Forwarded by Jane Clark at [log in to unmask]

I visited this website to vote against drilling in protected areas (the
question doesn't really say that but that's what it means).  There is
another question on this site about "Are you considering a more fuel
efficient vehicle?".    71% of the voters said no.

>Please check out this story on  MSNBC's web site on Arctic Drilling --and
>take part in the on-line poll  (currently 51% to 47% in favour of drilling
in
>protected areas!) on whether to drill for more oil or invest in
renewables..
>
>http://www.msnbc.com/news/379901.asp#survey

======
Gas prices fuel drilling, tax debates

Some want to drill in protected areas, others see alternatives

Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge covers 19 million acres. Part of
its coastal plain would be open to oil drilling under a new Senate bill.

By Miguel Llanos
MSNBCMarch 9 —  At what price are Americans willing to open some of the
nation's last pristine wilderness to oil drilling? Some senators think it's
the $1.50 a gallon many motorists are paying for unleaded, and they are
pushing legislation to drill in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Environmentalists aren't happy, and neither is the Clinton administration,
which suggested the president would veto the bill if it reached him.

 "HOMEOWNERS ARE STRUGGLING to pay their heating oil bills, truckers are
fighting to stay in business and motorists this spring may well be boiling
over prices at the pump," Senate Energy Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski
said at a news conference Wednesday to unveil the legislation. "We are
going to continue on this rollercoaster of price shocks and economic
disruption until we learn from our mistakes and take action to produce more
energy here at home."

Murkowski proposed suspending 4.3 cents per gallon of the federal gasoline
tax to ease the pain of the soaring prices.

       Congress narrowly approved a 4.3 cent increase in 1993 as part of
the Clinton administration's budget deficit reduction plan. Republicans
staunchly opposed the increase. Murkowski's measure would suspend it until
the end of the year.

       House and Senate tax writing committees were cool to the idea, but a
number of Republican senators said the proposal might gain momentum if
prices at the pump, now at more than $1.50 a gallon in many places,
continue to climb.

ARGUMENTS FOR
NBC's Robert Hager reports Thursday on the sharp rise in gas prices.

       The entire refuge is spread over 19 million acres of Alaska's North
Slope, 95 percent of which is already available for oil and gas drilling.
       The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated the coastal plain could
contain from 5.7 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil. Even if drilling was
approved, it could take a decade before production begins.
       Murkowski said his legislation would allow oil development on only a
small part of the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain. Even if only 7 billion
barrels were produced, he argued, that's the equivalent of 30 years' worth
of oil imports from Saudi Arabia.
       Murkowski said that drilling is less of an environmental risk than
importing oil, because the latter entails supertankers and the possibility
of oil spills.
       Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, ridiculed Energy Secretary Bill
Richardson's recent overseas trip to persuade OPEC oil producers to raise
production. "We've seen this administration in the unseemly process of
traveling the world begging oil producers to increase production," he said.
"Our point is we need to start at home producing more oil and gas in
America."

       Murkowski noted that U.S. oil production has fallen 17 percent
during the Clinton administration, while consumption has risen by 14
percent. It's time to open more U.S. areas to exploration, he argued, not
just in Alaska but in other Western states and offshore along the outer
continental shelf.
       His bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Ted Stevens, also an Alaskan
Republican, and 31 other senators, including three Democrats.

ADMINISTRATION DRAWS LINE
       Congress approved legislation to allow oil development on the
coastal plain in 1995. But President Clinton vetoed that measure as part of
a broader budget package, and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt suggested
Wednesday he'd do so again.

"We've made it clear again and again," Babbitt said in a statement. "We
will protect this last undeveloped fragment of America' arctic coastline
for the thousands of caribou, polar bears, swans, snow geese, musk oxen and
countless other species who use it to birth and shelter their young."

       The federal government allows "environmentally sensitive" oil
production in a large part of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska,
Babbitt said. But there is a big difference between that and allowing oil
exploration in a National Wildlife Refuge, he said.

ENVIRONMENTALISTS ANGRY
       The legislation also drew negative reviews from environmental
groups, who have long fought to keep oil companies out of the refuge.
       The Sierra Club accused Murkowski of potentially destroying
"America's Serengeti," while resisting efforts to raise automobile fuel
efficiency standards and other "common sense" measures to lower oil prices.
       The Wilderness Society said "this bill isn't about filling America's
fuel tanks, it's about lining the pockets of special interests in Alaska."
       For environmentalists, measures to save energy and develop
alternatives like solar and wind power are better options, especially given
what's at stake in the Arctic refuge.
       "Developing the arctic refuge," said Allen Smith, the society's
Alaska director, "would be a senseless act equivalent to burning a painting
by Picasso to warm yourself."
       Activists are also unhappy about how some drilling has been going in
approved areas. As part of its "Arctic Action" effort, Greenpeace this
month set up a base camp near a BP Amoco drilling site to protest the
offshore project.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]