You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
U.S. House Drops Gulf (and ANWR) Drilling Plan
2005-11-10
A proposal to allow oil and gas drilling within 125 miles of the Florida Gulf Coast died in the U.S. House late Wednesday night, a victim of the budget-cutting battle raging there. Republican House leaders abandoned an attempt to push through a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling. They feared that the controversy over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would jeopardize today's approval of a sweeping $54 billion budget-cutting bill.
Rest at link.
Milk-pissing bastards. The only reason they're worth voting for is to keep the Dems out.
Posted by:ed

#24  F***ing invertebrate Rinos
Posted by: DMFD   2005-11-10 23:36  

#23  The reason we are short of oil is because nobody checked it. The reason nobody checked it is because the oil is in Alaska and the dipsticks are in Washington, D.C.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2005-11-10 20:02  

#22  Fix to above link HERE

Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-11-10 19:41  

#21   Michelle Malkin's blog has a whole lot of letters people have sent to their Reps about this.

Summary: People are pissed off.

One example:
Speaker Hastert,

I am frankly appalled at your cowardly actions this morning. For years, our country has been dependent on foreign sources of oil; and as Katrina and Rita so aptly demonstrated, the vast majority of the country's refineries are located in one geographical region. Why, then, would anyone stand in the way of developing a new source of oil, in a new location?

The environmentalists' complaints are, quite frankly, bunk. First of all, drilling techniques are so advanced that drilling in ANWR will require, if I recall correctly, roughly 0.1% of the land, leaving 99.9% of it untouched. In addition, there is no guarantee that drilling will even harm the caribou; the population near Prudhoe Bay actually increased significantly after drilling began there.

Even if the caribou were harmed, Mr. Hastert, I must ask you: what's more important to you? Helping America become less dependent on foreign sources of oil and geographically diversifying America's own oil production, or caribou?

That should be an easy question to answer.

Mr. Hastert, I am furious. This country is perilously close to needing a new party - a Conservative Party - because all we have is Democrats who call themselves Republicans and radical leftists who call themselves Democrats. I am far from being the only person who is questioning why we even vote. Why should we put Republicans in the majority when they won't advance conservative principles?

And here's a hint, Mr. Hastert, in case you couldn't figure it out: America is far more important than caribou.


Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-11-10 19:40  

#20  Starting in January, there will be a number of pilot projects to extract oil from the Colorado shales. I'm usually one of the first to pour cold water on alternative energy projects, but a couple of the pilots sound promising, and remember there is more oil in those shales than entire worlds conventional oil reserves.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-11-10 16:04  

#19  How come there is not drilling off of the east coast?

There's drilling off of the East Coast of Canada. The United States doesn't allow drilling off of the eastern or western _seaboards_.

Just in the Gulf, and there only from Texas through to Alabama. A couple well-placed hurricanes could (and this year, _did_) cause severe trouble.
Posted by: Phil   2005-11-10 14:24  

#18  How come there is not drilling off of the east coast? And the tar sands in Canada are already being drawn upon. There is a refinery dedicated to just that region. IIRC, they are going to build a nuke plant to power the refinery there.
Posted by: remoteman   2005-11-10 14:04  

#17  I recall a rumor that the major oil & gas companies weren't so keen on this bill because they have already committed their capital for exploration for the next 2 years or so and didn't want to be under pressure to drill in Alaska while the cost of drilling equipment is so high.
Posted by: mhw   2005-11-10 12:50  

#16  You might have a point, ex-lib, if you could demonstrate all the damage of the current Alaska drilling. In fact, the biggest problem with Alaska drilling was a drunken ship captain, not the drilling or piping.

OTOH I see no need to start more domestic drilling until we've drained everyone else's oil fields and begun to extract oil from the tar sands. Let the price rise until that becomes economically justifiable.
Posted by: Snatch Hupart5350   2005-11-10 11:38  

#15  You might have a point, ex-lib, if you could demonstrate all the damage of the current Alaska drilling. In fact, the biggest problem with Alaska drilling was a drunken ship captain, not the drilling or piping.

OTOH I see no need to start more domestic drilling until we've drained everyone else's oil fields and begun to extract oil from the tar sands. Let the price rise until that becomes economically justifiable.
Posted by: Snatch Hupart5350   2005-11-10 11:38  

#14  The lone disenter here . . . drilling in Alaskan wilderness would really mess it up. Urban dwellers can't understand the value of wild lands, generally, but wilderness conservation is an old REPUBLICAN value. There are other places with untapped oil reserves in the US, that would present less problems and negative environmental impact, and Alaska could remain as it is.
Posted by: ex-lib   2005-11-10 11:34  

#13  The Gov of Alaska has said he would allow drilling adjacent to ANWR. He doesnt need Fed approval.

Frist is worthless. He thinks he has a shot at the Pres in '08. He does not have my vote.

The Repubs have left their vision behind. They act like Democrats in all things except their treatment of the military. For that I commend them. For everything else , they're just the same breed of Socialist as the Demos.
Posted by: BrerRabbit   2005-11-10 10:46  

#12  So ... restart nuclear with pebble bed reactors that can't do a 3-mile island and....
Clone the syn-gas plant in the Dakotas across the US coal fields.

Posted by: 3dc   2005-11-10 10:44  

#11  ..the oil and gas will still be there when we decide we need it.

We could've used them now, and they're still lying underground untouched.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-11-10 10:38  

#10  Fear not, gents -- the oil and gas will still be there when we decide we need it.
Posted by: Darrell   2005-11-10 10:31  

#9  Very disappointing. This means the Dems were able to pick off enough moderate Reps (10 to 15 or so) to block ANWR. I didn't think the Gulf drilling was going to fly, but the ANWR part looked better. Of course we'll have no role call so no way to figure out who caved.
Posted by: Steve White   2005-11-10 10:28  

#8  DB - I have also written to Frist. The failure to break the judicial filibuster was my last straw - that was a self-inflicted wound. Looks like the House is following suit.

OS - Political cowardice indeed. GOP the stupid party.
Posted by: SR-71   2005-11-10 10:12  

#7  BS, you say that as if it has a bearing on whether we should be drilling in the United States or not. Part of the _reason_ oil prices have been so unstable, and (temporarily!) profits have been so high (but they'll only remain "profits" if they're not reinvested and the infrastructure wrecked by the storms _not_ rebuilt) is that oil drilling in the United States is so limited.

People like _you_ have caused the price instability and simultaneously you're using the excuse that it's produced profits for some companies (IF they decide to not rebuild) to continue with the policies that produce the price instabilities.

It's very hypocritical.
Posted by: Phil   2005-11-10 09:17  

#6  Back in '91-'92 I worked on a new, grass roots refinery for Mobil being built in Jurong, Singapore. It was built there for 2 reasons:
1. Mobil could not get the environmental permits to build it here in the US.
2. The crude being refined comes from Indonesia.
Oldspook, I have already e-mailed Bill Frist on a number of issues and this is one of them. I told him if he didn't have the guts to stand up to the Democrats to get out of Washington and that I would not vote for him for reelection. I think a lot of people did the same over the last 6 months because he declared he would not run again.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2005-11-10 09:15  

#5  I wonder if former US Secretary of State Baker, an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi gov't could shed any light on the topic. .... "punching bags" full of billions and billions of dollars.
Posted by: Besoeker   2005-11-10 08:56  

#4  Only two words fit:

Political Cowardice.
Posted by: Oldspook   2005-11-10 08:47  

#3  Big governement should not be putting the pressure on anyone to do anything. If it shouldn't be done, make it a crime. If it should be done, Big government should get out of the way.
Posted by: Chains Flaish3802   2005-11-10 08:42  

#2  Last time I checked, it was the government that was a major factor in limiting both new refinery construction and (as you can see here) new oil drilling. "Big Oil" didn't have anything to do with it except for its usual role of being the punching bag for whatever stupid policy the government is pushing today.
Posted by: Phil   2005-11-10 08:37  

#1  Gotta pick your fight, but I hope they don't drop pressure on big oil to build new refineries.
Posted by: Besoeker   2005-11-10 08:31  

00:00