ANWR: Setting the record straight

The United States Senate is debating one of the most important issues of the year, passage of a national energy policy, which will affect all Americans.

Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., has introduced his own energy bill (S. 1766), after the House passed HR 4 in August 2001. It is not uncommon for the Majority Leader of the Senate to introduce something different than what passed the House, but it is uncommon for him to bypass the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Instead of letting the committee process work, he is bringing it straight to the Senate floor for full debate. Why is that?

I think it has something to do with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A majority of senators currently support ANWR, but due to a procedural move, it could take 60 votes to open the Coastal Plain of ANWR.

I was born and raised on a ranch in South Dakota and have lived in Alaska for almost five years, including one on the North Slope. I have grown increasingly frustrated at misinformation that is shared about ANWR. Let's set the record straight on what is most commonly heard in the Lower 48:

Why ruin a pristine refuge? ANWR contains over 19.6 million acres. The coastal plain of ANWR, 1.5 million acres of the 19.6 million, was set aside for evaluation of its oil exploration/potential. HR 4, which passed the House, limited development to 2,000 acres of the 1.5 million in the coastal plain. My dad's small ranch in South Dakota was 2,700 acres, more than to be developed in ANWR.

ANWR only contains six months supply of the nation's energy needs. A 1998 U.S. Geological Survey study indicated ANWR contains at least 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. People who use the six-month argument assume: 1) ANWR would be the only source of energy for daily U.S. consumption, and 2) all 10.4 billion barrels could be extracted at once. This is not possible.

The existing trans-Alaska oil pipeline would be used to transport oil from ANWR, and has a maximum capacity of 2 million barrels per day. Today, just under a million barrels of oil are transported from current oil fields. It is only feasible to ship 1 million barrels a day from ANWR. Ten billion barrels, divided by 1 million, means the resource could produce oil for over 25 years--not six months!

It would take a decade to get oil out of ANWR. Depending on where oil is discovered on the coastal plain of ANWR, it would only take 35-40 miles of pipeline to reach the Prudhoe Bay infrastructure. Because we build ice roads and pads in the winter to protect the environment, oil could be developed in two to three years on private lands.

Now that the record is straight on some of the myths, let's talk about the benefits of ANWR development for all Americans. Will ANWR eliminate the need for foreign sources of oil? No, but it is the best option available in the United States to start decreasing the current usage of foreign oil, which consists of 57 percent of America's needs. That means today 60 percent of every gallon of fuel you feed into your pickups, cars, and tractors, is produced outside the United States. Could you imagine 6/10 of each gallon of milk you drink coming from foreign cows?

Want an economic stimulus package? ANWR is the package. ANWR would not cost the federal government one cent to develop, and since ANWR is on federal and state land, the federal government would receive up to $1 billion in lease revenue alone! Plus, in 1991, the Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates predicted ANWR could produce over 700,000 private sector jobs. Had President Clinton signed the bill to drill in ANWR in 1995, instead of vetoing it, the federal government might not have a deficit today and more people would be at work.

I urge you to contact your friends and family in the Lower 48 and ask them to do three things: 1) Contact their senators and tell them developing a small portion of ANWR is the right thing to do. 2) Urge Sen. Daschle to take the politics out a national energy policy, and 3) Go to www.anwr.org for more facts about this national issue.

Kara Gittings Moriarty is president of the Greater Fairbanks Area Chamber of Commerce.

How is the rest of the U.S. sacrificing because we designate 2,000 acres of ANWR of 19,000,000for oil production?

Because in the interest of all Americans, owners of this federal land, it has been determined that the wilderness of ANWR is more important than the oil that could be found there. Polls have indicated the public supports this stance. Drilling in ANWR would be going against their wishes and against the judgment of the wildlife experts who know the science of ANWR better than anyone.

It's nice that you have chosen to insulate your house. Have you also chosen to power it with solar or wind power? If not what are your excuses? You could be a real example of non dependence on the power of big oil, what's holding you back?

As a matter of fact I have, indirectly. I live in the city so an individual wind system is not possible, and my roof is still in good shape (when replacement is necessary, PV shingles are going on). The way I’ve chosen wind power is by contributing monthly to my utility special fund that goes to their green energy program. Two city utility-owned wind turbines are in place and more turbines and other green options are being considered. Once again your assumptions are wrong.

The trouble with this argument (improving fuel efficiency by 1mpg would save more oil than ANWR could produce) is that not everyone wants to drive a Yugo.

Oh come on. Do you really have that little confidence in the intelligence of Detroit? There are many AVAILABLE and AFFORDABLE technologies that could improve fuel efficiency with no sacrifice to comfort, performance, or safety, and by much more than 1mpg. To equate a 1mpg improvement with everyone driving Yugos is simply ridiculous...and wrong.

Where are these magical tires? I will continue to submit my mantra of supply and demand.

Many consumers, when buying replacement tires after the original ones have worn out, buy tires of lower quality that are less efficient. There are no magic tires. It’s just the difference in quality of tires already on the market. And this is a perfect example of where your “free market” mantra doesn’t work. The public buy the cheaper tires because they don’t realize that for a short term gain they are paying more in the long run. If they had all the information (and use their brain) they would buy the better, more efficient tires. And let’s say the fuel savings and cost of the better tires balance out. Your beloved free market gives no incentive to buy the better tires, so instead consumers buy the cheaper tires and waste fuel for the life of the tires.

The tire example is just one of many examples where the “free market” provides no incentive to be efficient, and another example of why it should not be the only factor in determining energy use. Why aren’t efficiencies and renewables supplying more? Because they don’t have the advantage fossil fuels and nuclear have, a heavily subsidized system that has been built to accommodate fossils and nuclear. And the “free market” alone won’t (for now) encourage much use of efficiencies and renewables. But given a few incentives (see Germany: 44% increase in wind power production in one year) use can grow rapidly. Why do I put quotes around free market? Because we don’t have one. Fossil fuels and nuclear are heavily subsidized, their environmental costs aren’t factored in, and the public doesn’t have easy access to all the information. Since all these factors favor fossil fuels and nuclear it is remarkable that efficiencies and renewables have made the progress they have.

I read your Lomborg article but choose not to comment on it because it would open many other cans of worms. This thread would never end.

The fact of the matter is that we need to be developing our own natural resources rather than subsidize terrorism.

Are you doing all you reasonably can to reduce your energy usage? If not then I guess you are subsidizing terrorism. I have never said I favor obtaining our oil from the Mideast; in fact, I’ve repeatedly pointed to other options. And the energy efforts I propose supporting, efficiencies, wind, solar, biomass, cogeneration, tide/wave energy, etc., are all natural resources too. Why is it that oil is put on a podium of natural resources, while these others are ignored. I know, they have bugs to work out and need to lower their cost, but they are young industries and have made dramatic strides in recent years. If given the same amount of time and generous government subsidies that fossil fuels and nuclear have been given, efficiencies and renewables would be much more advanced and supplying a good deal of our energy.

Given any thought to that hypothetical 27 acre plot I mentioned?

Have you given much thought to my discussions of the 2,000 acres being misleading and inaccurate? Or to my discussions of how fragile the ecosystem is and how oil exploration and production could damage it? This was backed up by an older study, then during this thread another report came out also backing my argument. It was the combined effort of the USGS, USFWS, Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Canadian Wildlife Service, among others, and it was reviewed by independent, non-affiliated scientists.

Have you given much thought to my discussions of the 2,000 acres being misleading and inaccurate?

Yes, I have. In fact I have seen a lot of the information before, as I haved lived in Alaska for 20 years, and worked in Prudhoe for 8 years. We go through this stuff all the time, and yet despite the exceptional track record of the Prudhoe field, the numbers never seem to change on the environmental side.

When they built Prudhoe there was no documentation as to what would happen, because it had never happened before. Now that they have decades of data behind them, the story remains the same from the environmental side. "Oh My God, it will ruin everything." Agreed, there have been two major problems resulting from the field. A rather large spill in Valdez, from which Prince William Sound still suffers. And yet another just north of my home where a bullet or two punched through the pipe and sprayed 285,000 gallons of crude oil across the tundra. It really is amazing just how far oil under pressure can shoot out of a hole less than a half inch in diameter. Terrible things both of them, yet unrelated to any drilling program. Both the direct result of alcohol, which causes far too many problems in the world in which we live in.

That said, in the beginning of this conversation I thought we had basically agreed that both sides of this agrument tend to provide misleading figures and examples. I believe the example was the expected jobs creation. So let me take it another step for you, lets say it takes ten times the amount of land (a total 0f 20,000 acres) to do the job up here in Alaska. Which is still a mere pittance of the 1.9 million acres in the reserve alone. Let's also inflate the figure for your state by the same amount, so now we are dealing with a total of 270 acres. Throw in whatever manning figures you want because I hadn't mentioned them. I think the figure for Alaska was 75,000; divide it by ten. So now we will create 7,500 jobs to develop the oil fields in both of our states.

Based on the questions I asked in the previous post, would you be for the development of the field? Remember, government paid for, no taxes, a check for everyone every year and all of the bragging rights about how you live in a state that pays you to live there. A yes or no will suffice, but please tell if you think the federal government should make the final decision and why.

I’m not sure if I understand your question, but I would not be for developing the oil fields in ANWR unless one or all of the following were met: 1)exploration and production would be limited to one small, contiguous area. As I mentioned earlier, scientists have shown exploration, even in winter, is a risk to the ecosystem, so it’s area of impact must also be limited and included in your 2,000 or 20,000 acre area you suggest 2)a strict guarantee must be made that no negative impact (as defined by non-industry biologists) will occur outside the contiguous area, and/or 3)all other options (efficiency measures, renewables) have been determined to be too expensive, environmentally harmful, or in some other way unworkable, and that they would create fewer jobs than drilling, and be less secure than ANWR oil.

Am I being too strict, posing unrealistic standards of area limitations, limited impact, and no other options? Please answer to yourself before you read on. Those are the same standards that supporters are promoting to sell their argument. “Impact will be limited to 2,000 acres” and “drilling is essential to provide jobs, security, and economic benefit to all of the U.S.” And that gets back to why I originally posted here: if drilling supporters must resort to misleading the public and politicians, their argument is pretty weak.

So would you be for developing a total of 270 acres in Nebraska that would pay for the cost of your governmnet, create a permanet fund for the future, and send you a substanial check every year? There was a follow up question in regards to who should make the decision, the residents of Nebraska, or the Federal government.

If the development was strictly limited to a contiguous 270 acres, with no negative impact on the surrounding extremely rare and valuable wilderness, I might be for it. But I would be concerned about how the govenment and people would respond when this financial windfall they've become dependent on is gone. And if the people who own it (the people of the United States) were against development, and scientific experts concluded a serious risk was involved, I would not be for it. And I believe the federal government, after input from these parties, should make the decision.

You may not believe I'm being truthful but I am. To some people the bottom line isn't always the deciding factor. And I'm not saying Alaskans should feel this way, but I'd probably feel a little guilty benefiting financially from resources taken off federal land, while the rest of the country only received trickle down benefits if anything.

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.