Webb Against Drilling in Arctic

By: Lowell
Published On: 5/21/2006 7:32:16 PM

I just got back from a fundraiser for Jim Webb.  After about 10 minutes of remarks, Webb was asked about the environment, a subject which he hasn't spoken much about.  In response, Webb he said he had been studying the issue and had decided that he was strongly opposed to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  Webb came to this conclusion for two main reasons: 1) it would harm the environment there; and 2) there's not that much oil there anyway. 

In general, Webb said that, as US Senator, he would be a strong friend of the environment.  That's great to hear, and also would mark a HUGE change from George Allen,  who gets ZERO ratings from the American Wilderness Coalition, the American Lands Alliance, and the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, and a sterling 5% from the League of Conservation Voters.  Ugh.

Comments



GOOD. (phriendlyjaime - 5/21/2006 8:27:17 PM)
I don't really see how you can think this is a BAD thing...

I have really been waiting to hear this from James Webb, though.  This is fantastic news.



I agree, this is very good news. (Lowell - 5/21/2006 8:39:37 PM)


Sportsmen Make the Best Conservationists (thegools - 5/21/2006 10:28:42 PM)
Sportsmen are the most important Conservationists

Most conservation $$ comes from Sportsmen and related parties/activities.

Webb fits the bill.



Needs to Study More. (conservathingone - 5/21/2006 11:14:04 PM)
Webb needs to study more.  Presuming we ARE going to get oil from somewhere, the environmental impact from a U.S. company drilling in ANWR, vs. drilling MORE oil from the middle east is no contest -- we will do a MUCH better job protecting the environment than Venezuela, or Saudi Arabia, or most other countries that could supply the oil we would otherwise get from ANWR.

Further, the footprint of drilling in ANWR is such that, if every environmentalist  that has EVER visited ANWR started a search of ANWR by foot to find the "environmental damage" caused by the drilling, they would probably die of old age before the even FOUND the drilling sites.

And given the professional scientists who are experts in the field don't know how much oil is in ANWR, it is almost comical for Webb to say "there isn't enough there to make a difference". 

That comment is an oft-repeated "fact" based on a misunderstanding of the terms used to classify fields that have not yet been drilled.

Which suggests he hasn't really studied "the issue", but rather the anti-oil-lobby talking points.

I don't know if Miller is any better on this, but know this -- one day we WILL drill ANWR.  There's oil there, and we will run out of all other sources some day.

And if we have to pump it in an emergency, you can bet it won't be as "environmentally benign" as it would be if we drilled it now while we have time to do it right.



Huh? (Loudoun County Dem - 5/21/2006 11:35:30 PM)
but know this -- one day we WILL drill ANWR.  There's oil there, and we will run out of all other sources some day.

And if we have to pump it in an emergency, you can bet it won't be as "environmentally benign" as it would be if we drilled it now while we have time to do it right.

Isn't this like saying "You might as well let your daughter have sex at a young age since she eventually will have sex anyway and she might be raped"?

The issue with ANWR is that the area is one of the last pristine, untouched wilderness areas left on Earth, you can't be MOSTLY virgin.

There is not enough oil in ANWR to justify the damage done, we need to work on replacing fossil fuels as our primary energy source.

Alternative Energy does not mean finding new places to drill.



anwr oil (martha - 5/22/2006 6:09:55 AM)
There's not enough oil there to matter. The amount of money necessary to plan, execute and drill is over the moon. Webb mentioned all this at the 6th district convention.
Conserve what we do have and make individual efforts on your own to conserve all forms of energy.


Exactly. You're talking maybe 1 million barrels per day (Lowell - 5/22/2006 6:12:57 AM)
from ANWR, compared to 21 million barrels per day of US oil consumption and 83 million barrels per day of world consumption.  And that's just for a few years of production from the ANWR.  A temporary non-solution to our "oil addiction." But the damage to the environment could last forever.


Sorry. (phriendlyjaime - 5/22/2006 8:34:06 AM)
I don't buy it, conservathingone (what does that say?), but I am willing to look into the info if you have any links to factual evidence.  I will not read any propoganda, though, so please do send links to just the non partisan facts.

I will be waiting patiently, as I cannot consider you a viable or trusted "fact bringer" until you back it up.



Not enough oil in ANWR (summercat - 5/22/2006 9:25:45 AM)
and the oil there is not the usable type, I believe.  The drilling in ANWR thing is is just way to get the oil companies' feet in the door for drilling in other parks and reserves, via precedent.  We need decent conservation policies in place--raising CAFE standards, alternative fuels, etc.  And if there is such a crisis, why are we selling the oil we already take out of Alaska to Russia?