Oil from the National Wildlife Refuge

  • Thread starter Thread starter hypatia
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Oil
AI Thread Summary
The oil industry has been seeking access to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska for over two decades, with estimates suggesting significant oil reserves beneath its coastal plain. Environmentalists argue that drilling would disrupt wildlife, including caribou, polar bears, and migratory birds, and harm the refuge's ecological integrity, which was established for protection in 1960. While some Alaskans support drilling for economic reasons, there is a divide among tribal leaders and community members regarding the benefits and environmental risks. The discussion highlights the complexities of resource management, including the implications of drilling on national energy independence and the historical context of oil sales from Alaska to international markets. Concerns are raised about the potential for oil spills and the impact on wildlife, as well as the political dynamics influencing decisions about natural resource exploitation. The debate continues over whether the oil should be considered a national treasure, with calls for government control over oil resources rather than private profit.
hypatia
Messages
1,177
Reaction score
10
The oil industry has tried for more than 20 years to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in north-eastern Alaska. Now it seems they have won.
Environmentalists have fought such development and argued that despite improved environmental controls a web of pipelines and drilling platforms would harm calving caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the coastal plain.The 19-million-acre refuge was set aside for protection by President Eisenhower in 1960.
{AP}
What do you think about this? It seems we won't actually see any of this oil turned into gas for another 10 years, leases,processing ect. I personally wish they wouldn't, there's a reason its called a refuge.
Migratory animals already have a hard time getting around excisting pipelines, and oil leeks/spills in this area would be devastating.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
Christian Science Monitor blooper:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0317/p02s01-uspo.html

--
HIDDEN TREASURE: Alaska's pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has an estimated 10 billion gallons of oil beneath its surface.
--


Gallons should be barrels.[/size]
 
I think if alaskans themselves are for the drilling while hippies in california and new york are against it... ill side for the drilling :)
 
  • Not everyone in Alaska is in favor of it.
  • Tribal leaders are often at odds with their their tribal members over issues like this.
  • Neither individual states nor their citizens have special claim to national resources and treasures. ANWR is a United States federal wilderness area, not an Alaskan state wilderness area.

The reason why tribal councils are always approached with backroom lobbying and deals by mineral exploitation companies is they know people will see the soundbites and say to themselves, "I think if the indigenous peoples themselves are for it while hippies in california and new york are against it... ill side for it." It works every time.
 
Well they say it for a reason :)
 
Political corruption?
 
You fear what you don't understand my friend
 
I have family and friends in Alaska, who don't want this to happen. And I, a non-hippy type from neither coast would like to see this fantastic habitat saved for the purpose it was intended.
 
Hi,

I have heard that there is more oil off of the California and Florida coasts than there is in Alaska. Why not drill there first.

juju
 
  • #10
Because the oil platforms would be in sight, and no one wants to spoil there own backyard. These states are paying big bucks to ensure there views are kept nice...and the Gov. of Floridia is the Pres. brother ..that helps eh?
 
  • #11
hypatia said:
Because the oil platforms would be in sight, and no one wants to spoil there own backyard. These states are paying big bucks to ensure there views are kept nice...and the Gov. of Floridia is the Pres. brother ..that helps eh?

Actually if you want a even funnier political laugh; they had proposed building a wind-turbine island off of the santa barbera coast. A bunch of hollywood actors/actresses/directors, etc objected though and were able to defeat the island from being built because they said it would spoil their view. And all of these objectors were in fact, highly visible liberals :) Its great to demand a greener environment 'for our children and their children' as long as its not on your $25 million view off the coast
 
  • #12
Hi,

There's also a wind turbine project being proposed on the east coast that is opposed by the Kennedy's and others for similar reasons. This is stupid.

juju
 
  • #13
Not sure if it is true or not, but I have heard that the turbines on the east coast would be far enough out in the ocean that only the very tops would be visible. Anyone else know anything about this?
 
  • #14
I doubt that... who would want to run transmission lines miles out when you can do it a few hundred yards off the coast. But who knows, maybe those hollywood hypocrits never even looked at the plans... or they can't even stand a lil tip... in any case, there not coming up!
 
  • #15
I found this site that talks about what I was saying.

"From the shore, the slender supporting towers will blend in with the horizon and will be visible one half inch above the horizon on clear days."

http://www.capewind.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=24&page=1

Also, this is regarding the wind power project in Massachusetts, not California.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
Looks like its a going to be great for the east coast. I love wind power!
 
  • #17
If that oil were truly a national treasure, then it should be nationalized. Period. No oil company should profit, the government should drill the oil, and refine it, and sell it at bust OPEC's family jewels prices. Really what belongs to America, should not be leased to Americans, to sell to americans, and especially to the government for jet fuel and so forth, at inflated prices as they do. The practice of fiscal quarter jet fuel dumping needs to stop too, while I am ranting.
 
  • #18
Dayle Record said:
hitssquad said:
Neither individual states nor their citizens have special claim to national resources and treasures. ANWR is a United States federal wilderness area, not an Alaskan state wilderness area.
If that oil were truly a national treasure
The ANWR, Dayle, not the oil.
 
  • #19
By the time drilling starts, there will be no oil industry. hopefully that is soon, because oil is going up! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: i don't care if its hydrogen or solar or electric, just do it!


Fibonacci
 
  • #20
who gets to benefit?

>>>It seems we won't actually see any of this oil<<<

I hear, the Alaskan oil is sold to Japan
 
  • #21
It appears some Alaskans do want the drilling and they have reason to.

Alaska beats even Enron in trying to shape government policy. In the last year, the state spent $3.85 million in its Arctic refuge drilling campaign and appropriated another $1 million last week...

National energy independence? The last time we heard that argument was when federal lands in Prudhoe Bay, west of the refuge, were opened for drilling. Back then, Americans were promised that North Slope crude would lead the country to self-sufficiency.

Funny, but for the benefit of Alaskans who wanted a better price for their oil, Congress later said never mind and allowed this oil to be sold to Asia. Today the U.S. imports a larger share of its oil than ever before. ...



Why? Well, on the frontier, life has been cushy for a generation now. At least as far as government goes. Alaskans--those hardy and self-reliant frontiersmen--get an annual "dividend" from the Juneau government: the earnings off a $21-billion "permanent fund" that is the citizenry's share of oil revenues over the years.

Last year, the payout was $1,963.86 per person, or $7,855 for a family of four. On top of that, oil pays for 84% of state government, meaning no income or sales taxes.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0220-01.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
yes they have been getting pipe line money for many years, however, they will not see a increase nor decrease in money with this new development.
 
  • #23
What do we think now, after a year?
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top