Soooo... ANWR is doomed, huh?

In the spirit of another thread, I’d like to ask a few questions, or predictions, of the results of this story should it come to pass:

  1. What will be the ecological effects of the drilling? How severe? How severe would it need to be to cause any political backlash to the Administration, who constantly assured the nation that nothing would happen? Will anybody care about any damage as long as nothing really bad occurs?

  2. Will oil prices or foreign dependency drop in the slightest? Will there be any benefits of any sort?

  3. Will a major spill or disaster occur at some point? How politically damaging would it be to the Administration should such occur? Or would it fall entirely on the oil companies involved?

  4. Should we even care? Many people complain about caring about nature just for its own sake and not paying enough attention to us people. Are they right? What’re the consequences to us as a race of problems, barring asthetics?

Danke!

First of all, good ole greenpeace and their many counterparts in the “greenie” movement have gone so far as to film a documentary showing how horribly “denuded” of trees the North Slope became after drilling was allowed there.

(hint, there ARE no, and have NEVER been trees there).

Secondly, the drilling area is a tiny strip along the coastal part of ANWR, along the ocean and on gravel, NOT in the heatedly discussed and fought over tundra strip, NOR is it anywhere near the migratory route of the Porcupine Caribou herd as has been mistakenly bandied about by greenie propaganda.
Caribou love the pads on which the pipeline supports sit, because there they can escape from the hordes of biting insects that plague them during the summer months. The entire operation at Prudhoe Bay (the North Slope) has been designed so that no buildings have foundations, all are designed to be removed and have the smalled ecological impact once it is time to move out of Prudhoe.

(trust me, they aren’t very sturdy, and are damn cold when the wind chill is 90 below and blowing through the windows!! :slight_smile: )

Cite? Well, UAA Oilfield Technology at Kenai Peninsula College, where I was trained in Oilfield Technology Operations and a subsequent 15 years experience as an Environmental Project manager, including working for Arco’s “Spill Response Team” and “Alaska Clean Seas” two of the "powers that be regarding making sure the oil companies “up here” protect the environment to the utmost of their abilities.

Believe me, they do. To the tune of handing out awards to enterprising employees (tens of thousands of dollars in some cases) for those who come up with a “better mousetrap” for protecting the environment. Even those who just had an “incident free” month got incentive awards above the regular paycheck (EACH month, I know, because I got several of those incentive checks from good ole Arco myself).

The oil revenues to the state (that which the oil companies pay to the native corporations who own the land on which drilling is being conducted, or in the case of ANWR the state itself for the priviledge of drilling on “our” land) is a huge financial boon to the state of Alaska and it’s citizens.

Therefore every watchdog environmental group in the state has a finger in the pie so to speak, and an sharp eye on drilling (and mining, and logging) operations.

Now granted, ANWR isn’t a huge rescue insofar as replacing our dependence upon the middle east, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Don’t listen to the propaganda the radical greenies spread about the “horrors” the oil companies perpetrate upon the pristine Alaskan wilderness. It’s not true.

CanvasShoes has it right, the fine art of oil extraction isn’t nearly as destructive as it “used” to be. ANWR was never doomed.

That said, an oil spill is always a risk, even if that risk is minimized as much as possible with the current technology. If one should occur on the Administration’s watch, then it would be perceived as a major mistake by the administration to allow drilling there.

Man, I wish I had more time…maybe later I will, I really hate dishonesty…
Here’s a site with some info, and a quote :

http://www.inforain.org/Northslope/anwr_2.htm

“Caribou herds consistently demonstrate a 3-4 kilometer avoidance of pipelines, roads and other facilities.”

I’d sure like some further explanation of this:“Caribou love the pads on which the pipeline supports sit, because there they can escape from the hordes of biting insects that plague them during the summer months.”

I spend a lot of time in the wilderness, can I bring a pad that I can sit on & the mosquitos won’t bother me either?

Anyone with some time can easily find info on the net about the environmental problems in Alaska…beware corporate propaganda!

I shall return…

I don’t believe it; I’ve even seen pictures from other enviro groups with Caribou running along the piplines, or standing aorund with a big factory in the background.

Snowe, Collins, and Chafee, the remaining moderate Republican northeastern Senators, are all on record against it. So who might the aisle-crossing Democrats be in the reported 49?

The story could also be a plant, or leak, by an anti-drilling activist. Using the press is part of the process in politics.

Best Onion headline to date, after Jenna and Barbara turned 18: “Bush Twins’ Federally-Protected Wetlands Now Open for Public Drilling”.

I really hate dishonesty too, that’s why I am so wary of environmental groups that like to play heavy on shock value and light on facts. :rolleyes:

I’m sure the true picture is somewhere in between but I doubt the unbiased view is one easily found on the net. “Beware corporate propaganda” indeed… but beware those whose only qualification is their “freedom from the evil corporations” as well.

Landrieu, Breaux, Miller, Inouye and Akaka. First two are from Louisiana, Miller’s from Georgia and the last two are Hawaiian.

Let’s see how that vote count holds up after public attention is refocused on a matter previously thought dead.

Cite, please. This sounds like b.s. to me.

As has already been pointed out, this claim is laughable on its face. Concrete is hardly an effective substitute for Deep Woods Off.

SFW? That the exploration/drilling companies attempt to minimize environmental damage hardly eliminates the inherent damage they cause simply because of the nature of their activities. That’s like a mafia hit man saying that what he does is okay because he tries to be extra-careful that he doesn’t track blood all over the carpet after he’s shot the residents in the forehead.

Shit, you mean somebody might get rich off of this? That changes everything!

A drop in the bucket that can only be achieved at serious environmental cost. Sorry, count me out. I like our wilderness areas wild, not lighting up the sky at night.

Heaven forbid you should actually enlighten us with details of this “serious environmental cost”.

Simply refuting someone’s argument does very little to strengthen your own.

The National Academies of Science and Engineering release a study on ANWR on 4 March 2003. The study was requested by congress, and is on of the most comprehensive studies ever done on the effects of drilling and exploration. The results were mixed, and some Republicans in congress are none too happy with the report and are attempting to discredit it.

Drat, I posted before I supplied cites.

From The Washington Post

From the Anchorage Daily News

and From the Fairbanks News-Miner

Here is a link to that report brief.

I can see why some of the republicans are up in arms over it, but then neither side of this issue is likely to ever be totally satisfied. The truth is that there are trade-offs inherent in every interaction humans have with the land and the “wilderness.” Bad publicity and evolving technologies have led the oil companies to strive to minimize that footprint but it will never be enough for some. To hear some tell it, the oil companies would like nothing more than pave over the whole refuge and build strip malls. That’s ridiculous of course but then you don’t draw attention to your cause by being level-headed.

Neurotik, believe it or not, natural oil spill occur (and have occured even way back before we humans even thought about using it) pretty frequently.

For instance, an earthquake opens up a crack in the ocean floor and voila, if it’s in an oil deposit area, YUCK, Oil Spill.

As for the oil spills here? I’ve been on many of the cleanups and have co-authored contingency plans, watchdog plans and have helped run the spill response database for one of the Native Corps to whom Arco is leasing some of the mineral rights to the Prudhoe Bay reserves.

That was in the mid 90s and at that point there were over 3000 names on the call out emergence response database. Spill drills are conducted frequently, and the database is constantly updated.

Spill response equipment is new, state of the art “stuff” (and some of it’s pretty fun to play with).

Some of the cautionary plans the oil companies take are as simple as having boat crews constantly on guard and on rounds in the Cook Inlet refinery area, where they constantly circle and inspect the drilling platforms for structural integrity, and are also there “just in case” for instant spill response.

Even if the oil companies might secretly dislike the money they spend on environmental protection, the Native Corps up here have a lot of power, it’s their way, or the companies don’t get to drill. And the oil companies do toe the line so that they can get to the oil.

The Alaska Natives weren’t/aren’t treated as horribly as the indian tribes in the lower 48, they were smart enough to get some political power behind them and didn’t end up getting pushed off of their land and onto reservations. There are still things that need to be fixed regarding native rights, but they have a very powerful voice in deciding how things go regarding oil drilling.

And then there are many many environmental companies like mine, who come up with innovative ways to market to the oil companies to make their operations even MORE environmental friendly.

Besides the issues of the effect of oil drilling on ANWR itself, there are the larger issues of what benefit and what other harms this oil provides. One of my basic problems with drilling in ANWR is that it doesn’t take us toward a real solution to our problems which is too heavy a dependence on oil. The problem is not that we don’t have enough oil but rather that oil use is causing lots of problems, like global warming, pollution, … Conservation is a much more cost-effective way to reduce dependence on foreign oil and it has the advantage of actually helping to alleviate rather than further exercerbate these other problems. (It also, by the way, is an approach that can start yielding results faster than ANWR can come online.)

If the Bush Administration approached the problem of drug addiction in the way that they approached fossil-fuel addiction, they would be massively subsidizing the domestic production of cocaine, heroine, etc.

It was a film we watched, and laughed heartily over when I was at UAA at Kenai. Also, I’ve WORKED there. Sweetie, above the arctic circle? There are NO trees, it’s just tundra and swampy little scrub brush. My eyes should be enough of a cite, I’ve been from one end of Alaska to the other on various projects throughout my 15 years in the environmental industry (no, I’m NOT a stupid greenie, I’m the type of "environmentalist that actually “makes the bad stuff go away” I don’t just float around in my comfy fuel burning boat yelling slogans at hapless drillers).

There IS no concrete. The pads are made of gravel layers so that they can be removed once the oil companies leave and it can more easily be returned to the way it was. Cite? again, I’ve BEEN there. I worked there. I froze my ass off in the dorms on stilts in which people live there.

They don’t “attempt” to minimize it, they DO. And companies like the one for whom I work help them do it. My counterparts in enviro companies all over the state team with the oils companies and ACTIVELY and greatly reduce environmental impact.

No, I do NOT mean that someone might get rich off of this. Don’t be such a smart aleck. Of COURSE the oil companies themselves are in it to make money. Anyone who is in business is in it to make money and make a living. But they ARE doing their part and complying with environmental protection far above and beyond what is required.

You know? Before I went to work in Prudhoe, I’d only seen the moose and bear that live in the outskirts of Anchorage. Prudhoe Bay is a gorgeous area, the buildings and facilities that exist now have little impact on the area itself and even less on the wildlife. It is the first time that I, as a 30 year “sourdough” had seen that much wildlife.

Do NOT believe all the scare tactics and propaganda published by the greenies, or bandied about on NPR.

Btw, I do not work for an oil company, so I don’t have a vested interest in this. I have previously been on teams which assisted various oil companies with environmental compliance. That is where I get my info (cites), not from some online google search, and not from the “news” from being there in the trenches and doing the work itself.

Expanding on the last notion that I expressed, here is a little satirical news article that I wrote up last year when I got to thinking about how the President could align his drug policy with his policies on fossil fuels (and, particularly, ANWR and global warming):

President Announces Radical Shift in Drug Policy

April 9, 2002

In a policy shift that stunned press and pundits alike, President Bush announced “a re-alignment” of drug policy at the White House this morning. Stating that past policies had failed, the President explained “sometimes you just have to look for new and innovative solutions.”

Under the newly-announced policy, the government will seek to lower not total drug use but rather “drug use intensity,” which is total drug use divided by GDP. In this way, the President noted, the nation could make progress in the war on drugs without jeopardizing economic growth. He called the new goal of an 18% decrease in drug use intensity “an ambitious yet achievable goal.” The goal would apparently be achieved by voluntary measures such as paying drug users to lower their drug use. Drug users could also “bank” these reductions in drug use so that they would be credited with the reduction that they have already achieved in case rationing of drugs were imposed at some future date. Similar incentives would be put into place for drug pushers and suppliers.

One of the most surprising aspects of the new policy is the President’s proposal to grow opium poppies in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). “The economic potential is great,” the President said, “and we cannot let our nation’s drug supply be held hostage to evil dictators and drug lords around the world.” The President cited a recent spike in the price of heroin and other drugs as evidence of the necessity to insure an adequate homegrown supply to meet America’s drug use needs.

The ANWR poppy growing plan drew sharp criticism from environmentalists and drug policy advocates alike. However, Presidential aides dismissed claims that the poppy growing would disturb the calving of the Alaskan caribou by displacing their traditional food supply as “more wacko environmentalism unsubstantiated by any evidence other than science.” “This kills two birds with one stone!” exclaimed one obviously gleeful aide. “Once the caribou have eaten enough of those poppy plants, they won’t even notice the oil rigs! The synergies between this plan and the President’s energy policy are just amazing!”

Environmentalists particularly disputed an Administration claim that only 2000 acres of the coastal plain would be affected by the poppy growing. “In fact, this figure includes only the acreage of land actually touched by the poppy plants, that is, the total of the cross-sectional area of each plant stem where it touches the ground. If one also includes the areas between the stems of the plants, which will be placed about one foot apart, the number jumps to over 400,000 acres,” explained a senior scientist at Environmental Defense. Vice President Dick Cheney, while not disputing these figures, pointed out that the Administration’s 2000 acre estimate involved “standard land-use accounting practices,” noting that the space between each plant would remain largely untouched and pristine due to “modern environmentally-sound agricultural practices.” He also emphasized that the details of the planting had not yet been worked out. “The environmentalists are assuming a square array of plants while we may decide to plant in a more efficient hexagonal array,” he explained to one befuddled reporter.

As the press scurried to try to learn more about the motives behind this shift in policy, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer explained that the President had hit upon the idea after extensive discussions with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. “They had been discussing the need to find more domestic sources of oil to meet the nation’s insatiable energy appetite. The President, whose mind works in truly wondrous ways, saw the obvious connection with drug policy that nearly everyone else had missed. The American people should be thanking God in their prayers each night for a Supreme Court that selected a President capable of thinking outside the box.”

Columnist George Will was uncharacteristically enthusiastic in his assessment. “I think it’s a great idea. Any policy change to correct the inept policies of a previous Democratic Administration is a great idea.” Will admitted that he had not had a chance to read “all of the details” of the proposal. “But I understand it’s about drugs or something,” he added.

While others criticized the President’s plan, it also found quick praise from Senior Policy Analyst Frank Mitchell of the Cato Institute. “We’ve been arguing for this sort of policy for years,” said Mitchell. “Just as environmentalists in the EPA have systematically prevented oil exploration, forcing gasoline prices so high that most American families cannot afford to own and operate more than one Ford Excursion, so our nation’s failed drug policy has had similar consequences. Clearly, government solutions to drugs have failed and it is time to let the free market decide.”

From the Anchorage Daily News
quote:

Some predatory species like foxes have thrived on oil field garbage, and they have driven down some populations of birds. As for other wildlife, oil has not resulted in large or long-term declines in caribou, but the spread of industry east into ANWR’s narrower coastal plain could.

This is called “hazing” of wildlife and will get you fired if you work in an oilfield. If you are caught feeding, or actively interfering with an animal in ANY way, you will get fired. “Hazing” can range from feeding them, to even as little as getting to close to them should they happen to be on a roadway (which are all dirt roads). Garbage is secured and locked at Prudhoe Bay facilities. If your company fails to secure it’s garbage it can be fined.
and From the Fairbanks News-Miner
quote:

The report also describes how female caribou near the oil fields didn’t produce as many young between 1988 and 2001 as others in the Central Arctic Herd. That probably occurred because cows and young calves tend to avoid oil work, the report said. Some ended up in areas with “lower green-plant biomass than the area previously used.” In addition, cows and calves were less able to escape harassing insects because of their hesitancy to go near oil work, the report said.

Funny, there were dozens of them enjoying the insect free areas around the stations when I’ve been there. I mean they don’t walk right up to us and graze or anything, but they don’t all bolt either. Hasn’t anyone here ever seen how squirrels, or seagulls behave in areas frequented by people (parks, beaches etc?). They are cautious, but aren’t terribly bothered by the industry or the people, they are used to it.

Again, people believe everything just because it’s 'the (dum dum DUM) “news”.

I’m wondering what they mean by “lower greenplant biomass”. It’s TUNDRA folks, all TUNDRA, as far as the eye can see, well tundra and some really pretty lakes (which are called something different when they exist in tundra, but I can’t think of the word right now).

(Tundra, it’s this green mossy, springy stuff, sometimes it’s flat, and sometimes you get little hilly masses.) There’s a wee bit of grass near the lakes but mostly it’s all tundra.

Oops, I forgot to mention, the gravel they use for pads etc? Well, it’s from borrow areas within the Prudhoe Bay area, so it’s not like they trucked in stuff that wasn’t indigenous to that geological terrain, again, the plan is, when they are ready to leave, it will go back to the areas from which it was borrowed.