Posted on 03/17/2002 8:44:24 PM PST by Brad C.
ANWR: Setting the record straight
By KARA GITTINGS MORIARTY
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.
I have followed your discussion with your newbie friend here and have made a couple of observations.
You will never use reason, common sense, logic or facts to convince this person. To him/her, this issue is almost like a religion. No amount of facts will convince them otherwise. He/She "feel" that it is a bad thing, for them, this is all it takes. The fact that this is public land, allegedly for the PUBLIC GOOD is immaterial. He/She FEELS it will be bad, FEELS it will harm an "ecosystem" and that humans have no place in the world. Your cogent points that we ARE a part of the "ecosystem" means nothing to them. Humans are bad, just face the facts. Using the logic of this person, the "ecosystem" in my beautifully landscaped backyard will be ruined by the Telephone pole the Phone Company wants to install in it. Yes I know, the pole is needed for the general good of the neighborhood, it does provide a useful and needed addition for the progress of humans. No matter, I "FEEL" it would degrade the pristine "ecosystem" in my backyard. So as far as my neighbors are concerned, screw 'em.
The fact that in my example, this backyard were to be replaced with public land is immaterial to them
They feel it is wrong, and like my earlier example, thay also say to the neighbors (fellow Americans) screw 'em.
I shudder to think such twisted logic and amazingly parocial(sp) attitudes are actually listened to.
So many here make it sound like drilling in ANWR is the only answer, a critical must for our energy security. I used the simple tire example to show how inaccurate those claims are.
And I haven't heard anyone address the security of the TAP. I doubt I will either considering it is not only impossible to defend, but is also nearing the end of its projected lifespan. Doesn't it seem silly to put so much hope in oil that has a single, highly vulnerable delivery system?
I didn't "forget". It's just that the number "2000" isn't as magical to me as, apparently, it is to you. I'm flexible.
Looking at post #37, it is apparent that ANWR is a Big Place(tm). 2000 out of 19.6 million acres is sufficiently small to satisfy whatever mystical semi-sexually-sublimated yearnings for "pristine" land I may have. But even if your worst fears are realized, and (say) that number is too low by (say) a factor of 10, we'd be talking about 20,000 out of 19.6 million acres, which is a whopping 0.1% (a one-thousandth) of the total land area being sullied by us nasty humans, our roads, our equipment, our artifacts. And I hope it is kept in mind that this number (whatever it is) of acres is not all exactly going to be converted directly by us evil humans from dirt-and-rocks-and-trees into (say) a large pit of molten plastic; I mean when people talk about the "footprint" they are, I assume, including in this measurement horrible horrible things like (gasp) ROADS. OH NO! ROADS!!! How awful!!!!1
Anyway, so getting oil out from under less than one-one-thousandth of a gigantic otherwise-useless preserved tundra? I reckon I can live with that.... but then again I don't have religious convictions about the subject either way.
So many here make it sound like drilling in ANWR is the only answer, a critical must for our energy security.
I see. I personally don't recall saying any such thing, but if you prefer to attack others' statements I understand.
And I haven't heard anyone address the security of the TAP.
By all means, let's shore up security of TAP if necessary.
I'm heartened to see us finding so much common ground here....
Doesn't it seem silly to put so much hope in oil that has a single, highly vulnerable delivery system?
What "hope" are you referring to? All I've been saying is that if there's oil under that ground, let's go get it. I never said we should put all our eggs in this basket (even if we could, which obviously we can't). Best,
Actually, we both do, we just have fundamental differences in the role of public land. I recently moved out of a small logging town in the Sierra Nevada, along the American River. The attitude of persons such as you, have ruined the economy of a small town, destroyed a way of life that had existed for 100 years. Public land serves several purposes, some of which are scenic beauty, mineral extraction (mining), timber production and *GASP* ! OIL DRILLING !
As a resident of a rural environment, I wanted to embrace the environmentalists message. After all, it proported to want to protect and enhance my back yard, literally. What I encountered was a take no prisoners attitude tword any man-made incursion onto publc lands. ANY attempt at development is met with fierce resistance, using all the resources of the legal and in some cases criminal means.
As a result of these attitudes and tactics, as well as the over the top message, shrill and completely devoid of facts and common sense, I left the environmentalist concept for good.
Drilling in ANWR doesn't equate to helping all Americans, only a few.All I'm saying is that we have options. We can fulfill our energy needs without even risking damage to ANWR.
This is the crux of the matter I suppose. You see some small piece of development and are agast, shocked that greedy corporations would want to rape a scenic ecosystem. I on the otherhand, look at it and see the potential good it will do for our country, on many fronts. If that entails a small amount of risk on a tiny spot of a huge wilderness, I shrug my shoulders and agree. Why wouldent I? The small amount of risk, balanced aginst the amount of good it will do for our economy, energy independence and balance of trade make it a no brainer. Sorry, but I am past even listening to most of what the environmentalists say. I am happy to see that most people I talk to in everyday life feel much the same way.
If you are so concerned about your neighbors and our oil imports that must mean you drive a fuel-efficent vehicle, ride the bus, and bike or walk when you can. If you don't then you should save some of the criticism aimed at me for yourself
Huh? Unless YOU live some sort of Ted Kazinzski lifestyle (another great believer in protecting the environment I might add) you have no room to talk also. As a matter of fact, in order to reduce my gasoline bill, I did move to within 2 miles of my office, can you say the same? And excuse me, unless you happen to have some sort of electric vehicle, you burn gas as well. Trust me when I tell you it dosent come from the Gasoline Fairy. It comes from oil wells. The question is, where will those wells be located? And thank you no, I do not want to buy some all plastic high mileage wundercar that will give me all the crash protection of a strawberry basket. I see nothing wrong with cars the way they are. Mine are just fine.
Just a quick question on this issue. Do you know of any species that actually waits for the perfect environment to give live birth? When the time comes, there is no stopping it. Be it in a taxi cab or on the tundra, in a hospital or next to a drill pad.
Other questions, isn't the land due east of ANWR just as pristine? How about the land due west? At what point does the land stop being pristine, is there a boundry line that should never be crossed?
It's too bad my presentation of another perspective and relative, accurate numbers caused all of your closed minds such pain. (I'm guessing few actually followed my links and read with an open mind.) You can all keep believing the oil industry propaganda and keep living in your limited view of reality. Actually I believe there may be some readers who I've had an impact on. But since attacks are the norm rather than tactful debate those readers are probably reluctant to voice their opinion. Too bad.
As for me, my free time window is closing so I won't be around here much, if at all. Celebrate if you wish.
You are probably one of those folks that judged our current POTUS to be "in the pocket of big oil". IMO the Enron scandal disproved that theory (how many times were they turned down when asking for a bail out?).
As a parting gesture perhaps you would like to hear what the president and CEO of the local native organization has to say about oil developement on the north coast of Alaska. It might not mean much to you but these people have lived here for centuries.
The Office of the President
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation,
Barrow, Alaska
June, 1995
Jacob Adams, Chairman and President
The Inupiat Eskimos of Alaska's North Slope have lived for thousands of years in the unforgiving world of the Arctic. The Inupiat people enjoy a self-sustaining, highly developed culture. All members of our community survive through sharing and the wise use of our natural resources.
In accordance with the ways our Elders taught us, and as we teach our children in turn, the Inupiat harvest bowhead whales from the icy Arctic Ocean; hunt caribou from the broad coastal plain; catch fish in the streams; and gather berrries in the brief Arctic smmer. Our culture calls on us to be thankful for these gifts of the land, and to share them for the benefit of all.
The discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 1968 brought radical and irrevocable changes to the Eskimo way of life on the North Slope. The nation wanted and needed this new source of oil. But the Inupiat people had a valid legal claim to ownership of all North Slope lands through historic use, occupancy and aboriginal title.
In 1971, the U.S. Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). This landmark law cleared the way for development of Prudhoe Bay and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The act granted land and money to Alaska's Native people, and in return extinguished their aboriginal claims.
Under ANCSA, the Inupiat Eskimos were required to give up rights to all but 5 million of the 56 million acres of the North Slope. Their 5 million acres was to be selected from lands left over after state selections, the granting of oil and gas leases, and large federal withdrawals for Refuges, National Petroleum Reserves and other uses.
ANCSA also established 12 Native-owned corporations in Alaska, one for each Native region of the state. Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) was formed to represent the Inupiat of the North Slope. ASRC's mission was to enhance our economic and cultural freedoms, based upon the ancient spiritual values of protecting the land, the environment, and the culture of our people.
Through hard work, a willingness to learn, and the guidance of our Elders, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation has grown into an important Alaska business enterprise. Our successful operations permit ASRC to return benefits to shareholders in the form of steady jobs, vocational training, dividends, scholarships and other services.
ASRC is owned by over 7,000 shareholders, most of whom live in small villages along the North Slope. To our shareholders, the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is no abstract spot on a map, but our homeland. For the 240 residents of the village of Kaktovik, the Coastal Plain of ANWR is their own backyard. Kaktovik lies within the study area.
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the land to the Inupiat people. Our land provides the subsistence food many shareholders depend on to feed themselves and their families. Our land provides the critical connection with our ancient culture and traditions that is necessary for our spiritual well-being. And, in the form of jobs and tax revenues from the petroleum industry it supports, our land provides the opportunity for economic security, self-detemination, and freedom.
Over two decades of exploration, development and production, the oil industry operating in and around Prudhoe Bay has brought benefits to our nation and our people. The likelihood is very high that this success could be repeated in the Coastal Plain of ANWR.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANIILCA), directed the Interior Department to assess the Coastal Plain's petroleum potential and wildlife resources. It further ordered the Department to recommend whether or not to allow further exploration and development.
Partiy in anticipation of a favorabler recommendation, ASRC and the United States government in 1983 agreed to a lands exchange. ASRC gave up 101,000 acres of surface land it had already selected under ANCSA, enabling the National Park Service to add highly desirable private inholdings to the Gates of the Arctic National Park. In exchange, the United States gave up 92,000 acres of subsurface rights below land owned by the Kaktovik Village Corporation. These lands represent our shreholders' last, best chance to participate in the economic benefits of oil and gas development of our ancestral lands.
In 1987, the Interior Secretary issued the report directed by Congress, which identified 26 major oil ands gas prospects in the Coastal Plain study area. The Secretary recommended making the area available for leasing, exploration and development.
The Inupiat people believe that this highly prospective area represents our nation's best hope for significant new deposits of a critical strategic resource. We believe that delays in development deprive us of the economic benefits from our lands.
Such delays carry their own environmental hazards. With onshore development in ANWR blocked, frontier exploration has moved to the Outer Continnential Shelf (OCS) in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, where industry inexperience and immature technology poses greater environmental risks to our culture. It is difficult to be asked to bear the risks of OCS development, while being denied the benefits of routine development of our onshore resources.
Much has been said about the need to keep ANWR a total wilderness, and to prevent development in even the smallest corner. The Inupiat have a unique understanding of the relationship between wilderness and development. In our experience, we can only afford to keep most of our land as wilderness if we are allowed to extract maximum value from smaller areas, such as Prudhoe Bay, or the Coastal Plain.
The Inupiat Eskimo people are the indigenous people of the Arctic coastal environment. We rely on the land and resources of the North Slope for our physical, our cultural and our economic well-being. We have watched the oil and gas devleopment at Prudhoe Bay and elsewhere on the North Slope, and have seen first-hand how development can coexist with our nstural resources and our way of life.
It is our exprience that carefully regulated oil exporation and development can take place on the private and public lands inside the Coastal Plain study area. We believe the oil industry has made good on its promise to preserve our environment, while providing economic opportunity for our people and energy security for our country.
It is my hope that this report will set the state for a balanced national debate - founded on factual information and practical experience - on the policies which should govern our private lands and Coastal Plain study area.
I realize that the wishes of the indigenous people of this area that will be affected probably mean little to you in your search for your ultimate pristine wilderness fantasy. You probably don't realize, or care, that this decision will economically affect my entire state. I understand how you feel that our minds are closed, however we have to live in this economy. Maybe you could get together with some of your like minded friends an cut us a check each month for the next thirty years and we too could feel better about your wilderness fantasy.
I read it with an open mind. You can choose not to believe me (just as you have chosen, in earlier posts, to rebut things which I never said) if this gives you more psychological comfort. I understand.
You can all keep believing the oil industry propaganda and keep living in your limited view of reality.
Since you put this in a reply to me, it's only fair for me to ask which "industry propaganda" you think I believe, let alone which "industry propaganda" I've even mentioned in any single post.
The hardest data and numbers and statements I have used on this thread were gleaned and summarized from the PDF non-functional-hyperlink article Fool's Gold which you begged me to read. (For example, that's where I learned that the "industry" isn't all that excited about ANWR in the first place.) Was it wrong of me to believe the article you asked me to read? You're even contradicting it yourself here (why would "industry propaganda" promote ANWR if they're not interested in it?). This is all very puzzling.
Actually I believe there may be some readers who I've had an impact on.
You know what would be even better and more persuasive? If you'd put objective rational statements into your posts, rather than spending an entire post agonizing over whether you've "had an impact". You really don't seem to understand what I was asking of you on this thread. I wasn't asking for you to make the most emotionally subjective statements you could in an effort to "have an impact". I was asking you to rationally defend your views and feelings about the piece of land known as ANWR. Had you done so, maybe that would really have had an impact.
But since attacks are the norm rather than tactful debate those readers are probably reluctant to voice their opinion.
Again, why is this in a response to me? I believe you are being unfair in characterizing my responses as "attacks". Dissections, perhaps :)
As for me, my free time window is closing so I won't be around here much, if at all. Celebrate if you wish.
Suit yourself. I won't be celebrating, of course, since I never received any answers to so many of my questions (for example, "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?", "Why is the number 2000 magical?", "In what way is this valuable, these large numbers of species of flora and fauna? For eating? For looking at? For what?", "Since human society cannot ever logically be 'sustainable', isn't the only solution for all humans to die off?", and of course "Does land look prettier to you when it has oil underneath it which you cannot see?")
I was really curious. Oh, well.
The Inupiat are against off shore drilling because they see it as the greatest risk to them. The Gwich'in are against drilling in ANWR, because that is the greatest risk and insult to their culture (which also has existed for centuries). Why should the needs of the Gwich'in be sacrificed to accomodate the Inupiat? Aren't the wishes of the Gwich'in more in line with the traditional way of life, that if not interfered with, can continue for centuries, unlike a culture dependent on oil?
Maybe you skimmed over this part of what Jacob Adams had to say
The Inupiat Eskimo people are the indigenous people of the Arctic coastal environment. We rely on the land and resources of the North Slope for our physical, our cultural and our economic well-being. We have watched the oil and gas devleopment at Prudhoe Bay and elsewhere on the North Slope, and have seen first-hand how development can coexist with our natural resources and our way of life.
It is our exprience that carefully regulated oil exporation and development can take place on the private and public lands inside the Coastal Plain study area. We believe the oil industry has made good on its promise to preserve our environment, while providing economic opportunity for our people and energy security for our country.
I'm sorry that you are leaving. You have provided an interesting point of view, even though incorrect, of life in Alaska for those of us who live here. Perhaps next time you visit you could include the north coast in your travel plans. Please come in January and spend a few months, ten days is just not enough for that true Alaska experience. If you would actually explore the issue with an "open mind" you might see how important it is to those of us who live here.
While you are here on the thread, could you take a little time to answer some of Dr. Frank's questions?
"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?", "Why is the number 2000 magical?", "In what way is this valuable, these large numbers of species of flora and fauna? For eating? For looking at? For what?", "Since human society cannot ever logically be 'sustainable', isn't the only solution for all humans to die off?", and of course "Does land look prettier to you when it has oil underneath it which you cannot see?"
Notice I did not say uninhabited or never visited. Man can exist in wilderness without severely degrading its value as wilderness. Native peoples have been doing it for thousands of years, living in balance with nature. By balance I mean not interfering with the natural cycles. If man can harvest plants, or whales, or caribou, or whatever (which I have no problem with) in small enough numbers that those species continue in sustainable populations, then that is balance. When balance is lost we see bison and wolves eliminated from the plains and we see the timber industry clearcut then abandon the Great Lakes. I’d rather not see caribou (or polar bears, or musk oxen, or wolves, or any of the many other species who currently thrive in ANWR) eliminated from ANWR.
As for the magical 2,000 acres number ...that’s not my number, it’s what the supporters have used as a promise to convince others of the small impact drilling would have. I’m saying I can live with that number if they stick to it. Of course they won’t and that is why opponents aren’t buying it. Exploration itself, with its convoys of thumper trucks, could crisscross the entire 1.5 million acre coastal plain, damaging the fragile tundra. Beyond the 2,000 acres of production facilities will be miles of roads and other infrastructure. What’s wrong with roads? They will be built with gravel from extensive gravel pits (not in the 2,000 acres) and the altered drainage and dust generated could have adverse affects. Ice roads? Not enough water, and even if there was is draining streams, ponds, and lakes environmentally benign? Hardly.
No I don’t think land looks prettier with oil underneath it that cannot be seen. But the land is prettier when there are no oil facilities and roads in sight, and the wildlife, plants, and water still are. Of course this is subjective, so there is no right answer.
To answer another question (sorry, I forget who it was from) of course the caribou will drop their calves when they have to. The question is will those calves be in a situation that will maximize their survival rate. Anyone with cattle will tell you survival rate can vary greatly depending on conditions.
Which brings us back to the Gwich’in people. The survival of their culture depends on the survival of the caribou. Since I’ve taken the time and attempted to answer your questions maybe you could return the favor. I’ve had many questions go unanswered but I’d settle for answers on the following that I asked before: Do you care about the Gwich'in? If the culture (of the Inupiat) becomes dependent on oil, what happens when it runs out? Why should the needs of the Gwich'in be sacrificed to accommodate the Inupiat? Aren't the wishes of the Gwich'in more in line with the traditional way of life, that if not interfered with, can continue for centuries, unlike a culture dependent on oil?
Each-year thousands of waterfowl and other birds nest and reproduce the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk fields and a healthy and increasing caribou herd migrates through these areas to calve and seek respite from annoying pests. Oil field facilities have been located and designed to accommodate wildlife and utilize the least amount of tundra surface.
Experience gained at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk along with rapidly evolving drilling and production techniques will further minimize environmental impacts and surface use in future frontier arctic petroleum provinces such as ANWR. Further, there have evolved since the late 1960's, a sophisticated regulatory framework and permitting process at the federal, state, and local (North Slope Borough) level. These require measured, thoroughly researched and planned development activities focused on environmental protection.
The issue of oil and gas leasing in the 8 percent of ANWR represented by the Coastal Plain should not be considered, therefore, as an "either/or" decision with respect to preservation of important fish and wildlife resources. The record of other petroleum development on the North Slope supports application of multiple use management concepts in ANWR. Nevertheless, in issuing its decision with regard to future management of the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Congress will be faced with the challenge of reconciling diverse goals, national needs for additional domestic energy supplies, the national need and interest in preservation of wilderness or nearly wild lands, and the promise (in ANCSA and ANILCA) to Alaska Natives regarding continued availability of subsistence fish and wildlife resources. These goals are not, however, mutually exclusive. Given the oil and gas exploration and production technology existing today, the ANWR Coastal Plain can be opened to leasing that is consistent with all of these important requirements.
I was in the Alpine oilfield, the newest oilfield on the north coast, from the first day of iceroad construction through the first day of production four years later. The entire operation was overseen and welcomed by the village of Nuiqsut, which is less than 10 miles away. These people want to have a means of self determination and not be subjected to some demeaning social programs in order to live in the village of their choice.
Beyond the 2,000 acres of production facilities will be miles of roads and other infrastructure.
Factually incorrect. The Alpine field, which is the model for ANWR, has no gravel roads.
As for the magical 2,000 acres number ...that’s not my number, it’s what the supporters have used as a promise to convince others of the small impact drilling would have. I’m saying I can live with that number if they stick to it. Of course they won’t and that is why opponents aren’t buying it.
You seem to know alot about recent oilfield production and infrastructure on the north coast of Alaska. When was the last time you were there? I don't believe you can state factually that they will not adhere to the 2000 acres, when in fact you don't know. I submit the contrary. Given the pressure that would be placed on them to adhere to this figure, they couldn't help but comply.
Exploration itself, with its convoys of thumper trucks, could crisscross the entire 1.5 million acre coastal plain, damaging the fragile tundra.
The exploration takes place from January until May, depending on temperature. The state of Alaska Department of Natural Resources does not issue tundra permits(these are required before you can start any work on the tundra) until the ground is thoroughly frozen, usually after weeks of -20 degree temperatures and a good snow pack.
Ice roads? Not enough water, and even if there was is draining streams, ponds, and lakes environmentally benign? Hardly.
Let me introduce you to ice road construction 101.Since you did not read my post #33, I will repeat part of it.
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.
When we build an ice road, we are not allowed to take water from a lake or pond that supports fish. When we do take water from a lake or pond we are limited to a small percentage of the total water. Since the ice is 12- 20 inches thich when we are doing this, it only makes sense. We never drain any water source, given the thickness of the ice, that would be impossible. If you had ever been to the north coast area, you would be amazed at the number of small ponds and lakes that dominate the terrain. Where do you think all of that snow goes when it melts?
Do you care about the Gwich'in?
Of course, they are as important as any other human. I just don't believe the environmentalists speculation of what might happen to the porcupine caribou herd based on the model of the central arctic herd's success in the Prudhoe bay and Kuparuk oilfields.
If the culture (of the Inupiat) becomes dependent on oil, what happens when it runs out?
All of the Inupiat that I have had the pleasure of being around merely want a chance of self-determination. They are tired of being dependent on state and federal entitlement programs. In short my friend, they want the same chance that you have.
Why should the needs of the Gwich'in be sacrificed to accommodate the Inupiat? Aren't the wishes of the Gwich'in more in line with the traditional way of life, that if not interfered with, can continue for centuries, unlike a culture dependent on oil?
There is no undisputable evidence, to my knowledge, that indicates the Gwich'in would have to sacrifice anything. All models that show a decrease in porcupine herd depleation are based on speculation only, whereas the increase in the central arctic herd does provide a model of increase for caribou in the oilfield environment. To characterize the Gwich'in' wishes as more traditional than the Inupiat's only shows your lack of knowledge on the subject and the people.
Isn't it also true that there is no undisputable evidence that oil exists in significant quantities?
As I've said before, comparing the central Arctic herd to the porcupine herd is comparing apples to oranges. The porcupine herd is much larger, calving in a much smaller area. This concentration leaves them more vulnerable. Sure, the degree of the risks are based on scientific speculation (same as oil quantities), but the fact is there are risks. I've never been in a serious auto accident, and it's likely I never will be, but I still wear my seatbelt. In the same way, don't the Gwich'in people deserve similar protection when their entire culture is at stake?
On another point, I believe I got a brief answer from Dr. Frank on the security and age of TAP. Since you (Alaskanfan) seem to be familiar with the inner workings of the oil industry, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion.
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.