189. WEEKEND ASSAULT ON ANWR CONTINUES
Continuing from the previous article, it appears that Stevens and Frist will attach the ANWR drilling provisions to the defense bill, which also contains money for Katrina victims and LIHEAP (Low Income Energy Assistance Program).Source
Here's Feinstein's comment:
This is a brazen attempt by the Republican leadership to hold funding for our troops and relief for Hurricane Katrina victims hostage to a misguided effort to open up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.SourceHere's McCain's comment:
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called Stevens' effort "disgusting" and couldn't say how he'd vote on the combined bill.The usual status quo brown-nosers can almost smell the gasoline fumes already. George Will says opposition to drilling ANWR is just a cover for collectivism:
"I think it's disgraceful that I have to be put in that position," McCain, a drilling opponent, told the Washington Post.Source
A quarter of a century of this tactic applied to ANWR is about 24 years too many. If geologists were to decide that there were only three thimbles of oil beneath area 1002, there would still be something to be said for going down to get them, just to prove that this nation cannot be forever paralyzed by people wielding environmentalism as a cover for collectivism.SourceFOX News has a "common-sense" piece by shills from the Heritage Foundation refuting all that environmentalism bunk about ANWR:
Drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge makes so much sense, it's no wonder opponents have to twist the facts to turn it into a controversy.Personally I couldn't give a rat's ass about the caribou or the pristine tundra in ANWR. In fact, FOX News is probably right that the impact of drilling will be pretty minimal (although the impact of burning all that oil certainly won't be good for the Gulf Coast). I'm opposed to drilling ANWR because it's the last big chunk of domestic oil in the U.S., and when it's gone, there ain't no more. The Republicans are trying to paint ANWR as a solution for energy independence, but it clearly isn't. When they get done shooting up ANWR, the U.S. will be just as dependent as before, except all their domestic oil will be gone forever.
We're talking about 10 billion barrels of domestic oil located in an area with a proven track record for environmentally responsible drilling. Yet a host of tall tales from environmental activists and like-minded journalists has made it a tough fight in Washington.
Congress is currently deciding whether to add ANWR drilling to the defense appropriations bill. Given the continued high oil prices and political turmoil in many oil-producing nations, now might be the best chance to get ANWR done. But it will happen only if the ANWR myths are exposed. Here are several:
ANWR Drilling Would Harm Alaska's Environment...
Oil Wells Would Despoil One Of The Few Remaining Pristine Places...
Drilling Is Incompatible With The Purpose Of National Wildlife Refuges...
Oil Development Harms Local Wildlife...
The Caribou Herds Will be Devastated...
Alaskans Oppose ANWR Drilling...Source
Of course, that's just where "they" want America to be 20 years from now. An abject petroleum junky, without a drop on her own soil. Military power is completely incompatible with such a state-of-affairs, and America is sleepwalking into a cunning trap. It works like this: bide your time, and let the U.S. run out of oil, while it cheerfully increases its hog-like consumption to 25 or 30 mbd. Then pull the plug and watch the Big Junky implode. This is a long-term strategic game of "last man standing", and an intelligent player would burn somebody else's oil, and leave his own in the ground for later. But America isn't intelligent is it? They're going to follow myopic pom-pom girls like George Will into the spiked pit.
The best strategy is to just let America keep sleeping for decade or two. Then they'll be in a situation like Ukraine and Western Europe vis-a-vis Russia:
The Russian natural gas monopolist Gazprom will halt all natural gas deliveries to Ukraine as of January, if no agreement is reached by the end of this year, said Sergei Kuprianov, a Gazprom spokesman in Moscow.See how slick that works? Ukraine and Europe are Russia's poodle -- impotent, emasculated victims of energy blackmail. To paraphrase W.S. Burroughs in Naked Lunch: "Oil and NG are the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy."
Gazprom officials during contract talks have said they want to raise the price of natural gas supplied to Ukraine from 50 to 160 dollars for 1000 cubic metres.
If Russia were to shut off gas supplies to Ukraine, western European nations would face a severe shortage of natural gas, as Russian natural gas enters the European market via pipelines through Ukraine.Source
-- by JD