Senate rejects ANWR drilling

[stephanie]

the Democrats don't give a shit about the little people...6 Republicans voted with the Democrats also..

Erika Bolstad
ebolstad@adn.com

Published: May 13th, 2008 04:00 PM
Last Modified: May 13th, 2008 04:01 PM

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Senate rejected a Republican energy plan that promised to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, an option that was part of an overall package to increase domestic energy development.

Instead, the Senate voted 97-1 to temporarily halt oil deposits in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while prices at the pump continue to climb.

Congress hopes that diverting fuel from the reserves to the open market will increase supply and ease prices at the pump.

But that's not enough, warned Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who has taken the place of her fellow Alaska Republican, Sen. Ted Stevens, as the leading advocate in the Senate for drilling in ANWR.

Congress needs to focus on legislation that encourages conservation and the development of alternative energy, Murkowski said. But it could take many years for such alternatives to quench the nation's thirst for oil. Until then, there's also a need to develop domestic sources of fossil fuels, Murkowski said.

"Increasing our production is part of a comprehensive energy policy," Murkowski said. "We cannot have an energy policy that is based on 'no.' "

SNIP:
Democrats don't want to open up ANWR to increase long-term supply, Stevens said, a move he believes will lower gas prices long-term. But the Democrats will support a halt to strategic reserve deposits to increase supply temporarily and theoretically lead to lower gas prices in the short term, Stevens said.

"They're the same people that say when we increase the supply by a million barrels a day, there could be no decrease in the price of gasoline," Stevens said. "They're siding with the extreme environmental movement and deciding that that's more important than the future of the country."

read it all..
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/404995.html

[Kathianne]

the Democrats don't give a shit about the little people...6 Republicans voted with the Democrats also..

Erika Bolstad
ebolstad@adn.com

Published: May 13th, 2008 04:00 PM
Last Modified: May 13th, 2008 04:01 PM

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Senate rejected a Republican energy plan that promised to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, an option that was part of an overall package to increase domestic energy development.

Instead, the Senate voted 97-1 to temporarily halt oil deposits in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while prices at the pump continue to climb.

Congress hopes that diverting fuel from the reserves to the open market will increase supply and ease prices at the pump.

But that's not enough, warned Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who has taken the place of her fellow Alaska Republican, Sen. Ted Stevens, as the leading advocate in the Senate for drilling in ANWR.

Congress needs to focus on legislation that encourages conservation and the development of alternative energy, Murkowski said. But it could take many years for such alternatives to quench the nation's thirst for oil. Until then, there's also a need to develop domestic sources of fossil fuels, Murkowski said.

"Increasing our production is part of a comprehensive energy policy," Murkowski said. "We cannot have an energy policy that is based on 'no.' "

SNIP:
Democrats don't want to open up ANWR to increase long-term supply, Stevens said, a move he believes will lower gas prices long-term. But the Democrats will support a halt to strategic reserve deposits to increase supply temporarily and theoretically lead to lower gas prices in the short term, Stevens said.

"They're the same people that say when we increase the supply by a million barrels a day, there could be no decrease in the price of gasoline," Stevens said. "They're siding with the extreme environmental movement and deciding that that's more important than the future of the country."

read it all..
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/404995.html

When gasoline hits $5.00 it will be better for me to not work. Actually it happens at $4. a gallon, but I enjoy teaching enough to go the wall, $5. is the wall, it becomes a losing proposition.

[AFbombloader]

One of the very few benefits to my being overseas right now is that my gas use has dropped in half. I don't drive over here. I wish soe of these damn congress men would think about us for a change, not the damn Caribou! They really don't give a shit! How many of them would think differently if they didn't have drivers and government cars and private planes? When was the last time any of them even paid to fill up a tank?

AF:salute:

[PostmodernProphet]

If you ever get a chance, it is interesting to log into Google Earth and focus the aerial camera on ANWR......you will see a small cluster of buildings, covering perhaps five acres of ground and hundreds of miles of rivers, swamp, and grass......the caribou would likely get lost trying to find a drilling platform.......

[bullypulpit]

the Democrats don't give a shit about the little people...6 Republicans voted with the Democrats also..

Erika Bolstad
ebolstad@adn.com

Published: May 13th, 2008 04:00 PM
Last Modified: May 13th, 2008 04:01 PM

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Senate rejected a Republican energy plan that promised to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, an option that was part of an overall package to increase domestic energy development.

Instead, the Senate voted 97-1 to temporarily halt oil deposits in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while prices at the pump continue to climb.

Congress hopes that diverting fuel from the reserves to the open market will increase supply and ease prices at the pump.

But that's not enough, warned Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who has taken the place of her fellow Alaska Republican, Sen. Ted Stevens, as the leading advocate in the Senate for drilling in ANWR.

Congress needs to focus on legislation that encourages conservation and the development of alternative energy, Murkowski said. But it could take many years for such alternatives to quench the nation's thirst for oil. Until then, there's also a need to develop domestic sources of fossil fuels, Murkowski said.

"Increasing our production is part of a comprehensive energy policy," Murkowski said. "We cannot have an energy policy that is based on 'no.' "

SNIP:
Democrats don't want to open up ANWR to increase long-term supply, Stevens said, a move he believes will lower gas prices long-term. But the Democrats will support a halt to strategic reserve deposits to increase supply temporarily and theoretically lead to lower gas prices in the short term, Stevens said.

"They're the same people that say when we increase the supply by a million barrels a day, there could be no decrease in the price of gasoline," Stevens said. "They're siding with the extreme environmental movement and deciding that that's more important than the future of the country."

read it all..
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/404995.html

!0 years from now the oil would flow from ANWR, and would be insufficient to make more than a tiny dent in US energy demand. It's not a realistic answer If we want real energy independence, oil isn't going to be the answer. Alternative, renewable energy sources need to be developed. Solar, wind, hydrogen, with bio-fuels as only a short term bridge to those technologies. If administrations, both democratic and republican, had looked to the future rather than the next election cycle, we could have been well on the way to real energy independence. That they didn't shows that their interests lie, not with the people they were elected to serve, but their corporate masters.

[avatar4321]

!0 years from now the oil would flow from ANWR, and would be insufficient to make more than a tiny dent in US energy demand. It's not a realistic answer If we want real energy independence, oil isn't going to be the answer. Alternative, renewable energy sources need to be developed. Solar, wind, hydrogen, with bio-fuels as only a short term bridge to those technologies. If administrations, both democratic and republican, had looked to the future rather than the next election cycle, we could have been well on the way to real energy independence. That they didn't shows that their interests lie, not with the people they were elected to serve, but their corporate masters.

This is what you guys were saying 10 years ago. So we did nothing. And thats just really helping us now isnt it?

[bullypulpit]

This is what you guys were saying 10 years ago. So we did nothing. And thats just really helping us now isnt it?


If administrations, <b><i>both democratic and republican</i></b>, had looked to the future rather than the next election cycle, we could have been well on the way to real energy independence. That they didn't shows that their interests lie, not with the people they were elected to serve, but their corporate masters

Maybe you should try reading the WHOLE post next time...hmmm?

[Yurt]

<blockquote>If administrations, <b><i>both democratic and republican</i></b>, had looked to the future rather than the next election cycle, we could have been well on the way to real energy independence. That they didn't shows that their interests lie, not with the people they were elected to serve, but their corporate masters.</blockquote>

Maybe you should try reading the WHOLE post next time...hmmm?

i believe more dems opposed anwr than republicans

[DragonStryk72]

!0 years from now the oil would flow from ANWR, and would be insufficient to make more than a tiny dent in US energy demand. It's not a realistic answer If we want real energy independence, oil isn't going to be the answer. Alternative, renewable energy sources need to be developed. Solar, wind, hydrogen, with bio-fuels as only a short term bridge to those technologies. If administrations, both democratic and republican, had looked to the future rather than the next election cycle, we could have been well on the way to real energy independence. That they didn't shows that their interests lie, not with the people they were elected to serve, but their corporate masters.

Okay, you're right, it will not help with overall energy independence, but it would save jobs while we work on it, wouldn't it? You seem to think that ANWR would be the end of it, it wouldn't, but for right now, we need to get the price of oil down, so that the price of everything single other thing in America can go down. These gas prices are effecting everything they come in contact with.

We do need renewable energy sources though, and we do need to get to a point of energy independence. This requires starting to take the steps now, and at least as a temp relief measure, ANWR would work as that.

[avatar4321]

Maybe you should try reading the WHOLE post next time...hmmm?

i did. What's your point? Your side is still the side thats been arguing it. President Bush and the Republicans atleast tried. You guys have been fighting it nonstop.

[avatar4321]

i believe more dems opposed anwr than republicans

considering there have been multiple bills from Republicans supporting drilling and President Bush has pushed for it, i dont think he can really claim that no administration has done anything. Thats the problem with Democrats fillibustering.