Democrats' history of "no" on ANWR
Winningreen ENERGY Alert
Democrats' schizophrenic history of “no” to producing oil in Alaska
By Tom Randall
Date: May 29, 2008
Situation: Democrats use a variety of tactics and excuses to avoid any kind of meaningful domestic energy production. Their most consistent response over the last 27 years since Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) to allow future oil exploration and production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is that it would take too long for the oil to come on line to do any good. Yet, at other times, some very liberal Democrats seemed to be all for ANWR oil. Read this curious timeline, below (info courtesy of the Republican House Energy Action Team).
1981: ANILCA “strikes a balance between protecting areas of great beauty and value and allowing development of Alaska’s vital oil, gas, mineral and timber resources.” — President Jimmy Carter. Four years in office, one thing right.
1982: Crude oil $31.83
1989: “We will be doing the country a serious disservice if we cast our vote on ANWR based upon the current price of oil. A much more relevant question is what will be the price of oil in 10 years — the length of time it will take to get the first drop.” — Rep. Walter Jones, Sr. (D-NC) You were right about that relevant question thing, congressman.
1989: “Well, let me just explain to you…if you approved drilling in the Arctic slope today…it wouldn’t come online for 10 to 12 years.” — Rep. George Miller (D-CA) Thanks for straightening us out about that George.
1989: Crude oil $13.58
1990: “We have had 15 years or so with Prudhoe and we came out pretty good. People who talk about ecological disaster have been proven wrong.” — Rep. Mo Udall (D-AZ) Could there have been a time when old Mo was not on the dark side?”
1992: “You cannot get that oil out of ANWR quickly; it takes 10 to 15 years of extensive drilling to do that.” — Rep. Phil Sharp (D-IN) Lemmesee here. That was 17 years ago. Thanks, Phil.
1992: “We should not forget that any jobs created by opening ANWR would not, for the most part, happen until sometime after 2000.” — Rep Tim Wirth (D-CO)
1995: “For one thing, [they] assume that oil prices will be more than $30 a barrel in the year 2000. What are the chances of that? Right now the price of West Texas intermediate crude is $19.00 a barrel.” — Bruce Babbitt, Bill Clinton’s Interior Secretary. Wow, and George HW Bush thought he had trouble with the “vision thing.”
1996: Crude oil $18.41
2000: Crude oil $32.32
2000: “[ANWR] would take 10 years to come on line and provide only a few month’s worth of energy supply for this country.” — Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) Wonder where he heard that.
2005: “It will open [ANWR] to oil and gas drilling all for the sake of a 6-month supply of oil that will not even be available for 10 years.” — Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Where were you 10 years ago, Nancy?
2005: Crude oil $59.18
2005: “Drilling in ANWR will do little to reduce our current dependence on foreign oil because it will take more than 10 years, yes, more than 10 years to process what little oil may be there.” Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) Warning! Don’t drink the water in California.
2008: "It is well known on both sides that it will take eight to 10 years before any oil could be produced in ANWR."— Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Both sides? That's a new one.
2008: Crude oil…priceless
Two myths run through the Democrats’ ceaseless mantra. First is the “only six months" supply claim. They know this is a gross distortion. In fact there is oil equal to 16 years of imports from Saudi Arabia — more than enough to affect world petroleum prices. Second, it only takes 10 years to get the oil because of absurd permitting processes. We could, otherwise get the oil much sooner. The Alaska pipeline, an engineering marvel, was built in just 3 years.
Contact: Tom Randall
Winningreen LLC
3712 N. Broadway – PMB 279
Chicago, IL 60613
Phone: 773-857-5086
e-mail: trandall@winningreen.com
Democrats' schizophrenic history of “no” to producing oil in Alaska
By Tom Randall
Date: May 29, 2008
Situation: Democrats use a variety of tactics and excuses to avoid any kind of meaningful domestic energy production. Their most consistent response over the last 27 years since Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) to allow future oil exploration and production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is that it would take too long for the oil to come on line to do any good. Yet, at other times, some very liberal Democrats seemed to be all for ANWR oil. Read this curious timeline, below (info courtesy of the Republican House Energy Action Team).
1981: ANILCA “strikes a balance between protecting areas of great beauty and value and allowing development of Alaska’s vital oil, gas, mineral and timber resources.” — President Jimmy Carter. Four years in office, one thing right.
1982: Crude oil $31.83
1989: “We will be doing the country a serious disservice if we cast our vote on ANWR based upon the current price of oil. A much more relevant question is what will be the price of oil in 10 years — the length of time it will take to get the first drop.” — Rep. Walter Jones, Sr. (D-NC) You were right about that relevant question thing, congressman.
1989: “Well, let me just explain to you…if you approved drilling in the Arctic slope today…it wouldn’t come online for 10 to 12 years.” — Rep. George Miller (D-CA) Thanks for straightening us out about that George.
1989: Crude oil $13.58
1990: “We have had 15 years or so with Prudhoe and we came out pretty good. People who talk about ecological disaster have been proven wrong.” — Rep. Mo Udall (D-AZ) Could there have been a time when old Mo was not on the dark side?”
1992: “You cannot get that oil out of ANWR quickly; it takes 10 to 15 years of extensive drilling to do that.” — Rep. Phil Sharp (D-IN) Lemmesee here. That was 17 years ago. Thanks, Phil.
1992: “We should not forget that any jobs created by opening ANWR would not, for the most part, happen until sometime after 2000.” — Rep Tim Wirth (D-CO)
1995: “For one thing, [they] assume that oil prices will be more than $30 a barrel in the year 2000. What are the chances of that? Right now the price of West Texas intermediate crude is $19.00 a barrel.” — Bruce Babbitt, Bill Clinton’s Interior Secretary. Wow, and George HW Bush thought he had trouble with the “vision thing.”
1996: Crude oil $18.41
2000: Crude oil $32.32
2000: “[ANWR] would take 10 years to come on line and provide only a few month’s worth of energy supply for this country.” — Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) Wonder where he heard that.
2005: “It will open [ANWR] to oil and gas drilling all for the sake of a 6-month supply of oil that will not even be available for 10 years.” — Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Where were you 10 years ago, Nancy?
2005: Crude oil $59.18
2005: “Drilling in ANWR will do little to reduce our current dependence on foreign oil because it will take more than 10 years, yes, more than 10 years to process what little oil may be there.” Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) Warning! Don’t drink the water in California.
2008: "It is well known on both sides that it will take eight to 10 years before any oil could be produced in ANWR."— Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Both sides? That's a new one.
2008: Crude oil…priceless
Two myths run through the Democrats’ ceaseless mantra. First is the “only six months" supply claim. They know this is a gross distortion. In fact there is oil equal to 16 years of imports from Saudi Arabia — more than enough to affect world petroleum prices. Second, it only takes 10 years to get the oil because of absurd permitting processes. We could, otherwise get the oil much sooner. The Alaska pipeline, an engineering marvel, was built in just 3 years.
Contact: Tom Randall
Winningreen LLC
3712 N. Broadway – PMB 279
Chicago, IL 60613
Phone: 773-857-5086
e-mail: trandall@winningreen.com