Celtic Radio Community [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Balanced reporting? Does anyone do that? There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. It's a political story. All you can do is read another story about the same subject but written by a supporter of the other side.

And this would be a bad thing to do? How so? The oil fields at Prudhoe Bay have proven that the petroleum industry, when closely monitored by regulators and environmental activist organizations, can indeed develop oil fields with no significant impact on neighboring wildlife. In fact, wildlife populations in Prudhoe Bay and the trans-Alaska pipeline corridor have increased dramatically since those projects came on-line.

Now when we consider that engineering and technical knowlege regarding development in an arctic environment has increased manifold since the inception of the Prudhoe and the TAPS projects, I find it hard to understand why there is so much opposition to the proposal.

ANWR is not a wilderness area, it's a wildlife reservation, and compatible uses are allowed. In fact, enabling legislation that established the reservation program way back in the 1930s encouraged compatible commercial uses, to pay the bills of maintaining reserves and preserves.

I've noticed that the vast majority of people opposed to drilling in ANWR and other Alaska areas drive automobiles, live in heated homes, and use plastics and other sythetic materials derived from petroleum. If you don't want to use American petroleum, then you'll just have to keep going to war to win the means to supoort your lifestyle, or you'll have to stay home and freeze to death in the dark.

OR, develop alternative energy sources. So far, all I've seen in that arena is a whole lot of hot air, and that's being dissipated into the atmosphere without use. It alternative energy sources are truly feasible, then why keep begging the government for money? Invest your own money into the technology and develop it in the private sector, just like (gasp) the petroleum and mineral extraction industries. If you don't have enough faith in the technology to invest your own money in it, then you shouldn't expect the tax payers to do so.

Reality really sucks. Everything requires sacrifices. If you want cheap electricity you have to allow cheap electrical generation plants. If you want clean air, you have to be willing to pay more for your electricity.

If you want cheap gasoline you have to allow the petroleum industry to extract oil cheaply. If you want cheap gasoline while preserving ANWR you either have to support a war for oil (which I don't believe was the incentive for Iraq. That was an ill-advised venture for other reasons), or you have to support drilling in potentially sensitive areas.

This ain't Nirvana. In this world you can't have something for nothing. Everything has a price, and the price isn't always measured in dollars.

Swanny

We should be pushing for environmentally friendly power and such not drilling for more things like oil which have been proven to be detrimental to the envirnment. Bush cares nothing for the environment so should we jsut stand in lie rank and file while it plunders the earth even further for financial gain? He could careless about you and the Earth all he cares about is how he can fatten his pocket book further.

As far as some of the alternatives I will dig them up this afternoon as heading out for lunch in a minute or so will try and dig them up this afternoon when I return.

This is a bad thing because:
A) It's a wildlife reserve, and is supposedly untouchable, as it should be.

They should be putting their money into research to find alternative fuels that when used emit fewer greenhouse gasses, and can be produced acording to demand, not just sucked out of the earth until it's gone. (corn oil based fuels, etc.)

In the United States, wildlife reserves are generally sensitive habitat which is set aside for the primary purpose of habitat preservation, but upon which compatible uses are also allowed. Wildlife preserves are generally sensitive habitat which is set aside for the SOLE purpose of habitat preservation, and not other uses are permitted. It's a subtle, but important difference.

Please note that in the remainder of this post the term "you" refers to anyone reading the post, not to Oldraven specifically.

Who is this magickal "they"? "They" is "us". It comes right back down to personal responsibility. Do you use grain-based fuels? (ethenol, and corn, rapeseed-canola or other vegetable oils can all be used, albeit somewhat inefficiently, to power internal combustion engines. Ethenol can be made to work in 'gasoline' engines, and the vegetable oils can be made to work in diesel).

If it's available, do you use public transportation, ride a bicycle or walk rather than driving a personal motor vehicle?

Do you use a wind generator or solar energy to power your home? They are readily available on the commercial market.

Do you allow your yard to grow in naturally occurring local vegetation to preserve wildlife habitat and cover?

Every individual makes decisions that collectively have a profound impact on our environment. Alternatives are available but most individuals would rather talk about them than actually spend a little bit extra money or endure even minor inconveniences to use them. Anybody, no matter how well-meaning, that consumes any amount of any product derived from petroleum is a contributor to the problem.

Alternatives are available, and with enough motivation very bright people can improve their efficiency greatly, but it will not happen until enough individuals actually use the already available alternatives to make their widespread development profitable.

At least for ANWR though the it may get shut out from oil development

http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/arctic/wilderness.html

I found this sort of interesting as well on ANWR

http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/arctic/armyths.html

Big Oil Q&A:
Questions about Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

<hr>

1. Will drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge do anything to solve any current gasoline and heating oil supply problems?

No. Experts predict that oil production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could not begin for at least 10 years and the Congressional Research Service estimates it would take at least 15 years.

2. Are estimated oil supplies in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge expected to significantly change our long-term energy prospects?

No. It is estimated that the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains no more than a six month supply of oil at our current consumption rates.

3. Given last summer's energy crisis in California, shouldn?t we do absolutely everything we can to maximize our oil supply?

No. That "crisis" was very complicated and appears to be more strongly linked to deregulation and poor management in California than to supply or production. The strongest evidence for this argument is that while California energy costs have more than doubled in the last two years, heating oil costs in the Northeast?in the absence of deregulation?are seeing more modest increases.

4. Is there evidence that increases in domestic oil supplies translate into savings at the gas pump?

No. Crude oil prices and thus the prices at the pump are determined almost solely by OPEC, the Mid-Eastern cartel that controls the majority of the world?s oil supply. Because total known U.S. reserves represent only 2.8 percent of the world?s oil and our nation uses nearly a third of the world?s production. we are really powerless to influence prices in any meaningful way or to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

5. Would the oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be used in the United States?

Not necessarily. Under current laws and regulations, oil companies are allowed to sell oil produced in Alaska to foreign countries. A ban on selling such oil overseas was lifted in 1995 but the Alaska delegates are on record as opposing the reinstitution of a similar ban.

6. Would oil leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge bring significant revenues to the American public?

Not necessarily, revenues are determined by the price of oil and the competitive nature of bidding for leasing rights. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if oil sells for $18 a barrel and the development produces 2.4 billion barrels of oil over a 10 year period, then the government will earn around $1.15 billion (with an equal amount going to the State of Alaska). However, should oil prices fall to $15 per barrel, leasing would not generate any significant proceeds.

7. Would oil leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge bring significant revenues to oil companies?

Yes. While the American public is paying higher and higher prices for petroleum and natural gas products, the oil companies are celebrating a period of prosperity. Based on information reflecting the substantial rise in oil prices, Richard Fineberg, a respected Alaska analyst estimated as of April 2000 that the FY 2000 share of the revenue pie for the industry exceeded $2.8 billion in after-tax profits.

8. What species are put at risk through exploration, drilling and production?

Wildlife and plant life that live in or use the seasonally rich coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are triply at risk. First, oil exploration and extraction activities are concentrated in the refuge?s most critical and sensitive areas such as calving grounds for the Porcupine caribou herd and denning areas for one of America?s two polar bear populations. Second, because the impacts of oil and other chemical spills accumulate in areas such as air holes used by seals and other marine mammals, the impact of even small spills is magnified. There, because many migrating bird species such as trumpeter swans and arctic terns visit the refuge in anticipation of a short, uninterrupted burst of food resources to feed themselves and develop their young prior to migration, disturbances of any duration could have population-wide impacts. And last, because the coastal plain is the biological heart of a huge arctic/subarctic ecosystem, harm to wildlife there would be expected to reverberate throughout the ecosystem.

9. Can the oil companies guarantee that there will be no spills in the refuge?

No. In fact, the current rate of reportable spills on Alaska?s North Slope is about one per every 18 hours.

10. Do the oil companies have connections with the governmental proponents of drilling in the refuge?

Yes.

President Bush:
<ul><li>Oil and gas firms have donated $1,761,567 to George Bush?s presidential campaign, making the oil and gas industry one of Bush?s top 10 contributors in Election 2000.
<li>Bush?s presidential recount fund shows $85,500 in donations from persons who work for oil and oil-affiliated industries.
<li>The Presidential Inaugural Committee received $1,000,000 in funding from the oil and gas industries.
<li>Oil and gas companies contributed at least $556,700 to Bush?s 1994 and 1998 gubernatorial campaigns, and an additional $944,733 in large contributions came from individuals affiliated with oil companies.</ul>
Congressional race:
<ul><li>George Bush is a former oil man himself, having owned the fairly unsuccessful Arbusto Energy Inc. and Bush Exploration. These companies, in 1984, merged with Spectrum 7 (Bush was named chairman and CEO), which was later bought by out Harken Oil and Gas in 1986. </ul>
Vice President Cheney:
<ul><li>Cheney had been CEO of Halliburton Company ? the world?s largest oil service company. Halliburton has contributed in excess of $1,600,000 to federal candidates since the 1992 elections. Halliburton has a number of operations on the North Slope of Alaska that stand to benefit from increased oil production there.
<li>Cheney also served on the Board of Directors and Public Policy Committee of the American Petroleum Institute.
<li>The oil and gas industry was the largest contributor to Cheney?s 1988 congressional race. </ul>
Secretary of Interior Gale Norton:
<ul><li>Norton worked for the Mountain States Legal Foundation, which has received funding from Amoco, Marathon Oil, and Phillips Petroleum.
<li>Energy and natural resource interests contributed over a third of the financing of Norton?s 1996 Senate Race, with the oil and gas segment being her second largest contributor. </ul>
Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham
<ul><li>Abraham received $211,771 from oil and gas companies in his last Senate race, making him the fourth largest recipient of oil and gas contributions in the 2000 election.
<li>Oil and gas companies were among the top 10 contributors to Abraham?s 1996 Senate race, donating $108,850. </ul>
Are there alternatives?

Yes! By adopting simple efficiency measures, America can achieve energy security faster, cleaner, and cheaper and would save many times more oil than could ever come from drilling in the Arctic refuge or our other cherished public lands. The numbers speak for themselves. Since the energy crisis of the 1970s, when 70 percent of imported oil came from OPEC countries, the U.S. has diversified oil sources. Today more petroleum is imported from Canada than any other country. With only 3 percent of the world?s proven reserves, as long as petroleum dominates fuel supply, the United States will have to rely on imports to meet demand. http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/arctic/images/energyfacts.pdf.

<hr>

Ok that's a start to the answer got to go rest a little lost a dang filling today and is no fun right now. Got to goto Dentist tomorrow to have it replaced.

On the plus side though this is my 1700th post

Which "experts"? B.P. Alaska ( largest stakeholder on the North Slope) says two years, with a production life of at least a decade. If (or maybe when if we don't change our energy use patterns) ANWR is developed, nothing can happen before winter. All North Slope work is done during the winter months so that the necessary infrastructure (roads, landing strips, drilling pads, &c) can be built of ice, to protect the underlying tundra.

That's a cute slight of hand. A "six month supply" at our current consumption rate equals several billion barrels of oil. One barrel contains 48 gallons, btw. Estimates vary widely and responsible reporters state up front that it's impossible to accurately predict potential production. I've seen figures ranging from 800,000 bbl (barrels) to as much as 80 billion. The U.s. Geological Survey and the federal government's Energy Information Administration estimate that there are possibly 16 billion barrels of oil beneath the surface in the coastal plain. Even at the low end--with about 3.2 billion barrels--the field would be the second-largest ever discovered in the United States.

The first is prudhoe Bay, which was estimated in 1968 to hold 9 billion barrels of oil, but which has produced nearly 13 billion barrels--or 20 to 25 percent of the oil produced in this nation for the last 23 years. If there were 16 billion barrels in the coastal plain, it would substitute for what we would otherwise have to import from Saudi Arabia for the next 30 years.

Yes, it's true that Alaska petroleum could be sold overseas. Care to guess how much has been sold overseas since the domestic ban was lifted in 1995? Absolutely none. That's because it's worth more here in the U.S. Let's look at how much more.

As of this afternoon, the spot price of North Slope crude was $27.16 (USD). If you'd like to track the price of North Slope crude, just click http://www.adn.com/business/. There is no reason to believe that oil prices are going to fall significantly any time in the near future.

As of this afternoon, Conoco-Phillips alone reported $1.3 billion in 3rd quarter profits. But what does this have to do with drilling in ANWR? Absolutely nothing. The argument isn't about whether for-profit corporations should make a profit, it's about whether we should allow drilling in ANWR. Oh, btw, Richard Fineberg may carry a great deal of credibility in the Lower-48, but he is generally ill-regarded in Alaska.

lol. Of course, they didn't mention that a reportable spill consists of any quantity of any substance. That includes such hazardous materials as coffee grounds and salt water. The average quantity reported is less than 1 teaspoon and the vast majority of spills are contained in buildings, sumps or other structures designed specifically to contain the stuff. If even a drop, a single drop, touches the ground it triggers a full-scale response and clean up, just as though it were a massive spill of honestly hazardous material.

Only five species of birds, some polar bears (who den on the Beaufort Sea pack ice) and lemmings (who burrow beneath the snow-pack) remain during the winter months. Only a relatively small portion of the Porcupine caribou herd shows up each year. These caribou travel to the coastal plain from Canada, passing near 89 dry wells drilled by the Canadian government and crossing Canada's Dempster Highway--all of which seems to be development that does not hinder their migration or survival.

At Prudhoe Bay the Central Arctic caribou herd has grown from 6,000 in 1978 to 19,700 today (Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, those are 2001 figures)

Polar bear rarely den on land and are already well protected as marine mammals under the Marine Fisheries Act. Alaska's polar bear population is healthy and unthreatened. The Marine Mammals Protection Act takes care of the polar bear in the existing oil fields--and would do the same on the coastal plain. Care to guess how many polar bears have been killed or injured in Prudhoe Bay? NONE.

In fact, there are no listed endangered species on the North Slope or in the coastal plain. (Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. Website is located at http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/FISH.GAME/adfghome.htm

Those who would develop the coastal plain maintain they can do it on about 2,000 acres or less. The most recent drilling scheme offered by congress limits the "footprint" to a maximum of 2,000 acres, including area covered by infrastructure. That's roughly the size of a typical city airport. Meanwhile, ANWR consists of 19 million acres. Congress put 8 million acres into formal wilderness status and designated 9.5 million acres as wildlife refuge. Those 17.5 million acres alone form a protected enclave almost as large as the state of South Carolina

Exploration and development is done in winter, which allows the use of ice airstrips, ice roads and ice platforms. It is done when no caribou are present. This is an important point because development work on the North Slope can only be performed during the winter, when migrating species are not present.

Of course they do, but that is immaterial to the argument of whether or not drilling in ANWR should be permitted.

Now to respond to oldraven's post. Again, I don't mean to point a finger at you specifically. i'm starting to like you really well, as a matter of fact. This applies to anyone who feels helpless to do something meaninful. Alternative fuels ARE available to you. ethanol is nothing more than white lightening, high-wine, 'everclear. Think of it as one-hour old Scotch whiskey, and you are dead on the money. There are distilleries throughout the world, and if you really want to seek independence from the energy 'system' you can make a distillery of your own out of junk-yard materials and produce your own fuel from any organic material, water and sugar. It doesn't even have to be good sugar. corn-syrup, molasas (sp?), or the dregs fro a sugar beet plant will work just fine. You don't have to be a chemical engineer to produce moonshine. Many an old 'shiner has less than an eighth grade education.

Converting a gasoline engine to run on ethanol requires nothing more than drilling out the carburator's jets, or installing larger fuel injectors. Directions for doing so can be found in old back-issues of Mother Earth News (back before the magazine became Yuppie).

Converting a diesel engine to run on used fryer grease from McDonalds or other junk-food restaurant is nearly as simple as an ethanol conversion. Heck, there's even an outfit on the United States east coast that makes a kit to do the conversion for around $800.00 (USD). Reference http://biofuels.coop/archive/charlotte.html

Back issues of Mother Earth News contain a variety of plans for constructing either passive or solar heating panels that can be used to heat, or at least augment heating, of any home or apartment that happens to have a window. Again, some of those plans call for recycled (junk-yard) parts that are commonly available.

Solar cell electrical panels are almost as common in urban areas as they are in rural regions. If you prefer wind, efficient home-scale wind generators are available on the open market, and once again good old Mother Earth News or the more recent publication Backwoods Home provide directions for building your own, often out of (gasp) recycled junk-yard parts.

So, the fact is, ANYBODY can use alternative energy resources IF they are willing to spend a bit of money and endure a bit of inconvenience.

We can not rely upon government to solve social problems. It is not in the government's best interest to do so, therefore, government won't. If we want REAL, effective solutions we must take individual responsibility for developing those solutions. I can't pound on this point often nor hard enough.

You can't honestly expect the energy industry to put itself out of business. In the real world, it just isn't going to happen. If you want solutions, you have to develop those solutions YOURSELF.

The only way to solve social problems is to take PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL responsibility for doing so, and if you don't then all you are doing is emitting hot air. It's fun to complain and to rail against the government or corporations, but it's much more effective to DO something.

BTW, once enough ethanol or vegetable oil or hydrogen or methane or any other alternative fuel vehicles are on the road to make the venture profitable, the availability excuse will disappear entirely. Some bright entrepreneur will start providing commercial quantities of that fuel. You can also bet your jolly roger that the government that so many seem to feel is the panacea for all human problems will place a considerable tax upon it.

(end of rant)