ANWR a must read

“Visit the site, see if it doesn't change your mind.
www.anwr.org”

“more to read...

cnn article

save our environment site”

“I can't believe this could be a topic of debate on a forum devoted to backpacking. I mean, don't we all value wilderness? Sorry but I can't believe BIG OIL.
'nother one'”

“And we drive to our wilderness?”

“touché”

“just goes to show you how much numbers can be manipulated (I should know, I'm a bean counter)...in october 2000 one article say 56% vs. 29% favor NO drilling...other article in same month say 54% vs. 38% FOR drilling. Bottom line in mho...I'm not afraid of the latest technology...it's the human factor that scares me!”

“Nope. Sure doesn't change my mind, especially since it's run by Arctic Power, "The organization is committed to securing congressional and presidential approval of legislation opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR to responsible oil development." Hmmm. Let's see who's on their board?

Alaska Support Industry Alliance
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
Resource Development Council
Alaska Trucking Association
Alaska Oil & Gas Association
Anchorage Chamber of Commerce
Alaska Miner's Association
Alaska Forest Association.

Obviously it's VERY neutral information without any bias whatsoever.”

“Nope. Sure doesn't change my mind, especially since it's run by Arctic Power, "The organization is committed to securing congressional and presidential approval of legislation opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR to responsible oil development." Hmmm. Let's see who's on their board?

Alaska Support Industry Alliance
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
Resource Development Council
Alaska Trucking Association
Alaska Oil & Gas Association
Anchorage Chamber of Commerce
Alaska Miner's Association
Alaska Forest Association.

Obviously it's VERY neutral information without any bias whatsoever.”

“I just really wanted to drive my point home!”

“Deathmarch, I just lost a lot of respect for you. You too Mtn Gal. Without sounding too kooky, I'd like to raise a question: how can you support the destruction of wilderness in the name of 'progress?'”

“Pisgahforest, why should I care if you respect me? From you comment I appears that there is no reason to care. You jumped to an indefensible conclusion. I didn?t defend development. I was just pointing out that even backpackers use fuel and thus have a possible selfish interest in oil policy. Personally I don?t yet know if I oppose or support development of the ANWR. The one think I do know is that the all or nothing stance on both sides of environmental issued are problematic. Maybe we can have caribou and oil, I don?t know and to be honest, I don?t thing you do either. Lets act on facts not emotion. Wilderness is great, but does have a cost. The cost maybe a lower standard of living or dependence of foreign oil or higher mineral costs or less water for people to use (your get the picture). One thing I will say is that I do support a lot of independent PHD types making money off of extensive studies on the ANWR and oil drilling before they make a move.”

“The reason I can be a backpacker and be for "destruction" of the wilderness is the fact that I realize that this is a very important energy reserve that America desperatly needs and is well worth sacraficing a little piece of wilderness for a while. So far I have not heard a good reason not to drill.

Oh yea, rosey,
Who are you going to listen to? Alaskans who know Alaska or environmentalists in the lower 28 who have never seen Alaska and cry foul on any move that might "damage" their precious wilderness. Some how I'd trust the Alaskans more. Also, I see no room for bias on that site. Give me one piece of data against the drilling that is not refuted.”

“this issue is more than just one wilderness area or questions of dependcy on foreign energy. from the labeled "environmentalist" view, its trying to understand where the new president stands on conservation. if this battle is given to industry, is that going to mean the all roadblocks are down and industries are going to be given more slack? what else will go?
personally, i would like to see more focus put on defining energy possiblities other than fossil fuels. my idea is that the threat of being dependent on foreign energy is real, than why not wait a little while longer, until the 'danger' is real and eminent. that would ensure this oil reserve would be there when absolutely needed and not just used because of a relatively small crunch.
if we drill now to keep down prices, the problem will never truely go away. hopefully we can adapt some small steps to less consumption before we drill alaska.

oh, and yes, i wouldn't believe statistics on industry web-pages . . . and i suppose that would follow through with the environmental organaizations . . . the best place to look now is to academics.”

“introducing "alternative energy" is going to take many years before it takes hold. We need power now. Califorina is the results of stopping current progrgess completely and introducing new. We can't have that kind of thing nation wide.”

“There are viable alternative energy systems available, NOW. The powers that be, just don't want to fund them. Why are we willing to settle for less than what we can truly develop with our intelligence? Drilling for oil is a knee-jerk reaction to a long term problem. We are more advanced than to think that drilling ANWR is anything more than a very short-term fix.
If Bush was so serious about less dependence on foreign oil, he would be lobbying for conservation and CAFE standards, which will go much further than ANWR reserves.”

“Sometimes progress sucks...but in the long run its always for the better.

I think this country should try to be more independent and this is one step toward that direction. Roads are going to be built and some oil is going to get spilled...on land as opposed to water. However, these impacts will be much more localized and contained than those like the Valdeze spill. But we'll have access to OUR oil.

It'll be a looooong time till we can and use this oil, but at least well have those reservoirs tapped and have 'em ready for when we need 'em.

And it's going to open up alot of inaccessible land for outdoor enthusiasts...like us!

It's going to happen sooner or later anyways...don't you think?”

“No, I don't think that. Why are you fatalistic on this topic? I do not believe that drilling is necessary or wise. And, why will drilling open this wilderness area any more than it is at the present? Pay a bush pilot and have him drop you there, tomorrow.
Even if there were no environmental impact to drilling, I would still be against continuing oil-dependency longer than is necessary for an advanced nation like ourselves.
The way to quit heroin is to stop doing heroin. Let's be intelligent about improving the future for the long term.”

“I've been to those web sites in the past, they're all alittle misleading and bais to their personal agenda.

I've heard everything for there being hardly any oil there to it being the 2nd largest oil field next to Prudhoe Bay. Also it taking more than ten years to come on line as well a 3 years for it to make it to the market.

I wonder if many of you know how freakin BIG Alaska is? How BIG ANWR is? And how BIG this "foot print" would be if drilling was to occur up there. Let alone how many of you planning on going there or have every been there?

I believe the drilling warrants more thought than we are putting forth here. Our emotions/feelings about the wilderness often gets the best of us. Selfishness runs rampant on both sides of the issue. Alot of that "not in my back yard " type of additude. More studies or investigations may help in enlighting both sides so an agreement could be formulated. It is now or later type of sitution, take your pick.

Heroin addicts just can't quit heroin at the drop of a hat. If you really want to create a problem try that and see what happens. That is one of the easier said and done things. Free needles for everyone!!!

You can receive the same ANWR experience in every other part of Northern AK. What make this one area more special than the others reserved areas like "Gates", "Noatak", "Kobuk", or the other areas in Canada is that there is OIL in there. You can slap the same amount of skeeters and see the "African size" herds of caribou(provided the right timing) in any one of those others reserved areas.

I see a problem here that I see in other issues rangeing from gun control to abortion. Every side is a afraid to give alittle because once they do that preverbial snowball may begin to start rolling down that slippery slope of misguided selfish logic. Give an inch and they will take thousands of the 19 million + acres.

Energy is a greater issue than many choose to believe. Our consumption and waste of it makes me sick. Cars aside, do we really needed to be burning all those street lights and billboard signs! Do you really need to burn that porch lamp all night long? Been to Vegas or L.A. in awhile or any of the other big metro's the wasted energy. Maybe these blackouts happening on the west coast will be a wake up call to the rest of us before it turns into a national crisises.
Turn out the light and turn down the heat if you don't need them.”

“I have the solution to all the problems. Everybody pack up your gear and go backpack for the rest of your lives. You'll only use enough oil to cook and you won't have to worry about electricity anymore.”

“I agree with Dunadan, this issue is more about industry $$$$$$ and not national security. We have the technology available to become selfsuficiant. The powers that be do not make it known that Oil is not our only option. This thread only shows how well industry has done to scare americans into believing that we need to do this for our safety.

Here in California, the "energy crises" is anouther example of industry creating a crisis to drive up prices. Last week it became apparant that renewables, such as wind power generation were being paid to not produce power during some of our "stage 3 emergencies". They tried to do this same type of price manipulation with oil here last summer.

This also reminds me of a story I read about how a man had invented a "Sonic Washing Machine". His invention did not require the use of soap or detergent. The water it used could be recycled for over 40 washes. Cloth came out cleaner and stain free. TIDE bought the rights to his invention for Millions of dollars, to protect their business.

Come on people, don't be so misled. We have other options that are not being looked at.”

“DM99 says "we need power now" lemmme guess - is the strip in Las Vegas going dim? Maybe I can't power my electric eraser or electric hole punch here in the office today.
I don't mean to be a smartass, but we waste so much energy. I gag when I hear it suggested that we gotta drill the arctic for "national security" B.S! It has always been, and will always be for the money!”

“ThinAir - FWIW - I tend to believe your story about the sonic washer - we have built ultrasonic tooling cleaners here at work ant it is truly amazing how that stuff works.”

“Thank you Thin. For once somebody has said what is really going on - the race for $$$. That's it.”

“'dats what pisses me off the most. The "National security" arguements are a crock of doody.

Bush and Cheney are both domestic oilmen. They understand domestic oil, gravitate to, and have sympathies with domestic oil producers. IT is ONLY about Bush playing to his strengths, to what he knows.

Any oil produces will enter the world markets without making a blip on the radar screen. Oil here in the US will neither be more plentiful, or cheaper. The price of oil is determined by world markets, and world markets are determined by OPEC.

As for letting the Alaskans decided. What a bullDOODY answer. That land is FEDERAL land. I may live in CT, but I have just as much authority, and rights to determine how what its best use is as the Inuit who has an igloo set up on it.

Alaskans are paid an annual dividend by the state based on oil revenue. Last year around $900 per person. Duh . . . of course they want to drill. Maybe if Ted Stevens (Sen. AK, (R)) gives me $1,000 I'll vote to destroy my backyard too.

It is unnecessary, it is wasteful, it is harmful to the environment*, it will be harmful to the caribou. It IS stupid. and if you support ANWR drilling you are stupid too.

* Yes. the present tense IS harmful. Lookat the the oil platform in Brazil, look at the Galapagos, look at Prince WM Sound. Tell me with complete assurance there won't be slippage and spillage in ANWR and I will tell you that you are a naive fool.”

“I am continually suprised by the shortsighted, environmentally unsound, pro-developement and forest usage views espoused by folks on this site.

Put an f-ing oil well and clear cut in the middle of your own favorite hiking trail.”

“Check out the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service ANWR site; it's subtly biased against development, but interesting and informative nevertheless.

I enjoy the outdoors, support the Sierra Club and all that. I backpack frequently, in summer and in the glorious MI U. P. during the winter.

I'm also an oil producer... in north TX. The last thing I want to see, regardless of origin, is more oil coming onto the U. S. economy. That means lower prices, and less profit for me.

Nevertheless, productuion of vast amounts of oil from ANWR and the U.S Navy petroleum reserves west of Prudhoe Bay is absolutely necessary for the continued economic vitality of the U. S.

I've hiked across, camped on, fished in, and admired the spectacular, stark beauty of the Alaskan tundra. I've flown over miles of it in a bush plane at 750 feet altitude. Not one in 10,000,000 people on this planet ever have or ever will do that. I plan to go back as often as I can.
If one is informed and objective, he or she will inevitably conclude that drilling for and producing oil in ANWR will not have anywhere close to the dire environmental consequences predicted by opponents of drilling.”

“Sorry. The U. S. Fish & wildlife site I mentioned above is at http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/artic/”

“Sorry. The U. S. Fish & wildlife site I mentioned above is at http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/artic/”

“Mr.TonyP...you know if you're hireing geologists?”

“maybe if we drill deep enough we can tap into OPEC's supply”

“Tony p. You are going to hear about it now, man. I agree with you, of course I am also in the O&G industry. ThinAir's story about wind generators being paid to NOT generate electricity in CA? I think it is just a bunch of hotair.

I read in the paper yesterday that coal, from WY, that was fetching $1-2/ton a year ago, is now going for as high as $8/ton. Great, means more minerals revenue for the state of WY. Which in turn will mean lower mill levies next year on my property tax bill. Which means lower taxes!!!

CA residents, keep increasing your useage of power, just means more revenue for the state of WY.

Did I mention that WY does NOT have a state income tax?

ROTFLMAO”

“Anyone ever seen an aerial view of the area around Prudhoe Bay? Prudhoe Bay It's a huge industrial complex. Miles of roads, pipelines, etc. And that's only what you see from the air. If you've been up close to a large industrial complex you'll see how dirty/contaminated they are.
I'm very careful to avoid stepping on the fragile Alpine plants when I'm above treeline because I'm told they take a *long* time to become established. Oil is telling us they can just suck the oil out, leave and the area will recover in no time. They even try to make us think that it will be good for the caribou somehow. There's no doubt it would damage the environment for a long time.
If this was a tremendous oil feild that would allow us to tell OPEC to go screw, it would be worth it. However, even the oil industry's most optimistic estimates are that it is a minor find that would have little or no effect on the world market. To me, its just not worth destroying a national treasure for corporate profits.
The national security argument is bunk as much of the oil would likely be sold to asian markets. A ban on foriegn sales of North Slope crude was lifted in 1995.I may never visit it but that doesn't mean I don't want it protected.”

“CA's economy is 7th highest in the WORLD!”

“NUKE THE BABY SEALS!




(I tell ya, people - it's the end times upon us...REPENT!)”

“Cali. is really rich, so rich that $5.175 billion that went into the state's economy last year came from the porn biz of which $875 million of that came from the net.

How you like those apples or should I say grapes!!!”

“Sweet! If you can break it down per screw, I'll really be impressed! But it's really a drop in the bucket (heh heh) when you're talking about a $1.2 trillion economy.”

“The following was taken from http//www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/cleanenergy/conclusions.asp


Despite their advantages, renewable technologies are not being used to the extent possible. In the US today, solar and wind energy account for less than 3% of all electricity generated. As utilities seek deregulation of the electricity industry that share could get even smaller. It is expected utilities will burn more coal and emit more pollution than ever as they seek to maximize profits. At the same time, Congress has severely cut funding for research into clean technology, preferring instead to fund oil exploration projects and experiments into new ways to burn coal.

This has to change. America cannot remain a world power in the 21st century while relying on 19th century fossil fuel technology to generate energy. Americans must demand cleaner, safer forms of energy, and use that energy more wisely. If we are going to curb global warming and protect the future of our children, we must make the transition to cleaner, renewable technologies.”

“I don't have time right now to go into this in detail, but I did look at that site (and several others) and I recall a few of the skewed things there:

* The footprint they talk about--several thousand acres, as I recall--refers to the size everything would be if it were all scrunched into one compact unit; in reality, it'll be sprawling all over the place. (Keep in mind that one 20' wide pipeline 10 miles long has a 'footprint' of only 24 acres.) So while the number may well be accurate in a very limited sense, the overall area affected will be much larger than they lead you to believe.

* The production estimates there actually substantiate the '6 months' claim environmentalists make (plus or minus--it's an estimate, after all). The pro-drilling site just puts a different spin on those numbers to make them sound more impressive.

* The underlying assumption is that we need to support current consumption levels, which are unsustainable for reasons beyond any question of supply, rather than conserve or find alternative sources.

* All that stuff about the caribou thriving near the Alaska pipeline is hooey, because a) in a herd whose population is subject to substantial fluctuations normally, they compared a low year to a high year to show 'growth'; b) the population near the pipeline is nomadic, with no set calving grounds (and lots to choose from), while the Porcupine herd returns to the same limited area year after year (and the other options are much more problematic); and c) the ANWR complex is more comparable to Prudhoe Bay, where lots of human activity has apparently driven away caribou, than to some section of the pipeline that sees virtually no traffic.

All of this is off the top of my head because I don't have time to look it up, so some of the details may be a little off, but I think it's correct on the whole.”

“Does anyone think that if the money spent on the continuing Gulf War was invested in sustainable energy systems, we would be well on our way to being energy independent. I think so.
What happened to innovation and intelligence? I guarantee that they are being suppressed for short term profits. This issue might not be resolved until there is a real crisis. However, I am convinced that such a crisis is not necessary.”

“What are we just to forget about oil up there forever? Is that the plan of the SUV drivin environMENTALS. Drill it now while the cost is alittle cheaper and the technology is good. The technology maybe better in the future but the cost will also be higher.

There seems to be alot of jealous people out there that hates the oil biz because the only thing they argue about is the money that will be made. I wonder how many of them would be singing a different tune if givin the opportunity to make money off of mineral extraction that they shared a interest in. Buy oil stocks now and retire early.

Selfish interest run rampant. Forget about the jobs that will be created in the construction and deconstruction of facilities and pipe lines and all those in between that bring fuel to the pump. Heaven forbid we stir in alittle extra growth to the economy.

Sure it is "short term" and sure there is a big conspiracy holding back other costly infantile power alternatives. Would you rather go to nuclear or how about a miles of once pristine countryside filled with wind mills or every waterway dammed and laden with hydroplants or buildings glissening with solar panels and the infastructure that would be need to change what we have now to run all that. There is going to be a cost any where we turn. The change is not going to happen over night and we still will be burning fossil fuels for the next 100 hundred years. Maybe not on the same scale but then again there is a whole world that will have to change and that is not likely. This ANWR maybe our ace in the hole.

We burn fossil fuels and waste energy like no other country because we can for now. It does need to stop. I say tax the biggest users be it cities or businesses and not the home front. If a company wants to keep their building lite up all night long when nothing is happening there, they should be charge and taxed accordingly. Hell we have a luxury tax on fancy costly items why not something on energy. Somebody needs to be accountable for the waste that is occuring. Too much freakin light pollution and wasted power every where I look.

turn out the lights.”

“How about keeping the "ace" in the HOLE, for now, and in the future when there is a huge crisis that drives the cost of oil way up, then only as a LAST resort use it. Of course we can avoid all the distruction and polution if we look to other renewable resorces. But alas, renewables do not turn the profit that oil does, because it is FREE after the initial cost. That is something industry just wont allow. No I don't envy or hate people who want money, I just don't believe that the well being of a few wealthy men is worth continuing the irresponsable and wasteful use of limited resorces. We need to look to the long term solutions, not the short term profit turning rape of ANWR.”

“thank you tehiphite. and Briar, you do have some good points. hydro-electric power sucks a$$. I'm a paddler, and I hate dammed (damned, too!) rivers. See Ed Abbey's commentary in Desert Solitaire on the development of lake powell. Huge wind farms aren't exactly appealing either. You're right, wasted energy is really the biggest problem, after the widespread and very human capitalistic desires we all have. But. . . I do disagree on what should be done about it. Fossil fuels are about the worst of these problems. Their use damages things world-wide, not just locally. And there are existing technologies that would drastically reduce energy costs, right now without equally drastic cultural changes. The Tide thing ThinAir brought up is a perfect example. There are homes available that are so well insulated that during 9 months per year in Wyoming, there is no need for active heating. The warmth of the sun, appliances and body heat do plenty. Think being in a really fat down bag inside a black tent. As for cooling, the technology can be used to cool the house in summer too. Desert animals with very strict allowable temperature ranges get by without AC, don't they? On a much smaller scale, it is so easy now to go and buy a flourescent light bulb that screws into a regular socket and gives off (suprise, warm, inviting light) and uses less wattage and lasts much longer. They are expensive at first, but they really end up saving you money in the long run. I've heard these units of saved energy called 'nega-watts' by my ecology professor. A lot of enviro friendly things are that way - good in the long term. I am a very small part Tsalagi (Cherokee, the tribe that those damn SUV's are named after, ironically) Indian, and I'm doing my best to learn that part of my heritage, learning to read, write and speak the language and know its culture. One concept that is pretty ubiquitous among native peoples is some form of the concept of 7 generations: every major decision should have in mind the 3 generations behind you, your generation, and the subsequent 3 generations. Drilling in ANWR really fuKs with all 7 of those, and more.”

“I should learn to use paragraphs. Sorry!”

“Some more points to ponder:

* Estimates of the amount of oil under the ANWR range from 600 million barrels to as much as 9.2 billion barrels. Even the highest estimate, an almost unimaginable amount, is only the amount of oil the United States uses in less than one year.

* The Alaska Department of Ecology reports the Trans-Alaska and Prudhoe Bay oil fields have caused an average of 427 spills annually since 1996.

* Who really stands to benefit from drilling in ANWR?
If, as proponents say, drilling in ANWR would reduce dependence on foreign oil, why is the oil industry undertaking a lobbying effort to obtain permission to sell oil from ANWR to foreign interests? The answer is that they are trying to conceal their true motive of profit in an argument meant to stoke the fears of the average American.

* Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski owns stock in Chevron - see any conflict of interest there?”

“Thanks Kleetn --

Again. There is NO national security interest in getting at this oil. That is a purely bullcrap argument meant to appeal to the DUMBEST common denominator of "American First", "love or Leave it" , "Don't trust the Camel Jockeys".

Less than one years supply of oil. Spills are a GIVEN. Disturbance and destruction are a GIVEN. Miles of oil pipeline, pumping facilities, workers housing, airstrips etc are a GIVEN.

Of course Frank Murkowksi, Ted Stevens, and Tony KNowles are in the oil companies' pockets. Most of the state of Alaska is in the oil companies' pockets.

This oil will mean NOTHING in the overall world supply. It will mean NOTHING to prices, availibility or protection of US interest.

Ten-to-one it gets shipped straight to Japan. A much easier shipping route than the the lower 48, that is for sure.

The argument for drilling is pure self serving "take the money and run" bullcrap being served to the dumb and stupid of America as some sort of patriotic BS.

If you believe the oil co.s and Shrub you are as dumb as a rock and deserve an oil spill in your back yard.

And I haven't even begun to belittle you yet. Morons.”

“Oil is a finite resource, correct?

And aren't the predictions that we will, at current consumption rates, run low by the end of this century?

Well, why don't we focus on using the supplies coming from other countries right now, and not develop places like ANWR. Then, when supplies run low, we'll still have lots of oil to use from domestic sources.

I mean, the minute we start to up the supply, OPEC and the others will lower supply to maintain price. The only result is that we have less oil left in our territory.

Or is this too simplistic?”

“Wow!
The voice of reason.”

“Have any of you spent any time in Palm Springs, CA? A nice place to visit, and in which to live. Surrounded by desert and mountains.

It's also a hot area for an alternative energy source....electricity generating windmill farms. What you see are hundreds of 200 ft. high windmills "marching" in mile long rows along the ridge lines. One of the ugliest desecrations of natural beauty I've ever seen. And, they're seen by millions of people every year.

The comments on this thread mirror the positions of people debating this issue, from the know-nothings like Lee to the rational questioners such as Reformed Lurker; none of us has a grasp or understanding of all the facts and ramifcations of the ultimate action which will be taken in ANWR, and most of the "facts" expressed here are, simply, wrong. It's unfortunate.”

“Tony, instead of name-calling, point out the factual errors in the arguments and perhaps we'll all have a better understanding of the issues.”

“I have to agree with Tony P. On this thread there will NEVER be an exhaustive, unbiased exploration of the facts. Each person spouting factoids will by nature be biased, and largely wrong.\

There is no point.

As I just expressed on the other ANWR thread, my gut tells me it wrong. There will be environmental damage, to some degree or another. The national security/supply arguements are pure b.s..

I really don't need (nor, I argue do the rest of you) a recitation of made up factoids quoted from biased sources to know what is right and what is wrong.

It is not that I am a "know nothing" Tony. It is that your "facts" are no better than others 'facts'. For me it boils down to the very real harm is greater than the fictious good.

And anyone who believes the fictious good is either a corporate shill . . .or stupid.

That was also fun.”