My question is to those from Alaska, or others who have personal knowledge of this area and this situation: What is your opinion on this? Would oil drilling in this area really harm the wild animal populations there in any significant way?

[This message has been edited by LE270 (edited 04-19-2002).]

So while oil development will have some impact (how could it not?), I do not believe it will be the end of the Porcupine Caribou herd as the "chicken little" environmental lobby would have you believe. The big question is what would this impact be, and is the large amount of oil which would no doubt be produced there outweigh that impact. In my opinion, and everyone is entitled to theirs, the impact on wildlife there will be minimal and justified by the return to the fed and Alaska state governments in royalties, and the reduced reliance on foreign oil such as the $10 million a day we buy from Iraq.

I'm not a biologist, so really can't make an honest assessment of how the development could effect the calving. I have traveled over most of the current oil fields, and they cover about a 20 mile stretch, and it is inundated with Caribou in the summer. The roads on occasion are closed due to the thousands of caribou traveling on them.

I think the environmentalists should be given a hand for forcing the oil companies to run what is likely the worlds cleanest oil field in Prudoe Bay. On the other hand, I think that the oil companies should be allowed to do more work based on there record of responsible development and operation.

There is no doubt that development will have an affect on wildlife. Also no doubt that there is always the potential of a spill. Then again, the area of proposed development in ANWR is relatively small, and the enviro claims of what will be effected are grossly exagerated. I also believe that the estimates of production are grossly understated by the enviros. It won't be enough to fuel the whole country, but it will be a signifigant source of oil, and for many years.

I wonder if the bunny huggers know that their fleece Patagonia clothing is made from hydrocarbons?

If the question is: will Oil exploration have a detrimental affect on the caribou? We need only look as far as the Alaska pipeline. There was a lot of doom and gloom forecasted about the fate of the herd during its construction. After construction it was clear the herd not only survived but has thrived.

If there is a question wherther the exploration activities will create long lasting environmental problems? I doubt it.

Those of us who have worked exploring in the far North are fully aware of how heavily regulated all industrial activities are. Permits to do work are detailed time consuming affairs, which means that approval for an activity does not occur overnight and is usualy the subject of a great deal of thought and review by multiple federal, state and local agencies.

In any case our technological ability to explore and extract resources (oil or mineral etc)in an environmentally safe fashion (especially during the last decade) has increased dramatically when compared to the the early days of antique (oil) exploration and continues to improve daily.

I could take you to any number of drill sites where a few years later you would never know that I drilled at that spot (including sites in the arctic).

There was some disruption to the environment with new roads etc. But no real problems with the wildlife.

Of course the possibility of damage to the ecosystem is possible, and in very small ways, likely. But I do not think it would have any real disastrous effects.

You have to remember the bunny-huggers are a very small, but very well financed organization. I do not believe they are a mouthpiece for the majority of Americans, but they get media attention out of proportion to their numbers.

I believe folks like us have more true interest in conservation and concern for the preservation of wildlife and its habitat than the political activists like Redford and the Sierra Club.

MM

I guess now that Redford has his piece of public land, no one else should have a piece.

You Guys should read Lomborg's book "the Skeptical Environmentalist"

FYI:
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates in 1995 on bonus bids alone were $2.6 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1980 and 1994, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 25% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 1.4 million barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil too Costly The U.S. imports over 55% of the nation's needed petroleum. These oil imports cost more than $55.1 billion a year (this figure does not include the military costs of protecting that imported supply). These figures are rising and could exceed 65% by the year 2005.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) at Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3,000 to as high as 23,400 during the last 20 years of operation. In 1995, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd size was estimated to be 18,100 animals.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

[This message has been edited by Bob in TX (edited 04-20-2002).]

------------------
don't cuss farmers and ranchers with your mouth full

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElCaballero:
I know I'm going to sound like a hipacrite here with my 1 ton gas hog in the garage, but until human beings find a good alternative to oil no amount of drilling irregardless of enviromental impact or location on the map our problem will not be solved.

---

You are correct but until that time comes our vehicles still have to operateso we will comntinue to use oil. People are working on alternatives as we speak. The point of our comments above is that we for the most part operate in an environmentally responsible manner in this country. Since we live here it is in our best interest to do so anyway.

I believe that it is much more environmentally responsible to explore and to develop resources in a country like ours that has very strong environmental laws, than it is to operate in countries (IE west Africa/the former Soviet Block of countries etc) where environmental regulation is poor to non-existent.

Ok I'll get off the soapbox now

RH

[This message has been edited by rockhead (edited 04-20-2002).]

[This message has been edited by rockhead (edited 04-27-2002).]

It is another altar of the Gaia worshippers. I enjoyed working in Prudhoe in fall/winter of '85/'86. Best "job" I ever had.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rockhead:

I believe that it is much more environmentally responsible to explore and to develop resources in a country like ours that has very strong environmental laws, than it is to operate in countries (IE west Africa/the former Soviet Block of countries etc) where environmental regulation is poor to non-existent.

Ok I'll get off the soapbox now

RH

[This message has been edited by rockhead (edited 04-20-2002).]

---

------------------
don't cuss farmers and ranchers with your mouth full

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob in TX:
3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

---

I thank all of you for your responses. The consensus seems to be that there will be no significant impact on the wildlife from oil drilling in the ANWR, especially given the drilling and environmental conservatoin methods and measures in force today.

But I do wonder about Bob's claim here about new jobs coming about as a result of this. If a thousand or more people come to work and live in the ANWR in order to carry out and service the drilling operation, wouldn't the introduction of that many humans into this area have an adverse affect on the wildlife populations?

quote:

---

Originally posted by LE270:

If a thousand or more people come to work and live in the ANWR in order to carry out and service the drilling operation, wouldn't the introduction of that many humans into this area have an adverse affect on the wildlife populations?

---

LE270,
As Bob stated, his figure was an estimate of the U.S. national job force. It would be suprising to find a hands on work force in the Refuge of more than 500 tops (during construction), and permant population of support staff would probably fall around the 200. This is just a guess; however, once the field came online, with todays technology the "hands on" time/effort equation becomes several times smaller than ever before. Your question really was what effect these people would have on the wildlife...particularly the caribou I'm guessing. Just an opinion, but based on all of the other producing fields on the North Slope and elsewhere, I would say that animal numbers would increase. Remember that these employees would not be able to hunt and it is highly unlawful to feed or harass any game there. The animals would find relief from predators; this has been the case everywhere else. Most knowledgable hunters and true conservationalists here in Alaska I talk to seem to agree with this view.
best,
bhtr

I do believe we should explore new oil sources, while being sensative to the enviornment. The ANWAR proposal sounds like a well thought thru plan. I have spent a lot of time in Alaska and I think that it would be relativley simple to have "low-impact" exploration.

------------------
Howard
Moses Lake WA
hhomes@homesley.com

I have not seen a lot of damange in the oil fields of Texas, Wyoming and other places and with the directional drilling rigs of today even less can be expected.

Should the Alaska Game Dept. get a piece of the millions and they will, then it would be the best thing that ever happened to the Caribou and all other wildlife in that area...

It all comes down to the almighty dollar and even the wildlife can be better served with big bucks (money, that's a pun ) than BS.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

Either way it wouldn't have too much if any I suppose.

It seems the socialist party has been against this state using it's own land ever since we became a state. Hickle had a lawsuit that was working it's way through the courts that would have addressed the Feral gubmint land grab. Kommie Knowles being Klintoons bend over boy dropped it. We will have to wait and see.

If you just set back for 40 or 50 years,the arctic refuge will be part of Northern California and you can drive right into it cheaply via a paved interstate and we'll still be paying out the nose for gas and by that time the goverment will have created another circumstance that has to be dealt with.

There are a couple of problems with your arguments. First you are looking at "today" demands, when in fact we should be looking at future needs. Oil isn't that easy to find, if it was we would not be having this discussion. It will take years to discover and develop any new oil field in the arctic. It will take longer than in the lower 48 because there are more environmental laws and rules that need to be followed and the climate is harsher than in your home state.

If as you are implying that there is no demand for oil today, then why are the oil companies interested in drilling in the (expensive) Arctic? they are business who offer a product that there is a demand for.

Regarding Gasoline prices, well our prices are amoungst the cheapest in the world already (you may want to take a close look at how much of your local price is taxes). Look at Europe, they are paying considerably more per gallon than we are (~$4.00/gallon). I don't expect the Arctic Drilling to bring down gasoline prices, but I expect it to reduce our reliance to outside sources.

Regarding Boom towns.. You haven't been to the oil camps in Alaska Arctic have you? I suspect that you are equating the raunchy (antique) oil boom towns that your home state had in the past with a modern Arctic Drilling Project. Maybe some our Alaskan's can add to this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RMK:
The problem is,we don't even really need the oil at this point and seeing how the shit has been sitting in the ground for a couple million years already,a few more decades won't hurt it a bit.
The current president came into office under fire for his stance on oil exploration in the arctic. Now he has the september 11 tragedy,compounded by all the other bullshit in the middle east and he's trying to use it as an exscuse to drill for oil in the arctic. We aren't hurting for oil right now and the amount of oil they'll get from the arctic at this point,isn't even worth the hassle. But bush is in bed with all the oil corporations and he answers to them.
There isn't even any legitimate reason for gas prices being as high as they are today,other then the oil companies are trying hose everybody to the point that they cry uncle and support drilling in the arctic refuge.
The situation with Iraq was created because Bush senior was to big of a pussy to take out sodamn insane during the gulf war,so we're still dealing with the prick today. The whole reason we were over there in the first place,was to protect the interests of the big oil companies,it didn't have jack shit to do with humanity.
The bottom line is we will drill in the refuge,it won't result in lower gas prices,the animals will go on living in the refuge with very few ill effects,you'll end up with boom towns full of oil patch trash,after initial construction you'll be left with a skeleton work crew to maintain the wells,what money it brings to alaska will be shipped out of alaska,the goverment will not hold the oil companies accountable for anything and the residents of alaska will in the long run end up flipping the bill for the whole abortion. The only people who come out on top are the oil companies and the companies that supply equipment to oil companies.

If you just set back for 40 or 50 years,the arctic refuge will be part of Northern California and you can drive right into it cheaply via a paved interstate and we'll still be paying out the nose for gas and by that time the goverment will have created another circumstance that has to be dealt with.

---

Who the hell let this Clinton luvr in here?

------------------
If Elmer didn't say it, it probably ain't true.

Agree with you completely. As one who has seen what Alaskans do to Alaska, I would prefer that they not be allowed to dig an outhouse hole without supervision from persons from somewhere else who have a glimmer of environmental concern. Want to see what can be done with Alaska? Visit greater Wasilla. While a boomtown won't be on the slope, the big projects will bring in more of the enlightened folks who think the place ought to be made as beautiful as other industrialized areas of the US. This state bends over completely for money and it doesn't even take very much.

he was right about one thing moast of the workers are from the lower 48 and they leave and take there money some place else and when they do come here to live they want it the same as what they let behind roads taxes and garde rails you name they want it moast of that comes from the south of the state it is the reast of us suffer carter went fishing up there and made it a wild area he has not been back as far as i know.

Was there not a city in your state a few years ago that made the #1 place to live well it is preaty far down the list now could it be because every one moved there and wanted to change things as to RMK you schould not inclued people that you do not know with your same ilk or people may think you are some type of redneck cowboy ass you can quote green peace all you want but that will not change a thing the native people that live there will have it done sooner or later they held up stevens becous they are going to wait till the oil will pay them more than the people in alpine got this a waiting game as far as they see it and the longer the waite the more they will get payed not to include the state of the art schools and everything that goes with it just look at the north slope there schools are the moast hi tec of any where and how did they get it from the pipe line and taxes on the use of the land so if I came off as someone that thinks RMK has no clue I am sorry but no matter what he thinks he does not live here or vote here so his point is what all talk well that is preaty cheep you have your congress men vote not to dril or lock up more land you do not have to live with it WE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do have a great day:Coyote Slayer

Don't expect much independent thought on these forums. For the most part they read like a PR effort for the oil industry. These are the same guys who are convinced that spills will never happen and that all environmental degradation can be mitigated. If history had been determined by the opinions on this forum, I doubt that we would have any public lands in the US and our air and water would be even worse than it is now. We would all be hunting on game farms. I once asked if anyone from the lower 48 reading a similar thread lived along a river that was clean. Not one positive reply. But the environmental "wackos" that they detest are the ones who are trying to clean up the messes that have been left behind and to prevent future ones. The coal industry that trashed my home state ripped and ran. Many of the streams are dead and will be for the indefinite future. The rivers contain fish but you sure don't want to eat many of them.

Coyote slayer represents a typically thoughtful Alaskan view. His opinions mirror those of our current legislature.

If you want to see how the oil industry has taken over Alaska and some of the consequences, read Strohmeyer's "Extreme Conditons, Big Oil and the Transformation of Alaska".

Sorry i do not aggree with what is going on or we would have subsistance and the feds would not have taken over are land and hunting and fishing rights I guess if you are a vegin you still can still find things to eat when it is all said and done. My anster to the gentleman from WA. was an honest one they have lost the number# 1 spot I just wanted to see how he felt about all the new people in his state and while i was working in Wyo. all moast everyone that i talked to were preaty mad about all the people that were moving there from LA and buying land and poasting it. I would like ask RMK why my tax dollars are being used for ADC work ,and paying farmes for extra crops or to not grow anything at all that is all moast as bad as the oil it is money wasted you have a bad year then take it on the chin and if you loose every thing to bad so the goverment bails out way more farmers and ranchers each year than they do here> Just makes you go HMMMMMMM!!! have a good one: Coyote Slayer

As a practical matter I am against creating more access in Alaska. Build a road and what happens, the crap gets shot out of everything in the area. Access is already a little too easy for me in most of the state as you can leave Anchorage, fly to Aniak, fly out to what is usually a remote hilltop or lake on Day 1, shoot your two bull caribou in the next day or two and head home on Day 4. Just a little too easy. I would like Alaska to keep its wilderness character so there will be places where you can go and hunt without having to draw a permit. But when it comes to ANWR, the potential benefit to the economy which allows most of us to live here and enjoy the wilderness outwieghs the slight environmental costs. Of all the areas in Alaska that can be developed, the coastal plain is one of the least important ecologically IMHO.