As I predicted some while ago, the change in the balance of the Senate finally paid off and they just passed a bill opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling.
It's about time we got our act together, overcame the ridiculous complaints of environmental opportunities and did something with this godforsaken wasteland to put it to some sort of good use. Admittedly it's not going to solve our oil needs singlehandedly, but why not create jobs and get at least some oil out of the area. Keep in mind that ANWR - contrary to what so-called environmentalists claim - is an inhospitable wasteland. While the southern sections are at least inhabited by bear and caribou, the area where the drilling is planned looks like the picture to the right. For about a month in the summer scrubby grass grows there and for the rest of the year it's all mud and ice. While technically part of the wildlife refuge, the only life there is a singularly unappealing and virtually unkillable species of flat-worm that lives in the mud. They can't even build roads on the mud plain and have to drive in and out of the area in the winter when the ground is frozen. It's the definition of a godforsaken wasteland.
Environmentalists will continue to spin candyfloss fantasies about ANWR, but the truth is there for anyone to see. My favorite photo from ANWR is shown to the left, where a bear is lounging on the Prudhoe Bay pipeline to warm up in the cold weather. Bears, caribou and other wildlife of the area regularly use the pipeline as a heat source and their population has actually increased since the pipeline was built. Just as the pipeline is non-destructive, the same is true of the planned wells. With modern drilling technology their footprints are tiny and their ecological impact on the blighted and uninhabitable land around them is negligible.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Roger Asbury
Spoken like someone who has never seen the land encompassed by ANWR. You use interesting buzzwords such as "wasteland" which have about as much to do with the area as tasty donuts with sprinkles.
ANWR is not a wasteland. It is the primary breeding grounds of many of the animals in Alaska, including caribou, a primary food source of many of the people in the state.
It is also the nesting grounds of many migratory birds, a resource utilized far beyond the state of Alaska.
Your interesting, and unattributed photo of a bear "lounging" on the pipeline is humorous, yes, but not representative of the pipeline as a whole. The current infrastructure is falling apart.
To counter your bear, I present a rusty pipeline:
<img src="http://www.urbanraven.com/pictures/pipeline/rusthole.jpg" alt="rusty pipeline" align="left">
Pushing forward with this project, in which no one can seem to decide the benifits, if any, or when they'd be seen, seems to me quite shortsighted. We should be investing our money in alternative energy.
2 - Roger Asbury
Hmmm, can't seem to edit our comments. Sigh. The image I refer to is here
3 - Anna
Why bother developing alternative fuel vehicles when the government is more concerned with obtaining oil and preserving the status quo? Besides, the H2 will surely wipe out whatever may be in the ANWR reserves.
4 - Dave Nalle
>>Besides, the H2 will surely wipe out whatever may be in the ANWR reserves.<<
By the H2 I assume you mean the Hummer 2? Interestingly, the H2 may soon be available with a hybrid engine. One has been developed by a company called UQM for the military and there's a good likelihood it will be available to regular consumers who buy H2s soon.
Dave
5 - SFC Ski
Dave, make sure you don't tell her that H2 drivers are subsidized and only pay $0.25 a gallon!
6 - Dave Nalle
>>Spoken like someone who has never seen the land encompassed by ANWR. You use interesting buzzwords such as "wasteland" which have about as much to do with the area as tasty donuts with sprinkles.<<
What term do you prefer for land which is incapable of supporting life 9 months out of the year? You seem not to understand that ANWR is an enormous area, and the northern part where they plan on drilling is absolutely, correctly described as wasteland, even if the southern part isn't.
>>ANWR is not a wasteland. It is the primary breeding grounds of many of the animals in Alaska, including caribou, a primary food source of many of the people in the state.<<
Again, the southern area, NOT the area where the drilling will take place.
>>It is also the nesting grounds of many migratory birds, a resource utilized far beyond the state of Alaska.<<
How do we use those migratory birds again? Plus aren't their breeding areas on the coast far south of where the drilling is planned?
>>Your interesting, and unattributed photo of a bear "lounging" on the pipeline is humorous, yes, but not representative of the pipeline as a whole. <<
It's actually just one of many such photos which are all over the web, showing bears and caribou using the pipeline for warmth. I picked it because it's easier to see the bears in this photo than in most. And you can find the original link easily if you just open the image in its own window.
>>The current infrastructure is falling apart.
To counter your bear, I present a rusty pipeline:<<
I bet if you went back and photographed that rust spot today it would be gone. The pipeline isn't of value if it leaks oil instead of delivering it to the intended destination. One thing businesses do well is look out for their own interests and an efficient, non-leaking pipeline is in the best interest of business. Pipeline maintenance workers are one of the main sources for photos and reports on what a wasteland ANWR is.
>>Pushing forward with this project, in which no one can seem to decide the benifits, if any, or when they'd be seen, seems to me quite shortsighted. <<
The benefits are obvious. A bit more oil to make us a little less dependent on foreign oil. It doesn't solve the problem, but it's part of the overall solution.
>>We should be investing our money in alternative energy.<<
I agree with you there - as you may have noticed that's one of the main thrusts of my article. What we should really do is provide a good tax incentive or disincentive to encourage alternative energy vehicles. I'm for a $1 per gallon hike in the gas tax.
But whatever we do, alternative energy vehicles are still going to be slow in taking over the marketplace, and in the interim we need to keep oil flowing, hence ANWR.
Dave
7 - SFC Ski
Too bad ADD will probably distract your reader from your best sentence, "But whatever we do, alternative energy vehicles are still going to be slow in taking over the marketplace, and in the interim we need to keep oil flowing, hence ANWR"
People expect solutions to arrive overnight, like magic.
8 - DrPat
I liked the burrowing owl and three bears pictures, myself!
9 - Dave Nalle
>>People expect solutions to arrive overnight, like magic.<<
This is because certain people - mostly of the liberal persuasion are given to Magical Thinking.
Dave
10 - DrPat
Yep. I went to school (briefly) with a number of students who exhibited this kind of thinking. Needless to say, they didn't last long at an engineering school...
11 - Roger Asbury
>>What term do you prefer for land which is incapable of supporting life 9 months out of the year? You seem not to understand that ANWR is an enormous area, and the northern part where they plan on drilling is absolutely, correctly described as wasteland, even if the southern part isn't.<<
I'd call it part of the state that I live in and enjoy. More specifically, I'd question your claim of nothing being there for 9 months out of the year, and ask you to back it up. The site you mention (anwr.org, not suprisingly a site run by those that want to open ANWR) itself mentions an array of animals living in the area including caribou, polar bear, wolves and moose, but downplays developmental impacts:
http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/otherwil.html
>>How do we use those migratory birds again? Plus aren't their breeding areas on the coast far south of where the drilling is planned?<<
Bird species that utilize the coastal plain (the area in dispute) include:
Loons, teals, scaup, Harliquin ducks, Bald & Golden Eagles, northern goshawk, rough-legged hawk, Merlin Falcon, Peregrin Falcon, Sandhill Crane, various sandpipers, gulls, finches and swallows.
http://arctic.fws.gov/birdlist.htm
>>It's actually just one of many such photos which are all over the web, showing bears and caribou using the pipeline for warmth.<<
>>I bet if you went back and photographed that rust spot today it would be gone. The pipeline isn't of value if it leaks oil instead of delivering it to the intended destination.<<
This is incorrect. The picture was taken a while ago, and that hole is not only still there, it is larger. The problem is, the hole is on the outer jacket of the pipeline. A hole here does not cause the oil to leak, but does allow water to enter and continue to corrode the out jacket, and probably compromise the insulation. I've emailed Alyeska pipeline about the problem multiple times, and have never received so much as a form letter reply.
If you are in Alaska, I suggest you stop by the pipeline roadside visitors center just north of Fairbanks. You will see this hole, and many like it along the entire length. You'd think that the one place they'd want the most visably appealling section of pipeline is where people from all around the world will see it.
>>Pipeline maintenance workers are one of the main sources for photos and reports on what a wasteland ANWR is.<<
Not exactly an unbiased source for information, is that? It's not like they are going to show you stuff that might prevent them from expanding their job.
>>The benefits are obvious. A bit more oil to make us a little less dependent on foreign oil.<<
The benefits are far from obvious, and even hinted to in that sentence. "A bit more"? Will we gain more energy than we expend getting it? Why have all but one major oil companies pulled out of the Arctic Power consortium? Most cited costs and pressure from their investors. If your investors don't think there's money to be made...
>>I agree with you there - as you may have noticed that's one of the main thrusts of my article. What we should really do is provide a good tax incentive or disincentive to encourage alternative energy vehicles. I'm for a $1 per gallon hike in the gas tax.<<
We can certainly agree on that! :) It's rather amusing to listen to people complain about the price of fuel, yet realize that we still get it cheaper than most other countries.
Additionaly, I feel (or at least hope) that open debate on the topic helps to spur development towards the goal of better efficiency.
But whatever we do, alternative energy vehicles are still going to be slow in taking over the marketplace, and in the interim we need to keep oil flowing, hence ANWR.
12 - Roger Asbury
Man, do I wish there was an edit feature. :(
That last sentence was a quote from Dave's message, and certainly not my opinion. *blush*
13 - SFC Ski
Well, what was your point in relation to Dave's last sentence?
14 - Roger Asbury
I think my point would be that while you and Dave may THINK that environmentalists expect an overnight efficiency miracle, that's not really the case.
As much as many of us would like to see hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles on the roads in large numbers, we know it's not going to happen as quickly as we'd like.
However, we also know that a fuel crisis is equally as unlikely to occur over night. The need for every drop we can get our hands on is not there.
15 - SFC Ski
That's open to debate, we probably are working off our own definition of "crisis". I'd say that right now there is not a crisis, but there is good reason to consider that a crisis may arise in the near future.
You are correct, American pay a lot less than most others, when I left Germany gas was about $4 a gallon. Peolpe still drove a lot, though, and the trains and busses were highly used, so I can't really draw any conclusion from the price vs. conservation standpoint.
16 - Dave Nalle
>>I'd call it part of the state that I live in and enjoy. More specifically, I'd question your claim of nothing being there for 9 months out of the year, and ask you to back it up. <<
The thing is - and you ought to be aware of this - that ANWR really is two (or more) distinct environmental zones. There's the grass plains where most of the species live, and there is the area of mudflats and semi-tundra in the north. The pipeline runs through the southern part, but the drilling is all planned for the northern part. The southern part makes some sense as a wildlife refuge, but that vast expanse of frozen mud really is a wasteland from all the reading I've done on the subject. Yes, I haven't been there - my reading has convinced me there's not much reason why I'd want to visit the area - does your experience suggest that the mud flats portion of ANWR is not as described?
>>This is incorrect. The picture was taken a while ago, and that hole is not only still there, it is larger. The problem is, the hole is on the outer jacket of the pipeline. A hole here does not cause the oil to leak, but does allow water to enter and continue to corrode the out jacket, and probably compromise the insulation. I've emailed Alyeska pipeline about the problem multiple times, and have never received so much as a form letter reply.
If you are in Alaska, I suggest you stop by the pipeline roadside visitors center just north of Fairbanks. You will see this hole, and many like it along the entire length. You'd think that the one place they'd want the most visably appealling section of pipeline is where people from all around the world will see it. <<
That certainly seems idiotic. Can't imagine why they'd neglect that particular area of the pipeline of all places.
>>The benefits are far from obvious, and even hinted to in that sentence. "A bit more"? Will we gain more energy than we expend getting it? Why have all but one major oil companies pulled out of the Arctic Power consortium? Most cited costs and pressure from their investors. If your investors don't think there's money to be made...<<
Do you not see that none of this makes any sense? If there's no money to be made, why would any company want to go drill there? If the oil will cost more to pump than it will be worth, why is anyone even bothering? Is there some secret conspiracy at work here? Is this just a cover for some sort of massive caribou hunting operation?
>>We can certainly agree on that! :) It's rather amusing to listen to people complain about the price of fuel, yet realize that we still get it cheaper than most other countries.<<
That's because those countries have whopping big taxes on it. I generally don't like taxes, but I think they're a better way to encourage conservation than an arbitrary system like raising the CAFE standards. Higher gas taxes would make it more worthwhile to get a more energy efficient car, and that will let the marketplace drive changes in that direction.
Dave
17 - Roger Asbury
>>Yes, I haven't been there - my reading has convinced me there's not much reason why I'd want to visit the area - does your experience suggest that the mud flats portion of ANWR is not as described?<<
In my experience, yes. My, admittedly short, in person experience involved a flyover of the area several years ago with people from both sides of the debate, and also before I had formed an opinion one way or the other.
A basic map of the area can be found on the anwr.org website at:
http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf
This map shows the two most obvious divisions (coastal plain & everything else) as well as a proposed drilling site of 2,000 acres. The area is far more than mud flats.
A vegitation map can be found here:
http://andrew.bromage.org/causes/anwr-images/anwr.gif
The key to which, unfortunately, is on another page, here:
http://andrew.bromage.org/causes/anwr-images/anwrveg.key.gif
Admittedly, it would have been nice if those were on the same page for the sake of usability. Notice, gray is the collor for barren land, or mud flats. You will only find that on the map along rivers and in the mountains. The coastal plain has been outlined.
>>Do you not see that none of this makes any sense? If there's no money to be made, why would any company want to go drill there? If the oil will cost more to pump than it will be worth, why is anyone even bothering? Is there some secret conspiracy at work here? Is this just a cover for some sort of massive caribou hunting operation?<<
Nah, I'm not into conspiracy theories. :) But I can also simply point out that of the original members of the Arctic Power consortium, only one industry player remains, Exxon. That's not guesswork, it's a fact. British Petroleum and ConocoPhilips have pulled out.
Many Alaskans, including those in positions of political influence (Ted Stevens, Don Young, the Murkowski's) hope that it will bring jobs to the state and an influx of employment and development. I can't say as I blame them for that motive, the economy of Alaska has been tanking for years.
My guess is that that is where the momentum is coming from. Both British Petroleum and ConocoPhilips seem to be content with their North Slope holdings, and potential reserves in other, less environmentally fragile locations. I applaud those efforts.
18 - gonzo marx
ok...just wanting to touch a few points here..
if memory serves the deposit of oil that is speculated to be in the area proposed for exploratory drilling totals somewhere between 150-185 million barrels and will take somewhere between 9-12 years to develop before the first barrel is pumped out...this is from the US Geological survey that was used in the Senate debate
i'm not even going to touch the ecological points here..there are others more qualified to debate those issues..mainly the folks that live there..
but i tend to side with Teddy Rosevelt where it comes to our National Parks and Wildlife Reserves...they are our NATIONAL resources..
so answer me this...will whomever gets awarded the contract to drill up there pay fair market value for the priveledge of exploiting our National Property?
or will this be like the sweetheart leases that big Cattle gets to graze on our National Lands..or what big LUmber gets for clearcutting our National Forests?
perhaps if we ensured that Business interests paid fair market value for exploiting National Resources we could lower some of the crushing Debt that has been run up in the last 5 years
i'm all for that...especially if the fines for polluting said lands was equivalent to the $550k PER INCIDENT that the FCC levels on broadcasters rather than the measly $25k PER DAY that is the maximum fine allowable for corporate pollution
evil bastard that i am..i would be happy to say let's drain 1 pint of blood from the CEO for every barrel of pollutants inflicted on our national lands...if he runs dry we go for whomever takes the position next
bet they would be lining up for the job then
ok...that solution might be a little bit over the top..
but i can Dream...can't i?
even at the best estimates, the entire deposit under ANWR equals about 3-5 weeks usage for the US
someone better at risk/reward calculations will have to work this out for us...but it seems the only one to come out on top of this deal are whatever Company gets the contract..and i will wager a double chocolate chip cookie that they will NOT be paying anywhere near fair market value for exploiting OUR Resource
me..i'll stick with Teddy Rosevelt's goal for our National Lands...
Excelsior!
19 - Polar Bear
Dear Dave --
Use all the buzzwords you want to support your fantasies about drilling in ANWR. There are two things you neglected to discuss.
Over many years, I have heard many Gwich'in speak of how this oil development will affect their lives and I agree with their assessment. Based on this I view opening ANWR as something incredibly destructive and will support the Gwich'in in their struggle to preserve their cultural ways as long as they desire. Specifically, the construction activities and permanent drill sites would interfere with their lifestyle and directly affect the Gwich'in people, whose whole culture is based on the celebration of the reindeer. If you get the chance listen to their story. A very good article on the Gwich'in: http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/anwrgwichin.html also just recently the article “Gwich’in plead to preserve caribou refuge” http://www.ktuu.com/CMS/templates/master.asp?articleid=11908&zoneid=4
Other discussions are polar bear den sites -- Polar bears den areas are only in a few places, difficult to find, and are protected under an international treaty (probably the first lawsuit filed if the federal budget is passed). The area where the drilling would take place is a nursery for reindeer and den areas for nanook's (i.e., polar bears). The reindeer do (porcupine herd) have differing locations every year but remain in the same general area of the arctic -- yet the female nanook, if disturbed, will abandon the den and leave the cubs to fend for themselves in the harsh arctic climate. To state the obvious, the polar bear population would dramatically decline due to human interaction.
20 - Dave Nalle
Ok, omnibus responses to everyone:
>>However, we also know that a fuel crisis is equally as unlikely to occur over night. The need for every drop we can get our hands on is not there.<<
But given the fact that the oil is there and the plan for drilling would do remarkably little damage to the environment, why put it off. It seems like a no-lose situation.
>>A basic map of the area can be found on the anwr.org website at:
http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf<<
One thing that map makes very clear is the incredibly tiny area the drilling will take place in. I have a neighbor whose yard is more than 2000 acres - well, it used to be a working ranch, but the point is that in an area that huge, drilling on 2000 acres is literally like the proverbial needle in a haystack.
As to the vegetation maps, the key clearly shows that the entire area of coastal plains has nothing but varieties of tundra sedge, a seasonal pseudo-grass which only grows three months out of the year. This is NOT a heavily vegetated area or one where there are significant numbers of animals. Tundra sedge won't support significant herds and if the herds won't go there neither will the predators.
>>But I can also simply point out that of the original members of the Arctic Power consortium, only one industry player remains, Exxon. That's not guesswork, it's a fact. British Petroleum and ConocoPhilips have pulled out.<<
Doesn't Exxon have a larger already established presence in the area so that it would require less initial investment to start drilling in the area? That might explain why they ended up as the primary participant.
>>but i tend to side with Teddy Rosevelt where it comes to our National Parks and Wildlife Reserves...they are our NATIONAL resources..<<
When Roosevelt said this he clearly intended that the role of government was to protect those resources for future use by the people, not for some pointless indefinite exclusion of humanity. That's not what Roosevelt's conservationism was about. It was about preserving resources so we'd have them to USE in the future.
Dave
21 - Dave Nalle
And a response just for Polar Bear:
>>Over many years, I have heard many Gwich'in speak of how this oil development will affect their lives and I agree with their assessment. Based on this I view opening ANWR as something incredibly destructive and will support the Gwich'in in their struggle to preserve their cultural ways as long as they desire. <<
By which you mean preserve their political power.
>>Specifically, the construction activities and permanent drill sites would interfere with their lifestyle and directly affect the Gwich'in people, whose whole culture is based on the celebration of the reindeer. If you get the chance listen to their story. A very good article on the Gwich'in: http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/anwrgwichin.html also just recently the article “Gwich’in plead to preserve caribou refuge” http://www.ktuu.com/CMS/templates/master.asp?articleid=11908&zoneid=4<<
I've read up extensively on the Gwich'in. Their primary hunting food source are the Northern Arctic Caribou and the Porcupine Caribou, which do breed in the northern part of ANWR. However, the area where the breeding takes place is outside of Gwich'in tribal territory so they really have no direct stake in what goes on there. In addition, as was demonstrated with the oil drilling sites to the west of ANWR which were also in Caribou breeding areas, when the drilling started there the Caribou either moved small distances away to breed or just bred around the drilling rigs. There was no appreciable impact on their population or breeding practices.
>>Other discussions are polar bear den sites -- Polar bears den areas are only in a few places, difficult to find, and are protected under an international treaty (probably the first lawsuit filed if the federal budget is passed). The area where the drilling would take place is a nursery for reindeer and den areas for nanook's (i.e., polar bears). The reindeer do (porcupine herd) have differing locations every year but remain in the same general area of the arctic -- yet the female nanook, if disturbed, will abandon the den and leave the cubs to fend for themselves in the harsh arctic climate. To state the obvious, the polar bear population would dramatically decline due to human interaction. <<
Well, since we currently have a problem with Polar Bear overbreeding that might not be such a bad thing. However, polar bears also den where drilling is already going on. Here's the assessment of that situation from Polar Bears International:
"In the United States, extraction activities on the North Slope of Alaska have been carefully monitored and restrictive permit conditions have been enforced. Perhaps as a result, there have been no bear mortalities nor discernable impact on them."
Doesn't sound so bad does it? And that's with hundreds of wells in a much smaller area than the north portion of ANWR. The area of ANWR to be drilled is so tiny in comparison to the amount of land there available for Polar Bear denning that it's ridiculous to expect their lives to be significantly disrupted.
Dave
22 - gonzo marx
hello Dave...
i believe we only differ here in our Thought on how Teddy meant for us to "use" said Land and Resources..
him being an avid hunter and outdoorsman, as well as many of his personal writings on the subject, his use of the word "preservation" in so much of his discourse on the subject seems to indicate to me keeping said areas as pristine as possible for future generations to enjoy undisturbed by the hands of Man as much as is possible..
as i had said...show me the Benefit to the Nation for utilizing a portion of said lands...and demonstate how they will be utilized safely, and effeciently...with fair market value paid to the Government for the exploitation of said Resources..and i will happily sign off...but i will require they put it back the way they found it when they are done..factor that into the cost analysis, and then see if the "bidders" still think it's worth it
i also require those numbers upfront during the bid process
we are all Aware of the fiasco of the last time our government sent out something to be done on a "no-bid" basis(IMO if we had our normal situation of "checks and balances" we would be hip deep in Investigations right now..but that's another Argument for a future discussion)
call me a Cynic if ya like..but it still feels like big Oil is hoping for a something for nothing deal on exploitation rights ...
hopefully we are smart enough to not let that happen, and good Things can come of this..
but i wouldn't bet rent money on it..
Excelsior!
23 - Dave Nalle
>>as i had said...show me the Benefit to the Nation for utilizing a portion of said lands...and demonstate how they will be utilized safely, and effeciently...with fair market value paid to the Government for the exploitation of said Resources..and i will happily sign off...but i will require they put it back the way they found it when they are done..factor that into the cost analysis, and then see if the "bidders" still think it's worth it<<
I think that you and me and Teddy agree here. As I've shown in my last message or two I think the drilling planned for ANWR is as close to harmless as you can get. So all that remains is to make sure a fair price is paid to drill there. The last bids for drilling rights in the National Petroleum Reserve area near ANWR went for about $54 million between several bidders, so drilling rights aren't exactly cheap. Plus, I think the Alaskan legislators pushing to open up drilling ANWR see the main payoff as more jobs and business in Alaska and employing Alaskans, and that certainly has value.
Dave
24 - gonzo marx
hey..have them put that in writing..open the bid on it...and require them to hire Alaskans...we could have a winner...
bet me that cookie that the Reality of it will be far from the Mark?
c'mon...i double dog dare ya..
Excelsior!
25 - Aaman
Dave, some food for thought on this by Thomas Friedman of the NYT, in an article about other issues
The columnist, of course, is not a China-basher, although he might be called a mild Bush-basher.
Good post, and excellent follow-up responses