Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The ANWR Myth

Posted by Jill Hussein C., Brilliant at Breakfast at 6:45 PM on April 30, 2008.


Reuters fact-checks the presidents statements about ANWR at yesterday's press conference.
anwr
ANWR

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Reuters has a nice rundown of why George Bush's claim that gas prices are a result of Democrats' refusal to allow oil drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is just so much horsepuckey:

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.

Digg!

Tagged as: president bush, anwr


Report: Obama Prepared to Talk to Hamas
Barack Obama is reportedly planning to ditch President Bush's strategy of isolating Hamas, and will instead move to open contacts with the group.
Post by Faiz Shakir. January 8, 2009.
Obama Can Learn from Bush: 'We Tried' Ain't Enough
We will need to remind Obama again and again that for those voters concerned about immigration, 'almost' just ain't gonna cut it come 2012.
Post by Paco Fabian. January 8, 2009.
Rachel Maddow on 'Daily Show': 'Insulted,' 'Embarrassed' By Bush
Jon Stewart and Maddow talk Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton, MSNBC and the Munsters.
Post by Danny Shea. January 8, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
AMWAR not one big field, like Prudhoe Bay
Posted by: irenderit on Apr 30, 2008 5:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ANWAR's oil is in several smaller pockets, not one giant oil reservoir like Prudhoe Bay's. The infrastructure footprint will be much larger than the oil companies claim. Prudhoe is something like 80% PAST peak production now, they are having to fracture, laterally, to squeeze out what's left. ANWAR will never be worth the price of the wilderness damage.(soure: rigzone.com)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

they gotta have some excuse
Posted by: cwilsondrum on Apr 30, 2008 6:17 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they can't just sit there and say "gas prices are fucked up cause that's the way we want it, and like it ,and the way it's going to be" ( with a smile)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Davemachine
Posted by: dhanna on Apr 30, 2008 8:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know after 6,7,8 years of this lying runts' (Bush) nonsense you'd think the crazy spew wouldn't even get covered in any media.

Except that death follows him everywhere.

Human death, animal death, freedom death, idea death, hope death, beauty death, goodness death.

It's akin to the train wreck or car crash ogleing that can't be resisted, especially when everyone has a stake in it.

I'll see you in Hell punk.

Davemachine

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The polar bear is as good as extinct already.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 30, 2008 10:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And the other megafauna in ANWR likewise, due to global warming that is
already "in the pipeline."

Those polar animals need a polar climate to survive. In particular, the polar bear
needs an ice covered ocean from which to hunt. The arctic sea ice could be
completely gone by 2015. The seals hunted by polar bears could go through a
population explosion then crash without the polar bears. The seals could go
extinct when they eat up all of their food because, without the bears, there will be
too many seals. There are already fewer polar bears.

The melting of sea ice that has already happened means that there is less ice to
reflect sunlight back into space. Open water absorbs much more sunlight than ice.
That is one of those natural threshholds [tipping points] that we have already
crossed in our rampant destruction of the environment and climate. We cannot
undo the damage now. Sea ice will keep on melting.

Because of global warming, it doesn't really matter to the polar creatures any more
whether we drill in ANWR or not. Because our need for oil is so great, ANWR
doesn't matter to the price of gasoline either. ANWR is a moot subject, no longer
interesting. You should quit caring what happens there because it is all over but
the funeral. There is a much more pressing problem: Will the HUMANS survive
or go extinct because of global warming?

Read:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

'Six steps to hell' - summary of Six Degrees as published in the Guardian
23 April 07:

6ºC ....shortened... end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago. By the end
of this calamity, up to 95% of species were extinct. The end-Permian wipeout is
the nearest this planet has ever come to becoming just another lifeless rock drifting
through space. ....shortened... most of the world’s plant cover was removed in a
catastrophic bout of soil erosion. Rocks also show a “fungal spike” as plants and
animals rotted in situ. Still more corpses were washed into the oceans, helping to
turn them stagnant and anoxic. ....shortened...

One scientific paper investigating “kill mechanisms” during the end-Permian
suggests that methane hydrate explosions “could destroy terrestrial life almost
entirely”. Acting much like today’s fuel-air explosives (or “vacuum bombs”),
major oceanic methane eruptions could release energy equivalent to 10,000 times
the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Whatever happened back then to wipe out 95% of life on Earth ....shortened... If
they tell us one thing above all, it is this: that we mess with the climatic thermostat
of this planet at our extreme – and growing – peril.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oil Industry and Foreign Oppressive Regimes
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 1, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This More propagnada which has been going on for Decades. We are not stuck in the ME to 'protect Our interests' but the Inc's and the 'Royals' who rolled out the Red carpet (and their cititzens) for them.
No one with a memeory does not realize the 'Chicken did come home to Roost'. but they were never OUR chickens- we were used as Camoflague, human shields to protect these vile men and their Profit margins.
What does need to be laid at the feet of the 'Terrorist' is the fact their Own 'leaders' hav ebeen complicite. How's Binny's family Doing, how many of them have sacrificed their lives for the Cause. they are being used just as We have been used. Divide and Conquer' - "Through Chaos Comes Order' keep pointing the finger at some scapegoat while you sneak out the back door with all the treasure. Come On how th eHell does Binny survive in a cave when he requires dialysis - at least once a Week, even if they have their own- it needs electricity to work. He's Not in any Cave, He's being cared for or is dead. Only those who sit safely ae keeping him
'alive'.this is all been a Con Game- with both US and ME citizens as disposable commodities- It's a Land Grab /oil reserves which they have intentionally perpetuated as a valueable product. Sabotaged any effort to reduce it's value through innovations (Wind, Water currents and Solar- not long term Profit Techonolgies for the Corporationist)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pfft! they've been going at ANWAR
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on May 1, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
like a republican after a 14 year old in an internet chatroom

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ANWR isn't cheap...
Posted by: wildbill on May 1, 2008 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and that's the key for the oil companies. This discussion was going on in Alaska 25 years ago, when I lived there, but it was mainly the politicians discussing it. The right and the left have used ANWR and the oil that might be there to bounce the American public around like pinballs. The oil companies have never had a very big voice in the discussion, because ANWR is too expensive! Opening the Prudhoe Bay oil field cost them so many times more than what was projected, that they have not been in a hurry to open up other areas of the Arctic, and to pay American workers the prices they would have to pay to get them up there. They can still find cheaper oil and cheaper labor elsewhere. As oil becomes more scarce and the price goes even higher, they might start looking at places like ANWR, but not yet.

And as for the idea that ANWR's oil would hold down the price we pay at the pump, how's that going to work, considering the cost of getting it out of the frozen tundra and shipping it down here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No wonder
Posted by: hurricane hugo on May 1, 2008 10:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dubya ran all his oil companies into the ground.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]