Archive through December 28, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archives: ANWR Drilling: Archive through December 28, 2002

Northstar

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 02:06 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I'm curious to know the opinion of other's on the subject of opening ANWR for drilling. It's a fair guess this will come up again during the approaching Congressional session. Where do you stand, what are your reasons, pros/cons, etc?

Ketchuplover

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 02:33 am EditMoveDeleteIP
ANWR=Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. Is that correct?

Northstar

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 02:52 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Squaredsc

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 07:33 am EditMoveDeleteIP
i am against it.

Kaili

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 08:53 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I vote no...

We are way too dependant on oil in general..and the way it sounds is that yes, it's a lot of oil but we use so much that it really isn't that significant, particularly in terms of the trade-off. The land was set aside as a refuge for a reason. At one point in time enough people thought it was important enough to make a "refuge" out of it and I don't think we should decide to change that.

It kind of reminds me of us taking over Native American lands because we want the resources. I'm sure most would agree that we were pretty unethical in doing that. Just because it is designated as animal land, does that make it so much better for us to go and take it because we want the resources? Will that open up the door to any other land that we decide we want to accomodate our "needs"? It's a short term solution when we need a long term solution.

I know that there is the issue of it creating jobs in Alaska. Having not been there, I can't really comment on that. I don't know how many jobs it will create or for how long.

Here in Wisconsin there has been a decades long fight to keep various companies from getting permission to build a mine near Crandon in an area that would pollute a huge amount of land, including the Wolf River, and destroy land that wild rice is grown on. Native Americans and many others here have fought it and it has been prevented for years, Various companies have tried and failed to get the permit. They say it will create jobs, and it will but only until the mine is all used up and the land is destroyed. For information on this, check here No Crandon Mine. Another example is Perrier trying to come in to get water. Same situation. The costs outweigh the benefits.

I think they should focus on fuel efficency, reduce the price and increase the number of hybrid vehicles. They should have done this years ago.Our rate of consumption will do nothing but increase. I know they are able to, but the oil companies and their money have enough influence to keep this from hapening. They don't want it to happen because it cuts into their pocketbooks.

I just searched for the stat on how much of the world's population we have and how much of the world's resources we consume (we consume about 40% of global gasoline production but have only about 4% of the world's population) and I found a really good editorial article that I will link to... Why the Bush Proposals Are Wrong

Goddessatlaw

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 09:05 am EditMoveDeleteIP
We need to become energy independent, and I don't care how. It will likely require a number of interlocking methods, such as increased use of solar power and decreased dependence on oil. But oil will always be a primary source of energy for this country. Tapping and relying on our own fossil fuel resources will strip the middle east of its ability to hold us hostage to its willingness or unwillingness to supply our fuel. It will also strip those countries of a great deal of the cash flow they currently use to fund terrorism. Personally, I would welcome a world where I didn't have to suck up to Saudi Arabia and all of its attendant double-speak. Additionally, I fail to see the fairness in leaning on the middle eastern countries, for example, to strip their environs of their resources while refusing to do the same with ours. I have no plans, nor does anyone I know, to visit the Alaskan mud flats. Energy independence is going to create our own, very real independence - one which doesn't exist now. I'm for starting the drilling in a reserved fashion, while implementing regulations designed to steer the country toward less fossil-fuel dependent, more diversified sources of energy.

Ginger1218

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 09:20 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I agree with Goddessatlaw!!

Maris

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 09:24 am EditMoveDeleteIP
It is more than just our dependence on foreign oil. We choose to depend on the Saudis. We could buy more from Venezuela (3rd largest oil producing nation), Ecuador, North Sea. From the AWI quarterly:

A March 2002 United States Geological Survey (USGS) report reveals the potentially dire consequences that might result from petroleum exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's (ANWR) northern coastal plain. The report, Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries, adds fuel to the raging, fiery debate in Washington about opening additional parts of ANWR to oil drilling. ANWR was established in 1960.

The extensive USGS report that examined 12 years of data exposes potential threats to Porcupine caribou, muskoxen, polar bears, and snow geese from opening one specific area, known as "The 1002 Area" to oil drilling. The Porcupine caribou population in this area of the refuge is already declining; it may reach its lowest population level in the next three to seven years. Oil pipelines in this caribou's calving areas potentially would displace the animals during calving season, reducing chances of survival for offspring. The animals would be forced out of the areas with the rich vegetation necessary to meet their dietary needs sufficiently. Furthermore, these caribou would be pushed into areas with a greater density of predators such as grizzly bears and wolves.


Alaska's Inupiat Eskimos call muskoxen "oomingmak" (animal with skin like a beard). Oil exploration would threaten these magnificent hairy animals in the northern coastal plain of the ANWR.

Muskoxen habitat also could be affected by drilling, and the extensive USGS report notes that these animals are also declining in the area. The muskoxen live in the coastal plain of ANWR year-round. According to USGS, "Muskoxen in the Arctic Refuge are vulnerable to disturbance from activities associated with petroleum exploration and extraction because of their year-round residency, their small population numbers and their need to conserve energy for the 9 months of the winter if they are to successfully reproduce." While 368 muskoxen were counted in "The 1002 Area" in 1968, an estimated 168-212 were found between 1996 and 2001.

Polar bears in the area are also exposed to risk from oil drilling and related activities including road building, particularly because the area of ANWR sought for exploration is a region where polar bears den.

Finally, the report notes that snow geese build their fat reserves in ANWR's coastal plain in preparation for their over 1,000 mile migration from Canada to Mexico; industrial development there could displace geese from prime feeding habitats.

Kaili

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 09:45 am EditMoveDeleteIP
GAL- if you did have plans to go to Alaska, would that change your opinion? That seems like sort od a "not in my backyard" sort of thing...would you feel any different if it was to be done somewhere that you like to go? Seriously, there just isn't enough oil there for it to make a difference.

WRI study reveals oil from Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will not alleviate increasing U.S. dependence on foreign sources

About half of the oil we consume is produced here in the United States. The rest is imported. Of the oil we import, 51 percent comes from other nations in the Western Hemisphere, 21 percent from the Middle East, 18 percent from Africa and 11 percent from other countries. American Petroleum Institute

Squaredsc

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 09:45 am EditMoveDeleteIP
so because we were stupid to depend on the middle east for most of our fuel, now we have to destory animals and their natural habitats. what the he**, why not just destory the whole entire eco system. we will end up destroying the whole earth.

Goddessatlaw

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 09:46 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Maris - we can't buy from Venezuela right now, as they're on the brink of a civil war and have virtually shut down all oil-producing operations. I'm not sure whether Ecuador is much more stable. All of these countries we rely on are subject to huge instability, and are therefore potentially unreliable sources of our fuel. The Alaskan wilderness is vast, with much room into which this animal life can expand. I fail to equate the "potential" risk to a few animals with our overriding need to become fuel independent. If these populations are already declining, for example for the caribou, it looks like natural selection is going to make them extinct anyway. These decreases in population have taken place without our having expanded drilling in the ANWR. Maybe their chances would be better in zoos.

Goddessatlaw

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 09:47 am EditMoveDeleteIP
No, Kaili - my argument is quite the opposite. Why in everyone else's backyard but our own?

Maris

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 09:48 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I agree Goddess, slight problem buying from Venezeula right now however, we werent prevented from using Venezuelan oil for the last how many years. We can also buy soviet oil, Nigerian oil, etc. There are resources out there.

I am not sure that the hauling the caribous off to zoos would work either. lol.

Goddessatlaw

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 09:49 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I'm just crabbing, Maris - don't mind me. I want off the middle east highway, that's all.

Kaili

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 09:52 am EditMoveDeleteIP
The American Petroleum Institute FAQ page (linked above) also claims that "producing that oil would affect only 19 square miles of ANWR. That's about the size of Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C., and only 1 percent of ANWR's coastal plain."

This is obviously goig to be a bit slanted being written by the oil people but they aren't mentioning the roads that would be built, whatever else- on-site buildings, etc. Just because the drills only go into a small area doesn't mean there aren't impacts nearby. The noise and disturbances alone are bad enough. Animals won't live happily right up to the gates of the drilling plants. They will be shifted miles away to avoid it.

Squaredsc

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 10:06 am EditMoveDeleteIP
isn't bush an oil man?

Kaili

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 10:06 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Yeah- if I were an animal I would rather not be in a zoo. Sure there's room in Alaska, but then where do we stop? It just seems to me that we will squeeze and squeeze until we can't get anymore, then we will be standing around trying to figure out where we went wrong.

We will also squeeze and squeeze to take up all the land and we will be left with nothing but concrete. What happens once ANWR runs out? As our population increases, our consumption increases at a rate way higher than we can pull it out of the ground. Then we go offshore to areas that have been restricted. Next the whole natural balance is screwed because we are killing off species that are important parts of their ecosystems and accelerating the extinction of species.

So one day in the future we will be able to drive our 11 mpg SUVS in 4 wheel drive through the cities because there is no where that 4 wheel drive is needed. It's all paved. And if there is any wilderness left, why go because there aren't many animals left- no food for them, the food web is messed up, etc. I'm looking to the future here. We have zoos to see the animals that no longer have natural habitat. They are miserable in their cages and many don't reproduce well in captivity. The we will go take over Canada because they have room.

Okay that was a tangent, but I just don't like the way I see things going. People are so focused on oil and luxuries that other important things are blown off. We have a tendancy of taking what we want at any cost to make us happy now. Too little value is put on animals and preserving land for the future.

And keep in mind, we do export oil. That's what is so ridiculous. Maybe we should stop exporting the oil we are already pulling out of the ground.

Kaili

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 10:09 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Absolutely Bush and Cheney are dripping in oil profits. And Tony Blair. I don't know if this is happening where you all live but every week it seems I see a new gas station becoming a BP station. All the Amocos, and others (I only know Amoco for sure because it's on the corner down the streer). British Petroleum. And to go off the ANWR topic- Iraq has already been divided up..."a slice of the pie" I believe it was referred to as. We can't wait to get out hands on that oil.

Maris

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 10:15 am EditMoveDeleteIP
From Arab News.com. I should comment that Rudolf Giuliani had told Alwaleed that NY didnt need his money after Alwaleed said the US brought the attacks on 9/11 on itself because of its support for Israel. I guess the Bush's dont have that problem:

Quote
RIYADH, 25 December 2002 — Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal has donated half a million dollars to a Massachusetts-based scholarship fund named after former US President George Bush, the prince’s Kingdom Holding Company said yesterday.

Prince Alwaleed “donated $500,000 to the George Herbert Walker Bush Scholarship Fund, established by the Philips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts,” it said.

The establishment of the fund was announced at the 60th reunion of the 1942 class to honor Bush, who is one of its graduates, the company said, adding that US President George W. Bush had commended contributors to the scholarship fund named after his father.

Goddessatlaw

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 10:29 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Is this a thread for arguing for and against the merits of drilling in Alaska, or is it another Bush-bashing thread? I fail to see how the donation of a sum to a scholarship fund by a Saudi prince has anything to do with it. Kaili, your argument about the "squeeze" on the wilderness eventually causing a concrete nation is the same as the argument about the "squeezing" effect the most minor gun control regulations will have on gun ownership. The old "slippery slope" argument, which I reject in both cases. We're not talking about denuding the Alaskan wilderness. Jeez, we could move most of the mainland population to Alaska and still have room to farm. Same as with gun control - a required 5-day wait for background check isn't going to prevent homeowners from protecting their own. I no longer wish to deal with middle-eastern chicanery (or the terrorists funded by the chicaneers - yes, I made up that word). If we have to drill in Alaska to get that done, I'm all for it. And by the way, Maris - CLINTON!!

PS CLINTONCLINTONCLINTON!!

Maris

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 10:34 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Lol Goddess, are we going to start a Clinton count on this thread.

The question was raised about Bush and Cheney being oilmen and of course, it doesnt take much for me to make the connection between, oil...politics...Bush....and of course being in the Saudi's pockets. They are all just a bunch of back scratchers.

It was Cheney who was the one pushing the drilling in the arctic and before assuming office met with the various oil companies to develop an oil policy which included drilling in the arctic. Enron's former CEO, Kenneth Lay, held a post on the Administration's transition team and helped Vice President Dick Cheney compose the Administration's energy plan - which included allowing drilling in ANWR. The criminal investigations resulting from Enron's collapse killed any chance of passage of drilling in the arctic.

You cant say that this is not a political hot potato. It is all about politics. Even experts agree that drilling in the arctic will only supply six months of oil, and you have to wonder why someone would be willing to destroy so much for a short term gain.

Goddessatlaw

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 10:38 am EditMoveDeleteIP
As I said (Clinton), I don't care how we do it as long as (Clinton) we get off (Clinton) the middle eastern pipeline. Clinton. Alaska, Texas, off-shore, I don't care. If there was an oil field under my condominium, I'd be telling my cat to pack his bags and move. Clinton (which is not my cat's name.)

Maris

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 10:40 am EditMoveDeleteIP
We all know your cats name is socks. Dont you worry Goddess, I know you miss the man but he will be back in the WH in 2008 with Socks and Hill.

Goddessatlaw

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 10:41 am EditMoveDeleteIP
PPPPPPPTTTTTTHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! (PS Socks has already been forced to move, and for reasons less pressing than national fossil-fuel requirements).

Bob2112

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 01:06 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I vote yes.