and thanks to technology, we can reach this energy with little impact on the land or wildlife."

Bush and other drilling advocates argue that the country needs the estimated 10.5 billion barrels of oil that are believed to lie beneath the refuges coastal tundra in northeastern Alaska and slow the growing dependence on oil imports. The United States now uses about 7.3 billion barrels of oil a year.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

While I do believe that safeguards and restrictions should be put in place before drilling starts in order to insure the safety of wildlife in the refuge, we have got to take advantage of this source to decrease our dependence upon foriegn oil. Yes, there are other technologies in the works, but they will take time to develope and implement. We need this now before its too late. I just hope the House gets with the program.

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 02:04 AM
What they fail to mention is that the impact they do make on the land will take hundreds of years if not thousands to undo. The arctic enviorment is very fragile and not like your normal forested area. I think this move is one of the worst things that could happen and just goes to show you what greed and a little fear in peoples pocket books can accomplish.

Whats the point of setting aside arctic refuges anyway if later on when we decide hey.. we forgot we need that you, go in and destroy it. Pretty soon theres going to be nothing left untouched.

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 02:22 AM
Money drives Senate, and it is sad to see this... And again the environment will have to suffer the greediness of mens.

Where the leaders for the people gone? To prisons as threat to nazional fascism security?

[edit on 4-11-2005 by Vitchilo]

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 02:07 PM
so you guys are saying we should just sit on our collective rears and continue our dependency on foriegn oil, and all the problems associated with it, just because a few caraboo may have to move 10 or 15 miles away to graze safely? i'm sorry, but that is just ignorant. i'm all for being friendly to the environment, but not so drastically that we destroy ourselves in the meantime.

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 02:14 PM
What would an influx of new oil do for the problems that we presently face?
The oil refineries are already working at peak so drilling this new oil would do nothing to reducing the energy costs now or even in the future.
Yes tapping the reserves in Alaska would take some of the dependency that we presently have on other nations but it would do nothing to lower the cost of fuel. All it will do is destroy some very beautiful and precious land.
We instead need to push harder at finding alternative energy sources. Developing them so that they can assume the burden that we have with oil.
Edited for spelling

[edit on 4-11-2005 by kenshiro2012]

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 02:39 PM
yes, and that was said above in the initial report...we need to find other sources of energy, but as that is a long process, we need a stopgap measure in the meantime.

the environmentalists are the reason we dont have a larger refining capability. no new refineries have been built in over 20 years because it is just too costly to comply with all the new government restrictions. as i said before, it is all well and good to be environmentally minded, but not at the expense of our own way of life.

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 02:49 PM
you are correct in that there have been no new refineries built for 20+ years but do not blame it on the environmentalists alone. A majority of the opponents to building new refineries have not been the environmentalists but everyday citizens as well as the local goverments who all decry the building of the refineries in "their backyards" This aspect is one that has been around since the 70's.

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 03:01 PM
This is an outrage
How dare they do something like this. We should be focusing on alternatives then makeing the oil companys happy and content so they don't have to face the real world.
This just proves two things:
1. how Big Business is only thinking about themselves and not the real picture


2. You can basicly bribe the senators to sign anything if you just have enough leverage.

They are supposed to be the peoples represenitives, not in it for themselves ( not just refering to this endoresment ). I am outraged by their action, even though its not a shocker compared to other things.

- Dagger

[edit on 4-11-2005 by Dagger]

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 03:12 PM
umm, dagger, i have two questions:

1. do you have any proof to back up any of your remarks?

2. did you actually read the article and the other posts?

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 03:30 PM
The US entered into the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America on the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd back in 1987.

Where an activity in one country is determined to be likely to cause significant long-term adverse impact on the Porcupine Caribou Herd or its habitat, the other Party will be notified and given an opportunity to consult prior to final decision.

Activities requiring a Party's approval having potential significant impact on the conservation or use of the Porcupine Caribou Herd or its habitat may require mitigation.

So when do we get consulted? (rhetorical question, answer: never)

There are people who depend on the Porcupine Caribou as their primary food source and the proposed drilling sites are right in the calving area.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by Duzey]

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 03:50 PM
now that, duzey, is the way to gripe! i had no idea of these facts. very nice post!

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 03:56 PM
Also, if this is to only to help remove dependance on foreign oil, why reject a plan that would require the oil to stay in the US. Instead it will be able to be sold to other countries.


The Senate Energy Committee also rejected a proposal from Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon that would have prevented ANWR oil production from being exported to China or other foreign markets.

Opponents to the Wyden proposal said the Congress does not prohibit Texas or Louisiana from exporting their oil.

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 04:04 PM
I have some questions-

1.) Why do we need to drill in Alaska when making cars just slightly more fuel efficient would do far more to ween us off foreign oil dependency?

2.) Why do we need to drill in Alaska when all the news has been talking about regarding oil lately is how we have too much of it, not too little? (The problem is with refineries, not supply.)

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 04:05 PM
Snaf... new oil sources like biodiesel are not a long term take time solution at all. All crops needed for production are annual crops.. sugar cane and rape/canola seeds.. hey even hemp seeds which are high oil producers could be used....

It would take less time to set up a biodiesel plant than it would to set up a drilling operation in the wildreness..Leave our wildernesses alone....

We cannot continue to rape the planets resources willy nilly.. this is the time... this is the important era of our future.. this is the point we either destroy ourselves and our planets resources or preserve to ensure the planet can sustain us for a long long time....

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 05:28 PM
Right on, Mayet.

Between methanol, ethanol, hemp, and quinoa, we could solve a good 90% of the energy and food requirements of the world today (localized and large-scale).

Many use the argument that methanol is derived from drilled crude as a deterrent. However, methanol can be produced VERY quickly in large amounts using various forms of biomass gasification. The mixing of a few additives to reduce fuming can help with toxicity issues.

Ethanol, our ol' PGA buddy, can also be used for fuels.

Hemp has all the hydrocarbons we need for most of the plastics we currently rely on crude for, and is continuously renewable.

Hemp has high nutritive value as well, most of the plant being edible, is a complete protein provider, and it can be grown most anywhere...why is it illegal again? Oh yeah, tobacco and cotton...hmmm....

Well, quinoa isn't illegal (yet) and it is, if anything, more prolific than hemp. Again, everything that's said about hemp can be said for quinoa. It even grows in cold climates and upper mountainsides... And the grain is quite tasty.

There's really no need for us to be dependant on oil AT ALL right now.

There are already people converting existing vehicles for the use of methanol and ethanol, including parts that resist their corrosive effects.

Biodiesel is a shoe-in. I've seen estimates that biodiesel can be made small and large scale for as little as $1.50 a gallon. Hmmm...

So, why do we need ANWR?

Whatever the reason, I'm not sure we should break out the "environment" as a reason. I find it hard to believe that the drilling and use of crude is all that "damaging" to our environment.

Reason? Consider: The rot and decay of all carbon-based lifeforms on this planet produce carbon di- and monoxide, water, and other free variables. Crude oil is the many-million-year product of buried, decaying lifeforms. Had these not been buried for millions of years, they would have re-entered the cycle of the Earth's biosystem. While the re-entry of this carbonation may assist in other natural changes (such as global warming, and eventually an ice age, perhaps), it is by no means the sole cause.

I would be more afraid of an approaching:
ice age,
super eruption, or
than a direct threat on our environment.

Maybe we're beyond trying to reverse the problem. Perhaps we should be worrying about surviving the effects. If any of the above happen, and God forbid all of them at once, we're all going to feel the effects in a big way. We're not going to be worrying about the friggin caribou, or the nice fragile ecosystem we're disrupting. And no doubt, people at that time are going to be pointing at the oil companies and governments, blaming them with their last volcanic-ash laden dying breaths.

Big question: How many of us use alternate fuel, or actually pursue it on a personal level. I'm looking into biodiesel for immediate personal use, with methanol as an eventual goal, but I know I still drive a gasoline automobile.

Bottom line: If you, personally, are not willing to directly do something about the issues you voice, how can you really place blame on anyone but yourself?

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:10 PM
The Gwi'chin, who are almost completely dependant on the caribou for their food source, should be punished because some people like driving cars?

This isn't about the environment to them, this is about survival. Their primary food source is being threatened.

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 07:05 PM

Originally posted by North Rider
What they fail to mention is that the impact they do make on the land will take hundreds of years if not thousands to undo.

Hogwash, They said the very same thing when they built the Alaska Pipeline decades ago and we have had no damage to the land area around the pipeline and drilling areas in Alaska. In fact it has helped the environment in some cases, not to mention created tens of thousands of jobs for Americans

Kudos to our elected officials for finally getting this pushed through which will benefit both Native Alaskans as well as furnish needed oil and possible natural gas for homes in the US.

Now if they can just get that darn pipeline for natural gas and oil built through Canada.

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 07:24 PM
What to said. . . I guess our oil barons don't make enough profits so now they have to do Alaska too.

I guess China market is looking really good for the barons to benefit from it.

As usual people is so blind that that they feel is all for the good of American and the American people.

What a joke. More power to the oil barons.

Mobile Exon and friends are drolling over the profits already.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by marg6043]

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 07:57 PM

from marg
I guess China market is looking really good for the barons to benefit from it.

marg, marg, don't be so sure...

The U.S Senate has finally voted to allow oil drilling in the arctic wildlife refuge, with the caveat that it will not be exported, but held solely for U.S consumption.

A single drilling platform takes up about 10 acres of land. The ANWR area is about 19.5 million acres. We're talking about allowing exploration & drilling on 1.5 milllion acres. Past drilling has shown that we can do many things to accommodate the migrating herds and to minimize the impact on the area. We need the oil; we need more refineries.

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 08:02 PM
The current administration has absolutely put the planet up for sale to the highest bidder. It is sad and disgusting. These clowns would destroy Mt. Rushmore if they thought they could mine minerals from under the mountain. This group has absolutely no shame.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in