Link
By a 51-49 vote, the Senate has okayed a clause in the budget for oil drilling in Alaska.

What are the ramifications of this, if any?

Will this affect our relationship with the oil producing countries in the Middle East, particuarly Saudi Arabia?

Do You support this decision? Why or why not?

CP

What are the ramifications of this, if any?

Bush put forth in his energy plan a need for diversity. A new domestic addition to our oil supply will meet this need. The ramifications will not be evident until we see how much oil that region can produce, or how much the government will let them produce.

Will this affect our relationship with the oil producing countries in the Middle East, particuarly Saudi Arabia?

That would depend on how bountiful this new supply is going to be. The Saudis and the Middle East have a stranglehold on the oil market and one addition to the market will probably not diminish that much, if any.

Do You support this decision? Why or why not?

I do support this decision simply because animals should be cooked and not catered to. Preservation is not a reason for encumbering American production in oil, it is an excuse, and a bad one.

Neo-con- with all respect in this one, not slamming you at all- I think your response, though mostly correct, shows how little most Americans know about Alaskan oil production. Once again, not singling you out for insult, just pointing out how those from the "lower 48" percieve the problem so differently than those of us that actually live here- especially in regards to the "animals"- see, on thing, the reason there is concern for the animals is our subsitance lifestyle- we are afraid it will hurt our tucker and crash caribou populations to the point we can't eat them! LOL

What are the ramifications of this, if any?

Well, since most of the US in most polls suggest they are against drilling, probably might be SOME political fallout, I don't know. As far as our energy production, won't make one bit of difference. Won't come on line if they start drilling next winter for 10 years. The oil goes on the global market, probably not even one drop of this kind of crude will see US soil again! Alaska owns 90% of the oil, the feds the other 10%. Won't help the feds at all! Might do something for the trade deficit. Totalfinaelf (french company) and BP (british company) own all the rights for drilling and will be paying the US and Alaska royalty's for the oil. Most of it will go right into Alaskan goverment!

The ramifications to me personally, since I am a large landowner, will be to probably make me very wealthy!

Will this affect our relationship with the oil producing countries in the Middle East, particuarly Saudi Arabia?

This is the "big lie" by the repubs in this debate- it will do nothing to decrease our dependence on foriegn energy sources, due to the nature of the global market, it will do nothing for our security, it will do nothing for our foreign policy issues. Big smokescreen and an outright lie. It is good for Alaska and Alaskans, but really does nothing in the big picture of oil production.

Do You support this decision? Why or why not?

Yep, because it is good for my state and good for me personally, and there is no real downside to the drilling in ANWR I think- though sloppy transportation issues keep coming up- but that won't affect ANWR- but the Prince William sound!

Will this affect our relationship with the oil producing countries in the Middle East, particuarly Saudi Arabia?

Do You support this decision? Why or why not?
A link from the originally posted link:

(I guess the Bushistas don't think the world needs caribou or polar bears or any of the other arctic wildlife...after all, they don't DO anything to put money or power in their pockets.)

No, I absolutely, unequivocally do NOT support this sycophantic act of betrayal. I think it's a crying shame that the Congress wussed out so shamelessly by approving this travesty.

I don’t believe the ANWR drilling will pay off at all. Granted, oil price per barrel is sky-high, but the cost of getting to it, pumping it, transporting it, refining it, etc. etc. ad nauseum, will not be cost-effective. All this does is keep the oil companies rich, fat and happy. It won’t do a damned thing to lower gas prices or relieve our appetite for middle east oil.

What are the ramifications of this, if any?

The cost to the environment will be astronomical and irreparable, but as we have seen, those kinds of costs don’t amount to a hill of beans to our government. If this crew has their way, there will be no wild places left.

Some data from existing Alaskan drilling:


(emphasis mine)

What are the ramifications of this, if any?

Good and bad. Possibly negatively impact the environment and by extension humans, ranging anywhere from hurting migration to oil spills and mercury deposits, pave the way for greater drilling/mining/etc. as a modern precedent/OK to tap our natural resources, and provide jobs.

Will this affect our relationship with the oil producing countries in the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia?

Probably relief on SA's part. This Wall Street Journal editorial explains how modernizing countries like China strain OPEC's ability to keep up with demand for crude and refining capacity.



Do You support this decision? Why or why not?

That depends on whether ANWR will decrease our dependence on foreign oil. I think there was a thread on the subject of whether ANWR would be a greater benefit to the US than the world at large. The debate centered around whether ANWR barrels would remain here or be readied for shipment for bids as they enter the global market. If the case is the latter the benefits do not outweigh the cost.

Make an argument for the animals that trumps a profitable industry. You say you can't eat the animals, but you can get food from other sources. If you are suggesting that Alaskans will starve because they are so dependant on the wildlife for food, I would withdraw my support for drilling, but I doubt that is the case. Then again, you live in Alaska and know best about the dietary habits of Alaskans.

Are there other reasons not to drill besides saving animals or wildlife? I have not heard any arguments that exceed a possible reduction in gas prices, or a possible decrease in dependancy on the Middle East. I am not suggesting that drilling in Alaska will rid us of the need to import from the Persian Gulf, but it may decrease our imports from that region and sway our foreign policy in regards to military action abroad. It is certainly a gamble, there is a possibility for a profound effect, or it could mean nothing. I am willing to wager the caribou's life on the former, even if wrong, the possibility is worth it.

Well with an attitude like yours I'm not sure that any answer would really satisfy you. You are perfectly willing to start drilling there whether it does any good or not, just because we can. Or more likely because Bush says we need to.

A perfectly valid reason for not drilling there, only strengthened by the argument that opening the place for drilling will do nothing in the grand scheme of things to reduce the price of oil or remove foreign dependence, is that a great many of us don't favor paving over the whole country with cement, throwing up strip malls or suburbs, or sinking a well any place that might have oil.

Nature always loses in our quest for more progress, more affordable housing and more shopping. If it wasn't for Roosevelt setting up the national park system, we very well might not have any natural beauty to appreciate based on attitudes like yours. This is what the refuge looks like right now, I'd prefer that future generations still be able to enjoy that natural beauty instead of seeing a mess of pipes, torn up earth from bull dozers and dead plant life due to all the chemicals. I don't know if you have ever actually been to an oil field neo con, but I have and they aren't pretty places. In fact they aren't very safe either.

A great many of us don't care if we have to pay more for our gas if the only way to reduce the price is to destroy one of the last areas of natural beauty we have in this country. I'd prefer that my kids and grandkids actually get to experience some of natural beauty of this country first hand, rather than having to look up old issues of national geographic or see it in old movies. That is why I'll continue to fight against greed over power and money and attitudes from people like yourself.

Aside from many of the economic and logistical arguments put forth, the attitude of "animals should be cooked and not catered to" is a really weak argument. Unless you believe *everything* Rush Limbaugh says about ANWR (and for full diclosure, I am a Limbaugh listener and agrees with most of his views), you would come to understand that natives to the area depend on the wildlife that live in the region. ANWR is not a landscape of "ice and rock" as Rush put it filled only with caribou, but is filled with forests and beautiful landscapes.

It is apparently obvious that you don't understand the concept of a symbiotic relationship. The natives of the area live off the food, and the food (the wildlife that is) depends on humanity to not drive them to extinction. And while I'm sure many native Alaskan (and Canadian Natives like the Nunavut and other Eskimos) would rather "cook than cater", I'm sure they'd opt out of the free forty weight quart of Pennzoil with every halibut they catch. And if we use Prudhoe Bay as a primer, well, history isn't on their side.

That's just the environmental reasons why this is a bad idea. I believe the economic and logistical reasons are well taken care of now.

Because Bush says we need to.........I am not sure how to respond to this accusation. You are suggesting that I am incapable of thinking.


I never suggested that we should pave over the entire country, or throw up strip malls everywhere. You have a knack for making statements from arguments that never existed or saying you didn't say things that you actually said or making absolute statements about future events that have yet to transpire.

If you do not think a new source of oil will reduce our domestic cost, make an argument, if you do not think a new source of oil will alleviate some dependancy on Middle East oil, make an argument, but please stop spouting off opinionated statements and try to pass them off as facts. It is trite.


I value nature and beauty and animals just not as much as I value myself, or my happiness, or my standard of living, or my safety.


It's beautiful, I changed my mind.



Me too, but needs come before wants. We need more energy, our consumption exceeds the production.


I haven't been to an oil field, but were you assuming that I thought they were beautiful? Or safe? If you did think that, why? You assume an awful lot. I notice a trend.


And a great many of us, grudgingly do care if we have to pay more for gas. I wish I never had to go to another gas station again. I dream of a day where I could get on my bike in the morning and pedal all day taking in the beautiful scenery until I got tired and then swim in a stream to relax, but then my alarm clock goes off and get up and I go to work.


Fight?

Or perhaps Bush sees [as I do] that as majestic, important and awe-inspiring as the great Alaskan caribou is, it is still significantly less important than more oil independence. *holds up hands like a scale* Alaskan caribou...Oil independence...Caribou...independence...I know you'll laugh, but on Fox News a couple of weeks ago, I saw a stat that said since oil pipes had been installed in another section of Alaska, the caribou population sky rocketed. This isn't going to harm the animals folks...And if it does, I expect that being able to tell the Saudis to [insert vulgar comment here] is well worth it.

CP

There seems to be a consistent claim by all the ANWR drilling supporters that we must drill to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. News flash: ANWR oil won't make it to market for at least 10 YEARS. And the amount of oil in the ANWR would only satisfy this country's needs for one year...at today's usage. This is hardly a eureka moment.

The only thing that drilling in ANWR will accomplish is to keep oil drilling companies' stocks high...*cough*Halliburton et al*cough*...sorry, choked on something nasty there....

edited to correct mistake

How ironic that the bill i propose week after week in my sutdent congress competitions finally passes in real life. I have researched this A LOT and know of all the arguments as i have heard them many times.

First, only 1.5 of the 19 million acres (8%) actually contains oil and is the only part considered for development.

Secondly, we do not know how much oil is truly down there. Latest US Geological surveys put it at 9-16 Billion barrels. But there are estimates that are much higher and also considerably lower. THE FACT IS THAT WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE HOW MUCH OIL IS DOWN THERE AND WONT KNOW UNTIL WE ACTUALLY GO IN AND DEVELOP IT.

Thirdly, it will not harm the "pristine" environment that so many say it will. While ANWR is very beautiful...the Northern Slope and what is considered for develoment is a tundra. Less than 100 miles away in the Prudhoe Bay Colony (the US's largest domestic oil extraction center)...the same methods used here would be used in ANWR which does not result in the destruction of the environment. Matt Cronin, one of the world's foremost arctic wildlife biologists agrees with this because not one animal has died as a result of drilling in Prudhoe Bay and the Caribou population has actually increased from 3,000 to 32,000 strong.

So unless someone can explain how drilling had NO effect on the Prudhoe Bay's environment and why it will affect ANWR...this debate is dead.

Fourthly, in the grand scheme of things...no the amount of oil would not make a HUGE difference. However...thats not to say that if there was a crisis (i.e. OPEC cutting our oil) that the ANWR oil in conjunction with conservation policies could bail us out of a pretty pickle.

The fact is that we have oil...and we're just letting it sit there. By opponents saying they dont want American companies drilling there means that instead they would rather have foreign ships and tankers go off our coast who do not have the same technological capabilities and safety measures that our ships have.

Drill in ANWR...lower the prices for a little while and invest in alternative sources of energy.

Don't get me wrong, I know that this isn't a big deal, nor will it make us independent in terms of oil sources. What I said was...It would help a little bit, which is always a plus.

I really feel bad for Haliburton these days. All of the sudden, a group of people in America finds it horrible when something good happens to your industry. I'm thrilled that this drilling will create jobs! Oh no, but it's jobs for Halliburton. May they all go to Hell. This is a positive thing for the economy, it will help out Alaska and the oil industry...Where's the negative in that?

CP

Firstly through fourthly:


Proponents of drilling conveniently forget these facts. We're not talking about driving down the road in Texas and sticking an oil well in the ground.

Link to all the nasty accidents at Prudhoe Bay over the years: Audubon Report

Ah... there's the problem. The "standards of living" could mean anything - your inalienable right to buy gasoline at $.99 per gallon, for example, or to drive a vehicle which would only move you 12 miles for that gallon, if not less.



I, for one, don't mind high gasoline prices one bit. I can actually see how people at the office start to share their commutes; the popularity of SUVs took a hit over the course of last month. That's quite a silver lining.

Ok how about this article from MSNBC from last November. It presents both sides of the story inside.



According to to the Energy Information Administration our consumption pattern for the past two years is as follows:

That means than on a yearly basis we consume 7.446 Billion barrels of oil.

The first big reason not to do this, is because there is practically no oil sitting out there due to the U.S Geological Survey (not exactly a partisan outfit last time I checked). If their report is right then the total amount of oil sitting in that area won't even power US consumption for a year, at the high end it could power US consumption for a little over 2 years.

So let's bounce that against the two main arguments here:
1) Will it reduce domestic cost? I don't see how anyone can come to that conclusion since this oil represents only a very small fraction of the oil coming from the middle east. The price of oil has much more to do with intangibles like fear of a war causing problems with the supply then actual supply and demand.

2) Will it reduce dependence on foreign oil? Again, no. There is only enough there in total to power the US for at most two years.

Ok moving on to the second part of this. The article also cites that it could be almost a decade before we see a drop of oil from this region. That seems to be a pretty universally accepted fact, the most agressive figure I have seen is 6 years.

So again let's bounce that against the two main arguments here:
1) Will it reduce domestic cost? As I said above it won't, but now we are talking about no impact whatsoever for at least 6 to 10 years.

2) Will it reduce dependence on foreign oil? Again no.

The only other argument I can find in favor of drilling is that it won't be as bad for the wildlife there as it would have been 20 years ago based on new technology. I'm not enough of an expert to know whether that is true or not.

However, I also feel that it is irrelevant because there is no compelling reason to drill there.

I am firmly in support of reducing our oil consumption and getting off dependence of foreign oil. However, this ANWR proposal does absolutely nothing to solve either of those two problems. There are a lot of things that we can do, but that would involve Republicans taking positions that alienate some of their biggest donors, oil companies. We could pass laws requiring agressive fuel standards on an accelerated timeline. We could dump billions of dollars into research of alternative fuels instead of worthless enterprises like a war in Iraq. Not only would that solve the energy dependence problem, it would make the United States an innovator and market leader once again. There is plenty we could do.

I'd agree with you, ConservPat, except for just one thing. We use an average of one billion barrels of oil in this country every two months. That means that with the proven reserves of 10 billion barrels in ANWR, what we can pump out there is only going to last for about two years, and only reduce the cost of a barrel of oil by about 40 cents a barrel, if that.

And that's at current consumption levels. How much more quickly will it disappear (at about the time the drilling rigs are just coming on line), when US consumption is estimated to be two to three times what we use now?

Is 10 years of destruction to the wildlife and ecosystem worth a year and a half of oil, or less? I'd argue that our "independence" from foreign oil passed us by long ago.

I deplore the environmental impact that drilling in ANWAR would have. (It's not clear that the oil companies are interested). Nevertheless, I could have accepted the decision quietly if it was made in the context of a sensible comprehensive energy policy that really focussed on improvements in end use efficiency of energy and the rapid development of alternatives. Instead we get some lip service to such goals but very little in actual funding. I say this because I fear that the world faces a Peak Oil event any year now. If it happens with rising demand as we see today, a bidding war will ensue that will have catoustrophic world wide impacts. $2 per gallon gasoline will seem like fantasy land. If the peak production occurs with declining demand, as it might if we pursue a crash effort to improve efficiencies and develop alternative, the effects on our way of life will still be serious but will be something we can adapt to.

That is a very good point Ted. In my previous posts I have explained why I don't support it but you bring up a good point here.

One of the main arguments in support of this is that it is vital for our energy policy (to reduce dependence on foreign oil and reduce the price of gas). If that is the case, then why did the Republicans need to sneak it into a budget bill as an amendment? Furthermore, why isn't the same provision in the House's version of the budget especially considering there is much more support for ANWR drilling there. (The budget will still ahve to be reconciled in the house and I'm hoping that is where it dies.)

If this is such a vital piece of legislation then why not create a bill specifically for it and include other energy policy items, why is there no coordination in the House?

This is the standard MO of the Republican party these days, stick your hand in the cookie jar when no one is looking and hope you get away with it. I think they know very well that something like this isn't going to stand up to the kind of national discourse that social security is being subjected to so they tried this approach.

Typical political spin and as has become the standard for the Democratic Party, typically disingenuous. Nobody 'snuck" this in, heck, we're talking about it and it was voted on in the Senate. The reason ANWR was put into the budget bill was to prevent the obstructionist, "sky is falling" minority party in the US Senate from filibustering it as they have in the past. As far as hoping it dies in conference, forget about that. Never happen.

SO, get out your drilling rigs boys and get to work. Put some holes in the ground in the little red square on this map.


Heck, we'll probably end up melting the ice cap.

And um... nice evasion of all of the issues on your part Aquilla, declaring once again that everything is and always will be the Democratic party's fault. That type of thing is better saved for calling in to Limbaugh.

You still haven't explained why it wasn't in the House version of the budget (the House is far more pro ANWR drilling than the senate) and it wasn't accompanied by a more comprehensive energy policy if it was so vital. And... you haven't bothered to address a single one of the issues on either side.


It hasn't passed quite yet, the house version of the budget doesn't include this little amendment and the two versions have to be reconciled.

My response was a direct response to your political spin. I don't know why the House didn't put it into their bill, probably didn't need to since there is no filibuster in the House. The Senate put it into their version to avoid yet another filibuster by the obstructionist party in the Senate. It was a way to get something done that a majority of elected Senators wanted to get done. And yeah, it'll make it through conference.

Do You support this decision? Why or why not?
Exploration for oil in an area designated for oil exploration? Imagine that! The section of the original Range that is not designated as Wilderness is referred to as the 1002 Area under Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

The estimate of oil cannot be even guessed with any specificity until exploration takes place. The estimates for Prudhoe Bay were around eight billion barrels of oil. So far we've extracted 14 billion barrels and still pumping.

I see no problem with going ahead to see if it is viable.

I see here the spin by BOTH parties is quite alive and well guys-

1) There will probably be no harm to the enviroment of ANWR by drilling- despite the spin by the left

2) there will be no benefit to America except locally in Alaska- not even to American oil companies since foreign oil companies own the leasees!

Why drill, really? Because it is there?

There will be no economic "plus" to anyone on this board but me, as far as the "average joe" is concerned.

IT WAS a "sneaky" way to get it through Aquilla- because there are republicans that don't want this either.

I guess my take on it is this:

1) It won't decrease our need for foriegn oil
2) It won't decrease our deficit or debt
3) It won't harm the enviroment
4) It won't effect gas prices one cent

So why drill now? Why not wait for a more "sentinal event"- say, when we REALLY have a gas cruch as CJ suggested. We ARE very close to hitting total global peak, even according to folks like BP and TotalFinaElf and Phillips etc- they talk about that event all the time here in the news.

Isn't it a better idea to use up all the rest of the worlds oil and save the emergency areas right on our own shores?

I believe the opponents to this idea have answered this one for you, CR: It will take up to a decade until we actually see the oil. Waiting until the last minute is not the way to solve a problem.

As for whether or not this will help with oil prices, the answer is: it can't hurt. Our dependence on foreign oil, while not the crisis in my book that others perceive, is not going to go away if we do not develop oil fields that we know are there.

As for the amount of oil, I think some here are blowing things out of proportion. No one ever said that one single oil field is going to furnish oil to the entire American economy. So projecting that this oil will "only last two years" is completely bogus. It is one piece of a much bigger puzzle. The fact that one single field could (potentially) serve our entire needs for 1-2 years means that the oil there is enormous, not small.

Even if this oil goes to the international market (the other big argument against it) it will certainly help our trade balance problem, which is nothing but a good thing (for both us and the international community).

We are talking about 2,000 acres here. ANWR has 19 million acres. How many people have ever seen these millions of acres of "national treasure" (as some people portray it)? Very few.

The reasoning behind not doing this is simply mind boggling.

I am against it, due to it's inabilty to effect long term change.

One point for it, is having the ability to drill there serves as notice to OPEC et al, and serves as a incentive to keep oil prices low enough not to encourage drilling or at least 'fast-track' drilling.

That is another lie by the oil companies too Amlord- that somehow, it will only be 2000 acres. That is silly, won't happen that way and they know it.

So much lying by both sides!

I have been to Prudhoe, I have been to ANWR, both in the winter and summer. Most folks here can't even imagine the wasteland it becomes in winter, or the feeding ground that it is in summer!

The part that worries me the most is the Gwich'n. We have guarunteed them thier traditional lifestyle as part of ANCILLA (native claims settlement act, part of our condition of statehood)- and it looks like, as with all our dealings with indigenous tribes, we are ready to break our own laws and words again!

The Gwich'n live in the preserve and are a pretty stable tribe, with a much more "functional" traditional life than most of the "assimilated" other Alaskan natives.

They actively oppose this drilling- and to me, they are the only ones whose opinion about the enviroment that concern me- they know what they are talking about as far as the habitat than any poeple in the world. More than the actual population numbers- they are worried about the disruption of the migratory patterns of the Caribou- thier livelihood and tucker- and migratory patterns WERE changed by prudhoe- just not population changes- but the efffect on the locals were the same.

IT all goes back to this- it will be cool for most Alaskans, not the Gwich'n it sounds like though, and all the "pro" arguments to drilling are bunk, and all the other "con" arguments besides the Gwich'n , are bunk.

Alaskans have great reason to want this- I am not sure what the payoff is for those of you in the lower 48.

Really the legislation itself is a payoff to Republican oil company campaign donors- it really doesn't offer any benefit to everyday Americans at all. It also offers no real down side either.

What are the ramifications of this, if any?

Ramifications = Consequences?

Will this affect our relationship with the oil producing countries in the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia?

According to the article, 10.4 billion barrels of crude oil are waiting undersground to be extracted. According to some former debaters, this amount is not accurrate (sometimes, there's more, sometimes there's less... I' wouldn't be surprised to read that there's no oil at all! )

I have no idea what this means in terms of energetic independence. How much more independent are the US going to become from Saudi Arabia? Does anyone know how much America imports every year from Saudi Arabia? Comparing the actual figures would give us a realistic appreciation.

Maybe this will induce a slight change in relations with Saudi Arabia though... The Bush administration can show its trade partner that the sources of oil are being broadened. They could talk about Africa too...

Do You support this decision? Why or why not?

I understand the decision for economic and geostrategic purposes. It "makes sense" in the current situation. However I don't approve it. I don't like to think that more wildlife is going to be destroyed because we need to survive and prevail. One day, there won't be enough resources left... Then what?

The problem Amlord, is that you are taking the arguments against drilling, even admitting that ANWR might do absolutely nothing for us, and completely ignoring them because you don't care about the environmental impact.

You don't consider that an important factor so whether this thing yields a drop of oil or not isn't even important to you, and that is the problem.

ANWR is constantly talked up by the right as being the solution to our foreign energy dependence. In order for that to hold true it would have to be a pretty large amount of oil, comparable to what could be found in your average middle eastern country. The simple fact of the matter is that it isn't, the amount of oil there is tiny in the grand scheme of things and will do absolutely nothing to further this goal.

You would destroy an area of pristine wildlife so we can have oil for a whole two yeasr (at most)? I don't think so. Were this the solution to foreign energy dependence I might reconsider my position, but it doesn't make sense to destroy part of a wildlife sanctuary for little gain.

This is yet another of those half-baked ideas the Republicans have been trying to get through congress for almost a decade (maybe longer) and now that they have power they are going to try it. It just may work this time, but I'm holding out hope for a hail mary play.

This just in, people....

ANWR IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO ENDING OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL!

America is like an elderly man doing everything in his power to cheat death.

Problem is....you can't.

No matter how many barrels a year we pump out, it will NEVER be able to entirly sustain our consumption of oil as a nation. Even if we pump all those millions of barrels, we will still be importing oil from places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Then, at some point, ANWR will dry up and guess what folks, we'll be in the same damn situation 2 or 20 years from where we're at now.

If energy independence is so damn important, then we as a people need to dig down and start looking forward to using alt-energy sources. If it's so important, then our government should provide economic incentives to companies who are in the business of developing such sources.

So whether or not the caribou are still standing when ANWR gets drilled, the fact of the matter is at one point, we'll need to find another way instead of delaying the inevitable.

Well- here is the latest buzz from the front lines in this battle LOL- I took a couple of day laborers to lunch today, working on my stuff all day today- and boy oh boy, is this the hot topic in Alaska!

Here is, an a room of about 60 "housing business" poeple, the current most important what ifs

1) How big will the boom be this time, and how do we prevent a bust.

2) Will we get more infrastructure money or less because of this.

3) Will we have a spill getting the oil to Valdez, or spill it after leaving Valdez

4) Why is everybody an expert on enviromental issus that have never even seen the place

5) Will it make gas prices go down in say, 10 years time.

6) and interwoven into all of this, will we now have the money to build the Knik Arm bridge, the #1 most important infrastructure development need for Anchorage and vicinity.

As you can see, the global and national interests are not really even considered, because most up here know who they work for, and it ain't the US, and it ain't a US company LOL-

Here is another bit of reference to the debate. Alaska, for many years, was prohibited by the Feds from selling our oil anywhere but the US. We fought this tooth and nail- after all, Texas, Wyoming, Pennsylvania etc doesn't have to sell thier oil to whom they are told to, why should Alaska. It held oil prices much lower, somewhat artificually, on the west coast for some time. Now, 99% is sold to the Far east, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan etc. All of our coal production goes to Korea and Tawain and Japan, almost none is used domestically.

I have a T-shirt "Lord, if congress grants us another oil boom, I promise not to pee it all away this time and diversify"- quite popular actually, see it all the time.

So really, why drill? For us Alaskans, it is really a big deal, for some rich republican campaign donors, it is payoff time, but for you folks "in the lower 48"- your mantra seems to be "well, because we can, not because there is any benefit, not that I care about the enviroment,darn the caribou, drill away!"

Is there really a good reason to drill besides the fact all you folks want to see me get rich?

I can agree with that, but there is something else we need to do first, and that is to stop wasting so much energy. There are no, I repeat NO, economically or environmentally viable alternate energy sources in our immediate future. Probably not in my grown children's future, either, but maybe for my grandchildren, the oldest of which just turned 8. Happy birthday, Raleigh!
Our energy dependence is made up of part need, and part want. The need part is essential, the want part is a luxury we can not afford much longer.
I support drilling for oil in ANWR, and depleting it, and perhaps causing the Saudis to have a few less extravagances. I also support burning coal, but only at plants with huge scrubbers and bag houses. Likewise nuclear power if and when we actually need new power plants.
If we could get our government to mandate energy efficient homes the same way they mandated reduced pollution and increased gas mileage in our cars, I would enthusiastically support that as well.

Bill, I agree we want everything but not in our back yard. We have the technology to do environmentally safe hydrogen fuel and ignore the Middle East and OPEC and even be wasteful doing it. Hydrogen fuel requires a lot of energy to produce and I will debate we could supply the necessary hydrogen to fuel the entire US with waste energy created by nuclear generated electricity. I know it is unpopular and so are dead soldiers and soldiers missing limbs from war not to mention the civilian casualties.

Hydrogen would create jobs, a world standard, a cleaner environment and only fight those who oppose nuclear power. So what would you rather have in ANWR a nuclear plant to produce hydrogen or holes in the ground to satisfy the status quo?

Hydrogen is not economically viable except in a few places. The fuel would be too expensive to produce and then there is the conversion of our entire fleet of vehicles, gas stations, etc. First you find a way to produce the H2 so that it is not a negative gain, then you worry about the delivery infrastructure.
Iceland has excess energy in the form of geothermal wells and can produce enough H2 to probably export some, but we here in the USA do not have that much "waste" energy. Most of our Nuclear power plants are run at full capacity to maintain the base load we must have on line all the time. Smaller plants are used for peaking. If they were to run them full time, even those plants could not generate enough H2.

Bill, I just don’t see hydrogen as intrusive or difficult to produce as related to fuel. Please review the links on this site http://www.homepower.com/magazine/downloads_hydrogen.cfm doesn’t look like brain surgery to me. Yes, the switch over would be costly but pretty much a one-time outlay. The government and auto industry is doing much research on hydrogen vehicles so it must be in our future so it makes sense to me to refine the process as Americans always seem to do best for a world standard of pollution free vehicles.

What are the ramifications of this, if any?

1. Some Alaskan landowners will get very wealthy (including CruisingRam by the sound of it - ker-CHING)
2. Stock prices in BP and TotalFina will be bolstered. Good for the UK and France, where most of those stocks are owned. Not so good for anyone else.
3. The Alaskan government will get a nice cut, allowing them to improve services and cut taxes both at the same time, whoever is in power. The politicians in charge will then look really good, and people will keep voting for them - until the oil revenue starts to run down, and it becomes clear that the economic "miracle" was nothing to do with economic competence and everything to do with the oil money. Then, they'll be dumped faster than you can say "Margaret Thatcher and the British Tories did exactly the same thing with oil revenues from the North Sea in their 18-year dominance of UK politics"
4. The Alaskan environment will get a little bit less pristine.
5. Nobody else in the USA will notice much difference, for good or ill.

Will this affect our relationship with the oil producing countries in the Middle East, particuarly Saudi Arabia?
Not really, no. The Saudis and other OPEC countries will still control the vast majority of the world's oil.
Oil is a commodity, and prices are set by the market, not by the seller. The Saudis et al can only "set" prices by increasing or decreasing production to match (or not) with demand.
So when, in 10 year's time, this new stream of Alaskan oil comes online, what makes anyone seriously think that the Saudis won't just decrease their own production to match to keep prices more or less where they want them to be, just like they have done ever since their oil production came on stream to optimise (not maximise) their revenues?
Anyone who thinks this will affect pump prices in the USA has completely misunderstood what's going on here. Things might be different if the Federal government were developing the oil out of taxpayers funds specifically for use inside the USA, but they aren't. This is just another part of Bush's pay-off to his "base".

Do You support this decision? Why or why not?
Coming from a very small, densely populated (and very highly urbanised) place where what passes for wilderness or even just countryside is deemed so precious that people take up arms if anyone so much as suggests building some more houses, it saddens me that America seems to lack the vision to see that, maybe - just maybe - rather than raping the entire planet to protect your way of life, it might not be more prudent, responsible and ultimately productive to start thinking about changing it.

And it's a little sad that largest and most advanced economy in the world has not developed the art of the cost-benefit case to the point where any cost or benefit that cannot easily be expressed in dollars doesn't carry as much weight as ones that can.

But ultimately it's your country.

You hit it on the nose, and I'm not sure if you realize it: Wasting less energy IS and economically and environmentally viable alternate energy source. Well, maybe not a SOURCE, but the net effect is the same if not better. And, actually, wind power is only a smidgen away from petropower, if prices go up a bit more, it will be really competitive. China has made real strides in nuclear technology, try a google search on pebble-bed reactors. Smaller, safer, cheaper, and the fuel is already encapsulated.

The only fool-proof way to get people to use less of something, to conserve something, is to make them pay more for it. Mandating energy efficient homes, or even cars, has less effect than charging fees / taxes directly where they count: mandating energy efficient homes raises the cost of housing, both in labor and materials, as well as compliance costs, and doesn't always do exactly what we want. Energy efficiency means very little if you leave the lights on, run the hot water, keep the thermostat heating to 80, with the windows open, etc. Even the design standards may wind up precluding the use of otherwise efficient but non-standard designs and materials. Likewise, energy efficient cars aren't nearly as 'efficient' as walking, ridesharing, riding a train, or living close by. However, expensive fuel means consumers demand fuel efficient cars AND alter their behavior.

Many of the economists i've read seem to think that a long-term rise in fuel prices won't have much of a negative effect, as companies and people will alter their behavior to reduce their exposure to such costs. It's the shorter-term spikes that will hurt, when we don't have the infrastructure, living patterns, and behaviors in place. One way to deflate this inevitable situation is to tax oil, oil imports, carbon, what have you a small but increasing amount, and use that revenue to reduce taxation elsewhere. That way the high prices are at least offset by reduced overall taxation, rather than wait until later when the high prices merely richen an arab somewhere.

There is also the moral argument that YOU owe ME something for polluting my air (and likewise, I owe YOU something for polluting your air).
http://www.progress.org/cd26.htm
http://www.usskytrust.org/

Reducing the amount of energy we use is indeed a key part of the solution. This can be done by personal conservation or improvement in end use efficiencies. Just replacing incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent ones saves 2/3 of the energy used in lighting. Super light safe vehicles coupled with hybrid engines can increase vehicle miles by a factor of 4. Similar examples are present throughout the economy. The study group at Rocky Mountain Institute headed by Amory Lovins took a comprehensive look at what it would take to covert the economy to, first reduce and then eliminated oil imports. They published it in a 342 report called "Winning the Oil Endgame." It is available in book form for $42 or on line at Winning the Oil Endgame

Don't be put off by the fact that this study was sponsored by the Defense Department. That is a good thing if they take it seriously. Unfortunately, I think it was the Clinton Defense Department that initiated the study so it is less likely that this bunch, so tied to oil companies, will move on it. Some of the neocons and their allies, however, do have a long term interest in end use efficiency technology and alternative energy sources. James Woolsey, one of the major hawks on invading Iraq, sponsored another Lovins study when he was Director of the CIA. That study called "Brittle Power" focussed on energy security but included the long standing Lovins arguments for improvements in end use efficienies coupled with alternative energy technologies that were small and close to the end user.

If you don't want to read all the technical details just read the initial summary and skim the margin notes in the balance of the report.

Hold the phone, stop the presses!! Something Ol Sarge and I agree on (gasp). Hydrogen power is a viable alternative. I worked for a couple of years for a small company involved in conversion devices for hydrogen and fuel cells. Currently, a community in Palm Springs operates a fleet of hydrogen buses. The "Governator" Arnold opened the first hydrogen refueling station in California last year at LAX, and according to this article, it is the 12th station BP has opened. The US Government claims this was the first one, but November 2004 is a month after the California station opened.

Two stations are already open in Japan. Mazda is planning on a hydrogen refueling station in Hiroshima for their new hydrogen/rotary combination H2RE, projected to be out in 2 years (source).

Chevron is opening hydrogen refueling stations in California and Florida (source)

Hydrogen energy is here, and the only thing preventing the rapid release of hydrogen vehicles is the same hurdle that has always been there; the “big 3” American car companies that have always viewed any change as a threat to their business. They are prehistorically slow to change, and if they don’t get off their collective butts soon, they'll become extinct as the Japanese roll right over them…again.

I wanted to add this article I found interesting:

I think drilling in the ANWR isn't so much about the oil as it is about creating jobs and appeasing oil interests. Even the Teamsters have gotten sucked into this by the lure of job creation; they are lobbying the Demos hard because they are salivating at the number of jobs ANWR may throw their way.

There is an operating Hydrogen filling station here in Washington, DC. Shell runs it so all the folks on capitol hill can ride around in the demonstrator cars.

Hydrogen is NOT a energy source, it's an energy storage medium: It requires energy from some other source (oil, coal, solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, etc.) to 'create' the hydrogen. It takes more energy to create than is recoverable by the motors. So we're still stuck with finding a viable primary energy source.

Ideally, we reduce our use by: transporting less (denser, multi-use communities, local produce and products, when feasible), transporting more efficiently (we've been spending the last 50 years making trucks more fuel efficient, we need to do the same for trains), and using less energy at home and at work with 'green' buildings and energy-efficient manufacturing.

We create energy from: wind, solar, hydroelectric, 'clean' coal, natural gas, oil, fission. I am very interested in pebble bed fission reactors.

All of this can be accomplished, with few government prescriptions, by the free market actions of individuals and corporations, by shifting taxes off of productivity and onto land values, pollution, and use of natural resources.

Here is the nearly monthly problem we have here in Alaska:

http://www.adn.com/

See, it is not really ANWR we need to worry about- but the Prince William Sound, moving PRODUCTS FROM ANWR.

I have always thought the "greens" have had thier sights on the wrong wilderness- there is not really a case of enviromental contamination up in Prudhoe or ANWR, but there is still oil on the beaches in the Sound!

I have been to Prudhoe, and they are pretty obsessive compulsive about being clean, but pretty lax down south.

What are the ramifications of this, if any?

If ANWR is to be drilled, then some people might make money. Most will not. As far as energy prices for the consumer, those are bound to continue rising no matter what due to world demand (especially China). I suppose the feds will get more revenue out of this, and everyone knows that needs to happen somehow.

Will this affect our relationship with the oil producing countries in the Middle East, particuarly Saudi Arabia?

Probably not. It doesn't look like ANWR oil will be significant in any way, other than feeding the fed budget. There's likely revenue to be collected whether any oil is found there or not, just from the land leases.

Do You support this decision? Why or why not?

I support getting back to fiscal responsibility. I think that was the prime motivation of the Senate -- I don't think energy independence or the environment had anything to do with this. However, I also don't think this is the smartest way to get back to fiscal responsibility, so no, I don't support this decision. It's like having a yard sale to pay the mortgage, with the risk that the yard will get torn up in the process, possibly costing more in the long run.

Politically, this might be low hanging fruit. People don't generally understand what ANWR is, but they do know that gas pump prices are on the rise -- so get more oil to lower the prices (even though this probably won't happen), and you get public approval. I also don't support this sort of political gaming, but that doesn't make any difference either.

Well, I guess I was wrong, six inch pipe busted up in prudhoe, oiled down 2 acres of tundra, "unknown" quatity of oil lost www.adn.com - looks like the greenies were right- they can't keep it clean!

First of all, hardly anyone ever visits this 'pristine wilderness' and Id like to know when Robert Redford or his team want to come see what they are talking about and spend time getting bitten to death by mosquitos while looking at miles of tundra.
Already in Anchorage, lets say, one would have to take a 4 wheel drive across barely used and minimally maintained dirt roads, under the right conditions, meaning well after freeze breakup and solidification of mushy permafrost and the next freeze, or in deep snow, or fly. Gas may well cost $10.00 + a gallon and there is nothing of civilization anywhere at anytime. A plane will cost well over $1,000. Its over 1,000 miles of relative nothingness. There is nothing when you get there either. Lets be pragmatic, it is an ecosystem unto itself but its not doing jack for humanity, except for some natives and some whale and caribou migrations, which do deserve their say in this matter, but hey, Id like to live without working much like my ancestors, but blame the Romans who brought civilization and taxes to Ireland several thousand years ago and ruined my idea of subsistance living in a tribal situation.

If someone wants a bone to pick about the environment, pick on the rainforests, because cutting them down is losing oxygen for the entire planet. THAT is a real concern.
There are no trees making oxygen for the planet in the Arctic Refuge. There is nothing but oil that will ever help anyone... but there are about 7,000 Gwichin Tribal People that will be affected. Understand, the animals adapt to the changes. Some objections are about animals dying or being inconvenienced, but its mostly about migration routes being altered, so native hunters are forced to run farther to catch game which is their living and the only way they feed ther families. If a native hunter has to now run 200 miles round to catch his caribou and moose, if migration routes are altered he might have to run 400. He cannot have that kind of gas on a boat or snowmachine, and the cost is exorbitant.
Whale migration routes have been seriously altered by Prudhoe Bay, which means whale hunters must go much farther out to sea, this endangers their lives and the well being of entire native villages who depend on one whale to get them through the winter.

Dennis Miller may say, 'who gives a crap about caribou' but he knows nothing of Alaska, as well the stupid remark Bill Maher made to Frank Murkowski about the Iditarod harming husky dogs, both are supremely mal-informed. He should have mentioned aerial wolf hunting if he was going to plug for PETA.

I am an environmentalist and yes, there is going to be some harm done by exploration and drilling in ANWAR, but who is ever going to know the difference?
Its at the very top of the world, a place only oil people and natives for the most part have been or will ever be. ( plus a few photographers, naturalists and science researchers)
Its ridiculous to concentrate on ANWAR when the LUNGS of the planet are being decimated everyday. Humans need to look at the people who are cutting down trees. The birds, seals, whales and polar bears of ANWAR cannot live with global warming and will die much faster as we fill the air with pollutants that are not cleaned by the trees and the earth gets hotter.
The concentration on ANWAR is misplaced, on several points. It will not save us from the energy crsis, its a distraction as Cruising Ram has pointed out time and time again. It also will not be the end of the 'natural wilderness' as we know it because hardly anyone knows what the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge looks like and its not a National Park anyone is likely to come visit, unless they have a few thousand dollars , a car they desire to destroy and a great deal of fortitude of travel. It already has several oil drilling camps, the infrastucture is set, the engineering the best in the world.

Save the Brazilian Rain Forests, the Amazonian Rain Forests. Save the Tongass National Forest. These are the pulminary bases of our lives on the planet.

IF anyone WANTS to come to AK and do the road trip to ANWAR, then contact me and we shall go together. It has to be soon, between June 1 and Aug 10, or it cannot be done for weather.
Do you want to know really, truly?

I think Artemise pretty much said what most Alaskans think about ANWR, whether they be green or hard core Republican- though the latter trumpets the party line even though they KNOW it is not accurate- I shake my head at the ingorance of the "Lower 48" enviromentalists when I think about the resources spent over this fight vs much more worthy ones, as Artemise said.

I have been up there many times, via Uncle Sam, and it is not a very hospitable place. In fact, I can think of few places that are more hostile yet still supporting life. I have been there in winter and summer, and I couldn't tell you which is worse. I have a friend that is Gwich'in, and she is pretty admatant about NOT drilling up there, for the reasons Artemise gave- and the way it may endanger her family.

Perhaps if some part of the agreement gave free fuel to the Gwich'in, it might alleviate some of the trouble it would cause for them, and it would only be fair, since they are the ones affected.

I am extremely puzzled by this answer. It seems to say essentially two things.

1- Yes there is environmental damage, but it is justified because there is far worse environmental damage going on in other parts of the world being done by other people.

2- Yes there is environmental damage, but because it is a remote area not many people will know about it for a while.


Are these really arguments to be used in favour of drilling ANWR?

The argument is based on weighing damage vs. reward. ANWR is just a tundra with a few caribou herds migrating through. If it will bring jobs and revenue to the Alaskan people...it is definately something they would be in favor of. This isn't a rainforest with dozens of exotic species and many trees that fill our atmosphere with oxygen. This is miles and miles of empty space in which i doubt much environmentalists will find a hospitable place to protest.

The fact is that there would be little to no environmental damage. The Prudhoe Bay colony is only 100 miles from ANWR and the environment had not been damaged the slightest. Someone has to explain to me how drilling in ANWR will damage the environment when Prudhoe Bay oil drilling has not.

Look a few messages up this thread (from CR from April 17th) - Prudhoe Bay had a oil pipe busted recently, there was a spill, an environmental damage was done - so you're factually incorrect on that one.
I don't quite understand the notion that we should only preserve and protect "hospitable" lands and places such as tropical forests - we are not trying to preserve an ecological tourist destination of some sort, aren't we? By that logic, to hell with Antarctica!

i did a fact check and there was little damage done. It took almost 40 workers to clean it up!

What exactly are we preserving here? A useless tundra. One that has useful oil underneath a small part of it.

The point it, the damage was done; can you guarantee that the next time the pipe blows up it won't be the equivalent of Exxon-Valdez? We were lucky that time; we may not be that lucky the next time.
As for "usefulness" of tundra... thankfully there're some places on the planet are totally useless to humankind - so it didn't bother "exploring" it. I agree that it's useless to people - that's what makes it so unique. Usefulness is in the eye of the beholder - what's so "useful", for example, about rocky, uninhabitated Galapagos Islands?