Does everyone know that Alaska has the worlds third largest supply of oil? Knowing this and the fact the we have the technology to drill there one might ask why arent we? Is it because we are trying to protect all of the animals and wildlife? Actually its not. It is a proven fact the the animals and wildlife of the ANWR (Alaska Natural Wildlife Reserve) would not be harmed by oil drilling. Well now you must think what is holding us back because im tired of paying nearly $2 a gallon. The reason we can't drill for oil in ANWR is because the liberals consider it "untouched land". Is that not the biggest bunch of crap you have heard? I believe that something needs to be done about this, what do yall say?

quote:

Oh, yes, they do.

Oh no, they don't. Well to be fair, some do, most don't.

quote:

Under the auspices of the Alaska Wilderness League, an environmental protection group, Mitchell came here to relate her concern about her people and their culture, which she says are endangered by proposals to open the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve's coastal plain for oil exploration and production.

Mitchell is a Gwich'in, a tribe of the Athabascan Indians that have lived off the land in northern Alaska and Canada for 30,000 years. She claims opening ANWR's coastal plain for oil exploration and production will destroy the Porcupine caribou and the Gwich'in culture so tightly linked to them.

http://boards.youthnoise.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/93510584663/m/20610562763/r/75410285963#75410285963


That is one person's view. My bad. But here in Alaska, the news stations have documented several of the Gwich'in leaders fighting against ANWR drilling. In fact, one of them went to Washington D.C. and cursed out those who were for it. But he apologized for it, for what reason, I don't know.

quote:

A third argument and the most intriguing from my perspective concerned the portrayal of Alaska Natives and development. In the portrayal of Prudhoes' operation Glendon noted that while caribou bulls might stay in active operations areas Prudhoe was no longer a calving area. Females and young only went by the buildings and pipelines when driven by heavy mosquito infestation. This has bearing on ANWR and Alaska Natives in that some locations targeted for exploration are just that - places where caribou bear their young. During the presentation Glendon Brunk stated the Kaktovik community, nevertheless, approved of oil exploration because the leadership was motivated by greed and a short sighted belief in the power of money to correct social problems. In contrast, Arctic Village and Venetie were described as a part of the 7,000 people of the Athapascan nation who, had by an agreed document, opposed opening ANWR to oil exploration and development. According to the presentation the Alaska Natives who were against oil exploration and development were acting on their heritage and tradition.

quote:

As an Alaskan Native and a citizen of the state I felt as though I had visited an environmental church service, perhaps the church of Henry David Thoreau. The participant songs, the call for a conversion from our consumer philosophy, the potent mixture of argument and emotional persuasion combined with every appearance of sincere conviction by both Grace and Glendon was an experience in environmental evangelism. The present road of America is dark, short sighted, flawed, bound for destruction but there is hope in individual conversion and commitment. Individual salvation and working together as a community of believers was a familiar cord. Also familiar was the portrayal of Alaska Natives

http://www.alaskool.org/projects/ANCSA/ARTICLES/ongtooguk1990/anwr_ongtooguk.html

I can find more stuff but I'm feeling too lazy right now.

Just a few months ago they were arguing against it on the news and in the newspapers, almost daily. Maybe I'm just imagining things.

quote:

Originally posted by EarthGoddess:

quote:

THe Eskimos up there support the drilling.

No, they don't.

While we at it, let's see what your fellow liberals have to say about the matter:

The Former Democratic Governor of Alaska, Tony Knowles, said to Alan Colmes, "Well, I think you need to ask the senior citizen that was being pried from an elevator during one of the rolling blackouts in California as to whether we should develop our oil and gas in America so we can provide energy for families and jobs."

The Alaskan people have since elected a Republican governor, who also supports drilling.

How about another liberal favorite... the unions?
Teamster President, James P. Hoffa, said, "By tapping into petroleum resources in Alaska, we can create jobs and stabilize our economy by lessening our dependence on foreign oil."
"Alaskan oil fields currently use the most environmentally sensitive technology in the world. Only a small part of ANWR will be used, about 2,000 acres, roughly 1/5 the size of Washington Dulles Airport."

How about another top Teamster's official, Jerry Hood?
"The environmental lobby have repeated half truths for months, hoping that will make them true. I join President Bush in calling on the Senate to pass a comprehensive energy policy now."

The Democratic Party is crumbling, all because white collar environmentalists would rather save the porcupine caribou than a blue collar union man's job.

quote:

Originally posted by EarthGoddess:

quote:

THe Eskimos up there support the drilling.

No, they don't.

Oh, yes, they do.
George N. Ahmaogak, Sr., the mayor of Alaska's North Slope Borough (part of ANWR) said, "We know that development of energy in ANWR is a responsible use of the land. For thousands of years, we've had a reverence for the land, and part of our fundamental belief is that the land should be used responsibly. We take offense at people telling us that we don't know what's better for ourselves, our families, and our land."

quote:

THe Eskimos up there support the drilling.

No, they don't.

look at reactionary's post. THe Eskimos up there support the drilling.

I noticed how all of you lower 48 people keep debating this issue without even considering the Native Alaskan people that live near ANWR and the Porcupine caribou herd they rely on for subsistence. It's not like they can just stop hunting and go to a grocery store. Food would have to be shipped to them by air, and that can be ridiculously expensive.

the reason i posted that is because there is still alot of uncertatintly about how much oil there is. I still support the idea. I dont like the notion of countries like UAE, Saudi Arabia and other syuuch countries haveing a chioke hold on America. Yes russia is just as bad.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Because they cost more money. And you know how people are when it comes to spending money.

There's more problems than that. Hydrogen has significant holding problems associated with it and electricity simply can't transport cars long enough to be any good.

Double-edged swords cut both ways, red. You're obviously posting that because there could be more oil than estimates now say. But you have to realize that there could be less. What happens if we start drilling in ANWR and find out that the operation isn't cost-effective?

quote:

Originally Posted By The Department of Energy:
The size of the underlying resource base. Because there has been little petroleum drilling or exploration in ANWR, there is little first-hand knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of this region. The USGS oil resource estimates are based largely on the geologic conditions that exist in the neighboring State lands. Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR. Thus, the potential ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are uncertain.

source

17 billion barrels is peanuts. Here's a quote from Businessweek:

quote:

But there's one place -- Russia -- where reserve estimates just seem to go up and up. In its annual statistical survey of world energy, BP PLC (BP ) has recently revised its estimates of Russia's total proven oil reserves to 69.1 billion barrels, 6% of the world's total, up from 45 billion bbl. in 2001. But according to auditors with a worm's-eye view of what's actually going on in the depths of Siberia, such estimates may just scratch the surface of Russia's real potential. According to a recent study by Dallas-based energy reserve auditors DeGolyer & MacNaughton, whose clients include leading Russian energy companies such as Gazprom and Yukos, Russia's true recoverable reserves are between 150 billion bbl. and 200 billion bbl. That's up from industry estimates of 100 billion bbl. a few years ago.

Wouldn't it make more sense to buddy up with Russia and get our share of these massive reserves instead of dinking around in our little oil puddle in ANWR?

However, let me inform you that the Department of Energy expects ANWR to contribute around 0.7% of the world's total oil output in 2020. And the USGS (wow! I'm using your own source against you!) concluded that ANWR would hold a six-month supply of oil, unless the US changes its rate of consumption. ANWR is the largest source of domestic oil, but when you consider that the US has 3% of the world's oil reserves, even the largest we have is pretty small.

Stop looking at the numbers and start looking at the ratios. 15 billion barrels is a lot, but when that's less than one percent, it begins to look a lot smaller, and a lot less worth it.

quote:

Is energy independence not a benefit for the American citizen?

Here here reactionary.

quote:

Sorry but, I don't see you quoting any facts or sources.

Actually reactionary did. Scroll down:

quote:

Check your facts. According to the United States Geological Survey, ANWR contains 17,000,000,000 barrels of oil and 34,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas.

WE cannot be self-sufficient totally. Bu toil drives everything. It has a hand in every par to fhte economy. If the oil goes up, you can expect to see the DOW down 20 -50 points depending n how bad the increase in price was.

I also believe that drilling in ANWR is good. If we can supply oil to ourselves and get our reliance of that volatile atmosphere in the Mid East, it would be one more headache I wouldn't have.
OPEC just loves holding that above us. To know that they can essentially control our economy.

BTW, Toyota, Hyundai, and Nissan all have factories here in the US. They crete jobs here.
That aside, I dont want to bb totally self-sufficent because that will elad to isolationism. Trading with other countries can be a good thing.

quote:

THERE IS NOTHING IN ANWR!

You got that right. By the way, ANWR.org isn't such a good site to be basing your claims on. If you haven't noticed, they're all for the desecration of their namesake. So are ANWR.com and ANWR.net. It'd be like if I quoted saveANWRfromtheevilcommunistrepublicans.com. It just doesn't work to form an unbiased argument.

quote:

We must seek to make America self sufficent.

I sure hope you don't drive a Toyota, then. Or a Geo. Or a Datsun. Or a Mercedes. Or a Chevy truck. All have foreign parts. How can we be self-sufficient in our resources if we drive foreign cars and buy foreign products?

quote:

Wrote an entire paper on it. For a guy who tells others to know the facts, yours aren't up to snuff.

Sorry but, I don't see you quoting any facts or sources.

Lies, lies, and d amned lies.

quote:

Originally posted by tmargolis:
1. We will get, at max, a year's worth of oil for the U.S. The fact that this is the "third largest supply of oil" is impressive, but what counts is how many oil-days the supply represents. And it' ain't many.

Check your facts. According to the United States Geological Survey, ANWR contains 17,000,000,000 barrels of oil and 34,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas.

quote:

2. This oil will be shipped to Russia, rather than directly to the U.S. - same as all the other oil we drill in this region.

Not if we build a pipeline through Canada.

quote:

3. In Russia, the oil will become a tiny drop in a huge ocean of oil. Thus it will have no discernible effect on market prices - your pump price may drop a few pennies, or may not drop at all.

This is not about prices, its about energy independence. We need to stop getting over half of our oil for the Middle East, and this would be a great step in that direction.

quote:

4. After the oil is gone (which won't take long), the infrastructure put in place to get the oil will not be dismantled. It will be expanded to support more extractive operations - mining, etc. This is the same pattern as can be seen in the Amazon - a road is developed for cattle ranching, and that road allows the influx of all sorts of other extractive industries and migrant workers.

Just like in Prudhoe Bay, right? That's a much smaller reserve and we've been there for almost 20 years.

quote:

Net result
- No measurable benefit for American citizens

Is energy independence not a benefit for the American citizen?

quote:

- Opening of ANWR to an endless expansion of industry, and thus loss of the wildlife refuge

You're willing to sacrifice America's energy for sources for polar bears and porcupine caribou? I'm starting to doubt your "rational republican" sign off.

quote:

Who cares about the wildlife refuge? In fact, if left relatively pristine, it represents a huge source of tourist income, indefinitely. This income would dwarf what we could eek out from oil and mining.

THERE IS NOTHING IN ANWR! According to http://www.anwr.org, 5,000 tourists visit ANWR every year, not even close to how many file through the gates of Disney World before the park even opens. Even the Nome Eskimo tribes support drilling.

quote:

If there are no discernible benefits to Americans, why is Bush so keen on drilling?

Because it is in the best interest of our domestic energy and foreign diplomatic policies. Think about it, we'd have Venezuela and Saudi Arabia by the you-know-what if we could threaten to cease all oil purchases. American oil money built Saudi Arabia, and threatening to cut it off would put them in our pocket.

quote:

Because there will be a VERY discernible benefit to the oil companies themselves.

Good, we want the oil companies to prosper. Think of the job creation, increased incomes, and rising share prices. What is good for corporations is almost always good for the people.

quote:

Bush's energy policy was formulated by the energy industry,

This is a liberal conspiracy theory that have never been proven.

quote:

with no input from scientists or resource-management experts.

But somehow, Congress approved it.

quote:

And drilling in ANWR will make oil companies tidy profits,

Good! Growing businesses will provide our people with jobs, incomes, and a higher standard of living.

quote:

while helping Americans very little.

Not all of the War on Terror is fought on the desert battlefields. We must seek to make America self sufficent.

quote:

Nuff said - but next time you mouth off and present "liberal" views as simplistic nonsense, do a bit of research first.

Wrote an entire paper on it. For a guy who tells others to know the facts, yours aren't up to snuff.

quote:

A rational Republican

Either you're being sarcastic, of you're a RINO on a scale not seen before.

quote:

Alaska has the worlds third largest supply of oil

OK, folks, a little basic math:

Let's say I have the "largest refrigerator in the state." Mine is 20 cubic feet, and the next largest is only 16 cubic feet. Does this mean anything? Of course not - because there are tens of thousands of refirgerators in the state, and the net capacity of all of those combined is tens of thousands of times the capacity of my "largest" fridge.

The fact that ANWR has the third largest reservoir of oil in the world is a meaningless statistic. Because, compared to the total supply of oil in the world, ANWR contains a tiny drop - enough to support the U.S. for about a year, as I've said below.

Thx,

A rational Republican

'The reason we can't drill for oil in ANWR is because the liberals consider it "untouched land".'

Actually, here's why we shouldn't drill in ANWR:

1. We will get, at max, a year's worth of oil for the U.S. The fact that this is the "third largest supply of oil" is impressive, but what counts is how many oil-days the supply represents. And it' ain't many.

2. This oil will be shipped to Russia, rather than directly to the U.S. - same as all the other oil we drill in this region.

3. In Russia, the oil will become a tiny drop in a huge ocean of oil. Thus it will have no discernible effect on market prices - your pump price may drop a few pennies, or may not drop at all.

4. After the oil is gone (which won't take long), the infrastructure put in place to get the oil will not be dismantled. It will be expanded to support more extractive operations - mining, etc. This is the same pattern as can be seen in the Amazon - a road is developed for cattle ranching, and that road allows the influx of all sorts of other extractive industries and migrant workers.

Net result
- No measurable benefit for American citizens
- Opening of ANWR to an endless expansion of industry, and thus loss of the wildlife refuge

Who cares about the wildlife refuge? In fact, if left relatively pristine, it represents a huge source of tourist income, indefinitely. This income would dwarf what we could eek out from oil and mining.

If there are no discernible benefits to Americans, why is Bush so keen on drilling? Because there will be a VERY discernible benefit to the oil companies themselves. Bush's energy policy was formulated by the energy industry, with no input from scientists or resource-management experts. And drilling in ANWR will make oil companies tidy profits, while helping Americans very little.

Nuff said - but next time you mouth off and present "liberal" views as simplistic nonsense, do a bit of research first.

Sincerely,

A rational Republican