Redstate

Please spare us the following arguments:

It will take years to develop, so it won't matter anyway. That's how they've held off development lo these many years. We are almost five years into GWB's presidency; if approval of ANWR exploration had happened early in this decade, it would have been nearing production now.

It's only XXX years/months of domestic consumption, so it won't matter anyway. By that misinformed calculus, absolutely nothing matters. Prudhoe Bay, the biggest North Slope field, represented only 1.8 years of domestic consumption back when it was discovered. Now, 35 years later, it is still an important domestic source of supply. Several things have happened along the way:  reserve estimates in the field increased due to better than expected performance of the wells; new technologies have improved recovery; and smaller fields (which could not have been developed independently) have been developed on trend to take advantage of the existing pipeline.

[This reserve-life calculation is grossly misleading because it is based on several unrealistic premises:  that all other domestic production ceases, that imports are zero, that the field in question produces at an outrageously high constant rate until depletion. The only reason I can see to even do this calculation would be to make a prospective discovery of any size seem insignificant. Figures don't lie, but liars can (and do!) figure.]

Oil has peaked; let's sit on it until we really, really need it. Until it is drilled, it is impossible to know for certain if a geologic prospect contains a drop of commercial oil, so this could be false security indeed.  We could sit on it while world prices continue to rise (under the peak oil scenario); meanwhile, we're sending ever increasing amounts of our GDP to our buddies in OPEC.

The forces that are fighting ANWR exploration fought the Alaska pipeline in the '60's and '70's. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now.

It is not about the enviroment it is about control and thru that socialism. Look at who funds and is in these ENVIRO groups mainly socialists read progressives.

Ok how about this:

Location, location, location:

Oil reserves in Alaska are NOT concetrated on one or two oil fields. There are many patches miles and miles apart from each other. Drilling each one means building roads to each (expensive and hard in permafrost). Will those roads be sponsored but the taxpayers?

Roads:

Building and maintaining roads in Alaska IS EXPENSIVE. More over these roads will need to be kept clean of ice at all times. Only one project of simlar magnitude has been done: ALASKA HIGHWAY

Read up all on the difficulties they faced.

The greatest construction hazard occurred during the summer when surface vegetation was removed from the frozen earth. Exposed to the sun, the permafrost melted into a black sludge, turning dry trails into impassable ditches that swallowed trucks and bulldozers alike. The only way to pass over the permafrost was to lay down a road of timber and brush, thus insulating the frozen ground so it would not melt.

useable only in winter, and the number of useable days has been steadily shrinking as the Arctic warms.

I understand that we have an "energy crisis" in the short term, but is it really wise to develop in one of America's last great wild areas?  ANWR has been wild and undeveloped since the beginning of time.  Sure it would be nice to get that little discount at the pump, but I think we owe it to ourselves to preserve this area for future generations.  I understand that many of you see this place as a barren wasteland of frozen tundra, but there really are a lot of animals that visit this wild area and it would be a shame to begin development, no matter how small.

If we have the technology to put people on the moon, surely we can figure out how to solve our energy crisis without drilling in a wildlife refuge.  We need to get off our butts and find alternative energy sources ASAP.

"If we have the technology to put people on the moon, surely we can figure out how to solve our energy crisis without drilling in a wildlife refuge.  We need to get off our butts and find alternative energy sources ASAP"

Well said.  ANWR is pork, plain and simple.  We could create more jobs, more independance, and more security in both short and long term by investing in alternatives and efficiency now. Read the Oil Endgame.

... and even worse, dumb tired old talking points based on the stupid idea that environmental changes have never occured absent human interference.

The greatest construction hazard occurred during the summer when surface vegetation was removed from the frozen earth.

And what about "working only in the winter" don't you understand.

Simple Economics 101 - Supply and Demand. I want to choke off all domestic oil drilling then bitch about our energy woes. Yea, good call.

I have limited patience to respond to this so I'll just take a bit of this and tear it apart

we owe it to ourselves to preserve this area for future generations.

we - As in you and I? how about standing up for your own opinion without having US support it?

owe - YOU owe YOURSELF?; see above and then explain why you owe anything. explain why if you owe something WE all should have to pay for it too.

preserve this area - Wouldn't it affect more to preserve something people would 1) want to see or visit 2) actually be close to. I would rather see something protected a bit closer to home. This are is past the tree line, past the 10 degrees Celsius isotherm (which means its fricken cold even in the summer) and past the Arctic Circle. Almost nobody would ever want to spend the time to get there much less stay there unless they were getting paid. Oh and before you retort... go up there yourself and take some pictures from your summer vacation before saying "I would!". Oh and while you are travelling up there... make your trip "petroleum product" free.

future generations - Do you have children or are you planning on them? If no, then this whole arguement is bunk. If yes, then be sure to take your kids on your "petroleum product" free trip and tell US how they enjoyed it.

I say we do both. Why is not drilling in ANWR going to lead to more jobs, more independance and more security again?

ANWR however is not pure pork, that statement is ___ (fill in insult here). BTW... I'm not sure the McRib is pure pork either.

Pork usually connotes the waste of government funds by legislators looking to buy votes. Notable examples include the ethanol subsidy, the now-famous bridge to nowhere, and the state of West Virginia.

In the case of oil development, a private entity will buy a lease from the mineral owner (in this case either the state or the feds), in order to put its capital at risk to determine if the prospect contains oil in sufficient quantity to justify development. If successful, the lease owner enjoys royalties, that is revenue from production without paying any of the development cost.

In Fiscal 2004, the Minerals Management Service took in $8.127 billion in lease bonuses and mineral royalties, on behalf of the Federal treasury and the various Indian tribes. Here are the details. With higher prices, that figure will increase dramatically (a windfall profit, so to speak). These numbers do not include the highway use tax on gasoline or income taxes, or revenues that flow to the states in the form of severance taxes and royalties.

In the '80's, at an Alaska prospect called Mukluk, industry spent $1.5 billion on leases and drilling for a well that turned out to be a dry hole. A successful venture, on the other hand, will involve tying up $billions in investment dollars for years until the first drop of oil is brought to the surface.

Rather than the moon or Mars, they plan to visit the sun. Their secret plan to keep from burning up? They'll go at night!

Same deal here, masb27.

>>the truth is ANWR was set aside for drilling from day 1:

"In 1980, in section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, President Carter and the Congress set aside 1.5 million acres of the coastal plain for potential exploration and development:  the 1002 area.  They did so because of initial indications of the area's energy potential.  That potential has since been reinforced by additional study."

>>I also found this quote interesting:

"Keep in mind that almost 140 million acres in Alaska are already protected in established conservation areas.  This is an area larger than the States of California and New York put together."

>>and then, there are these:

"the estimated daily production from ANWR would exceed what is now being produced in any individual State, including Texas and Louisiana."

" Several years ago, strikers nearly shut down Venezuela's oil industry, drastically reducing the production of Venezuelan oil and its delivery to external markets.  In the last several years, Venezuela ranked consistently as one of the four top sources of U.S. oil imports.  In 2002, Venezuelan exports to the United States averaged around 1.5 million barrels a day. This is about what we could see from the 1002 area.  Venezuelan exports are still recovering from the strike."

>>and all this to combat enviromentalists and animal lovers:

One group, in its campaign against opening ANWR, states:  "Spillage from 20 years of oil extraction has substantially degraded habitat on the North Slope."  However, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that despite widespread concern about spills, most spills have been small and have had only local effects.  Large magnitude spills have generally been avoided on the North Slope because of the system of monitoring and check valves in all pipelines.

In fact, the NAS found that, to date, the effects of contaminant spills have not accumulated on North Slope vegetation.

Almost every group opposed to ANWR development cites concerns about air quality on the North Slope.   However, the NAS report found local air quality does not appear to have been seriously degraded by emissions from oil and gas production facilities.  In fact, Arctic haze is the most conspicuous air quality problem on the North Slope.  Research confirms that arctic haze is a common phenomenon in polar climates and results from distant emissions in temperate zones rather than local emissions.

We often see pictures of polar bears in appeals for funds to save the Arctic Refuge.  One organization begins its plea with a statement that development "could force polar bears to abandon their maternity dens, which they dig in the snowdrifts, and leave their cubs to die."  This comes from a 1985 report of one polar bear leaving its den as a result of older seismic activity.

In fact, North Slope development, which is far more intense than any potential Coastal Plain development, has had no devastating effect on polar bears.  Polar bears have thrived since 1967.   The NAS report found there have been no known cases where polar bears have been affected by oil spilled as a result of North Slope industrial activities.  NAS sums up its polar bear discussion by stating there is evidence to support a finding that there have been no serious effects or accumulation of effects on polar bears.

A number of environmental groups express concern about the well-being of the muskoxen.  The animals once were exterminated throughout most of Alaska and have been reintroduced on the North Slope.  They are found at low densities, mostly in riparian areas.  Their populations are now expanding into other habitats.  To date, there have been no cumulative impacts on muskoxen from oil activities. The U.S. Geological Survey report entitled "Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries" suggests a solution:   "Avoidance by industry of areas used by muskoxen and the location of permanent facilities away from river corridors, flood plains, and adjacent uplands could reduce the probability of disturbance and displacement of muskoxen."

The Central Arctic Herd is the caribou herd in the North Slope whose range includes the Prudhoe oilfields.  Their numbers have increased from 5,000 in 1977, at the beginning of oil development, to 27,000 in 2000.  Alaska Fish and Game has published the most recent census showing the population is now more than 31,000.

Many groups express concern about impacts on the Porcupine Caribou Herd's calving grounds. We have all heard though, that the Porcupine Caribou Herd (PCH) is different from the Central Arctic Herd.  It's important to keep in mind where the greatest potential for oil development is on the Coastal Plain.  USGS scientists predict that 83% of the oil potential is on the far western side of the 1002 Area.  This is also the area least likely to see high concentrations of calving.  In fact, a U.S. Geological Survey study found that under the most realistic scenario for developing the 1002 Area there would be a 95% chance of having no impact on calf survival.

>>i wont deny that some numbers may be portrayed to look best to support drilling, but when you weigh in everything, those saying no are just not favoring the best interests of the country.

National Review December 5th issue has a really good article that plays into this debate. It helps make the complex understandable when it comes to oil and supply and demand. I like the following bit:

"High prices are unfortunate for consumers, but they accurately reflect market realities. Congress can no more repeal the law of supply and demand than physicists can repeal the law of gravity. If you restrict the profits you can make from something, you'll get less of it. If you restrict prices, you will get less conservation. High prices do more to encourage both production and conservation than anything congress can dream up."

Drill in ANWR and you will get lower prices and less foriegn dependence. The enviromentalists are not interested in either.

Remember, Alaska is twice the size of Texas. ANWR is the size of South Carolina. The drilling footprint is 10 miles x 10 miles, a fifth the size of Dulles Airport. The wildlife has plenty of room to roam....

The other way to travel over the permafrost is to build ice highways which cover and protect the fragile plants.

The real shame would be to ignore the energy potential of this area. Drilling in a very small portion of the area won't bother the wildlife, and the idea of having an undeveloped wilderness area for our future generations to think about (but never visit) seems silly.

The Bridge to Nowhere is Not pork.  The Alaskan Senators don't need to Buy votes.  Before applying that definition to anything in Alaska, you might want to do a little more research into the political realities of my home state.

The aforementioned bridge is being built to provide bad weather access to food and healthcare that the residents of the one island don't have.

I, and many other Alaskans, are against Federal spending on that bridge because federal spending invariably brings in out of state contractors who hire non-Alaska residents and take all their money into the lower 48 and furthermore, do not have a good history of doing the job right in the first place.

Let's oppose that bridge for the right reasons, eh?

I also took a pretty broad swipe at West Virginia (one of the lower 48, kinda toward the right-hand side). Robert Byrd hasn't had to buy a vote in the 85 years since he took off the sheets and joined the Senate.

Let's face it: your Much Needed Infrastructure Improvements, if federally funded, smell like pork to me. And vice versa, I'm sure.

But your cherry-picked facts are no more or less true than the ones cherry-picked by the folks who oppose drilling there.

The main difference I see between people like you, who defend the decision to drill, and people who want to protect the area, is this:

You want to drill there for selfish reasons (save a few cents, promote your party's politicians' plans).  They want to stop drilling for selfless reasons- to save the area intact, in perpetuity.

Oil is limited.  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is forever.  (Unless Republicans get their way.)

I say if it is, then do it (and this coming from both a Liberal and a Texan).

Problem is, in the past every attempt to open ANWR included tax incentives and royalty forgiveness to companies exploring.  

Why?  Because at the time drilling in ANWR wasn't economically feasible without government subsidies.

I think that with the current price of oil, it could be profitably developed without these incentives and I'm all for it.

And a note, the current directional drilling record is just under seven miles from the rig.  Given this capability, literally hundreds of square miles of area can be developed from a single rig in a single location.

Any allowance that includes tax incentives and royalty forgiveness is definately pork.

Don't know if the latest proposal included these, but every single past proposal certainly did.

ANWR has been wild and undeveloped since the beginning of time.

Not true. The coastal plain is not a pristine wilderness. There is a native community, Kaktovik, within the coastal plain. There are military installations that operate on the Plain now and in the past.

Anyway, only a small percentage of the coastal plain, about 2,000 acres, would be used for oil development. When you think about it, 2,000 acres in the extreme northern parts of Alaska is not much of a sacrifice to make considering that we could (with a 65% recovery rate) extract between 10 to 27 billion barrels of crude oil. Consider, if you will, that we imported 3.8 billion barrels of crude in 2004, you get a sense of the size of this mother load.

Not to pile-on or anything, but $163B of our $665B 2004 trade deficit was for petroleum (energy) products-- a full 25% of our massive trade deficit. Even if a tiny fraction of the wildlife were negatively impacted (and I would argue that they would not be harmed), our national security depends on developing the ANWR.

Can you document the royalty relief or tax incentives that have been proposed in the past?

Sometimes royalty relief has a place (for example, to help develop new deepwater technologies). It's been in the government's interest to encourage development. Tax credits for unconventional gas sure stimulated coal bed methane technologies.

Other times, the help seems to go to a narrow swath of companies with good lobbyists: the "Deep Shelf" royalty relief is an example. Little new technology was developed; those projects should live or die on their own merits. Ditto "Devonian Shale" Tax Credits which threw a bone to small producers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.

Hmmm, well I guess then the electricity bill will REALLY go up.

It gets dark very quickly in the winter.

Not to mention that driving at night on icy roads is almost a sureway to get killed.

Want to fight the ice?

Thawing permafrost and keeping the roads free of ice  cost a lot in money, equipment and man hours.

ANWR is forever whether or not they drill. The drilling would occur in such a  small area as to have an immeasurable impact on wildlife or the environment. Also, our interest is in making sure all Americans have affordable energy, and to make sure we don't drive more jobs out of this country. What's theirs?

ANWR is the size of the state of South Carolina.  Thanks to modern drilling technologies that can snake in many directions for many miles from a drilling site, the entire "footprint" of the proposed ANWR drilling operation is approximately the size of a major metropolitan airport.  The proposed footprint area is a desolate wasteland in both the winter and the summer.  The caribou herd has multiplied 6-fold since drilling began at Prudhoe Bay and the Alaskan Oil Pipeline was built.  What few natives there are in the area overwhelmingly support oil exploration.

"Falsehood; regurgitated cherry-picked fact; talking point."

Screwing up part of the refuge and leaving the rest is not the same as preserving it intact in perpetuity.

Any impact on the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is measurable if somebody chooses to measure it.  If you destroy 5 acres of a wildlife refuge to drill for oil, that's 5 acres destroyed.

The oil gained from drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge will not solve our energy problems.  Even if I concede something wildly inaccurate, such as "it will provide 100% of the oil needed for the state of California for the next 50 years," the energy problem is not solved.  Sure, it may be postponed so that you don't have to deal with it; but I guess that's your definition of selfless.

According to you, ameliorating our dependence on imported oil to protect the next generation (in whatever measure) from the political vicissitudes of the volatile middle east is selfish, whereas your insistence on preserving in its entirety from any sort of development the pristine wonder of all 19 million acres (and, no, not 18,998,000 acres -- that's only 99.989% of what I want. Not nearly enough!!) that less than a tenth of one percent of your countrymen will ever see is ... selfless?

Could you try to be a little more indignantly self-righteous next time?

Quote: "Any impact on the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is measurable if somebody chooses to measure it.  If you destroy 5 acres of a wildlife refuge to drill for oil, that's 5 acres destroyed.

The oil gained from drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge will not solve our energy problems.  Even if I concede something wildly inaccurate, such as "it will provide 100% of the oil needed for the state of California for the next 50 years," the energy problem is not solved.  Sure, it may be postponed so that you don't have to deal with it; but I guess that's your definition of selfless."

As I said in an earlier post, we imported 3.8 billion barrels of crude oil last year. Consider the following:

1. The recoverable amount of crude oil in ANWR is likely to be between 10 and 27 billion barrels.




2. Our 2004 trade deficit for petroleum products was $163 billion dollars.




3. Current estimates are that 735,000 jobs can be created nationally by developing and recovering the oil in ANWR.

What is not to like about this? Are 5 acres destroyed of a frozen wasteland not worth the above benefits to our nation? Do you suggest that the only actions that our government should take are actions that solve our energy problem?  Talk about naive.

I guess it is easy to be a liberal environmentalist; all you have to do is sit back and criticize all efforts that do not solve the oil/energy crisis.  Can you propose any solutions that will offer substantial benefits?

Federal Funding does not mean that the project is Pork.  Especially if the project Is a much needed infrastructure project.

Pork-Barrel spending is the federal funding of projects purely for the reason of gaining votes.

Paying for the "bridge to nowhere" does not accomplish this.  After all, what's Alaska going to do with the votes of the contractors who work on this project?  They won't be Alaskan residents.

Take the blinders off and stop labeling all projects you don't agree with as pork.  Oppose the Federal funding of this bridge, yes.  But do not do it because it falls under your "pork" umbrella.  Oppose it because the Federal funding of this bridge will actually Harm the state rather than help it.  As to why it will do this well, I'm getting rather tired of reiterating the same thing over and over agin in the same thread.  Just read my previous post.

Ted Stevens and Don Young are both well known for reaching into the federal pork trough with both hands.  Of course they're not looking for contractor votes; the votes they seek are those of their constituents, to whom they can brag of how much more Alaska gets from the federal treasury than they put in.  Plus, they get to name public works to honor themselves occasionally as a bonus.

There is no definition of "pork" that this project doesn't meet.

Did you know Alaska has 2.5 billion recoverable short tons of coal too?  One ninth of the worlds reserve of coal?  Lets start mining that soon as well!  

As a little side note on selfishness vs the morally pure selfless environmentalists:  

If you believe you are correct, to the exclusion of all other views, and act accordingly, in a self serving selfless way, do you get a feel-good prize?  Or truly nothing?

I've never heard anyone claim that we are providing subsudies for drilling there. In fact, the oil companies would have to pay us for exploration/production rights. Then there is the hefty piece of the action we get on every bbl of oil they pump out.

That's one I haven't heard before.

Is living in a cave somewhere, gathering nuts and berries for sustenance and using no electricity or transportation. You can be part of the solution!

No its more of worry about taxpayer money footing their bill.

I suppose anything is possible, but it is not going to happen. We don't pay them to drill anywhere else, why would ANWR be any different?

The idea isn't to melt the ice anyway... it is to keep it clear of snow so it can be used as a road. The ice IS the road. You can drive on ice without any problem. People drive their F-350s out into the middle of lakes in the continental US all the time in winter, and there they are driving on MUCH thinner ice floating on water.

Who said we do not pay them? Land grants, subsidies, tax breaks, and etc...

The ice IS the road. You can drive on ice without any problem.

Car wheels rely on friction. Ice offers very little of that. Its the same reason you spin out of control when you hit an oil slick. Or skate.

Eliminating our dependence on oil (and other fossil fuels) is the most important thing we can do for the future.  Do that, and preserve our wild areas not because people will go see them, but in part because few people will ever set foot there.

"5 acres destroyed of a frozen wasteland"

translation:

"There will be a hard and fast limit, forever, on how much of the refuge we use once we begin to use it for drilling.  And it doesn't matter because it's a frozen wasteland devoid of any usefulness beyond cutting it up for buried fossil fuels."

to minimize my impact on the environment and my use of non-renewable energy, inasmuch as it's possible to do so living in a major American city.  What do you do?

If so, you really ought to reveal it.

Energy problems are hard problems, and the solutions will be found the way they always are: incrementally, bit by bit, accompanied by many false turnings, and spurred by economic necessity.

If you don't have a ready replacement for fossil fuels, then your reluctance to give up less than 1% of a protected area of land in order to allow the necessary progress toward alternative power sources while maintaining the growth of our economy can hardly be called "selfless".

We aren't giving them any land. We sell them the right to drill (they never own the land) and we charge them for every bbl they take out. Subsidies are a seperate issue. Sure we give them subsidies and tax breaks, but for other things, like refinery construction. Is there any industry or individual that doesn't get any subsidies and tax breaks?

People drive on ice all the time. And even the tiniest bit of snow adds a ton of friction. The only time ice is really a problem is when it is very smooth (such as when it is melting)... In that case you can sand it... that adds plenty of traction. Ice is not an issue.

I'm relunctant to give up ANY protected lands held in this country for any reason whatsoever.  This is because on this count, I'm a confirmed pessimist:  give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile, every time.

Now, I have no misconceptions about what is actually going to happen.  I don't disagree that the U.S. can put the oil found there to good use, and I don't doubt for a second that drilling will happen in the Refuge, but that doesn't mean I have to accept it and swallow the talking points about X numbers of acres and so on.  In my opinion, it's pretty naive to think that drilling in the Refuge won't happen, and it's just as naive to pretend that impact will be limited to some fixed number of acres once the Refuge is opened up to industrial use.

I guess this means the caribou slaughterhouse won't garner your approval either.

But only if it's built on no more than 1.25 acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.*

* That's 1.25 acres total, not a single 1.25 acre site, and not counting the roads that will need to be built to the slaughterhouse or the land used to run power, water, and data lines to the facilities.  We may need to then build some more roads to connect the .25-acre tripe processing plant with the .5-acre horn and hoof plant, and connect those to the main slaughter and meat processing plant.  Due to resource distribution, these 3 plants will be located 129 miles from each other in roughly triangular fashion.

I'm sure your efforts to conserve fossil fuels make you feel real good about yourself. Yet, you haven't proposed a solution to the energy demands that your lifestyle has created.

Your use of a computer to make your posts has considerable energy costs, for example. You enjoy a lifestyle few in the course of human history have attained, yet you denigrate the solutions of those that want to reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

Again-- what is your solution to meet the energy demands of the USA and your lifestyle?

Hello friends!

    I'd like to thank you all for posting your opinions here on the issue of  ANWR oil, as it's been quite informative to me.   Over the past couple months I've been researching this issue for an English composition class, and although I'd started with the opinion that we should protect the reserve from oil development, there hasn't been much reason to sway me from that initial perspective.   I turned in my essay with the belief that I had done all the research, and that I had earned my opinion that we should not drill for oil.

     That said, after reading through this site I've definitely become more informed.  You all have made some strong arguments, and overall I believe you guys have been more persuasive than even the senators I chose to include in my English essay.  However, I still feel strongly that we should protect this area from oil development.   My research has led me to believe that the risks of drilling in ANWR outweigh the benefits, and I hope to at least get you all to look at the issue a little bit closer.  After all, there is still a chance that ANWR language could be included in the final U.S. budget bill.  It is my hope that it will not.

    Reading over the pro-drilling arguments here on this site,  I'm going to focus on two main pro-drilling points with which to debate:

1)Oil development along the coastal plain will not adversely effect the caribou in the region, as the 2,000 acres proposed is just a speck in the 19 million acre ANWR.  Also, this area is just a "desolate wasteland"(jimmullins).

2)Oil development will decrease the price we pay for energy.

    Skicougar presented some interesting facts that made me question the research I had originally done, regarding the effect of oil development on the Caribou.  Specifically, he/she mentions that  "a U.S. Geological Survey study found that under the most realistic scenario for developing the 1002 Area there would be a 95% chance of having no impact on calf survival."   This was one of the areas I looked into when writing my English paper, and I came up with some different information.   In a letter to the president, signed by a thousand leading scientists, this specific issue was detailed.

The letter can be found at http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/sections/opinion.html#ONE

...but to summarize their findings, the Porcupine Caribou herd may be particularly sensitive to oil development here, simply because it is their essential calving and post-calving habitat.   The letter points out that while the Central Arctic Herd has increased in population over the past few decades, oil development has actually displaced their calving area to an undeveloped area further to the south.   The letter goes on to say that, "Lacking high-quality alternate calving habitat, the Porcupine herd would likely undergo much higher calf mortality if displaced by oil infrastructure."(par. 5)

    Some additional information about the Porcupine Caribou herd migration to the 1002' area can be found here -- http://www.taiga.net/pcmb/migration.html -- at the Porcupine Herd Management Board website.   This site mentions that:

"[the caribou] unfailingly head for the same calving area each spring unless snow conditions are so bad they must calve elsewhere. Even so, they will still complete their migration to the calving and postcalving areas in the '1002' section of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on Alaska's North Slope. There, the food is best for nursing cows, predators like wolves and grizzlies are relatively scarce, and there is some sanctuary from the biting flies which descend on them in July."

    With this in information in mind, wouldn't it be logical to assume that oil development in this herd's calving grounds would disrupt their traditional spring migration?   The proposed area for drilling IS the Porcupine Caribou Herd's calving area. That is not a "cherry-picked" fact, as the forum user nickpdx mentions.... It is a fact that falls out of the cherry tree, and cracks you on the noggin as if to say, "wake up!"

      The second point that I'd like to address is the incorrect assumption that ANWR oil will reduce our prices at the pump.   I realize that this particular issue has not been debated much in this forum topic, but I believe it to be one of the main reasons why  a majority of Americans support ANWR oil drilling.    Hopefully, by proving this assumption to be false, more Americans will take a closer look at the situation.   With this in mind, I'll continue on...

    I'm sure you all are familiar with senator Maria Cantwell, the Democrat from Washington state.  She's the senator that tried pushing an amendment to strike ANWR related language from the senate's budget bill.   In one of her press releases, (found here:

http://cantwell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=248169  )

she pointed out that, "....even if oil companies drill in the wildlife refuge and hit peak production, it will only lower gas prices by a penny per gallon."(par. 3)   Her information comes from a study done by the Dept. of Energy, which (if you have Adobe) you can view here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hr/pdf/sroiaf(2005)04.pdf

    Republican senator John McCain has some interesting things to say on this issue as well.  In one of his press releases, (found here: http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewPressRelease&a
mp;Content_id=175 ) senator McCain questions the motivation for ANWR oil drilling.

He states:

 "the Senate rejected a more effective measure to modestly increase fuel efficiency standards, a proposal that would substantially decrease our nation's dependence on foreign oil and also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Had we adopted an increase of fuel efficiency standards to 36 mpg average by 2015, we could have potentially saved 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2020 which is about equal to present imports from the Persian Gulf. This prudent conservation measure would also save twice as much, if not more, oil than what is in ANWR."(par.10)

    Fairfax (the forum user) asked, "Can you propose any solutions that will offer substantial benefits?" (forum post #32)   Well, I could propose something similar to what the John McCain mentioned above.   It's at least a step in the right direction, in my opinion.    If you think about it, there isn't really any good reason why we shouldn't set higher standards for automobile emissions (unless you've invested in oil companies..).   The question is, how can we get something like this through congress?   Apparently its going to take some work...  

   

Find me some public works projects they've named for themselves.

2nd, Explain to me, resident of the lower 48, how you happen to understand the dynamics (rather, lack thereof) of Alaskan politics?  They are rather odd when compared to those of the lower 48.  

They don't have any need to buy votes and never did.

Alaskan politics.

My objection is exclusively based on the waste of federal dollars (which have their origin, as you know, almost exclusively in the "lower 48") on projects that offer no federal benefit (that is, if they can be said to offer any benefit worth having at all).

Oh, and here is one of those public works projects you asked about. You might recognize it -- it's one of the two pork bridges buried in the Transportation bill.

guess maybe it took me too long to get back to this, but that link only took me to something about President "Bill" Clinton's radio address on health care...