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.
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.