ANWR: Setting the record straight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

At least we elected politicians, who knew that the oil resources was in fact limited and took steps to ensure a long term viable future. The permanent fund was set up to do just that, ensure that Alaska had a financial future. The Permanent Fund checks were an afterthought, several years after the fund was started.

I sort of feel sorry for you down there, that the people serving you didn't have the same foresight. But let me ask about that. Say the same oil resource (10% of current demand) was available in your state requiring the same land allocation in proportion to the size of your state which I calculate to be about 232 acres. Yet from that small area of land you could fund your entire state government, eliminate state taxes and provide each man women and child a check of approx. $1,000 every year just in time for the holidays. Do you think the local would go for it? Do you think the politicians would go for it? More importantly, would you, or should we save that little patch of land because it still has the same weeds on it that the buffalo used to graze on? I suppose that it would be better if the land had already been developed, rather than on public land. Of course, then the owner of the property would have to be compenstated for his property rights, and that is another topic of discussion.

Another quick point on another post you made. You mentioned just how little space all those roads took up. I guess you didn't want to mention that the reason that the roads were actually there were to facilitate DEVELOPMENT of the farming community, which we all depend on. Yet without that infrastucture of roads very few of the farms would be viable. I imagine we could say the same about the railroads, those tracks just take up so little space yet the purpose they serve far out weighs the virgin land it cut through.

Do you realize how many birds are killed each year by wind farms? Doesn't this concern you?

That's a valid question and yes, it is a concern. The full effect of wind power on bird mortality is still unknown and being studied. The impact can already be reduced with proper siting and turbine design, and other solutions are being investigated. And wind opponents tend to forget that other forms of electric generation have significant negative impacts on birds, as well as other wildlife. Remember, the wind industry is a relatively new industry and bugs are still being worked out.

I only used wind as an example; I don't have any dreams of it supplying all of our energy needs. The best solution is a mix of energy sources, appropriate for each region, along with a strong emphasis on efficiency measures. This mix will benefit local economies throughout the country and will be highly secure from disruption or price swings. Those attributes can't be claimed by fossil fuels.

When I mention efficiency measures I'm referring to getting the most out of our energy, reducing waste. There are a multitude of simple steps, such as adding insulation, using fluorescent bulbs, and using high efficiency appliances, that would have tremendous impact. In the office building I work in, all bathroom lights and fans run 24/7 despite the building being occupied only about 40% of that time. Just shutting those off would save a lot. Multiply that times the millions of other ways we waste energy and you don't even need several hundred power plants or the fuel to run them. If we only increased vehicle efficiency by ONE mpg it would offset even the optimistic estimates of oil in ANWR.

My main point is that without sacrifice, and with economic benefit to all, we could easily do without the potential oil in ANWR. Factor in it's lack of security and the environmental concerns (The degree of environmental impact is highly debatable as this thread has shown. But risk does exist and if you say the risk is nil you are living in a dreamland), and ANWR drilling doesn't make sense.

My main point is that without sacrifice,

To any one living in a dream world in Nebraska. Even though you have chosen to ignore my posts to the contrary the facts still exist, this decision will effect the economy of our country.
and with economic benefit to all,

except those that choose to live in Alaska or support themselves with skills based on an industry that is dependant on narural resource development. Perhaps you didn't read or choose to ignore evidence to the contrary.

Reposted from THE TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR.
2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates in 1995 on bonus bids alone were $2.6 billion.

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

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

we could easily do without the potential oil in ANWR. your opinion

So you suggest we continue to send our petrodollars to the ME nations that hate us and use our dollars to fund terrorism against us? Once again you are correct, why should we keep any of this money in our own country to provide jobs and income for the people of the U.S. It only makes sense to pollute a third world country rather than allow drilling in the most pollution free environment in oil production on the face of this planet. Are you really that obtuse?

Factor in it's lack of security and the environmental concerns Again you must have skipped over or chosen not to read the posts to the contrary
I suppose you believe the security of oil tankers from the mideast to be far superior than anything here on U.S. soil?

(The degree of environmental impact is highly debatable as this thread has shown. But risk does exist and if you say the risk is nil you are living in a dreamland), This is your opinion and the dreamland exists between your ears.

ANWR drilling doesn't make sense.

Maybe to you. 75 % of Alaskans disagree. Since you have choosen to skip over or ignore my previous post, allow me to repeat:fromTOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR
10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

I'm sorry that your inland Gwich'in natives don't support drilling on the coastal plain, even though it may be questionable as to their motives.(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.)Pretty hard to base your oposition on these folks.

(My main point is that without sacrifice) To any one living in a dream world in Nebraska. Even though you have chosen to ignore my posts to the contrary the facts still exist, this decision will effect the economy of our country.

Talk about ignoring posts. Did you read my item on renewables and efficiencies? If I insulate my house (I did), using a local contractor (I did), I am warmer and save money (I did), the local economy benefits (contractor spends his profit, I spend my energy cost savings), and I USE LESS ENERGY. Multiply this by the millions of energy savings opportunities around the U.S. and all of the public win.

(and with economic benefit to all) except those that choose to live in Alaska or support themselves with skills based on an industry that is dependant on narural resource development. Perhaps you didn't read or choose to ignore evidence to the contrary.

I respect your skills but should the rest of the country sacrifice to support your industry? The oil industry is and always has been a boom and bust endeavor, based on dwindling resources, and is unsustainable. Those who place their trust in it should be aware of the risk.

(we could easily do without the potential oil in ANWR.) your opinion

No, fact. Increasing fuel efficiency by 1 mpg would eliminate the need for ANWR oil. Requiring replacement tires to be as fuel efficient as new would eliminate the need for ANWR oil. Two very basic, affordable examples, both facts, no opinion involved.

Once again you’ve ignored my posts. I emphasize domestic renewables and efficiency measures, which would create jobs and provide economic benefits for local U.S. economies. And by the way, the majority of our imported oil DOES NOT come from the Mideast. But I’m sure when drilling supporters constantly repeat that mantra there is no intention to mislead (sarcasm).

Again you must have skipped over or chosen not to read the posts to the contrary I suppose you believe the security of oil tankers from the mideast to be far superior than anything here on U.S. soil?

See my previous answers.

(The degree of environmental impact is highly debatable as this thread has shown. But risk does exist and if you say the risk is nil you are living in a dreamland), This is your opinion and the dreamland exists between your ears.

A diverse team of knowledgeable and experienced scientists have confirmed the risks. It is your opinion that they are part of some conspiracy to keep you out of ANWR. Who do you expect me to believe?

Also, the consensus from leading economists is that the estimated employment potential and economic impact are greatly exaggerated by drilling supporters. Should I believe economic experts or industry insiders? I’ve ignored some of your comments and “facts” because they come from industry insiders, who stand to gain from drilling, which makes them hard to accept as unbiased reliable sources who accurately analyze and interpret the data.

You are right, I said a week ago that I didn't have the time for this. I decided I was wrong and that it was worth making time to answer all the questions that are thrown at me and to continue to clarify my position.

but should the rest of the country sacrifice to support your industry?

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

The oil industry is and always has been a boom and bust endeavor, based on dwindling resources, and is unsustainable. Those who place their trust in it should be aware of the risk.

So we should place our trust in a technology that has proven to be inefficient? It's nice that you have chosen to insulate your house. Have you also chosen to power it with solar or wind power? If not what are your excuses? You could be a real example of non dependence on the power of big oil, what's holding you back?

Increasing fuel efficiency by 1 mpg would eliminate the need for ANWR oil.

The trouble with this argument is that not everyone wants to drive a Yugo.

Requiring replacement tires to be as fuel efficient as new would eliminate the need for ANWR oil. Two very basic, affordable examples, both facts, no opinion involved.

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

Once again you’ve ignored my posts. I emphasize domestic renewables and efficiency measures, which would create jobs and provide economic benefits for local U.S. economies. And by the way, the majority of our imported oil DOES NOT come from the Mideast. Time To Quit Trying To Wish Our Way Out of Dependence on Mideast Oil Wordsmiths tell us the expression "you can't get blood from a turnip" has been around since 1666.

You'd think 335 years would be long enough to get the point across, but apparently not, because some environmentalists still believe alternative energy can run the country.

Consider California. For two decades, California has promoted alternative energy. It also has suffered an energy crisis.

California has more than 100 windmill power generator facilities. They provide a total of 1,400 megawatts of electricity, compared to the state's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which provides 2,100 mw. It would take 3,300 such windmill facilities to generate the state's electricity.

Wind energy suffers multiple disadvantages. Its generation costs are double to triple those of conventional energy. It requires minimum average wind speeds, and, because winds are unpredictable, output cannot be timed to match demand. Turbine blades kill birds the Cato Institute estimates that if 20 percent of our nation's electricity were to be generated by wind power, 880,000 birds would be killed annually.

Even the American Wind Energy Association only claims that wind energy could supply six percent of U.S. energy needs by 2020. Wind energy can't make us energy independent anytime soon.

Solar energy is no panacea either. California is home to the world's largest set of solar electric cells, yet they provide just 413 mw of electricity.

The hydropower option requires capital investments 3-6 times higher than conventional energy. Hydropower's future is imperiled by environmentalists because dams can harm flora, fauna and fish.

Nevertheless, the free market is fair. If any method of alternative energy becomes practical and economical, Americans will use it. In the meantime, we need to rely on the tried and true, including oil.

America probably has more than 110 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves. Full exploitation would not make the U.S. energy independent, but it would make us less vulnerable to Middle Eastern instability.

Unfortunately, federal land available for oil and gas exploration in the western U.S. - where 67 percent of the nation's onshore oil reserves and 40 percent of natural gas reserves are located - has decreased by more than 60 percent since 1983. Oil exploration has essentially been banned from more than 300 million onshore acres of federal land.

Congress also has prohibited exploration and production on more than 460 million offshore acres, including most of the best prospects for major new offshore discoveries outside the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico. Federal restrictions should be reviewed.

The House of Representatives recently voted to permit environmentally-responsible drilling on 2,000 acres of the oil-rich 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), most likely America's most valuable oil reserve. The Energy Information Administration estimates that ANWR contains 5.7-16 billion barrels of oil. ANWR oil could replace Saudi oil imports for almost 30 years. Or, it could replace half of what we import from all of the Persian Gulf for 36 years. Yet, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle won't schedule a vote on the House bill because, he says, the Senate is too busy with other things.

The time for excuses especially dubious ones is past. It is time we quit trying to wish our way out of dependence on Mideast oil and started doing something about it.

Good News About the Environment: A Review of Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist

You can tell you've won the debate when your opponent's remaining intellectual argument is to throw a pie in your face.

Bjorn Lomborg, a former Greenpeace supporter, experienced that happy and, perhaps, tasty, satisfaction during a talk at a Borders bookshop in Oxford, England on September 5, when British environmental activist Mark Lynas threw a Baked Alaska in his face.

"I wanted to put a Baked Alaska on his smug face," Lynas said in a statement afterward, "in solidarity with the native Indian and Eskimo people in Alaska who are reporting rising temperatures, shrinking sea ice and worsening effects on animal and bird life."

Lomborg has become an anathema to true believers such as Lynas because, after studying the available evidence, Lomborg no longer embraces the environmental community's shibboleths about runaway global warming.

An associate professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, Lomborg, like Lynas, once believed the world was "going to hell" - transported there mainly by selfish Americans who insisted on running their air conditioners in summer, their snowmobiles in winter and their SUVs year-round.

Lomborg's view of global warming began to change when he put aside his gut feelings and reviewed the latest scientific evidence on the subject.

Lomborg has analyzed those studies in a brilliant new book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," and concluded that "we have more leisure time, greater security, less pollution, fewer accidents, more education, more amenities, higher incomes, and fewer starving people" than any other generation in history.

So why do so many of us apparently believe otherwise? In large part, Lomborg says, because the challenges of climate change, deforestation, poor air and water quality and endangered species have been vastly overblown by advocacy groups in search of funding and a somewhat gullible media in search of headlines and air time.

"That doesn't mean there are no problems, but things are getting better and better despite what media and environmental organizations say," says Lomborg.

Consider:

* The percentage of people in the developing world with access to clean water has increased to 80 percent from 30 percent since the early 1970s.

* Literacy levels have increased to 86 percent from 25 percent in less than a century.

* Life expectancy has followed an upward trajectory for more than 100 years with even those in the most impoverished countries now living longer than did most Europeans in the 1900s.

* The average daily food intake has increased to 2,650 from 2,000 calories over the past four decades.

My how perceptions change.

In the 1970s it was predicted that widespread starvation would take place, even in highly-developed first world countries, by the end of the 20th Century. The march of time and progress has rendered this prediction preposterous. Likewise absurd are 1970s predictions of a coming ice age. When that prophesy failed to materialize, its prophets reversed course and began warning us about global warming and its supposed catastrophes: melting ice caps, rising seas, farmland droughts and huge increases in the spread of communicable diseases such as Malaria.

While the Earth is indeed in a cyclical phase of warming - one degree over the past century - there is scant evidence to suggest that pace will accelerate and even less evidence to suggest that human consumption of fossil fuels or other human activities is responsible.

Rather than have the United States commit economic suicide by signing a Kyoto treaty that would cost it up to $350 billion a year to implement, and cause economic dislocations that would fall particularly harshly on the poor, Lomborg would prefer to see the world community finance a program to extend safe-drinking water to the 1.2 billion humans that still lack it.

"For less than one year's cost of meeting Kyoto," he says, "we could provide systems for clean drinking water that would save two million lives a year."

I seriously doubt that you will bother to read this post, however for my own sanity,I will post it.

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.