Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Biologists pay comes from the very government that has put ANWAR off limits! I don't trust their figures!
The entire State of Alaska is paid for with oil money. Every bit of research that ADF&G has done on the North Slope was intended to find ways to increase oil production. And if you ask any of those biologists if they support oil exploration on the North Slope they will all agree that it can be done.
Not one credible biologist that has done caribou research on the North Slope thinks we can safely develop oil in ANWR.
Quote:
Just follow the money....when the state develops a report, like on global warming, the facts show it is less than 2% different than the projected anticipated warming caused by the end of the small ice age.....when the environmentalists report says it's mans fault and our green house gas emissions!
I don't know if that is true or false. It has nothing to do with ANWR.
Quote:
Which leads me to ask another question of Floyd...where does YOUR pay come from that you are so well off not to need the oil to flow from ANWAR? Are YOU a federal employee, with the "Liaison Committee" of the Cooperating Oil & Gas Association, or on welfare.
None of the above.
Quote:
You are too "knowledgeable" and articulate to suppose the latter. So I question what your motives are, to be the self proclaimed expert.
I have never claimed to be an expert; and that is why I cite impeccable references to support my opinions. YOU, not me, are claiming to know better than the experts.
Quote:
I believe the reports that say there could be as much as 11.5 billion barrels of oil in ANWAR,
The USGS says there might be 7.668, not 11.5 billion. See Figure 1 of the FS-0028 USGS report on ANWR released in 1998.
Quote:
and that it is the fastest available additional oil which can be developed, giving time to get other fields on line, and with out it, the oil WILL stop flowing, and the line shut down....we can't let this happen.
There are no valid reports saying any of that.
We might also take note that when then Governor Frank Murkowski tried to auction off oil leases for the state's offshore areas on the coast of ANWR there was not one single bid. Nor is there any activity at all today in the area along the edges of ANWR.
Floyd, I think many people have misconceptions about development and what it really entails as far as environmental impact goes. The flip side of that is the record at the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk fields as they stand now. I know plenty of people who work up there and trust me, wildlife movements take precedence over everything else. By all accounts, it is the cleanest human habitat on the far side of the range, by far. For this we can thank the watchdogs (whatever agency they work for) and the dreaded environmentalists for forcing industry towards responsible construction and operation. So far, I think of it as a good balance, even if initially very costly.
What do you know about Gull Island up there?
I am really learning a lot here, and I thank you for your efforts to educate us all about the ramifications of the eventual coastal plain discoveries on down the road.
I think everyone would ideally want to keep ANWR perfectly pristine, but that ideal may not be practical. At some point the economic future of millions of Americans begins to trump the ideal of a pristine ANWR, and I think we have long passed that point. Drilling for oil will most definitely affect the wildlife of ANWR, but it won't be a major effect at all. I'm sorry, but a 15 foot road is not going to change the population of animals present or how they act.
Someone mentioned earlier that we'd only see gasoline drop 20 cents per gallon. That's assuming that oil prices are a completely static phenomenon that responds predictably to supply and demand. Oil prices are not like that. Unfortunately for us much of world's oil supplies are derived from politically unstable countries. Because of that a mere rumor or threat of a bombing or attack on oil pipelines causes spikes in oil prices. ANWR, along with other American sources of oil, would stabilize oil prices and lower the overall threat of service disruptions. Drilling in ANWR and increasing oil drilling off-shore would go a long way to making the US energy independent. An energy-independent US would do more for world stability than just about any other socio-political development.
As I understand it, the road access would only be possible during the winter months. The idea is to build an ice road to use during the winter months only, and staying on that spot during the summer. Transport helicopters would be used during the summer, so I imagine that they would have landing pads within that portion of ANWR where the work takes place.
Your cite is to the www.anwr.org webpage of Arctic Power. Arctic Power is a lobbying organization which distributes more false information about ANWR than everyone else combined. To put it mildly, that is not a reliable source.
I think everyone would ideally want to keep ANWR perfectly pristine, but that ideal may not be practical. At some point the economic future of millions of Americans begins to trump the ideal of a pristine ANWR, and I think we have long passed that point. Drilling for oil will most definitely affect the wildlife of ANWR, but it won't be a major effect at all. I'm sorry, but a 15 foot road is not going to change the population of animals present or how they act.
So you are an expert on Arctic biology? That's strange, because I've read many many studies and reports by people who have spent literally decades studying the biology of the North Slope, and every one of them that has any credibility at all says the opposite of what you do.
See this particular summary, for example, and look to see who
wrote it:
Someone mentioned earlier that we'd only see gasoline drop 20 cents per gallon. That's assuming that oil prices are a completely static phenomenon that responds predictably to supply and demand. Oil prices are not like that. Unfortunately for us much of world's oil supplies are derived from politically unstable countries. Because of that a mere rumor or threat of a bombing or attack on oil pipelines causes spikes in oil prices. ANWR, along with other American sources of oil, would stabilize oil prices and lower the overall threat of service disruptions. Drilling in ANWR and increasing oil drilling off-shore would go a long way to making the US energy independent. An energy-independent US would do more for world stability than just about any other socio-political development.
That is another unsupportable assertion. ANWR's production would be a drop in the bucket on the world market, and have just about the same effect on "making the US energy independent".
As I understand it, the road access would only be possible during the winter months. The idea is to build an ice road to use during the winter months only, and staying on that spot during the summer. Transport helicopters would be used during the summer, so I imagine that they would have landing pads within that portion of ANWR where the work takes place.
That is not correct, simply because there is not enough fresh water in ANWR to construct more than 10 miles or so of ice road.
ANWR's coastal plain is not dotted by lake after lake after lake as are the areas farther west. It is nestled up against the foot hills of the Brooks Range (15 miles from the coast at one end and 45 at the other), and is crossed by many small rivers that drain it well.
In 1989 the USFWS determined (in an internal study under the name of their Chief Hydrologist, Steven Lyons) that of the only 255 lakes and small ponds found in ANWR, 8 were large enough to use for building an ice road longer than 1 mile. Fewer than 25% of those lakes were deeper than 7 feet (meaning they freeze to the bottom each winter).
An ice road requires 1 million gallons of water per mile, and generally that water needs to be found within 10 miles of where it will be used (otherwise it will freeze during transport).
It also happens that, contrary to popular belief, ANWR is not flat! Unlike Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk, Alpine, and most of the NPRA (all places where ice roads are in common use, and each of which are very flat at the locations where oil development has taken place), the areas of interest in ANWR are somewhat hilly, if for no other reason than the better drainage provided by many small rivers and streams. It also does not have the grassy wetlands that are predominate at places like Prudhoe Bay. In fact, according to the "Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement" produced in 1987 by the Dept. of the Interior, the coast plain of ANWR is 45% "foothills" and 22% "hilly". (Which I'm sure will come as a total surprise to people looking at the pictures that some people have posted here!)
Because of the unsuitable topography the State has already agree to allow gravel roads rather than require ice roads, as a matter of safety.
Floyd, I think many people have misconceptions about development and what it really entails as far as environmental impact goes. The flip side of that is the record at the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk fields as they stand now. I know plenty of people who work up there and trust me, wildlife movements take precedence over everything else.
Everything... that doesn't cost money, for example pipeline maintenance. That is why they have people running around cleaning up every little meaningless spot of kitchen grease... and then dump 994,400 gallons of toxic liquids on the tundra at one time (not to mention the 400 toxic spills per year, or the fact that between 1995 to 2005 they spilled 2 million gallons).
The air polution from Prudhoe can be measured here in Barrow, 200 miles away. But it is not monitored at Prudhoe, because Ted Stevens got a special law enacted to exempt them from EPA requirements!
Prudhoe Bay is an environmental disaster area.
Quote:
By all accounts, it is the cleanest human habitat on the far side of the range, by far.
You've perhaps missed a few of the more accurate accounts. Last time I knew there were 3 superfund sites withing the greater Prudhoe Bay Industrial Complex.
Quote:
For this we can thank the watchdogs (whatever agency they work for) and the dreaded environmentalists for forcing industry towards responsible construction and operation. So far, I think of it as a good balance, even if initially very costly.
In perspective, one thing is absolutely clear, it could have been a lot worse! Your point about environmentalists forcing responsibility on them is very well taken.
Quote:
What do you know about Gull Island up there?
Put your tin foil hat on, that's a joke! :-)
Consider a couple of facts. Alaska is different than other states in that here it is the State that owns the subsurface rights. That is true for all private land other than Native land. Regardless, it is certainly true at Prudhoe Bay. The significance is that no oil company can drill an exploration well at Prudhoe and do what Chevron did with the one they drilling near Kaktovik (in ANWR, but on Native land). Chevron has never released any information about that hole. But every well drilled at Prudhoe is on State owned land, and by law the well data must be given to the State of Alaska.
Now, given the greed with which our Legislature, right or wrong, goes after oil money... can you imagine the State sitting on an oil patch as big as the Saudi reserves, and hiding it for the future???
I guess it makes a good living for that character who spouts all that
nonsense, but it's still just nonsense.
Quote:
I am really learning a lot here, and I thank you for your efforts to educate us all about the ramifications of the eventual coastal plain discoveries on down the road.
It really is unfortunate the you and everyone else are constantly bombarded with trivially wrong information. Our Congressional delegation, for example, spreads absolutely false information about ANWR on a regular basis! And most people have no way to know that it is not true. I'm in a little different situation just because I live on the North Slope and have been to ANWR.
I stumbled across a length log of wells recorded by the state online a while back (darned if I can recall where, sorry) that included wells that go back into the 70s.
Surely the Chevron information has been submitted to the DNR? Or, are they allowed to keep the information private because it is not on state owned lands? Is it not a state owned resource, even if privately held? In the MatSu, that information is available to all residents, regardless of who owns the surface. Or is the exploratory effort ongoing this year and there is no information available as yet? Are they required to share that information with Katovik village leaders?
I also read recently that some strides are being made in directional drilling, making for smaller footprints. Of course, most Americans have no clue as to the sheer size and scope of these drill rigs-thery think of them like the "bobbers" they see on TV, scattered all over Texas for eample. Nothing could be further from the truth!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
