Gallup: Gap closing between those that oppose and those that favor drilling in Alaska

http://www.gallup.com ^ | 11-19-01 | Cuban123

[US_MilitaryRules]

Drill away! You have my blessing.

[Stand Watch Listen]

ANWAR…

• ANWR total area: 19,600,000 acres
• ANWR designated wilderness part: 8,000,000 acres
• ANWR coastal plain (not part of wilderness area) designated long ago by Congress for oil exploration study: 1,500,000 acres
• Coastal plain area needed for oil extraction: 2,000 acres (0.01% of the total ANWR area)

p>Species can you provide us with the data on how much oil is in ANWR....thanks bud!

In 1998 the USGS did a study that concluded that there are between 5.7 billion to 16 Billion barrels of recoverable Oil in the "1002" Area of ANWR.

An exploration rig seen damaging the tundra and disturbing the abundent wildlife on the costal plane of ANWR

Beautiful Spring day in "Americas Serengetti"

That is a LOT of oil!

and it dosent even take into consideration the nearly 200 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas there (over 150 years supply at the current rate of use in the U.S.)

A little perspective on the size of ANWR development:

Gee, then I guess I must be living in a huge wasteland... actually, I find the sight of all those oil derricks in the pastures and fields while driving from Austin to Houston rather beautiful...

As for your assertion that drilling in ANWR would decimate the environment, only 2,000 acres out of 19.5 MILLION are even under consideration for drilling. And those 19.5 million acres are but a FRACTION of the total land mass of Alaska. Also, contrary to dire predictions of the devasting impact on wildlife that would occur when we ran the pipeline in Prudhoe bay, the caribou herd there have actually grown to record numbers.

For REAL information on ANWR, let's use science, not the knee-jerk, anti-reason "precautionary principle": click here for info on ANWR and here for an excellent article by Linda Chavez about how Alaskans themselves view it. The Heritage Foundation also has an article which simply and plainly states the case for drilling here. Also read The National Center for Public Policy Research Press Release entitled "Bush Is Right: Opening ANWR To Oil Exploration Would Help Consumers Without Hurting Environment"

[cake_crumb]

Beautiful wolf pic. Hubby and I are both wolf lovers. BTW...Alaska is hubby's favorite place. He worked his way up there and spent a year. His experiences with the wolves are one reason he wants to go back. To live in the middle of nowhere.

He did some work on the pipeline. He's all for drilling in ANWR, because, like anyone who is well informed with the FACTS, he knows that not only is wildlife not harmed, some species flourish around - and under - the pipeline, like the caribou in the other pic.

I wish that had been a FReepable poll...I think I'll surf over to Vote.com and see if they have any. All FReeper investigators: what you you say we look for any good, FReepable ANWR polls out there.

[deport]

An ANWR bump your way.....

[Gasshog]

Today ANWR...Tomorrow - the Northern Waste!

ALL YOUR OIL ARE BELONG TO US!!!

^_____^

[cogitator]

You have to keep in mind that one of the common complaints about drilling in ANWR is that the new wells will be in the caribou calving areas. Some of the wackos are very concerned that the cows will not be able to drop their calves if there is an oil rig near by. Can you imagine the horror? Can you imagine any creature going into labor and waiting until she had a pristine, unblemished view around her?

Interestingly, in Senate testimony Interior Secretary Norton misstated the caribou calving data.

Departmental Differences Show Over ANWR Drilling
Interior's Norton Rebuffs Wildlife Service in Senate Testimony

Excerpt: The scientific data the agency gave Norton offered fuel for both sides of the debate. The bottom line was that caribou gravitate toward the 1002 area -- and that they tend to avoid oil fields when calving -- but that they have mostly prospered over the last three decades despite the development of sprawling oil infrastructure.

On the calving questions, Fish and Wildlife did suggest that the 130,000-strong Porcupine Caribou Herd prefers to calve in the 1002 area, which is about as far as it can get from predators and which is rich in nutritious food. The agency noted that the herd has calved there in 27 of the last 30 years, a statistic Norton did not use.

But Norton did use the agency's statement that the migratory Porcupine do not concentrate most of their calving in the 1002 area in years of late snowmelt, because they can't reach it in time. Then she added that "concentrated calving occurred primarily outside the 1002 area in 11 of the last 18 years," when she should have said "inside."

[cake_crumb]

The pics are great. If you want action in ANWR, there's a poll on Vote.com:

"Would Arctic Oil Drilling Improve Security?"

[lasereye]

The enviros opposed the Prudhoe Bay drilling in the 70's. They said it would decimate the caribou population. Since it's been built the caribou have flourished. Now, they're saying drilling in ANWR would decimate the caribou population. Unreal.

[Teacher317]

The environmentalists are simply America-haters, and this is the proof.

We drill cleaner than anyone else on earth. Our companies have to answer to thousands of regulations, rules, and face fines and stiff penalties for even accidental violations. The Middle East dictators answer to nobody. They can drill and pollute as they wish... and they do.

If they really wanted a cleaner planet, they would support drilling the daylights out of ANWR, to slow down Saddam's dirty production! If they really cared about animals, they would like ANWR pipelines providing warmer shelter for thousand of species (see photos above). If they cared about American security and independence from foreign dictators who are hostile towards us, they would march FOR drilling. Finally, Alaskans WANT to drill. If they were pro-American, they would not block people from doing what they want with their own lands! The field (the size of Colorado) would only require facilities the size of Manhattan!

Simply put, they are anti-American, period.

[Calpublican]

5. New CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS headquarters for broadcast news.

[Calpublican]

LOL!!

Didn't see yours before I posted mine. (See post 50)

[cogitator]

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Those people who are opposed to drilling are living in a dream world.We don't need anyone's permission and i don't much care about a silly pole,there is but one answer,DRILL,DRILL AND DRILL SOME MORE!

[maxwellp]

Why thoroughly pollute the place with the likes of the Clintons, Baldwin, Redford, Streisand, etc.? It would be ruined forever.

[Teacher317]

Simple question: why is anyone who opposes drilling "anti-American"?

Read my post #49 that you're replying to, friend!

Could it not be that people who oppose drilling, like myself, feel that way because we love America and believe that drilling is both unwise and morally wrong?

Drilling is morally wrong? Then why don't you close down EVERY rig on the planet? Unwise? Can you back that up with some wisdom, then? The wisdom I have used is that the land should be drilled, by people who buy the land, for the simple motive of profit. Period. Anything else is unwise, unless you somehow believe that the great wealth, power, peace, and prosperity that America enjoys is somehow disconnected from her roots in capitalism and individual rights. The added benefits of less pollution than Saddam-drilled oil, a stronger economy, and less dependence on the Middle East are merely the side-effects of the greatness of capitalism and Liberty.

Almost all the reasons given for drilling are either distortions or simply false.

Uhh, okay then, take the ones I gave that you're replying to... please, clarify how having Saddam drill without regulation in his wasteland is better than having Amoco drill in our wasteland with the strictest regulation in the world, all while drilling ANWR is what Alaskans want to do with their land.

According to the EPA statistics,

Oh, gee, THEY have no particular agenda to make in making those claims. How naive are you? Ah, reading your previous posts, now I know.

as well as several articles published a few months back in the Wall Street Journal, oil spills occur often in Alaska, and there are virtually no inspectors to make sure the drilling sites operate safely.

Really? Oil spills occur where there is oil drillling? WOW! Call the EPA! They might like to know! =^) How about hiring an inspector, if that's the biggest problem? You see, using those thinking skills is what life is all about! But of course, that's not for environmentalists. They don't bother to do any research to find out that there are already dozens of teams of inspectors in Alaska alone, and they do their federally-mandated inspections on a regular basis.

The main companies involved in potential drilling, like BP Amoco for example, have paid huge fines for large oil spills and for obstruction of justice related to the investigations. Even the oil spilled from the Exxon Valdz is still doing serious harm in that area.

So? Only companies that have never had an accident should be allowed to stay in business? Should we never allow another McDonald's to open because of the old lady who spilled her 'too hot' coffee? (And your 'facts' are rather specious. Can you actually cite a disinterested party's analysis of that 'serious harm' that is still affecting the area? Also, can you not see that that damage is what the fines are for? Even if there is lingering damage, Amoco has already paid the costs of cleaning it up, so what are you bringing this up for, if not to ask for accountability?)

And the supposed impact on our oil dependancy is also a distortion by the pro-drilling crowd. The limited supply of oil in ANWR, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, would barely have an effect on our annual oil imports. If national security is your reason for drilling, then you've been had by disinformation from the greed-hungry oil companies, and the mostly Republican politicians who don't want to lose a vital source of campaign funds.

Okay, I was about to apologize in case you really were a high school student, but obviously you're simply a political shill. Party affiliation has nothing to do with the facts. You can say the "its the GOP lying!" all you want, but you have yet to actually address a single issue, or refute a single point. No matter how small the oil supply, the main point is that every dollar that goes into Amoco's hands is better than in Saddam's hands... even if it is only for a month, a week, or a single day. Also, every single milligram of Saddam's pollution that is kept at bay is one more milligram that isn't in the air. Our drillings standards are FAR superior to his. Get it?

Much of the pro-drilling crowd seems to focus on the fact that the ANWR region is a desolate place that no one visits. That's precisely the point. The beauty and sacredness of a place does not come from its pleasing aesthetics. The fact that it's a wild, untouched place is the reason we should leave it that way. We have a moral obligation to our future generations to leave them at least some wildness on this Earth.

Look at the photos, and use some critical thinking skills, okay? Exactly how will an EPA-regulated installation the size of a city park affect a wasteland the size of Colorado? Future generations can visit and mush dogs for a month and never see any evidence of the rigs. 99.998% of the land will remain untouched and pristine!

Finally, I will answer your question with yet another refrain from my post that you replied to but didn't read.
Yes, you are un-American for your views on drilling. If you had answered a single point in my post, I might have reconsidered... but you probably don't know how. Americans are for clean air and a clean environment for the planet, (even a miniscule increase in) American independence from the highly unstable Middle East, more jobs and revenue for American workers in an unsteady economy, and the sheer grandeur of American capitalism doing what it does best... as I do. Anti-Americans would include: anyone who would deny Alaskans the right to their land as they see fit just because they might want their grandkids to visit that particular 0.002% of the desolation for two days 100 years from now; anyone who would rather have Saddam pumping oil without EPA regulation than Amoco with EPA regulation; anyone who would rather have the American economy (even slightly more) dependent upon those nations who harbor terrorists; anyone who would use political partisanship and unsupported assertions to avoid discussing national issues based on facts.

In short, anyone like you.

Thanks for writing. I hope you learned something. Have a nice day.

[Republican Wildcat]

How much are you being paid to copy and paste those talking points?

"Morally wrong." Good grief. I guess you think that shipping the oil all the way across the ocean on barges poses less risk to the environment?

[nicmarlo]

Alternate uses for this "pristine" site are:

2. A good place to exile the Clintons

Now, I love that idea.

[F16Fighter]

Thanks for the pics and map of the portion of Alaska which is under consideration for drilling. An otherwise immense desert of icy isolation which COULD free us from the petro-bondage of the Arabs, Saudis, Iraqis, etal...

It can be guaranteed 90% of our lawmakers have not seen these pics and maps. It is merely enough for them just to sit around a circle, toking on a giant bong, and nodding in agreement with Peta, the Sierra Club and other "Earth First"-ers whom we just know are recycling their own urine, solid waste, and miscellaneous regurgitations.

[Stand Watch Listen]

It can be guaranteed 90% of our lawmakers have not seen these pics and maps.

Or perhaps the 'lawmakers' are reasonably assured that 'WE, the people' have not seen these maps and pictures. Possibly the lawmakers/evironmentalists feel they can control the agenda, because they can control the information. Thanls to the internet and specifically this forum, this control of the truth is being wrentched from their hands.