ANWR: Setting the record straight

The Caribou Conundrum
U.S. News & World Report - April 30, 2001

By Mortimer B. Zuckerman; Editor-in-chief

Pretty soon now, we're going to be hearing an awful lot about ambling caribou and Arab sheiks. They'll be the totems of opposing positions as the energy issue moves once more onto the nation's front burner. Those who oppose President Bush's wish to consider drilling on Alaska's coastal plain will cite the threat to wildlife and the area's incomparable beauty. The drilling lobby will stress America's over-dependence on foreign oil, whose price is determined by a bunch of sheiks and semi-Marxist Latin dictators. Together, the oil cartel pockets at least half the $ 150 billion plus Americans shell out each year on energy. But before the rhetoric gets hot enough to melt the glaciers, perhaps it's time to take a calm look at a few facts.

In the first place, the coastal plain isn't the Alaska of the famous postcard vistas. The 1.5 million-acre tract accounts for just 8 percent of the 19 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And rather than the calendar art of the last frontier, the land at issue is a flat, boggy, treeless place where temperatures can drop as low as 40 degrees below zero(actually I have seen many days at 60 below). The place, therefore, is virtually uninhabitable by animals most of the year. That was basically the conclusion of an environmental-impact statement prepared by the government back in 1987. Oil development, the statement concluded, would not significantly harm wildlife. This parallels our experience in Prudhoe Bay. Over 25 years, the environment has not been mortally wounded by drilling. And the caribou herds have not diminished but increased-- and this when Prudhoe was explored by old-fashioned drilling methods, whose impact has now been considerably reduced by technology.

Minimal impact. Here are some of the new developments: Directional or slant drilling makes it possible to drill numerous wells from a single small production pad, resulting in a footprint so small as to have virtually no impact on wildlife. Even if enormous reserves were discovered, only a fraction of the 1.5 million acres would be affected. There's more. During winter, when no caribou are present, ice roads, ice airstrips, and ice platforms would replace gravel, so that in spring, when the ice melts, the drilling during the harsh winter would have left virtually no footprint. The caribou could then use the coastal plain, as they normally do, as a calving ground. The danger of a devastating oil spill is also remote. Pipelines for transferring oil to the lower 48 are now punctuated by elevated elbows so that if one section ruptures, only the oil between the elbows leaks. Undersea portions of pipeline run virtually without valves, which is where breaches usually occur.

But is there enough oil up there to warrant environmental risk? Nobody knows for sure, although some estimates suggest there may be as much as 20 billion barrels under the tundra. This is nearly double Prudhoe Bay, where production far exceeded original estimates. Prudhoe has provided about a fifth of our domestic oil production for more than 20 years. This would seem to justify at least a test of the coastal plain.

Still, any drilling must be preceded by a fair and plausible assessment of environmental risk. The other part of the calculus, of course, must be the potential benefit of drilling, since we now depend on imports for up to 56 percent of our consumption. That's up from 36 percent during the Persian Gulf War. Our national security and foreign policy cannot be held hostage to Arab producers supported by anticapitalist, anti-U.S. populists in Venezuela. Turmoil in Iran, aggression by Iraq, or instability in Saudi Arabia could have as devastating an effect on supply and prices as it did in the 1970s. The ultimate wild card, obviously, is Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi despot controls 2.5 million barrels a day--another factor in the decision confronting us over drilling in Alaska.

Seen in this light, there's no doubt about it: More domestic oil production is needed if we are to offset the threat posed to our economy by dependence on foreign oil. Three dollars off a barrel would save Americans as much as $ 20 billion a year. Every $ 10-per-barrel increase costs Americans $ 65 billion. Drilling in Alaska's coastal plain that yielded, say, 20 billion barrels would provide about $ 500 billion--and cut several hundred billion dollars of imports.

The argument over oil versus environmentalism is too important to be decided by slogans and slick imagery. The mating habits of 129,000 porcupine caribou are obviously of concern. But so is the welfare of 281 million Americans.

Inupiat Views Ignored in ANWR Debate

By TARA MacLEAN SWEENEY
Anchorage Times Op-Ed

Now that the ANWR debate rises to the national forefront again, I say, "Just drill it." As an Inupiat from the Arctic Slope I think it's time people understand there is another side to the sensationalized story told by the Gwich'in Steering Committee and ADN reporter David Whitney.

Mr. Whitney fails miserably to report all the facts when he covers the ANWR issue, especially in his May 24 article titled, "Gwich'in: Shield Plain for Good."

First, he carefully eludes the fact that the Inupiat also rely on the Porcupine caribou for sustenance. Inupiat people are wise in nature and are the best of environmentalists.

Through the local government, the North Slope Borough, Inupiat people have taken a stand against the oil industry to enforce environmental regulations stricter than the EPA. Therefore, it is ludicrous to suggest that the Inupiat people would purposely and willfully harm the food supply that has deep roots in our culture and tradition.

History has shown that industry and wildlife can co-exist. The Central Arctic Caribou Herd in the Prudhoe Bay region has flourished since the pipeline days.

Second, Mr. Whitney asserts that the Inupiat are allied with the oil industry, but fails to point out that the Gwich'in Steering Committee is heavily funded by the environmental community. Unfortunately, the Gwich'in Steering Committee is being used to further the agenda of the environmental community which places less value on basic human rights. After this issue is over, will the environmental community support the lifestyle of the Gwich'in? Possibly not, but the money derived from ANWR will benefit many government programs as well as create over 750,000 jobs.

Third, when did the Gwich'in take such a vested interest in the caribou? I say this because the Gwich'in leased out their lands in the 1980's for oil and gas exploration. To their dismay this exploration was unsuccessful. However, their lease agreements contained no provisions to protect the now "sacred" Porcupine caribou herd. At least the Inupiat included measures to safeguard the caribou population affected by the development of Prudhoe Bay.

To the Inupiat, the revenue derived from ANWR will enable the Arctic Slope communities to continue living outside of Third World conditions. The revenue will support essential services like local health care and police and fire protection that many people in urban Alaska and the Lower 48 take for granted.

The Inupiat are not alone in their quest to open ANWR. Doyon Ltd., a Native regional corporation with Gwich'in shareholders, supports ANWR development. Further, the Alaska Federation of Natives with a membership of 90,000 Alaska Natives is also in support of this issue.

Finally, I appeal to Mr. Whitney and the ADN to stop sensationalizing and start reporting all the facts. Highlight the views of the Inupiat of Kaktovik and those of the Arctic Slope region. After all, ANWR does sit in Kaktovik's back yard.
Tara MacLean Sweeney is a resident of Girdwood.

The description of the geology of the Coastal Plain is based on outcrops and geophysical data from seismic surveys of the area. The extrapolation of known geology and information from wells drilled offsetting the area provide additional confidence that potential oil and gas resources are located in the ANWR 1002 Area and the Coastal Plain. The stratigraphic section of Figure 2 shows the source rocks and petroleum reservoir rocks of the area. The reservoirs that are productive in other areas of the ANS are indicated. The 10 plays (similar geologic settings) that were evaluated by the USGS are also included in the figure.

The following discussion of the sedimentary rocks in the area is from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, Coastal Plain Reservoir Assessment, U.S. Department of the Interior, November 1986, p. 51.

"The area in and adjacent to the 1002 area is underlain by sedimentary rocks several tens of thousands of feet thick. These rocks range in age from Precambrian (greater than 570 million years old) to Quarternary (Bader and Bird, 1986). In northern Alaska, rocks prospective for petroleum (oil and gas) are mostly Mississippian to Tertiary in age and overlie folded and truncated pre-Mississippian rocks. These rocks are divided into two sequences: the Ellesmerian sequence of Mississippian to Early Cretaceous age, and the Brookian sequence of Early Cretaceous and younger age. Deposition of the Ellesmerian sequence occurred when the land area was to the north and the seaway was to the south. During deposition of the Brookian sequence, the geography was reversed—the land area was to the south (the ancestral Brooks Range) and the seaway was to the north, much as it is today. The differentiation of these two sequences is important in understanding depositional history, and in projecting trends of reservoir rocks. Futhermore, properties of the Ellesmerian sandstones are generally better than those of the Brookian sequence."

The unique combination of source rocks and reservoir traps is similar to the geologic combination of events that caused the productive reservoirs to the west including the Prudhoe Bay Field. Therefore, similar results are anticipated.

Summary

The 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the 19 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the largest unexplored, potentially productive geologic onshore basin in the United States. The primary area of the coastal plain is the 1002 Area of ANWR established when ANWR was created. A decision on permitting the exploration and development of the 1002 Area is up to Congress and has not been approved to date. Also included in the Coastal Plain are State lands to the 3-mile offshore limit and Native Inupiat land near the village of Kaktovik.

The USGS estimated:

a 95 percent probability that at least 5.7 billion barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil are in the ANWR coastal plain,
a 5 percent probability that at least 16 billion barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil are in the ANWR coastal plain, and
a mean or expected value of 10.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil in the ANWR coastal plain.
EIA postulates two development rates for each of the three USPS probability estimates without specifying the effect of various levels of oil prices and technology advancements, ranging from 250 to 800 million barrels developed per year. EIA projects peak production rates from 600,000 to 1.9 million barrels per day over the six cases, with peak production estimated to occur 20 - 30 years after the onset of production.

Seven to 12 years are estimated to be required from an approval to explore and develop to first production from the ANWR Area. This study uses 9 years, to 2010. The time to first production could vary significantly based on time required for leasing after approval to develop is given. Environmental considerations and the possibility of drilling restrictions would directly impact the time interval to reach first production.

The USGS economic analysis of the ANWR 1002 Area calculates that once oil has been discovered, more than 80 percent of the technically recoverable oil is commercially developable at an oil price of $25 per barrel. The imported refiner acquisition cost in 2020 is projected in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2000 reference case at $22.04 (1998 dollars). At this price, the potential ANWR oil recovered would have a value between $125 and $350 billion (in 1998 dollars.)

Since you seem to think any rational discussion of views is an "attack" on you I will let sleeping dogs lie.

I noticed that you have completely ignored anything I might have said. Par for the course in my opinion.

It is all well and good to have opinions, we all do. It seems that when someone disagrees with you it is an "attack".

My earlier analysis of you position seems more correct all the time. "I FEEL" someting is wrong, Facts are inconvienences to be ignored and if challenged, scream "Attack" and sulk.

The attitude that you foster, the "screw 'em" if they disagree mindset is baffleing to me.

But, after debating many of your breatheren here and at other boards, I have come to the conclusion that you are beyond redemtion. I saddens me to think that your attitude is held by some office holders as well. I fear for a system that lets personal beliefs regarding Public Lands and Resources a seat at the table of debate.

As far as your "beliefs" are concerned, remember, it is much easier to make your point if you do not subject your reader to wading through a lenghty article that is as seeminlgy full of psuedo science as the one you linked to. Had you taken a few choice paragraphs and sentences, and added your comments you might have had a better impact. Remember, cut and paste is your friend, use it.

Since my comments seem to carry little weight here I've taken your advice to cut and paste. Following are a few comments from the Fish & Wildlife Service.

By the way Alaskanfan, I'm still interested in your opinion on TAP security and age.

Information gathered from the biological, seismic and geological studies was used to complete a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) that described the potential impacts of oil and gas development. This LEIS included the Secretary's final report and recommendation, and was submitted to Congress in 1987. The report concluded that oil development and production in the 1002 Area would have major effects on the Porcupine Caribou herd and muskoxen. Major effects were defined as "widespread, long-term change in habitat availability or quality which would likely modify natural abundance or distribution of species." Moderate effects were expected for wolves, wolverine, polar bears, snow geese, seabirds and shorebirds, arctic grayling and coastal fish.

The Unique Conservation Values of the Arctic Refuge

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the largest unit in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge is America's finest example of an intact, naturally functioning community of arctic/subarctic ecosystems. Such a broad spectrum of diverse habitats occurring within a single protected unit is unparalleled in North America, and perhaps in the entire circumpolar north.

When the Eisenhower Administration established the original Arctic Range in 1960, Secretary of Interior Seaton described it as: "one of the world's great wildlife areas. The great diversity of vegetation and topography in this compact area, together with its relatively undisturbed condition, led to its selection as ... one of our remaining wildlife and wilderness frontiers."

Within the Arctic Refuge, the Brooks Range mountains compress the coastal plain and foothills tundra to a 20-40 mile wide band between the mountains and the sea. In contrast, the mountains further west rise far away from the Arctic Ocean coast, creating broad coastal tundra ranging 100-200 miles north to south in the Prudhoe Bay and NPR-A areas. Although the 1002 Area is only 10% of the total Refuge acreage, it includes most of the Refuge's coastal plain and arctic foothills ecological zones. The 1002 Area contains just 4% of Alaska's coastal plain and foothills zones.

The Arctic Refuge is the only area on Alaska's North Slope where petroleum development is specifically prohibited by Congress. The rest of the region is available for oil and gas development through administrative decisions by the Secretary of the Interior on NPR-A and the Beaufort Sea, or by the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources on State lands and waters.

The 1002 Area is critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge, providing essential habitats for numerous internationally important species such as the Porcupine Caribou herd and polar bears. The compactness and proximity of a number of arctic and subarctic ecological zones in the Arctic Refuge provides for greater plant and animal diversity than in any other similar sized land area on Alaska's North Slope.

The Refuge is also an important part of a larger international network of protected arctic and subarctic areas. In Canada's Yukon Territory, the government and First Nations people protected the coastal tundra and adjacent mountains by establishing Ivvavik and Vuntut National Parks, where oil exploration and production are not allowed.

Potential Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Refuge Resources

Although technological advances in oil and gas exploration and development have reduced some of the harmful environmental effects associated with those activities, oil and gas development remains an intrusive industrial process. The physical "footprint" of the existing North Slope oil facilities and roads covers about 10,000 acres, but the current industrial complex extends across an 800 square mile region, nearly 100 miles from east to west. It continues to grow as new oil fields are developed.

The 100-mile wide 1002 Area is located more than 30 miles from the end of the nearest pipeline and more than 50 miles from the nearest gravel road and oil support facilities. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, possible oil reserves may be located in many small accumulations in complex geological formations, rather than in one giant field as was discovered at Prudhoe Bay. Consequently, development in the 1002 Area could likely require a large number of small production sites spread across the Refuge landscape, connected by an infrastructure of roads, pipelines, power plants, processing facilities, loading docks, dormitories, airstrips, gravel pits, utility lines and landfills.

A substantial amount of water is needed for oil drilling, development, and construction of ice roads. Water needed for oil development ranges from eight to 15 million gallons over a 5-month period, according to the Bureau of Land Management. If water is not available to build ice roads, gravel is generally used. Water resources are limited in the 1002 Area. In winter, only about nine million gallons of liquid water may be available in the entire 1002 Area, which is enough to freeze into and maintain only 10 miles of ice roads. Therefore, full development may likely require a network of permanent gravel pads and roads.

Cumulative biological consequences of oil field development that may be expected in the Arctic Refuge include:

blocking, deflecting or disturbing wildlife, loss of subsistence hunting opportunities, increased predation by arctic fox, gulls and ravens on nesting birds due to introduction of garbage as a consistent food source, alteration of natural drainage patterns, causing changes in vegetation deposition of alkaline dust on tundra along roads, altering vegetation over a much larger area than the actual width of the road, local pollutant haze and acid rain from nitrogen oxides, methane and particulate matter emissions, contamination of soil and water from fuel and oil spills.

Impacts of Winter Exploration

While the exploration of oil typically occurs during the winter months when caribou and birds are absent from the 1002 Area, there are several arctic-adapted species that remain in the area during winter would likely be affected, most notably muskoxen and polar bears, but also wolverine, arctic fox, and arctic grayling. Winter exploration could also impact the sensitive arctic tundra vegetation.

The caribou's preferred food during calving season is higher in nutrition, more digestible, and more available within the 1002 Area than in surrounding areas. To successfully reproduce, female caribou must be able to move freely throughout the 1002 Area to find adequate food resources to build up their fat reserves and milk. This allows them to produce healthy calves. Cows with newborn calves are particularly sensitive, and commonly move as much as 1.5 miles away from human disturbance. This has been well-documented in the vicinity of existing North Slope oil fields.

The Arctic Refuge's coastal tundra has been the birthing ground for the majority of Porcupine Caribou cows in all but three of the last 18 years. In those 3 years (1987, 1988 and 2000), snow remained on the tundra longer than usual, forcing the caribou to have their calves in areas farther east or inland. Calf survival was poorer in those years due to lower food nutrition and higher levels of predation.

Caribou populations naturally fluctuate in response to weather and forage conditions, and all the arctic caribou herds in North America increased under favorable conditions in the 1980s. There are fundamental differences between the calving areas of the Central Arctic and the Porcupine herds. In the case of the Central Arctic herd, there is a greater amount of alternative calving area available for displaced cows to move to because the mountains are much farther from the ocean. The 1002 Area is only one-fifth the size of the area used by the Central Arctic caribou herd, but six times as many caribou use the 1002 Area. In the Arctic Refuge, where the mountains are close to the coast, few alternative areas would be available for displaced cows. If the 1002 Area was developed, the associated pipelines, roads, and structures would potentially impact the Porcupine Caribou herd by:

reducing the amount and quality of preferred forage available during and after calving, restricting access to important coastal insect-relief habitats, exposing the herd to higher predation, and altering an ancient migratory pattern, the effects of which we can not predict.

A reduction in annual calf survival of as little as 5% would be sufficient to cause a decline in the Porcupine caribou population.

This and more information can be read at FWS Comments

And please don't give me the tired claim that this is psuedo-science. If anything deserves this label it is your sources. For example, please notice your expert claimed ANWR in uninhabitable in the winter, even though it is a well-known fact that many species thrive there year round.

I also noticed that numbers were used for technically recoverable oil, when the economically recoverable oil numbers (also provided by the USGS) are more appropriate (unless you're planning on govenment subsidies and tax breaks). As for the claim that ANWR would save us from imported oil, it's baloney. Even if the most optimistic amounts were discovered it would still only put a tiny dent in U.S. demand. Obviously it would be an even smaller amount in relation to global supply, and since oil is traded globally, ANWR oil would have little if any affect on price. We could suck every last drop of oil out of every corner of the U.S. and we'd still be importing most of our oil. It's a fact that can't be denied and those with forethought are looking for answers other than depending on finite and dwindling oil supplies. Prudhoe Bay was claimed to be the answer to all our energy needs but it obviously wasn't. Drilling in ANWR is the same short term fix.

You wrote:
I also noticed that numbers were used for technically recoverable oil, when the economically recoverable oil numbers (also provided by the USGS) are more appropriate (unless you're planning on govenment subsidies and tax breaks).

I will repeat the final paragraph of post #61.
The USGS economic analysis of the ANWR 1002 Area calculates that once oil has been discovered, more than 80 percent of the technically recoverable oil is commercially developable at an oil price of $25 per barrel. The imported refiner acquisition cost in 2020 is projected in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2000 reference case at $22.04 (1998 dollars). At this price, the potential ANWR oil recovered would have a value between $125 and $350 billion (in 1998 dollars.)

You wrote:
As for the claim that ANWR would save us from imported oil, it's baloney. Even if the most optimistic amounts were discovered it would still only put a tiny dent in U.S. demand.

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.

You wrote:
And please don't give me the tired claim that this is psuedo-science. If anything deserves this label it is your sources. For example, please notice your expert claimed ANWR in uninhabitable in the winter, even though it is a well-known fact that many species thrive there year round.

The source I used actually said:
The place, therefore, is virtually uninhabitable by animals most of the year. That was basically the conclusion of an environmental-impact statement prepared by the government back in 1987.

I can understand how you would dispute this based on your vast knowledge and Alaskan experience. I would chalenge you to spend some time on the north slope in the winter, it would probably change your perspective of this "pristine wilderness." I spoke with a friend of mine in Prudhoe Bay last night, and he told me it was 50 below zero.

You wrote:
It's a fact that can't be denied and those with forethought are looking for answers other than depending on finite and dwindling oil supplies.

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.

You could be a leader in this area by converting your own home to solar and wind power, thereby thwarting the energy industry that has you by the throat.

You wrote:
Prudhoe Bay was claimed to be the answer to all our energy needs but it obviously wasn't.

I don't recall Prudhoe Bay being touted as the "answer to all of our energy needs," however, I do remember the same lame environmentalist claims of how it would destroy the migratory caribou herds. I guess we know better than that now don't we?

During the Prudhoe Bay/Trans Alaska pipeline debate, my father was so incensed by the environmentalists rhetoric that he put a bumpersticker on the back of his pickup that said "LET THE BASTARDS FREEZE IN THE DARK". I understand how you feel that "big oil" will rape and pillage ANWR. I believe that the facts prove your premise to be incorrect.

As far as any comments that I might have on the Trans Alaska Pipeline, I will only say that my experience in the oilfield is limited to primary facility construction. Therefore any comments that I would make regarding the pipeline would be as incognizant as your own.

Thanks for the well-informed responses. It would appear, based on the facts, the benefits far outweigh any potential impact.

Thanks, I probably rant a little to much when it comes to ANWR, but these lies that the environmentalists continually spout directly affect me and the economy of my state. That tends to tighten up my jaw.

I probably rant a little to much when it comes to ANWR, but these lies that the environmentalists continually spout directly affect me and the economy of my state.

You complained that I had no scientific backing to my arguments, yet after I show scientific evidence to you I’m still accused of lying and having limited knowledge. Did you read the FWS report that detailed in length the numerous impacts of exploration and drilling in ANWR? Some of it obviously proved your arguments wrong (no impact from winter exploration, for example). And how about this comment from FWS: “The physical "footprint" of the existing North Slope oil facilities and roads covers about 10,000 acres, but the current industrial complex extends across an 800 square mile region.” And the oil in ANWR is predicted by USGS to be much less concetrated than Prudhoe Bay. Yes, drilling techniques have improved, but it is still obvious that the impact would be extensive.

Maybe I should be accusing you of having limited knowledge on wildlife and environmental impact. Or are you more of an authority on those subjects than the FWS? Drilling supporters continually use the argument of the increase in size of the central Arctic caribou herd. Do you have scientific evidence that directly links this increase to oil development? Or is the real (and more likely) cause of this increase due to the fact that predators have decreased in that same time? You’re simplistic arguments and assurances of limited impact ignore the scientific facts of the intricate relationships within an ecosystem. These relationships aren’t even fully understood by scientists, so when the drilling supporters spout the limited impact mantra they are obviously looking through rosey glasses.

As far as any comments that I might have on the Trans Alaska Pipeline, I will only say that my experience in the oilfield is limited to primary facility construction. Therefore any comments that I would make regarding the pipeline would be as incognizant as your own.

Geez, I wasn’t asking you to take the oath of office, I just asked your opinion. I bring it up because it doesn’t take an FBI expert to realize that TAP is highly vulnerable. Last October, one drunk with a rifle was able to shut the pipeline down for several days. This is what Governor Knowles, a strong supporter of North Slope development, said: "Clearly the fact that one person with a rifle can do this much damage is a point of concern in terms of vulnerability." It seems an appealing target for a terrorist attack. Imagine what would happen if the pipeline suffered extensive damage. This oil that the lower 48 “has to have” and that Alaskans are apparently depending on for income, would be stranded with no other way of reaching the market. Don’t you agree that depending on this vulnerable, single supply line is extremely risky?

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.

Got to call you on this bit of misinformation too. Stuard Baird, M.Eng.,M.A. says: “Photovoltaics use land at the point of electrical generation, while coal and nuclear plants use land during mining, processing and electrical generation. When all these items are considered, the land use requirements of the three different options are remarkably similar. In fact, if only one percent of the land in the U.S. was covered with solar cells, all their electrical needs could be met.” He doesn’t use oil or natural gas in his example, but when you factor in exploration, drilling, processing, and transportation on top of power generation, they too would be similar to photovotaics. And the beauty of PV is that it coincides with peak demand in most areas, during the hot days of summer. PV can be put on rooftops, over parking lots (doubles as shade), etc. so to imply it would require too much area is misleading.

I’ve never suggested that we can or should immediately shift to 100% renewable energy. It’s obvious that fossil fuels will be a part of the mix in the near future. Renewables aren’t perfect and may not yet be economically equal in our current system. But they have tremendous potential, are continually improving, and their costs have dropped dramatically and continue to drop. With a mix of renewables generated domestically (and emphasis on efficiency measures), local economies would improve across America, and because of it’s decentralized nature, this energy supply would be quite secure. That’s not Utopian dreams, that’s common sense.

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

Bad analogy. A precious gem is much more valuable when it is cut (i.e. "developed") by humans than when it is left in its pristine state.

And Reuters has this BS:
====

Government Study: Alaska Drilling Harmful
Fri Mar 29, 4:29 PM ET
By Julie Vorman

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (news - web sites) to oil drilling could harm caribou, snow geese and other wildlife, a new U.S. government study said on Friday, despite the Bush administration's assurances that oil exploration would have little impact.

The report, written by the Interior Department's U.S. Geological Survey (news - web sites), was published 10 days before the U.S. Senate is due to launch a contentious debate on whether to allow drilling in the pristine refuge on Alaska's northern coast.

The remote refuge stretches over 19 million acres and holds up to 16 billion barrels of oil. President Bush (news - web sites), a former Texas oilman, and many of his fellow Republicans back drilling there to boost U.S. energy supplies.

Environmental groups oppose the plan, saying drilling would destroy a scenic place sometimes called "America's Serengeti" and would also fail to yield any sizable amount of oil for several years.

According to the government report, drilling in the refuge could especially hurt the Porcupine River caribou herd, which travels some 400 miles from Canada's Yukon Territory to the Alaskan coastal plain for calving in May and June.

The herd, which has dwindled to an estimated 123,000 animals, uses the entire coastal plain area which the Bush administration wants to open to drilling. Pregnant caribou avoid roads and pipelines and calves have "repeatedly shown to be sensitive to disturbance," it said.

"Oil development will most likely result in restricting the location of concentrated calving areas, calving sites and annual calving grounds," the report said. "Expected effects that could be observed include reduced survival of calves during June, reduced weight and condition of (pregnant) females and reduced weight of calves in late June."

An Interior Department spokesman downplayed the report, saying it was based on an outdated drilling plan that included a major highway, an airport and "intensive" energy production.

The report's conclusions "are not based on the reality of the current legislation proposed in congress," said Interior spokesman Mark Pfeifle. "Neither the highway or the airport will ever be constructed because ice roads and ice runways will be used. They disappear in the springtime when the caribou are calving."

GEESE, OXEN ALSO AT RISK

Snow geese and musk oxen are among other wildlife that could also be affected, the report said. The geese have a small area for feeding on the coastal plain, making them vulnerable to oil drilling activities.

Oil exploration may also hurt the area's musk oxen, which survive temperatures as low as minus-40 degrees Fahrenheit by reducing their movements to conserve energy. The estimated 300 oxen living year-round in the plain may be weakened if they are forced to move away from a drilling area, the report said.

The Arctic refuge is also used by pregnant polar bears and as a nesting area for several kinds of migratory birds. While Bush and many Republicans have repeatedly endorsed drilling, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said recently that it would take about two decades before any crude oil pumped from the refuge could reduce U.S. oil imports.

The Democratic-led Senate is set to debate Alaska drilling when lawmakers return from a spring vacation on April 8. A Reuters survey of all 100 U.S. senators earlier this month found that the White House proposal to open the refuge to drilling appeared doomed in the Senate. At least 50 senators, including five Republicans, said they opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and 10 others were undecided.

Under the Senate's rules for controversial legislation, 60 votes are required to cut off debate and proceed with a vote.

Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the new report showed why drilling is a bad idea. "The administration should take to heart the conclusive scientific findings of the U.S. Geological Survey and finally put aside plans to drill in the pristine wilderness of the Arctic," Kerry said in a statement.

Bush, Interior Secretary Gale Norton and other Republicans maintain that wildlife in the Arctic refuge would be unaffected if drilling is limited to about 1.5 million acres. They say oil firms have the technology to drill in several directions from a single site, lessening the footprint left by heavy equipment.

The new U.S. Geological Survey report analyzed the impact of drilling on wildlife as well as vegetation, weather, predators and other key habitat elements in the Arctic refuge.

===
See a picture here It doesn't look like all the ARCTIC pics I've seen of the area (lush grass, plentiful game animals...looks like it was taken much further south) As it's at Yahoo News, that link may be short-lived

Just out of curiosity, would you tell us what state you live in? It might help us understand your prespective a little more.

Although it has no impact on the facts or the logic of my argument, the answer to your question is: I grew up on a farm, and now live in a larger city, in Nebraska.

You are correct, I do not believe the FWS environmental impact statement from 1987. I have seen evidence to the contrary with my own eyes. These are the same tired excuses that the environmentalists used prior to the developement of the Prudhoe field. They were disproven at the time of developement and the proof is even more evident today.

I in fact believe that the FWS was trying to promote an agenda with the release of that environmental statement. If Prudhoe Bay were to be developed today the footprint would be over 60%smaller. I decry the scare tactics used by environmentalists and their supporters when in fact they are continually proven to be innaccurate.

I have been employed in the north coast oilfields for over 16 years and have seen all of the changes that have taken place in construction and developement techniques, all towards a more environmentally friendly production facility. I have been in meetings where preliminary development plans were discussed for ANWR and know for a fact that gravel roads and large tracts of land are not involved, yet you seem to know more about the subject than I do. Maybe what I need to do is spend ten days on a float trip in the Brooks Range to gather more knowledge about Alaska.

We can rail back and forth on this thread for eternity and the results will be the same. Only by allowing developement of ANWR will the people of Alaska be able to disprove all of the environmental detractors and the lies of their agended studies. All we are asking is a chance to develop our natural resources without ouside influence, and determine for ourselves the future of our great state.

In closing, I will post a copy of an email posted on another thread in this forum:

With the upcoming debate about ANWAR I thought I could give you some inside information. I've worked in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska for thirteen years, three weeks on, three weeks off. To start with, the oilfield is a small community. Most of the people I work with have worked in other oilfields and in other countries. Between myself and the people I work with, we've worked in them all. Prudhoe Bay is the cleanest oilfield in the world. To begin working on the slope you need two days of classes on the environment and safety. Maximum speed limit is 45mph, my drivers license was checked four times just last hitch and two random UA's last year with a chance of a least four more this year. My truck has a drive-right recorder that records speed and abrupt stops and is downloaded every month to be analyzed. The drilling rigs for the most part run on electricity unless they are on remote exploratory wells. Exploratory wells are only drilled during the winter and early spring months when ice roads can be made from snow and water to reach remote locations. In the summer you can't tell that they were out there. The trucks and heavy equipment wear what we call diapers to keep any oil drips from the roads and drilling pads. Smaller vehicles must put drip pans under the motor blocks when parked. During refueling there must be a spill containment placed under the nozzle. Spills of one gallon or more of any kind of fluid but fresh water must be reported ASAP. This includes seawater which is used in well displacement. Drilling pads are built like a saucer so any major spills will flow to the center of the pad. Before the rig is moved in, a thick spill containment pad called herculite is placed on the ground. There is more pollution run off in your local Wal-mart parking lot after a good rainstorm than spilled on the North Slope. Safety meetings are held everyday and before every new task that is about to take place with reviews of the procedures and hazards of the task. Wildlife has the right of way no matter what. I've seen two rigs one coil tubing unit, one E-line unit, and two slickline units be shut down because a polar bear walked on pad. We couldn't start any activity until the bear was clear of the location. The porcupine caribou herd migrates through Prudhoe Bay every summer, some ten thousand animals walk through the field without any trouble or human harassment. Risk job loss if you feed or harass any wildlife. I've seen them all; they go about there business as though we're not there. Mosquitoes harass them more than any human or human activity. My point is if every oilfield in the world worked under the same restrictions and guidelines, the worlds environment would not only be cleaner, oil in the US would be $50.00 a barrel. I should also tell you I am not an oil company employee I work for a service company. I could go on and on about the rules and regulations but this letter would be too long. If you have any questions about this feel free to ask.

It is obvious that I can post no information that will change your mind about drilling ANWR. I will therefore bow to your superior knowledge on the subject of Alaska and ANWR development gained on your ten day experience in my state.

It’s interesting how earlier in this thread I was accused of relying too heavily on opinion and speculation. Now that I’ve presented scientific evidence it seems opinion and speculation are acceptable for you to use. Your view that FWS reports are biased or inaccurate are your opinion only. Yes, you’re opinion is based on observation of the North Slope oil development, but you certainly don’t have any hard scientific evidence to back it up. I observed a rise of the wild turkey population on my family’s farm but I certainly can’t conclude that it was because of our farming practices. I’m sure you know your stuff when it comes to the oil industry, but to claim you know better than the biologists when it comes to the plants and wildlife is certainly a stretch. I doubt you can claim you were unbiased in reaching your conclusions.

Drilling supporters often tell opponents that they don’t have a clue since they’ve never even been in Alaska. I mentioned my trip only to let others know I’ve been to Alaska and I loved what I saw in the true wilderness. I never claimed that the trip gave me any special knowledge about the affects of oil drilling in ANWR. For information on that factor I referred you to the best authority available, the scientists who spend careers gathering relevant information. I did present other arguments (ANWR oil alternatives, TAP security, etc.) that were based on facts, common sense, and logic; no insider or local knowledge necessary.

I certainly would not feel justified in voicing my opinion on this issue if the only people affected were residents of Alaska. I’m all for local control of local issues. But the fact is that this is a national and international issue because of the unique ecosystem represented by ANWR, and because of the worldwide economic and environmental impact of continued dependence on fossil fuels. Another fact is that ANWR belongs to all citizens of the U.S., and as the poll I referred to indicated, the majority would prefer ANWR be preserved. So there is no outside influence here; we are all affected by the outcome.

Once again you are correct skytoo, it certainly is a stretch of the imagination to claim that the same groups that charged the oil industry with facilitating the ecological death of the norh coast of Alaska prior to development of Prudhoe Bay, and are now using these same excuses against the developement of ANWR, might somehow be incorrect. It certainly is a big strech of the imagination to think that these same groups could be wrong about the same thing again. You would have thought they would have learned something after the first go round. I'm sorry that I doubted any of your sources of overwhelming evidence. I will ignore anything that I might know to the contrary.

I can certainly understand how you and others that want "no exploitation of natural resources in our back yard" are disappointed about all of those caribou and wetland birds that were not decimated when the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oilfields were brought into production, and named the most enviromentally friendly oilfields on the face of the earth. I will ignore all of the environmental advances made in the oil industry, and directly attributable to the north slope oil fieilds in the last twenty years. I will actively resist any knowledge that I have of the efforts and monetary expenditures of the great state of Alaskain combating environmental damage.

It certainly makes no sense to me to exploit any of the natural resources in this great land of ours. We might as well tell those farmers in Nebraska to just let that land go back to the wild. We can buy our corn some other place, like maybe China. We can all just sit back and suck off the government tit and depend on folks like you to support us. It's just to bad for all of you uneducated folks that want to espire to something besides a job at Wal-Mart or McDonalds. I'm certain that office job you have is self supporting, and doesn't rely on any resource production to sustain it.</ sarcasm >

I might not have a college education, but I do know that if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck you'd better have a shotgun that is loaded.

BTW did I mention that I am a long time Huskers fan (about the mid 60s). Not that well acquainted with Devaney but IMO Osborne is the finest coach to ever draw a breath.

You are right it really has no effect on either, I just find it helpful to know a little background. I believe you know I am in Alaska, so my arguments are based on what I perceive to be a need both at home and on a national basis. Other states have been allowed to fully develop their lands as the locals deemed necessary. In most cases the states control the vast majority of land with in their borders, particullary on the east coast. Whereas in Alaska, less than 1/2 of 1% of the land is even in private hands, and I believe that State itself only controls about 25-30%. The rest is controled by the Fed.

So we are talking about developing a track of land that is probably a lot smaller than the city in which you live, or maybe as big as some of the farms in the area. This tiny area, in a land mass that is 1/5 the size of the entire United States. To bring this closer to your home, we are 7.5 times larger than your home state. My state needs the ability to develop an economic foundation, which can't happen when the fed controls resource development.

Other states have been allowed to fully develop their lands as the locals deemed necessary. ...My state needs the ability to develop an economic foundation, which can't happen when the fed controls resource development.

I just got done paying my state income taxes. Have you paid yours yet? Oh, that’s right, Alaska doesn’t have a state income tax. And for some reason I didn’t get any dividend from the state from our harvesting of natural resources. Oh, that’s right, that only happens in Alaska. Asking for sympathy because you can’t develop a tiny corner of your state is pretty silly when you already benefit far more from your natural resources than any other state.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t all National Parks and Wildlife Refuges treated the same? Numerous states have areas that the majority of Americans prefer to preserve in their natural condition; Alaska is not alone. Is there some reason you can justify being treated differently? And does it really make sense to build your economic foundation on a resource that will be depleted in a few decades?

I'm certain that office job you have is self supporting, and doesn't rely on any resource production to sustain it.

Actually, my job (and most in Nebraska) is to some extent dependent on the farm economy. And with commodity prices being in the toilet for several years, my job is not secure. But I’m not going to suggest to farmers (my family included) to rip out their terraces and grassed waterways, or double their fertilizer use, or plow up marginal land just to increase production. Why? Because these practices are not sustainable and after a short term bonus we would pay both economically and environmentally. Drilling ANWR might help you keep your (Alaskafan) job until you retire, but what about the next generation? What happens when the oil is gone?

Alaskanfan...glad to hear you're a long-time Husker fan. We probably have more in common than either of us realize.

The country roads in my county are set up on a one mile grid. There are 800 miles of roads that checkerboard the entire countryside. Yet they only cover 1.5% of the land. This is just an example of how deceiving numbers can be.

ALASKA
The Rural Context For Transportation Consultations
Alaska is the largest state in the U.S. in land area, 3rd smallest in population, and the least densely populated. Approximately 67 percent of Alaska's population and jobs, and almost 100 percent of the land, is non-urban. About 92 percent of Alaska's roads are rural. Federally owned lands amount to 66 percent of the state's land area.
NEBRASKA
The Rural Context For Transportation Consultations

Nebraska is the 15th largest state in the U.S. in land area, 14th smallest in population, and 9th least densely populated. Approximately 60 percent of Nebraska's population and jobs, and just under 100 percent of the land, is non-urban. About 97 percent of its roads are rural. Federally owned lands are not a major factor; they amount to less than one and a half percent of the state's land area.

Nebraska:Federally owned lands are not a major factor; they amount to less than one and a half percent of the state's land area.
Alaska:Federally owned lands amount to 66 percent of the state's land area.

Geography QuickFacts Alaska USA Land area, square miles 571,951This must be at low tide, because of the extreme tides and shoreline area (more than the rest of the U.S. combined) Alaska increases in size by one third at extreme low tide(about 2-1/2 times the total land area of your state) this is a concept I would not expect anyone from Nebraska to understand.
Nebraska Land area: 76,878 sq mi.
So we have over four of your states total land area owned by the government. Why all of the interest in 2,000 arces?

Why are you so opposed to less than a one percent reduction of the state owned lands in Alaska? Is it because your government owns little of your home state?

Why are you opposed to energy development in my state? Are you really that concerned about the environment? If you are that concerned about the environment why is it only concern about the environment of the U.S. I guess the rest of the world doesn't matter.

I would suggest that you initiate energy harvesting in your state. If harvesting wind or solar power is such a lucrative industry as indicated by your post #67 I am totally amazed that it is not more popular than growing oats or corn in your state. I guess it's that old supply and demand thing.

I just got done paying my state income taxes. Have you paid yours yet? Oh, that’s right, Alaska doesn’t have a state income tax. And for some reason I didn’t get any dividend from the state from our harvesting of natural resources. Oh, that’s right, that only happens in Alaska. Now we come to the true reason for the envy of Alaskans exhibted in your posts.(I notice that you fail to mention Alaska's constitutional law regarding mineral rights). Are you envious of our state laws? You could move here, we even allow people from Nebraska to immigrate (only because their state has the best college football program in the nation), but then you would be subject to the same financial stranglehold you propose to put me under. Why does it bother you that we expect industry to pay our state for the natural resources that they take from our state?

Why are you holding my states economy hostage to your ideal of energy development and environmental activism?

What does it matter to you that we have negotiated with the industries that exploit our natural resources a program here in Alaska that actually pays people to live here? What does it matter that we have to heat our houses at the minimum of 10 months of the year, or are you just jealous that we negotiated a financially agreeable position with the oil companies?

It would make sense by your logic to make all of my state federal lands and deprive anyone from living here. Alaska could become the wilderness area for the entire U.S.

And does it really make sense to build your economic foundation on a resource that will be depleted in a few decades?
We could try farming,(something you can relate with) however with the short growing season (two to three months) I personally doubt the results would be financially rewarding.

With the market trend of oil prices and the distinct possibilty of $60.00 per barrel oil, drilling ANWR makes more sense now more than it makes when gasoline is $5.00 per gallon and production is still 5 years in the future at which time ANWR will not be perceived by anyone as such a "pristine wilderness".

They probably need all of them miles to service the lucrative solar and wind power generators that you elude to in your post #67.

There we go with that supply and demand thing again.