How bad would drilling in AK really be?

[napi21]

I've heard a number of positions voiced on cspan this morning because Gov. Murkowski is the guest.

I've been totally against it ever since I heard about, but a few people mentioned that because of new drilling techiques like hrozontal drilling make it possible to have such a very small footprint on the surface, it would do little if any damage to the environment, or to wildlife, which were my main objections.

Murkowski's statements are mostly BS, because he's portraying this to be the salvation of the oil problems in the US, and everyone agrees that it won't, but are we fighting this because it's a Pub idea, or would it really be very bad?

[KG]

1. yes. mostly because it is totally unnecesary.

but, lets just suck every drop of oil out of the earth before anybody starts to think in terms of conservation and alternative energy.

[slor]

2. Industry experts say about 6 month supply...

at best, and rather than destroy our planet more, for such a small gain, why not push renewable and conservation? Remember, people get huge tax breaks for 10 mpg Hummers. Would it not be more logical to give a tax break for a Prius?
I am trying to call in, to make these very points, cannot get through.

Also another point to make to those hungry to drill, and their false claim of concern for "National Security" by drilling our own, is, why not save it for the rainy day that will eventually come. We can be the last ones with oil, if we wait...think about the military implications of that! Also the price for oil will be huge, think about the economic implications of that! Fight these fuckers with their own greedy logic!

[punpirate]

3. The "footprint" size...

... is a wad of lies that the right has used for ages to justify drilling in the ANWR. It doesn't make a whit of difference if they slant-drill or go straight down--the drilling sites still have to be connected by roads and pipelines to get the oil out to the nearest port.

That's how the bulk of the damage will occur.

Cheers.

[napi21]

5. I agree there would have to be one road, but

this Gov.is saying they would build a pipeline to pump the oil to it's destination.

Please don't minunderstand me, I don't think I want it either, but if some damn foolish oil companies want to spend their $$ on a foolish project that would provide only 6 months of oil demand, and it wouldn't do a lot of damage, why not let 'em spend it?

[Career Prole]

6. They wouldn't be spending "their" money.

They'll get it from us.

[punpirate]

8. I think you've spent very little time...

... in the oil patch. I live in the middle of the Permian Basin, and everywhere that there are wells, there's not one road, but a network of roads to connect them to one another, buried conduits to move crude oil from wells to collection tanks, hydrogen sulfide leaking everywhere and problems with brine disposal and hazardous waste removal.

The ANWR was created as a place for the native wildlife there, not oil drilling and extraction. The two are, quite simply and frankly, incompatible.

Cheers.

[napi21]

10. You're absolutely right that I've never spent time in the oil patch.

I never even heard it called that before. That's why I asked the question here at DU. You have, and it's your inpput I am looking for.

There was a time when I thought chicken plants created jobs, and most of it was automated, so why is everybody complaining. Then I moved to N. Ga. and found out what it's really like!

I'm just trying to cut through all the BS on both sides of this argument and find out the real truth.

[underseasurveyor]

21. Then peruse this site and decide for yourself whether or not

the oil and drilling (mining too) industries can be trusted to safeguard human rights and the environment or their own interests.

http://www.moles.org/index.html

If someone wants to sell you something and they know their product is shit or harmful they're not going to tell you that. What they're going to sell you is that it's the most wonderful thing in the world and you should want to have it too.
'Buy my product. It's a piece of crap but spend your hard earned money on it anyway'. No that wouldn't work, no one would buy whatever it is their selling so the alternative is to tell you how absolutely better off you'll be and you just can't live without it.
It's about "selling" and convincing folks to blindly and willingly go against their own best interests, for theirs.

I don't care how much oil there is in ANWR. Losing one of the last great pristine environments on earth, to me, is not an option nor is there a price tag big enough to ever compromise ANWR.

[Fovea]

13. Have your read the reports about the effects of melting

permafrost on the current pipeline?

I leave transporting that much oil through a deep, perma mud morass for the observant reader. I doubt that it would be a good tradeoff for the damage we would do, except maybe for Hallburton.

We need to conserve, and get our eggs out of the oily greenhouse gas belching baskets.

[Lindacooks]

28. Not to mention the accidents that are inevitable

From tankers, pipelines, etc. Oil spills are nasty, and the environment NEVER recovers. Remember the Exxon Valdez and Prince William Sound?

"In the early 1990s, ExxonMobil funded research that claimed the Sound was well on its way to recovery. But new scientific research, conducted over the last 14 years, states the opposite. The latest study, published in Science magazine, concluded that far from having recovered the Sound area continues to experience problems as a result of oil remaining from the spill.

With 500 miles of the coastline covered in oil just within the Sound area, mortality in the aftermath of the spill was particularly high, with sea otter, sea bird and harbour seal populations hit hard. Contrary to ExxonMobil's research, oil is still present in the Sound and has remained 'persistently toxic', resulting in long-term impacts on fish, sea otters and sea ducks."

http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/news/details?item_id=439825

[Blue_In_AK]

31. Yes, and the assholes (Exxon) still haven't paid up either

on the lawsuits they've lost.

[Webster Green]

4. Try to keep in mind that they lie about everything...

EVERYTHING!

And....there is maybe six months worth of oil there, based on our national compulsion, er...consumption.

[cornermouse]

7. Something else Murkowski is wrong about.

He referred to coyotes killing livestock. Possibly he could be right about sheep, but livestock includes cows and coyotes don't attack cows. In fact, I've seen cows chase coyotes on more than one occasion.

[sjeberling]

9. Oil for China due to profit margin is better

A majority of oil will go to Asia. Currently US oil is being shipped to China because of many islamic countries are upset by China's religious restrictions.

The ANWAR site will greatly help US oil profits, not consumer oil prices. The oil/gas companies were confronted with these facts at the Congressional hearings.

The Bush's ANWAR oil deal does not carry a commitment to help the US.

[alfredo]

20. The only people assured of making a profit from ANWR are

those who will be servicing the oil companies. They get paid even if no oil is found.

What company is the biggest oil field services company?

[Divernan]

11. Yes it would REALLY be VERY bad.

Previous posters have hit the relevant points. I recall reading that the way the drillers define "footprints" is by measuring ONLY the space taken up by where a support literally touches the earth. So if you have a tower on four columns, you would count only the, for example, two foot square bases, and not the much larger entire area covered by the tower.

More importantly, Alaskan oil is a national resource which belongs to us citizens of the USA. It should not be exported to Asia at all, and it should not be basically given to the oil companies for their profits. The oil companies are making obscenely high profits right now. This is where the phrase Corporate Welfare comes in. The same thing happens with Big Lumber. They harvest national forests and pay back to the government a pittance of what they charge for their product.

[Goldeneye]

12. Its a huge shorebird nesting area.

Black-Bellied Plover, Semi-Palmated Plover, Whimberal, Bar-tailed Godwit, Ruddy turnstone, Dunlin, Pectoral Sandpiper, White-rumped Sandpiper, Baird Sandpiper...and the list goes on. All these birds are decreasing, some as much as 80-90% over the last 20 years. This is an extremely important nesting area for them. Its also home to bears, musk ox, geese, grebes, yellow-billed loons, eiders, caribou...This is an important area for wildlife. If we let them spoil it, its gone. And for what? A few months of oil that will contribute to global warming. That minimal impact stuff is crap too.

I found some links that I thought were good:

This is an overview
http://www.nwf.org/resourceLibrary/details.cfm?officeID=15D39898-FEF7-0077-300221CD0852182F&catID=44E38E5C-65BF-1173-59B38B826E7E77F6

This article is about all the animals that live/nest there
http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/anwr/anwr1.asp

[necso]

14. It all comes down to

risk, cost and return.

Some people would accept no risk. Others would accept some.

The problem is that one knows a priori that the corporate entities who would exploit these resources will be more concerned about cost and return -- and less concerned about risk -- than the citizens who ultimately own these commons. Moreover, in practise, corporations tend to be lax about risks -- indeed, this can be a deliberate strategy, as misperceiving and underestimating risk, they may conclude that the probable costs of remediation (and etc -- in the "probable" scenarios) are less than the necessary costs of prevention. Besides, the prevention costs would have to paid with certainty and upfront -- while the remedial (etc) costs are only possible costs -- and, in practise, would be paid later.

[immoderate]

15. It's the nose in the tent.

If they can get into ANWR, the next step is CA, FL coastlines.

--IMM

[tx_dem41]

16. A better question: What would be the point of it?

Given the world oil market.

[buddysmellgood]

17. And how about a bit of soc. security privatization. How bad could that be?

As with so many of the repuklican plans, it's all about getting a foot in the door or another nail in the coffin.

[baldguy]

18. Let's draw some eyebrows on the Mona Lisa.

After all, she doesn't have any. Therefore it's an unrealistic portrait. Adding eyebrows would be an improvement.

[ashmanonar]

19. ok, think of it this way:

even if they can drill in a low-impact way, get the oil out of the ground, get it onto a ship/pipeline, and get it to the us:

it gets put into engines and ejected as greenhouse gases. all the toxic shit that gets poured out of the tailpipe of each and every car in the us.

even if everything goes well in drilling, it STILL ruins the environment.

[ComerPerro]

22. The biggest problem is that it is incredibly short sighted

Republicans like to pretend that drilling in ANWR would solve all our energy problems for fifty years. But, there isn't nearly enough.

Its just a stalling tactic by them so they don't have to worry about finding alternative energy sources.

[LdyGuique]

23. I'm from Alaska and have a different take on ANWR than most Dems

Alaska will never be a manufacturing or typical business state as it's too far off the beaten track. It will always have to exploit its natural resources in some manner in order to have a viable economy -- without Prudhoe Bay oil, it would not have been able to have sufficient funding to "be" a state. Oil has benefitted all Alaskans as it is the primary source of state tax funding and the annual payout of the Permanant Fund Dividend in October has made the difference between whether or not many of our subsistence people can survive another year.

The Alaska Pipeline has hit its 30 year mark, which was all it was supposed to last -- and either it is repaired at billions of dollars of cost or it will continue to deteriorate so as to become unusable. The current flow out of Prudhoe Bay isn't sufficient to warrant the repair costs. ANWRs "new" pipleine would be only to the point of cutting into the existing one and would provide sufficient incentive to repair the existing 800 mi pipeline, which would allow for both parts of the oil field to continue pumping.

Because oil when its extracted has a high temperature, all of the pipeline over the tundra is elevated so as to not thaw the permafrost -- this would be true of ANWR. Another reason for the elevation was for wildlife migrations, which has been very successful.

Most of the tundra is under Alaskan Native control and no one but Natives are allowed out on it -- where many still practice some subsitence hunting of caribou. The Musk Oxen on the tundra are not native to Alaska (they had become extinct long ago) and are transplants from the Eastern Arctic regions and have been a successful re-introduction.

As global warming continues, this is gravely affecting North Slope Natives and their desire to keep traditional lifestyles alive. They have found a balance between assimilation and traditional ways through oil production. They've become very astute politicians.

There is no dividing line between North Slope under Native and State jurisdiction and ANWR -- the same wildlife issues have been fought and protected in the non-ANSWR parts. Alaskans are strong protectionists of wildlife as its another way of earning a living -- tourism will cease it it becomes trashed.

Alaska is the most costly place on earth to drill and deliver oil. Because the price of oil has skyrocketed relative to the beginning of oil production in the early 70s, it has remained a major source of state revenue that gets roads built elsewhere throughout the state, schools built, social programs mandated by Congress but underfunded, etc. While it's true that oil will not be there forever, its exploitation isn't just for the wealthy oil companies.

For the most part the experience has been a success. We've still not been paid the court-awarded damages from Exxon over the Exxon Valdez oil spill and have ongoing damage down in Prince William Sound where poor techniques exacerbated the initial damage (high pressure hot water was used in the cleanup which drove it down deeper into the shoreline and it continues to rise back up, doing ongoing damage year after year). Additionally, there has been some damage from the pipeline at points along its 800-mile length, and oil company corruption has attempted to hide it -- but, the State of Alaska has successfully fought the issue, too.

As for the latest fiasco of the grain freighter off Unalaska that broke up and spilled all of its fuel, we don't know who is going to pay for the damage. Probably insurance companies. I've yet to figure out how that ship ended up on the north side of the Unalaska when it was going from Seattle to Korea.

Overfishing has caused more damage to another natural resource than the oil industry has. Again, this is typical of humankind -- run a resource into the ground until its gone and then complain about starving -- whether its fishing or timber, or whatever.

Global warming will continue to adversely affect wild Alaska far more than oil production has.

I'm not opposed to drilling in ANWR if all of the environmental impacts are regulated and carefully monitored. Since it is in Alaska's best interests to do so and it has gained a whole lot of experience due to the Prudhoe Bay fields, I don't have a lot of serious doubts about whether or not it "should" be done.

[underseasurveyor]

24. " the environmental impacts are regulated and carefully monitored"

You have to be joking. This administration particularly, environmental impacts and carefully monitored?

bwahahahahahahahahahaha
:cry:
Beam me up now Scotty. There is no hope that humans will EVER learn :grr:

[LdyGuique]

29. You misunderstood

I don't believe the Feds will do the monitoring -- it will be Alaskans because it's in our best interests

[underseasurveyor]

30. I don't believe it matters WHO does or will do "the monitoring"

"For the most part the experience has been a success. We've still not been paid the court-awarded damages from Exxon over the Exxon Valdez oil spill and have ongoing damage down in Prince William Sound where poor techniques exacerbated the initial damage (high pressure hot water was used in the cleanup which drove it down deeper into the shoreline and it continues to rise back up, doing ongoing damage year after year). Additionally, there has been some damage from the pipeline at points along its 800-mile length, and oil company corruption has attempted to hide it -- but, the State of Alaska has successfully fought the issue, too.

As for the latest fiasco of the grain freighter off Unalaska that broke up and spilled all of its fuel, we don't know who is going to pay for the damage. Probably insurance companies. I've yet to figure out how that ship ended up on the north side of the Unalaska when it was going from Seattle to Korea."
---------------------------
All good intentions aside..............
Where the environment and the animals are concerned "paying for damages" is meaningless, useless, moot. For when their resources to survive are spoiled what good will a court settlement do them while they suffocate and starve? I won't even get into the food chain aspect of it.

How many "accidents" will it take before we finally fookin' learn? Globally there have been far too many as it is. You said it yourself that because of poor techniques PWS is experiencing on going damage. 'Who pays for it' (IF they pay at all) can't and won't reverse the death and destruction it's caused yet the nightmare continues, oops gee spilled a little more oil. A little here, a little there, a little more here, oh shit a lot over there :eyes:

Drilling companies like governments lie and in the greater scheme of things, every living thing suffers for it. Look around, we already are suffering and have been for a long time. There are other alternatives. And if natives peoples of the north wish to continue any assemblance of the old ways of life, drilling shouldn't even be on the list. Drilling and mining, etc. destroy these ways of life they don't promote or enhanced them.

Alaskans best interests shouldn't trump global interests. Short sightedness for short time gain$ is not only selfish, it isn't a very bright idea for the long term :dunce: Your grandchildren, your great grandchildren and their children depend on us to make the correct choices now, today. What about them?

What's it gonna take? When will we get it, when will we learn?

[Blue_In_AK]

32. Thank you, Ldy Guique...

...you said that a lot better than I could have. I have mixed feelings about drilling up there, but there's no question that Prudhoe and the Trans-Alaska pipeline have benefited the state economically (even though I was initially opposed to it), and I do think that the oil companies have been surprisingly cautious about causing environmental damage. I go back and forth on this from day to day, but there are definitely two sides to this issue, and as an Alaskan I know that we'd be in big trouble if it weren't for BP, Conoco-Phillips, et al.

[underseasurveyor]

33. .

[Blue_In_AK]

34. Temperance...I KNOW it's pathetic,

but unless you live here, you can't really have a grasp of what Alaska's economy is about. Whether we like it or not, what LdyGuique said is true -- oil revenues power our state, build our schools and public works projects, contribute to our university, maintain our roads, on and on. Oil IS Alaska. If you can think of some other way for Alaskans to sustain themselves, please let us know. There's only so much money in fishing, logging, mining, and tourism. PETA wants us to stop fishing, other environmental groups don't like us logging, mining is a big no-no, and the cruise ships pollute our coastline. What exactly do you think we should do? I'm really serious here. If you can think of some good way for Alaskans to sustain themselves that's acceptable to all good environmentalists in the Lower 48, please, I'm all ears.

[underseasurveyor]

36. I know Blue

I'm not doubting the Ldy or you and I know this is a rock and a hard place. But doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different and better results is crazy and it's self defeating in the long run.

Personally I don't have the answers I wish I did and had the power to twinkle my nose like Samantha Stevens but left unchanged by doing the same things will ultimately doom Alaska. Maybe not in our life time but in our kids life time? Probably.

My Grandfather spent a lot of time up there during the 40' and 50's and the stories he told, the few blk`n`wht pictures he had........ I've never been to Alaska, I hope I get the chance to at least see a small part of what my Grandfather knew.

Necessity IS the mother of invention. What if the oil was gone now, then what:shrug: Something would have to change. That's why we must figure this out now.

Come we brainstorm ;-)

[Blue_In_AK]

40. Thanks for your understanding, Temperance

You know, we've got a lot of wind up here, and they've actually been talking about putting up wind generators on Fire Island out here by Anchorage, so we could probably find ways to take care of our own energy needs, but I don't know if that would generate any significant revenue. I don't see how it's anything that we could export like the oil, but maybe there will be a way.

We used to have this old Republican governor here, Wally Hickel, who had this grand idea to construct a pipeline to ship our extra water down to California at a profit. Everybody thought he was kind of nuts at the time, but who knows? The way everything is heating up up here, it might be good way to get rid of some of the melting ice.

I don't know, it's a tough problem, and I apologize if I got snappish with you. Sometimes we Alaskans just get kind of tired of well-meaning people from Outside trying to tell us how to run our state.

[LdyGuique]

43. Thanks for joining in Blue :)

I was investigating H2H (Hydrogen-powered vehicles) awhile back and was surprised at how well this technology is developing. They may very well be an alternative to gasoline-powered vehicles; however, they are not the cure all, either.

While we have enormous reserves of natural gas up on the North Slope, the price for it is too low and a natural gas pipeline is not affordable in the short term. So, that will remain as a resource for the future. The Canadian natural gas pipelines are at capacity; so, talk about hooking into them isn't viable.

As for Alaskan Natives, they ARE choosing to participate in oil exploration. I really appreciate their level of involvement in their own future. They have serious ongoing arguments over whether to participate in the citified white world, gain advanced educations, etc., or to resist any further erosion of their individual cultures, continue to speak their languages, etc. But, it IS for them to determine, not me.

When Alaska was granted statehood in 1962, it went widely debated by Congress whether it would have the wherewithal to be a state, to be self-sufficient. Alaska has had good luck. Oil was discovered on the North Slope a few years later, before the interim funding ran out. The desire to develop oil pushed the Native Americans to band together and fight tooth and nail for some basic rights and guaranteed land and funding -- they held it all up until they had negotiated a settlement agreement that satisfied most. Native Corporations were created instead of reservations and these have been successful. Some are even outsourcing themselves to elsewhere in the world on how to make indigenous populations adapt to the modern world.

I'm where I've always wanted to be. I want Alaska to remain beautiful and a source of outdoor wonder for many. I want Alaska to remain economically viable so that our young people don't have to move outside for decent jobs.

[Bridget Burke]

45. When the oil is gone, what will Alaska do?

Will you Alaskans continue to get personal checks every year until then? Here in Texas, there's been plenty of petrochemical development--but we got (some) jobs in return--not direct payments.

Perhaps Alaska is not meant to support large numbers of people?

[Blue_In_AK]

46. There's only about 600,000 of us now

in a state about the size of 1/5 of the rest of the country, much of which is uninhabitable...too mountainous, too marshy. Take a look at an atlas sometime and check out our highway system. Even Anchorage only has two highways out of it, one going north and one going south. Our capitol is completely inaccessible to the rest of the state except by plane or ferry. There are NO roads into the towns and villages in western Alaska -- Nome, Bethel, Dillingham, etc. It's just a lot different than any other state, and I think people who haven't been here can't fully appreciate the magnitude of what we're dealing with here.

I myself, like LdyGuique, would have a hard time living anywhere else without having a huge ache in my heart for this place, but you are probably right that we will never be able to sustain a large population. Maybe that's just as well. But I think it is important for us to be able to provide opportunities for our kids so they won't make a mass exodus to the Lower 48 upon graduation. Our state university is upgrading all the time, which is a good thing, but we still don't have a medical school or law school. My own daughter went Outside to college and law school and is now practicing in LA.
Not that we don't have lawyers here -- we have more than enough, actually -- but she just didn't see enough opportunity here for her to return home.

But, anyway, I appreciate that you all are keeping somewhat of an open mind. Things are seldom as black and white as they first appear.

[Blue_In_AK]

47. Oh, and as for the Permanent Fund....

....it's too bad that Texas didn't have the foresight to set one up for its citizens like former Alaska governor Jay Hammond did for us. It was really a brilliant plan. Jay was/is nominally a Republican (nominally being the operative word), but he made sure that his people were taken care of when Big Oil moved in here. He had tremendous foresight.

[Oilwellian]

25. There are many reasons

First, take a look at this map indicating the full scope of the so called "2000 acres"....

Proponents of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge claim that the oil industry could develop the refuge's 1.5-million-acre coastal plain using only 2,000 acres. In August, the House of Representatives passed an energy bill (H.R. 4) removing the current prohibition on drilling in the coastal plain, but limiting certain oil production activities to 2,000 acres. The amendment that introduced the limit, sponsored by New Hampshire Republican John Sununu, stated (Section 6507(a)(3)): "The secretary shall ... ensure that the maximum amount of surface acreage covered by production and support facilities, including airstrips and any areas covered by gravel berms or piers for support of pipelines, does not exceed 2,000 acres on the coastal plain."

Some newspapers have editorialized in support of drilling in the Arctic Refuge, repeating the claim that it could be done on 2,000 acres and citing the Sununu amendment as a good-faith effort to mitigate potential environmental damage. Closer examination, however, reveals that the oil industry could not possibly develop the coastal plain in a compact, contiguous 2,000-acre area, and the way the amendment is worded would open up the entire refuge coastal plain to development. Below is a look at the myths and realities of the "2,000-acre footprint."

Myth: The area needed to drill for oil in the Arctic Refuge is about the size of an airport.

Fact: According to the U.S. Geological Survey, oil in the refuge is not concentrated in one large reservoir within a 2,000-acre area but is spread across its 1.5-million-acre coastal plain in more than 30 small deposits. <1> To produce oil from this vast area, supporting infrastructure would have to stretch across the coastal plain. Networks of pipelines and roads obviously would fragment wildlife habitat.

Fact: The oil field industrial sprawl on the North Slope, including drill sites, airports and roads, and gravel mines has a footprint of 12,000 acres, but it actually spreads across an area of more than 640,000 acres, or 1,000 square miles. <2>

Fact: Proponents of drilling in the refuge point to the 100-acre Alpine oil field west of Prudhoe Bay as the state-of-the-art model for developing the refuge. The 2,000-acre "limitation" would allow 20 oil fields the size of Alpine scattered across the refuge's coastal plain.

Fact: Even if the 2,000 acres were contiguous, such an area could cover a lot of ground. For example, the 12-lane-wide New Jersey Turnpike, which stretches more than 100 miles across the state, covers only 1,773 acres. <3>

Fact: The so-called 2,000-acre limitation would allow oil development to take up as much area as the following items, which could be connected by a network of pipelines and roads:

1,500 football fields; <4>

20 Mall of Americas; <5> or

52 airport runways, 17 times more than at Dulles International Airport. (Drilling proponents claim that development on the coastal plain would have a smaller footprint than Dulles Airport.) <6>

Myth: The House bill would open only 2,000 acres of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain to oil and gas leasing, exploration, development and production activities.

Fact: The House bill would open the entire 1.5-million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas leasing and exploration, possibly exempting as much as 45,000 acres from leasing at Interior Secretary Gale Norton's discretion. Drilling proponents claim that this exemption would allow Norton to protect sensitive areas on the coastal plain, but 45,000 acres represents only 3 percent of the area.

Fact: The 2,000-acre limitation would not require that the 2,000 acres of production and support facilities be in one compact, contiguous area. As with the North Slope oil fields west of the Arctic Refuge, development could be spread over a very large area.

Fact: The 2,000-acre limitation only addresses "surface acreage covered by production and support facilities." In other words, it only includes the area where oil facilities actually touch the ground. Using Rep. Sununu's math, the 37 miles of pipeline at the Alpine oil field west of Prudhoe Bay would take up less than one-quarter of an acre of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain - where the pipelines' 12-inch-diameter posts hit the tundra. <7> The limitation also would not cover land excavated to bury pipelines.

Fact: The 2,000-acre limitation would not cover seismic or other exploration activities, which have significantly degraded the arctic environment west of the coastal plain. The oil industry conducts seismic activities with convoys of bulldozers and "thumper trucks," which drive over extensive areas of the tundra. Meanwhile, exploratory oil drilling would require moving heavy equipment, including large rigs, across the tundra. Exploration and production wells could be drilled anywhere on the entire 1.5 million-acre coastal plain.

Fact: The 2,000-acre limitation would not include gravel mines or roads. The House's limitation would allow for 20 oil fields the size of the 100-acre Alpine oilfield west of Prudhoe Bay, which required a 150-acre gravel mine and 3 miles of roads. More roads are planned. <8> Meanwhile, oil companies in the North Slope oil fields excavated gravel from mines that stretched over 2,000 acres, and then covered 10,000 acres of tundra with gravel for roads, drilling pads and building foundations. <9>

Fact: Development would affect areas well beyond the boundaries of roads, pads and other facilities. The journal Science reported in the late 1980s that the cumulative impact of oil exploration and development has indirectly affected more tundra than what was directly filled or excavated. <10> More recently, biologists found that decreased caribou calving within a 2.5-mile zone of pipelines and roads show that the "extent of avoidance greatly exceeds the physical 'footprint' of an oil-field complex." <11>

http://bushwatch.org/drilling.htm

And then there's this:
But whistleblowers among the pipeline workers tell a story of deferred maintenance and imminent danger. The Wall Street Journal reported:

“Whistleblowers have complained for years of deferred maintenance causing problems like a clogged fire suppression system and faulty vapor-control equipment and the whistleblowers are fearful an accident could ignite a raging inferno.

“Mr. Hamel says the core of the problem at Valdez and other parts of the pipeline has been lack of money to make needed repairs and upgrades. Alyeska officials agree the pipeline had experienced reduced funding in recent years, due to what they called cost pressures when oil prices were low.”

Of course this situation applies to other industries as well. One can only wonder whether the waste industry, under financial pressure, would accept responsibility for leachate from its landfills, once contaminated drinking water turned up.

Having seen photographs of oil drilling stations in Alaska, it is obvious that the damage to habitat is done once construction begins. The station is not just a single well in the wilderness. Rather, it takes up many acres for drilling equipment and connections to the pipeline, storing and repairing equipment, shelter for vehicles and supplies, housing for workers, food storage and preparation, and all the other necessities.

As for the pipeline itself, all it would take is one leak. All that for a six months supply of oil?

-- “Harassment of Whistleblowers Still Exists on Pipeline, Study Finds,” Wall Street Journal 11/13/00.
http://home.alltel.net/adelek/industry.html

[Judi Lynn]

27. Thanks for posting the bushwatch.org/drilling info. Excellent. n/t

[Strelnikov_]

26. "Big Oil Steps Aside in Battle Over Arctic"

Looks like the 'pros' aren't that interested any more.

Big Oil Steps Aside in Battle Over Arctic
By JEFF GERTH
Published: February 21, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/politics/21refuge.html?


But if Mr. Bush's drilling plan passes in Congress after what is expected to be a fierce fight, it may prove to be a triumph of politics over geology.

Once allied, the administration and the oil industry are now far apart on the issue. The major oil companies are largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical about the potential there. Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a tiny fraction of America's needs.

[independentchristian]

35. What is ANWR going to solve? Absolutely nothing

I have heard estimates of oil there to be up to a "two year" supply for the US, and as low as a "two day" supply.

It's all estimates.

I doubt ANWR is going to solve anything, and the Republicans talk about it as if it's going to make us "less dependent" upon foreign sources of oil.

Sure it would for a short time. Say right until after the 2008 election.

[deacon]

37. put that money into research for more fuel effecient vehicles-- it's that

simple, but no money in it for bushco.

10 years for a six month supply, it doesn't get any dumber than that.

[Sapphire Blue]

38. Bush Team Readying Backdoor Route to Drill Arctic Refuge

Bush Team Readying Backdoor Route to Drill Arctic Refuge
BushGreenwatch.org

Thursday 24 February 2005


Excerpt:


Having been thwarted repeatedly in its effort to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling for oil, the Bush Administration and its Congressional leadership have come up with a plan for a sneak attack on the issue.

Rather than holding a straightforward vote on the Senate floor, where strong public opposition halted drilling in the past few years, House and Senate members are quietly planning instead to attach the drilling measure to upcoming budget legislation, where it would be all but impossible to stop (budget bills are exempt from filibuster or extended debate).

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/022605X.shtml

[chlamor]

39. Ask The Caribou

[Skittles]

41. can we just have one f***ing place those greedy bastards can't touch?

PLEASE???????????????????????????????????????????????????

[rfkrfk]

42. drilling, or 'developement', is the concern ?

I would think that,
roads, suburban sprawl, Wal-Marts,
dumps, McDonald's,
natives selling trinkets to
cruise ship one day visitors,
bad schools,
would be the real concern.

[B Calm]

44. Will the American taxpayers be rewarded for the profits that

are made by the oil companies? After all its not private land!