ANWR: Setting the record straight

I know your new to the forum, so allow me to make a suggestion - When you login, there is a bos upper right hand hand corner with a drop box. Go to profiles, and fill one in for yourself. That way you can check out, and be checked out prior to responding to or responding to an post.

I suggest this because I went to check yours out, and nothing there yet...I'm sure it'll be good when you get around to it. If you go to mine, you'll discover I have actual time involved at close order with the subject of North Slope Oil and Development. I will take a peak at the book you suggest, but serious doubt this guy is going to influence my mind set in regard to reality of the issue.

I understand many consider the coastal plain of ANWR to be "godforsaken tundra." Those who have this opinion give this area little value. On the other hand, Manhattan has little value to me. Yet I don't make the claim Manhattan has no value, because I realize others value it. In the same manner, many value ANWR as it is, so it does have value, whether you personnally agree or not. ANWR is a rare ecosystem that is still mostly intact, where most of nature still is able to interact as they have done millenia. Just as a precious gem is valued because of its rarity, so is ANWR.

As for humans being part of the ecosystem, they currently are in ANWR. Yet they are in small enough numbers, living sustainably with nature, that they do no harm. Oil development is an activity that runs the risk of greatly interferring with nature, especially in the extremely fragile tundra. The risk in this case is much greater than the potential reward, thus should be avoided, especially since alternatives do exist.

It's good you saw and walked on the land in the Brooks Range. I have been there, too. In the summer, and in the dark winter at 85 below zero. The howl of the wolves carries miles and miles when it's cold. I have been to Prudhoe Bay as well. Dug gravel out of the Sagavanirktok River at 40 below at midnight. Could be another planet, but it isn't, it's still earth. The oil and gas is on earth, too, and it must be developed where it happens to be rather than where it isn't. It's some kind of rule of geology.

I understand many consider the coastal plain of ANWR to be "godforsaken tundra." Those who have this opinion give this area little value.

This is a tautologically true statement, yes. You are saying that "Those who don't value ANWR don't value ANWR." I agree.

The thing is, you do "value" ANWR (in the sense that you find it necessary to keep humans OFF of it). I am sincerely asking you why. Seems to me this is a fair question; if you "value" ANWR in this sense, you ought to be able to explain why.

On the other hand, Manhattan has little value to me. Yet I don't make the claim Manhattan has no value, because I realize others value it.

Let's be more specific. We are not talking about whether you, or I, generically "value" a place. We are talking about whether you, or I, should have the power/authority/right to keep humans off of a certain place.

The reason you can't/don't try to keep humans off of Manhattan is not Because You Don't Value It (however true this may be). It's because you don't own it; that land is not yours to begin with, so your opinion of whether you "value" Manhattan is really irrelevant, frankly.

But in the case of ANWR, I'll admit that your (and my) opinion is relevant, because after all it is federally-protected land. Now some may and will quibble that it "shouldn't" be federally protected land in the first place, that Alaskans should have the right to decide for themselves. Personally I am sympathetic to that view, but it's beside the point; the fact that we can agree upon is that for all practical purposes the use of ANWR is something that "we" (the American public) will decide.

Which brings us back to square one. You have correctly identified in me a certain lack of "value" for ANWR, in the sense that I don't find it necessary to keep humans OFF of it. (In a different sense altogether, of course, I do "value" ANWR - it's got oil underneath it!) And here you are, you "value" it so much that you want humans to stay OFF of it. I am sincerely asking you why, and why I should be converted to your view of "value" in this sense.

To say that I should merely "respect" the view of those who do "value" ANWR so much, and not ask questions about it, is to somehow stifle an honest intellectual curiosity about the subject. Isn't it a fair question?

ANWR is a rare ecosystem that is still mostly intact,

Begging the question. How can an ecosystem "not be intact"? Every place on the planet has an "ecosystem", whatever it is. And whatever that "ecosystem" is, it is, by definition, "intact". There is no objective or scientific means by which one could look at an ecosystem (which every place possesses, by definition) and blithely declare, "this ecosystem is not intact".

where most of nature still is able to interact as they have done millenia.

Ok this clarifies things (somewhat). By "intact", you mean something very specific and non-obvious. You mean, An ecosystem which looks much the same as it has for millenia.

Thank you for the clarifying detail. Because now, you see, instead of being able to appeal to/rely on emotional words such as "pristine" and "intact ecosystem" (which are designed to win over the listener without any thought whatever), you are now in a position where you ought to really defend the statement, "It's good for humans to stay off land which looks much the same as it has for millenia" - because that it what you are actually saying.

So, I'll ask you: Why is it good, or necessary, or desirable for humans to stay off of land which looks much the same as it has for millenia?

Just as a precious gem is valued because of its rarity, so is ANWR.

"Rarity" is a dubious thing to claim about ANWR. Are there no other frozen tundras in the world?

As for humans being part of the ecosystem, they currently are in ANWR. Yet they are in small enough numbers, living sustainably with nature, that they do no harm.

More question-begging. Define "sustainably" and "harm". If humans are living there and not dying off, I would think they are living "sustainably". But by this definition, humans are living "sustainably" in Manhattan as well. This cannot be what you mean.

Similarly, it's not immediately obvious (without further clarification) how a human (part of the ecosystem) "harms" that ecosystem. If a human excretes onto the ground, does he "harm" that ground? Is a human who exhales carbon dioxide "harming" the air? So many questions. Can you clarify?

Oil development is an activity that runs the risk of greatly interferring with nature,

Again - if humans are part of nature, how can they "interfere with" it?

I guess you are defining "nature" so as to exclude humans. But why do that? We are back at square one again.

The risk in this case is much greater than the potential reward, thus should be avoided,

Well we can certainly agree that if the risk is greater than the reward, it should be avoided. The problem is that this question depends crucially on how you are defining, and measuring, "risk" and "reward".

I trust that you have done the necessary extensive statistical calculations to back up your assertion that risk > reward?

Or not? If not, then doesn't it just boil down to your pseudo-religious feeling for Land Which Has Not Changed Much In Millenia?

But why should I "respect" such a feeling, and be required to obey it? I am seeking rational reasons here.

Sorry I don't have the time you apparently have to break down and analyze every phrase of a post. But I will respond to a couple of comments.

Can you give me statistical proof of the value of your family to you? I'm sure you can't but I assume they are incredibly valuable to you. It is the same with wilderness/wildlife areas such as ANWR. Although it is impossible to put numbers on them that all would agree on, they do have value. I feel Lovins has proven the potential reward is small, and again, I must point out, alternatives to ANWR drilling do exist.

As I said before, ANWR is rare. Yes, there are other frozen tundras out there, but none with the relatively undisturbed flora and fauna numbers and diversity that exist in ANWR.

A sustainable human existance in a wilderness ecosystem, to me, is one in which the full complement of native flora and fauna can flourish. If human activity becomes too extensive or too damaging, the balance is lost and the ecosystem is no longer sustainable. Drilling in ANWR poses the risk of throwing this fragile ecosystem out of balance.

I live in an area that once was prairie. Today the prairie exists only in tiny pockets between the extensive cornfields, and the majority of the native flora and fauna are gone, the native ecosystem is gone, and no one will ever see this area the way nature designed it. I certainly an not naive enough to believe that the whole globe should be in its pristine state. But since there are so few areas like this left, I believe it is in the best interest of all that we keep and cherish them. Like it or not, we all depend on the health of the planet. If we push it over the edge, we will soon follow.

Can you give me statistical proof of the value of your family to you? I'm sure you can't but I assume they are incredibly valuable to you.

Aha, so to you, Keeping Humans Off Certain Pieces of Land falls into the same category as Defending The Basic Human Rights Of One's Family. Interesting.

Do pieces of land have "rights" as well, in your opinion? If not, from whence derives this equivalence you are postulating between human rights and Keeping People Off Land? I admit to being a little stumped.

Although it is impossible to put numbers on them that all would agree on, they do have value.

Of course this land has value. There's oil underneath it. Let's go get it. If we don't take advantage of this resource, we're not even tapping into this value in the first place.

Yes, there are other frozen tundras out there, but none with the relatively undisturbed flora and fauna numbers and diversity that exist in ANWR.

Let's assume you are correct. So the real value of ANWR is its "diversity" (=large number and variety) of flora and fauna.

Question: In what way is this valuable, these large numbers of species of flora and fauna? For eating? For looking at? For what?

How about this, we take two of every species and secure them in a nice zoo, or freeze them crogenically, to make sure we keep this "diversity". Then we go drill in ANWR. The most likely result is that this diversity of flora and fauna in ANWR will be unaffected, and may even benefit from, the drilling. But even if they don't, we'll have samples, "just in case". Fair compromise?

A sustainable human existance in a wilderness ecosystem, to me, is one in which the full complement of native flora and fauna can flourish.

Hmm. By this definition, no human existence has ever been or will ever be "sustainable". Just counting bacteria alone, human existence will affect - and kill off - certain species. Maybe the only solution is for all humans to die off?

If human activity becomes too extensive or too damaging, the balance is lost and the ecosystem is no longer sustainable.

What "balance"? The existence of some kind of "balance" is a myth. Critters are killing and eating each other left and right; predators and prey are battling; geography changes. There's no "balance". Time exists.

Drilling in ANWR poses the risk of throwing this fragile ecosystem out of balance.

See above. This is an empty concern, since no 'balance" exists in the first place.

I live in an area that once was prairie. Today the prairie exists only in tiny pockets between the extensive cornfields, and the majority of the native flora and fauna are gone, the native ecosystem is gone, and no one will ever see this area the way nature designed it.

Not true. See the way it is now? That's the way nature designed it. "Nature" added humans, including yourself, to the area where you live. Then time elapsed. Now it is the way it is. That's "nature".

I certainly an not naive enough to believe that the whole globe should be in its pristine state.

You haven't even defined "pristine" in the first place, so I'm not sure you even could rationally believe this.

But since there are so few areas like this left, I believe it is in the best interest of all that we keep and cherish them.

I know that you "believe" this. But Why?

Like it or not, we all depend on the health of the planet.

True. For one thing, human society consumes energy, some of which comes from oil. Let's go get it. No? Why not?

If we push it over the edge, we will soon follow.

What "edge"? Sorry but this is metaphysical nonsense, and I think you know it.

There's a really nice white oak tree in lawn of my state capitol. It would be a great resource for lumber or firewood. Does that mean I should go cut it down? The Mona Lisa has a few BTUs in the canvas. Should we burn that too? I feel sorry for you that you see no value in the beauty of wilderness, nature in it's grandest state.

By the way ....have you read the Lovin's report "A Fool's Gold"? Why don't you give it a try then come back and give me an economic justification for drilling in ANWR.

There's a really nice white oak tree in lawn of my state capitol. It would be a great resource for lumber or firewood. Does that mean I should go cut it down?

Presumably not, since I think you'd be cited for taking property not belonging to you.

If the tree was in your back yard, and you decided you needed its fuel, I'd have no objection of course.

The Mona Lisa has a few BTUs in the canvas. Should we burn that too?

So now this frozen tundra has value/worth comparable to a piece of art? But why? This is what I keep asking you. Can't you answer?

I feel sorry for you that you see no value in the beauty of wilderness, nature in it's grandest state.

Another non-answer. You're not telling me why you see "value" of keeping this land human-free, you're just "feeling sorry" for me that I don't. That's no answer.

By the way, nothing I have said here implies that I "see no value in the beauty of wilderness". I see plenty of value in the beauty of wilderness. I love the wilderness as much as the next guy. I just think that if there's oil underneath the ground, it's reasonable to go get it. There is value in oil, too. Can there be no middle ground here between appreciating the beauty of nature and understanding the practical benefit of getting its resources where they exist? Why not both?

I'll ask you what I've asked so many other ANWR-worshippers: Does land look prettier when there is oil underneath it which you can't see?

By the way ....have you read the Lovin's report "A Fool's Gold"?

No.

Gold"? Why don't you give it a try then come back and give me an economic justification for drilling in ANWR.

Maybe I will sometime, after you answer the questions in my posts above, of course.

I suggest you read "A Fool's Gold" and you justify your position. The philisophical issues we've been discussing are impossible to quantify and will not lead to any agreeable conclusion. On the other hand, Lovin's article discusses hard evidence on easily quantified issues.

Heading out...last post today.

I suggest you read "A Fool's Gold" and you justify your position.

You're the one who wants to Keep People Off A Certain Piece Of Land. I suggest that the burden of proof is on you to justify your position.

I don't even really have a "position" per se, apart from the general statement that there's no rational reason not to let anyone get oil out from under the ground. From the way you describe the book, I take you to be saying that economically, going to drill in that region will not pay off. Well then, if that's the case, then no one will drill there, and the point is moot, so there is nothing to discuss. Alternatively, if ANWR is opened up and people do drill there, then I guess your economic argument holds no water.

In any event, I still maintain that the burden of proof is still on a person who is arguing that certain human activity should be forbidden.

Actually, the justification should be up to you. ANWR was designated as a wildlife refuge and the 1002 area is to remain a refuge unless drilling can be justified. We've discussed risk vs. reward and I referred you to Lovin's article because he discusses this clearly. It is based on facts and logic and removes the vague arguments of philosophy. It's only a short report and if you are truly concerned about reaching a logical conclusion on this issue you should take a few minutes to read it. A Fool's Gold

Oil and other energy solutions can be found in numerous areas other than ANWR. But the ecosystem that exists there is rare, so the best use of the land is the wildlife refuge that it is. The short term, relatively small, insecure reward of oil is not worth the risk.

Actually, the justification should be up to you.

Saying this doesn't make it so. You want to keep people off a certain piece of land. This is an unusual request which should be backed up with reasons.

ANWR was designated as a wildlife refuge

Oh, I see, it's the status quo so it must be correct, and any proposed alteration must be justified.

On a similar note, slavery was "designated" as legal before the 1860s; I guess it was up to the abolitionists, really, to "justify" their position....

We've discussed risk vs. reward

Uh well not really; you've used the words and made some assertions but you haven't actually discussed them. There's a very good reason for this; the "risk", to you, is something intangible and metaphysical - to allow anyone to drill underneath this land would violate your quasi-religious feelings for the land - that's the "risk". It's very hard for me to stack up your Feelings on the subject against an economic and political analysis of the potential payoff.

It is based on facts and logic and removes the vague arguments of philosophy.

That is definitely a good thing. For one thing I certainly hope he avoids the loaded, subjective philosophical terms "pristine", "intact ecosystem", "nature in its grandest state", "harming nature", "diversity", "sustainable", etc. If it is as based on facts and logic as you say then I am sure it cannot be based on such subjective, mystical considerations, so I will definitely read it (unfortunately I'm not in a place where I can easily read PDF files at the moment; I'll get back to you).

Oil and other energy solutions can be found in numerous areas other than ANWR.

Well, good. I'm glad for it. But it also exists (UNDERNEATH THE GROUND - INVISIBLE, YOU UNDERSTAND?) in ANWR. Why not go get it?

Do I have to ask again? Okay: Does land look prettier to you when there is oil underneath it which you cannot see?

But the ecosystem that exists there is rare

"Rare"? How can an "ecosystem" be "rare"?

In one sense, I guess, all ecosystems are "rare". The ecosystem of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area is "rare" because, of course, no other ecosystem in the world is exactly like the ecosystem of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. But that cannot be what you mean....

I guess I still don't understand. Again you seem to be saying that no other frozen tundras exist in the world. This is silliness.

so the best use of the land is the wildlife refuge that it is.

See, this is another time where you're making a very strong statement, so it would be nice if you'd actually define your terms so I could evaluate it!

You make a claim that doing such-and-such (in this case, doing nothing, evidently) is "the best use" of the land. The use of "best" implies, necessarily, that you have in mind some way of evaluating Uses Of Land - Use A is "better" than Use B, and so on. Clearly you have a way of measuring this, at least in your mind, perhaps intuitively.

Can you describe it to me? Please? Apparently you have the ability to look at a swath of land and declare, "to use the land in this way is better than to use it in that way". I lack this ability, and wish to understand how you are able to make such statements, apparently without gathering any data or doing any calculations whatsoever. I can only assume that it is based on some list of (for lack of a better term) "values" which you have; you "value" certain uses of land more than others. Can you tell me, in objective terms, what these values are, and how I may assess them independently? For my education, of course.

The short term, relatively small, insecure reward of oil is not worth the risk.

It isn't? I eagerly await the calculations and graphical plots which led you to this conclusion.

Setting the record straight

TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR

1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates in 1995 on bonus bids alone were $2.6 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1980 and 1994, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 25% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 1.4 million barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil too Costly The U.S. imports over 55% of the nation's needed petroleum. These oil imports cost more than $55.1 billion a year (this figure does not include the military costs of protecting that imported supply). These figures are rising and could exceed 65% by the year 2005.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) at Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3,000 to as high as 23,400 during the last 20 years of operation. In 1995, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd size was estimated to be 18,100 animals.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

Worried About Fuel Prices?
ANWR Equals 30 Years of Saudi Oil Arctic Power
April 01, 2001

ANWR = 30 years of Secure Oil & Gas Supplies

Rising Prices: America’s homes and businesses have experienced dramatic spikes in their electric bills and the prices they pay for gasoline, heating oil and diesel fuel. Public service agencies have cut vital services to pay skyrocketing energy bills. Prices for everything from airline tickets to consumable goods are being recalculated to capture these increased costs. Policy analysts say relief will not come soon enough.

Shrinking Supply: Consumers have good reason to be worried about the future. They worry about our growing dependence on foreign oil imports—now nearing 60% of total supply. They fear the loss of mobility, of not being able to go where they want, when they want. They fear a repeat of the 1970s gas lines and price volatility, and the likelihood of brownouts and blackouts at home. Will there be another war with foreign suppliers? Americans now realize the growing costs of energy can gravely affect their livelihoods, their sense of security, their savings and investments. They demand to know why this situation exists, what can be done about it, and who will do it.

Solutions Sought: There are, unfortunately, no quick fixes. The fundamental problem is that national energy policy, largely fashioned by groups opposed to fossil fuel use, has seriously jeopardized industry’s ability to meet energy needs in a timely fashion. This failed, shortsighted policy has ignored abundant U.S. energy resources while encouraging foreign countries to produce more oil for the United States. Last year alone the U.S. bought more than $120 billion worth of imported oil while exporting thousands upon thousands of American jobs. This has resulted in huge spinoff costs to consumers and our economy.

The time to balance energy, economic and environmental concerns is long past due. It is up to the nation’s policymakers, from local and state elected officials to Congress and the President, to resolve this growing crisis. It is their responsibility to find solutions, in concert with energy conservation, and we must hold them to it. While we will always rely on substantial levels of imports, increased domestic production will provide needed leverage to negotiate from strength with foreign producers.

Alaska’s Role: Policy leaders now realize our government must reconsider rules that prevent industry’s exploring for oil and gas in America’s most promising locations. Obviously, Alaska’s Arctic is one such place. Both government and industry experts recognize the non-park area of ANWR, its coastal plain, as the single most promising unexplored region for major oil and gas discoveries.

Developing this tiny sliver of land, which would impact but two thousand acres (the size of a regional airport) of the 20-million acre refuge, could yield up to 16 billion barrels of oil. This would equate to 30 years of Middle East imports, and possibly more.

(The North Slope, originally thought to contain nine billion barrels of oil, has to date produced 13 billion barrels.) With new technology, production could occur sooner than expected. While the last major Arctic oil field took just seven years to bring on line, companies project it can be done in five years—assuming no delaying lawsuits—as opposed to the ten years claimed by development opponents.

America’s Environmentalists: More than 75% of Alaskans support careful energy exploration in ANWR, including the Inupiat Eskimos who live in ANWR’s coastal plain and have been stewards of the land for centuries. They’ve seen the Prudhoe Bay caribou herds grow nine times larger in the 34 years since oil was discovered there, and the environment negligibly affected. They’ve seen oil produced under the world’s strictest environmental standards, and Alaskans would have it no other way. (Some Canadian and Alaskan Gwich’in Indians, who live outside the Refuge, opposed ANWR exploration only after Exxon and BP let their leases on Gwich’in tribal lands expire.)

Oil and Gas vs. Wind and Solar Energy: A nationally organized advocacy effort seeks to prohibit oil and gas exploration in key prospective areas. Proponents favor using renewable energy resources instead, particularly wind and solar systems, believing they are more environmentally benign and less polluting. While increased use of home solar systems would likely be well received by communities, their cost (about $20,000 for a 2,000 sq. ft. home) is out of reach for typical homeowners. At the community level, it would be difficult to overstate the complexities of siting, permitting, legal challenges and construction problems associated with large commercial wind or solar installations.

Paul K. Driessen of Fairfax, Virginia calculates that producing 50 megawatts of electricity from photovoltaics would mean covering 1,000 acres with solar panels. To produce the same amount of electricity with wind towers (100-200 feet high) would require some 4,000 acres. By comparison, less than half an acre would be required to produce 50 megawatts of electricity from oil, or 2 to 5 acres for natural gas.

The noise, access roads, visual blight and wildlife impacts from wind turbines would be unacceptable to nearby residents. To transmit electricity to urban areas, wind and solar farms would have to be linked to miles of high-tension power lines; and fossil-fuel generators would still be required to supplement intermittent power generation.

Access: With projected energy shortfalls, access to public lands is critical for fossil fuel exploration, production and pipelines, as well as for staging areas for wind, solar and other non-fuel resources. Americans are now recognizing the need for choices among a combination of all energy resources that, along with energy conservation, will assure progress and prosperity over coming decades.

HOW MUCH OIL & GAS IS IN ANWR'S COASTAL PLAIN?

High potential. The high potential for significant discoveries of oil and gas in ANWR has long been recognized. Early explorers of the region at the turn of the century, found oil seeps and oil-stained sands. However, since ANWR was established in 1960, exploration in the region has been restricted to surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys (in 1983-84 and 1984-85). No exploratory drilling has been accomplished in the area except for one well commenced in the winter of 1984-85 on Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation lands southeast of Kaktovik on the Coastal Plain. Location to big finds. Although little oil and gas exploration has taken place in ANWR, the Coastal Plain is believed to have economically recoverable oil resources. The Coastal Plain lies between two known major discovery areas. About 65 miles to the west of the Coastal Plain, the Prudhoe Bay, Lisburne, Endicott, Milne Point, and Kuparuk oil fields are currently in production. Approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil a day are produced from these fields, representing 25% of our domestic production. To the east of the Coastal Plain, major discoveries have been made in Canada, near the Mackenzie River Delta and in the Beaufort Sea.

U.S. Geological Survey - 1980. In 1980, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Coastal Plain could contain up to 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

U.S. Department of Interior - 1987. After several years of surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys (in 1983-84 and 1984-85), the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), in its April, 1987 report on the oil and gas potential of the Coastal Plain, estimated that there are billions of barrels of oil to be discovered in the area. DOI estimates that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more).

Only drilling will tell. The geologic indicators are very favorable for the presence of significant oil and gas resources in ANWR, but the limited data means that there is a high level of uncertainty about how much oil and gas may be present. Consequently, current estimates represent the best scientific guesses. However, most geologists agree that the potential is on the order of billions of barrels of recoverable oil and trillions of cubic feet of recoverable gas and that these resources may rival the initial reserves at Prudhoe Bay. The validity of these estimates can only be proved by drilling exploratory wells. Authorization for exploration can only be given by Congress and the President.

In 1996 the North Slope oil fields produced about 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, or approximately 25 percent of the U.S. domestic production. However, Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for over half of North Slope production, began its decline in 1988, and no new fields have yet been discovered with the potential to compensate for that decline.

I don't know and don't care where you get your 2% figure. It is a blatant lie.

Obviously you have never been to the north coast of Alaska, and never worked on an ice road construction project. I've done both reapeatedly. I've flown over the coastal plain area in the summer, and the amount of small lakes and ponds are numerous and perfectly suited for an ice road construction project.

With the gross amount of false information you have about ANWR, you might want to take a close look at the source of that information and question other "truths" you have gleaned there.

The truth about ANWR

You might want to double check the "facts" from your source. Do you really think that your industry-sponsored website is telling the whole "truth"? You're more than welcome to check a few of my sources and check their facts.

Truth About ANWR

Fool's Gold

Your site claims public support. This link says otherwise. Gallup Poll

Also check out the USGS assessment. I don't have the link handy.

The caribou issue is comparing apples to oranges. The ANWR herd is much larger, calving in an area 1/6 the size of the coastal plain in the Prudhoe Bay area. This means they have fewer options and are more likely to be negatively affected by drilling.

2,000 acres. Right, and my car occupied 4 square feet of ground and my desk occupied 4 square inches of office space.

735,000 jobs. Numbers were arrived at by an industry-sponsored study, done over a decade ago, using completely unrealistic estimates, such as $40some/barrel oil. Leading economists agree that the jobs generated would more likely be in the area of 50-75,000.

Again, this brings us back to my original post. Supporters are using inaccurate numbers to mislead politicians and the public. If you don't agree, do the research and prove me wrong.

[Fool's Gold PDF article]

I was able to read it, at least the main body (I was not able to follow the annoying blue non-functional hyperlinks within a PDF file....) So if I can summarize the main point of the article, it is not economically viable to drill for oil in ANWR. The costs are too high, the price of oil will not rise enough to make it worthwhile, etc.

I have seen this argument before, and I admit to being perplexed by it. So your real concern here, you (and the authors of the article) are telling me, is that you are afraid the oil companies won't make enough profits? In fact, you are afraid they will lose money?

But then they won't drill there in the first place. In fact as the article even says, major oil executives aren't all that excited about ANWR in the first place (putting the lie to the theory that Bush is just doing this as a sop to Big Oil...).

I have to say that I doubt your heart bleeds for the profit margins of oil companies. (Hell, not even mine does :). To stand there and argue, "ANWR shouldn't be opened to drilling because drilling there would not be profitable enough to make it worth anyone's while" just doesn't pass the giggle test.

Let's run through the scenario more slowly this time. Suppose we open ANWR. Suppose you, and the authors of the article are correct, and it's Just Not Profitable Enough for anyone to drill there.

Well then no one will drill there.

So what's the problem?

On the other hand, if someone does want to drill there, then I guess you - and the authors of the article - are wrong. Right? The proof is in the pudding. Let's find out if it's "economically viable". If you guys are right then we'll open up ANWR, and no one will come, and it will remain "pristine", so you should all be happy! So, what do you have to lose?

Unless, of course, you don't actually believe what you are saying about it being not economically viable in the first place.

What is being suggested is that if the market decides then the oil companies won't drill. What is feared is that tax dollars will be spent to give the oil industry the financial incentive to drill, overriding the market. By all means, let the market decide. If the projections I refer to are wrong AND the oil industry can guarantee limiting environmental impact to 2,000 acres, go for it.

Many cheaper solutions exist, but are widely ignored. For example, if all replacement tires on vehicles were as efficient (low rolling resistance) as new it would save more oil than economically available in ANWR.

ANWAR

Taken from the February issue of Oil & Gas Investor, page 11:

EIA estimates total US production at 5.78 million barrels of oil per day (BOD).
Shell Oil's Brutus offshore platform (Gulf) is expected to peak at 100,000 BOD this year. Production from the Mars, Troika, Ursa, Dianna-Hoover and Brutus offshore Gulf fields could account for 9.7% of total lower 48 oil production by fourth quarter 2003.
Alaska will produce 17.2% of total US production (including Gulf production) in 2003 with the addition of the Colville River, Aurora, Polaris and Borealis satellite fields located on the North Slope.
LET ME BE CLEAR: with TOTAL US production at 5.78 million BOD, the addition of modest ANWR estimates of 1 million BOD, is equal to 17.3% of TOTAL US PRODUCTION

ANWR Fact Sheets http://www.anwr.org/

ANWR Oil Estimates
Myths of ANWR
Arctic Shoreline
ANWR Wilderness
Arctic Oil Technology
Native Alaskans and Development
Jobs,Jobs, Jobs
Caribou in ANWR
Which is the Real ANWR?
National Security
Oil Exports

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)

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. That is a LOT of oil!
and it doesn’t 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:

An exploration rig on the tundra and the absence of any wildlife in this region

Beautiful Spring day in this coastal plain

Coastal Plain
spring summer winter

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 devastating impact on wildlife that would occur when the pipeline in Prudhoe bay, the caribou herd there have actually grown to record numbers.

SITE MAP (background / technology)
http://www.anwr.org/sitemap.htm
FROM http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm

TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR

1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected.
2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates in 1995 on bonus bids alone were $2.6 billion.
3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.
4. Economic Impact Between 1980 and 1994, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.
5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 25% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 1.4 million barrels a day.
7. Imported Oil too Costly The U.S. imports over 55% of the nation's needed petroleum. These oil imports cost more than $55.1 billion a year (this figure does not include the military costs of protecting that imported supply). These figures are rising and could exceed 65% by the year 2005.
8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) at Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3,000 to as high as 23,400 during the last 20 years of operation. In 1995, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd size was estimated to be 18,100 animals.
9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.
10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

RELATED ARTICLES
Bush Renews Campaign For Arctic Oil
Source: AP; Puublished: February 25, 2002;
Author: AP
Fresh from Asia ~ Bush bonks Daschle head with ANWR club
Source: Reuters / Whitehouse.gov; Published: February 23, 2002
Inupiat Views Ignored in ANWR Debate
Source: ANWR; Anchorage Times Editorial;
Author: Tara MacLean Sweeney
INUPIAT LEADER ASKS SENATORS TO . . .Visit ANWR
Source: Anchorage Daily News; Published: February 17, 2002
Voice of the Times
ANWR Showdown -- Liberal Caught Playing Loose With The Facts [My Title]
Source: The Fargo Forum and the Grand Forks Herald; Published: February 14, 2002;
Author: Chris Beachy; John Bluemle
Kerry and Lieberman ignore invitation from native villagers in ANWR
Source: USNewswire; Published February 13, 2002;
Author:| Village of Kaktovik Alaska
ANWR Survey
Source: City of Kaktovik, Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Web Page;
author: City of Kaktovik
Listening to Alaska
Source: National Driller; Published: September 27, 2001
ANWR and Oil
Source: Town Hall.com; Published April 11, 2001
Bush Is Right: Opening ANWR To Oil Exploration Would Help Consumers Without Hurting Environment
Source: The National Center for Public Policy Research; Published: January 23, 2001
Author: John Carlisle
Time To Permit Oil Drilling In the Arctic Refuge
Source: Heritage Foundation; Published: October 17, 1995
Author: John Shanahan
It has been mentioned that the caribou herd had over tripled near the pipeline!
Seems other species have flourished as well

Good Addition

What an excellent response to a response that I thought made a little sense. I still think the 700K workers is balogna. I also read that the government would give 35 billion dollars in subsidies and tax breaks to those developing ANWR. This doesn't bother me becaue I'm a windpower fan and I like the 1.7 cents per khwr that USED to be given to windpower producers.

By all means, let the market decide.

Ok then we have no real disagreement.

Many cheaper solutions exist, but are widely ignored. For example, if all replacement tires on vehicles were as efficient (low rolling resistance) as new it would save more oil than economically available in ANWR.

I would be perfectly happy to buy more efficient tires if the price is right.

I'm not sure what this has to do with government policy.