house okays oil drilling in wildlife refuge

[sevfiv]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/3896147.html

The House voted 225-201 to direct the Interior Department to open oil leases on the coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

[RedScare]

Drilling opponents cited an Energy Department analysis that ANWR's oil would have little impact on gasoline prices and reduce imports by only a few percentage points. Currently 60 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil used daily in the United States comes from imports.

Interesting quote from the Energy Department, hardly a bunch of tree huggers.

[bachanon]

george mitchell has publicly stated the same thing. it will make no difference. however, mitchell did say that the gulf of mexico is an untapped resource that may make the middle east look like a drop in the bucket. according to the article, he said that there are new technologies for drilling offshore that need to be capitalized on.

[Heights2Bastrop]

We could get oil from Cuba instead.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Drilling opponents cited an Energy Department analysis that ANWR's oil would have little impact on gasoline prices and reduce imports by only a few percentage points.

Then what's the point?

[bachanon]

it's a political "point". it's an off year election.

[Gary]

Aside from the fact that we need alternative energy sources, and need to figure out a way to lessen our dependance on foriegn oil, it might be a good idea to...... Build a few stinking refineries!

[TheNiche]

it's a political "point". it's an off year election.

Nope. The house has been passing this bill year after year for many many years, but the Senate never takes it to the President's desk. It isn't a matter of being an election year.

Its just another one of those hot-button issues that the media takes too far. There are hundreds of issues closer to home that would have greater environmental impacts than this one, but we're talking about Alaska, the third rail of environmental politics.

[TheNiche]

Then what's the point?

Very few peices of legislation will ever have any more than the tiniest margin of an impact on the average consumer...that doesn't mean that the legislation doesn't matter.

Besides, even if the end consumer doesn't see any benefit until 10 years from now, you have to ask how things might be even a tiny bit different today if congress had passed this bill 10 years ago...they certainly had the opportunity. Just because there's a delayed return on an investment doesn't necessarily mean that the investment is a bad one.

Also, between the date that such legislation was passed and the point that oil would start flowing from ANWR, there'd be another more immediate impact: JOBS. The process of making a multi-billion dollar investment in oil infrastructure necessarily creates jobs...high-pay jobs in skilled and professional occupations, too. It takes a good solid wage to get folks to work up there on the North Slope. And when you remove several thousand welders, machinists, truck drivers, administrative/support personel, and managers from existing jobs, that tightens the labor market for people with that skill set, forcing wages upward here at home as well. Granted, the effects are all ocurring on the margins and may not be perceptible to the average consumer, but it sure as hell would be perceptible to the thousands of people that would be directly affected.

[RedScare]

Also, between the date that such legislation was passed and the point that oil would start flowing from ANWR, there'd be another more immediate impact: JOBS.

Do you expect us to read this with a straight face?

Total US employment in March 2006 - 143,700,000

Number of jobs created by ANWR - 3,000

Net effect - 0.00002

Yes, let's kill off the caribou for a 2 one-thousandth of one percent increase in jobs 5,000 miles away, jobs that 97% of Americans can't find on a map. Who the hell needs caribou anyway?

[TheNiche]

Do you expect us to read this with a straight face?

Total US employment in March 2006 - 143,700,000

Number of jobs created by ANWR - 3,000

Net effect - 0.00002

Yes, let's kill off the caribou for a 2 one-thousandth of one percent increase in jobs 5,000 miles away, jobs that 97% of Americans can't find on a map. Who the hell needs caribou anyway?

Screw the caribou. Tax the oil from ANWR and educate the public.

[Montrose1100]

Build a few stinking refineries!

Amen

[nmainguy]

Screw the caribou. Tax the oil from ANWR and educate the public.

We'd try to educate people like you first but the dribble of tax revenue-I believe-would never be enough.

We really just need to keep the short-sighted out of a place that would only provide a mininscule of oil and enable the SUV class to continue it's drunken spree on oil. Many of us may never visit ANWAR but cherish it none-the-less as a peice of our national heritage. Thank god the Senate will once again defeat this lame-brained proposal.

[TJones]

Oh, like this is EVER going to pass. Like you REALLY have something to worry about, in reality the drilling may affect about 5 friggin' Caribou, because some rednecks are out spotlighting them.

[MexAmerican_Moose]

for those who are concerened about the wildlife in Alaska being affected by this....i have one question. Are you ever in your lifetime going to go to Alaska and actually spend time there vacationing and looking at the polar bears and other animals? we were put on this world to comsume it. we have to use all of its resources.

[bachanon]

mexamerican_moose is about to get dogpiled.

however, i agree. ohhhpp! look out!!!

[nmainguy]

we have to use all of its resources.

Really? Every single one? Should we leave anything for future generations or just go ahead and pig out while we have the chance?

[DJ V Lawrence]

for those who are concerened about the wildlife in Alaska being affected by this....i have one question. Are you ever in your lifetime going to go to Alaska and actually spend time there vacationing and looking at the polar bears and other animals? we were put on this world to comsume it. we have to use all of its resources.

After I read that, I re-read RedScare's post...

Do you expect us to read this with a straight face?

Total US employment in March 2006 - 143,700,000

Number of jobs created by ANWR - 3,000

Net effect - 0.00002

Yes, let's kill off the caribou for a 2 one-thousandth of one percent increase in jobs 5,000 miles away, jobs that 97% of Americans can't find on a map. Who the hell needs caribou anyway?

Once again, what's the point? How many of us are actually going to visit Alaska and look at the animals? At the same time, how many of us are going to move to Alaska and work for ANWR? It all sounds meaningless.

I could understand the arguement if ANWR's oil developments were expected to make a bigger impact, like, say, drive down oil prices back to $1.30 a gallon for the next 20 years minimum. But it sounds like the only people benefiting from ANWR's wildlife development will be the few CEOs at the top ripping off the investors, and the 3,000 people who will work for them when they could be working for another oil company in Alaska. If you're going to kill wildlife and the environment, at least get your money's worth. How will ANWR do more for the American people than what's there now? I say leave the wildlife reserves alone and explore other territory for more oil if they're so convinced that the world will still be dependant of that black stuff in 30-50 years the way we are now. Man, where's my Ethanol?!

[TJones]

Really? Every single one? Should we leave anything for future generations or just go ahead and pig out while we have the chance?

So, it's ok for us to use all the available resources NOW, and THEN when they dry up, we go for ANWR ? Gotcha, I am all in on that one. Good to see you agree nmain, you are slowly coming around. You are right, my kid's kids need oil also, so they can drive grandpa's muscle car around .

BTW, I heard yesterday that the oil in the Gulf of Mexico makes the Middleeast look like it's just a grease spot.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

After I read that, I re-read RedScare's post...

Once again, what's the point? How many of us are actually going to visit Alaska and look at the animals? At the same time, how many of us are going to move to Alaska and work for ANWR? It all sounds meaningless.

I could understand the arguement if ANWR's oil developments were expected to make a bigger impact, like, say, drive down oil prices back to $1.30 a gallon for the next 20 years minimum. But it sounds like the only people benefiting from ANWR's wildlife development will be the few CEOs at the top ripping off the investors, and the 3,000 people who will work for them when they could be working for another oil company in Alaska.

What? Ripping off investors? Are you sure about that? If the Caribou are of such a concern, there are plenty of zoo's around the nation, stick them there. If i had to choose between supporting people that would be gainfully employed and caribou running wild, the human factor will WIN everytime.

[TheNiche]

We'd try to educate people like you first but the dribble of tax revenue-I believe-would never be enough.

We really just need to keep the short-sighted out of a place that would only provide a mininscule of oil and enable the SUV class to continue it's drunken spree on oil. Many of us may never visit ANWAR but cherish it none-the-less as a peice of our national heritage. Thank god the Senate will once again defeat this lame-brained proposal.

Educate or indoctrinate? Education, to me, entails firstly the conveyance of factual information (such as the geographic location of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR, not "ANWAR"), its climate, and the number and population of various species), then an open-minded conveyance of disputably-factual information from multiple perspectives (such as the impact of hydrocarbon emissions upon the recent global warming trend, if any), and lastly an honest discussion of the logical thought processes that apply to various scenarios without necessarily taking a one-sided view of the metaphysical perspective. By my view, there are no right answers to the big questions...only competing arguments. It seems as though your view of education is that it should convey the values that you personally hold dear, not the least of which is neoromanticism, and that those values should subsequently be justified with a selected assortment of data without any recognition of competing ideas. Under the latter scenario (a perfect description of various Greenpeace publications that I've browsed through), you are correct in asserting that the "dribble of tax revenue...would never be enough" to educate me. You'd have to shoot me and all those like me. I suppose you were a big fan of China's cultural revolution, too.

But I digress...these personal attacks against me are so distracting.

To quote you:

We really just need to keep the short-sighted out of a place that would only provide a mininscule of oil and enable the SUV class to continue it's drunken spree on oil.

First, what exactly is a "miniscule of oil"? Seems like someone could stand to undergo some education. So if tapping ANWR would provide such a miniscule flow of oil, how would it also have the effect of enabling "the SUV class to continue it's drunken spree on oil"? Seems like the few drops may as well have no effect at all on price, so how exactly is it enabling the SUV 'class'? Oh right, because it provides high-paying jobs, thereby expanding the number of people that can afford SUVs...and that's bad. In fact, the SUV 'class' is so terribly bad...we should probably tax them to the point that they can't own SUVs...we must punish them for being such productive workers...the bastards.

Many of us may never visit ANWAR but cherish it none-the-less as a peice of our national heritage.

If a tree falls in the forest...

So if a forest is so remote that no one will ever see or appreciate it except in film, how about we film and document it for posterity and then harvest it completely?

[TheNiche]

Really? Every single one? Should we leave anything for future generations or just go ahead and pig out while we have the chance?

By "we", I think Mex meant humanity...not 'we' as in you, I, and the rest of our generation.

And basic modeling of the supply and demand factors pertaining to any economic resource with finite quantity would dictate that as the supply dwindles, the prices will go up and consumption will decline along a demand curve. Higher prices would eventually incentivize the R&D of alternative fuels that are more viable than hydrocarbons.

If it got to the point that there were only a few million irreplacable gallons of oil left in the world, the price would become so high that it would be rationed by the marketplace to only the highest and best uses...pharmaceuticals, for instance. At the very tail end of our inventories, oil would become something more like a collectible item than an economic resource...barring some sort of destruction as from a catastrophic disaster, our inventory of oil would never run out.

If i had to choose between supporting people that would be gainfully employed and caribou running wild, the human factor will WIN everytime.

This is really what it comes down to in this debate. There's a tradeoff: caribou population or human comfort...and I can't speak for nmainguy, but I care more about people than I do about animals.

Besides, while Red is talking about small numbers, that can be done on both sides. Anybody know how large ANWR is? Anybody know how much acreage would be impacted? Can someone divide the latter by the prior and figure out what percent of ANWR would be affected? I don't know what it is, but I can guarantee that it'll be small. This is a key figure because, in the context of Red's statement, it proves one thing if nothing else: the project is on the margins in every respect, and yet, is still a hot button issue...but I'd argue that it is a project with net benefits rather than net costs and that it should be allowed for that reason.

[RedScare]

Boy, I'd sure love to go camping with you guys.

On second thought, the generator running your DVD, TV and air conditioning for your Winnebago would probably keep me up all night. Besides, who needs to see a Caribou herd in person, when we have this great photo on the internet?

That did it for me. How about everyone else?

[TheNiche]

Boy, I'd sure love to go camping with you guys.

On second thought, the generator running your DVD, TV and air conditioning for your Winnebago would probably keep me up all night. Besides, who needs to see a Caribou herd in person, when we have this great photo on the internet?

That did it for me. How about everyone else?

Come on, now Red. Be reasonable. Have you ever or do you ever plan on taking the time and enduring the expense of visiting ANWR? There's even a bit of personal danger involved in getting there, as any good bush pilot would tell you. How much benefit is it reasonably going to provide naturists?

It is one thing to support the creation of state and national parks in accessible areas of profound natural beauty, where the highest and best economic use of the land is in fact as a protected public park...such places can serve many hundreds of thousands or even millions of people per year. But honestly...how many people do you think visit ANWR per year? What if the legislation required the ultimate developer of resources in ANWR to develop several thousand acres as a full-fledged national park, complete with a visitors' center, an access road, hundreds or even thousands of miles of hiking trails, a landing strip, and other amenities critical to draw ecotourists and make ANWR an ecological resource of actual significance? There's certainly enough oil around to justify that requirement.

[DJ V Lawrence]

What? Ripping off investors? Are you sure about that? If the Caribou are of such a concern, there are plenty of zoo's around the nation, stick them there. If i had to choose between supporting people that would be gainfully employed and caribou running wild, the human factor will WIN everytime.

To me, the question is about if it's worth it or not. Jeopardizing an entire wildlife refuge better be worth it, but there's nothing that states that this project will be a long term oil producer (which is why it's a gamble for an investor). I agree that the U.S. should search more for domestic solutions, however I think TJones is accurate that the Gulf Of Mexico has much more fuel resources than Alaska.

ANWR is MINIMAL for oil supply, anyway. If the U.S. wants to make the most for it's money, we need to spend more on alternative fuel and/or drilling in the Gulf of Mexico instead of letting someone drill in ANWR with no effect on the American economy. What's in this for Congress other than campaign contributions? As we talk about looking for more within America, we talk about getting rid of the only refuge of it's kind in America in the same sentence. MoonDude, would you rather drill for a little oil in ANWR, or drill for a lot in da Gulf of Mexico?

[bachanon]

let's not forget the "pristine" west coast. it is my understanding that there are restrictions on drilling off the coast of california, oregon and/or washington for purely aesthetic and fearful reasons. do we drill anywhere along the west coast?

[TheNiche]

let's not forget the "pristine" west coast. it is my understanding that there are restrictions on drilling off the coast of california, oregon and/or washington for purely aesthetic and fearful reasons. do we drill anywhere along the west coast?

No, we don't even explore for oil off of the Pacific or Atlantic coasts as per federal law. A bill that would have allowed such drilling was just recently defeated in congress. If you're looking at blaming congress for shaping policy based upon political contributions, this was the perfect example. Big political donors live along the shores of both coasts, and ruining their views by placing some dots on their horizons is unthinkable...of course, everybody used the environmental argument and residential views remained the elephant in the room during the debates. I watched a bit of this on C-SPAN, and couldn't help but laugh as nobody in congress was willing to identify this as a pork.

To me, the question is about if it's worth it or not. Jeopardizing an entire wildlife refuge better be worth it, but there's nothing that states that this project will be a long term oil producer (which is why it's a gamble for an investor). I agree that the U.S. should search more for domestic solutions, however I think TJones is accurate that the Gulf Of Mexico has much more fuel resources than Alaska.

ANWR is MINIMAL for oil supply, anyway. If the U.S. wants to make the most for it's money, we need to spend more on alternative fuel and/or drilling in the Gulf of Mexico instead of letting someone drill in ANWR with no effect on the American economy. What's in this for Congress other than campaign contributions? As we talk about looking for more within America, we talk about getting rid of the only refuge of it's kind in America in the same sentence. MoonDude, would you rather drill for a little oil in ANWR, or drill for a lot in da Gulf of Mexico?

If it isn't a long-term producer, then the oil companies will not be willing to finance the construction of so many billions of dollars of infrastructure. If there isn't a sufficient return, even opening up ANWR to the possibility of drilling doesn't mean that drilling will happen.

By the way, does anybody have any numbers regarding the amount of projected reserves in the Gulf vs. ANWR? I heard the comment about Gulf reserves being greater than in the Middle East too, but it came from the mouth of a congressman...not exactly a trustworthy source.

Besides, drilling in the Gulf and drilling in ANWR are not mutually exclusive options. I'd advocate drilling whenever and wherever it makes economic sense.

[RedScare]

Come on, now Red. Be reasonable. Have you ever or do you ever plan on taking the time and enduring the expense of visiting ANWR?

Reasonable? How much more reasonable can I be, that I would advocate protection of a national treasure that I may not ever get to experience?

I DO understand the arguments of Niche, 1stWord and MexAm Moose. !stWord thinks that anything that gets in the way of a job should be mowed down. Moose, apparently reading a different Bible than everyone else, thinks God put everything here for him to ravage. Niche exhibits classic NIMBY thinking...as long as I don't see it, go for it...ignoring the Native Eskimo who DO have to see it, and have to live off the Caribou.

Me, I'm kind of a freak. I don't think that my self-centered interests should be the yardstick by which destruction of the environment should be measured. But, hey, that's just me. If the Love Canal Trio thinks we should practice scorched earth policies every time a couple of jobs or a few barrels of oil is involved, that is certainly their right. But, I don't understand why I should be forced to agree with you. I don't mind if I have to pay a couple of cents extra for my gas. I just use less.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I DO understand the arguments of Niche, 1stWord and MexAm Moose. !stWord thinks that anything that gets in the way of a job should be mowed down. Moose, apparently reading a different Bible than everyone else, thinks God put everything here for him to ravage. Niche exhibits classic NIMBY thinking...as long as I don't see it, go for it...ignoring the Native Eskimo who DO have to see it, and have to live off the Caribou.

Nah, not mowed down :) I just dont think animals and wildlife are equal to humans. A caribou, owl, sheep or goat are not on the same level as human beings. If they stand in the way of progress, there are many zoos for them to be placed in.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Nah, not mowed down :) I just dont think animals and wildlife are equal to humans. A caribou, owl, sheep or goat are not on the same level as human beings. If they stand in the way of progress, there are many zoos for them to be placed in.

Can't wait to see how you'd react when they find oil in the Amazon, Serengeti, and Yellowstone

I believe in good investments. What will American citizens get out of opening ANWR? How will it affect oil prices? If the answer is very little, then WTF?