More on ANWR, a slightly different view.

This article actually has a poll on what Alaskans think. Having lived in Alaska for a short time, one thing that was made clear to me is that the people who live there DO NOT like the rest of the country (Outside, as they call it) making decisions for them. If anyone can find another poll just concerning Alaskan's opinions ONLY, let me know.


(snip)

There are a lot of views on the issue floating around out there, but it seems one group's voice has not been heard nearly enough. Really, how many of us have paid attention to the opinions coming from the 49th state itself?

One recent article in the Chicago Tribune tackled the Alaskan viewpoint, reporting that 80 percent of the state's current annual revenue comes from oil production. Without oil, many Alaskans claim they would essentially have no economy. This modern reliance on oil really took off with the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 1968. The find prompted the creation of the Alaska National oil pipeline, which began pumping oil in 1977. Gold, lumber, fishing and defense installations - all industries that used to be popular in the state - have lost much of their prominence, and oil reigns supreme as the biggest revenue generator.

And oil certainly is a booming business for Alaska. Because of copious oil profits, there is no state income tax or sales tax. Furthermore, nearly all residents of Alaska reap the profits in another way: they receive an annual check from the state - last year worth $1,900 - to share in the wealth. While most of those interviewed by the Tribune said they do not depend on the annual checks, which will coincidentally be lower this year due to drops in the stock market, they do not want to see them end either. They see the long-term economic future tied to oil, and when Prudhoe Bay runs dry, they'd like to have ANWR there for security.

(snip)


Frozen for about nine months of the year, the Costal Plain has been described by some as a vast wasteland.
With these kind of dividends, it's no surprise that polls say that two out of three Alaskans stand behind opening up the refuge to drilling. Some say even more residents than this are for drilling in the Costal Plain. According to Tara Sweeney, government relations manager for the Arctic Slope Regional Corp., an Inupiat tribal holding company, as many as 75 percent of state residents support the measure, including the 90,000-member Alaska Federation of Native Peoples.
Like many Alaskans, Tim Tyler, a 23-year veteran of the oil effort who works at Deadhorse, a camp at the beginning of the Alaska National Pipeline on the coast of the Arctic Ocean, feels that the economic opportunities justify the drilling. He told the Tribune, "Sure, it's a selfish reason. But it's jobs."



http://www.drilleronline.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/coverstory/BNPCoverStoryItem/0,3641,64253,00.html

long-term consequences for the community and the environment.

Back in my father's youth he lived in a dirt poor town which was a haven for the Mafia. Every month a couple of thugs would come by his houes of 9 kids and pass out food and clothing. As far as they were concerned, the Mafia was harmless and welcome. Not so for those who were negatively impacted by the crimes they committed.

I make this point because you seem to be focusing on the patronage that these oil companies pay to the nearby village of Kaktovik and others. Funding communities, as the account touts, is certainly a worthwhile enterprise, so is an income for disadvantaged residents there. But at what long-term cost to the community, state, and the environment? What will happen to these communities when the oil is depleted? What will be left of the land that many once relied on as a renewable resourse for food and substinence?

Further, we are talking about desecrating a national refuge. While native Alaskans may have a special interest because of their proximity and use of the refuge, the land is a preserve entrusted and bequeathed to all Americans.

I notice that Arctic Power contributes 10 reasons at the bottom of the article to support drilling in the refuge. I would note that Arctic Power is funded by the state government which gets 80% of its revenues from oil interests.


From a 2003 GAO report on the impact of oil exploration and production on refuges: http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-192T

First, "The National Wildlife Refuge System is a national asset established principally for the conservation of wildlife and habitat."

"Constructing,operating,and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to produce oil and gas can harm wildlife by reducing the quantity and quality of habitat.Infrastructure development can reduce the quality of habitat through fragmentation,which occurs when a network of roads,canals, and other infrastructure is constructed in previously undeveloped areas of a refuge.Fragmentation increases disturbances from human activities, provides pathways for predators,and helps spread nonnative plant species.For example,officials at Anahuac and McFaddin National Wildlife Refuges in Texas said that disturbances from oil and gas activities are likely significant and expressed concern that bird nesting may be disrupted."

"Infrastructure networks can also damage refuge habitat by changing the hydrology of the refuge ecosystem,particularly in coastal areas.In addition,industrial activities associated with extracting oil and gas have been found to contaminate wildlife refuges with toxic substances such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Mercury and PCBs were used in equipment such as compressors,transformers,and well production meters,although generally they are no longer used."

" . . . improvements in technology may allow operators to avoid placing wells in sensitive areas such as wetlands.However,oil and gas infrastructure continues to diminish the availability of refuge habitat for wildlife,and spills of oil,gas, and brine that damage fish and wildlife continue to occur.In addition, several refuge managers reported that operators do not always comply with legal requirements or follow best industry practices,such as constructing earthen barriers around tanks to contain spills,covering tanks to protect wildlife,and removing pits that temporarily store fluids used during well maintenance."


From a 2003 National Academy of Science report on the 'Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope.'(http://www.nap.edu/books/0309087376/html):

To gain diverse views and pers-pectives,
the committee traveled to
Alaska several times during the course
of its two-year study. The committee
heard from federal and state agencies,
representatives of the oil and gas
industry, environmental organizations,
and officials and community members
of the North Slope Borough and the
municipalities it visited: Barrow, Kaktovik,
and Nuiqsut. It also visited Arctic Village
and toured oil facilities at Prudhoe Bay,
Endicott, and Alpine, and flew over
Kuparuk, the offshore Northstar facility,
the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.


"For North Slope residents,
the current way of life of North Slope communities
made possible by oil and gas activities will be more
difficult to maintain when these activities cease as
oil is depleted because other sources of funds appear
to be modest. Eventual adjustments to reduced
financial resources are unavoidable. Their nature
and extent will be shaped by adaptations North Slope
communities have made to the accumulated effects
of the cash economy.

Most North Slope residents have positive views of
many of the economic changes that have resulted
from revenue generated by petroleum activities, such
as access to better medical care, availability of gas
heat for houses, improved plumbing, and higher
personal incomes. At the same time, however,
balancing the economic benefits of oil activities
against the accompanying loss of traditional culture
and other societal problems that can occur is often a
dilemma for North Slope residents. Without this
revenue, the North Slope Borough, the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act, and hence the Arctic Slope
Regional Corporation, would not exist or, if they did,
would bear little resemblance to their current form.
This discovery of oil and its development on the North
Slope has resulted in major, important, and probably
irreversible changes to the way of life in communities.
These effects accumulate because they arise from
several ongoing, interacting causes.

Cumulative Aesthetic, Cultural, and Spiritual
Consequences. Many activities associated with oil
development have compromised wildland and
scenic values over large areas. Some Alaska Natives
told the committee that they violate what they call
“the spirit of the land,” a value central to their
relationship with the environment. These
consequences have increased in proportion to the
area affected by development, and they will persist
as long as the landscape remains altered."

together...corporations would find a way to keep jobs in the country - especially in all the States that hurt. Legislation could be written to protect the earth first...always...in the Native American tradition - to turn it over to their descendents, well cared for.

My bet is that they already know that there isn't enough oil to make it worthwhile, but the corporations will find a way to make a ton of money for some of them just by going through the steps...some of which will go towards the takeover of our country, facilitated by the the politicians and the media.