Senate wants U.S. to stop filling national oil reserve; measure to open ANWR fails
Originally published Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 1:37 p.m.
Updated Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 1:37 p.m.
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!
WASHINGTON — The Senate sent a clear signal Tuesday to the Bush administration to halt deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while the price of crude oil remains at record-high levels.
But Republicans criticized Democrats for rejecting a related provision that would have boosted domestic production of oil and natural gas by lifting the long-standing ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.
Congress has been wrestling with how to address the concerns of voters angry about $60 fill-ups at the pump before the start of the Memorial Day recess.
The 97-to-1 vote in favor of temporarily suspending filling of the emergency stockpile was a rare bipartisan victory for a Senate bitterly divided along ideological lines on how to respond to soaring gasoline prices.
Republicans called for an increase to domestic production, including from the coastal plain of ANWR, and incentives for the construction of new refineries, along with their proposal to bar deposits to the national petroleum reserve for the rest of the year. Democrats rejected the measure by a vote of 42 to 56.
Instead, Democrats successfully offered their own amendment to an unrelated flood insurance bill to stop deposits in the reserve.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski said the strategic reserve measure was a good start but that Congress needs to do more to tackle the lack of domestic production amid growing international demand for oil.
“This was an opportunity to remind people that we do have energy resources out there available, we just need the political will to develop them,” she said.
Despite the defeat, Sen. Ted Stevens said the vote showed there’s still significant support in the Senate for opening ANWR.
“There’s so much pressure for us to do something that I think we’re moving toward recognition that ANWR needs to be part of the solution,” Stevens said after the vote.
The national average price on Tuesday for regular unleaded was $3.73 a gallon, a 36-cent increase over the previous month, according to AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report.
In Fairbanks, the price of regular unleaded was as high as $4.04 a gallon, according to the Web site Alaska Gas Prices.
Stevens and Murkowski said they would continue to work to open the coastal plain of the refuge, but they acknowledged it’s not likely to happen before the clock runs out on the Bush administration.
“We all know it’s not going to happen this year with the position of the presidential candidates, all three of which oppose it,” Stevens said. “I think a vote on a standalone ANWR bill would get more support, but I don’t think this majority will allow us to have a standalone vote on it.”
Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., voted to stop filling the petroleum reserve, but against opening ANWR. Republican presumptive presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who was on the campaign trail in Washington state on Tuesday, has said he supports suspending the reserve deposits but opposes opening ANWR.
Pam Miller, Arctic coordinator for the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, said the vote against opening ANWR was a “resounding show of support for protecting the refuge for future generations.”
Miller said allowing drilling in the coastal plain of ANWR might save consumers a couple of cents per gallon 20 years down the road. The nation would be better served, though, if Congress focused on increasing the mileage mandates for vehicles and on conservation, she said.
The U.S. Department of Energy is putting about 70,000 barrels of oil a day into the reserve as a hedge against future supply disruptions. The reserve currently has about 703 million barrels of oil — about 97 percent of its 727 million barrel capacity.
While President George W. Bush has rebuffed previous calls to halt the program, saying the amount of oil being taken off the market is not enough to affect prices, he said Tuesday that he would not veto the Senate measure.
Members of both parties said taking oil off the market tightens supply and exacerbates already high gasoline prices. Some 46 Republicans, including Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, broke ranks with the president and supported the provision.
“I have changed my mind,” Domenici said, “and it’s simply because the price of oil is up to $125 a barrel.”
The House of Representatives approved a similar measure to halt filling of the reserve by a veto-proof 385 to 25.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said suspending deliveries to the reserve could cut the price of gasoline by five cents to 24 cents.
Energy analysts and economists, however, say halting the withdraw of 70,000 barrels a day will have little, if any, affect on prices considering that the U.S. consumes more than 20 million barrels a day.
Kevin Books, a senior energy analyst with Friedman, Billings, Ramsey and Co., said Congress would do better to send a signal to investors that it’s serious about increasing the supply of oil.
“Congress doesn’t appreciate that the financial and commercial investor in oil futures is looking at resource scarcity,” Books said. Setting a price on carbon dioxide emissions to encourage conservation or lifting longtime bans on drilling offshore and in Alaska would have more of an affect on prices, Books said.
Rep. Don Young released a statement blasting Democrats for claiming the amount of oil going into the reserve was impacting prices, while at the same time voting against a measure that would increase domestic production in the future.
“The 1 million barrels we should be getting from ANWR each day is 14 times more than the 70,000 barrels we’ll be getting daily by temporarily halting the SPR deliveries,” Young said. “If the Democratic leadership was serious about addressing America’s energy crisis, it wouldn’t parade out minimal actions like this as solutions.”
But Murkowski said she believed the measure would have an impact on the price of oil, which closed Tuesday at $125.80.
“If we can make even a slight difference in the price that consumers are paying, without hurting national security, I think we should do it,” Murkowski said. “Any small thing we can do to affect prices is a good thing.”
At the very least, Murkowski said, the government isn’t spending taxpayer dollars to buy oil at record prices.
Contact Washington correspondent R.A. Dillon at dcnews@newsminer.com.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Finally the truth on why gas prices are so high! Not because of low supply. Just have an ignorant Texas oil guff that caps the prices. No wonder why Hallarburtains up there! They had me going in circles why gas prices are high. Figures....
Yup, and if they ever build the big-steal-pipeline all the way to Texas the sucking sound won't quit until all of Alaska's hydrocarbons are stashed under all of the Southern States for the benefit of the Confederacy.
Yeah chaulk up another one for the loser greenies/peacenik democrat supporters- YEAHHHHHHHHHHH ELECT obama or clinton and get more of the same and no gasline also.125. dollars a barrel and WE cant get didly squat done. No gasline no yukon flats, mines all held up - yeah elect them democrats and well keep getting; i mean not getting , what we deserve/ and can cultivate w/out HARMING the environment;no sweat, as a state/ country and people.
Hmmm, let's see......According to environmentalist Nancy Pelosi, putting the daily reserve of just 70 thousand barrels will save 5-24 cents at the pump. But according to Pam Miller, of the Northern Alaska Eco-mental Center, a daily million barrels will save only "a couple of cents".
Eco-mathematics: ROFL, gotta love it.
I sure am glad that I work on the slope and only have to drive HALF the time! You folks out on the left wing won't learn until you bankrupt the entire country.
I posted this the other day, and didn't get a response.
What kind of oil is located in Lisburne?
What kind of oil is located in Milne Point?
What kind of oil is located in Endicott?
What kind of oil is located in Alpine?
What kind of oil is located in Northstar?
Now, on to the more important questions:
What kind of oil is located in Point Thompson?
What kind of oil is located in Badami?
Moving further east:
What kind of oil is located in 1002/ANWR?
Sure, I know a lot of you think oil is oil is oil, and you just want to suck it all out of the ground so you can drive your 4MPG F-350, laden with 40" mudders and pay $1.59 for a gallon for the fuel to push it along.
But really, oil ain't quite that simple.
Ever wonder why Point Thompson has never been developed?
Ever wonder why the oil companies are so very quiet when it comes to establishing policy on 1002?
So, feel free to think that it's an environmental issue, or that the greenies are pushing it, or whatever other poorly educated thoughts you have. But if you don't understand the petroleum geology, does your opinion really matter?
I hate to admit this but years ago i liked W. Before you all attack me. I am happy to say i dont care for him anymore it took awhile but i came around he just does not seem to give a dang about the whole gas and oil price crunch and the way it is effecting america not that many other politicians do either but he should of done something long ago and yes i know it did not just start with him. Yes i know it all is not old georgies fault and we all should be trying to conserve our energy and fuel i have been trying myself i stuffed more insulation in my house anywhere it would fit i turned the thermostat down drive less but you can only do so much of that. Something has got to be done to bring the prices down and if drilling anwr would help then do it. Build the gas line if will help i read post in here from distant thunder i think about building a gas line with plastic pipe and how easy he makes it sound why dont the politicians listen to him. With all the oil money the state has from the oil that belongs to us alaskans why dont they give us a big share i dont care if you do call it a hand out so be it its our anyways but then i guess the powers that be would not have it all sitting at thier dispossle thats the real reason them politicians wont cut it loose. I am know done ranting.
ANWR is all about lease holds people, they don’t want to drill it just control it. That’s why we need stranded gas and oil legislation. Why pay more to develop when you can make more when the price goes up.
ANWR has nothin to do wit this think twice before you say stuff liek that,ANWR was created for the alaskan people and theyre rights for and to theyre land.They dont controll it,the government does think twice before you open your mouth and blame it on that bs.
Stopping shipments to the strategic petroleum reserve or even a gas tax holiday is political pandering at it's best (and worst). The Arctic Refuge was created for all Americans, not just Alaskans. A national wildlife refuge is the last place we should start drilling for oil.
I disagree. The last place we should start drilling for oil is where there is no oil. There is oil at ANWR, we are in need of it, and we should drill there for it. And on the coastal plains, the Gulf of Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, wherever.
We now find ourselves "over the proverbial barrel" because of shortsighted politicians (and I dont mean W), and the electorate that put them there. We are truly on the precipice of dangerous times.
No where in the US Constitution does it give the Federal Government the power to create National Wildlife refuges that you cant drill in or National Parks that you cant kill a moose in.
Our federal government has spent years positioning itself to be the only source of relief for us. You want a Government that can give you everything, then you accept that it can take it all away.
First of all, it is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It belongs to all Americans. People who want to get rich off of drilling the Arctic Refuge call it ANWR so that people don't stop to think that it is a wildlife refuge, first and foremost. We should never explore or drill in the Arctic Refuge. It is much more important to Americans as the semi-pristine wilderness it is. Global warming is causing havoc all over the world, Alaska included. We don't need more oil (although I am NOT enjoying the gas prices or cost of heating oil); we need to wean ourselves from oil, gas, and coal. Lets tax the oil companies and put the tax directly into 2 programs: 1 for home weatherizing, the other into research and funding for creation of electricity from clean, renewable sources (NOT biofuel from corn).
Some of you folks just dont seem to get it do you. We are 100% COMPLETELY reliant on everyone else for everything. Its time we woke the hell up, quit procrastinating the whole "it'll be 10-20 years before we see it" mindset and start producing our own energy that we have in our own territories! I am so sick and tired of people calling ANWR pristine wilderness that will be ruined by oil fields....its BS! Not only do we need to drill in ANWR but we also need to drill offshore on both coasts, we need to also look into the energy we can create from Coal, Nuclear power and any other hi tech form of energy out there. If we dont , we will bankrupt this nation. And if I hear another person refer to people driving huge 4mpg trucks I think I am gonna lose it, cuz the reality is no one is driving 4mpg vehicles with gas and diesel prices what they are. Everyone I know myself included has cut back and done without many things because fuel is so expensive. We have cut back our national consumption by 20% since the start of the year, yet the barrel price climbs each day. Conservation is not the answer, independance is! The left wing liberal environmentalist are going to run this country into the ground and I cant believe we cant stop it!!!!
akjak, I agree, we need to switch to alternative means of producing energy. Privetly. The federal government should not be in the business of producing energy.
We made our "dependance on oil bed" and now must lie in it. You cant switch overnight. You say tax the oil companies? They are taxed at 44%. Twice the rate of most other corporations. And they pass it right on to us in what we pay for gas. While we are at it, why not make it illigal for any company to make a profit? Take away all incentive to invent new technologies. Profit and competion drives innovation. $4 a gallon gas will kick people in the pants to develop new techs, new energy solutions. Create competion for the oil giants. They will in turn be forced to find more efficient ways to bring the oil to our tables. A true capitalist economy, free of Government (to include greedy, corrupt politicians)interference, is a self correcting system where truly everyone wins.
I am not for striping the land of all resources and polluting the land and water, but I understand you have to take a common sense approach to it. Allow logging, but selectively. I believe you can allow for the extraction of resources and preserve the environment. Maybe I am insane.
Glacierles-
"There is oil at ANWR, we are in need of it, and we should drill there for it."
Reference sdoownek's comments above. Are you able to answer those questions?
We all get to have our opinions. We all get to say what sounds sensible to us. We all have the responsibility to understand the whole story.
Sdoownek
I can ask you twenty questions you don't have answers for and call you names but that doesn't add a thing to the dialog. My lowly point of view may not matter to you, but I understand geology matters to the cost of production. There is a difference in the oil types and prices. The oil companies mix light sweet with heavier oils like those currently produced in Alaska to make petroleum products.
I haven't researched the answers to your questions, because in your first post I took them as rhetorical. Please contribute to the discussion and make a statement by telling us the answers. Share your wealth of knowledge with the rest of us in direct laymans terms.
Your point seems to be that the oil in ANWR is not suitable for use except as a reserve booking on the stock exchange or that we are so ignorant that our ownership of the oil royalties is insignificant. Either way, as long as people like you talk in circles and insults, people like me will continue to discount your contributions as so much dribble. I will research the answers to all of your questions and post what I find.
Although, I am not holding my breath for some epiphany because, as I discovered about the cost of production and then current tax on a barrel of oil, during the last special session, facts about the oil on the North Slope are well guarded secrets. That is a fact of life in the mineral industry unchanged since gold was first discovered.
Sdoownek,
From what I have found, the oil's gravity ranges from a low of 25 to 39 API on the north slope with sulfur content between a high of 1.6 and .3 wt %. It all gets blended in the TAPS and comes out as Alaska North Slope crude.
What does any of this have to do with anything other than the price of the oil on the market of which there are 121 grades currently traded and ours ANS crude trades just below West Texas Intermediate (WTI) Sweet Crude considered the premium. The geology being the way the rock formations are cracked, hardness of the ground and depth of the oil determine the cost to produce the oil.
So now that we all have an idea of the general facts, I still don't see your point. What matters is that the USGS knows the oil is there, accessible, and good. The economics, for the state say hold off on drilling. The economy for the nation says otherwise. The rules of supply and demand are in favor for the oil companies to not drill as long as they have the market cornered and continue to control the supply.
Ah good we are busy pointing our fingers at each other - what better way to neutralize the opposition?
Personally before G.W. came in I never heard the words," the investors were nervous so the price per barrel went up so many dollars today." The answer is simple: a corrupt and ruthless bunch of conmen and swindlers are ripping as many dollars out of the U.S economy as they can on their way out. Who are these investors? The oil companies themselves. Meanwhile they don't give a damn that they are making our enemies stronger- they just make more money off of that. Unfortunately it can end in the end of our country - this is not tiddlywinks going on here.
My 2 cents worth. We ask for what we are getting. The US has fallen from it's Super Power Ranking in the world.I won't mention the G word or the B word because it won't do no good. This country and the world thinks we can do anything we like and suffer no ill effects, "Suprise" Ain't Gonna Happen. Fix the morals of this country and watch how fast the price at the pumps go down. Keep your head in the sand and keep paying. You can't have it both ways.
The environmentalists need to stop worshipping nature. ANWR is a biological desert, go visit it sometime, there's not much up there, and oil pads don't disturb much. Too bad they usually only teach socialist economics in our public schools. The moral thing to do is to unleash our natural resources and stop funding terrorist supporting countries by buying their oil.
Heres some great ones!!!
The left wing liberal environmentalist are going to run this country into the ground and I cant believe we cant stop it!!!!
Fix the morals of this country and watch how fast the price at the pumps go down.
I am so sick and tired of people calling ANWR pristine wilderness that will be ruined by oil fields....its BS!
We now find ourselves "over the proverbial barrel" because of shortsighted politicians (and I dont mean W), and the electorate that put them there.
Yeah chaulk up another one for the loser greenies/peacenik democrat supporters- YEAHHHHHHHHHHH ELECT obama or clinton and get more of the same and no gasline also.125.
According to environmentalist Nancy Pelosi,
You folks out on the left wing won't learn until you bankrupt the entire country.
Man, some good stuff people, ***wipes tears from eyes***.
YouMustBConfused
sdoownek, Shed some light on the subject about oil for us oil field types that work on the slope? Are you refering to the technology needed to extract the oil from the ground? Are you refering to the cost of developing the new oil discoveries? Please, educate us.
Imususallyright---
At which point did I deny you your opinion? Disagree...yes. Deny...no.
And whether you know it or not, you are not the arbiter of these posts, so forgive me if I ignore your tips on posting etiquette. I find them condescending, and arrogant.
To all of the staunch ANWR supporters. Have you ever visited the area known as ANWR? Do you currently have plans to bring your family for a vacation? Bring your hip waders and a lot of bug dope, it’s a long walk.
While our attention is continually shoved towards ANWAR the real story- the one most important for Alaska is in the opposite direction. Petroleum Reserve No. 4 an area of huge proven reserves both gas
and oil. The westgrowing networks of roads, pipelines and oil handling facilities provide genuine
infrastructure for the industry. ANWAR fits with the strategy of jumping straight across the border into Canada with a new exit pipeline all together. All you out there that believe developing this field will benefit Alaska are being naive about the aims of the industry the last several years.
I've been to the coastal plain of ANWR. I spent a whole summer there. I saw lots of critters and lots of life. I didn't see any trees.
One thing that stuck out that I found very interesting, that's pertinent to this entire debate, was, what in geology is known as, an unconformity (look it up).
I written about it before, nobody seems to care, but the unconformity I mapped, that is included in published maps of the area by the DGGS, shows that all the rocks that had anything to do with Pruhoe Bay were all eroded away from the coastal plain of ANWR during the upper-Cretaceous (65 million years ago).
Apon seeing this, and realizing the ramifications, I asked the man in charge of the project (funded by oil industry), 'Why are we still here'? The answer? This is exactly the kind of information that industry would be interested in.
THERE IS NO OIL IN ANWR.
Go ahead, continue not to care. I'll go ride my bike.
“ANWR has nothin to do wit this think twice before you say stuff liek that,ANWR was created for the alaskan people and theyre rights for and to theyre land.They dont controll it,the government does think twice before you open your mouth and blame it on that bs.”
I was refernceing the opening of ANWR and its not BS. I don’t think twice I think all the time. Have you ever seen the lease hold map? I have. For the record I don’t want ANWR opened. I want the current lease holds developed or returned to the open market.
Uh, glacierles--
I don't think you get what I was trying to say-- which was simply, we all get to have our opinions, but it's better to have the whole story.
[I don't presume you'd listen to my posting etiquette tips... you haven't up until now when I've tried to get you to refrain from attacking people.]
Not_From_North_Pole,
If your statement is correct, then the geologists that checked the rock from the test holes are wrong. The USGS predicts that the pool in ANWR is as large as the Kuparuk pool in Prudhoe. The difference in the two fields is that the oil samples from 1002 are as good as WTI and don't have the high sulfur content that is predominant on the north slope. We may not need that oil on the market yet and as long as we hold it, the world supply of WTI will shrink increasing the profit margin for the ANWR pool. In fact the oil is not in ANWR it is below ANWR, close to two miles.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.