A lot of bashing of Alaskans going on out there...

I'm kind of neutral on ANWR actually. Can any of you explain to these people that the world isn't going to end if a little drilling gets done up there? I'm tired of being labeled as an oil whore.

Just the world of the species in that ecosystem.

The world uses 80 Million Barrels of Oil per day.

6 Billion barrels = 75 days of world supply

16 Billion barrels = 200 days of world supply

The US uses 20 Million Barrels of Oil per day.

6 Billion barrels = 300 days of US supply = .83 years

16 Billion Barrels = 800 days of US supply = 2.2 years

It will take 5-10 years before a drop of this oil hits a refinery.

Hardly seems worth the effort when raising the CAFE standards would save more than we get with drilling.

----

So Yes, I would call you a "Oil Whore."

I said I'm not totally for drilling in ANWR, and I really don't think it's necessary for you to call me names just because I live here.

eom

somewhere else. It doesn't do any good to call people names. If I had a peace pipe, I would extend it to you. Geez!!!

...pissing on everything that is beautiful and unspoiled in their efforts to squeeze out a bit more profit. The ANWR proposals are about greed, as usual.

he won't be bothering you Alaskans anymore, he's toast.

What I find even more disgusting and hypocritical is the loud mouths like Hannity, Limbaugh,Savage,Coulter and all the right wingers that are so pro-gun and pretend to be hunters.
In my day when I went hunting with my dad it was to enjoy the scenario and all that goes with the wild. Now these people call me a tree hugger if I happen to say anything about preserving the big reds or the natural habitat of animals.
What a joke these clowns are. They want to hunt amid oil derricks and pipelines and smoke stacks from factories.

That's an extreme statement. It's that piece of Alaskan wilderness that is going to end..for what? So Japan can get oil for 6 months?

SNIP~
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

The coastal plain of the Arctic refuge -- often called "America's Serengeti" because of its abundant caribou, polar bear, grizzly bear, wolf, and other wildlife populations -- represents the last five percent of America's Arctic not already open to development. The Gwich'in people of Alaska and Western Canada, whose subsistence lifestyle depends on the nearly 130,000 caribou that rely on the coastal plain, call it "the sacred place where life begins.


More at...
http://worldwildlife.org/advocacy/action.cfm?searchen=google#1

after all, they, and the Japanese, are the ones that are going to get the oil.

that the oil they get from ANWR is going to go the chinese and japanese?

and no, I am not talking about only the anti-drillers. The crude oil is expected to be of such low quality, that it is already earmarked for the Chinese and Japanese market. Maybe someone here can post more links, but I heard this at least twice today during the discussion of the vote.

:hi:

Species will not be wiped out
But, a lot of risk and enough environmental degradation will take place to wonder why we're going after such small reserves.
This is an expensive place to drill too, not as expensive as, say, the North Sea, but expensive enough.

Of course, 16 billion Bbl, multiplied by $56 per Bbl, comes out to $896,000,000,000

Now, another scenario: Let's say thet the oil will take ten years to start flowing, by then, we may very well be using fuel cell powered vehicles. Not having done the research, I don't know how many miles 16 billion Bbl of oil translates to when it's being used for fuel cell energy.....

The light of day.

As I understand it, the fuel cells must be replaced every year under normal driving conditions.

At current prices this would be a significant fraction of the automobile's cost.

It would be like replacing the engine every year - hardly practical.

Everybody's getting their knickers all in a twist when it's not even a sure thing that the oil companies are going to WANT to drill ANWR given the cost. Everybody please stop freaking out.

Is the way it's been twisted so that if you are Alaskan and not a supporter of ANWR drilling, you are treated as a traitor by most people in this state.

The idea that ANWR drilling is Alaska's salvation is delusional.
If they do find any oil, they'll make sure that jobs finding it are given to people who are shipped up here from Alabama or Texas and then immediately shipped back down along with any money they make.

Finally, the obsessive push for ANWR drilling has also become the number one excuse for our state's political establishment not making any real effort to develop a sustainable long-term "non-boom" basis for our economy.

As Alaskans, we're ostracized if we DON'T support drilling and as Democrats, we're ostracized if we do. I was feeling fairly beleaguered here today, and I didn't even take a strong position one way or the other. LdyGuique's analysis below is very helpful.

Wildlife Refuge. It belongs to all people of the United States.

after reading some of the highly charged emotional comments of the anti-drilling people both elsewhere on DU and here in the Alaska zone. Now, I don't claim to know "the truth," as it remains highly controversial and many facts are disputed. So, which facts are the truth? Frankly, the issue is so polarized and both sides have a good deal to gain by ratcheting up the content of any fact; so, I'd have to say that if one were to choose the anti-drilling platform, one would probably be at least on the side of safety for the environment.

Here are some links that may help others to dig a little deeper:

1) Sarah James leads Alaska's 'Caribou People' in defense of their way of life north of the Arctic Circle The Gwich'in people aren't particularly well-known as a tribal group in Alaska (or at least I've not seen much written about them). They are an Athabascan lineage that have inhabited the coastal range of what is now ANWR for hundreds of generations. Their estimated numbers range from 7,000 to 10,000, depending on the article.

I get two feelings when reading about the Gwich'in -- one is that all of them want to continue a subsistance lifestyle, and yet the other is that many have falled prey to the evils of alcohol and drugs and are out of touch with the land. I'm hardly going to get involved with the ongoing argument of continued traditional lifestyle versus amalgamating onto a more modern lifestyle; however, it is clear that this is a far from settled issue amongst their own people. Although, it is the traditional point of view that has become the most politically savvy and articulate.

They belong to the Doyon Native Corporation(s) and their tribal areas as part of Doyon reach all the way to the Yukon and Fairbanks to Canada in the east.

2) While Wilderness.org has a beautiful website and is staunchly supportive of the Gwich'in, they make little attempt to balance out sides. I found their map, 2,000 Acre Oil & Gas Scenario Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain to be very unsettling; however, one needs to assess it through the eyes of their vision of "worst case," rather than accepting it wholesale as "carved in stone."

I found the Alaska Wilderness League to be more balanced in its overall approach and filled with facts and maps. One of their ">maps is probably the best at showing current and proposed drilling.

3) Which brings this to the ongoing battle between the Gwich'in and the Inupiat. The Inupait favor opening the coastal plain to drilling, especially if it is their corporation, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) which does the drilling. Since they own tribal lands on the plain, they have a certain amount of legalistic right to their POV. The best dispassionate article that reviews the entire issue of "to drill or not to drill" and the expected consequences is Mission 2007, a report done by MIT. It's worth a read.

4) The survey lines still show on the tundra from 10 years ago when 2D technology was used. ">A map that shows the difference between 2D and 3D lines -- which are far more intensive.

5) Another map that shows the supposed drilling area.

6) Unless they 3D survey in some manner, there will be no drilling. If the coastal slope doesn't have enough reserves, it may prove to be too expensive to drill and the issue may die.

7) The Gwich'in have taken their case to the United Nations. In March 1999, the Gwich'in submitted a written intervention, detailing the threat of oil development to their way of life, to the United Nations 55th Session of the Commission on Human Rights. This issue is now officially on file within the commission. It calls upon the U.S. Congress and President to reverse the threat of "cultural genocide" by recognizing the rights of the Gwich'in people to continue to live their own way of life by prohibiting development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

This was reiterated in the 59th Session of the U.N.: Agenda Item 10: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Oral Intervention of the International Indian Treaty Council
On behalf of the Gwich’in Nation

While the entire issue of ANWR is far from settled, there would appear to be room for plenty of legal actions that may stall or stop it for some time. It could become a very Alaskan issue of contention that eventually is placed on the ballot.

...excellent objective research.

no need to spar with these greenies in an intelligent way...it's a losing proposition...I'm glad they're finally going to drill in ANWR...and you are not going to sway one inch these greenies...and they will demonize you and mount personal attacks and try to force their opinions on you...so just ignore them...the worst part of this is the people who don't live here coming into this forum just to bash the people here in Alaska...

here is a link for "Arctic Power" a state funded organization to raise awareness on the issues...I know many will say it's a bunch of lies (I'm psychic)...but from what I know it's very spot on as far as facts go...which a lot of you seem to be very short of.

http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/backgrnd.htm

In the war of words, both sides seem to overlook the opposition's main points of contention; however, the proponents for drilling in ANWR, such as Clay Butcher leave out some important facts:

1) There are two caribou herds up on the North Slope -- and the one near Prudhoe Bay has prospered -- grown from 3,000+ to +/- 25,000. This data if left by itself would indicate that oil development is GOOD for caribou. However, there is a secondary factor, too. The Prudhoe Bay herd has a 100-mile stretch of coastal plain between the foothills of the mtns and the shore of the Beaufort Sea.

The Porcupine herd, the one that migrates from the ANWR coastal region eastward into Canada, has had various herd size estimates, but most are within 130,000 to 150,000. The coastal plain for this herd's calving area is only 15 miles wide between the shore of the Beaufort Sea and the foothills.

The biggest point of contention is the difference between a 100-mile range and a 15-mile range. Most of this 15-mile range would be impacted with drilling sites, roads, and pipelines. Since the herd size is approximately 6 times the size of the Prudhoe Bay herd AND has a much narrower calving range, it's presumed that the Porcupine herd would be much more impacted as it has "no where to go" to get away from drilling activities.

Although the environmentalists haven't really dealt with any speculation on what would happen to the herd if it were forced to move towards the foothills, other than dire predictions of predation by bears and wolves (both of which are quite capable of moving down into that narrow plain for their own subsistence hunting currently). It is acknowledged that the herd frequently seeks higher ground to get away from the mosquitoes; so, it may not be adversely impacted in the long run.

2) This herd is being monitored by co-agreements between Canada and the U.S. and Canada is funding ongoing annual research into herd size, etc. They are noting a higher than normal cow loss at this time, possibly due to changing global climate. It may be that moving to higher ground would alleviate some of these issues, but it cannot be monitored until it's an actual fact.

3) These sites do not acknowledge the claims of the Gwich'in tribe. This is a serious issue that must be both acknowledged and dealt with. Tribal traditionalists have a much stronger say in their present and futures than in years past and it would be very un-Alaskan to give their claims no credence.

4) These sites also fail to mention the genuine damage that has been documented at Prudhoe bay due to spills and other toxic pollutants.



The Trustees site makes some serious allegations about damage done to th environment and underreported by the Government. Clay Butcher's sites simply ignores ANY of the damage data. It contains some good info on the latest technologies, but fails to acknowledge known spills and damage. This makes the anwr.org & anwr.com sites somewhat propagandistic as they purport to be informational sites and fail to report all of the info.

...for pointing out that this is a complex issue and neither black nor white. What disturbed me yesterday was the way a few people were bashing me for a stand that I thought was relatively neutral. I don't appreciate being bullied by ideologues on either side of ANY issue, much less one on which I've not taked a vehement position one way or the other.

written a few years back but still valid

"But the Alaskans battle a perception that the industry, based on its record to date, would despoil the last sizable chunk of pristine wilderness in the world.

"Misleading propaganda" is holding up the issue in the House, said Alaska Rep. Don Young. Industry supporters say environmentalists' complaints about numerous oil spills on the North Slope are misleading to non-Alaskans because the reporting law requires any and all spills to be documented, no matter how small.

"There's probably more oil spilled in a Wal-Mart parking lot on a daily basis than on the North Slope, from oil seeping out of cars," Dittman said.

"Very few spills escape the gravel pads on which we operate," said Ronnie Chappell, spokesman for British Petroleum, which operates the Prudhoe Bay unit."



http://juneauempire.com/anwr/oilandgas.shtml

I think the oil companies on the Slope, by and large, have tried to be very environmentally conscious. I'd never say that out on GD though. I'd become a flamed crispy critter in about two seconds.

There are certain things better left unsaid out on GD. No point in getting a new hairdo that resembles a 1940s perm.

That last article from Cleofus is a good one; although, it ignores the Gwich'in issue. I do think these smaller footprints as evidenced by the Alpine 97-acre site where horizontal drilling is used may prove to be successful throughout the North Slope, including the coastal plain of ANWR -- keep away from the intensive derricks/roads/pipelines, etc.

no one thinks the caribou are going to die off...or even be effected in any significant way...they are herd animals and the only way to kill them all off or effect their cycles is to kill them...and that is not going to happen...before the ground is even broke the concerned parties will have a plan on howto do this with the least impact on the porcupine caribou herd...

blank by the supporters of drilling, it's not good. It's imperative that their concerns are acknowledged and negotiations to allievate their concerns. One cannot pretend them away.

If the caribou herd increased substantially during the development and exploitation of oil on the North Slope, and it had environmental damage as reported by the Greenies, this is a "red herring" issue, UNLESS the sole reason for the increase in the caribou herd size from 3,000 to 25,000 was due to the 100-mile width of plain (which is unlikely).

I would like further info on just how many of the Gwich'in pursue the subsistence way of life and how many caribou are taken from the Porcupine herd annually. Since most cultures only take bulls, this should not affect the overall herd size. While I appreciate the traditionalist desire, it is unlikely that they are continuing to use traditional weapons for hunting. Also, if they are persuing a traditional lifestyle, are they foregoing Doyon Corporation dividends, expanded stock sharing among those born after 1971, and the PFD?

Alaskan natives have gained a great deal due to becoming participants in their Corporations. I realize that this still doesn't make any of them wealthy; however, it gives them a much fairer chance at participation throughout the entire issue of choosing lifestyles either within the developing world that uses money has exchange or as subsistance that uses wildlife to support one and money as an exchange for non-wildlife commodities.

Most of Alaska uses some hunting and fishing for food gathering throughout the summer and fall and money for the reaminder of their needs.

Both sides of the ANSWR equation aren't being particularly forthcoming over these issues. One cannot ignore it and pretend that it isn't an issue, though.

But I believe it will be addressed...certainly it is not a unknown or totally ignored issue...I've heard about this canard for years...

and as for the other issues you raised...i don't think natives choose the traditional or the modern...they can grow with both...as they would have if the white people had never shown up...it isn' fair to force them to choose to live with bows and arrow and without heat etc...

i think the gwich'n are wrong on this particular issue...but I believe they do have a right to subsistance...and to use modern means to do so...

Whenever there are at least two opposing viewpoints, both sides will use any and all tools at their disposal to gain victory. Since the Gwich'in is part of the "Greenies" arsenal, it will hardly decline to use it. And, as I noted, the pro-drilling faction will likely cause surveys and such to conduct statistical analysis as one of their tools. I hardly see that drilling will begin in ANWR until at least one court case and a whole series of negotiations take place within the State of Alaska and/or Federally.

Part of the Greenies strategy must include stall, stall, stall until a new national election happens in 2006, if not all the way through 2008. A new Congress may be seated in 2006 that is far more friendly to their cause.

I just think that this issue is far from settled, and I, like Blue, am relatively neutral on the issue. Although, I'm more in the 55-45 range of the issue -- somewhat more pro drilling than not, especially with the latest technologies and substantially smaller footprint, use of ice highways in winter, etc.

There will come the day, though, when Alaska must have developed new economics other than oil to provide the goods and services needed for Alaskans. Here's hoping that over the next couple of decades that new plans are discussed, planned, and implemented as once the oil runs out, there does need to be something already in place.

I'm rather dubious of the State Legislature and its desire to just spend spend spend whatever revenues that comes their way.

I'm just saying thatI don't buy it.