Senate blocks plans for oil drilling in Alaska's wilderness

[Billsman]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/22/walaska22.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/22/ixworld.html

By Francis Harris in Washington

America's green movement won an important victory yesterday when legislation to allow oil drilling in the country's last great wilderness was defeated in Congress.
<SCRIPT language=javascript src="/core/NetGravity/mpu.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="http://ads.telegraph.co.uk/js.ng/site=news&spaceid=mpu&sz=200x200&sz=240x400&sz=250x250&sz=300x250&ls=f&transactionID=1135215636210&Section=news/international_news/north_america/usa&view=details&xml=/news/2005/12/22/walaska22.xml"></SCRIPT>
The decision amounted to a serious defeat for President George W Bush's Republicans after the party once again failed to translate its majority in the two houses of Congress into legislation.

Although the measure had already been passed by the House of Representatives and had the backing of Mr Bush, when the Republicans attempted to put the motion to a vote in the 100-member senate they were unable to muster the 60 votes required by congressional rules. The vote was 56-44 in favour of drilling.

The field in Alaska's Arctic national wildlife reserve contains an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil, worth around $500 billion (£290 billion). Opponents argued that this quantity of oil was insignificant when compared to America's huge consumption.

Republicans have battled to allow drilling in the Alaskan refuge for 25 years and, although they pledged to try again next year, yesterday's defeat was expected to remove the issue from the agenda for a decade, unless American faces a severe oil crisis.

The news produced delight among the minority of Eskimos in northern Alaska opposed to the move. Robert Thompson, who organised a petition in his isolated village of Kaktovik, said: "It's great to know that we're going to be OK for a while. Congress did the right thing."

Environmentalists and their Democratic allies were also Kock-a-hoop. Athan Manuel, of the influential green organisation the US Public Interest Research Groups, said the drilling plans were part of a wider Republican agenda to "break the back" of the environmental movement. Defeat would have meant "open season on every piece of progressive environmental legislation in the US", he said.

The measure had also been widely attacked in American newspapers. The Los Angeles Times said yesterday: "Bush's passion to drill on the pristine slope is inexplicable. At times it seems to acquire the passion of a vendetta against environmentalists."

But congressional Republicans, led by Alaska's redoubtable 82-year-old senator Ted Stevens, said the country desperately needed the oil. He argued that America was over-reliant on foreign oil. The wildlife refuge was a "barren frozen wasteland" with "constant tundra, no trees, no beauty at all", he said.

Northern Alaska was opened to oil drilling around the Prudhoe Bay field in the 1960s, but the wildlife refuge was exempted. Oil companies, led by BP (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/22/walaska22.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/22/ixworld.html#) and ConocoPhillips, produce a million barrels a day, but production is declining.

The Eskimo communities have benefited hugely from the revenues. The 19 million-acre wildlife refuge, to the east of the current wells, is almost uninhabited except for the 300-strong Eskimo settlement at Kaktovik and its nearby air defence radar station.

Frozen for most of the year, the region is home to hundreds of polar bears, and tens of thousands of caribou and other creatures. Scientists say oil wells would disturb them.

The drilling amendment formed part of the $454 billion defence spending Bill. Its defeat leaves the funding for America's vast military machine and its operations in Iraq uncertain. Senators said they will try to agree an interim funding measure to finance the armed forces.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/stylesheets/portal/images/line_334.gif

[Billsman]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/22/ap/politics/mainD8EKVJA8E.shtml


Senate Blocks Alaska Refuge Drilling


WASHINGTON, Dec. 22, 2005


The Senate blocked opening the nation's largest untapped oil reserve in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, denying President Bush his top energy priority and delivering a victory to environmentalists who said drilling would threaten wildlife.

It was a stinging defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, one of the Senate's most powerful members, who had hoped to garner more votes by putting the measure onto a defense spending bill. That forced senators to choose between supporting the drilling measure, or risking the political fallout from voting against money for the troops and hurricane victims.

Instead, Stevens found himself a few votes shy of getting his wish.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who led the floor debate in opposition to the drilling provision, called it "legislative blackmail" and said Democrats agreed they "were not going to get jammed" by the tactic.

Republican leaders could not break a Democratic filibuster threat over the drilling issue, falling three votes short of the 60 votes need to advance the defense spending bill to a final vote. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., left the bill in limbo as he, Stevens and other GOP leaders gauged their next move.

The measure was widely expected to be withdrawn and reworked without the refuge language, although Stevens warned he was ready to stay until New Year's if necessary to fight for the drilling, a cause he has pursued for 25 of his 37 years in the Senate.

Democrats as well as a number of Republicans were already angered by Stevens' tactic that delayed action on the $453.5 billion defense bill including $29 billion for hurricane relief, the war and border security, and $2 billion to help low-income households pay this winter's heating expenses.

"Our military is being held hostage by this issue, Arctic drilling," fumed Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader.

But Stevens, 82, the Senate's most senior member known for his sometimes cantankerous nature and fiery temper, expressed frustration, but had no apologies.

"Every time this subject comes up ... the minority has filibustered," Stevens complained, reminding colleagues of his 25-year campaign to get Congress to allow development of an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil beneath the coastal tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the far northeastern corner of his state.

After the vote, Democrats celebrated as did environmentalists, knowing they had tangled with one of the Senate's toughest members and won.

"It took a lot of guts for a lot of people to stand up," Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said after the vote. He said he expects the 43 senators who voted against drilling _ all but four Democrats as well as GOP Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island _ not to yield to further pressures and change their vote.

But no one believes the issue _ which has galvanized environmentalists determined to protect the refuge from development _ is going away.

"I expect to see it again next year," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a longtime drilling opponent.

"Yes, it'll be back," agreed Lieberman.

Environmentalists rejoiced, aware that never before had drilling proponents come so close to victory. The House already had approved the defense bill with Steven's drilling measure included and President Bush was eager to sign it. Congress approved ANWR drilling in 1995 as part of a budget package that was immune from Senate filibuster, but President Clinton, a drilling opponent, vetoed it.

The Sierra Club called it "an against-all-odds" victory.

"Drilling proponents pulled out all the stops, and tried every trick in their playbook," said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope. "This is a tremendous victory for all Americans and proof that the fate of the Arctic refuge must be debated on its merits, not as part of a sneak attack."

Stevens argued that Congress in 1980 agreed to allow ANWR's oil to be developed at some future date as part an a compromise he supported that expanded the federal refuge to 19 million acres.

It was a commitment, he maintains, that has not been met.

Those who advocate drilling contend the oil _ an estimated 1 million barrels a day during peak production _ is needed for national security to reduce the country's dependence on imports. Drilling opponents say ANWR's oil would do little to curtail imports.

Steven's proposal would have required the Interior Department to issue its first oil leases in the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain of the refuge within 22 months and another package of leases in 2010. Oil was not expected to flow before 2015.

Developing the Arctic refuge's oil has been one of Bush's top energy priorities and the administration stepped up lobbying for the ANWR provision this week. Interior Secretary Gale Norton has said repeatedly that the oil can be developed without harming wildlife given environmental safeguards in the bill and use of the most modern drilling techniques.

But drilling opponents argued that ANWR's oil should not be exploited because of the coastal plain's fragile ecosystem and wildlife. While the region looks bleak during its long winters, and oil can be seen seeping from some of its rock formations, the coastal strip also is the calving ground for caribou and home to polar bears, musk oxen, and the annual influx of millions of migratory birds.

"Destroying this wilderness will do very little to reduce energy costs nor does it do very much for oil independence," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

____

On the Net:

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: http://arctic.fws.gov/

[nehemiah]

republicans got SCHOOLED!

o beautiful day for America and Alaskans! :rockon:

[35Pete]

republicans got SCHOOLED!

o beautiful day for America and Alaskans! :rockon:
75% of Alaskans wanted the drilling to occur.

[TRIPLE P]

75% of Alaskans wanted the drilling to occur.

It was 70% in the other thread.....

[35Pete]

It was 70% in the other thread.....
I was wrong. It's 75% and I believe someone here quoted that from an article.

[ticatfan3]

75% of Alaskans wanted the drilling to occur.Do they want it because america needs the oil or is it just the royality check each one gets at the end of the year?

[35Pete]

Do they want it because america needs the oil or is it just the royality check each one gets at the end of the year?
As far as I am concerned it is their oil. Yes, they do get a royalty check. There is nothing wrong with that.

[nehemiah]

70% or 75%?

that's a made up number. stop lyin'

[35Pete]

70% or 75%?

that's a made up number. stop lyin'
LOL. I just don't see the big deal. Now if they were going to strip mine the Rocky Mountains then I would see your point. But we are talking about 0.01% of the ANWR area.