ANWR -- Down in Flames, Baby!

[musicguy]

According to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation data base, the Prudhoe Bay oil fields and Trans-Alaska Pipeline have caused an average of 407 spills annually on the North Slope since 1996. From 1994 to 1999, approximately 1,600 spills occurred involving more than 1.2 million gallons of oil, diesel fuel, acid, biocide, ethylene glycol, drilling fluid, produced water and other liquids.

A study of diesel spills in Alaska’s Arctic found that, after 28 years, substantial hydrocarbons remained in the soil and most of the vegetation in the area of the spills had not recovered.

Anthracite,

I wasn’t comparingthe Valdez to the other spill. I was offering them both as examples in response to the republican rhetoric that drilling is now entirely safe. I think the above figure of 400 or so annual spills should give anyone pause. Call that tight quality control if you want. As a person who does have a QC background, I do not.

The fact is I don’t trust this administration to give us impartial data. They skew it in any way they can to put their agenda in the best light. That has been and will be their SOP. The funny thing is, the oil companies aren’t even that enthusiastic about drilling there. But the Bush team has a hard-on for this area. The problem is that the rhetoric they spew just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. They say we need this oil because of the threat of Saddam. Well, we wouldn’t have seen any oil from ANWR for 10 years. Other countries offered to make up the difference that Saddam might withhold. But Ari Fleisher sort of left that part out, didn’t he? This administrations energy policy is a joke. The whole purpose of it is to make the energy companies richer. Pardon me if I think they are not exactly seeing the big picture.

[UncleBeer]

The whole purpose of it is to make the energy companies richer.

And Lloyd Bentsen and the Gore family, too. Let’s not forget the Democratic ties to “big oil.”

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
**
And Lloyd Bentsen and the Gore family, too. Let’s not forget the Democratic ties to “big oil.” **

So what. If Gore were in office, you surely don’t mean to suggest that he would be handling things the same, do you? Would he have disregarded the Kyoto treaty, raised the levels of arsenic in the water, proposed drilling in ANWR and kept all environmentalists out of any energy policy planning?

Gore’s family may be tied to big oil but they sure weren’t bought and paid for by the energy industry. If they were, maybe someone different would be sitting in the oval office.

[catsix]

‘Raised the levels of arsenic in the water’?

That’s not at all misleading, is it?

Bill Clinton lowered the legal level of arsenic in water to a point so far below what naturally occurs in water (and what is safe for human consumption) that it was rediculous to even try to purify water to that point.

So he left it to Bush to raise the legal level to something more reasonably in line with both public healt AND the expense of water treatment.

It’s not like Bush went around thinking ‘How can I poison Americans? Oh, I know, MORE ARSENIC in the water!’

Guh. Knowing what I do about water treatment (which is far more than I ever want to) I’m well aware that the ppm legal allowable level of arsenic in drinking water is low enough that it won’t cause harm to humans, but not so low that it’s unattainable in nature and prohibitively expensive to purify water to that point. But then someone makes a comment about Bush ‘raising the arsenic levels in water’ and it’s like an implication that he’s out there having it dumped in reservoirs. Not hardly.

[light_strand]

catsix that’s a funny post you have there since Bush actually approved the levels proposed by Clinton (10ppb) for arsenic in drinking water effective 22 Feb 2002, compliance effective 23 Jan 2006.

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by catsix *
‘Raised the levels of arsenic in the water’?

That’s not at all misleading, is it?

to be fair, it should have said “raised the acceptable levels of arsenic in water”. I wasn’t try to insinuate otherwise.

Bill Clinton lowered the legal level of arsenic in water to a point so far below what naturally occurs in water (and what is safe for human consumption) that it was rediculous to even try to purify water to that point.

So he left it to Bush to raise the legal level to something more reasonably in line with both public healt AND the expense of water treatment.

More accurately…

President George W. Bush is reversing an earlier decision to delay implementation of a proposal to lower the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water. The proposal, originally announced by former President Bill Clinton, would lower the maximum acceptable level of arsenic from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. It will go into effect in 2006.

Calling his earlier actions to delay implementation the worst mistake of his administration thus far, Bush decided to stick with Clinton’s proposal following the release of a National Academy of Sciences report linking high arsenic levels to increased risk of lung and bladder cancer.

from www.grantsandfunding.com

[catsix]

Hmm, that’s interesting, because the Engineering News Record indicates that the EPA under Clinton changed the level on January 17. Three days before Clinton left office and Bush entered.

Article here.

And that Bush initially blocked the standard of 10 ppb due to the concerns over the cost of upgrading water systems, and rushed their own study because of charges from environmental groups that Bush wanted to ‘keep arsenic in the water,’ and was more concerned about cost than the health of Americans.

The initial block by the Bush Administration was enacted so that the administration could be sure that ‘sound science’ was used to make the determination - but that sure doesn’t stop people from making inflammatory statements like ‘Bush wanted higher arsenic levels in the water.’

My problem with it is, although the onset date of the new levels has not changed, Bush was practically crucified for putting the plan on temporary hold while conducting his own study, and even now that he admits that the new standard is needed, people are still spinning the twist on Bush’s arsenic position.

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by UncleBeer *

And here’s a report from the USGS predicting little or no effect on calving within 4 km of the pipeline. Check figure 2.

http://www.usgs.gov/anwr/report.html **

Funny you should mention that report. Here is a slightly different perspective on it from here

For 12 years, scientists collected data on the impact of oil exploration on wildlife, especially the unique Porcupine caribou herd, which migrates to the Arctic Refuge to bear and raise its calves.

The final report, issued last week by the U.S. Geological Survey, was devastating. Scientists examined five different drilling scenarios. All five, they concluded, would adversely impact the native habitat of musk oxen, snow geese, polar bears and caribou – three of them, seriously.

The USGS report contradicted congressional testimony of Interior Secretary Gale Norton that drilling would have absolutely no effect on caribou. It also repudiated the ludicrous campaign promise of President Bush that oil companies could move men and equipment onto the Arctic slope and take the oil out “without leaving a footprint.”

Faced with such damning evidence, what did Norton do? Tell Bush and Cheney to do the right thing and scuttle Arctic drilling plans? Go back to Congress and admit she was wrong? Resign? Of course not. She did just what George Bush did when scientists told him that global warming was real and he was wrong. Bush never lets facts get in the way of his fairy tales. Handed science he doesn’t like, Bush goes out and buys science he can.

So, the very day the first USGS report was released, Secretary Norton, no doubt acting under orders from the White House, ordered the same scientists to come up with another set of conclusions. Just seven days later --mirabile dictu – they said there would be no negative impact on wildlife from drilling in the Arctic.

You decide. One study result was based on scientific observation over 12 years; the other, rushed through in seven days. One was driven by pure science; the other, by pure politics. Which one would you believe? Bush and Norton are wasting their time trying to convince the rest of us that drilling is environmentally safe. We know it’s not.

The animal pictures were nice though. You’re right, they sure do look happy.

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by catsix *
The initial block by the Bush Administration was enacted so that the administration could be sure that ‘sound science’ was used to make the determination - but that sure doesn’t stop people from making inflammatory statements like ‘Bush wanted higher arsenic levels in the water.’

Yes, sound science is the first thing I think of when I think of the Bush Adminsitration.

[catsix]

Well, musicguy, I’d at least have given them a chance to prove something with a study.

Instead of just being blindly dismissive of anything they could possibly observe and test, that is.

Unless of course it’s your habit to ignore someone as a scientist because as we all know, if you disagree with someone’s politics, then damnit, there’s no way they could actually have scientific integrity around them. It’s not possible that though their opinion differs from yours, they are capable of employing actual scientists to carry out actual research for the purpose of discovering fact.

:rolleyes:

[Tars_Tarkas]

prove something with a study

Please, studies can be written to prove anything. Just give certain scientists some money, and they’ll write whatever you want to hear. Ever wonder why studies conflict each other? You look for the guy who agrees with you, and give him money to say so. Or, give him money, and tell him what you want him to say, and promise more money. Ask the tobacco companies about that.

[wring]

*Originally posted by catsix *
** My problem with it is, although the onset date of the new levels has not changed, Bush was practically crucified for putting the plan on temporary hold while conducting his own study, and even now that he admits that the new standard is needed, people are still spinning the twist on Bush’s arsenic position. **

care to 'splain to me what ‘new study’ could have been ordered, completed and evaluated in the time between Bush’s rescinding of the order and the re-issuing of same? (a viable one, that is). His statement at the time was ‘gee, we want to evaluate this, with scientific standards’ sort of nonsense, when the studies were scientific, long term and devesatating.

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by catsix *
**Well, musicguy, I’d at least have given them a chance to prove something with a study.

Instead of just being blindly dismissive of anything they could possibly observe and test, that is.

Unless of course it’s your habit to ignore someone as a scientist because as we all know, if you disagree with someone’s politics, then damnit, there’s no way they could actually have scientific integrity around them. It’s not possible that though their opinion differs from yours, they are capable of employing actual scientists to carry out actual research for the purpose of discovering fact.

:rolleyes: **

Oh, please.

If you will read the cite I provided concerning ANWR and the USGS report, it clearly states that the Bush Administration got a very scientific report, dismissed it, then “ordered the same scientists to come up with another set of conclusions”. That is not scientific integrity.

In this post…

Bill Clinton lowered the legal level of arsenic in water to a point so far below what naturally occurs in water (and what is safe for human consumption) that it was rediculous to even try to purify water to that point.

So he left it to Bush to raise the legal level to something more reasonably in line with both public healt AND the expense of water treatment.

You seem to suggest that Clinton realized he made a mistake and left it for Bush to fix. That is not accurate at all. Rather, Bush realized his mistake and decided to implement the changes that Clinton imposed. I do give him credit for that. So perhaps its not all about partisanship with me. Can you say the same?

[UncleBeer]

If you will read the cite I provided concerning ANWR and the USGS report, it clearly states that the Bush Administration got a very scientific report, dismissed it, then “ordered the same scientists to come up with another set of conclusions”.

It “clearly states” nothing as fact. The article is an op-ed piece full of innuendo, unsubstantiated claims, and inflamed opinion.

The animal pictures were nice though. You’re right, they sure do look happy.

Glad we agree on something.

So, tell me. You against all development that might possibly have a negative effect on the birthrate of all animals, or do you actually live in a house somewhere? Drive a car? Use the roads in any fashion at all? How 'bout that Panama Canal? Great Wall of China? Where do you stand on those things?

[rjung]

Here’s something right up musicguy’s alley:

Remember the good ol’ days when our Interior Secretary actually tried to protect the environment? Those days are long gone. Now that Oily Dubya and Halliburton Dick are in charge, the number one priority of the Interior Secretary (and everyone else in this administration) is drilling for crude. Interior Secretary Gale Norton will even break the law to do it. On the Department of Interior website there is a short video titled “ANWR in Winter.” The video, produced by pro-drilling lobbyists, shows clips of a barren arctic tundra, which appears completely devoid of life. You see, Norton wants you to think “ice cube” not “baby caribou” whenever you think of ANWR. Unfortunately for Gale, it’s illegal for agencies to distribute film “designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the Congress.” But who cares about a little lawbreaking? After all, we’re talking about oil!
–“Top Ten Conservative Idiots of the Week,” #63, Democratic Underground

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by musicguy *
**

According to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation data base, the Prudhoe Bay oil fields and Trans-Alaska Pipeline have caused an average of 407 spills annually on the North Slope since 1996. From 1994 to 1999, approximately 1,600 spills occurred involving more than 1.2 million gallons of oil, diesel fuel, acid, biocide, ethylene glycol, drilling fluid, produced water and other liquids.

A study of diesel spills in Alaska’s Arctic found that, after 28 years, substantial hydrocarbons remained in the soil and most of the vegetation in the area of the spills had not recovered.

**

That sure sounds like a significant amount of spills over that time period. My only problem with this is that there is no breakdown as to what is what. “Produced water”, for example, is hardly something I can get very worried about - unless it has a large amount on heavy metals in it. :eek:

I think the above figure of 400 or so annual spills should give anyone pause. Call that tight quality control if you want. As a person who does have a QC background, I do not.

Can you say with total honesty that you determined the amount of oil and natural gas produced from Prudhoe Bay during that time period before posting that you considered it to “not” be tight quality control?

Peak production from Prudhoe bay was about 2 million barrels per day, but has declined to 1.1 to 1.5 million barrels per day, depending on the metric the person slanting the data chooses. Let’s say 1.1 million barrels per day, so I can slant it to the left. The years 1994 through 1999 inclusive had about 2,190 days. At 1.1 million barrels per day, and 42 gallons per oil barrel, we get about 101,178,000,000 gallons of production. Assuming 1.2 million gallons of leakage, we get 0.0011% leakage.

That’s not tight quality control?

The fact is I don’t trust this administration to give us impartial data. They skew it in any way they can to put their agenda in the best light. That has been and will be their SOP.

I agree, only if you include the Clinton Administration. I think both Administrations have lied, cheated, and bent the laws of engineering and science to suit their position. The only difference is that now liberals are the bottom dog.

But the Bush team has a hard-on for this area.

And the liberals don’t have a, how you put it, “hard on” for the area themselves, just for a different reason? Didn’t you just deride “partisanship” a post or two ago? What kind of statement is the above, if not partisan?

Well, we wouldn’t have seen any oil from ANWR for 10 years.

Using this metric, we should never develop any oil resources, because there will always be a lead time. This supports neither side really.

This administrations energy policy is a joke.

It’s not very good, I’ll grant you that. It’s about as bad as Clinton’s, IMPO.

The whole purpose of it is to make the energy companies richer.**

But if the energy policy is intended to make the companies richer, and liberals are arguing that the ANWR would take 10 years to develop and be too expensive to develop anyhow…I guess Bush really is failing both sides then. Who knew?

Oh, and before this all starts up yet again - FTR, this is one hard-line arch-conservative energy lesbian who is opposed to developing the ANWR. Yes, I’m on the side of those opposed, even if some of their lies and distortions make me feel like taking a shower every couple of hours. But I’m on the side of not developing it - simply to maintain it as a strategic resource, and to get people cracking down hard on working on my pet project - energy conservation.

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by UncleBeer *

It “clearly states” nothing as fact. The article is an op-ed piece full of innuendo, unsubstantiated claims, and inflamed opinion.

Yes, you are correct which is why I offered it merely as an alternative perspective. In hindsight though I see that I expressed it as fact in another post and shouldn’t have done that without at least investigating its validity, which I intend to try to do.

So, tell me. You against all development that might possibly have a negative effect on the birthrate of all animals, or do you actually live in a house somewhere? Drive a car? Use the roads in any fashion at all? How 'bout that Panama Canal? Great Wall of China? Where do you stand on those things?

No, I am not a member of PETA or a rabid conservationalist. Still, it pains me to see such a beautiful landscape potentially damaged for such short term and, IMHO, insignificant benefit when there are other remedies to our problems that aren’t being adequately explored. Use of this area offers no real solution. And for the record, I drive a Geo Metro which I didn’t buy for its performance. But its the best alternative I have since the public transportation system sucks and I don’t want to ride a bike 45 miles each way to work.

[Yumanite]

originally posted by UncleBeer:
How 'bout that Panama Canal? Great Wall of China? Where do you stand on those things?

Well, I hear you can stand at the very top of the Great Wall, but I’m pretty sure that you can’t stand on the Panama Canal at all. . .
:d&r:

[Emilio_Lizardo]

Hmmm…as a certified Tree Hugger, my first reaction to the idea of drilling in ANWR is a sharp pain in my knee, as the jerk reflex causes it to smash into the underside of my desk. On further consideration, though, I realize that the ability to maintain our current standard of living is directly related to our access to energy and mineral resources. Personally, I would prefer conservation and/or higher prices to further environmental harm, but I realize that is not feasible for everyone. If there is to be drilling done in ANWR, however, I damned sure want it done with the maximum of environmental safeguards available, and I want it done in conjunction with programs of conservation and searches for alternative sources for the things we use the oil for. Until I see those actions taking place as well, my conscience dictates that I oppose any exploration

(For the record, my wife and I share one car between us, and though it gets pretty crappy mileage, I commute by bicycle, and she by subway. Were gas prices to rise significantly, we could easily rearrange our lifestyle to accept this with a minimum of fuss or bother.)

[Emilio_Lizardo]

Hmmm…as a certified Tree Hugger, my first reaction to the idea of drilling in ANWR is a sharp pain in my knee, as the jerk reflex causes it to smash into the underside of my desk. On further consideration, though, I realize that the ability to maintain our current standard of living is directly related to our access to energy and mineral resources. Personally, I would prefer conservation and/or higher prices to further environmental harm, but I realize that is not feasible for everyone. If there is to be drilling done in ANWR, however, I damned sure want it done with the maximum of environmental safeguards available, and I want it done in conjunction with programs of conservation and searches for alternative sources for the things we use the oil for. Until I see those actions taking place as well, my conscience dictates that I oppose any exploration

(For the record, my wife and I share one car between us, and though it gets pretty crappy mileage, I commute by bicycle, and she by subway. Were gas prices to rise significantly, we could easily rearrange our lifestyle to accept this with a minimum of fuss or bother.)