« Great Moments in Marketing, Part II | Main | Trivia Tidbit Of The Day -- College Football's Associated Press Poll. »

ANWR Debate Heating Up Again

This from an editorial in the Fargo Forum:

In order to get the Energy Bill passed, Congress had to scrap a provision that would have opened up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration and drilling. Despite the desire of the Bush administration to violate ANWR, congressional leaders knew it would be a deal breaker for the entire bill.

But like garbage at low tide, attempts to open the refuge won't go away.

This time, however, a rider on upcoming budget reconciliation bill in the House of Representatives might not fare well because 24 Republicans don't like it. They've sent a letter to House leadership voicing their opposition to refuge drilling.

Among them are three committee chairman. Reps. Jim Ramstad and Mark Kennedy of Minnesota signed on, also.

Good for them.

Nothing has changed since the last attempt to open the refuge was made. There are no more proven oil reserves than there were last year.

If ANWR's oil came on line tomorrow (it would take about 11 years to be developed), it would have no significant effect on the U.S. crude oil supply, nor would it reduce American dependence on imported oil. The multi-national oil companies that are pushing to develop the refuge likely would export most of it to Asia.

And Americans can be sure of this: Damaging the Arctic refuge to secure a relatively small amount of crude oil would not reduce gasoline prices at the pump. The argument that the supply-and-demand equation is causing gas prices to skyrocket seems like so much economic smoke and mirrors.

I'm sort of in the middle on this one.

On one hand, most of those opposed to drilling in ANWR keep talking about how the oil exploration will "damage" the reserve. That's just not true. The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge encompasses 19 million acres. Of that, only 1.5 million acres would need to be opened to oil exploration in order for the reserve to be tapped leaving the vast majority of the reserve pristine and untouched. And of that 1.5 million open acres only small portions would see a lot of activity and exploration, and even that would be subject to the exacting environmental regulations placed on domestic oil exploration.

Add this to the fact that 75% of Alaskans (and this former Alaskan) support drilling in ANWR and I think you can safely say that most of the ANWR opponents (most of whom I'd guess have never been within 500 miles of ANWR) just don't know what they're talking about.

When it comes to whether or not ANWR will solve our oil problems, however, I tend to agree with those who are opposed to the drilling. Not because I'm opposed to drilling in ANWR (I'm very much in favor of it) but rather because I think its like putting a band-aid on an amputated limb.

According to some estimates the ANWR oil reserve can produce about 16 billion barrels of oil, making it the largest oil reserve in America. And that's all well and good, but ANWR cannot provide us with enough oil alleviate our dependence on foreign sources. Could it make a difference? Sure. But not much of one.

Instead, this country needs to focus more on other energy sources. We need to find a way to to consume less oil. Period. There's no way around that. So while I think we should drill in ANWR, I also think we need to reduce our demand for oil. If we could significantly reduce our need for oil then domestic sources like ANWR could provide us with enough oil so that we wouldn't have to go to places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for our oil.

I think the benefits of that situation are clear.

So here's what needs to happen: I think we should develop our oil reserves in ANWR, because we will need oil in the future regardless of how much it is. We also need to find a way to reduce our demand for oil as well. Doing both makes America a stronger nation than it would be if we just did one or the other.

(via The Flickertail Journal)

By Rob Port of Say Anything.


Comments (31)

I don't get the Minnesotan ... (Below threshold)

I don't get the Minnesotan opposition to drilling for oil. It seems like Minnesota's environmentalist movement is keeping the GOP from becoming the dominant party in the state.

I think you meant Venezuela... (Below threshold)
model_1066:

I think you meant Venezuela, not Argentina - they are the 5th largest oil exporter, and have that psychotic Chavez bastard in power. A substitute for cheap, easy to extract middle east crude is needed, but for anyone to argue that ANWR isn't worth it because it would only provide X number of months supply isn't looking at other influencing factors. It would supply the state of Alaska with thousands of high paying jobs and billions in revenue from the royalties. These economic benefits will last decades. I have worked on the North slope for a few winter exploration seasons, and learned quite a bit about the operations and infrastructure up there. It's estimated that if the Prudhoe field were discovered today, it's footprint would be 70% smaller than it is now, due to advances in seismic mapping and directional drilling. In my opinion, it's the Trans Alaska Pipeline's limited lifespan that could be seen as an important factor. Industry journals indicate that the pipeline, which is truly an engineering masterpiece, has about 15-20 years of life left before it needs a major overhaul or replacement, neither of which would be cheap. So I think it would be best to tap ANWR ASAP. And while the hippie dirtbags are wasting their efforts protesting something unavoidable, yet years in the future, plans for a natural gas pipeline are being worked out right now to route the incredible amount of natural gas in the Alaskan and Canadian arcic (Mackenzie River) to either the California or Midwest markets, or to a LNG plant in Valdez. There's simply too much stuff up there to ignore or abandon.

I heard that the ANWR oil w... (Below threshold)
moseby:

I heard that the ANWR oil was a much lower grade of oil derived from mostly Dinosaur piss anyway...
not so good for kerry's SUV's or huffington's jets so forget it....

Oh, and here's a little rec... (Below threshold)
model_1066:

Oh, and here's a little recap of ANWR's history:


The Arctic National Wildlife Range was established by administrative action in 1960 and originally covered 8.9 million acres. In 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conversation Act (ANILCA) more than doubled the Range to 19.3 million acres and renamed the area the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Congress directed a five year study of the oil and gas and wildlife resources of the 1.5 million acre "coastal plain" area, as set out in ANILCA. This study, the "1002 report," was directed because the geologic formations in the coastal plain area were known to be highly prospective for large oil and gas reserves. The report was issued in 1987.

A new three year study of the petroleum potential of the ANWR coastal plain has been completed by the U. S. Geological Survey. Results of the study, "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998," were issued in May, 1998.

The coastal plain area is approximately 70 miles from the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline.

Quote from AAPG:

"The "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998" estimated in-place oil resources in the ANWR 1002 area to be in the range of 11.6 to 31.5 billion barrels of oil, which represents a significant increase in potential reserves over the 1987 resource assessment."

Jonah Goldberg's article at... (Below threshold)

Jonah Goldberg's article at the following:

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg072701.shtml

Unlike most, he went and looked - make sure you check the pictures!

model & Parker:Tha... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

model & Parker:

Thanks for the the insights and link to Jonah's pictures. Yes, it's not quite the green Shangri-La the envirothugs lead us to believe it is.

Drives me nuts when the MSM gloms onto a story like ANWR and makes it their caus belli. I suppose it's OK to under-report the facts and gloss over the details so long as it portrays the current administration in a poor and unfavorable light.

11 years until we see a drop? Wow. Gotta love those envirothug lawyers!

ALL sources of domestic ene... (Below threshold)
Lou Bauman:

ALL sources of domestic energy production must be encouraged and ALLOWED. Oil production in ANWAR has been discounted by many (left leaning tree huggers) because it is too small and will not have a profound impact on domestic supplies. This philosophy if applied to any oil and gas investment, conservation, wind power, solar power, and ethanol should have killed those investments.

We need to allow gas and oil development WHEREVER the resource is, almost without regard for wilderness, scenic vistas, air shed quality, historic preservation, endangered species, etc. If we continue to allow intervention for these reasons, then we are doomed to have ALL of it virtually stopped by special interests due to the “not in my backyard – air shed – vista – etc.” syndrome.

We need a reasonable, phased in over a long period, carbon tax to encourage the development of alternative energy sources and conservation using market forces rather than central planning. This should promote solar, wind, nuclear, and hear to fore unknown non-polluting source development before all the wilderness, scenic vistas, air sheds, historic preserves, endangered species, etc. are destroyed by the less-restrained oil and gas development advocated above. It will also allow businesses to plan for the long term accommodation of this tax without cratering the economy. It will also help to diminish the humane activity component contribution to global warming, if there is any.

Like most debates going on ... (Below threshold)
jc:

Like most debates going on between liberals and pseudo-conservatives in Washington, I can come to two conclusions: 1) liberals are wrong, 2) it doesn't really matter.

$3.50/gallon gas is not much different from $3.25/gallon gas if I'm going to get carjacked by an illegal immigrant anyway (who crossed the border without getting checked out to see if he was a carjacker/terrorist/rapist/gangster/etc.).

jc

We also need to find a w... (Below threshold)
Justin B:

We also need to find a way to reduce our demand for oil as well.

We have that answer. Just let gas prices rise to a level like they are in Europe. It will cut consumption. That was the Democrat's idea in the 1980's when John Kerry supported a $.50 per gallon increase in the gas tax.

But that has its costs. There is no alternative and it will stagnate the economy. We can debate saving the environment and protecting ANWR and alternative fuel and 250 MPG cars all we want, but who really cares one damn bit what the environment is like if we all live in absolute poverty because the economy comes crashing to a halt... well who aside from the pot smoking unemployed greens that don't have a job and live in a commune.

The solution is simple. Cu... (Below threshold)
John S.:

The solution is simple. Cut off all petroleum products to Blue states. Distribute the rest to the Red states. They'll be plenty to go around.

ANWR is every much as bit o... (Below threshold)
mph:

ANWR is every much as bit of an unhospitible desert as Saudi Arabia, the difference is that Alaskans aren't fixated on killing us. Sure, it's a drop in the bucket, but the bucket gets filled by drops. But most importantly, there is NO DAMN REASON not to drill there.

Caribou still roam at Prudh... (Below threshold)
Terry:

Caribou still roam at Prudhoe Bay. The only settlement of US citizens in ANWR supports oil development, as do most citizens of Alaska.

The desert comment is correct; the area only gets a few inches of moisture a year.

The argument that "it takes too long and only has 11.6 to 31 Billion barrels, so it is too small to bother with" could be expanded to all other conservation and alternative energy schemes. Rob says 16 Billion Barrels is to small to make a difference, a band-aid on a severed limb. He wants to save energy. Got any 16 Billion Barrel projects in mind?

If you want to save oil, think about dropping methanol.

16 billion barrels at $60 a... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

16 billion barrels at $60 a barrel is almost ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!!Can anybody say "economic impact"??

are you saying that no anim... (Below threshold)
anthony:

are you saying that no animal has died in anwr

I haven't seen anyone makin... (Below threshold)

I haven't seen anyone making this link, so I'll do so, mostly because I was curious and looked it up...

Critics say ANWR isn't worth doing, not enough oil, why bother for such a small supply, etc. That seems to be one main argument.

I just looked up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve info, because I've never done so and was curious. We've got 700 million barrels in there as of today. The total capacity is only 727 million barrels. Even low estimates of ANWR capacity are over a billion barrels, correct?

So why doesn't it make sense to double (worst case) our petroleum reserves on our own turf if we can?

I know, I know, these are the same people that don't understand the point of the strategic reserves, every time gas jumps a penny (except when it's because they got the tax increases on it they wanted) they call for the President to start drawing down the reserves. I guess I answered my own question. But still, I thought it was interesting to compare our 'strategic' reserve capacity versus what they're saying about ANWR capacity.

>> Caribou still roam at Pr... (Below threshold)
cosmos:

>> Caribou still roam at Prudhoe Bay. >>

But most of the calving moved inland, away from roads and oil development. The Arctic Refuge calving area is 1/5th the size of the Prudhoe herds', and 6 times more caribou use it. The Refuge herd (unlike Prudhoe) does NOT have a good alternative calving area.

>> The only settlement of US citizens in ANWR supports oil development, >>

Many of the Kaktovik residents now oppose oil development in Area 1002. They realize it would encourage offshore drilling, and probably destroy their subsistence lifestyle (whaling).

>> Rob says 16 Billion Barrels is to small to make a difference >>

16 BBO is a small, 5% chance that IGNORES the COST of recovery. Refuge oil is high cost. Do you want to pay $30, $50 or higher per barrel for the next 40 years, to get that 16 BBO? That would generate huge revenues for OPEC.

>> Got any 16 Billion Barrel projects in mind? >>

Definitely! -- http://www.oilendgame.com

Yeah, it seems like the gre... (Below threshold)
model_1066:

Yeah, it seems like the greens would be happy if the US took a significant economic hit from the Kyoto treaty for a miniscule (if any) reduction in global greenhouse gas, but are opposed to having a few thousand acres out of a vast, remote parcel of land few have ever seen generate thousands of jobs and billions in revenues. They have an inverted cost/benefit model of both economics and environmentalism. What they can't admit is that there is no possible method yet devised that would provide enough energy for the world without making an environmental impact. Thinking about the natural gas reserves up on the North Slope, I remember reading in the Anchorage newspaper that some of the gas that is co-produced with the oil is used for electricity generation for their facilities. But there is so much of it, that the amount that is either flared off at the production facilities or reinjected back in to the reservoir - in one day - is enough to heat and light Anchorage for a year. This is kind of a funny side note: many of the remote native communities in the interior get their electricity from massive diesel generators. As a test, one community used its generator to burn 80,000 gallons of FISH OIL (cheaper than diesel) through the generator and found that it burned cleaner and more efficiently.

I have met many of the nati... (Below threshold)
model_1066:

I have met many of the natives up on the slope, and they are a decent lot on the whole. But the 'subsistence' argument is lost on me, however. I think that when they use satellite navigation, cell phones, snowmachines (that's what they call snowmobiles up there), binoculars, maps, high-powered rifles, inboard engines, and helicopters on call from the BLM or one of the oil companies in case something goes wrong in pursuit of their quarry - it's more accurately called SUBSIDIZED. Using whitey's technology to harvest a traditional source of food that is not even needed anymore hardly qualifies as 'tradition', unless one thinks that the Inuit/Inupiat people will fall over and die if they don't get their whale blubber dipped in seal oil. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it, but using the romanticized hunter/gatherer subsistence argument against development that they directly benefit from is pretty lame.

So the answer to Anthony's ... (Below threshold)
model_1066:

So the answer to Anthony's question is: yes, animals have died in ANWR - killed by the natives who hunt and eat them.

>> the greens would be happ... (Below threshold)
cosmos:

>> the greens would be happy if the US took a significant economic hit from the Kyoto treaty >>

Do some research. Higher energy efficiency reduces greenhouse gases AND saves money. It's good for business, and the economy. Read Rocky Mountain Institute's book, 'Natural Capitalism', free download at -- http://www.natcap.org/sitepages/pid20.php

>> are opposed to having a few thousand acres out of a vast, remote parcel >>

That's 3.125 square miles of gravel several feet thick, scattered at 20+ drilling sites scattered on the 1.5 million acre coastal plain. Plus pipelines and gravel roads connecting everything.

>> generate thousands of jobs and billions in revenues. >>

Maybe 50,000 jobs in oil industry, mostly just shifting from other declining oil sites. Billions in revenues to OPEC? I'd rather we double efficiency again, like we did after the 70's embargo -- that might drop oil below $20 a barrel, meaning no profitable oil from the Refuge.

>> What they can't admit is that there is no possible method yet devised that would provide enough energy for the world without making an environmental impact. >>

What pro-drillers seem unable to admit is that higher energy efficiency is our nation's largest "source" of energy, producing FIVE times more than our domestic oil production.
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/EnergySecurity/S02-05_TakesMoreThanDrill.pdf

With modern materials, computer design, etc. we could "produce" much more. We could save more oil than the Arctic Refuge would produce if we kept tires properly inflated.

>> using the romanticized hunter/gatherer subsistence argument against development that they directly benefit from is pretty lame.

It's more lame for pro-drillers to falsely claim that Kaktovik residents support development, when many do not.

>> yes, animals have died ... (Below threshold)
cosmos:

>> yes, animals have died in ANWR - killed by the natives who hunt and eat them. >>

The Gwitch'in people in Alaska and Canada are forbidden to hunt in the Porcupine caribou calving grounds (includes Area 1002). They respect the calving grounds as a sacred place, where life begins.

Do some research. Kyoto is... (Below threshold)
model_1066:

Do some research. Kyoto is not about efficiency, it's about emissions - making cars and power plants more efficient is a method of reaching emissions targets, which is something utility companies, car companies and oil companies are not only promoting themselves, but pouring billions into research for. Don't you think it's in their economic interest to be more efficient as well? Kyoto was signed in 1997, and it's biggest cheerleaders, such as Canada and France are nowhere near meeting the hard CO2 targets stated by the protocol. Meanwhile, the two most populous countries, India and China, have booming economies which will have significant energy needs in the near future, yet are exempt. So the US could have either signed a worthless agreement that in reality does little to nothing about the environment because of unrealistic emissions targets and ignored it, or attempted to meet the targets by slashing energy use so drastically that the economy would be crippled.
And if the go-ahead is given to explore and plan oil development in ANWR, the oil companies aren't necessarily going to doze, pave and drill everywhere they can or think they should: they're interested in finding particular plays that can be developed using the least amount of resources and real estate, depending on the price of oil at the time. Because building anything up there is definitely not cheap, it will probably be a lot less haphazard or "scattered" than you think. Most of the oil is estimated to occur in the western, undeformed part of the ANWR 1002 area, which is closest to existing infrastructure.
And I didn't say anything about OPEC, unless you somehow think that Alaska is a member. Oil is a commodity, traded on the open market in exchange for money. The state of Alaska gets money from oil sold on said market, just as OPEC countries do. The state of Alaska also gets money from oil companies by leasing the land to the highest bidding oil company on a per acre basis. Think that ConocoPhillips or BP wouldn't hesitate to fork over a few hundred million dollars to Alaska as rent on ANWR? The money from oil sales is invested in the Permanent fund, generating interest, and a portion is paid to each citizen of Alaska each year. Lots of Alaskans work in the oil industry on a per capita basis, but the majority of the expertise and labor up there are from all over the US and other countries, so the wealth from their high salaries is being spread around by people who are inelegible for the yearly check, but don't care because they can't live there due to seasonal nature of their jobs, or don't want to live in Alaska because the weather sucks.
Efficiently using oil is still using oil, so oil will continue to be needed, no?
And since you were so nice to put words in my mouth concerning what some Kaktovik residents may have said, the North Slope and the Alaska Federation of Natives, which represents over 100,000 Alaska Native people, support going forward with the oil and gas activity in this 1002 area. The Gwitch'in eskimo tribe happens to live nearby, but are jealously opposed because they live on land that has less oil potential. That comes from the Inuit's position statement on oil development.

Look this up in Alaska news sources:

Washington, D.C. ­ Tuesday Senators Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski were joined by Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and three members of the Alaska Inupiat community, Oliver Leavitt and Richard Glenn of Barrow and Desiree Kaveolook of Kaktovik, in support of drilling on the Arctic Coastal Plain....

Ms. Kaveolook stated, "I live in Kaktovik, the only community that lies within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Alaska Federation of Natives, which supports thousands of Alaska Natives made a statewide resolution that supports oil exploration and development in ANWR. Not only is AFN in support, but so are the North Slope Borough, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and the native village of Kaktovik."

Who's making false claims?


Let me clarify a bit of my ... (Below threshold)
model_1066:

Let me clarify a bit of my last statement: Alaska gets money from oil as a percentage of what is pumped, transported to Valdez and sold by the oil companies. I'm not sure what percentage the royalties are, but it's structured so enough is left for the oil companies, their subcontractors, the pipeline operator and other overhead costs. I didn't mean to imply that Alaska itself 'sold oil'.

>> Industry journals indica... (Below threshold)
cosmos:

>> Industry journals indicate that the pipeline, which is truly an engineering masterpiece, has about 15-20 years of life left before it needs a major overhaul or replacement, neither of which would be cheap. So I think it would be best to tap ANWR ASAP. >>

It's estimated it'd take 7 to 12 years to get the first oil from the Arctic Refuge into the pipeline.
Since the oil fields could have a 30-40 year lifetime, an expensive pipeline overhaul (or replacement) is inevitable. Those costs should be factored into the estimates of how much profitable oil the Refuge might produce.

Some troubling problems with the pipeline, at Rocky Mountain Institute --- http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E01-04_FoolsGoldAnnot.pdf (997 KB file)

>> yes, animals have died i... (Below threshold)
model_1066:

>> yes, animals have died in ANWR - killed by the natives who hunt and eat them. >>

The Gwitch'in people in Alaska and Canada are forbidden to hunt in the Porcupine caribou calving grounds (includes Area 1002). They respect the calving grounds as a sacred place, where life begins.

So if they voluntarily avoid hunting caribou when they are calving during the short summer months, so the next generation of carabou sensibly have one less odd against their survival in a place that harsh, in a relatively small portion near the coast of a huge parcel of land called ANWR, that's enough to make the blanket statement or implication that no animal has ever been killed in ANWR until we found oil, or at least went and looked for it. Bravo. The statement I replied to was

"are you saying that no animal has died in anwr"

"It's estimated it'd take 7... (Below threshold)
model_1066:

"It's estimated it'd take 7 to 12 years to get the first oil from the Arctic Refuge into the pipeline."

Maybe a true estimate, but if frivolous litigation by environmental activists were factored out, it would be in the pipeline in 3-5 years. That's just my guess, but most wells take less time to drill and complete than most high profile lawsuits against oil companies take to drag through the courts. In a future scenario where oil is much more expensive than now, replacing or upgrading the pipeline would be relatively small cost compared to what flows through it.

And as a general rule, I'm all in favor of taxing gas in appropriate measures to encourage conservation. For example, years ago when gas was under a buck in most of the country, think about how much extra revenue would be in the federal treasury if the price was not allowed to fall under a certain amount, say $1.25. It's somewhat of an encouragement to use less, or at least not to waste as much as would be otherwise, but not too pricy as to really be an economic concern for most people.

I said "scattered" because ... (Below threshold)
cosmos:

I said "scattered" because the site locations are unknown. And I'm aware that USGS says most oil is in the undeformed part -- but once pipelines are in that area, sites may move eastward (and offshore).

>> And I didn't say anything about OPEC, >>

If we get high revenues from Refuge oil due to high world oil prices, then OPEC gets higher revenues from their much larger oil reserves. My obvious point (again) was I'd rather see much lower oil prices, even if it means no profitable oil from the Refuge.

>> Efficiently using oil is still using oil, so oil will continue to be needed, no? >>

Yes, but higher efficiency is guaranteed to "produce" much more oil than the Refuge -- and sooner, faster, cheaper, more securely, more reliably, and independent of world prices. It doesn't run dry, and it reduces pollution, health problems, and the risk of global warming.

>> And since you were so nice to put words in my mouth...>>

My 2 comments re Kaktovik's position referred to Terry's post, not you.

>> Who's making false claims? >>

Perhaps Ms. Kaveolook?
'Alaska Town Split Over Drilling in Wildlife Refuge -- Oil Money Tantalizes, but Many Fear Effect on Way of Life'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10253-2005Apr22.html
But a recent petition opposing drilling attracted the signatures of 57 of Kaktovik's 188 adults, and Mayor Lon Sonsalla said he is no longer certain where the majority stand.
-----

Also see Kaktovik info at, --- http://www.treasureamerica.org

Very dishonest, cosmos. Thi... (Below threshold)
model_1066:

Very dishonest, cosmos. This was from one of your posts, directly after quoting a point made on one of mine.

>> using the romanticized hunter/gatherer subsistence argument against development that they directly benefit from is pretty lame.

And you follow with:

It's more lame for pro-drillers to falsely claim that Kaktovik residents support development, when many do not.

But Terry's comment that I think you might be referring to is:

"The only settlement of US citizens in ANWR supports oil development, as do most citizens of Alaska."

So although you quote my post as a point of rebuttal, I should now believe that you were really responding to Terry, huh?
And as far as OPEC, you were the first one to mention it from out of nowhere, as if it had any bearing whatsoever on what we are debating in regards to the politics or economics of ANWR, aside from the price of oil as determined by the world market.
And as far as your observation:

"I'd rather we double efficiency again, like we did after the 70's embargo -- that might drop oil below $20 a barrel, meaning no profitable oil from the Refuge."

Don't you think that was a decision made by car manufacturers, based on the obvious economic reality that Americans would rather spend less money fueling their vehicles than more? Did the embargo affect only Americans? And unless you can convince people to voluntarily use less when they can afford to use more, what would make them?

model_1066, why should I be... (Below threshold)
cosmos:

model_1066, why should I believe your "is pretty lame" comment was directed at me personally, when I did NOT use the "hunter/gatherer subsistence argument"? I only pointed out to Terry that many Kaktovik residents oppose development

I incorrectly assumed you would remember my post correcting Terry, and realize I was referring to that. My attempted point to you was that I believe that misstating Kaktovik's position is "more lame" than your subsistence complaints.

Since media hasn't covered the recent Kaktovik position change very well, I apologize to Terry -- he probably was not aware of the change.

>> Don't you think that was a decision made by car manufacturers, based on the obvious economic reality that Americans would rather spend less money fueling their vehicles than more? >>

You believe car manufacturers voluntarily increased fuel efficiency during the 70's and 80's? Have you heard of the CAFE legislation, and the SUV "loophole"? We could again dramatically improve mpg (and improve safety) of vehicles, but the auto lobby blocks it. The auto lobby also fought safety belts, air bags, and pollution reduction.
'Building a Better SUV'
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_and_suvs/page.cfm?pageID=1249

>> Did the embargo affect only Americans?

No, but we've got only 5% of world population, and consume 25% of the oil. China recently blocked the importing of our worst gas-guzzling vehicles.

>> unless you can convince people to voluntarily use less when they can afford to use more, what would make them?>>

It's not about people, it's about the vehicles.

well if we can't drill the ... (Below threshold)
moseby:

well if we can't drill the oil in ANWR, let's do some nuclear testing up there...just for the hell of it.....

>>... so the next generatio... (Below threshold)
cosmos:

>>... so the next generation of carabou sensibly have one less odd against their survival in a place that harsh, in a relatively small portion near the coast of a huge parcel of land called ANWR, ...>>

Like you say, ANWR is a "huge parcel of land". Area 1002 is a relatively small portion, but it's the "biological heart" -- vital to calving Caribou, and other wildlife.
The Gwitch'in also "sensibly" oppose drilling in Area 1002, so that the calving caribou will "have one less odd against their survival in a place that harsh".

>> if frivolous litigation by environmental activists were factored out, it would be in the pipeline in 3-5 years. That's just my guess, .. >>

The EIA says ---- "Seven to 12 years are estimated to be required from an approval to explore and develop to first production from the ANWR Area. The time to first production could vary significantly based on time required for leasing after approval to develop is given. Environmental considerations and the possibility of drilling restrictions would directly impact the time interval to reach first production."
---




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy