Bush Opening National Wildlife Refuge for Oil

snowball · 03-12-2003, 07:25 AM

while we are being bombarded with information on the world political scene, some things may be slipping by--- please take a moment to read- and then write to Gordon Smith--
Senate Republicans say they have moved to within a single vote of guaranteeing President Bush one of his top domestic priorities -- opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

The sources said Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, both of Arkansas,

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Oregon,

and freshman Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minnesota, have been subjected to intense behind-the-scenes lobbying to join the pro-drilling side.

[ 03-12-2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

Pilar · 03-12-2003, 07:51 AM

That is sad, snowball. It's a magicians trick, distract and misdirect. While the drumbeat of war drowns out everything else ....... open the refuge to big oil.

I moved your post here, this is where it belongs, thanks for the heads up.

lost_sailor · 03-12-2003, 08:19 AM

I believe I heard they will be sneaking it through as a "rider" on some budget bill.

And once it's done, it's done. Say goodbye.

6 months worth of oil. Maybe.

Straydog · 03-12-2003, 08:40 AM

Yup, the great distraction is taking place right before our very eyes........ :depressed:

True · 03-12-2003, 09:19 AM

Mr. Smith,

Don't sell out! Show integrity and strength, not feeble mindedness and weakness. Leave the Arctic alone!

True

p.s. I'll e-mail you at your place of "business" as well.

03-12-2003, 12:39 PM

The coastal plain was set aside for oil exploration as part of the compromise that got ANWAR established.

lost_sailor · 03-12-2003, 01:30 PM

You don't say! How about some additional history on that? Inquiring minds want to know. If it was "set aside" why is it an issue now?

Joe Schwab · 03-12-2003, 07:21 PM

Instead of listening to "well meaning environmentalists" why not check the facts. Do you think companies like APCO, Alaska Petroleum Contractors would spend hundreds of millions to develop safe means to extact oil from the strip in the refuge, that, by the way would leave only a small footprint on a vast region that few ever will see, for a 6 month supply of oil. The lockemup preservationists have thrown that story around for so long everyone believes it. By the way APCO is owned wholly by the Alaska natives and is not some conglomerate run by Texas oil barons. How long has north slope oil been running through the pipeline with no adverse effects? Ask the Caribou. The eastern Senators and Reps have been blocking this one for years and they know little about it. No trees are going to be cut down, no oil pools are going to be left on the ground, no streams will be polluted, so what is the effect going to be that has everyone upset? Wouldn't it be nice to have our own supply of oil?

lost_sailor · 03-12-2003, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Capt. Hook:
... How long has north slope oil been running through the pipeline with no adverse effects? Ask the Caribou. ... No trees are going to be cut down, no oil pools are going to be left on the ground, no streams will be polluted, so what is the effect going to be that has everyone upset? Wouldn't it be nice to have our own supply of oil?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Me and Capt. Hazelwood had a good laugh over this ... and a few belts of Johnny Walker.

I certainly trust Alaska natives, oil companies and Republicans to do what's best for all of us. I'll shut up now. Thanks.

Capt. Hazelwood -->

<-- LS

GutshotApe · 03-12-2003, 08:24 PM

You're right, Capt.Hook...there's a lot more than just 6 months worth of oil up there.

It sure seems odd :whazzup: ....the same people who don't want the US to do anything to ensure the continued flow of oil from the mid-east also don't want to develop domestic oil. Yet, all of these people I'm aware of still drive cars, ride in airplanes, use plastics, buy chemicals, eat food grown with petrochemical fertilizers....all sorts of things that are fueled by or made from oil.

Stratocaster · 03-12-2003, 08:31 PM

If they can tread lightly why not, i still have to tow my boat.Key word being lightly. Also i like the idea of thinning the forrest in the name of less forrest fires to wipe my u know what.I hope :grin: thats appropriate.

03-12-2003, 08:36 PM

LS,
You dig through it. There is thousands of hits on ANWR. It's in the legslation. It ****es Alaskans off too. You can't compromise with the hard core enviro movement.

Not what I was looking for but a start

More but not it yet

"The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation in 1978 and 1979 designating the entire original Range, including the now contested arctic coastal tundra, as Wilderness. The Senate's version, however, required studies of wildlife and petroleum resources, and the potential impacts of oil and gas development within the northern part of the Range. It postponed the decision to authorize oil and gas development or Wilderness designation. Differences between the House and Senate were not worked out by a conference committee in the usual manner. Instead, following the 1980 election, the House accepted the Senate bill and President Carter signed ANILCA into law. ANILCA doubled the size of the Range, renamed it the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and designated most of the original Range as Wilderness."

More but not what I want

"Congress recognized both renewable and nonrenewable resources in ANWR when it passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). In dealing with ANWR, Section 1002 of the Act specified that about 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain (about 8 percent of the 19 million-acre Refuge) should be subject to a thorough resource evaluation. About half the Refuge or approximately 8 million acres was set aside by ANILCA as wilderness and is not subject to the resource evaluation"

[ 03-12-2003, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

Joe Schwab · 03-13-2003, 06:35 AM

What does Captian Hazelwoood have to do with ANWR anyway? Thye don't drill from ships the last time I looked. Hazelwood screwed up, pure and simple. So do we eliminate shipping in the North Pacific? Any freighter can do an immense amount of damage but the pipeline itself has been trouble free.

So let's let the eastern voting block determine what is right for Alaska.

[ 03-13-2003, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Capt. Hook ]

03-13-2003, 06:54 AM

LS,
Do you know that the Coast Guard covered up their involvement in the Exon Valdiz disaster. Do I have to waste my time looking this up for you too?

speyfly · 03-13-2003, 07:14 AM

Hook�s Quote: �Wouldn't it be nice to have our own supply of oil?�

Mr. Hook, I own mineral rights in a oil and gas region of Montana (Williston Basin) and I can tell you that with today�s technologies it is known just how much oil and natural gas is there. The same hold true with ANWR. Here are the numbers that will prove that drilling in ANWR will have little affect on our importing of foreign oil. The following was written by a freind and the facts are true.

From the USGS assessment of ANWR:
"The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels."
SOURCE

10.4 billion barrels of oil sounds like a lot of oil.
But the U.S. currently uses about 19.4 million barrels of oil a DAY. That works out to about 7 billion barrels of oil a year.
So ANWR represents about a 15 month's supply of oil available at TODAY'S consumption rate.
But the US Dept of Energy predicts that U.S. oil demand will increase by 33 percent over the next 20 years. So that's a projected consumption rate of roughly 26 million barrels of oil a day by 2025 or so.
26 million barrels/day * 365 days = 9.5 billion barrels of total projected U.S. consumption.
And remember: If drilling in ANWR started today, we would not see a drop of oil until 2010 (see the USGS report). And full production would not be ramped up for a full 13 years after drilling began.
Any way you look at it, ANWR represents about a year's worth of oil to the U.S. -- spread out over 15-20 years of production.
So what are we to conclude? Is drilling in ANWR a solution to our immediate--or long-term--energy challenges?
Looking objectively at the government's own data, it's hard to conclude that it will.
In fact, opening up ANWR to drilling today will provide only minor, temporary relief ten years from now.
Here's a nice graph from the U.S. Senate, in fact, that nicely illustrates what I'm trying to say: SOURCE

Pretty stark picture, if you ask me.
Given this impending crisis, wouldn't it make sense for us to begin seriously investing in alternative energy sources? Wouldn't it make sense to begin weaning the country off of its growing reliance on foreign oil to stave off future threats to our national security and decrease potential volatility to our economy? In fact, wouldn't it be a tremendous act of leadership and vision for our president/congressional representatives to issue a challenge to the nation to be the global leader in developing and widely implementing viable sources of renewable energy by, say, 2010?
Nah. Better that we trump up a war to invade Iraq and grab control of THEIR oil reserves, (which happen to be second largest in the world, behind Saudi Arabia), thereby seizing complete control of the globe's economy and allowing us to build an uncontested American Empire.
Yeah. That seems like the better option.

[ 03-13-2003, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

lost_sailor · 03-13-2003, 07:16 AM

OK, I'm with ya! "Earth First! We'll strip mine the other planets later."

What's the point of wilderness and wildlife refuges if you're just going to trash them when their time comes?

Are we going to wait until all the oil is gone before we think about other sources of energy?

"Thin" all the tree farms you want - hands off the native forests.

03-13-2003, 07:29 AM

LS,
Trying to dodge the issue? Did you look at my links? The "Wilderness" areas of ANWR are protected.

lost_sailor · 03-13-2003, 07:54 AM

Here's a few things I find in one of those links:

"Congress specifically stated that the 'production of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from the [Refuge] shall be undertaken until authorized by an act of Congress.'"

"There is, therefore, a 50% chance of finding a 9 month's supply of oil in the 1002 Area"

"Cumulative biological consequences of oil field development that may be expected in the Arctic Refuge include:

* blocking, deflecting or disturbing wildlife
* loss of subsistence hunting opportunities
* increased predation by arctic fox, gulls and ravens on nesting birds due to introduction of garbage as a consistent food source
* alteration of natural drainage patterns, causing changes in vegetation
* deposition of alkaline dust on tundra along roads, altering vegetation over a much larger area than the actual width of the road
* local pollutant haze and acid rain from nitrogen oxides, methane and particulate matter emissions
* contamination of soil and water from fuel and oil spills"

"During petroleum exploration and development, large rivers are regularly used for gravel and water removal as well as transportation corridors. Concerns associated with oil field activities along river corridors include:

* displacement of muskoxen from preferred winter habitat
* increased energy needs related to disturbance and displacement
* decreased body condition of females
* increased incidents of predation
* decreased calf production and animal survival"

"If the 1002 Area was developed, the associated pipelines, roads, and structures would potentially impact the Porcupine Caribou herd by:

* reducing the amount and quality of preferred forage available during and after calving,
* restricting access to important coastal insect-relief habitats,
* exposing the herd to higher predation, and
* altering an ancient migratory pattern, the effects of which we can not predict.

A reduction in annual calf survival of as little as 5% would be sufficient to cause a decline in the Porcupine caribou population."

Thanks, I won't really be changing my position.

CATCH AND EAT · 03-13-2003, 08:14 AM

Speyfly, interesting information. You mentioned alternative power sources. Here is what I see. You are offered by PGE to purchase your power from a green source like wind power. Guess what? you pay a lot more for it. Penalization for being
environmentally responsible. Now we have Hybred cars which I think is totally cool and a move ing the right direction. I might even buy one myself. Guess what? There is a move to tax these cars because the government will loose money from gas taxes. Government better start offering Americans incentives to purchase products like hybrids without future penalty.

The true conspiricy behind oil is not drilling in ANWAR. It is why have'nt we seen a vast improvement in fuel economy from the auto makers? There is no reason modern vehicles should not be achiving 80 to 100 mpg right now except for the fact that oil and government do mix and the consumer continues to be ripped off.

Oil companies continue to buy and stash new technologies so that they can sell more gas. We as Americans continue to use gas/oil products like there is no tomorrow. There needs to be a new focus on efficieny of our vehicles. Detroit better listen up because the gas hogs they still produce just are not going to cut it in the next few years.

In the past, I have argued that ANWAR should be explored. I still think that should happen. I think there are many areas in the lower 48 that should be explored also. Our dependency on foreign oil is too great. Developing our own legitimate reserves is necessary. Anwar is but a spec of what we should be looking for as far as oil is concerned.

At the risk of sounding like President Bush, perhaps hydrogen power for autos needs to take a giant step forward.

speyfly · 03-13-2003, 09:43 AM

C&E, you are absolutely right. 75% tax incentives for Hummers is a slap in the face to the citizens of this country but that is just the tip of the iceberg. While were are talking about our fishing and keeping ourselves entertained there are those who come like thief�s in the night and stealing from you and you don�t care. Not you personally C&E but the rest of the ignorant.
Just look at the Amber Alert that is being held up in the House because of the PORK that is included in the bigger Bill. Our government is out of control yet no one wants to do anything about it. Where is the outrage? I fear that the vast majority of the public is just too f$^%&&% lazy to get off their butt to do anything about it so there you have it. Our government is taking us to the cleaners but you know, we all get what we deserve.
Just look at how much this war is going to cost you and I. What do you think could be done with a $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) for this country and it�s dependency on oil? There is no one in Washington that care about any of us, the taxpayers. Corporate welfare is the only thing that is getting done and that is criminal. They say that it is to create jobs, which is BS and has always been BS. Well now that I have my rant out of the way I want to say, have a great day folks cause your being fleeced and either can�t see it or you don�t give a damn.

[ 03-13-2003, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

03-13-2003, 10:11 AM

D'oh

[ 03-13-2003, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

03-13-2003, 10:14 AM

LS,

"Thanks, I won't really be changing my position"

The wildlife hasn't been harmed around Prudhoe Bay or the pipeline. The Senate put the option for oil production in the legislation creating ANWR. This gets ignored too often.

Thumper · 03-13-2003, 10:18 AM

It's about time. :grin:

Snapset · 03-13-2003, 10:19 AM

Speyfly: "Wouldn't it make sense to begin weaning the country off of its growing reliance on foreign oil to stave off future threats to our national security and decrease potential volatility to our economy."

Actually, it makes more sense to me to use up every body elses oil first, then when theirs is all gone, we have all of ours left. I am with you on the alternative energy development incentives. In fact, I think if you aren't pulling a boat, you shouldn't be allowed to drive a car with more than 4 cylinders. :grin:

Joe Schwab · 03-13-2003, 02:41 PM

Speyfly, A years worth of oil here and a years worth of oil there, pretty soon you're talking big oil. Oh that was somebody talking about millions of dollars. Sorry to be facetious but the argument is the same. It's 6-12 months of oil only if all other sources are shut off. Now that is a lot of oil! Have you seen the environmentally clean rigs being built in Nikiski by APCO. I also have seen the cleanup results in the Kansas oil fields, once the most polluted ugly lanscape this side of the Mississippi. By the way Kansas deer herds are flourishing, their pheasant populations are high, Turkey numbers astounding and they are still pumping oil. Very little visual pollution unless you don't like "grasshoppers".

Of course Kansas and Alaska are far apart but the laws are still in effect nationwide. One of the biggest polluters of Alaska landscape is the gold mining industry. Yet Congress and the courts keep letting hydraulic and leach mines into wild areas nationwide. I wonder what the overall benefit is to the general public of gold minig vs. oil exploration.

No matter how much the industry changes, and there have been many changes over the last twenty years, Some people will never be content until all of us are wearing hemp and hunting with sticks.

Exxon Valdez was disaster, no argument there, but the bigger disaster was the puking of money by the federal government into the hands of people who did not know what they were doing. Eg. Steamcleaning the rocks of oil and driving it into the subsurface gravel where it remains to this day. Spending millions of dollars to wash off shorebirds and attempt to rehab them. Nature would have recovered their numbers just fine. Most probably died anyway. Just a few examples.

Ah heck, let's just buy from the Saudis. They need the money.

fishwhenican · 03-13-2003, 07:50 PM

C&E, The real slap in the face is the fact that technology exists today to improve CAFE standards by 25% in a short time. Diesel hybrids are 40% more effiecient than the gasoline hybrids. There are diesel cars in Europe that get 25% better mileage than the gasoline hybrids avail. here in the USA. 40% of the vehicles they currently sell in Europe are diesel powered. Imagine a Jeep Cherokee that gets 27mpg and has enough power to have a top speed of 125 mph. You can buy one overseas. BMW,Ford,Daimler Chyrsler,Volvo, Jaguar,Saab,Audi,Toyota,VW etc... etc.. SUVs Cars whatever you want.

But, what really burns me is to hear the press or some "enviromentalist" brag about how Europe reduces greenhouse gases why don't we?, and then in the next breath ***** about how bad diesels are! GET A CLUE!

More efficient vehicles are limited in avail. by the emmisions regulations enacted by the Democratic congress and enforced by the EPA. Give the Vehicle manufactures a little more leeway and Greenhouse gas production would go down and CAFE standards go up. The Republican congress needs to allow the Cafe standards to increase, that combined with higher fuel prices would "drive" us to more fuel efficient vehicles.