ANWR Showdown -- Liberal Caught Playing Loose With The Facts [My Title]

Other views: Opening Arctic refuge not wise energy policy By Chris Beachy: The Fargo Forum - 02/14/2002

The North Dakota Natural Science Society opposes opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development. We support reducing America’s dependence on oil and we support conservation measures such as increasing energy efficiency in gas-powered vehicles, developing alternative energy sources, developing high-speed rail systems and other forms of mass transit throughout the country, and rewarding consumers’ use of energy efficient appliances and lighting systems.

Opening the Arctic refuge or even every national park, wildlife refuge, and U.S. coastline, would still not lessen U.S. reliance on foreign oil supplies. According to information released by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Arctic refuge contains only about 3.2 billion barrels of oil, scattered in dozens of small pockets, not in one large field, and is less than what remains in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. If it represented the only source of U.S. oil and if all 3.2 billion barrels were immediately available, it would be consumed within two years. Regardless of how long it would actually last, oil from the Arctic refuge would take at least 10 years to reach refineries, and another 15 years before the oil could be used. Therefore, oil from the Arctic refuge will not boost short-term energy supplies and lower gas prices, easing an energy “crisis.”

Regardless of suggestions to the contrary, exploration and recovery have always been an ecologically disastrous process. Any exploration or drilling activities in the Arctic refuge would require a network of roads and pipelines spanning hundreds of square miles. Housing, airports, waste disposal sites, and gravel mines would be built. The once-pristine Prudhoe Bay is an example of the results of oil development: it now is an industrial complex of 500 miles of roads, 1,100 miles of pipelines, 3,900 wells, three airports, 17 sewage treatment plants, and hundreds of waste pits. From 1996 to 1999, the oil industry was responsible for 400 spills each year at Prudhoe Bay, releasing more than 1.2 million gallons of crude oil and other hazardous materials. The same will happen in the Arctic refuge.

First set aside by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1960 and expanded by Congress in 1980, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the United States’ only conservation unit that encompasses an intact arctic ecosystem. The Arctic coastal plain is a rare example of an ecosystem where ecological and cultural processes continue to interact much as they have for thousands of years. The habitats within the Arctic refuge support the greatest wildlife diversity of any protected area above the Arctic Circle. The Arctic refuge is home to polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines, caribou (the largest herd in the world), muskoxen, Dolly Varden, and more than 130 species of migratory birds. Millions of birds from six continents and all 50 states, including North Dakota, migrate to the Arctic refuge. About 70 bird species breed on the coastal plain.

Humans are capable of preserving habitat and developing energy-conservation measures. Humans are not very good at restoring wilderness to its natural condition. Human simply cannot re-create extinct species. If disturbed, our words and pictures will not convey to our grandchildren and great grandchildren the true glory and beauty of what the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge once was. Many Americans and North Dakotans value clean air, unpolluted water, and wild places as much as cheap gasoline.

Beachy, Jamestown, N.D., is president-elect of the N.D. Natural Science Society, an organization of 280 members from throughout the United States that seeks to promote understanding of the natural history of the Great Plains.

VIEWPOINT: Drill deeper for the facts before sanctifying ANWR By John P. Bluemle: The Grand Forks Herald

BISMARCK - Recently, the Herald printed a viewpoint from Chris Beachy, president-elect of the North Dakota Natural Science Society, stating that the society opposes opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development ("Arctic wildlife refuge development for oil shouldn't proceed," Page 4A, Feb. 5).

I have been a member of the society since 1970 and president of the organization twice. To the best of my knowledge, the membership was not polled about this topic, which is somewhat controversial, to say the least. Certainly, I was not asked. I have several comments.

Beachy expresses his personal views (certainly his right), but portrays them as being the widely held views of the 280 members of the society. I believe this is inappropriate. It is also inappropriate for a local group such as the society to express a political view on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge issue. The society's mission statement indicates that its purpose is to promote interest in and understanding of natural history in the northern Great Plains, to encourage the conservation of natural resources and to provide communication among individuals, institutions and organizations of like interests.

The northern Great Plains do not include the Arctic tundra. When I was president of the North Dakota Natural Science Society, I tried to emphasize the great diversity of North Dakota's natural science, mainly by providing field trips to various parts of the state - North Dakota's natural science is at least as interesting as anything in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Beachy directs readers to the society's Web site, which provides no information about the wildlife refuge. We also learn from Beachy's letter that the society's Web site is hosted by the U.S. Geological Survey. Thus, Beachy creates, intentionally or not, the false impression that the views of the society, and his views as well, are somehow sanctioned, shared or promoted by the geological survey.

In my view, Beachy commits a serious error in judgment in representing his personal viewpoint as being the same as that of a private organization, which is hosted by an apolitical government agency, the U.S. Geological Survey.

The geological survey is one of the premier scientific research agencies in the world. It conducts objective scientific studies and provides data, information and guidance on natural resource issues. It does not lobby for or against any political viewpoints.

In addition, Beachy terribly misstates facts and creates fiction about the wildlife refuge throughout his viewpoint. He states, for example, that, according to the geological survey, the refuge contains only 3.2 billion barrels of oil. Actually, the survey has calculated that the refuge's coastal plain area alone contains between 3.4 billion and 10.2 billion barrels of oil, with a mean of 6.4 billion barrels. This is much more than the 3.2 billion barrels that Beachy states for the whole Arctic National Wildlife area, which the geological survey estimates contains between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of oil.

Beachy also states, "The once pristine Prudhoe Bay is an example of the results of oil development: It is now an industrial complex of 500 miles of roads, 1,100 miles of pipelines, 3,900 wells, three airports, 17 sewage treatment plants and hundreds of waste pits." Well, the North Slope may be pristine in the sense it is barren, but it is not the ecological paradise some people make it out to be. The reason anyone thought to look for oil up there was because the early scientific expeditions kept finding pools of oil on the surface.

Also, semipermanent roads may add up to several hundred miles, but I can guarantee they do not "span" hundreds of square miles. Except in the immediate environs of the Prudhoe Bay processing facilities, the only roads used on the North Slope are built of ice in the winter. All major supplies are moved in then. In the summer, incidental stuff is moved by helicopter.

When the ice melts in the spring, there is literally no trace of where the ice roads were. In any case, there are no animals moving around in the winter, when the freighting is going on. The bears are asleep, and the caribou are elsewhere.

The workers on the North Slope are literally not allowed to urinate on the ground. Oil companies actually have to fire people for that (forget the thousands of caribou that behave in a similar manner)!

Another canard thrown around too freely is that all the oil in the refuge only equals about six months of the country's consumption. Maybe, but it is also equal (for example) to several years of imports from Saudi Arabia. And if we were not importing Saudi oil, we might not have the mess we now are dealing with in the Middle East. We can build a few pipelines in the north or build our armed forces to protect our lifelines.

Clearly, some think that the blood of our young people in the military is worth less than a spot on the globe that we own, where no one lives and few people visit.

Beachy's article is remarkably full of errors and misstatements of fact, but the more serious problem is his presuming to speak for all members of the North Dakota Natural Science Society. Even if every member of the society agreed with Beachy (and they don't), the society has no business commenting on political matters outside its constitution and mission statement.

oil from the Arctic refuge would take at least 10 years to reach refineries, and another 15 years before the oil could be used

Does this statement make sense at all to anyone? Does oil have to sit in barrels at the refinery for 15 years to age properly like whiskey before it is considered consumable?

It seems like we are able to use and sell oil we get from Prudhoe bay, doesn't it? I am not an expert on the subject, but we are drilling in Alaska and using it, aren't we?

By the way, I guess you RightWhales have a personal interest in seeing ANWR opened, huh?

Caribou? Did someone say caribou?

Stick it in your ear, Beachy.

I wish I still had a copy of an op-ed I saw last year by some whiny ultra-lib in Alaska pleading with DC to stop any attempts to explore ANWR because (paraphrase):

'The stupid people up here just don't understand! They're all going out getting job training and looking forward to an economic boom. If it was up to these neanderthals ANWR exploration would be a done deal. Please DC leaders, you must stop this folly, whine whine whine!'

Beachy sounds like a damn fool. I notice that, unlike Bluemle, there is no indication of any scientific status, i.e. a doctorate perhaps? He sounds more like a hayseed that is filling a position that nobody wanted in a group dedicated to the consumption of beer and peanuts. The article he wrote is so rife with hearsay, misinformation and propaganda, that he would be laughed off the street in any serious scientific forum.

Sadly, he spouts the same line of B.S. that people like John Kerry does, preying on the fears of people by purporting to be knowledgable on the subject matter. Neither Kerry nor Beachy have a clue. Too bad the press can't be bothered to look up the facts Bluemle put forth in his retort.

Yeah, Bluemle's got him on the facts, plus he points out:

"Beachy directs readers to the society's Web site, which provides no information about the wildlife refuge. We also learn from Beachy's letter that the society's Web site is hosted by the U.S. Geological Survey. Thus, Beachy creates, intentionally or not, the false impression that the views of the society, and his views as well, are somehow sanctioned, shared or promoted by the geological survey.

"In my view, Beachy commits a serious error in judgment in representing his personal viewpoint as being the same as that of a private organization, which is hosted by an apolitical government agency, the U.S. Geological Survey."

I think Bluemle's actually being a little too nice. Like all libs, when they don't have the facts they try to create the impression. Creeping socialist tactics.

RightWhales have a personal interest in seeing ANWR opened

I see no reason to not open ANWR to mineral development. It's not just ANWR, but all mineral lands. Minerals must be developed where minerals happen to be located. It's some kind of law of the universe.

I also don't see a major impact to Alaska's or America's economy from ANWR oil alone, even though I live in Alaska. For another mineral, natural gas: --when the price of natural gas is right for development from the North Slope, $2.70, the gas pipeline should be built running through Fairbanks. That will be hugely significant to Alaska. Right now bulk natural gas is at $2.30 or so, a little on the light side for major new construction.

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.