Once Again, Plants Over People

In 1957, Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton opened up 20 million acres on the North Slope of Alaska for commercial oil and gas exploration and drilling. This was in addition to the already established Naval Petroleum Reserve (NPR) which included another 23 million acres. Even with oil plentiful and cheap, Washington recognized that the United States needed to strive for energy independence, and the cold, barren and relatively uninhabited tundra of Alaska must have seemed like a great place to drill.

Today, 48 years later, not one well has been sunk.

Getting to the roots of this madness, and why the vast oil deposits in this God-forsaken wasteland have not been pumped, it is necessary to go back to 1960. Just three years after opening up the area for exploration, Seaton designated 8.9 million acres of coastal plain and northeastern mountains as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, nearly halving the original lease area. Then in 1980, in the middle of a world-wide oil shortage, the Democratic-controlled Congress voted to make all but 1.5 million acres of coastal plain bordering the Beaufort Sea known as 1002 Area off-limits to exploration, designating the rest as wilderness area and renaming it the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With just 5% of the original acreage now available for petroleum removal, Congress commissioned the Department of the Interior to prepare a report on the oil and gas potential in this coastal plain, and the effect that oil development would have on the region's "natural resources". The legislation also required that any oil and gas leasing from ANWR would require authorization from Congress.

In 1987, a controversial and highly criticized report was finally released in the form of a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement. Predictably, the report concluded that oil development and production in 1002 Area would have major effects on the region's Porcupine caribou herd and musk oxen, and that "widespread, long-term change in habitat availability or quality which would modify natural abundance or distribution of species". The study also indicated that major restrictions on the "subsistence activities" of the nearby Kaktovik residents were likely to be expected.

The report's conclusions were so apparently flawed that Interior Secretary Donald Hodel dismissed it, and recommended full scale development on the coastal plain, authorizing an oil and gas-leasing program that would avoid unnecessary adverse effects on the environment.

Since then, Democratic activists have filibustered any legislation allowing such programs, and some liberal Republicans, as well, have caved to extreme environmentalist pressure. All of this while science and common sense indicate that drilling for oil in a small slice of this desolate no man's land would have little or no impact on the environment at all.

While legislators cave in to radical environmental objections that have more to do with a disdain for progress and capitalism and less a sincere concern for the little animals and plants, ANWR holds enough potential oil reserves to replace our daily imports from Saudi Arabia for 30 years. According to the U.S. Department of Geologic Survey, ANWR's 1002 Area is the nation's single greatest onshore oil reserve--greater than any other state, including Texas and Louisiana. The USGS estimates that the area contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil, and at peak could produce nearly 1.4 million barrels of oil per day. In comparison, Texas produces just more than one million barrels per day, California just less than a million per day, and Louisiana produces 200,000 barrels per day. There may even be substantially more oil than that, considering the USGS underestimated the Prudhoe Bay reserves by nearly 5 billion barrels!

According to a recent report from the U.S. House Resources Committee, any drilling in ANWR would be subject to the most stringent environmental protection requirements ever applied to Federal energy production. Each new lease would require a separate Environmental Impact Statement, and be subject to strict regulations that would limit exploration to winter months, prohibit the building of roads or permanent buildings, require all pipe-lines and transfer equipment to have little or negligible effect on wildlife, and ensure compliance with all applicable air, water, and waste management standards.

Ultimately, the area to be explored is not even the entirety of 1.5 million acres, but only 2000 acres, less than 0.01 of the total ANWR area. In comparison, the average size of a farm in South Dakota is 1400 acres, and Washington's Dulles Airport covers 11,000 acres!

Opposition to further exploration in the area seems to be confined to a small group of lower 48 legislators and the left-wing environmental groups that pay their bills. In Alaska, those who welcome drilling in ANWR outnumber those who do not by a margin of 75-23 %. In fact, the Eskimo village of Kaktovik, closest to the proposed drilling area and the same village mentioned in the critical 1987 report, supports exploration by an even greater margin, 78-9%. The Alaska Federation of Natives, which represents 80,000 Eskimos, adopted a resolution in 1995 supporting ANWR drilling and calling it a "critically important economic opportunity for Alaska natives". Eskimos actually own nearly 92,000 acress within ANWR, but are not able to lease exploration rights until Congress opens up the Federal area of the Reserve. With such overwhelming local interest, it is hard to understand how a few stubborn elitists in Washington can be so successful in their opposition. Once again, clearly a case of liberal preference for animals and plants over human beings, and this time at the expense of the Native population.

In case anyone feels trepidation for the caribou, Alaskan wildlife experts have concluded that the Central Arctic Herd has more than tripled in size since similar drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, in less than 30 years. Apparently, caribou are more inclined to make little caribous when they have a nice, warm oil pipe to snuggle against.

With President Bush and a Republican Congress looking to lessen our oil dependence on the volatile Middle East and South America, there is a good chance drilling may commence soon. Republicans have threatened to attach the drilling legislation to the Omnibus Budget Bill, which cannot be filibustered by Democratic extremists, and requires only a majority vote in the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

Whether these radical environmental activists like it or not, America's fuel of necessity is oil, and there are few technologies that will take its place in the near future. The day may come, hopefully sooner than later, when an alternate energy source can be identified that could replace oil, but such an eventuality is many years away. In the meantime, liberals pump gasoline into their cars, just like the rest of us.

As world oil prices reach to staggering levels, and with America in the precarious position of having to rely heavily on Islamic dictators for our supply, it only makes sense that we find oil where we can, within our own borders. President Bush and the Republicans are realists, and know that America's great economy must have oil to run. Those who would stand in the way of more oil independence do not have America's best interests at heart.

But then, they never do.

According to Interior Secretary Gale Norton; We are about 10 years away from the first drop of oil from ANWR.

The first lease sales would not be issued until 2007, followed by development seven to 10 years later, Interior Secretary Gale Norton said.

The ANWR drilling will have no impact on soaring oil prices and tight supplies, according to pro-drilling sources.

That is exactly why ANWR should have been drilled twenty years ago! Once the oil hits American markets, it will indeed have an impact on supply and prices, but more importantly it will replace imported oil by a like amount. It is simply irrelevant whether the oil is here today or in seven years. You are getting caught up in the leftist's arguments. The point is that it will be available for use, as opposed to sitting beneath useless tundra.

Lets hope the ANWR oil actually hits the American markets! In the 1970's, during that oil crisis, the Alaskan pipeline legislation was pushed through promising more oil to the American markets. Well, as it turned out, as I recall most if not all of that oil was being sold to Japanese markets.

I suppose that the same thing could occur with the ANWR oil. I doubt there's language in the current bill to keep the oil in the domestic markets.

Once Again, Plants Over People

======

Of course, of course... you don't put a potted person on the grave of a plant, do ya ??? ;-))

Don't bet on it. The Alpine field was develop without roads are the far West side of the North Slope in 4 years. This was miles and miles from any existing infrastructure.

In 1996, ARCO concluded the collection of a 3-D seismic survey covering 120 square miles in Colville delta (Alaska Report, 1996). With the completion of the seismic delineation study and the most recent drilling program in October 1996, ARCO announced plans to proceed with development of the 40,000-acre Alpine field, which extends from the Colville River and which offers reserves estimated up to 300 MMBO (Alaska Report, 1996).

By 2000 oil was flowing across the Colville River to Kuparuk, the closest gathering center and tie to the Alaska Pipeline. The ANWR Coastal Plain is nearly the same distance to Badami, the closest gathering center and tie to the Alaska Pipeline. Also in between is some existing infrastructure at Point Thomson.

In nearly ten years from the decision to produce oil at Alpine, the system has two drill sites, two more under construction, three more through the environmental approvals, and two more in the planning stages.

In Alaska, those who welcome drilling in ANWR outnumber those who do not by a margin of 75-23 %.

The MSM is reporting just the opposite, saying people of Alaska are very upset that the Bush Administration isn't listening to them. They even found a couple of Ward Churchill-like faux Indians to decry this "rape of nature".

Of course the MSN would lie about this. That's why places like Free Republic, Sierra Times, and The Conservative Voice are places where truth can be found. But for the Eskimos at Katkovik, at least, one can understand why this drilling might mean life or death for the native population. Because of primitive conditions that exist in their village, they see this as a way to raise the standard of living for all, and lessen the infant mortality rate, the incidence of Hep. A, etc. They, at least, have made the choice of people over plants. And I thought liberals had a genuine concern for these native peoples...