Anyone ever actually BEEN to ANWR?

[maxsolomon]

My buddy in Anchorage, an erstwhile "environmentalist" & backcountry boarder, uses this as his reasoning for why drillig up there is just peachy: 99% of the people in america will never set foot in ANWR. so, out of sight, out of mind, you should shut up. its none of your business.

i say all alaskans have whored themselves out for their measly oil dividends.

[Blue_In_AK]

1. That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with there....

If I wasn't so busy living off my PFD, I might get pissed off.

[Windy]

12. Is your PFD going to go up now?

[Blue_In_AK]

23. I really don't know how that's going to work...

If it does, I'm sure it won't be for several years. Our dividends are based on a five-year average on the earnings from the Fund. There wouldn't be any production up there for a while. I don't know, maybe some of the other Alaska DUers know more about this than I do.

[Windy]

47. I was in your beautiful state last summer

and drove up the Dalton Highway to the Brooks Range. Its absolutely amazing country up there. Frankly, I think more drilling is a shame in light of the fact that they estimate only 6 months worth of oil coming out of there. I have to tell you, the pipeline is such an eyesore. They say it has low environmental impact and I suppose that's true (except to the naked eye) unless there's a rupture or leak. What are they going to do, tie in the oil pumped from ANWR into the existing pipeline or run a new one? Have you heard?

[Blue_In_AK]

52. I really don't know much about what's going to go on up there...

I'm sure though that they would tie into the original pipeline. I can't imagine that they would undertake another huge engineering feat on the scale of the first pipeline, especially for an unknown quantity of oil. It really was an unbelievable amount of work building that thing. It sure made all the pipe welders happy, though.

For all the hype about ANWR, most of the talk up here has been about tapping into the natural gas and what route a natural gas pipeline should take. But I'm not going to talk anymore about resource development in Alaska -- I can't stand the flames.

Peace, out.......

[HereSince1628]

2. I've never seen the Mona Lisa...does that make it unimportant?

The aesthetic basis for an environmental ethic is interesting. Hargrove spent a whole book developing the arguement. You might check it out to have arguments to counter your buddy

[maxsolomon]

5. oh i have counter arguments

they start with a big FU.

selfish selfish selfish.

[HereSince1628]

27. Huh? I think you didn't read what I wrote.

And I think that "F U" and other disparagements fall into the category of ad hominem attacks.

Your buddy clearly has invoked "visiting" and "experiencing" as the criteria of his argument.

That falls into a family of what are known as environmental aesthetic arguments.

The environmental aesthetic argument would suggest that there are intrinsic properties of potentially aesthetci objects that don't require a visitor' immediate presence.

The Mona Lisa is widely regarded as such. It is worth is far beyond that of the pigments that are present. And even if _I_ never see it things such as its composition, history, rarity, all can be seen as things which contribute to the paintings appeal.

Similarly, although I may never have the good fortune to visit ANWR, its intrinsic aesthetic values remain undiminished by my absence

[PunkPop]

41. I think you misunderstood that post

He's saying "FU" and "selfish, selfish, selfish" to his buddy, not you I believe.

[HereSince1628]

46. Maybe...

Careless use of the sword is common enough in GD, one must be careful not to step into the path of a blade and take it personally.

[Hobarticus]

3. Ask Wyoming how that worked out for them....

Granted, it's methane drilling, but orignally many landowners were in support of drilling, until they found out what it entails.

From MotherJones:

A Managed Disaster?

After careful review, the Bureau of Land Management has decided it was right all along about opening the Powder River Basin to coalbed methane drilling.

By Chris Smith

August 11, 2003


To get a feel for the layout of a natural gas field, you need to get some distance from it. At ground level, you can't see more than a wellhead, or a string of power lines marching toward the horizon. Seen from the air, however, the full picture begins to emerge: a latticework of service roads, compressors, pipelines, and power lines connecting dozens or hundreds of wells.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2003/08/we_485_01.html

[TrustingDog]

54. the people and their land Never Win. n/t

[Justitia]

4. Actually I have about a dozen friends who have, and I was planning

on it. Now, I think it would kill me to see it.

[Blue_In_AK]

15. It's huge. You'll still be able to see it.

[Justitia]

18. I'm in Houston. I already get to see ugly oil refineries every day. -eom

[Blue_In_AK]

20. I know, I know....

I lived in Houston, too, for seven years, but Alaska is a far cry from Houston and never will be developed to that extent. It's a physical impossibility. Anyway, as I said somewhere else, just because they CAN drill doesn't necessarily mean they will. Whether or not the oil companies have any interest in ANWR drilling at this point is a big question.

[Justitia]

22. Thank you for your posts, I'm sick over this. How are you up there?

[Blue_In_AK]

29. Oh, I'm fine, thanks for asking.

It's just a little upsetting to see all the generic Alaskan-bashing going on. Oil drives our economy up here ... too bad, but that's the way it is. Sometimes we feel a little picked on. People in the Lower 48 don't want us to develop oil, they don't want us to mine, they don't want us to log, PETA doesn't want us to fish. I mean, I went over all this a couple of weeks ago, and I'm just tired of trying to explain that Alaskans need to have SOMETHING for an economic base. Our natural resources are all we've got.

Anyways, I'm not extremely one way or the other on this issue, just feeling a little persecuted today.

[Justitia]

38. I hear ya from TEXAS, home of Satan's Spawn and all...

Trust that the folks are upset because of how much we all want to preserve and protect what you have going on in AK.

Oil drives the economy here too (as you know) and I work hard to not make myself nuts in Halliburton land. I'm active in the arts here and SO MUCH of it is sponsored by Halliburton - I have a visceral, physical reaction each time I see their huge placards at events.

And I'm totally okay with the fishing thing.

We just have to remember that there are good dems everywhere and everyone is experiencing serious nervous system repercussions over this stuff. We will live to fight another day.

Alaska is beautiful and she will be beautiful, we'll see to it.

[BikeWriter]

42. * is not a Texan!

[Blue_In_AK]

53. Thank you, Justitia.

I do truly understand what everybody is saying, and I myself go back and forth on this. Some days I'm just totally opposed, and some days I say, what the heck, this is a huge state (1/5 the size of the rest of the US) and a little drilling, especially with the environmental safeguards in place, won't do much damage in the grand scheme of things. I know everybody's nerves get frazzled ... I was in "kill" mode a couple of weekends ago just from overload. I just think we all need to be civil to each other, and realize that probably not one of us is 100 percent ideologically pure. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying. Disgusting Halliburton is Houston's benefactor. We get bennies from BP and Conoco-Phillips. They underwrite so much up here.

Anyways, I'm tired of this. There really isn't much else I can say, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[matcom]

7. "energy independence"?

10 years to extract 6 MONTHS of oil?

you DO know that it will NOT be used in the U.S. right? :eyes:

you DO know that right?

[Justitia]

10. of course he doesn't know that silly, they never know the FACTS - eom

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[matcom]

11. leave him be for a minute

i want to see if he can answer my post just above

[jayfish]

13. What Energy Independence Are You Speaking Of?

Also, the South wanted to keep slaves too. Why did we stop them? Prostitution and the drug trade create lots of jobs too. Why are those illegal? What I'm trying to say is, somethings are more important then America and Alaska's desire for instant gratification.

Jay

[oldcoot]

14. There is not enough oil in ANWR

Drilling in ANWR will not guarantee that we will be independent. Indeed, most estimates state that there is only enough oil there for 6 months to a year.

If we really want to become independent, we need to develop alternative sources of energy. We also need to become serious about conservation.

[CatWoman]

17. yeah, the caribou ANWR veterans for truth say

GO BUSH!!!!!

[Strelnikov_]

26. Going To Be Hard To Reap This "Energy Independence"

When the oil companies are no longer interested. Looks like another "Catastrophic Success" in the making for The Chimp.

My guess, they have run the numbers and the cost of polar oil on melting permafrost will be far greater than syncrude from coal gasification or GTL.


Big Oil Steps Aside in Battle over Arctic
By Jeff Gerth
The New York Times

Monday 21 February 2005

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/E022205Y.shtml

But if Mr. Bush's drilling plan passes in Congress after what is expected to be a fierce fight, it may prove to be a triumph of politics over geology.

Once allied, the administration and the oil industry are now far apart on the issue. The major oil companies are largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical about the potential there. Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a tiny fraction of America's needs.

. . .

A Bush adviser says the major oil companies have a dimmer view of the refuge's prospects than the administration does. "If the government gave them the leases for free they wouldn't take them," said the adviser, who would speak only anonymously because of his position. "No oil company really cares about ANWR," the adviser said, using an acronym for the refuge, pronounced "an-war."

[Weembo]

30. Interesting approach

Being in the oil industry myself, I encourage you to discuss the effects with industry insiders. If they (we) answer honestly, you will hear them acknowledge that such development will have known long-term effects (e.g., migration interruption patterns) but that the biggest risk, regardless of the inexorable advance of technology, is the unknown -- human error. Things happen, and when they do, albeit not as a result of intentional misconduct, all hell breaks loose. Then come the lawyers -- but don't Alaskans like lawyers?

[Zynx]

33. Uh, your inability to do basic math is consistent with a Freeper

Bye.

[donheld]

45. Did i just welcome a freeper

:crazy:

[donheld]

44. Trevor Running Wolf welcome to DU

:hi:

[Borgnine]

8. Enviromentalism is not just for more beautiful vacation spots.

It's for preserving our planet and keeping pristine places where wildlife can live and roam without worry. It's too bad there are so may selfish people out there that can't see that or care.

[TahitiNut]

51. Oh? I thought environmentalists loved the idea of tourism ...

... in wildlife refuges, with the campsites, roads, latrines, fast food joints, marinas, casinos, parking lots, dioramas, gas stations, .... :silly:

Yep. I guess that's why they have "Come And Ride An Elephant Seal" signs all over Ano Nuevo. :crazy:

[Lisa]

16. perhaps your buddy won't mind hosting the next nuclear waste dump ...

If his argument is purely utilitarian (that decisions should be based on presumed benefits to "the vast majority") -- he should have no problem with siting things such as waste disposal facilities in Alaska. On top of his favorite backcountry recreation areas, since the % of people who snowboard (especially away from developed facilities) is quite small.

On those grounds, why not move the entire US nuclear arsenal up there too (since it's much closer to China and North Korea, and can act as a deterrent ... plus any pre-emptive strikes will land there and not in the lower 48).

And federal subsidies to Alaska should end, since not many people live up there, and the money could be used to help the big cities down south (which have a higher population). What's the point of spending so much money on services to a state which is so sparsely-populated anyway?


The funny thing about utilitarian arguments is how few people support them when the tables are turned. And such intangibles as "existence value" and "option value", economists are finding, can play a significant role in decisions. There's also the very real impact of environmental services (e.g. caribou habitat, vital for the food supply to aboriginal groups on both sides of the border) which is only now being quantified.

[maxsolomon]

21. lisa, right on.

utilitarianism is what has got us in this clusterfuck.

the short term & the profitable always trumps the long term & the intangible.

[Lisa]

28. and one refinement is that it doesn't actually help most people ....

"They" claim that selling off the commons (our shared wealth) will benefit everybody, but what seems to happen is that it makes a few rich, powerful people a lot richer. The prosperity doesn't seem to get spread around as much as promised ... when they privatize power companies, the taxpayers (who spent decades and millions of dollars developing the infrastructure) get a couple of hundred bucks as a rebate, which is quickly eaten up when the energy prices start to soar!

So I guess, the really utilitarian part (everybody having a clean environment, with plenty of fish and game, and productive forests) kind of gets cut out of the picture.

p.s. I know that people in Alberta, which has also been developing its oil and gas, are now starting to ask "what happens when this runs out?" -- and they're worried about having traded off their water quality, etc., for temporary financial gain.

[oldcoot]

19. If your buddy wants me to mind my own business

then he should buy ANWR from me and every other taxpayer who lives in the lower 48 states.

[KansDem]

24. No, but I've never been to the moon, either...

Probably will never set foot there, but I still see no reason for trashing it for greed and the benefit of a few.

[maxsolomon]

25. does the moon have oil?

mars?

[KansDem]

31. Does ANWR?

I mean, really enough to make it worthwhile?

That doesn't seem to stop them...

[DenverDem]

32. Then it would be cool for me to take a dump in your buddy's bedroom.

Few visit there, I'm sure.

[Justitia]

35. and THAT my friends was a direct hit ! Only laugh I've had today! -eom

[Zynx]

34. Be fair - Alaska depends on natural resources to survive as a state

This vote is corporate oil whoring, but most of ANWAR is going to be left alone - its bigger than most states.

[maxsolomon]

39. true - the coastal plain is what will be affected

but my understanding is that is the most important wildlife habitat.

and bush says only 2000 acres will be used. he wouldn't spin the facts to his advantage would he? 2000 acres in a tiny contiguous square or in a network of 40' right of ways & drilling pads? if you see a road or a drilling rig from any given point, then that area has not been "left alone" - its been impacted by drilling.

pollution is visual also.

[Lorien]

36. TEN YEARS of FLEECING the American taxpayer

for Halliburtan and other contractor profit$ for six months of oil for California AT BEST. Even the oil companies are not enthusiastic about ANWR. the GOP has admitted that this is a SYMBOLIC defeat of liberalism and has nothing to do with "energy independence" or whatever other freeper spin they want to put on it. The same assh*les fight renewable energy research and improving fuel efficiency tooth and nail. Don't take the Kool Aid; this is about enriching the same ruthless bastards who are profiting in Iraq-AT OUR EXPENSE AND THE EXPENSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT!

[maxsolomon]

40. funny how "conservation" advocates are now "liberals"

we want to CONSERVE these resources & places, yet we're the radical anit-americans. are you saying that the GOP passed drilling out of SPITE? to stick it to us?

doesn't really shock me, i think spite is the main motivating emotion of "conservatism".

[City Lights]

37. Only through pictures:

http://wwbphoto.com/Photo1-61Icebergs.html

[democracyindanger]

43. It's a NATIONAL wilderness refuge

The entire country has contributed to its maintenance and protection. If Alaska wants to repay everything the rest of us already chipped in, then they can claim sole ownership. Pony up, or shut up.

[Goldmund]

48. I've never been to the Amazon either.

Burn the fucking jungle.

[Lorien]

57. Neither have I

but I enjoy breathing...

[graphixtech]

49. Tom Delay LETS TRUTH SLIP – the TRUE Agenda

http://www.defenders.org/releases/pr2003/pr092503b.html

September 25, 2003

TOM DELAY LETS TRUTH SLIP
ON DRILLING IN ARCTIC REFUGE

WASHINGTON, DC -- Remarks by representative Tom DeLay, reported today in Roll Call, reveal the true agenda behind the push to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

"On Tuesday, during a closed door session of the House GOP leadership, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said that the battle in Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration is a fight over whether energy exploration will be allowed in similarly sensitive areas in the future... ‘It's about precedent,’ DeLay told the assembled Republican leaders while making several references to the ‘symbolism of ANWR,’ according to GOP sources." -- Roll Call, September 25, 2003

"Tom DeLay has now stated plainly what we’ve known all along: that drilling in the Arctic Refuge is not about energy independence or the war on terrorism," said Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of Wildlife. "The drive to drill for oil in the Arctic Refuge is about oil company profits and lifting barriers to future oil exploration in protected lands, pure and simple."

[Vinca]

50. That's shameful. The fact that 99% of Americans will never set foot

in this area is a GOOD thing. And isn't that the point . . . wildlife REFUGE???

[lonestarnot]

55. Been as close to it as I ever want to be...don't like cold. My brother

just returned from a crane job on a tug boat or some damn boat... An eagle tried to land on his back but thank god he had on a slippery jacket. Talons be deep! In addition he froze his balls to the core!

[Cleita]

56. That beats the reasoning for clear cutting forests that

I heard in the northwest. Well, yes they know that it's bad for the environment, pollutes streams, kills fish, decimates the wildlife to the bring of becoming endangered species, but since they won't be alive when that happens, it's okay.

[BearClaws]

58. No

But I have spent quite a bit of time in Alaska, particularly around the Alaska pipeline.
I spent many hours flying over that thing and to tell you the truth, while aesthetically, it is unnatural, the wildlife seems to care very little about it.
Many times I watched herds of caribou feeding right next to it and crossing under it like they would a fallen tree.
I am however against drilling ANWR.