• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Time To Drill In ANWAR!!!

Mike

Well-known member
Gallegly: Time to drill in ANWR
Ventura County Star ^ | April 29, 2008 | Elton Gallegly



Here's what the leaders of the congressional Democrats told the American people two years ago to persuade voters to bring them to power:

— "Democrats have a common-sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices." (Nancy Pelosi, now speaker of the House).

— "Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices." (Steny Hoyer, now House majority leader).

— "House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices." (Jim Clyburn, now House majority whip).

When Pelosi was sworn in as speaker, the national average price for a gallon of regular gas was $2.29. As of Monday, the national average price for a gallon of gas was $3.60 — a record high. In California — where you, I and Speaker Pelosi live — a gallon of regular gas hit an average of $4 a gallon in San Francisco on Sunday, with the rest of the state not far behind.

So much for the Democrats' plan.

Gasoline prices are not, and shouldn't be, a partisan issue. They affect all Americans equally. That's because 98 percent of American transportation is fueled by oil. As transportation costs rise, so do costs for food, furniture, medicines, household supplies, clothing — anything that has to be shipped from one point to another.

Together, Democrats and Republicans need to cut our reliance on foreign oil, through conservation, alternative fuels and tapping domestic sources. The U.S. currently imports more than 56 percent of its oil from foreign countries, such as the volatile Middle East and Venezuela. At the current rate of importation and consumption, the U.S. will rely on the rest of the world for 64 percent of its oil needs in 12 years.

Conservation has an immediate impact, but is only part of the solution. Alternative fuels will take time and even then may not fully replace oil for all our energy needs. Therefore, if we are to reduce our reliance on foreign supplies, we must produce more domestic oil.

Flash back 28 years, when President Carter — a proud Democrat — set aside a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for "exploration and development" of oil and natural gas resources. An estimated 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil lies beneath its frozen tundra.

It's important to note that ANWR is not the California coast. There is no tourism industry in ANWR, which lies entirely north of the Arctic Circle. Except for the 220 natives living at Kaktovik, who support oil production, ANWR is desolate. That's important to note from a states' rights perspective. If we are to continue the moratorium on oil extraction off the California coast because it's opposed by most Californians, then we should equally take into consideration the views of Alaskans, who overwhelmingly support oil extraction in their state.

We should also note that the 19 million-acre refuge is more than three times the size of Massachusetts, yet fewer than 2,000 acres of the Coastal Plain would be impacted by oil production.

Note, too, that moving oil from Alaska is less risky than shipping it halfway around the world in a rusty Panamanian tanker.

A small impact on a barren piece of Alaska where the people support oil production would have a large impact on our nation's energy supply. Yet, nearly 30 years after a Democratic president opened the area, congressional Democrats are blocking it.

Opening ANWR needs to become part of the energy plan if America is to realize any relief.

In the meantime, another short-term solution would be for California to lower the sales tax on gasoline.

The 6 percent California sales tax on a gallon of gas when Pelosi became House speaker yielded the state about 13 cents per gallon. Today, the state receives more than 21 cents in sales taxes per gallon, a 62 percent windfall in 15 months. I should note that the sales tax is based on the cost of gasoline, plus the added federal and state excise taxes. Basically, the sales tax includes taxes on taxes. Furthermore, Elizabeth Hill, California's legislative analyst, wants to increase California's excise tax by 10 cents and make it a percentage of the cost of gasoline, thereby exponentially increasing the taxation on taxes.

Raising gas taxes is not the way to ease the state's deficit. More likely — because transportation costs affect every aspect of the economy — higher gas taxes will further weaken the economy and worsen the state's deficit.

Instead, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should cut the sales tax on gasoline while long-term solutions, such as opening ANWR and fully implementing workable alternative energies, are achieved.

Californians shouldn't be gouged by a government that is reaping a windfall on its sales tax or a Congress that won't increase supplies.

— Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley, represents the 24th Congressional District.
 

jigs

Well-known member
are you suggesting the crooked bastards actually DO what they SAY?

get real, that would NEVER happen.....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
what about just treating your neighbors with a little more respect (Canada) and investing additional funds in Oil production in Canada, and shipping it even less distance than from Alaska?
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
what about just treating your neighbors with a little more respect (Canada) and investing additional funds in Oil production in Canada, and shipping it even less distance than from Alaska?
:shock: Oh we get treated with nothing but the upmost respect....Right A-plus
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
hypocritexposer said:
what about just treating your neighbors with a little more respect (Canada) and investing additional funds in Oil production in Canada, and shipping it even less distance than from Alaska?
:shock: Oh we get treated with nothing but the upmost respect....Right A-plus

I have no idea how the oil business is done between our two countries. Is there a conflict between America and Canada in regards oil purchasing?

I do know I would rather buy oil from Canada than probably any other country in the world. I buy my gas at Conoco's almost exclusive because I read once that they get the bulk of their oil from non Arabic nations such as Canada.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
what about just treating your neighbors with a little more respect (Canada) and investing additional funds in Oil production in Canada, and shipping it even less distance than from Alaska?

I think the idea is to be less reliant on other countries. Sure Canada would be better than Saudi or Iran but the U.S. needs to be self sufficient in regards energy.

Ps. In what way does America not treat Canada with respect?
 

fff

Well-known member
The usual crock from the Bush Administration. Bush and the Republicans had complete control of the government for several years. Why didn't they vote to drill then? Even Bush's spokesman is saying Bush is full of bull.

The Bush administration says the United States would be less addicted to foreign oil and fuel prices would be lower if Congress had only opened up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

But that claim doesn't reflect the long lead time to develop the refuge's huge oil reserves, which would not be available for several more years and initial volumes would still be small if Congress in 2002 had approved the administration's plan to drill in ANWR, energy experts say.

President George W. Bush during his first year in office made giving energy companies access to the estimated 10 billion barrels of crude in the refuge the centerpiece of his national energy policy that sprouted from Vice President Dick Cheney's controversial and secretive energy task force.

With gasoline prices soaring to records in recent weeks, Bush has stepped up his argument that ANWR oil is a solution.

"We should have been exploring for oil and gas in ANWR," he said last week when asked about record pump costs. "But, no, we made the decision and our Congress kept preventing us from opening up new areas to explore in environmentally friendly ways and now we're becoming, as a result, more and more dependent on foreign sources of oil."

Congress has tried several times in Bush's two terms to pass legislation to finally open the refuge to energy exploration, but always fell a few votes short due in part to concern over what drilling would do to ANWR's wildlife.

"They've repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in ANWR," Bush complained to reporters on Tuesday at a Rose Garden press conference. He said oil supplies from the refuge "would likely mean lower gas prices."

The Energy Information Administration, which is the Energy Department's independent analytical arm, estimated that if Congress had cleared Bush's ANWR drilling plan the oil would have been available to refiners in 2011, but only at a small volume of 40,000 barrels a day -- a drop in the bucket compared with the 20.6 million barrels the U.S. consumes daily.

At peak production, ANWR could have potentially added 780,000 barrels a day to U.S. crude oil output by 2020, according to the EIA.

The extra supplies would have cut dependence on foreign oil, but only slightly. With ANWR crude, imports would have met 60 percent of U.S. oil demand in 2020, down from 62 percent without the refuge's supplies.

All three leading presidential candidates, Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain, are against oil drilling in the refuge.

The administration says if Congress had acted sooner, U.S. drivers would be getting relief at the pump from the extra oil supplies in the market.

"Opening up ANWR is not long term," Bush said Tuesday.

But both government and private energy experts say Bush is overly optimistic that ANWR oil would be flowing now if Congress had approved his drilling plan back in 2002, because of the years needed to find the crude and develop the fields.

"I would say under the best of circumstances it would take approximately 10 years" for any ANWR oil to make it into the market, said Philip Budzik, an EIA analyst.

"Even if oil was flowing, it would be too small amount to reduce the price" of crude or gasoline, said Daniel Weiss, energy expert at the Center for American Progress, a think tank in Washington.

"President Bush's claim ignores the primary causes behind record high oil prices: a cheap dollar, high demand from China and India, and speculators driving the price up. Drilling and sullying the Arctic would not address any of these causes of high oil prices," said Weiss.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel disputed Bush has implied ANWR oil would be available today if his drilling plan was approved in 2002. "He didn't say my 2002 vote," Stanzel said. However, he could not clarify whose drilling plan the president was talking about.

Gerald Kepes, head of the upstream oil and gas practice at the PFC Energy consulting group, said if the Interior Department had begun leasing tracts in ANWR in 2003 the first oil would had probably been flowing in 2012.

"This all assumes that there would be no environmental challenges," said Kepes, as lawsuits to block drilling could take years to resolve. "Really, 2015 is more then likely."

Opening ANWR could have made current prices worse because Saudi Arabia may have delayed increasing its oil production capacity, making world supplies tighter and prices higher.

"Since there is a worldwide market for oil, increases in production in one place (like ANWR) could be offset by decreases in production someplace else to keep the prices high," CAP's Weiss said. (Reporting by Tom Doggett; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2934033020080429?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
 

Latest posts

Top