Posted on 03/17/2005 8:59:43 AM PST by NormsRevenge
JUNEAU, Alaska - The tiny north coast town of Kaktovik officially supports responsible development of oil and gas. But many reacted warily to the Senate vote to allow drilling in their back yard.
Even with just 284 residents, Kaktovik is the largest town on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's coastal plain. Mayor Lon Sonsalla said just about everyone has concerns about changes that could accompany any work in the 1.5 million-acre stretch, where billions of barrels of crude oil are believed to rest beneath the tundra.
"We are now given notice that we have to be on our toes," said the mayor said.
A scant majority of the Senate agreed Wednesday to allow oil and gas development on the state's northern coast.
Sonsalla said his town, 850 miles from Juneau and more than 3,000 from Washington, must have a say in developing the rules for oil and gas work in the refuge, and residents' access to traditional hunting and fishing areas must be preserved.
Fenton Rexford, tribal administrator of the Native village of Kaktovik, agreed. The Inupiat village's traditional lands are governed separately from the city of Kaktovik.
Rexford said the tribal government's responsibility is to protect traditional hunting and camping areas and cemeteries.
"There's monetary value and then there is value as far as subsistence sites, camping sites, fishing sites," he said.
Reaction to the Senate vote by the state's political leaders was enthusiastic. For decades, Alaskan politicians have urged Congress to open the refuge to drilling. Those calls grew louder with the decline of oil moving through the trans-Alaska pipeline in recent years.
Democratic state Sen. Donald Olson, whose district and includes Kaktovik, is a longtime supporter of opening the refuge.
"I'm glad that it passed," he said. "I just want to make sure that the concerns and issues of the local people and Mayor Lon Sonsalla are on the front of our radar screen so they are not overrun by industry."
Gov. Frank Murkowski said he has no doubts that oil drilling will take place and he expects the state will benefit from the revenues it will share with the federal government.
Opening the refuge to drilling would give oil companies access to an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of crude oil, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (news - web sites).
The Senate still must pass the budget package in which the proposal was included. The House must take up the issue in an energy package.
"It's like winning one skirmish in a bigger battle," said Republican state House Majority Leader John Coghill.
How desperate is the AP these days? These 'chicken-littles' are running around screaming doom and gloom about oil sourcing in Alaska as if it going to wipe out the state.
Liberal emotional rhetoric -- it just never ends -- but they certainly do not want Bush to provide A SOUND ENERGY POLICY FOR THE U.S. -- that would be another political defeat for the libs -- never mind what is needed for America.
The ratmedia is cute when it's scared, aint it?
Another example of what is good news for America is bad news to the Dims.
Advantage U.S. Again.
$25,000 grant was given to the City of Kaktovik by the State of Alaska to educate people about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With the funds, the City of Kaktovik has developed this web site, made a calendar and taken a survey of the people of Kaktovik.
Which I am sure fills every bit of the 1.5 MILLION ACRES of ANWR that will be opened to Oil and Gas exploration...
I was listening to Mark Levin last night and he was stating some Federal Surveys that state that since the 1600's, only 4.7% of America's land is developed (These are considered high estimates). That is 95.3% of America is undeveloped since Jamestown, Virginia.
We are on a collision course with over development disaster... ;)
Really...the MSM news I saw had between 5-9 people against it and a packed school gymnasium for it...but again 2+2=5 in MSM minds right...
Sonsalla said his town, 850 miles from Juneau and more than 3,000 from Washington, must have a say in developing the rules for oil and gas work in the refuge, and residents' access to traditional hunting and fishing areas must be preserved.
Let's see, a town of 200+ people (covering a couple sqare miles) on the edge of 1.5 MILLION acres of land (2300 sq miles) 'wants a say' in what happens there ? It would be like Rhode Island 'wanting a say' in how Texas develops it's oil fields. My local favorite fishing spot (albeit not 'ancestral') is nowhere near a hundred miles away.
My guess is that the Dems named above who support it (and represent the 'nearest' constituents) are obviously looking for a payday.
-R
Alaskans are like 80% in favor of drilling. What a bunch of crap.
Yes, they are.
Feels good when our representatives begin to assume the mantle of majority. We've been feeling condident since Nov. 3, 2004. Glad to see they are catching up with us.
e.g.:
Alaska Dems Wary of Not Cashing In On Drilling
-R
Alaskans Wary of Vote on Oil Drilling (posted 3/17/05)
Alaskans Issue Wary Response to Senate Vote on Oil Drilling at Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
3/17/05 Associated Press/ABC news. Most media bias is done covertly, by omission or distortion. This story is just about an outright lie. The impression given is that the natives are being exploited and/or have an unfavorable view of the recent Senate vote. The exact opposite, of course, is true. The natives and all Alaskans were being exploited by the Democrats in the Senate and the environmentalists across the country. This story says: The tiny north coast town of Kaktovik officially supports responsible development of oil and gas. But many reacted warily to the Senate vote to allow drilling in their back yard. <..> Mayor Lon Sonsalla said just about everyone has concerns about changes that could accompany any work in the 1.5 million-acre stretch, where billions of barrels of crude oil are believed to rest beneath the tundra. First, the story gives the impression that 1.5 million-acres are going to be drilled on. ANWAR is 19 million-acres and only a small percentage of the 1.5 million-acre costal area will be affected. Secondly, contrast the above Associated Press rot with actual opinion polls:
Seventy-five percent of Alaskans told a February 2000 Dittman research survey that they wanted to open up the refuge for drilling, with only 23 percent opposed.
A 1995 Dittman survey yielded similar results, with 75 percent of Alaskans saying they backed ANWR drilling, and just 19 percent opposed.
In the Inupiat Eskimo villages near ANWR, support is even higher. A January 2000 survey in the village of Kaktovik found that 78 percent of residents back more energy exploration in their own backyard. Only 9 percent were opposed.
In 1995, the Alaska Federation of Natives, which represents 80,000 Eskimos, adopted a resolution supporting ANWR drilling, calling it a “critically important economic opportunity for Alaska natives.”
More evidence comes from a previous post of mine (which in fact first alerted me that this AP story was fishy):
Casting a Cold Eye on Arctic Oil
9/10/03 New York Times - Nicolas Kristof goes to Alaska to investigate ANWAR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge) and offer his opinion on the Bush administration's proposal to open it to energy exploration (aka - oil drilling). A vast majority of Alaskans, both Democrats and Republicans, support the plan. Of course, Kristof opposes the drilling, but what is most interesting, besides the fact that only 7% of ANWAR would be open to drilling (and perhaps only a small percentage of this 'spoiled' by the drilling), is this statement in his story: It's also only fair to give special weight to the views of the only people who live in the coastal plain: the Inupiat Eskimos, who overwhelmingly favor drilling (they are poor now, and oil could make them millionaires). One of the Eskimos, Bert Akootchook, angrily told me that if environmentalists were so anxious about the Arctic, they should come here and clean up the petroleum that naturally seeps to the surface of the tundra. (all emphasis mine!)
I'm glad to see this story on FR. Just posted my comment on my blog, which I copied enmass to post 14. The sheer incompetance/bias of this reporter is unbelievable!
The town is actually on an island that is about 10-15 square miles in size, about 30-35 miles from the border of ANWR.
For perspective, imagine Massachuessts & New Hampshire as the ANWR, and this town of less than 300 is on Nantucket Island, and wanting a say in what goes on in Cape Cod Bay.
Not to be argumentative, but I want to fine tune your analogy. ANWR is a lot bigger than Massachusetts and New Hampshire together. Also the village is on the North Slope so they are concerned about their own area. But see past #6, they support it more than the rest of the US.
the best part of Alaska's North slope oil is it is top notch
grade. much of the stuff we import into the US is crap
20-25 gravity full of heavy metals and sulfer. The North Slope stuff is 38-40 gravity and is great for gas,diesel,jet fuel,etc.
even if there's not as much as we think(which I doubt), it's less we have to buy from terrorist nations.
..it's less we have to buy from terrorist nations.
====
The sooner we get out of the grip of the Arab countries, the sooner we can deal with them properly -- that is, if we still have a President in the White House, as opposed to an appeasing Marxist...pray for Alaskan oil and NO MARXIST PRESIDENT...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.