Click on the polar bear to take action to stop GOP sneak attack on ANWR!

Go to http://www.lcv.org and click on the polar bear to send a message to Bush.

Right now President Bush and his pro-drilling allies in Congress are plotting a sneak attack on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In the next two weeks, oil-friendly members of the House and Senate will try a sneaky backdoor trick to pass their unpopular proposal to drill for oil in the pristine Arctic Refuge by inserting it into the must-pass federal budget bill.

It's up to us to put a stop to this sneak attack by raising a ruckus.

Although, being a dummy, I wasted time clicking on the polar bear on your post instead of hitting the link and going to the polar bear on the site. Doh!!

http://www.arcticwildlife.org/latest.htm

If Republicans choose to roll ANWR into a reconciliation package, two obstacles stand in the way in the Senate: the vote count itself and the Senate parliamentarian, who has to rule in favor of including ANWR as "a substantial revenue measure," according to a Senate bylaw called the Byrd Rule that limits how policy gets included in reconciliation bills. If the parliamentarian rules against ANWR, the Senate needs 60 votes to bypass the Byrd Rule, but all indications point to ANWR passing the test, as it did in 1995, because of the billions of dollars in federal oil royalties the refuge would potentially net.

And even if ANWR passes the Byrd Rule test, still in the way is the straight up-or-down vote. Sources point out that ANWR failed this test last year when a drilling amendment from former Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) failed 46-54, with eight Republicans crossing party lines to vote ANWR down. Only one of those Republicans -- Sen. Robert Smith (N.H.) -- has been replaced with a pro-ANWR vote (Republican Sen. John Sununu), as Sens. Olympia Snowe (Maine), Peter Fitzgerald (Ill.), John McCain (Ariz.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Mike DeWine (Ohio) all voted against the ANWR provision last April.

At the same time, five Democratic senators broke ranks last year, with Sens. John Breaux (La.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Zell Miller (Ga.), Daniel Akaka (Hawaii) and Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) voting for Murkowski's ANWR amendment.

A quick look at the results of the November election points to a significant shift that barely favors environmentalist drilling opponents since Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) campaigned against Bush's ANWR policy in Minnesota. Other newcomers who could shakes things up -- Sens. Jim Talent (R-Mo.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) -- would more than likely side with the administration, resulting in a three-seat swing if the status quo holds.

If Chambliss and Talent vote for ANWR, that would tentatively leave the vote count at 49 for drilling and 51 against, with only one vote separating Vice President Cheney from breaking a tie in favor of commercialization. Sununu, Chambliss and Talent would represent the changed votes from last year under this scenario.


 

are not even interested in drilling there anymore (or so they say), if ever they were, without government help. In order for it to be profitable to them it is likely that it will need to be subsidized by the federal government.

The issue is not about oil itself, it's about money and politics. Oil payouts to Alaskans are starting to dry up. Alaskan politicians see this as a job-creation program for their state (kind of like what happens with defense appropriations) and a way to maintain influence with their populace by finding a new source for these payments.

It's kind of ironic in a way. One of the pro-drilling talking points is always that the people fighting to save ANWR are from the big cities in the east who would never even want to go there and that Alaskans should be free to do what they want in their state. However, in order for them to be able to do it they will require tax dollars from us eastern "liberals".

Actually, the way I understand it, the only value that ANWR really has to oil companies, which is why it is such a litmus test, is as a precedent. If government caves there, they think it will be easier to push drilling in other ecologically sensitive but more politically charged areas such as of the coast of California and Florida. This is something they have been talking about going back to since when I was in college during the 1st Busch Administration (I actually wrote a piece for an Environmental Journalism class about this in 1988 or 1989).

I am signing, thanks.

<http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn21513.htm>

From the article:

Oil companies and experts not sure how much oil is in ANWR

10-03-02 More than three decades ago, the world's largest energy companies led the charge to drill for oil on the North Slope of Alaska. But now, as the debate rages over opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, those same companies remain surprisingly silent. Drilling in the Arctic refuge, which has already been approved by the House, has become a touchstone issue for the Bush administration, and the issue promises to spark a nasty fight in the current debate over the energy bill in the Senate.

Publicly, the biggest multinational petroleum companies, such as ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, Shell and BP back the Bush administration's assertion that developing the oil in the Arctic refuge is critical to the American economy. But privately, many large companies say the prospect, solely on business terms, is not terribly attractive.

"Big oil companies go where there are substantial fields and where they can produce oil economically," said Ronald Chappell, a spokesman for BP Alaska, which officially supports opening the area to drilling. Using the acronym for the refuge, he continued: "Does ANWR have that? Who knows? We're building our Alaska business based on the opportunities we have in hand."

Oil companies and industry experts point out that no one knows for certain how much oil is in the wildlife refuge. They say it is cheaper and more promising right now to exploit large reservoirs of oil elsewhere in the world.

Gail Norton is "confident oil companies would bid on leases in ANWR." Why is she so confident?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64788-2005Mar2.html

Alaska's congressional delegation has pushed hardest for opening the refuge as Prudhoe Bay oil production continues to dwindle. In recent years, however, major oil companies have shown only modest interest as they focus on oil projects in other parts of the world.

ConocoPhillips and BP, both companies that have been prominent in Alaska North Slope oil development, have pulled out of Arctic Power, a pro-drilling lobbying group financed by the state of Alaska. ChevronTexaco, left the group earlier.

Norton, in an interview with The Associated Press, downplayed the significance of these actions, but she acknowledged some oil companies aren't as interested in lobbying on the issue as they once were. Still, she said she is confident oil companies would bid on leases in ANWR.