Baghdad Zog says, " My paid for shill er poll, shows that no one wants us to drill in Alaska. Drilling in Alaska will hurt my Opecker Prince and Thug buddies!"
Posted on 12/23/2004 7:50:56 PM PST by MissouriConservative
WASHINGTON--Environmental groups warned Congress on Tuesday with poll numbers that claim a majority of Americans oppose oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Zogby International, a polling firm hired by the groups, said 55 percent of Americans said "no" when asked whether oil companies should be allowed to drill in ANWR.
"Congress should take notice of these numbers," stated Jim Waltman, director of refuges and wildlife programs at The Wilderness Society, in a news release. "Members of Congress need to ask themselves, 'Whose side am I on? Am I on the side of the oil companies? Or do I side with the majority of Americans who want the Arctic refuge protected?'"
Congress begins a new session Jan. 4. Alaska's members have said they hope to change the law next year to allow drilling in the 1.5 million-acre ANWR coastal plain.
Kevin Hand, executive director of the pro-drilling group Arctic Power, said it's difficult to read much into polls such as that commissioned by the environmental groups. Arctic Power hasn't done any recent polling, but past efforts have found that 55 percent of Americans aren't even sure what ANWR is, he said.
"They mostly know the bumper sticker items--'six months of oil, we're going to rape and pillage the caribou'--that sort of thing," he said. "But when the average American is informed on the issue, they definitely support (drilling) and we have polls that reflect that."
Hand wouldn't offer a detailed critique of the Zogby poll, but said some of the questions seemed leading.
The ANWR questions were part of a more lengthy Zogby poll, on which the environmental groups piggybacked. The firm queried 1,200 people by telephone.
The first ANWR-related question was the eighth in the poll, according to an analysis released by Zogby.
Previous questions were not released and Pete Rafle, spokesman for The Wilderness Society, said he did not know what they were.
The eighth question was multiple choice, asking participants to name "the best way to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil." Forty-one percent said expand wind, solar and ethanol while relying less on petroleum. Thirty-nine percent said conserve more and develop more fuel-efficient cars. Seventeen percent said drill for more oil and gas "including areas within wildlife refuges."
The next question, again multiple choice, asked, "Do you think oil companies should be allowed to drill for oil in America's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?" Fifty-five percent said do not allow drilling, 38 percent said allow it and 7 percent were not sure.
After that, Zogby pollsters read participants two statements summarizing ANWR arguments. The pro-drilling statement, with which 31 percent agreed, quoted no authority but stated foreign oil contributes to high prices and ANWR oil could reduce those.
The anti-drilling statement, a third longer, quotes the U.S. Department of Energy saying not enough oil exists in ANWR to change prices and quotes oil companies saying it would take a decade to develop. Fifty-nine percent agreed.
Ten percent were either not sure or disagreed with both statements.
The next question asked participants to agree or disagree in varying degrees to the assertion that, "Congress is spending too much time trying to open (ANWR) to oil drilling as a payback to the oil companies for their campaign contributions, instead of focusing their attention on more important issues like keeping us safe, providing affordable health care and strengthening the economy."
Overall, 65 percent agreed and 27 percent disagreed, with 9 percent unsure.
Rafle defended the language.
"We work pretty hard to make sure that we're doing this as even-handedly as we can and use the arguments that each side is using," he said.
"There are lots of things that you ask in polls where you're looking to refine the way you talk about issues," he said. But the "bottom line" is that the "current poll finds a solid majority of Americans would like the refuge to stay the way it is."
Lexi Keogh, spokeswoman for the Alaska Wilderness League in Washington, D.C., said the poll results match earlier, independent polls, including a November 2002 poll by CBS News.
"The numbers are almost exactly the same," she said.
ANWR was originally designated the Arctic National Wildlife Range in 1960. In 1980, Congress expanded its southern and western boundaries and set aside the coastal plain for study of its wilderness values and petroleum potential.
The U.S. Geological Survey in 1998 said the federal land in the ANWR coastal plain would produce, as a mean estimate, about 5.2 billion barrels of oil at prices of $26.20. The Alaska Department of Revenue said this month that the oil could add $500 million a year to the state's income by 2024, assuming royalties are split 50-50 with the federal government.
A Department of the Interior biological review in 2002 concluded the most likely development scenario, with disturbance limited to the oil-rich western part of the plain, would cut June caribou calf survival by an average of about 1 percent.
Critics of that analysis said the negative effects on caribou could extend well beyond June if oil work displaces the cows and calves, which tend to avoid roads and pipelines, from the coastal areas of the western plains where they often go in mid-summer to escape biting insects.
Wait till they get their heat bills. It's going to be -15 F degrees tonight in MSP.
This is stupid, I want to know the following, what do ALASKANS want?
If this is true, then the first thing we should do is drill ANWAR.
I'd be willing to bet a paycheck that another poll would show that a majority of Americans don't have a clue about what or where ANWR is. Bottom line is polls produce the desired results of those who pay for them.
An example of the validity of polls: Several years ago, IBM decided they needed to get 'ahead of the crowd' as an 'open systems' company. They had no product but conducted a worldwide multi-millions ad campaign - at the end of the campaign they did a poll - in all geographies IBM was identified as the world leader in Open Systems solutions - despite the fact they had no, none, zero, nada - products that they actually SOLD as Open Systems solutions. IBM executives actually used this as an example of their effective advertising campaign. Polls are simply a way to create a perception and have virtually no relation to reality.
LoL.....
And... most people do not understand how long it takes to find, poke a hole in the ground, build reineries and ship to the end user.
It's about seven years.
And for the doubting Thomases, we DO need more refining capacity. We're tapped out on throughput. If anyone doubts my statements, I will let my wife address this/these issues. She worked for Texaco oil and refining for 30+ years in Texaco's World Headquarters until Chevron bought Texaco 3 years ago. She was in staff meetings with Hicks,Bijour, and DeCrane; and wrote part of the Annual Report for Texaco's TIMM (Texaco International Manufacturing and Marketing.)
Bottom line... even if we get Congressional approval in developing, it will take YEARS to bing production from upstream to downstream.
And we will wait 5-7 years for results. Read my previous response.
So if they still oppose ANWR drilling then I suppose they LOVE gasoline at > $2.50 gallon then too eh?
IDIOTS.
They should talk to Alaskans. The drilling foot print itself is miniscule compare to the territory--virtually microscopic compared to the territory. The well-head(s) left after all is done and cleaned up would be even more microscopic.
The benefit to the country is awesomely greater than the risk or even the damage resulting.
There needs to be a massive education effort, it seems to me.
But mostly, Americans swallow too much poopoo from the MSM about everything and especially hyper environmental idiocies.
WEre they given any truthful information about the effects of the drilling, or were they just hit with a question that evoked an emotional response?
Please put a disclaimer about Zogby polling as piece of crap. Republicans gave him the finger in 1996. Now Dems probably did the same thing in 2004.
I agree with the crticis, NOT!!!!!
I was an inspector on the DEW Line in 69-70. I traveled from Point Barrow to Kulusuk Greenland. I was in ANWAR in April of 69 and saw the migration when the caribou herds come down from the Brooks Range where they winter. They flow out onto the coastal plain to graze in these sumer meadows.
The herd numbered around 50,000 and I watched it for several days. It was a virtual river of animals. The wolf packs followed the herds and cut out the aged and youngsters who strayed from Mom's side.
Today, because of the Alaska Pipeline which carries the hot oil, (geothermals below the oil field), to Valdez the herds now number over 120,000. So much for the doofae who have probably never been there but they just "KNOW HOW INJURIOUS MANKIND IS TO THE ENVIRONMENT!" Kinda like Kerry and Edwards!
Not just that, an arab lefty pollster...
An Arab lefty pollster polling a petroleum-related issue for enviro-wackos.
Yo, Zoggy. Of that 55%, what percentage knew what or where the hell ANWR is?
Baghdad Zog says, " My paid for shill er poll, shows that no one wants us to drill in Alaska. Drilling in Alaska will hurt my Opecker Prince and Thug buddies!"
Actually oil can come from any vareity of sources - mostly plants. We could also grow it in infinitely renewable supplies. ANWR should only be part of a drive to achieve energy independence through renewables. Otherwise we are just wasting a precious reserve that we might need as global supplies dwindle in the not too distant future.
Energy secrutiy is directly related to national security and should not be in the hands of oil companies, nor the context of a partisan squabble.
Please raise your hand if you want to pay three bucks a gallon for gas?
If it means energy independence fromthe rest of the world and improved American security, a halt to a transfer of wealth to Arab Sheiks and the beginning of a transition away from a fuel source we know will run out anyway, you have my vote.
If you pay one third more, you can just use one third less and come out even.
Very few people need vehicles as large as they have. Moreover, technology being employed by the Japanese and Germans is now signficantly increasing fuel efficiency.
The rise of China will guarentee 3 dollar a gallon gasoline anyway. The question is whether 1 dollar of that gallon goes to the Saudis, or into the American treasury focused on increasing American self-reliance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.