Open ANWR: Refuge part of deficit solution

Fairbanks Daily News Miner
Sep 09, 2011 | 1210 views | 17 | 10 | |
Editorial

Raising revenue without raising taxes. That’s an excellent idea if ever there was one.

All we have to do as a nation is go to a piggy bank, one of which is sitting way up north in Alaska. A relatively small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could provide the nation not only with another source of domestic oil but also billions of dollars in revenue from that oil.

The idea to open the coastal plain of ANWR to oil development is far from new. Congress in 1980 designated the coastal plain as an area available to oil production, with another vote of Congress required for that to actually occur. People have been fighting about ANWR ever since.

The idea to have ANWR provide some of the necessary revenue for deficit reduction came up this week from Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., a member of the bipartisan supercommittee that has been given the task of creating a plan to reduce the nation’s deficit.




Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - http://newsminer.com/bookmark/15448451- ... z1Y2CXdlae

neptunechimney wrote: Fairbanks Daily News Miner
Sep 09, 2011 | 1210 views | 17 | 10 | |
Editorial

Raising revenue without raising taxes. That’s an excellent idea if ever there was one.

All we have to do as a nation is go to a piggy bank, one of which is sitting way up north in Alaska. A relatively small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could provide the nation not only with another source of domestic oil but also billions of dollars in revenue from that oil.

The idea to open the coastal plain of ANWR to oil development is far from new. Congress in 1980 designated the coastal plain as an area available to oil production, with another vote of Congress required for that to actually occur. People have been fighting about ANWR ever since.

The idea to have ANWR provide some of the necessary revenue for deficit reduction came up this week from Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., a member of the bipartisan supercommittee that has been given the task of creating a plan to reduce the nation’s deficit.




Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - http://newsminer.com/bookmark/15448451- ... z1Y2CXdlae

But what about the spotted owls and snowy plovers that sometimes nest there?! The increased presence of humans and all the pollution might cause those rare birds to find other near by places to roost...

It'll never work, you'll have to defeat the Sierra Club, Green Peace, and the rest of those organizations that are charged with defending the earth from us evil hydrocarbon craving ghouls. Besides, since when has logic ever produced a result when congress and the white house are involved?

Any oil/gas from ANWR will never make it to the US thus will not affect domestic use. Instead BP will simply take it to closer more profitable markets.

I'd rather see us sell tracts along the edges of the national forests for income. The national forests are socialistic anyway: we pay taxes so that anyone can use them whenever they fell the urge. They are shared by everyone and are free to enjoy. If that's not socialistic, I don't know what is.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Any oil/gas from ANWR will never make it to the US thus will not affect domestic use. Instead BP will simply take it to closer more profitable markets.

Dog, that is not even close to being on point.

"Producing this much oil would generate substantial revenue for the federal government through leasing and royalties. Over the life of production, ANWR could generate approximately $150 billion.... This is a conservative estimate and could very well be as much as $296 billion depending on the price of oil and the actual amount of oil resources.”

It sound like that just addresses direct revenues, not the large # of people making large amounts of taxable income.

Something:

Can you provide a link to substantiate your claim? I'm learning to think like a Liberal. OMG

As usual, the Left doesn't grasp that to access this oil, it could be written a specified percent of jobs and oil must go to the US to drill as part of the permit process. After all, it is US property and mineral rights. And as Neptune stated, look at the federal government revenue potential.

Nmysys wrote: Something:

Can you provide a link to substantiate your claim? I'm learning to think like a Liberal. OMG

You mean actually requiring documented facts instead of lies, it's a wonderful thing. Simple geography shows that getting oil from ANWR to the gulf of mexico is much more difficult than taking it directly to China or Japan. There is an argument that using the aging and decripit pipeline from Prudhoe Bay would allow it, but that assumes that production there would be in the decline.

A scientific study in 2008 by the EIA rebuts most of the OP's article, that drilling in ANWR would have little significant effect.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008 )03.pdf

I clicked the link you provided but it said the page cannot be found, not that I totally trust any government reports, but I thought I would read it to give the benefit of the doubt.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Any oil/gas from ANWR will never make it to the US thus will not affect domestic use. Instead BP will simply take it to closer more profitable markets.

Ever take economics? We ship our crappy oil to Japan and can buy good oil from other places, increasing the world supply of oil will decrease costs. Supply and demand. Meanwhile many new jobs are created and thousands of acres of Alaska is still protected.

And if they open up ANWR and economically it doesn't make sense to drill up there, commercial companies won't.