Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The Senate Endorses Oil Drilling in ANWR... House drops provision

Old 11-03-05, 05:15 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The Senate Endorses Oil Drilling in ANWR... House drops provision

CapitalNews (CSPAN):

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Senate opponents of drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge failed Thursday to strip the measure from a massive budget package, as supporters of exploration argued that the oil is needed to lessen America's import dependency.


Environmentalists, who believe strongly the refuge should continue to be off limits to oil companies to protect the area's wildlife, had acknowledged that it was a long shot to get the provision killed and now are concentrating on defeating the overall budget bill.


A vote on the budget measure, which includes a myriad of spending cuts from food stamps to welfare funds, was expected later in the day.


An amendment offered by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that would have removed drilling authority for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), was defeated 51-48. She called the drilling proposal a gimmick that will have little impact on oil or gasoline prices, or U.S. energy security.


Drilling supporters, including President Bush, who has made opening the refuge a top energy priority, argued that the country needs the estimated 10.5 billion barrels of oil that lies beneath the coastal plain. The oil represents a key to improving the country's energy security, they said.


Today about 60 percent of the oil used in the United States is imported. The measure calls for the Interior Department to issue its first two leases for ANWR oil within two years.
_________________

The Budget Reconciliation Bill has just passed the U. S. Senate by vote of 52-47.





At least for ANWR portion of the package.

Last edited by classicman2; 11-10-05 at 07:18 AM. Reason: Update of Title
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 05:17 PM
  #2  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,141
Although I suspect we haven't heard the last from the opponents of this...
nemein is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 05:19 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by nemein
Although I suspect we haven't heard the last from the opponents of this...
Quit trying to rain on the parade. This is a great day for us folks who believe that we should have a comprehensive energy package. It's been long in coming - far too long.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 05:22 PM
  #4  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,730
Originally Posted by classicman2
This is a great day for us folks who believe that we should have a comprehensive energy package. It's been long in coming - far too long.
Well what do you expect when you keep voting for the people who stand in the way of it?
X is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 05:26 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Yup - only three Democrats voted for it. The rest against.
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 05:26 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Hugh Hewiit's take on it:

“Democrats slam George Bush over high gas prices, but they won’t let us look for where oil might be, won’t let us drill where we know it is, and won’t let us build more refineries for the oil we do have.”
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 05:28 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Fact: Granted the principal opposition to the measure came from the Democrats. But, some of the Democrats voted against the Budget Reconciliation Bill because they didn't approve of the spending cuts that the Republicans put in the bill.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 05:31 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Not defending the Democrats on the issue of refineries, but how many refineries have been closed during the last 15 years. How many of those refineries were shutdown by the government? How many of those refineries were shutdown by the owners - generally major oil companies?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 05:45 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
why can't we conserve?
al_bundy is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 05:45 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,051
Originally Posted by classicman2
Not defending the Democrats on the issue of refineries, but how many refineries have been closed during the last 15 years. How many of those refineries were shutdown by the government? How many of those refineries were shutdown by the owners - generally major oil companies?
Good question. The answer largely depends on how you to bin a closure by the owners because any attempt to modernize the refinery requires bringing everything up to the latest EPA standards, including parts you hadn't planned to modernize. I think there has been some relief on this in the past few years (I know there has for electrical plants) but over the course of 30 years that accounts for a lot of the closures.
OldDude is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 05:47 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Originally Posted by classicman2
Not defending the Democrats on the issue of refineries, but how many refineries have been closed during the last 15 years. How many of those refineries were shutdown by the government? How many of those refineries were shutdown by the owners - generally major oil companies?
i was watching CNBC this morning and they made a nice observation about energy prices. For the last 20 years oil companies have made less profits than their cost of capital, but since things have been good in the last 2 years everyone is huffing and puffing.

Why build refineries when you know you won't make a profit on them?
al_bundy is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 05:50 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Originally Posted by classicman2
Not defending the Democrats on the issue of refineries, but how many refineries have been closed during the last 15 years. How many of those refineries were shutdown by the government? How many of those refineries were shutdown by the owners - generally major oil companies?
Can you blame them? The massive regulation and tax burden they have to deal with to operate in the United States makes it very attractive to go elsewhere. That's also the fault of "C-Man's boys" and their "Green" lobby.
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 05:54 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Originally Posted by OldDude
Good question. The answer largely depends on how you to bin a closure by the owners because any attempt to modernize the refinery requires bringing everything up to the latest EPA standards, including parts you hadn't planned to modernize. I think there has been some relief on this in the past few years (I know there has for electrical plants) but over the course of 30 years that accounts for a lot of the closures.
Exactly. That was what Bush's "Clear Skies" initiative was all about. It didn't pass - stopped by the Dems and the media that completely misreprented it.

Under current rules, established in the seventies - if you modernize anything, you have to modernize the whole thing. This means they either redo everything or keep fixing the old stuff - which is far less efficient than newer technologies.

Bush wanted to enact some common sense, which was stopped(of course) by the Democrats - you can modernize without having to redo it all - but ONLY IF OVERALL EMMISIONS DON'T INCREASE. They have to stay the same or go down. Likely, they would go down, as more efficient systems are installed, and the Clear Skies initiative would've REDUCED pollution, while being fair to the corporations as well and encouraging them to keep doing business in the US.

Democrats won't be happy, it seems, unless they chase every business out of the United States.
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 05:55 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Originally Posted by al_bundy
i was watching CNBC this morning and they made a nice observation about energy prices. For the last 20 years oil companies have made less profits than their cost of capital, but since things have been good in the last 2 years everyone is huffing and puffing.

Why build refineries when you know you won't make a profit on them?
Also, the federal GOVERNMENT has made TWICE as much money off of gas prices over the past thirty years through taxes than the oil companies have made profits.

So who should we be "mad" at here, if we're gonna be angry at someone?
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 06:08 PM
  #15  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,141
Originally Posted by classicman2
Fact: Granted the principal opposition to the measure came from the Democrats. But, some of the Democrats voted against the Budget Reconciliation Bill because they didn't approve of the spending cuts that the Republicans put in the bill.

Care to explain away this vote then?

"An amendment offered by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that would have removed drilling authority for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), was defeated 51-48."

I haven't looked but I suspect I know from which side the majority of each of the votes came from.
nemein is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 06:10 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
if there really is as much oil in ANWR as in Saudi Arabia then the democrats will really go the way of the dodo and I wouldn't want to own any oil company stock
al_bundy is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 06:36 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Probably not THAT much oil there - this is another thing that shows the absurdity of this Green Party hostage taking - they would only drill in winter, when the ground is frozen, and the drill site is only the size of Dulles Airport... in the middle of 17.5 MILLION of acres of wildlife refuge.

The drill site will be less than 2000 acres in a refuge of over 17.5 million acres - and that's what the Democrats have nearly stopped us from doing.

They whine about gas prices, but they sure as hell don't want to do anything about it.
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 06:42 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by nemein
Care to explain away this vote then?

"An amendment offered by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that would have removed drilling authority for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), was defeated 51-48."

I haven't looked but I suspect I know from which side the majority of each of the votes came from.

Newsflash: The ANWR portion was a very small portion of the budget reconciliation package. The 'budget reduction' package is supposed to save 36 billion dollars over the next 5 years.

Of course, the Repubs are planning to bring another tax package to the floor in a couple of weeks - a package that primarily benefits you know who - that will exceed the budget reduction.

Certainly a majority of the votes for the Cantewell amendment came from the Democrats. I've never defended the Democratic Party on this issue. I wish you Repubs would be as critical of your party on certain issues; but, you'll seem to defend the party through thick and thin.

al_bundy,

You and I both know that ANWR will not contain the oil reserves that Saudia Arabia has. The most optimistic estimates is about 5 times what is produced in Texas. A more conservative estimate is about another Texas on line.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 06:48 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Originally Posted by classicman2
Certainly a majority of the votes for the Cantewell amendment came from the Democrats. I've never defended the Democratic Party on this issue. I wish you Repubs would be as critical of your party on certain issues; but, you'll seem to defend the party through thick and thin.
Wow. Guess you've never heard of Harriet Miers?

Or the porkbusters campaign?

Or the new adjulation for Tom Coburn among the Republican base?

There is lots of dissent on the right - and the only reason they are even attempting these budget cuts, small as they are, now, are because of pressure being exerted on them by their base.

That pressure will only grow with this new porkbusters campaign and other budget-restraint crusades now growing on the internet...

That is, unless the FEC shuts down the blogs...
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 06:55 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
If you can me the definition of adjulation perhaps I can respond.

I assume you mean adulation.

Tom Coburn is my senator - along with another right-winger.

He was recognized as a bomb thrower in the House; and, he's fast getting that reputation in the senate. I guess you need bomb throwers once in awhile. But, you can't do the business of Congress, especially the United States Senate, if you've got many Tom Coburn types in the body.

BTW: Will the right be as critical of the Republican tax package for the wealthy?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 07:01 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Nice - you have to resort to commenting on my typing skills because you realize I completely obliterated your point about the Republican party never questioning its leaders.

Nice subject change, though.

Originally Posted by classicman2
Tom Coburn is my senator - along with another right-winger.

He was recognized as a bomb thrower in the House; and, he's fast getting that reputation in the senate. I guess you need bomb throwers once in awhile. But, you can't do the business of Congress, especially the United States Senate, if you've got many Tom Coburn types in the body.
You are far too obsessed with the "rules" and "decorum" of our bureaucracy.

What we've been doing is obviously not working. I welcome people that are willing to walk in there, take on the bureaucrats and actually get some things done.

The Congress is not some Priesthood or sacred monastery. It shouldn't be treated as such. Just do the right thing and go home.

Voters are growing sick of the Old Boy's club that spends our money like drunken sailors, and protects each other's pork.

We need more Tom Coburns out there to break this stupidity down and return Congress to what it was intended to be.
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 07:02 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
It's simple. I believe in the legislative process (the Constitutional processs), and you don't.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 07:05 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Originally Posted by classicman2
It's simple. I believe in the legislative process (the Constitutional processs), and you don't.
How is Coburn not following the "legislative" process, by trying to stop pork?

You aren't defending "the legislative process", you're defending a bunch of silly Old Boys club rules designed to keep the powerful powerful - like "no Senator shall speak out against another Senator's state projects".

That's a ridiculous rule, and Coburn breaking that is why most Senators are mad at him.

But that's not "Constitutional" at all. That's just harmful bureaucratic nonsense - which you seem to choose to support for some reason.

I don't understand how anyone can do anything other than cheer for what Coburn is trying to do in that tired, crooked old Senate.
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 07:15 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Stop using these media inspired catch words such as pork.

I won't even respond the rest of your rant when you use words like 'crooked' to describe the Senate.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 07:16 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
BTW: You Repubs & Repub defenders might want to tune into CSPAN-2. They're replaying a House Budget Committee mark-up of their version of budget reconciliation.
classicman2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.