Ice Teas ANWR Report

“

Non bold version

In May of 2002, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein declared he would stop exporting oil for thirty days or until Israel with drew from the West Bank and Gaza. Iranian leaders summoned fellow Islamic countries to join in the fight against the west and Israel, to show the full strength of the OPEC cartel. “The United States has used wheat and food as a weapon,” Ayatolla Ali Khamenei declared in a fierce speech to thousands in Tehran. “If Islamic and Arab countries do the same an do only for one month suspend the export of oil to Israel and its supporters, the world would be shaken. The oil belongs to the people and can be used as a weapon against the West and those who support the savage regime of Israel.” With little effort we, the American public, can be at are knees against the OPEC nations in the Middle East. It is time for America to reevaluate our nations resources, and realize that the only way we will not be at the mercy of dictators, and radical regimes is to explore our own oil reserves.

Far up north, in the fridgid and desolate Alaskan tundra, there is an answer to our problems. The answer is a massive coastal region of about 19 million acres known as the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. “ANWR is a flat, treeless, almost featureless plain.... Temperatures can drop to –40 degrees Fahrenheit and 56 days of total darkness, combined with 9 months of winter.” stated Senator Frank Murkowski. Permafrost exists throughout the Coastal Plain area to a depth of 2,000 feet. Virtually continuous winds reshape the Coastal Plain throughout the winter, with snow blowing and filling in valleys and any shape of the land. This gives the land the appearance of a white wasteland. Below this so-called wasteland is oil, and lots of it. So much oil is estimated to be under ANWR that we would no longer be dependent on the Middle East and South America for energy.

The U.S. imports over 55% of the nation’s petroleum from around the world, the Middle East, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, and from South American nations like Venezuela. These oil imports cost more than $55.1 billion dollars a year and that does not include the military costs required protecting the supply. It has been estimated that these figures could rise and exceed 65% by the year 2005. Since the government in Venezuela has been in fray, gas prices have skyrocketed. In August of 2002 $1.10 was a fair price per gallon, but during the height of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Venezuela government over through gas prices soured to over $1.80 per gallon in New Jersey and $2.15 in California.

One must look back the era when the Arab nations slapped an oil embargo on the United States in 1973 to punish us for supporting Israel. During that time America faced the worst economy since the Great Depression. Any one who lived through that time would remember the wave of oil shortages, price spikes and Jimmy Carter’s infamous “misery index”. The American economy of the 70s was as dependent on oil as it is today. In recent history we experienced a massive energy crises in the golden state, with rolling black outs, price spikes and serious hardships. People had only certain hours of the day with power, just enough to keep refrigerators cold and to check their e-mail.

Now more than ever, mostly in the wake of 9/11 the American people deserve facts, and the fact is that we are more dependent that ever on importing oil. During the oil embargo of 1973 we imported about 36% of our oil from foreign nations. Now thirty years later, that number has al most doubled to 60%. Then we imported 14 percent of our oil from the Persian Gulf region. In 2000 we imported 22 percent from the same hostile and volatile nations. It is vital to the future of the United States that we look for other options than importing from the Persian Gulf region. When we were importing 14 percent of our oil from the Middle East in 1973 the economy was crippled; imagine what would happen now if the OPEC nations started a new embargo against the United States.

The Clinton Gore administration increased our dependency on foreign oil, particularly and unfortunately on radical Islamic nations. From 1993 to 2000 U.S. imports on oil from the Persian Gulf increased by more than 38 percent. That means from less than 1.8 million barrels of oil a day to more than 2.4 million barrels of oil a day. Worse still, during Clintons rain, he increased oil imports from zero barrels a day to more than 600,000 from Iraq. When G. H. Bush left office, absolutely no oil was being imported to America from Iraq, because we knew the evils that our money would fund in Iraq. Mr. Clinton knew of these evils too, especially when he bombed chemical weapons plants in Iraq during 1998. Yet even with this knowledge Clinton still imported oil from Iraq and funded murder, oppression and human rights violations in the millions.

The U.S. Department of Energy predicts that with current trends continue, foreign oil imports will rise to 62 percent by 2020. Most of that oil will come from unstable nations that support terrorism and the elimination of the “infidel”.

Once again, the answer to our energy problems is ANWR. Under those two thousands feet of permafrost, dirt and rock is enough oil to hold us over for at lest 30 years. Right now, we have twenty-one billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and estimates by the 1995 U.S. Geological Survey indicate that we have a “technically recoverable oil resource base onshore” of more than one hundred and ten billion barrels. Not only is there snow and oil up there, but natural gas too, approximately 1.2 trillion cubic feet of gas. Conservative estimates show well over 16 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, to put that number in prospective, 16 billion barrels is more oil then we will import from Saudi Arabia with in the next thirty years. With numbers like these it is clear that we should explore ANWR and refine the riches of the land with out hesitation.

Congress understands the need for oil exploration, and that is why the set eight percent of the refuge aside for potential oil exploration. However under the Bush Cheney energy plan, only two thousand acres will be explored. To make it clear, the Bush plan will leave 99.99 percent of the land untouched. That means he only wants to drill one hundredth of a percent of the land. Those two thousand acres that Bush wants to drill are the equivalent of one quarter of Washington’s Dulles Airport. Clearly two thousand acres is not all that much land.

In the 1960s when ANWR was set up as a wildlife reserve oil companies did not have the technology they have today. During the 1960’s oil drilling would have been messy and hazardous to the environment, but today we have advanced in science so far that we no longer have to make the choice between energy and the environment. We can and should both.

During the early years of oil exploration, engineers had to “test drill” to find oil plots, they where unsuccessful 9 out of ten times, leaving the pristine wilderness cluttered with unusable oil derricks. Now there are several advances in technology that will leave no “foot print” on the environment. First, instead of test drilling, now we use 3D seismic testing. The reflection of seismic waves is transferred into 3D images on the computer. Then engineers and scientist look over the three dimensional grids to find the oil plots. This prevents “test drilling” that will scare the land, along with saving the energy companies money, in unnecessary complexes of derricks. Every step of the drilling process has been engineered for the sake of the environment. The first step in finding the oil is through seismic testing; to do the testing large trucks have to patrol the tundra blasting seismic waves below the ground to find the oil. Since these trucks are massive in size actions have been taken to prevent abuse to the tundra. One, the companies only explore during the fridge winter months when the tundra is covered with many feet of snow. Second, the tires are under low pressure, so nearly no harm is done to the environment.

Seismic testing and low-pressure exploration are only the first step in the oil drilling process that has been reengineered for the environments safety. New oil development technology, researched over the past 30 years, will allow companies to tap underground producing reservoirs with a much smaller “footprint” on the surface. Along with smaller footprints and flats, scientists have found was to drill over already drilled wells. Like a sidetrack, this allows a new well to be drilled of from another older well. Multilateral wells involve new wells drilled off older along with two new wells drilled, all sharing the same vertical section that reaches the surface, as well as the facilities used to pump the oil. The multilateral wells clearly lessen the impact on the environment. Currently there are eight multilateral wells in use, meaning that in previous years sixteen wells would have been needed.

The wells have been reinvented to near perfection, and the same is true for the pipelines used. The first modern innovation used was the science of horizontal production wells. This new technology allows producers to run long sections of tubing through the ground horizontally, preventing the need for excessive facilities. This technology keeps improving since it was introduced in 1990. Now 90 percent of the wells drilled in Prudhoe Bay are horizontal. In 1990 when the technology was introduced the horizontal lines ran 500 to 800 feet, now they can run up to 8,000 feet. The second huge innovation was fixing the wells with coiled tubing units. This technology is primarily used in the multilateral wells that require taping past pipelines. Another innovation is designer wells. These are drilled with a high degree of precision to reach small oil targets, several small pockets of oil and other isolated traps. This type of drilling has been made possible by 3D seismic, this allows engineers to reach small reservoirs of oil and hit them within 100 feet of accuracy. This same technology makes it possible for the pipes to make tight turns in drilling. Some of the astonishing figures are, turning 55 degrees in under 100 feet, 90 degrees in 200 feet. One designer well drilled earlier this year turned 270 degrees, to nearly spiral through several oil plots.

Another interesting innovation is ice roads. Instead of building a gravel pad for exploration drilling, companies are now building temporary pads of ice, which disappear after the exploration well has been drilled. Temporary ice roads have long been used to support winter exploration drilling on the North Slope. This is a safe, proven, and effective way to explore the north.

All of these new techniques have enabled oil and gas producers to develop new oil reserves on the Northern Slope for less than $2.50 a barrel. This has been made possible by lowering the finding cost of oil and drilling cost. By reusing old pipes and plants, with multilateral drilling the companies save enormous amounts of money, while at the same time preventing any further damage to the environment. The effort for drilling in ANWR should be done and can be done safely.

It is important to keep in mind what ANWR is, ANWR is not the bastion of tourism and trade, nor is it among Americas most pristine and gorgeous wilderness areas. It is completely baron and nearly uninhabitable.

While humans can barely survive there, it is true that Porcupine caribou are among the few animals that can both survive and thrive. While most Alaskans support drilling in ANWR, left wing extremist are preventing exploration, claiming that the drilling will eradicate the caribou. Those left-wingers, believe that the fate of 280 million Americans should be based off the sexual migration, and migration patterns of caribou. While it is true that at one time Porcupine caribou where on the verge of being endangered, now there numbers are over 130,000. “The Central Artic caribou heard that inhabits part of Prudhoe Bay has brown from 6,000 in 1978 to 19,700 today,” notes Senator Murkowski, citing a recent study by federal wildlife agencies. With today’s modern advances in technology there is no reason to fear for the caribou, and no reason to maintain old laws that coincide with old technology when we have new technology. “The fact remains that there’s no solid evidence that oil exploration is bad for caribou. In fact, the only data we have says the reverse. Since the massive and more invasive, Prudhoe Bay installation was launched, the Central Artic caribou population has increased fivefold. Some say the caribou like to put their bellies on the pipelines for warmth.” states Rush Limbaugh in a recent article. It is important to know that conservatives that want drilling have vowed that if evidence is presented that the caribou are in danger once drilling has begun the will seez exploration, but the facts show that it wont ever be the case.

Americans understand the energy problem we are having. Eight out of every ten believe the United States will face a huge energy problem with in the next few years, while 36 percent believe the United States is already in a crisis. In addition eight out of ten Americans want more oil produced at home. Once you cut through the Left’s spin and deceptions you will find that more than 75 percent of Alaskans support drilling for oil in ANWR. Eskimos are included in that 75 percent too. George Ahmaogak is mayor of Alaska’s North Slope Borough of ANWR and he takes offence at liberal notions that he and his people do not know what is good for them. “We know that development of energy in ANWR is a responsible use of land,” says the Mayor “For thousands of years, we’ve had a reverence for the land, and part of our fundamental belief is that the land should be used responsibly.” “Our people have been respectful using the land long before Columbus discovered America. People who have never seen to Alaska but are opposing ANWR need to visit and speak with us,” adds the Mayor. The mayor feels this way for many reasons, but some may be what Senator Al Adams cites in one of his recent speeches. “Anti-development forces don’t tell you that more than 50 billion dollars have been spent across America and Canada in the development of Alaskan oil fields at Prudhoe Bay.” The Senator adds “Nor do they mention the thousands of jobs that have been generated from Alaskan oil production.” He concludes with “It [oil plants] has given them [Eskimos] access to running water and the ability to install appropriate health care facilities with in their villages. Inhabitants of the North Slope have been able to move from welfare base economy towards jobs and a substance based economy.”

During a recent interview between Sean Hannity and Governor Knowles on Hannity & Colmes the discussion of the energy crises arose, and the following transpired: Allen Colmes the resident liberal on the show asked the Governor “Should we be looking at the fact that George Bush got more than 1.7 million dollars in campaign contributions from Big Oil, including BP, and Exxon Mobil, two of the biggest companies that do business in Alaska?” The Governor responded with a zinger “Well, I think you need to ask the senior citizen that was being pried from an elevator during one of the rolling blackouts in California as to whether or not we should develop our oil and gas in America so we can provide energy for families and for jobs.”

Union workers and their leadership like the idea of drilling in Alaska too. “by tapping into petroleum resources in Alaska, we can create jobs and stabilize our economy by lessening our dependence on foreign oil,” said Teamster president James Hoffa, explaining that ANWR could create more than 735,000 new jobs. The Teamsters represent more than 1.5 million workers in the United States and Canada.

On March 19, 2001 Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham delivered a speech in which me pointed out huge energy problems. “Since 1980, the number of American refineries has been cut in half, there hasn’t been a new refinery build in the United States in over 25 years.” “Over the next 20 years, the Department of Energy estimates that demands for energy will raise by 45 percent. That raising growth will require 130 new power plants” Secretary Abraham also pointed out that “there hasn’t been a new nuclear power plant permit granted since 1979. Many of the 103 existing nuclear power plants are not even expected to file for a renewal of their licenses as they expire.” This is after he stated that over then next 20 years we will need 1,900 new plants just to keep pace with growing energy needs from the internet and other modern connivances. Abraham continues: “And now, even though consumers are faced with potential blackouts and chronic electricity shortages in the West, activist and some political leaders want to breach one of the four federal hydrometric plants on the Snake river to help young salmon on their trek to the sea.”

Now more than ever the need to lessen our oil dependency on foreign nations, we can and should explore ANWR, our closest and best option. With modern science on our side creating safer and more economical ways to drill oil, from horizontal drilling to seismic testing I see no reason not to drill in the Artic. The Left of America has no facts supporting their case against drilling in ANWR, especially when the caribou situation is under control and the facts prove that drilling has not and will not harm them. The dangers we face from decades of liberal no-growth energy policies have seriously endangered our economy and national security. The energy crises will not solve it self, we must do something.”

“Dude, ever hear of SPELL CHECK?”

“why?”

“"F"”

“U.S. energy policy has hardly been "liberal", ever.

The liberal use of oil, little or no attention to conservation and TOO MUCH growth, has gotten the U.S. where it is now in regard to dependancy on foreign oil and the American oil companies who peddle the stuff.”

“I copied over to my mac and only found a couple of errors, withdrew is one word, how do you spell seez?”

“Get a few of your facts straight first.

ENRON was responsible for the rolling blackouts in the West by manipulating energy contracts. there is not a shortage of electrical power.

also, your $2.50/bbl cost is orders of magnitude off:
The amount of technically attainable petroleum resources ranges between 4.3 and 11.8 BBO (95% and 5% probablities). This estimate exceeds earlier calculations because of the improved resolution of the reprocessed seismic data. Furthermore, the USGS concludes that 2.4 BBO are economically recoverable at $18 per barrel, while 3.2 BBO are economically recoverable at $20 per barrel. No oil is economically retrievable at a market price less than $15 per barrel. (American Geologic Institute/ American Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists)”

“It all depends on how much you want to spend to get it out of the ground. At an oil price of $24/barrel the mean expected estimate comes in at 5.2 billion barrels of oil. You aren't going to end up with cheap oil.”

“The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that if the green light is given it would take 7 to 12 years to sell leases, do permitting, environmental reviews, etc. and that initial production could start in 2010 at the earliest. Assuming an optimistic scenario in which the mean expected technically recoverable oil in the entire coastal plain (not just the 1002 area) - 10.3 billion barrels - could be completely recovered (i.e. ignoring market pricing) the EIA estimates production of 600 million barrels a year. In comparison, US daily consumption is 18.5 million barrels a day, or 6,752 million barrels a year. Thus in this scenario ANWR, once on tap, would provide less than 9% of US annual usage (given that usage is trending upward..). Assuming a less positive scenario, at a market price of $24/barrel the mean estimated commercially recoverable oil is 5.2 billion barrels, and since the oil is in multiple plays rather than one large play the costs of exploting the oil will be higher.”

“Welcome to Remedial English 099.”

“Here's what you get.....

US Crude Prod. w/ ANWR”

“But...you wrote a thoughtful paper.”

“I'll number the paragraphs for you.

1.) "with drew" - one word

"Ayatolla" - Ayatollah with an H

"and Arab countries do the same an do only for one" - "an do" should be "and"

"can be at are knees " - "are" should be "our"

2.) "fridgid" - frigid

combined with 9 months of winter.” stated - use a comma instead of a period...it's not the end of a sentence

3.) "more than $55.1 billion dollars a year" use of the $ and the word dollars is redundant. Use one or the other. Check the rest of your document for the same thing.

"government in Venezuela has been in fray" - do you mean in "a" fray?

"Venezuela government over through gas prices soured to over " - "over through" should be overthrew, "soured" should be soared

4.) "One must look back the era when" - do you mean "back AT the era" ?

"Any one" - one word

"experienced a massive energy crises" - crisis is singular, crises is plural. Either take out the word "a" or change "crises" to crisis

This is exhausting...any one else upp for doing paragraphs fiv threw twenty 2? ;-)”

“"People had only certain hours of the day with power, just enough to keep refrigerators cold and to check their e-mail." I'm sure e-mail was foremost on their minds at the time.”

“Tea, in reading through some of the rest of your paper, I'm wondering if you carefully proofread this at all. I can't help someone that won't help themself.”

“While most Alaskans support drilling in ANWR, left wing extremist are preventing exploration, claiming that the drilling will eradicate the caribou. Those left-wingers, believe that the fate of 280 million Americans should be based off the sexual migration, and migration patterns of caribou.

Did congress say NO to drilling? Is this also a ploy of "left wing extremists"?”

“More Fractured Fairy Tales.

Nice kid, but out there on the fringe.”

“"arctic" not artic.”

“Tea, while I disagree with some of the thoughts, I will say that I find it to be fairly well written and expressive of your point of view.

Is the paper intended to be pursuasive or informative?

If it is the former, then you are on a fairly good track although I would want to see more depth in the analyzing facts as opposed to a statement of your opinions.

If the latter, then you are on the wrong track in that the only information I gleaned from it is that you are in favor of the drilling.

If it is an opinion paper, then I would give you a fair enough grade.

In short, you didn't give enough information in regard to the nature of the assignment itself in order for me to give accurate feedback.

Thus, other than spelling and grammer help, everything else you get may help or it may hurt your effort.”

“You've spun this nicely Tea, but there no relationship between the rolling blackouts in California and dependency on foreign oil. After California deregulated, power companies manipulated supply, drove up prices and forced rolling blackouts. Enron traded energy like a commodity, manipulated prices and the high electricity costs were the result of illegal conduct. Enron bought California power at cheap, capped prices, routed it outside the state, and then sold it back into California at inflated prices. How this relates to ANWR, I don't see. But having little old, senior citizens trapped in an elevator makes for nice spin.”

“Organized Crime?”

“And while you're doing your revisions, don't forget to mention that Dick(head) Cheney had meetings with top Enron criminals to formulate the Bush Administration's energy policy and then refused to disclose the contents of those meetings.

And the corruption goes 'round and 'round....”

“Eye due beleave thet arrow doz no hiz facks.

I do believe, that aero DOES know his facts.”

“ok couple more gramatical points. The reindeer herd has grown, not brown, and if Clinton were a King then maybe he would reign, and not rain, but as he wasn't you'd be better using a phrase like term of office, or during the Clinton administration. Also look at your use of the apostrophie, or lack thereof, and commas, and....

Chili made a good point. If you're putting your view across then that's great. If you trying to look at the issue then it's fairly poor. It's a very one sided piece that only looks at probably a quarter of the issues.

I would also question your facts. I've not seen anything that suggests that there's that much oil up there. Certainly not enough to replace imports from Saudi Arabia. That's the whole issue around it. Not that "left wing extremists" are trying to stop America getting cheap oil for the next 30 years but that the Amount to be had from the region is so small, compared to the costs in environmental terms.

You also need to quote more widely that you do. I would also avoid Rush or anything on Fox. The Senator is a good guy to quote, and you should mention what State he represents, but the others are giving their opinions. Look for the views of scientists and people who actually know what they are talking about. You may think this is bais but I would say the same about quoting the opinions of any liberal too.

Sorry if this means starting again, but without knowing what your task was, I would assume, that as in most essays, that good grades come from looking at all sides of the argument and coming to a conclusion.”

“Man, I just hope your teacher's a conservative! LOL! If he's the typical leftist liberal educator you're screwed.”

“Yeah, is this for Rhetorics Class or English? If it's Science Class you might want to tone it down a bit.”

“Teacher:
Leftest, she jsut checked the first draft and every time I wrote Libreal or leftwing extreamis, it was gone!

Persausive paper



•THE FACTS!!! are kinda the facts

See areo, I read alot of stuff on the topic. My bedroom floor is covered in this stuff. I picked the best set of facts that proved my point. I have facts from the USGA saying one thing, than ANWR.org saying another. So I picked the ones that proved my point the best.

Fox, I love foxnews. I hate the NYTimes for being libreal, but I still respect their facts.

THanks guys for your help.

Skiracer, I didn't proof read at all. I'll do that after I've gotten all the corrections from you guys.”

“Given your first paragraph of your last post, I decided I do have advice.



Find a chair. Sit down. Breathe deeply. Pitch you head forward and put your head between your knees.

Kiss you ass goodbye. Screw Harvard, you will be finishing 12th grade this time next year.”

“I don't know if you wanted help with the ideas in your report, or help with the grammar/spelling. Apparently lots of people jumped at the chance to criticize your opinion for differing with theirs.
I'm going to go with the grammatical side and point out that your spelling is consistently atrocious, and if you're typing this with Works or Word or something, there's really no reason for that.
After you type it, spellcheck it, leave it alone for about an hour, then go back and read through it again.”

“Good for you, Tea! It's good to see someone reading all the perspectives out there and actually gathering information.”

“"Teacher:
Leftest, she jsut checked the first draft and every time I wrote Libreal or leftwing extreamis, it was gone!"

Swollow your pride and change the topic to one that suports gay rights. Should get you an A.

I say that as a joke but if you could pull off a paper that goes completely against your own views it could score BIG points by showing you can be persuasive towards any political leaning.”

“Nigal's right, Tea...if the teach has a different point of view it doesn't really matter what you write. I learned this the hard way in 9th grade - Composition class.”

“When I debated in college, we had to choose a topic for the season, then alternate positions weekly. Taught you to find weaknesses and do thorough research.
Which I've since decided I can do withoout, lol.”

“If you want to prostitute yourself and get an "A", just insert this picture and change your report title to Bush Energy Policy Bludgeons Baby Arctic Foxes!”

“It's the weakness of your essay that's the problem Ice, not your views.”

“Which I've since decided I can do withoout

withoout?”

“"It's the weakness of your essay that's the problem Ice, not your views."
ynamiynami
03:20:43 PM
05/15/03

Correct. Your views are irrelevant. It is the manner in which your paper persuades the reader to accept your views that is important.

Look at the case at hand. You posted your paper and not only did it not persuade anybody, it actually inspired them to stiffen their resistance to your views.

Try to remember this in persuasive writing...."What can I show someone that will convince them I am right?". Your views do not inspire me either way. A review of relevant factual information designed to make me think is what carries a persuasive argument.

IMHO, arclite is better at that than anyone on this board. Go read some of his posts and you should get a better idea at how to be persuasive.”

“I NEVER BELIEVED A DAMN THING ARCLITE EVER SAID.”

“OR CHILI EITHER!”

“Ice, you put a lot of thought into your paper. However, your attacks on the left wing aren't entirely justified. Don't forget there are Republicans who voted against the drilling (albeit not many, but still).

What part of WILDLIFE REFUGE do people not understand?!?!?! This is land set aside for a purpose, and it's NOT oil. It's a fragile ecosystem, and I'm not convinced ice roads are going to make industrial intrusions into the arctic invisible.

Besides, Iraq is in the palm of our hands. This is already putting the Saudi's in a position of less power.

And let's not forget fuel cells. They are still 10-15 years away, perhaps a bit longer. But now that we can get cheap Iraq oil, the idea of drilling in the ANWR should be moot and dismissed.”

“I agree Chili, Arclite does put forward fairly persuasive views, it's only when you think about what he is actually saying that you realize there's very little substance ;o)”

“VWs TDI series get 50 mpg.”

“Just a thought, but some folks had floated the idea of developing the oil trade in Russia. Whether or not you agree with it, it may be a point to bring up to show that you thought this through a little more thoroughly...”