GOP will tie ANWR to Iraq

Washington Times ^ | 8/01/02 | Timothy Burn

[kattracks]

Top Republican lawmakers this month will wage a last-ditch effort to link opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration to the increasing threat of war with Iraq.

Citing new reports that Iraq could be developing biological weapons, Republican lawmakers said yesterday they will press for passage of an energy bill that includes drilling in Alaska's ANWR as a matter of national security.

[ClancyJ]

We shouldn't use our reserves as long as we can get somone elses relatively cheaply.

And be held hostage to the wishes of the mideast in the meantime? Why do you think Bush made the deal for the oil from Russia? To enable us NOT to be dependent on mideast oil. Being dependent means THEY control what we do.

If we wait on Anwar - when we need the oil - it will take 4 yrs. to get it. We need to get the wells drilled and then possibly cap them if we decide to keep as reserves.

The whole thing on ANWAR is merely the environmentalists trying to keep America weak and dependent. The democrats get a lot of support from the Saudis and the Saudis probably don't want us independent.

The whole ANWAR situation just shows what side the politicians are on. The side with the environmentalist socialists or the side of American lawmakers.

[Free the USA]

Index Bump

[RobFromGa]

If we wait on Anwar - when we need the oil - it will take 4 yrs. to get it. We need to get the wells drilled and then possibly cap them if we decide to keep as reserves.

I agree, we need to have the reserves available at a moments notice. Even if we choose to save our reserves for a tighter market, we can help keep the price reasonable from the mideast who desperately needs the cash and has nothing else to sell us (we have plenty of sand). If they get out of line, we threaten to use our own till they come to their (limited) senses.

If we do not get the apparatus in place to take oil from ANWR, we lose the opportunity to influence the market on the supply-side.

[stalin]

we are not being heal hostage to the wishes of the middle east unless we choose to be. We should take Iraq and pump the oil to pay for the war and the occupation and keep oil prices down. ANWAR is a drop in the bucket.

Increasing efficiency standards is worth hundreds of ANWARs.

[stalin]

Getting the aparatus in place to use ANWAR on short notice would be fine but the oil companies won't do that. They want to pump it now to increase their short term profit margins.

That's what all this Anwar debate is about. The oil companies want to make a quick buck. It's not aboout national security or we would increase efficiency standards and really make us more independent of the middle east. Oil independence is just the transparently politicaly correct excuse.

I don't blame the oil companies. Making a quick buck is their job and they are going to pull whatever political strings that they can to do that. The government is suposed to think of long term best interests of the nation not the short term best interests of the oil companies.

[RobFromGa]

Who owns ANWR oil rights?

[Stand Watch Listen]

ANWAR

Taken from the February issue of Oil & Gas Investor, page 11:

EIA estimates total US production at 5.78 million barrels of oil per day (BOD).
Shell Oil's Brutus offshore platform (Gulf) is expected to peak at 100,000 BOD this year. Production from the Mars, Troika, Ursa, Dianna-Hoover and Brutus offshore Gulf fields could account for 9.7% of total lower 48 oil production by fourth quarter 2003.

Alaska will produce 17.2% of total US production (including Gulf production) in 2003 with the addition of the Colville River, Aurora, Polaris and Borealis satellite fields located on the North Slope.

LET ME BE CLEAR: with TOTAL US production at 5.78 million BOD, the addition of modest ANWR estimates of 1 million BOD, is equal to 17.3% of TOTAL US PRODUCTION

ANWR Fact Sheets http://www.anwr.org/

ANWR Oil Estimates

Myths of ANWR

Arctic Shoreline

ANWR Wilderness

Arctic Oil Technology

Native Alaskans and Development

Jobs,Jobs, Jobs

Caribou in ANWR

Which is the Real ANWR?

National Security

Oil Exports

• ANWR total area: 19,600,000 acres
• ANWR designated wilderness part: 8,000,000 acres
• ANWR coastal plain (not part of wilderness area) designated long ago by Congress for oil exploration study: 1,500,000 acres
• Coastal plain area needed for oil extraction: 2,000 acres (0.01% of the total ANWR area)

In 1998 the USGS did a study that concluded that there are between 5.7 billion to 16 Billion barrels of recoverable Oil in the "1002" Area of ANWR. That is a LOT of oil!

and it doesn’t even take into consideration the nearly 200 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas there (over 150 years supply at the current rate of use in the U.S.)

A little perspective on the size of ANWR development:

An exploration rig on the tundra and the absence of any wildlife in this region

Beautiful Spring day in this coastal plain

Coastal Plain
      spring                                             summer                                       winter

Only 2,000 acres out of 19.5 MILLION are even under consideration for drilling. And those 19.5 million acres are but a FRACTION of the total land mass of Alaska. Also, contrary to dire predictions of the devastating impact on wildlife that would occur when the pipeline in Prudhoe bay, the caribou herd there have actually grown to record numbers.

SITE MAP (background / technology)

http://www.anwr.org/sitemap.htm

FROM http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm

TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR

1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates in 1995 on bonus bids alone were $2.6 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1980 and 1994, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 25% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 1.4 million barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil too Costly The U.S. imports over 55% of the nation's needed petroleum. These oil imports cost more than $55.1 billion a year (this figure does not include the military costs of protecting that imported supply). These figures are rising and could exceed 65% by the year 2005.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) at Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3,000 to as high as 23,400 during the last 20 years of operation. In 1995, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd size was estimated to be 18,100 animals.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

RELATED ARTICLES

Bush Renews Campaign For Arctic Oil
Source: AP; Puublished: February 25, 2002;
Author: AP

Fresh from Asia ~ Bush bonks Daschle head with ANWR club
Source: Reuters / Whitehouse.gov; Published: February 23, 2002

Inupiat Views Ignored in ANWR Debate
Source: ANWR; Anchorage Times Editorial;
Author: Tara MacLean Sweeney

INUPIAT LEADER ASKS SENATORS TO . . .Visit ANWR
Source: Anchorage Daily News; Published: February 17, 2002
Voice of the Times

ANWR Showdown -- Liberal Caught Playing Loose With The Facts [My Title]
Source: The Fargo Forum and the Grand Forks Herald; Published: February 14, 2002;
Author: Chris Beachy; John Bluemle

Kerry and Lieberman ignore invitation from native villagers in ANWR
Source: USNewswire; Published February 13, 2002;
Author:| Village of Kaktovik Alaska

ANWR Survey
Source: City of Kaktovik, Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Web Page;
author: City of Kaktovik

Listening to Alaska
Source: National Driller; Published: September 27, 2001

ANWR and Oil
Source: Town Hall.com; Published April 11, 2001

Bush Is Right: Opening ANWR To Oil Exploration Would Help Consumers Without Hurting Environment
Source: The National Center for Public Policy Research; Published: January 23, 2001
Author: John Carlisle

Time To Permit Oil Drilling In the Arctic Refuge
Source: Heritage Foundation; Published: October 17, 1995
Author: John Shanahan

It has been mentioned that the caribou herd had over tripled near the pipeline!

Seems other species have flourished as well

[RobFromGa]

bump and thanks.

[amused]

Saying that SUVs are passenger vehicles instead of trucks would save much more than ANWAR could ever produce and it would start to do it right away.

The problem with this is auto companies would simply make the cars much lighter(apparently the most cost efficient method) which has proven to be dangerous. But I would like to see SUV's get better emissions and gas mileage through market forces.

I'm not entirely against drilling ANWAR eventually but we should take Iraq and pump their oil until it runs out before we use our reserves.

Why bother with occupying Iraq when Saudia Arabia has so much more oil ;-)

The thing with ANWR is it is going take at least 5 years before we see drop one of oil. Since there has been quite alot in advancing oil exploration conforming to environmental policy I really don't see a problem with this. Also don't forget that Bush has backed off drilling in the Gulf (to help his brother in FL) and there really hasn't been much new development on the CA coast in some time.

The above said, I am far from being a friend of oil companies as I think they conspire( much like OPEC) to effect pricing increase and other such BS. This is one area where I don the aluminum foil beanie.

[RightWhale]

National Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which was set aside for just this reason

The Naval Petroleum Reserve was set aside for WW I. Once that war was over, NPR was allowed to lapse. It was re-instated for WW II. The purpose is that the Navy might have enough coal and oil to power its ships.

It was never intended for domestic consumption. That should never be considered.

[Looking for Diogenes]

The Naval Petroleum Reserve was set aside for WW I. Once that war was over, NPR was allowed to lapse. It was re- instated for WW II. The purpose is that the Navy might have enough coal and oil to power its ships.

Yes, but it was was renamed the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska and the other remaining Naval Petroleum Reserves are being sold off.

The National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska (NPRA)
In 1923, President Harding established the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 4. This area, approximately 37,000 square miles at the northern-most portion of Alaska, has been explored and mapped by the USGS since 1901. The U.S. Navy undertook the first modern oil-exploration program between 1944 - 1958, establishing the feasibility of using modern petroleum exploration and production methods under arctic conditions.

With the discovery of the largest oil field in North America, Prudhoe Bay in 1968, and the Arab oil embargo in 1974, the U.S. Navy established the next exploration program in the reserve. In 1975 the U.S. Navy signed a 5-year contract with the Husky Oil NPR Operations, Inc., to manage and supervise all aspects of the exploration program. In 1976, the petroleum reserve was renamed the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska, (NPRA) with the USGS given the lead responsibility for further research and exploration.
US Geologcal Survey

Profile of the Naval Petroleum Reserves
For much of the 20th century, the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves served as a contingency source of fuel for the Nation's military. Set aside in the early 1900s, these government-owned petroleum and oil shale properties were originally envisioned as a way to provide a reserve supply of crude oil to fuel U.S. naval vessels that once depended heavily on crude oil.

In the latter part of the century, however, military fuel needs changed, and the strategic value of the Reserves began to diminish. In the 1970s, as the Nation looked for ways to maximize its domestic oil supplies, the oil fields of the Reserves were opened up for commercial production.

Today the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve the national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900s.

As a result, in 1996 the largest of the Federal properties - the government's share of the Elk Hills field in California - was offered for commercial sale. On February 5, 1998, DOE completed its sale to Occidental Petroleum Corporation for $3.65 billion in the largest privatization of Federal property in the history of the United States.
Department of Energy.

[rdb3]

. . .but I'm confident it has nothing to do with the environment.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with the environment. But it has everything to do with the far-Left enviroNazis and their contributions to these characters.

[Looking for Diogenes]

And be held hostage to the wishes of the mideast in the meantime? Why do you think Bush made the deal for the oil from Russia? To enable us NOT to be dependent on mideast oil. Being dependent means THEY control what we do.

Two things:

A) They need us to buy their oil. Their economies depend on it. They no longer have huge saving to draw down. They could not afford another boycott. Nor are they threatening one. We are not hostage to the wishes of the mideast, at least not because any of them are threatening to shut off oil exports.

B) The supply from ANWR would not be enough to give us energy independence. It is not even enough to replace all the Persian Gulf oil.

[kayak]

ping

[RightWhale]

the government's share of the Elk Hills field in California - was offered for commercial sale

PET-4, as it was called when I arrived up here would imply PET-1, PET-2, PET-3 and who knows how many other PETs. If they will need this one in time of war, though, it would have to be a tough war, because it would take a very long time to start getting the oil out.

[LarryLied]

Despite what some on the left and the right say, the sale of Elk Hills was a great sucess. Taxpayers made out very well and a white elephant was taken off their backs. Not using our natural resources is simply misguided.

[Looking for Diogenes]

If they will need this one in time of war, though, it would have to be a tough war, because it would take a very long time to start getting the oil out.

That may have been a factor in the decision to sell or transfer them. The navy no longer steams on 'bunker fuel,' essentialy crude oil. It requires refined products.

[terilyn]

Consider the PMPGF. That's the Personal Miles Per Gallon Factor as described by Joe Soucheray, local talk show host here in Minneapolis/St. Paul.

http://www.garagelogic.com/ Joe's website here.

Take your Chevy Suburban that gets 22 mpg on the highway. Put in eight people. Drive one mile. Your PMPGF is 176 mpg.

Take your average "speck" that gets 34 mpg on the highway.
Put in four people, (if they're under 5'2" in the back seat). Your PMPGF is 136 mpg.

You've got a bunch of stuff to haul. You've got to go 25 miles. In the Suburban you make one trip and burn 1.136 gallons of fuel. In the "speck", (I used a Ford Escort for comparison, FYI the Dodge Neon gets the same hwy mpg), again, you've got to go 25 miles but it takes you three trips. You burn 2.205 gallons of fuel.

Bottom line is that the dems would rather put our troops at risk by having them stationed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. to protect our interests than to put some caribou at risk. Once again, the animals are more important than people.

Another reason the dems don't want ANWR drilled is because it would be a huge boost to our economy. It would put thousands of people to work. We'd keep more of our money at home. The dems want us all dependent on the federal government for everything.

Drilling ANWR would help destroy their master plan. The master plan that includes the government owning/controlling everything and we work our butts off to pay for the privilege of using it.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Take your Chevy Suburban that gets 22 mpg on the highway.

Garbage in, garbage out.

City Mileage 14 mpg Highway Mileage 18 mpg

Suburban Info

Recall, too, that those estimates ar generally high, and that they are for an unloaded vehicle.

[terilyn]

So sorry. I posted the info for the two-wheel drive Suburban in error.

It was supposed to be funny, (the PMPGF).

And you're right, as long as we keep sending all that money to Iraq we will continue to have "Garbage in".

Drill ANWR!