Alaska oil drilling back on agenda

I watched the fight against oil rigs in Bristol Bay for years...Owens is right on.

There are many that inthat region who support drilling now that the economic base has moved away from salmon.

Sentiment in Soldatna/Kenai is the same. Many are chomping at the bit to repeat the ecomonic boon of the last oil boom when the Slope was first developed. Hell, if I was scraping by to feed a family and the chance to work a steady,decent paying union job with great bennies came up, I'd be in favor of it also.

Something tells me that residents of Bethel, Dillingham, Nome and all the hamlets in between on the coast of the Bering Sea might jump at the chance to retrain and work on this project...

Of course Alaskans want it, but it's a NATIONAL wildlife refuge, so the tree hugging Sierra Club hippies have just as much of a share of the land as the local Alaskans.

"Low-impact drilling" doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

I don't want to start anything here skiing bear but right now as it stands, Normal people are advised/not allowed to cross much of the tundra in/on the north slope/far north Alaska as it is.

ESPECIALLY Alyeska/Contractor employees who are told in that safety training that disturbing the tundra, wildlife, or environment can lead to dismissal.

---

My apologies, that is correct. I'm not out to heat things up on this, just wanted to pitch in my thoughts having spent time up there.

My point is/was that roads built across the tundra are present up there currently, and if ANWR is drilled, I fear that roads will be placed out there as well. The oil companies try to satisfy people by building "ice roads" through "sensitive" areas. To build an ice road snow is packed down to create a road surface in the winter that will then melt in the summer...no lasting effect. Ummm, so my walking on the tundra is bad, but packing enough snow and ice to create a road that is traveled by heavy machinery does no damage? I'd personnally like to see the impact study that supports that. As for the matter of spills...spills happen, and yes, typically people are reprimanded for them. That doesn't change the fact that oil is not being spilled on the ground in ANWR now and the absence of drilling will help preserve that absence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkiingBear

Have you been to the north slope of Alaska? Have you seen just how "little impact" that place is? I spend a couple of weeks a year working for the oil companies up there and I can tell you that it will not be low impact. The govt and the oil companies can talk all they want about how they won't build roads and they will fly supplies in and out...but once they get the plant sites built roads will soon follow.

---

Precisely. They're asking for 2000 acres. That's a very small area of land. If the screw it up like both you and I expect they will never get any more opened and will have effectively killed the chances of any further development on the north slope. I think that sacrificing 2k acres for the likely hood of a long term killing of the issue is acceptible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkiingBear

Ummm, so my walking on the tundra is bad, but packing enough snow and ice to create a road that is traveled by heavy machinery does no damage? I'd personnally like to see the impact study that supports that.

---

AK BLM Study

2003 Dep't. of Interior Conference details / Iceroads on Tundra Ecosystems.

So I'm an Alaskan, and can vouch for the fact that most Alaskans would prefer to see ANWR opened. However, that stems from the fact that most of the state is wilderness, which gives the illusion that the wilderness will last forever. Alaskans, including my parents in this, are a bunch of government hating conservatives that continually get pissed off at the "interference" of those from Outside. That's why they live in such a remote place to begin with, and with the cost of living so ridiculously high it's understandable that they want job-creating economy-boosting projects. But, as stated, it is a National Reserve, and we all deserve a chance to put our two cents in. Maybe Alaska IS paying for the failure of other states to protect their wilderness, but the lack of preservation elsewhere does not mean we can despoil our wilderness in the interest of fairness.

It is true that ANWR is not as important to the US oil economy as the hype tends to make us think. "The U.S. Geological Study (USGS) concluded that, given America's current rate of consumption, ANWR would in all likelihood hold a 180-day (6-month) supply of oil." This would in no way impact what we pay at the gas pump, especially considering that no one even knows if the oil in ANWR is sweet crude capable of producing gasoline. ANWR.org, the official site, openly admits that they won't know ANYTHING about quality or quantity until they drill, so all of this is just theory.

2000 acres? If they screw it up, then yes, they likely wouldn't get permission to continue to drill. However, remember how much money the government is planning on pumping into this little experiment, how much will be spent if the Canada/Alaska pipeline ever gets built, how many politicians will be vested in its success, and how little the outside world will get to see of what really goes on up there. the eyes of the world may be on ANWR, but what they see may not be the reality.

It will probably get pushed through, but don't take security in the fact that it's only 2000 acres now. Undoubtably it will be much more in the end. Additionally, don't expect to see any benefits reaching your pocket.

[QUOTE=yentna snow] Alaskans, including my parents in this, are a bunch of government hating conservatives that continually get pissed off at the "interference" of those from Outside. [QUOTE]

60-Minutes could have a heyday with this concept. Nice to know another Utard who's seen this firsthand!!!!

I think my Dad and Stepmom had voodoo dolls of Lower 48 politicians in the basement...

Blah, blah, blah… ANWAR is federal land so peeps in AK have the same influence as peeps in Florida. Sorry, but them the rules. Also, is Alaska doesn’t have work for you, move, it is the American way. Sorry, but the American tax payer does enough subsiding of the rugged individuals of Alaska and we can’t afford another welfare project in the Arctic. Maybe the people of Alaska should have saved those Permanent Fund checks for a rainy day instead of buying Ski-Doos and Hawaiian vacations.

It is so obnoxious to hear people who make their livings harvesting commodity products on PUBLIC LAND whine about “fearing” Democrats. Live by the market economy, die by the market economy and deal with it. No wonder Pork Barrel Whores like Ted Stevens are perpetually elected in Alaska, he is the master of sucking tax dollars north.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greydon Clark

Blah, blah, blah… ANWAR is federal land so peeps in AK have the same influence as peeps in Florida. Sorry, but them the rules. Also, is Alaska doesn’t have work for you, move, it is the American way. Sorry, but the American tax payer does enough subsiding of the rugged individuals of Alaska and we can’t afford another welfare project in the Arctic. Maybe the people of Alaska should have saved those Permanent Fund checks for a rainy day instead of buying Ski-Doos and Hawaiian vacations.

It is so obnoxious to hear people who make their livings harvesting commodity products on PUBLIC LAND whine about “fearing” Democrats. Live by the market economy, die by the market economy and deal with it. No wonder Pork Barrel Whores like Ted Stevens are perpetually elected in Alaska, he is the master of sucking tax dollars north.

---

Just calling a spade a spade...

This is a really good discussion here with a lot of different views (heck, it's a little more enjoyable than work right now!). But I have to comment on this.

Owen, I completely agree with you and I empathize with the people of Alaska to want this to succeed for both the job and economical impact. But it's true, there are many of us that do not want this to go through. As much as I agree with Telenater on having a small 2,000 acre section approved for drilling to make this go away, I disagree with the fact that it will stop there. Our current Govt. administration has huge ties to oil. This is not only a landslide oppt. to offer a windfall to them and their supporters, I really have a hard time believing that it will stop with just the 2,000 acres. Fact is, this administration wants to put most of the entire West on the chopping block for oil. They are not good administrators of public lands and always put corporations before the public interest. FKNA, what pisses me off the most is the push for drilling in/around the Teton's and Moab- plus auctioning off large BLM/Forest Service land blocks to Oil and Timber (including areas of Utah's Red Rock Canyons and Dinosaur National Park- which was recently included in this month's Men's Journal article on places to visit wild places before they become 'extinct')

I doubt any studies done would be bipartisian or from a neutral point to monitor ANWAR. Just like global warming and plans to dump raw sewage into our rivers/streams, the clean air act, etc...- this administration will twist the truth to make it fit their plans. ANWAR is a trouble spot because it only paves the way for more oil drilling and exploration elsewhere. Problem is that in the last 4 years, more oil/gas drilling permits have been issued by Bush's people than in the last 100 years. That's why ANWAR is such an important 'last stand' from the Green people's point of view. Another trouble spot is that Bush's group is part of the 'my way or the highway' on issues. They are not willing to compromise.

And although it defintely affects the residents of Alaska, it also has far reaching implications back home. With possible Supreme Court appointees coming down the road to likely be conservative, pro-business- by allowing one operation in a national refuge/forest/park will pave the way for other areas- so yes it definitely has a huge impact on how national forest land and national parks are managed in the Lower 48.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yentna snow

... Maybe Alaska IS paying for the failure of other states to protect their wilderness, but the lack of preservation elsewhere does not mean we can despoil our wilderness in the interest of fairness.

---

I agree, but considering that the King Ranch in Texas is bigger than all of the land privately available for business use in a state that is nearly 2/3 the size of the continental US, it's just slightly out of whack. maybe it would be prudent to start locking up and rehabilitating land in the lower 48 and allowing Alaska to use some of it's land to prosper. Of course, we know that this would never fly and AK doesn't have the political muscle to fend off the rest of the country.

In the end, people feel good getting up in arms about preserving 2000 acres of Alaskan land while turning a blind eye to whats going on around them. Sure -- preserve a lions share of Alaska. Great - I'm all for it. Just don't take away all of our economic options just to ease the everyone elses guilt. People should try looking closer to home. It's pretty easy for people to get up in arms about ANWR when they don't stand to benefit from it and will never see it. I doubt people would show such enthusiasm for say, locking upp all of the Rocky Mountains and prohibitng business there. Or perhaps banning steel production in the mid west.

For better or worse, the health of Alaska's economy is currently dependent on oil production. Until the rest of the US loosens the reigns on accessiblity of our own lands for business useage, that's how it's going to remain. Unless we just start busing in temp employees to work in the a giant park for the rest of the country.

It's already happening here:
Colorado Oil Drilling

and here:
Utah Red Rock Canyons Oil Drilling


And more additional Colorado leases issued for San Juans....
Energy Interests Lease Colorado Canyons
11/10/2004 8:34:00 AM
Cox News Service


WASHINGTON _ The Bush administration pressed ahead Tuesday with a program of developing energy resources on government land, selling oil and gas leases on nearly 31,000 acres of western Colorado.

The lease auction, conducted at Grand Junction, Colo. despite protests from environmental groups, brought in $3.7 million, according to a Department of Interior spokesman.

Vaughn Whatley, an official of the department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), said the leases were approved subject to resolution of the environmental groups' objections.

Environmentalists said 15 parcels that lie inside six areas that have been proposed for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System were auctioned to oil and gas interests.

Wilderness areas, which can be designated only by an act of Congress, cannot be developed.

The auction brought the total amount of proposed wilderness land offered for energy lease auction by the Interior Department in the past 19 months to nearly 165,000 acres, according to Steve Smith of the Wilderness Society.

Accelerated oil and gas leasing of proposed wilderness land began after Interior Secretary Gale Norton announced in April 2003 that the department would abandon a practice of withholding such land from lease auctions.

"We have our own little miniature version of ANWR out here," Smith said, referring to the continuing push by energy companies and the Bush administration to open a portion of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy development.

"There's been a lot of comparisons between the Arctic refuge and our potential wilderness areas in the Rocky Mountain states," he added.

He said the environmental groups are not trying to block energy development, even on land proposed for wilderness protection.

In their protest, the Wilderness Society, the Colorado Mountain Club, Western Colorado Congress and the Colorado Environmental Coalition had suggested that the sites might be developed under slant-drilling techniques where the wellhead rests on adjoining lands.

"That would get everybody off the hook, because as long as the physical surface characteristics are not disturbed, the land retains wilderness character," Smith said, adding that environmental groups in Colorado "understand the need for energy development."

BLM's Whatley said BLM energy leasing policies are guided by "the president's comprehensive energy plan."

He said that the agency is required to follow a "multiple use" land management plans that includes energy development, and that it imposes strict environmental protections.

"Oil and gas development is one of the most regulated activities to take place on public land," he said.

In addition to the purchase price, companies pay monthly rent, plus royalties on any oil or gas they remove from government land.

Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., author of a bill to add hundreds of thousands of acres in Colorado to the National Wilderness Preservation System, has criticized the BLM for pushing lease auctions on many of the sites.

In addition, BLM has failed to process leases it has approved outside wilderness areas, meaning that energy companies are unable to prospect or develop oil and gas reserves there, according to Joshua Freed, a member of DeGette's staff.

"Thousands of acres have been leased that are not part of any wilderness proposal," he said, "but they are not being developed. Instead, BLM keeps piling on more and more and more leases."

Minutes before it began accepting bids on the Colorado sites Tuesday, the BLM withdrew for "further analysis" five parcels that environmentalists said lay within a proposed wilderness area known as Granite Creek.

In protesting leases on the five Granite Creek parcels and 15 others, the Wilderness Society and three other environmental organizations quoted from a Nov. 1 Grand Junction Daily Sentinel editorial questioning the Granite Creek lease plans.

The paper said Granite Creek is "known for its year-round stream and quality trout fishing, spectacular view of the Dolores River Canyon and La Sal Mountains, and nearly hidden granite pools that appear out of place, tucked below the red-sandstone walls that are typical of that area."

On the Web:

Colorado Wilderness Coalition: www.ourcolorado.org

Jeff Nesmith's e-mail address is jeffn@coxnews.com

ENDIT



Cox News Service JEFF NESMITH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greydon Clark

Blah, blah, blah… ANWAR is federal land so peeps in AK have the same influence as peeps in Florida. Sorry, but them the rules. ...

---

Actually, as AK only has one congressman and Florida has 23, we don't exactly have the same influence. In fact, it's quite disproportionate. It allows Floridians who continually fuck up the everglades to ease their guilt by locking up Alaska and now feel like they are "Environmentally Friendly".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greydon Clark

...It is so obnoxious to hear people who make their livings harvesting commodity products on PUBLIC LAND whine about “fearing” Democrats. Live by the market economy, die by the market economy and deal with it. ...

---

Hey - when people take away your job, your home and your way of life, you tend to fear them. Sorry if that's whining. If 60% of California or Florida were owned by the feds and unavailable for private business useage, or state betterment in any way I think you would probably find a lot of people there "whining". In fact, I think you would have a lot of the very same people who bitch about ANWR complaining about an oppressive administration, etc.. Living and dying by a market economy requires that you actually be allowed to participate in that economy.

It's really the same reason that we are resented by many South American countries. The US goes and clear cuts 99% of our own forests, and then gets all self righteous and try to tell them not to cut down the rain forests in an effort to economically prosper, because we've now figured out that we need them. "Hey - we fucked things up, now YOU pay the bill. Too bad if you want to acheive the standard of living that we have. We did it first and we can't afford to have you do it too." Who can blame 'em for being pissed?

It's kinda the same in AK. Wanna preserve ANWR? Great. Then allow us some other opportunity in our own yard. Don't shit all over your yard and then tell me I can't walk in mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owens Never Sleeps

It allows Floridians who continually fuck up the everglades to ease their guilt by locking up Alaska and now feel like they are "Environmentally Friendly".
.

---

Floridians, here's your chance to try and stop more destruction of the Everglades, because they are on the chopping block too...

Florida Everglades

Good Point, Owens. Agreed that all states need to manage their public land better. It starts with Florida ;)

Hmmmm, I wonder why most Alaskans voted for Bush even though they knew this was in his agenda?

Seems strange that people don't want us to use OUR OWN resources. Especially when they reproduce at an exponential rate.

Oh well, I guess we can use foreign resources, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Gaper

Hmmmm, I wonder why most Alaskans voted for Bush even though they knew this was in his agenda?

Seems strange that people don't want us to use OUR OWN resources. Especially when they reproduce at an exponential rate.

Oh well, I guess we can use foreign resources, huh?

---

Umm- have you been reading this thread? That's exactly why Alaskans voted for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owens Never Sleeps

Umm- have you been reading this thread? That's exactly why Alaskans voted for him.

---

Heh, beat me to it.

Hey Owens, at least you guys HAVE representatives in Congress....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owens Never Sleeps

Actually, as AK only has one congressman and Florida has 23, we don't exactly have the same influence. In fact, it's quite disproportionate.

---

Yeah, you have a Rep with 32 years experience who's the 4th ranking Republican. A Senator with 35 years experience, and a freshman Senator who took the seat of her father who'd served for 21 years. Suffice to say you have a good bit of influence (and your bright enough to reelect them to maintain your influence)

Most Alaskans are in favor of drilling because for a state of rugged individualists they like welfare. They already receive the most federal aid per capita of any state. They already have the largest number of federal employees of any state (DC, a teritory has more). And they have the permanent fund (which they fear the end of because oil revenues decreasing). But hey, lets give them access to some more federal funds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owens Never Sleeps

Umm- have you been reading this thread? That's exactly why Alaskans voted for him.

---

:o

Actually, no. I skimmed the first page and then impatiently jumped to the end to add my smart-assed remark.

Need to work on my timing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cj001f

...Most Alaskans are in favor of drilling because for a state of rugged individualists they like welfare. ... But hey, lets give them access to some more federal funds.

---

Complete horse shit. Most Alaskans are in favor of drilling because it is the base of our economy here. We would LOVE to have some other things to fall back on and that is the constant effort of the economic development organizations in this state. It's totally unhealthy to be dependent on one source of income. However, it's oil money that pays for our schools, roads, etc... and the jobs that go wit hthe industry that allow people to spend money in our stores, on our services and on local business in general. Most Alaskans are in favor of drilling because at this stage in time we are completely fucked without it.

And no one here was talking about giving Alaskans access to more federal funds. We were talking about access to land primarily domnated by the feds. I'll tell you one thing though, we better take those funds while we can get them because the day Ted Stevens retires or dies, AK is going to the back of the line at the feeding trough. Then, we'll be truly fucked. He's the only thing that has kept us from being COMPLETELY owned and walked on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owens Never Sleeps

Without getting too deep into this, it might suprise some of you to know that over 80% of Alaskans are in favor of drilling ANWR. [/img]

---

Thats news to me, I thought the last ADN poll was 60%

I have a better Idea, lets make cars an average of 3 mpg better fuel economy, that would provide the same amount of oil saved as drilling ANWR would gain.

As you can see from owen's lunacy, we Alaskans don't understand what we have here and are driven by money instead of beauty, the only chance the enviroment up here has is you guys in the lower 48 who have had natural beauty destroyed and can appreciate it, to tell your senators that you want to save the Arctic, and thus the snow (global warming is directly related to oil), and that you support finding alternative sourses of energy (water is so powerful and we have yet to harness it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owens Never Sleeps

Complete horse shit. Most Alaskans are in favor of drilling because it is the base of our economy here. We would LOVE to have some other things to fall back on and that is the constant effort of the economic development organizations in this state. It's totally unhealthy to be dependent on one source of income. However, it's oil money that pays for our schools, roads, etc... and the jobs that go wit hthe industry that allow people to spend money in our stores, on our services and on local business in general. Most Alaskans are in favor of drilling because at this stage in time we are completely fucked without it.

And no one here was talking about giving Alaskans access to more federal funds. We were talking about access to land primarily domnated by the feds. I'll tell you one thing though, we better take those funds while we can get them because the day Ted Stevens retires or dies, AK is going to the back of the line at the feeding trough. Then, we'll be truly fucked. He's the only thing that has kept us from being COMPLETELY owned and walked on.

---

^I agree with this, but lets face it the oil will run out or we will (god willing) find a cleaner energy source then like Ted Stevens dying Alaska would be truely fucked. I cannot wait for that day, people leaving the state to me, and the commercial fishermen, miners, timber people, skiers, tourists, those who suport the tourists, grocery store workers, and basically everyone, the only difference will be that there will be TAXES (god no[/sarcasm]) and we won't get $1000 a year for living here.

And uncle ted has wasted a ton of the US taxpayers money, for some reason thinks the north pacific is as alive and healthy as it has ever been, and is working hard to destroy the enviroment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Gaper

Hmmmm, I wonder why most Alaskans voted for Bush even though they knew this was in his agenda?

Seems strange that people don't want us to use OUR OWN resources. Especially when they reproduce at an exponential rate.

Oh well, I guess we can use foreign resources, huh?

---

I wonder why anybody voted for Bush being as he is a war monger and all, oh because Kerry is too, WTF is wrong with this country? Why are we the only industrialized country that is not semi socialist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey

^I agree with this, but lets face it the oil will run out or we will (god willing) find a cleaner energy source then like Ted Stevens dying Alaska would be truely fucked. I cannot wait for that day, people leaving the state to me, and the commercial fishermen, miners, timber people, skiers, tourists, those who suport the tourists, grocery store workers, and basically everyone, the only difference will be that there will be TAXES (god no[/sarcasm]) and we won't get $1000 a year for living here.

And uncle ted has wasted a ton of the US taxpayers money, for some reason thinks the north pacific is as alive and healthy as it has ever been, and is working hard to destroy the enviroment.

---

Commercial Fisherman? They're getting they're asses kicked by farm raised fish. They run their boats on OIL. Miners? Only a few active mines remain as most have been regulated out of profitable existence. Timber people? I spent 5 years in SE Alaska watching people sell their homes and lose everything after the Clinton Administration locked up the Tongass. Our timber industry is decimated. Skiers? They better be willing to skin because the expendable dollars won't be there to support Alyeska (or my company for that matter). Tourists? The vehicles, cruise ships and infrastructure necessary to cart them around thrashes WAY more than regulated industry. (not to mention their level of fuel consumption) Grocery store workers? Gotta have income to the average families in order to buy groceries and keep the stores open. The oil industry feeds so many people indirectly here it's not even funny. TAXES? Absolutely. It's time we bellied up and started paying. But guess what - in a state with 600,000 people and a tax base of about 300,000 you better be willing to pay about 80% of your salary in taxes to make up for what the oil indusrty contributes to this state. Otherwise, the only way that nice school you go to could afford to educate you would be to have 75 kids in each class and no sports. And as the Baby boomers age, that tax burden will get uglier.


My point isn't that oil is great - I agree with you. What we need is to lessen our dependence on oil. We're smart enough to send men to the moon, but not smart enough to make a good electric or hydrogen car? In the meantime it think I'd rather buy my oil from Alaska than give my money to PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL ME. Your sentiment about being driven by beauty rather than money is great as long as someone else is paying your bills or you figure out how to live without eating and as long as you don't give a shit about our schools, roads, public assistance organizations, jobs, assistance for the homeless, or any of the other things that make communities function. It sucks, but money is important.

I guess we could all be like Ted Nugent and head into the woods with a bag of flour and a gun. I could hack it, but somehow I don't think my mom would be into it.

** Semi-related side note. I find it interesting that people always relate oil to cars. No one ever seems to think about how much of our existence these days is based on oil. A huge percentage of the products we use are oil based. Pretty much every plastic, polymer or modern coating is oil based - including the top sheets for your skis. Paints, roads, DVDs, shoes, most modern sports equipment, lubricants, fishing line, industrial materials, --- pretty much everything. The fact that oil isn't fuel grade, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth getting. Anyway - not a positive or a negative, I just find it funny that this discussion always comes back to cars when that is only a tiny fraction of the percentage of oil useage.

Owens, thanks for chiming in. Especially since you don't do it often and some of us sorely need an Alaskan perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owens Never Sleeps

Anyway - not a positive or a negative, I just find it funny that this discussion always comes back to cars when that is only a tiny fraction of the percentage of oil useage.

---

The issue with oil & cars has more to do with the byproduct of combustion contributing to global warming rather than the mere fact that it's consumed, I think.

Even so, I had to step back and think about this for a moment.

When you get down to the nitty gritty of it, even present & future solutions to harnessing sources of alternative energy will have to rely on oil products in some way, shape or form. Gotta lubricate those turbines and insulate the wiring with something.

If that isn't irony, I dunno what is.