Oil Majors' Interest In Refuge Drilling Underwhelming - Seattle PI

[hatrack]

EDIT

"Republicans, emboldened by bigger majorities in the House and Senate, believe this is the best chance they've had to finally pass a bill since 1995, when Congress approved drilling only to have it vetoed by President Clinton.

Critics point to their own changes. Foremost is a pronounced lack of interest in ANWR from some big oil companies. BP, ConocoPhillips and ChevronTexaco have withdrawn from Arctic Power, the business coalition formed to lobby for drilling in ANWR. Among big oil companies, only Exxon Mobil Corp. remains. Thus the battle lines are set. Supporters, including President Bush, say opening ANWR is a crucial first step toward easing the United States' reliance on foreign sources of oil. With modern technology, they say, the job can be done without harming ANWR's unique wildlife.

EDIT

No one knows for certain how much oil lies beneath ANWR. Industry officials estimate the total is between 6 billion barrels and 16 billion barrels. Opponents dispute those numbers as wild guesses. Even if ANWR is awash in oil, it isn't enough to make a dent in the nation's energy needs or to offset the dangers of drilling in a pristine land, critics say. "We can't produce our way out of the problems we have," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We have less than 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world, counting what's in ANWR. We simply can't do that."

The knowledge about ANWR's biology is more complete. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has described the coastal plain as a rich and important biological resource. It serves as the breeding ground for the Porcupine herd of caribou and sustains bears, wolves and a vast variety of migratory birds. "Reducing America's dependence on foreign oil is an urgent priority," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., co-sponsor of legislation to permanently designate ANWR as a wilderness area, the highest level of protection. "Is it worth forever losing a national treasure, one of our country's last great wild places, for oil that would not reach refineries for seven to 10 years?" Cantwell said. "We should be developing a smart, forward-looking strategy to wean our economy off its addiction to foreign oil without sacrificing our country's wild places."

EDIT

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/213821_anwr28.html

[boneygrey]

1. Allow me to play Devil's advocate

They're talking about drilling on 2000 acres out of 19 million acres in ANWR. :shrug:

[Viking12]

2. How much area does a fishing net cover?

It's like a fishing net. If you count just the space of the string's width, that's small. But if you open up a fishing net and count the area it covers, that's much larger. The 2,000 acres aren't contiguous and only the space of the equipment touching the ground is counted. Each drilling platform can take up as little as 5-10 acres. The pipelines are above ground, for the purposes of this claim only the stanchions that touch the ground counts. Road widths also are conveniently left out of the space limit. Add in the empty spaces of the net, and the total is nearer 1.5 million acres.

[boneygrey]

3. Thanks for the info can you

suggest a good site that I can go to to read more about it?

[Viking12]

4. I don't have links handy, but

There are 2 reports that provide the definitive assesment of the risk/benefits of drilling in ANWR. One was a meta-analysis conducted by the USFW of peer-reviewed wildlife studies, the other a geological survey conducted by none other than the USGS. The juxtaposition of the two studies makes it pretty clear, the risks to wildlife are significant while the payoff in oil production is negligible.

Gayle Norton and the Dept of Interior have done their best to hide the USFW study but I sure with minimal effort you could find it. The USGS study should be easily obtained.

[boneygrey]

5. Thanks n/t