source

WASHINGTON, Nov 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted to allow oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, barely rejecting a Democratic-led attempt to strike the controversial plan from a budget bill.

Drilling supporters said developing the refuge's 10.4 billion barrels of crude would raise $2.4 billion in leasing fees for the government, reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil imports and create thousands of American jobs.

However, opponents said there was not enough oil in the refuge to lower gasoline prices significantly, and what crude is there would not get to the market for at least a decade. They also warned drilling would threaten ANWR's wildlife, which incudes migratory birds, polar bears and caribou.

The Senate voted 48 (yes) to 51 (no) on an amendment to remove the ANWR provision from the budget bill.

The Senate is expected to approve this week the overall federal budget-cutting bill. The House of Representatives may vote as early as next week on its budget legislation, which would also give oil companies access to ANWR.

It remains far from clear, however, if a final version of the budget-cutting package -- which includes items ranging from farm subsidy limits to cuts in food stamps and Medicaid -- will be approved by both chambers.

---------

i think everybody knows im firmly in support of this, so i wont go into a tirade about it.

This is such a short-sighted bad idea. If our government had any brains at all they'd be looking for long-term solutions to end our reliance on foreign crude oil for energy.

Any ten year old child knows this.

Hello! Alternative energy sources? Ever hear of it?

Now, this is of course true, but also ignorant to how government WORKS. Remember that these guys have to be re-elected, abnd Don Young, Ted Stevens, and Murkowski can now campaign on JOB CREATION..and everyone else can now campaign on 'Voting to make America Independent of Foreign Oil"

I don't think this is a bad idea at all. Drilling is alot more sophisticated, and I think enviromental harm can be sufficiently minimalized. I'm all for alternative fuel sources too. But I think there is capacity for both.

I agree with 'ya, but what alternative sources did you have in mind?

I don't have any confidence that the answer is here on Earth. It's one of the reasons I support space exploration even though it seemingly always results in nil returns.

Possible answers could be solar powered satellites, asteroid mining, helium-3 found on the moon or Dyson Spheres. All of these options are either ridiculously expensive or waaaaaay beyond what we are capable of at this time.

Steve

Coal. Let's go back to coal burning engines.

you're also canadian

Possible answers could be solar powered satellites, asteroid mining, helium-3 found on the moon or Dyson Spheres.




Seriously though, what have you been smoking lately?

are you asking me?

Yea, I think most satellites ARE solar powered. That doesn't do us much good down here.

Nevertheless, dude, it's only fiction until someone gets off their ass and does it.

100 years before the industrial revolution you would have said the same shit about predictions of power-driven machinery.

Many of the things I mentioned have been around conceptually for decades.

Shit, it's not like I'm talking about freakin' dilithium crystals.

Steve

For chrissake, we are in deep shit. I'm no expert on this stuff but the concept of Solar powered satellites as an energy source has been around for about 40 years. The ONLY thing keeping it off the ground (no pun intended) is cost and the fact that nothing like this has ever been attempted in space.

I don't know if Steve is right or not, but I'll be damned if there aren't a million or so things in your house right now that all came from advancements and tools of the space program.

I just don't see how this drilling will solve our short term or long term energy problems. We have the resources and technological potential to get off foreign and domestic oil, but less than a handful of people are even trying to steer the course in a different direction. I mean, if there's one group of people the current administration will bend over backwards for more than evangelicals, it's oil companies.

Engineers and scientists are the ones who will come up with the ideas for alternative energy, but if I remember correctly, Washington is cutting investment/education in science and engineering. I don't agree with Thomas Friedman on a lot of things, but this is one area where we agree that our government has just completely lost its mind.

Hopefully things will look a little different starting in 2006.

Dylithium crystals

Hey! I ain't takin' no energy lessons from you fools who used all your oil to set fire to the damn river!

From a population biologist's perspective, even if we set spills aside - and they will happen - every single roadcut that we make up there is huge from an ecological perspective. Cuts facilitate diease spread, invasive species, and can even form barriers to movement for smaller plants and animals - it's like you immediately cut their range in two. This is not surprising, but very disappointing. I put a fair bit of energy into arguing this, but now I wish that I had done more. There's only so much of a voice that a (busy) grad student can have, especially when he's not an ecosystems ecologist but rather an evolutionary geneticist.

my .02