Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Political Topic #1 - Oil Drilling on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
One of the key debates over the last few years is whether or not to allow oil drilling/exploration on the 150,000 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Proponents claim it is vital to U.S. interests to develop every possible oil source in the U.S., no matter the environmental cost, or amount of oil produced.
Benefits:
Oil available: 3.2 billion barrels (enough to supply the U.S. for six months)
Years needed to get oil to market: Minimum of 10 years
Peak production: In 2027
Percentage of U.S. usage annually that could be supplied at peak: Less than 2%
Costs:
Drilling, roads, refineries would scar over 10% of the refuge
As seen by the Prudoe Bay experience, the drilling areas (over 500,000 acres) are permanently scarred, filled with toxic wastes, heavy metals, pesticides, solvents, etc.
ANWR is the only five percent of the North Slope NOT open to drilling – the last refuge for America’s Serengeti.
150,000 Caribou herd (America’s largest) reside and breed in the coastal plain
160 bird species (including many that winter/migrate thru the lower 48) use the coastal plain for breeding/foraging
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
I strongly oppose any plans to open the Arctic National Wildlife to oil drilling. The amount of oil available to small, the risks to the Refuge itself are too great. We need to reduce our dependcy on foreign oil, but conservation is a much better answer. If we phased in raising the average fuel standards to 40 MPG - which is possible with currently available technology - the U.S. would save 45 billion barrels of oil - 7 years of current usage, and 15 times the amount generally accepted available in ANWR.
I strongly oppose any plans to open the Arctic National Wildlife to oil drilling. The amount of oil available to small, the risks to the Refuge itself are too great. We need to reduce our dependcy on foreign oil, but conservation is a much better answer. If we phased in raising the average fuel standards to 40 MPG - which is possible with currently available technology - the U.S. would save 45 billion barrels of oil - 7 years of current usage, and 15 times the amount generally accepted available in ANWR.
I thought you made your opinion clear in the first post of this thread.
__________________
"If Chuck is Solo, Larkin is his Fett!" - Morgan
Drilling in the ANWR is not going to solve all of the nation's energy problems, but it does give us added security with domestic oil supplies. Frankly, that's more important now than ever.
Time to Permit Oil Drilling In the Arctic Refuge by John Shanahan
Executive Memorandum #432
October 17, 1995
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska is the subject of heated debate as some Members of Congress, led by Senators Frank Murkowski (R-AK) and Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Representative Don Young (R-AK), attempt to open a small fraction of the area to oil exploration and production. A provision included in the budget reconciliation would open the Coastal Plain area of ANWR. This effort is a sensible approach that could dramatically expand much-needed domestic oil production with negligible impact on the environment.
ANWR is an enormous area of land located in the Northeast corner of Alaska within the Arctic Circle. Contrary to the image evoked by opponents of oil production, that ANWR is the last small pristine area left in Alaska, the state has an abundance of hardy ecosystems. In addition to the healthy ecosystems existing on millions of acres of private and state land, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 set aside 100 million acres of land as parks, refuges, and preserves, including 57 million acres of wilderness. ANWR itself covers 19.8 million acres. While eight million acres of ANWR were set aside as wilderness, 1.5 million acres were designated for review by the Department of Interior (DOI) to recommend future management of high potential oil resources. In 1987, DOI recommended that this 1.5 million acres, known as the Coastal Plain, be leased for oil and gas exploration and production in an environmentally sensitive manner.
The provision in the budget reconciliation bill would implement DOI's recommendation. But only a tiny fraction -- far less than one percent -- of the Coastal Plain area would be affected. Advancing technology over the last 20 years has reduced the necessary size or "footprint" of drilling operations to less than one-fifth of what was required, say, at Prudhoe Bay. So exploration and production would affect only about 2,000 acres. To put this in perspective, that is an area about one-sixth the size of Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C., and about 0.01 percent of the total area of ANWR. Even in this very limited area, modern sophisticated operations adopt many environmentally sensitive methods which further limit any ecological impact.
Expanded oil production is badly needed. The United States currently imports more than half its oil consumption, and reliance on foreign oil is growing. That raises national security concerns and is an unwelcome factor in foreign policy considerations. This reliance caused a $51 billion oil trade deficit last year -- roughly equivalent to the U.S. trade deficit with Japan. Foreign energy dependence would be eased considerably if the Coastal Plain produced oil. The area potentially could produce 1.5 million barrels of oil per day for at least a quarter of a century, thereby increasing domestic production by almost 25 percent. Allowing limited drilling in ANWR also would reduce the trade deficit by about $14 billion per year. Further, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal revenues from lease sales would be $1.3 billion over the next seven years, helping to trim the budget deficit.
Alaska's residents would be big beneficiaries of lease sales. Alaska has agreed to split the estimated $2.6 billion revenue from lease sales evenly with the federal government (rather than take the 90 percent to which the state otherwise would be entitled), so the state still will receive $1.3 billion. This partially explains why three-quarters of Alaskans support the plan.
Not only will Alaskans and the federal treasury benefit from increased oil production, but an estimated 222,000-732,000 jobs will be created throughout the country. There will be new hires in the oil industry and manufacturers, suppliers, and transporters of oil-related equipment will increase hiring dramatically, with fully 98 percent of these jobs in the lower 48 states. Based on a mid-range estimate of job creation, this one action would drop the unemployment rate by 0.36 percentage points.1
The only potentially legitimate objection to opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR to oil drilling would be on environmental grounds. But these concerns are without merit because of the very limited impact of modern drilling and production techniques. Even the "pro-environment" native Inupiat Eskimos, who live in or near the Coastal Plain and opposed oil drilling in Prudhoe Bay 60 miles away, support onshore oil development in the area. As Inupiat Mayor George Ahmagak of the North Slope Borough wrote last June, "Our whalers and hunters make maximum use of our few resources, always taking care not to harm the land so their grandchildren may in turn carry on their culture.... As Mayor, I can state unequivocally that the people of the North Slope Borough enthusiastically support the presence of the oil industry in our land.... The wisdom of our Elders teaches us the value of hunting where game is most plentiful. Likewise, it makes sense for our nation to seek oil in an area that even [DOI] has identified as the country's best prospect for new petroleum deposits."2
Exploration is opposed by the Gwich'in Indians, who live 120 miles south and have strong ties to the environmental lobby. They are concerned about protecting their hunt of 300-350 animals from the 152,000 porcupine caribou. While the herd size has fallen from its high of 180,000 a few years ago, oil drilling is unlikely to have any negative impact. One reason for this confidence is that the Central Arctic caribou herd living in the Prudhoe Bay area already has increased its population over sevenfold since oil production began 20 years ago, despite dire warnings at the time that the herd would decline sharply if oil drilling was permitted. In fact, the second-largest oil field in the U.S. is the favorite place for caribou to give birth.
The facts are clear. Permitting oil production in ANWR would spur economic growth, cut the trade deficit, and ease national security concerns. Moreover, it poses virtually no threat to the environment. It is time for Congress to give the green light to limited exploration and production.
If we phased in raising the average fuel standards to 40 MPG - which is possible with currently available technology - the U.S. would save 45 billion barrels of oil - 7 years of current usage, and 15 times the amount generally accepted available in ANWR.
Improving the average fuel standards is also needed.
However even though the current technology indicates that 40 mpg is possible...its still very limited to the types of vehicles available and also at least a decade away from being fully implemented.
Just 100 miles west of the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) lies the largest oil field in North America. This alone accounts for about 25% of the US oil. The facilities used to get oil have been designed so that they can co exist with the wildlife in the area.
A lot of needed knowledge has been gained from the facilities at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk. These will help to minimize the damage done to the environment. There are even more regulations that the government has placed to help prevent further environmental damage because of poor facility conditions.
The oil in the ANWR is believed to be the highest petroleum deposit onshore that hasn’t been explored. Geologists think that there are billions of barrels of oil just sitting there. There has already been a steep decline on the amounts of barrels that are put out each day by American oil companies has gone from 9 millions barrels a day in 1985 to 6.6 million a day in 1995. If this trend continues, by 2010 the US will put out less than 5 million barrels a day and will increase the need for foreign oil even more.
In a poll conducted by the LA Times in February showed that 48% of the people polled favored the opening of the ANWR to drilling for oil. This shows that the issue to drilling in the Arctic should be dealt with by the politicians. Some factors into this jump in support for drilling in the ANWR include the event that took place on September 11 all of the money that Bin Laden has gotten came from the oil industry. So many people want to cut off the need for foreign oil so that terrorist can’t get money needed to operate. The drilling in the ANWR will create many jobs all over the country and this will help to strengthen the economy.
Improving the average fuel standards is also needed.
However even though the current technology indicates that 40 mpg is possible...its still very limited to the types of vehicles available and also at least a decade away from being fully implemented.
From what I have read, the entire fleet average could be bumped to 40 mpg.
Just 100 miles west of the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) lies the largest oil field in North America. This alone accounts for about 25% of the US oil. The facilities used to get oil have been designed so that they can co exist with the wildlife in the area.
A lot of needed knowledge has been gained from the facilities at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk. These will help to minimize the damage done to the environment. There are even more regulations that the government has placed to help prevent further environmental damage because of poor facility conditions.
Uh - your first paragraph is flat out wrong. The Prudoe Bay area is an environment wasteland - full of toxic spills, etc.
And you point out another reason to oppose it - "prevent further environmental damage because of poor facility conditions. "
I can also show polls that indicate 70% of Americans oppose drilling there.
The provision in the budget reconciliation bill would implement DOI's recommendation. But only a tiny fraction -- far less than one percent -- of the Coastal Plain area would be affected. Advancing technology over the last 20 years has reduced the necessary size or "footprint" of drilling operations to less than one-fifth of what was required, say, at Prudhoe Bay. So exploration and production would affect only about 2,000 acres. To put this in perspective, that is an area about one-sixth the size of Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C., and about 0.01 percent of the total area of ANWR. Even in this very limited area, modern sophisticated operations adopt many environmentally sensitive methods which further limit any ecological impact.
What they are not saying is that the 2,000 acres are not contiguous - scattered over a wide area. The roads, pipelines etc will actually AFFECT over 300,000 acres.
From what I have read, the entire fleet average could be bumped to 40 mpg.
From what I read the technology of improving the MPG for large vehicles is not there.
Also currently there are more cars in america than u.s. citizens - how long before the older models are phased out? Also would the older models really be phased out or just owned by somebody else that couldn't afford the greener vehicles?
Uh - your first paragraph is flat out wrong. The Prudoe Bay area is an environment wasteland - full of toxic spills, etc. And you point out another reason to oppose it - "prevent further environmental damage because of poor facility conditions. "
I can also show polls that indicate 70% of Americans oppose drilling there.
Well the article was written in 1995.
Personally, I would blame the EPA for not adequately enforcing the existing regulations.
As far as polls are concerned - there are more americans being open minded about breaking away from the dependence we have on the middle east.
Considering that the royal family in Saudi Arabia is just a step away from being overthrown and the insurgents are currently preparing their candidates for the iraqi elections - the U.S. could easily be faced with an oil embargo within this decade.
What they are not saying is that the 2,000 acres are not contiguous - scattered over a wide area. The roads, pipelines etc will actually AFFECT over 300,000 acres.
Pipelines and roads can be built to coexist with nature.
Tetris Champion!
Linear Mode
