Posted on 10/17/2002 10:52:13 AM PDT by alaskanfan
Over the years there have been a host of reasons given by environmentalists for why the coastal plain should not be developed. While some already have been mentioned, the following is a summary of others that require attention:
Myth: There's only a 200-day supply there, so why bother. Fact: The truth is that the latest U.S. Geological Survey estimates are that the entire "1002 Area" contains up to16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. If found, this oil could replace all of our imports from Saudi Arabia for more than 30 years! The reserve could prevent our dependence on foreign oil from getting any worse for decades. Rather than being 56 percent dependent like we are now, it could cut our dependence to around 50 percent, according to the Energy Information Agency.
Myth: They want to destroy the last pristine wilderness along Alaska's coast, even though 95% of the area is already open to oil development. Fact: The truth is that only 14 percent of the whole 1,500-mile Arctic coastal plain in Alaska is open to oil exploration. Estimates are upon discovery a major oil field could be developed using modern technology, affecting only a tiny 2,000-acre sliver of the 1.5-million-acre "1002 Area" of the Arctic coastal plain -- one hundredth of a percent of the entire 19-million-acre ANWR area. Remember that 8 million acres of the refuge are in permanent wilderness and roughly another 9.5 million acres are classified as normal refuge. Only a part of the Arctic coastal plain -- the "1002 Area" was left open for possible oil and gas development.
Myth: Oil drilling would affect the caribou. Fact: There is absolutely no indication that environmentally responsible exploration will harm the 129,000-member Porcupine caribou herd. In fact, the history over the past 26 years at neighboring Prudhoe Bay shows the opposite. There the Central Arctic caribou herd has more than tripled in size, from 6,000 animals in 1978 to 19,700 today. Caribou will flourish as they have throughout Alaska, where caribou out number people three to two. No hunting by non-Natives will be allowed.
Myth: Drilling would destroy the Native Gwich'in culture. Fact: The fear that Arctic development will harm the caribou and the Gwich'in culture is groundless. Given the strict controls planned to prevent disruption to the herd¹s summer calving grounds nothing will prevent the caribou from passing close enough to the Gwich¹ins -- protecting their yearly hunt. The Gwich'ins concern for oil development certainly seems recent. Just 15 years ago they issued a request for proposals to lease their 1.79 million acres of land for oil development. No where did they require restrictions to protect the caribou. Only when no oil was found on their lands did the Gwich'ins oppose oil work. (See Gwich'in land lease proposal)
Myth:Canada has protected their wildlife, we should do the same. Fact: Canada finally created a national park, but did so only after extensive exploration in the 1960s failed to find oil. Canadians on their Arctic coastal plain drilled 89 exploratory wells and extended the Dempster Highway from Dawson to Innuvik, cutting through the center of the Porcupine caribou herd's migration route. Such development did not harm the herd.
Myth:The coastal plain is America's last wilderness and must be protected. Fact: Alaska is already well protected. Less than 1 percent of Alaska currently is in private ownership and available for development. Alaska already has 192 million acres of parks, refuges, preserves and conservation system units, including 58 million acres of designated wilderness -- 61 percent of all American wilderness. Wilderness in Alaska already covers an area that equals all of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia and Maryland. Further, in the coastal plain lies the Village of Kaktovik and its 222 residents, as well as a number of old radar sites.
Myth: Oil exploration would destroy the habitat of polar bears. Fact: Alaska has healthy stocks of polar bears, estimated at around 2,000. The Administration has positively identified only 15 polar bear dens on the entire coastal plain over an 11-year period. That¹s just one or two dens a year. Given that very little of the denning occurs on land -- most on the Arctic ice pack -- development certainly will not affect polar bears.
Myth: Prudhoe Bay has been littered with chemical and oil spills, the Arctic having been despoiled by some 17,000 spills since the 1970s. Fact: While some have claimed that oil development at Prudhoe Bay has harmed the environment, the truth is that Alaska's Arctic slope is still pristine. The few oil and chemical spills have almost always been confined to frozen gravel pads where they have been easily cleaned up. In 1993, for example, there were more than 160 "spills" on the North Slope involving nearly 60,000 gallons -- the highest level of spills in the 1990s. But only two spills involved oil and all but 10 gallons were into secondary containment structures and were easily cleaned up. Prudhoe Bay is by far the finest oil field in the world -- bar none!
Myth: Producing more oil would simply cause Americans to buy more gas-guzzling cars and defeat energy conservation efforts. Fact: America needs to be more energy efficient and to develop renewable, alternative fuels. But even with increased energy efficiency and conservation U.S. energy demands are forecast to increase by 19 percent in this decade and by 30 percent by 2020. By then America will be producing just 5.26 million barrels of oil a day if we continue on our current trend -- being forced to import 65 percent of our energy needs, according to the non-partisan Energy Information Agency. We will be needing to dock 30 giant foreign-flagged supertankers a day -- more than 10,000 a year -- to import the oil we need. That creates much more environmental risk than developing our own resources.
Myth: The vast majority of Americans oppose disturbing the Alaska Arctic. Fact: While there is a lot of misinformation about oil development in northern Alaska, Americans support responsible development when they know the facts about it. A poll by Gordon S. Black Corp. found that 56 percent support ANWR leasing, 37 percent oppose and 7 percent were undecided in a poll taken before the recent sharp rise in fuel prices. Americans want to protect the environment, but 74 percent support efforts to produce oil and natural gas resources within America. Alaskans do support it. The entire Congressional Delegation, the state's Senate and House, the Governor and 78 percent of residents of the village of Kaktovik, the Native village within the coastal plain, support development.
Myth: America doesn't need to open the plain while it allows exports of some of Alaska's oil. Fact: It is true that Congress in 1995 finally repealed a 1973 prohibition that had prevented any Alaska North Slope oil from being exported overseas. America for four years has exported a tiny amount of oil, about 5 percent, only oil that was excess to British Petroleum's West Coast refinery needs.
But with the pending merger of British Petroleum-Amoco and ARCO, Phillips Petroleum will take over ARCO Alaska's oil and facilities and end the need for exports. B.P. recently announced it will suspend any North Slope oil exports by the end of April when current contracts expire because there will be now be excess refinery capacity on the West Coast to handle all Alaska oil.
This is thus no longer an issue. For the record a study by the General Accounting Office last year confirmed that lifting the export ban produced twice as much new oil in America as exported and did so without any observable price hikes on consumers on the West Coast. (Source: Alaskan North Slope Oil: Limited Effects of Lifting Export Ban on Oil and Shipping Industries and Consumers, July 1999, GAO RCED-99-191.)
Myth: Alaskans are so "wealthy" they don't need to have ANWR opened. Fact: Alaska is far from a wealthy state. It is true that the state has a "permanent fund" -- the savings from a quarter of the leases, royalties and bonus payments the state has received as a result of development of the Prudhoe Bay oil field. The fund now stands at about $27 billion and currently pays all state residents a yearly dividend, about $1,500 per person. But Alaska citizens are expected to use their dividends to pay for services that might otherwise be provided by government (thus letting individuals make spending decisions at the local level rather than at the state level). And Alaska, the highest cost-of-living state in the nation and one of the last states to join the union, has billions of dollars of unmet infrastructure and social service needs -- no roads cross most of Alaska -- and sports the most fragile economy of any state in the Union.
Alaska always has been dependent on resource industries for its economy. While tourism is still growing, the Administration has been actively seeking to fell the state's timber industry. It has done nothing to promote a rebirth of its historic mining industry, and while our fishery harvests continue at an all-time high, prices for our fish are dropping. The simple fact is that oil accounts for far more than half of Alaska's gross product, and without future oil development Alaska's economy will sicken, forcing more and more Alaskans back onto the federal welfare dole.
Alaska's timber industry has fallen 62 percent (based on employment) in the past decade. Its oil and gas industry has lost 21 percent of its jobs in the same period, and its mining industry is down 16.5 percent. The state's per capita income is 20th among the states, but ranks 2.7 percent below the national average. The state's gross product is in decline having fallen to $22 billion from $23.9 billion in inflation adjust numbers since 1991. And further proof is that some 32,000 young Alaskans (aged 20-34) have left the state in the past eight years in search of higher paying employment.
That is particularly upsetting since the state's rural areas still suffer from enormous sanitation and health needs, estimated at more than $1.3 billion -- the state¹s rural, Native villages often sporting 19th Century water and sewer services. Forcing predominately Alaska Natives back into a lifestyle of government dependence for no justifiable reason shows a callous disregard for the aspirations of all Americans.
Myth: Opening the coastal plain would destroy the "biological heart" of the wildlife refuge. Fact: This is the most farfetched criticism of permitting oil exploration on parts of the 8 percent of the wildlife refuge that front the Arctic ocean. It assumes that opening the refuge would harm the Arctic Porcupine caribou herd. But the herd only moves into the area in about three of every 10 years and only from early June into July. The legislation pending would prevent any drilling or development activity during the caribou calving season to prevent any disruption to the herd. The real proof that the coastal plain could be opened without harm to wildlife and the environment is that Alaskan Eskimos have lived in the Far North for tens of thousands of years, surviving on the flat, treeless, generally barren and generally frozen coastal plain. Their culture is based on a deep reverence for the land. They depend not just on the caribou of the plain, but the whales of the offshore waters. The Eskimo inhabitants of Kaktovik, who depend on subsistence to eke out a living in the Far North, would not be the biggest supporters of oil exploration unless they were absolutely convinced from their experience at Prudhoe Bay that oil development can be done safely without harm to their land, the wildlife they depend on and their heritage. By a recent poll 78 percent of Kaktovik residents support development.
The legislation, introduced in the U.S. Senate to permit opening of the coastal plain, fully protects the environment. The stipulations include dozens of recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior that would encourage him to:
Adopt the environmental mitigation suggestions in the 1987 Environmental Impact Statement, designed to protect wildlife on the coastal plain.
Place seasonal limitations on exploration, development and related activities to avoid impacts on fish and wildlife, such as preventing surface disruptions during June and July, during the Porcupine caribou herd calving period.
Limit initial exploration efforts to between Nov. 1 and May 1 -- the Arctic winter -- to guarantee no impacts from exploration.
Require that all pipelines and roads minimize any effect on caribou.
Do you believe that those oil companies would have invested so heavily in the mid east if they had faced the same obstructions (government regulations and red tape and environmentalists lawsuits) there as they face domestically?
IMO it would not make sense. Through lawsuits, government regulation, and unreal demands from labor unions we have effectively exported the greatest portion of our manufacturing jobs.
The reason this effects Alaska more than other states is because we are so young, large and have had so little time to build adequate infrastructure, compounded by the restrictions that environmentalists in large metropolitan areas try to impose on any industry in our state related to natural resources.
No I haven't heard any of those adds. Could you tell me what they say?
I just can't stand the thought of her in the governor's mansion for the next four years and taking money out of my pocket to pay for the same failed state policies of the last eight years.
IMO they are tired of the fight against vacuous environMENTAL lawsuits and excess government permiting regulation. If you have other information, please tell us.
Do you work for BP?
There is a moratorium on new oil drilling in California (offshore). Some of the lights are old platforms.
One problem with California is that it is actually ENVIRONMENTALLY unsound NOT TO DRILL?
Why?
Because of all the Earthquake faults, the oil seeps to the surface in the water, polluting the water. If one has ever walked the beaches in Ventura County, they may notice some black stuff on the bottom of their feet! This is oil polluting the environment because the STUPID environmentalists will not allow oil drilling.
If oil drilling is ever resumed off the coast of California, there needs to be additional measures to protect from damage from Earthquake to the casings -- but the hole probably could be "plugged" in such a case, and a new hole drilled.
Most recently, the offshore oil platforms in Louisiana/Texas/Mississippi have just been exposed to two huricanes with no oil loss because of the savage winds and huge tidal waves.
The Oil Companies have built platforms to withstand hurricanes, and they have proved they work find. Also, the wells can be shutin under the water, so there is no danger...
Equate ENVIRONMENTALISTS with AIR HEADS, LOW INTELLIGENCE PEOPLE, FRUIT CAKES (crazy people), and you will be on track.
Current US reserves are only 29 Billion Barrels, so this might increase the oil reserves by 50%.
Not just in California (see post #9). Although the seepage in Alaska is unrelated to earthquakes it is quite evident along the northern coastal plain.
My brother surveyed for LCMF in all the villages on the north coast in the mid 80s. He told me he was amazed at the naturally occuring oil on top of the tundra near villages from Kaktovik to Point Lay.
I don't believe the environMENTALists could convince the U.S. public that it is better for the wildlife if we leave this oil seepage on top of the tundra. Even Woody Harrelson Alec Baldwin Barabra Streisand Whoopie Goldberg Ted Danson (I give up)isn't dumb enough to believe that crock. (You try to name one!)
They will drill because they should, and will drill ANWR (thank god).
Here are some simple questions to help you along the path.
1) Is Alaska part of the United States? (yes)
2) Is the region (ANWR) in question part of a disputed territory ? (no)
3) Is there another country activly preventing us from developing our natural resources? (no)
4) Will the people who will live with this development in their own back yards actually want it in their back yards? (yes)
5) Does the rest of the state favor developing these resources ? (yes)
6) Does the rest of the country benifit from having a secured, reliable, and affordable energy source? (yes)
Then DRILL ANWR now!
It would be nice for Alaska if BP would sell some of their leases to another company.
Have you heard anything about Phillips/Conoco's plans for NPRA this winter? I heard they had a bundle of cash for development and exploration.
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.