Will Alaskan oil from ANWR be limited to sale only in the US ???

Dems should get Republicans on record with this proposal ASAP.

Should we use that megamail system and send that suggestion to all the media and all the Dems?

Oil is a fungible commodity. It trades in a global market. For the most part, what gets sold where is entirely a matter of minimizing the cost of transportation. If it's cheaper to sell Alaskan oil in Japan, and Canadian oil in the US, then restrictions that require otherwise simply raise the price. Everywhere. Since the ANWR oil won't make much difference on the global market, that price raise won't be much. But neither does such restriction serve any sensible purpose.

need the oil so much because we are so dependent on other for our greedy habit, that we MUST desroy untouched wilderness to get it. Therefore, the argument follows that we HAVE to drill on any US land to get oil to help us. If course, that is not what it is about. It is about further lining the pockets of BIG bush supporters.

Since when does common sense rule in Congress??

The Repukes rejected an amendment to the budget bill that would have dropped coverage for Viagra from Medicaid, but still fight coverage for birth control. Do women get pregnant all by themselves????

to have the rethugs vote against an amendment that specifies ANWR oil is to be used in the US. After all, the reason we’re trashing the environment is to reduce our dependence. Blah blah blah….. .

wilderness anywhere in this country. DeLay actually came right out and said so.

This really isn't a black and white issue, where principle requires standing on one end or the other. There's nothing innately wrong with drilling for oil in wilderness areas if the environmental impact is not too great. Instead of turning each site into a political battle in Congress, which results in bad decisions, why not propose legislation that establishes a procedure for determining environmental impact, and sets appropriate restrictions to limit it.

still waiting to be pumped here in areas that have been ruined forever than we will ever get out of a place like this refuge. So why don't they drill here? The answer: It will take more time and money. They are more citizens (in Texas) that are still being impacted by the cleanup that is still taking place from the 100+ years of drilling (and refining). But bush promised his buddies he would deliever the artic refuge and deliver it he will. THAT is the ONLY reason that this is happening.

The benefit from drilling for oil -- anywhere in the US -- is that it brings money into the nation and creates jobs, regardless of where the oil is sold. Whether the benefit outweighs costs in specific cases is another issue.

The notion that drilling the ANWR will make a difference to our energy dependence is nonsense, every bit as stupid as the notion that restricting its sale to the US will bring us some benefit.

And since the grade of oil that is there is not in demand in the us, a law restricted the sale of oil from the wildlife refuge could keep it from being drilled at all.

most of the uninformed public, sadly, have been duped into believing this oil will reduce prices for them, and we need to show that to be a lie. This is one way to do that. If they know it will sacrifice that pristine area, for the benefit of our biggest compeitition for superpower of the world, my guess is that there will be outrage. So I say let the people be told!

Those who seek to rape and pillage ANWR have assured us that this is to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Therefor it follows that it will only used in the good ol US of A.

It said that the crude would be sold to the highest bidder, whoever it is (not sure how, but the argument was made during the debate).

A lot of misinformation has been spread during the debate by the GOP. This oil is useless for gas prices now as it will start to be produced in something like 10 years, dangerous for energy independance as it creates a false sense of security that will refrain people to push for alternative energy, and is dangerous for the environment (it is striking that many senators did not even bother to counter that, basically saying it was not a problem as it was in Alaska, which is the dark face of the moon).

even for fuel oil, will be sold to Asia. Probably only good for lubricants.

erday.

where it is not actually wanted. Therefore, they won't drill at all.

and the Oil comps

There is another proposition for a gas pipeline that would apparently not disrupt the Refuge, create more energy and more resources for Alaska, and not surprisingly, it is not explored as it would not involve a new exploration.

I personally think it would have much greater long-term benefits than drilling in ANWR.

It's going to be owned by the multinationals that drill it....they will sell it wherever they can get the best price. It may never make it to your furnace or car.

it's going to the highest bidder. With our present economy, I wouldn't bet on our bid! If people only knew the truth...<sigh>

why does it matter what Americans think is happening?

They're efficient and logical like that.

In the early 80's Canada experimented with two market manipulation programs called the National Oil Policy and National energy Policy. Both programs had terribly negative side effects. Without giving a long explanation on why this is; I will just say that it has to do with the high costs of transporting fuel. When Alaska sells a barrel of oil and America imports a barrel of oil it is better from an economic standpoint then shipping the oil to mainland America to be used.

If the Democrats were to push this issue the Republicans could easily turn it around against them. It would strengthen and spread the current belief, held by some, that the democrats don’t have a clue about the economy.

(Canada imports over 50 percent of the oil it consumes and exports over 50% of what it produces. After the failures of the NEP and NOP there is no question that this type of market manipulation is not worthwhile. I haven’t heard any recent debate from Canadians suggesting these kinds of actions.)

Canada is now a net oil and gas exporter, much to its economy's benefit. Let the oil go to where it is most economical. In Canada's case, that means much of the oil and gas produced in western Canada gets sold to the US. If it's cheaper for eastern Canada to import some from Norway, that's to everyone's benefit.

And many Americans have benefitted from Canada's oil and gas industry, simply by investing in the trusts that own the fields. Many of these have doubled in value in the last couple of years, and still pay a 10% dividend. Personally, that makes me want to toast the Queen.

:hippie:

I agree completely with lostinacause's political point. The GOP is making a lot of economic blunders, leading this nation into a debt crisis that already has undermined the value of our currency, and that will come back to bite us in other ways. Democrats have the opportunity to present themselves as the economically sensible -- even economically conservative! -- party. Every proposal that makes us look like economic dunderheads is a tactical mistake.

The point is to call the Republicans on their very own argument and create enough of an uproar where we can stop the drilling all together.

Remember the main selling point that Repugs put out there was that WE needed this oil. I even heard the Alaskan Repug Governor pushing that it was for our homeland security on Bill Maher last night. That being said, it would HAVE TO BE SOLD HERE for their point to be legitimate and for the drilling to be worth it.

By effectively destroying that argument we open up a whole new argument in which many people can see through the Republicans' charade on this and pressure their Congressmen to change their votes on this.

Let's face it, Republicans need incumbency too bad to allow themselves to look bad and vulnerable to constituent uproar. 2006 is coming up relatively fast.

Rp

whether the oil is exported or not. Of the issues involving ANWR, this is the one that should have the smallest effect. If the Republicans are on top of their game, and in most cases they are, bringing up these issues would hurt the democrats far more the republicans.

The environmental impact, in my opinion, is the only reason against developing ANWR.