Alaska is a the forefront of some national news, and as the topic says, I am looking for "outsiders" take on the mess, and how much they really have thought about it!

I have kind of thought about it. I don't think we should drill in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge-Official govt. site) because it might have major effects on the ecosystem of ANWR. The caribou there were nearly eliminated at on time. their numbers are now on the rise. They use this area that is to get drilled in to calve, and humans WILL have some effect on the area. not to mention IF something were to happen to a pipeline (alaska has some major earthquakes, though I have no idea of seismic activity in the area of ANWR.) it would possibly damage/destroy parts of that ecosystem and environment. (I think caribou are grazers, meaning they eat plants from the ground, like grass, which spilled oil would damage and isn't good for animals.)

Drill, drill, drill. Alaska is a huge state, the ANWR is only a part of that, and only a small part of the ANWR is being considered for drilling.
We already have proven technology for pipe lines, and the caribou migration will be accomodated as needed.
And we definitely need to get out of the Arab world.

Below is a link giving 10 reasons to do it.

http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm

The only real arguments I have to it are: Economically not the best for Alaska right now- wait till oil prices are higher and Prudhoe falls off more. Second, The real enviromental damage comes from the transporting of the oil, not the drilling, and that is something they have messed up often here. Third is the insane argument that somehow it will decrease dependance on foreign oil, which it will not.

Drill it, that way we don't have to depend on those sleazy Saudis.

CP

I see no reason to open up an area designated to keep this kind of thing out. ANWR was set aside so that people wouldn't be doing things like drilling for oil in it. Besides, drilling for oil in ANWR would result in only about a 6 months supply of oil, not enough to lessen our dependence on OPEC.


Source: Drilling in ANWR Won't Ease Oil Shortage

Furthermore, let's not kid ourselves. No matter how "clean" oil drilling is, there is always the risk of an accident. Like CruisingRam said, the problem lies in transporting the oil. And I really don't think oil is good for a pristine environment.


Source: Environmental Impact of Drilling in ANWR



Hmm... Y'know a better way to reduce our dependence on those "sleazy saudis" would to be to use alternative energy sources (i.e. hydrogen) instead of oil!

We have had this discussion. Hydrogen is too far in the future, and my prediction is that adults alive today will NEVER see H2 as a major contributor to our energy needs.

The best way to make our oil last longer is to use less of it, through conservation.
There are only a very few home builders working on energy efficient homes, and even those are typically using some utility company's computer model that is based on consumption, not conservation. The big users of energy in our homes are heating/cooling, then hot water, then laundry, and all of those things can be improved upon considerably.

Reducing use of oil in transportation is easy, more taxes on gasoline. Lots more. That is the only way to get us motivated to using less oil.
We are stuck with oil for the forseeable future, so the wise thing for us to do is to use it sparingly.

Drilling in Alaska is inevitable, so we may as well get it out now.

And Bush said we are also going to do that. He said he was funding hydrogen cars in his State of the Union.

CP

Being an environmentalist is a hard stance in America if not the world. With a growing population needing more resource the inevitable things like drilling is going to happen, Alaska as one of the last wilderness if i may was going to go this route regardless, on that same note we are all going to face what we do in respects to the environment someday, most likely not this generation but eventually. To leave on one last note, the environment for what it is, the system that allows for humans to live, is not very important, it can easily be thrown out for a minor economic gain.

I have been to ANWR- and since ALL activity by law has to be done in the winter, there is minimal to no impact from drilling, especially when you consider the "footprint" is only like 2000 acres or less, in a place bigger than many east coast states!

Prudhoe has been around a long time, and there is no impact at all up there on the caribou, polar bear or whale migration at all, unless you count in INCREASE in wildlife since they have been there LOL

It is down in the Prince william sound and along the pipeline the real problems occur. Both the remoteness and the wrongdoing of the companies managing the pipeline and tankers have caused some pretty bad spills. The Exxon Valdez should have seen some Exxon and Aleyska pipeline poeple thrown in jail for life, but there were no consequences to thier behaviors, and the practises that led to some of the disasters up here still exist. The underfunding of pipeline maintainence and not living up to thier own spill response plans is a perenial fight up here.

To think that ANWR is somehow going to reduce foriegn dependancy on oil is to not understand the very nature of the business and sale of oil. The french and english are the largest producers of oil up here (gasp- did he say the french? LOL) BP and Totalfinaelf. Like with any product, Texas oil may be shipped to Europe, Pennsylvania oil may be sold to Japan or Mexico, and Alaskan oil is sent where the market is, just like all other markets, remember, we are capitalist, and there are varieties of oil just like bread and milk! The notion that opening an oil field is somehow going to lessen our dependence on foriegn oil is kinda simplistic and silly, unless it is Saudi field size, because the real issue is how much to we produce for the world market vs how much we consume of the world market.

Also, Alaska,by the charter that created our state, owns 90% of the oil in the ground, and the feds 10%. The companies just have a "lease" to make a profit off it. So while opening ANWR is very good for the state of AK- oil prices have to be pretty high to make it a good deal for the country as a whole.

[QUOTE]when you consider the "footprint" is only like 2000 acres or less, in a place bigger than many east coast states! [/QUOTE

Just to give you an idea of how small that is, I live in Reno, NV. We have brush fires all throughout northern Nevada every single summer.

http://www.rgj.com/news2/stories/news/964319083.php

1.7 million acres burned last year here with little impact to wildlife and no impact to us other than the costs to put the fires out. Alaska has a land area of about 570,000 square miles, Nevada's land area is about 109,000 square miles.

I know fire and oil are different, I was just trying to give people an idea of how small 2,000 acres is to a state that huge.

In his dreams, maybe. Funding is just the first step.
I stand by my prediction, it won't be a major contributor to any of our energy needs, not in our life time.

Drill, baby, drill. Get that oil up to where it can be used.
Mix in some caribou droppings to raise the octane.

[quote=Ataal,Aug 6 2003, 09:34 PM] [QUOTE]when you consider the "footprint" is only like 2000 acres or less, in a place bigger than many east coast states! [/QUOTE

Just to give you an idea of how small that is, I live in Reno, NV. We have brush fires all throughout northern Nevada every single summer.

http://www.rgj.com/news2/stories/news/964319083.php

1.7 million acres burned last year here with little impact to wildlife and no impact to us other than the costs to put the fires out. Alaska has a land area of about 570,000 square miles, Nevada's land area is about 109,000 square miles.

I know fire and oil are different, I was just trying to give people an idea of how small 2,000 acres is to a state that huge. [/quote]
That is what is what is wrong with the hyberbole on both sides of the debate. There are no legitimate enviromental claims to the drilling. There are major ones in the transportation.

I'm glad you agree. I was just trying to make others see the light on the drilling aspect.

As far as transportation, they've been gearing up for safer transportation since 1995 by no longer producing single hulled vessles and only making double hulled vessels. I believe there are 18 in production now, possibly more. I read that they're also considering placing more processing plants that would limit the amount of time the vessels are at sea. We've come a long way in technology since the exxon valdez fiasco. A little more time and some better technology and I think we're good to go in ANWR.

Where I disagree with you is the transportation issue. It is simply not safe, period. It can be minimized, but it is not safe and it is not "if" a spill happens, but "when". I have plied Alaskan waters most of my life, and it is one of the roughest bodies of water in the world, with uncharted rocks, 40 foot tides, 40 below weather and routine 40 foot seas! We don't have the technology now or in the forseeable future to really safeguard against nature, acts of human stupidity or avarice on the parts of the oil companies. Even the pipeline is showing severe aging problems that the consortium of oil companies are ignoring, even after over 100 of thier own engineers complained to the Omsbudsman! They just don't want to spend the money to keep it safe, period.

Truth of the matter is, who will care about such an accident when it occurs, who will be the fall guy and what will be the depth of the investigation if any occur. A real need for environmental awareness exists, i am not talking about pamphlets at McDonalds either. The more you take away from being able to live in some comfortable ignorant fantasy, the more you will have to actually think about things and live in reality. A system of checks and balances that protects the environment is needed, but it goes against economic gain, so their is the real problem.

It is very difficult not to live in the reality of the enviroment in Alaska, possibly the only place in the world you can call in sick because "there is a moose at my door and I can't leave the house" LOL

I live in Alaska, am very liberal, and believe in strong environmental protection. However, I approve of ANWR drilling. I think it's the wrong issue to make a stand over. Honestly, there isn't really anything there worth preserving, and the impact on the area seems minimal. On the other hand, the Tongass is threatened by being opened up to logging. This is a beautiful, old-growth temperate rainforest. There just isn't much of this particualr type of forest left. I would love to make a bargain with republicans to spare Tongass and other such areas around the US in exchange for ANWR drilling, or even tougher emission standards. There are so many other environmental issues that are being pushed to the wayside by the ANWR issue.