ANWR and Oil Development

I'm a little surprised no one has asked yet...

We always see poll numbers that say something between around 70% and 80% of Alaskans favor exploration in ANWR. I'm really curious what percentage of Alaska Democrats favor exploration in ANWR.

I'm a pro-ANWR exploration and development thinker because I have yet to see a convincing argument that oil field ops on the slope have harmed wildlife populations or irreparably damaged the environment. Granted, Deadhorse isn't too pretty but I don't think the fact it is there has forever destroyed the North Slope.

Interested in what other Alaska Dems think :)

but I do know that the administration has lied from the get-go about what they want to do. "We only want to drill in 2,000 acres out of millions -- what harm is that?" The impression is that you've got a little patch affected. The truth is that they are only counting the footprint of each drilling rig (about two acres) which means there could be a thousand rigs. Plus they're not counting support facilities like airstrips, nor the transmission pipelines necessary to get the oil out of the Wilderness Reserve.

"We'll only use ice roads, so there will be no effect on the tundra." Yet scientists (real ones, not the hired guns the administration uses) have calculated that there just isn't enough water in the Reserve to create all the roads the developers will need. And the roads that are created will leave permanent marks in the tundra.

"There's nothing there, anyway." That's what Sen. Murkowski told his guests on a junket to the Reserve to see the area for themselves. Of course, the fact that the trip occurred in the middle of winter might have had something to do with it.

The main thing is that it's not really about getting the oil anyhow. What the administration wants to do is get back at the environmentalists. And break the "virginity" of the last great area of wilderness in the United States. Once they've gotten a well down in the Reserve, they can use it to justify drilling anywhere they please. "You agreed to drilling in ANWR," they'll say, "why are you complaining about ___________, which is a smaller area?"

BTW, when Senator Murkowski was elected governor, he looked far and wide to find someone who would be qualified to serve the remainder of his term. After an extensive search, he appointed -- his daughter. Sounds like Cheney's search for a V.P., doesn't it?

have lost all interest in drilling there. Its not worth the investment.

Why do you not wish resources spent on alternative energies and conservation? I find your logic quite faulty.

I pray for the day that we wean ourselves from the hydrocarbon addiction we suffer. But that day isn't here yet. And in all likelihood, even if we had a firm sincere commitment from government and industry to transition away from fossil fuels, it will take YEARS!

So what do we do in the mean time? Send thousands of GI's to a country the they no business being in and get them killed so we can keep pumping oil out of the middle east. I don't think thats a good answer either...

I know that we could sink wells into every inch of Alaska and still never solve the country's energy problems, but in my simple minded view anything we do that makes us less Dependant on foreign countries for energy is good (because it keeps us out of their politics) and anything we do that makes us more Dependant is bad.

Now I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert but, I've spent a bit of time on the Slope and I agree the pipeline ain't pretty, but I'm not convinced oil development has devastated the region environmentally.

But, maybe there is a larger point I'm failing to see?

http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm

Lots of info. I'm simply afraid that, with our current overwhelming and extremely right-wing majority in State government, the so-call "small footprint" will be only a wedge for further development. ANWR is just too precious ecologically for that.

On the other hand, as Alaskans, we know the job situtation isn't dire, but it's getting there, even with "Star Wars" at Ft. Greeley - particularly if we manage to get the Bush Administration impeached as they should be! So I'm also of a mixed mind. I would, however, like to see ANY development be regulated by a pro-Democratic administration. Kerry is known for his pro-environmental views; Tony Knowles thinks drilling would be ok but with many more protections than Alyeska Pipeline Services offers.

The North Slope is pretty bleak; however, most environmental studies are showing that, especially for the time it was developed, the job was done pretty gently.


ON EDIT: Bandit, I think Alaska would be a dynamic place for alternative energy development, including solar, hydro, geothermal (just think of all the hot springs here!) and wind. However, we first have to have a state government, as well as a President, who will push it. Our only viable alternative to Lisa is Tony, and he's also pro-drilling!

I live in Southeast and probably never will ever see the Artic National Wildlife Refuge so it is only about principle for me. We have done well as a state with the drilling on the North Slope and I feel we would do well if we tapped the Wildlife Refuge also but why do they call it a Wildlife Refuge ? I am for holding on to our oil as long as possible and when we finally allow the pillage to begin we get absolute top dollar. Make the bastards pay. If the price of oil gets too high Alternatives will become cheap.

We need the cash. And everyone I know is for it. That includes Democrats and Natives...They do a good job up off the North Slope and They will probobly do a good job in ANWR too.

Well you see its a lot like having health problems and deciding to change your diet or quit smoking or drinking or whatever. You either freakin do it or you don't! None of this sneaking bags of Fritos or downing half a cheesecake in a day (you know that game-- oh it wont kill me ot have just one little sliver! Then-- oh please just another little teeny weeny sliver! Then before you know it-- oh, well, just a little piece left--might as well finish it off!)

If an area has been set aside as a wildlife refuge, then lets have a wildlife refuge! This is prime breeding area for many species, has been called the Serenghetti of the north. Roads, noise & so called development can disrupt migration patterns. Taking the long view, I happen to believe that as the world population doubles again in the next 50 yrs these last remaining pristine wilderness areas will have an increased economic as well as spiritual value that will go far beyond whatever $$$ they can pump out of the ground now in the form of oil.

But, putting all that aside-- the reason I'm posting here is to ask (since I can''t start my own threads yet) if anyone knows which national or local Alaskan orgs are specifically working on protecting ANWR. I want to make a donation in my (Alaskan) sibling's name but need to know which is a good org to donate to. Pls help! Only 13 shopping days till xmas! Thanks in advance for any & all info!

Here are some posts on 'The Environment' in general
http://www.ragereport.com/phpbb/nfphpbb/viewforum.php?f=106

Here is a group working mostly in Alaska that is trustworthy:

The Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility (Alaska Forum) is dedicated to holding industry and government accountable to the laws designed to safeguard Alaska`s environment, worker saftey, and public health.
Address:
P.O. Box 188
Valdez, AK 99686

Phone: 907-835-5460
Fax: 907-835-5410
E-Mail: afervdz@alaska.net
or afervdz@alaskaforum.org

http://www.alaskaforum.org/

This is an Alaskan that is against drilling in a wildlife refuge.