Where would ANWR oil go? (Seattle Times)

[icymist]

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 a.m.




Where would ANWR oil go?

By Warren Cornwall

Seattle Times staff reporter

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens stood on the floor of the Senate a month ago and urged his colleagues to support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Do it to boost our domestic oil supplies, he said. Do it to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

What Stevens did not mention was this: Alaskan oil could wind up being sold overseas.

The Senate vote, which gave Stevens a 51-49 victory, makes no promise the oil pumped from the wildlife refuge (ANWR) has to be sold to domestic refineries.

Some pro-drilling forces say a final bill could ban refuge oil from going overseas, a restriction contained in an energy bill now before the House that would open ANWR to oil exploration. Such a ban, however, wouldn't apply to other Alaskan oil. And a similar pledge was reversed in the past.


(More)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002245699_export17m.html

[bushisanidiot]

1. To the highest bidder. US oil companies don't give a SHIT about americans

all that matters is that trillions keep rolling in to their offshore bank accounts.

[htuttle]

4. Why do we still call them 'US Oil Companies' anyway?

They often aren't chartered here in the states anymore. They certainly keep their money overseas away from US taxes, most of their workers are overseas, most of their production is overseas.

Is it because they still keep an office in the US?

The same is true of MANY so-called 'American corporations' nowdays.

(oh, I know what it is -- it's to make us think they are 'on our side' so we subsidize them...)

[bushisanidiot]

5. Yeah, but they sure donate to repuke candidates as if they are US oil

companies.

but that's a good point. they should NOT be allowed to donate money to american political candidates or to be involved in shaping energy policy.. especially considering they are actually FOREIGN businesses!

[Gregorian]

2. China. India.

Hey, we'll need the money.

And it takes energy to produce things.

[unhappycamper]

3. It will be interesting to see why this clause is pulled from the final

bill. We just need to make sure it stays on the radar screens. Think sunshine.

[seasat]

6. This is not that big of a deal to me.

The price of oil is determined by the global market. It may be cheaper to ship oil to Asia from Alaska than supply the East Coast with Alaskan Oil. I think they're stupid for drilling there and regrettably, I'll say I told you so to Repugs when the first environmental disaster occurs (not that they're concerned about it) but where the oil goes is not a big deal in a global market.

[FloridaPat]

7. 80% of the North Slope oil gets sold to Asia. I am willing to bet

this oil will go there too. This has been the way it was since they first drilled there. While the US talks about being independent on foreign oil, they have done nothing in 50 years to go in that direction. It's a nice slogan for the people back home to think our government is actually doing something.

[daleo]

8. I wonder how NAFTA, GATT, etc. affect this.

Not that Bushco gives a damn about treaties, but I don't know if insisting the oil be kept only for U.S. consumption would even be legal. Under NAFTA for example, I believe the rule is along the lines that if you withhold supplies for export you have to withhold equivalent supplies domestically. So Canada, for example, can't withhold domestic oil from the U.S. unless it is willing to cut its domestic consumption at the same time. Not all that likely in a cold country.

[Robbien]

9. Where would ANWR oil go?

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens stood on the floor of the Senate a month ago and urged his colleagues to support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Do it to boost our domestic oil supplies, he said. Do it to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What Stevens did not mention was this: Alaskan oil could wind up being sold overseas.

. . .

As Congress again considers opening the refuge in a quest for oil, the prospect of exporting Alaskan crude poses a political conundrum for those who say drilling is a way to get more oil to domestic markets.

Detractors have jumped on the issue, charging that claims the refuge must be drilled to satisfy a domestic thirst for energy are hypocritical. "If we are going to go into a wildlife refuge and drill for oil, at least we should require that we keep whatever oil we produce in the United States for our domestic use," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, the Washington Democrat who led efforts last month to block drilling in the refuge.

While Stevens, a Republican, could not be reached for comment, his spokeswoman Courtney Schikora Boone said that if ANWR is opened up, exporting oil "could happen."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002245699_export17m.html

[Mr.Green93]

10. To China

[Mnemosyne]

11. Does it matter where it would go when there is so very little of it?

I've been reading that there is maybe a year or so worth of oil if used by the US. If this is true, then they will destroy the area for many years to come (forever?) for a short term profit.

These people suck and blow at the same time.:puke: :puke: :mad: :crazy: