Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Monday November 27 2017, @08:39AM   Printer-friendly
from the oil-money dept.

USA Today

For decades, proponents of oil and gas drilling have viewed Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as an area rich with natural resources that could help fuel the United States' drive for energy independence.

Now, Congress may be on the verge of finally handing them permission to deliver on an old Republican mantra: Drill, baby, drill.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 13-10 last week to approve a bill that would allow oil and gas exploration in the refuge's 1.5-million-acre coastal plain. The measure will be added to the Senate's tax-reform package that is expected to be put to a vote before the end of the year.

And:

Alaska drilling tucked into tax bill:

The multi-decade fight over allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) could quickly be resolved if the GOP-controlled Congress approves the massive tax overhaul package. The bill includes language that opens up ANWR for drilling, and it will be taken up by the Senate this week, although the vote could be delayed if the Senate struggles to put together enough votes. The outcome of the legislation is unclear.

Also at Quad-Cities Online (opinion) and Alaska Public Radio


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Monday November 27 2017, @09:40AM (4 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Monday November 27 2017, @09:40AM (#602007) Journal

    Alaska has already proven it can manage drilling in wildlife refuges in a responsible way preserving both the wildlife and the environment. The drill pads and the pipelines have been some of the best technological demonstrations in decades and the wildlife aren't bothered by pipelines or the gravel roads.

    As a state, Alaska has gone after lease holders that tried to end run the rules, even yanking back some leases where there was non compliance.
    .
    .

    I frankly didn't know why this would be pushed right now, because the price of crude is very low, there is a surplus of well head gas, and the market for oil is down substantially, just as electric vehicles are hitting their stride. Looking into it I found: [forbes.com]

    It all started when there was and export ban on US Oil. US refineries had to process domestic oil, as well as Alaskan and Canadian Crude even when their refineries weren't tuned for it. The foreign imported oil was lighter, sweeter (less sulfur) and much more expensive. But the US Alaskan and Canadian Crude was cheap. So they retooled their refineries to handle it, bought it at a discount, refined it, and sold it overseas at full price.

    Now most US refineries are equipped to handle the heavy sulfur rich crude better than the foreign crude, and they would rather not switch back. Turns out the Shale oil is the light sweet variety, and it is better suited to the refineries we USED to have, but which now are concentrated in foreign markets.

    So we export the light sweet stuff, at high prices, (now that Obama lifted the Export ban in 2015) and we refine the cheaper heavy stuff in country.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @09:46AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @09:46AM (#602008)

    Obama lifted the Export ban in 2015

    Shut up, or Trump will notice and reverse that too.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Sulla on Monday November 27 2017, @03:40PM

    by Sulla (5173) on Monday November 27 2017, @03:40PM (#602074) Journal

    Going to agree with you on this. I was reading about the Keystone pipelines after that spill news came out and was wondering why they suck so bad compared to the Alaska pipeline. In Alaska conaco-phillips has a bounty it puts on finding leaks or possible leakes, when a company rewards proactiveness rather than punishing compliance you will get better end results.

    Another recent example of AK as a state doing the right thing was with a Shell offshore drilling platform a couple years back. As shell was towing the rig into place it fell over, rather than contact AK coast guard for assistance they drug it back to washington and fixed it there hoping AK wouldn't find out. The state found out and pulled shell's leases.

    My guess as to why this is happening now is that Lisa wants it in exchange for supporting the tax plan.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Hyperturtle on Monday November 27 2017, @05:42PM

    by Hyperturtle (2824) on Monday November 27 2017, @05:42PM (#602125)

    They need her vote to help pass the tax package. That's why it came up now. She's on the short list of people requiring incentives to vote in favor.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 28 2017, @12:34AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 28 2017, @12:34AM (#602253)

    It's being pushed right now because it's a foot in the door. The truth is that we're a net exporter of oil these days, so tapping other oil fields isn't necessary. And between the cost of extraction and the fact that we need to be getting off of oil, the whole thing makes no sense other than as a talking point.