BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 09:10 AM

Refresh

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: GUEST,WYS
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:17 AM

So robo, referring to your first post-- procedurally, is TODAY'S VOTE the vote that will bring it into reality? What was yesterday's vote? And what the heck did Bush sign yesterday about energy?

Thanks in advance,

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 12:49 PM

Hey Susan: Are you also WYSIWYG? Just curious.

I started this thread when there was an initial vote towards including it in the budget. I'm not sure what has to be included in the budget since private enterprise foots the bill exploration wise.

Exploration in ANWR is what's being voted on, and the primary vote would be over approval to allow private drilling on public lands. Please review this thread, there is a lot of info in there, some of it is even true.

Right now I believe the House has voted to approve drilling in ANWR. The Senate has not. It is not a slam dunk that the Senate would approve it.

Even if the Senate approves it, there has to be a sale of exploratioin drilling rights, and someone has to care enough to buy those rights, then hire someone to go out there and look. It takes time, money and effort. There was a time when the oil companies in the Arctic were more dependent on the oil available there, but those companies have been absorbed into larger companies with global reach. The big companies have taken the long view and are spending their efforts in the Gulf of Mexico for the time being. It is still a big world out there.

Exploration drilling is NOT the same as developmental drilling. The effect on the environment of Exploration drilling is very minor. No roads, no drilling pads, some small pipes and valves left where the mobile drill rig was positioned. Due to modern directional drilling techniques, a rig stays in one place and can make many different drill routes over many square miles. This is not because drilling folk care about the environment (although you might be surprised, the people I've run into are very decent on the sharp end of the business), but because modern techniques save money, a lot of money.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: wysiwyg
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 12:59 PM

Yes, robo, I am Susan. I'll try to digest all that. Thanks for such a sensible approach!!!!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 04:28 PM

Thank you for your politeness and interest!

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 07:52 PM

question: Do the oil exploration companies make any money just from test drilling? Or do they bear the cost totally? That is, is there any economic benefit to anyone UNTIL oil is discovered?

In reference to some of the posts from last month, I can't see why we are not doing more with wind power and hybrid/electric cars. Even if they WON'T run 500 miles on a charge, 250 miles would cover an immense proportion of the daily trips by most Americans. This dancing and flirting and dodging with better alternatives MUST relate to someone's money and vested interests.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: emjay
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:08 PM

I went on a tour of the North Slope drilling sites about 12 years ago. It was with a group of staffers from Republican offices. I worked for a Denocratic state senator so I don't know why I was included. I do know the language from our tour guide was a lot different on this tour than it was on another tour a friend took. That on was was meant for Democrats. Those people know their audience. I heard a lot about burdensome regulations and what was going to happen "When Anwar comes on line."
The point is regulations in effect now may be changed when people who regard them as burdensome have been in power a little longer. Pumping the oil is all that matters to many.
And I know of unreported or underreported spills which have already happened. In the meantime damage from the Exxon Valdez spill continues.
Anytime oil is pumped from the ground and transported there will be risk of spills and other damage.
The only reason we are so eager to open the wildlife refuge is that we are unwilling to change our wasteful ways. The US already uses a huge and disporportionate share of the world's energy. There is a finite supply of oil and generations to come who might need it.
A few simple measures implemented now would save more oil in a few years than ANWR will produce. We all know them; reduce speed, make sure tires are properly inflated, car pool, walk, ride bikes, stay home, quit driving large heavy vehicles. (Driving from my home about 40 miles outside Anchorage, I always see truck after truck, after SUV, after Hummer with one person in each. At least we are in a fuel-efficient 5-year-old Toyota Corolla.)

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 12:07 AM

question: Do the oil exploration companies make any money just from test drilling? Or do they bear the cost totally? That is, is there any economic benefit to anyone UNTIL oil is discovered?

BillD: I DON'T REALLY KNOW but I suspect it is along the lines of tax breaks possibly given for exploration by the state and of course capital losses go against profits and result in reduced taxes. But I believe for the most part exploratory drilling is money 'down the hole'. ARCO was losing its shirt when it drilled hole after hold in the 60's and it was an executive decision at the very top out of their LA office which resulted in one last hole which discovered the Prudhoe 'elephant'.

In reference to some of the posts from last month, I can't see why we are not doing more with wind power and hybrid/electric cars. Even if they WON'T run 500 miles on a charge, 250 miles would cover an immense proportion of the daily trips by most Americans. This dancing and flirting and dodging with better alternatives MUST relate to someone's money and vested interests.

Someone's got to put up the research money or get it out of the government. Some other governments have done a lot of work with wind power, and steady progress is being made with solar power. They will be larger factors in our future but right now the big power generators are: Hydro, nuclear, oil, gas, and coal.

I went on a tour of the North Slope drilling sites about 12 years ago. It was with a group of staffers from Republican offices. I worked for a Denocratic state senator so I don't know why I was included. I do know the language from our tour guide was a lot different on this tour than it was on another tour a friend took. That on was was meant for Democrats. Those people know their audience. I heard a lot about burdensome regulations and what was going to happen "When Anwar comes on line."
The point is regulations in effect now may be changed when people who regard them as burdensome have been in power a little longer. Pumping the oil is all that matters to many.
And I know of unreported or underreported spills which have already happened. In the meantime damage from the Exxon Valdez spill continues.
Anytime oil is pumped from the ground and transported there will be risk of spills and other damage.
The only reason we are so eager to open the wildlife refuge is that we are unwilling to change our wasteful ways. The US already uses a huge and disporportionate share of the world's energy. There is a finite supply of oil and generations to come who might need it.
A few simple measures implemented now would save more oil in a few years than ANWR will produce. We all know them; reduce speed, make sure tires are properly inflated, car pool, walk, ride bikes, stay home, quit driving large heavy vehicles. (Driving from my home about 40 miles outside Anchorage, I always see truck after truck, after SUV, after Hummer with one person in each. At least we are in a fuel-efficient 5-year-old Toyota Corolla.)

Pretty much all the cars in my extended family are small Toyotas. That's one great car-making company. But Americans to this day are responding to advertisements about powerful engines and big cars. Ford hasn't been marketing the Excursion for nothing, GM hasn't been hawking the Hummer to noone. We will learn when the prices go up and stay up.

I still remember in the late 90's when the price of oil was about $9 a barrell and the popular news was quoting experts who said the price could stay like that for years.

If you read the earlier messges in this thread you will see that no one is claiming that ANWR oil will do anything other than defray the pain and cost to some extent, IF THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DEPOSIT up there which we don't actually know. But when you're in pain, you take pain medicine if only to make the pain less while you work for recovery. At $50 a barrel, 10 Billion barrels of recoverable oil is a nice piece of change, and it's all in the United States and we already have the big pipeline to do most of the transportation.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 07:37 AM

Robo--

And you're now saying that "exploratory drilling" will not lead to a lot more "exploratory drilling", and then to "developmental drilling"? (since all sides agree there is in fact SOME oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge).

What planet did you say you are living on?

There's a reason it's called "pristine" -- (synonym--"virgin")--the word taken from your own first post on this thread--please don't try to back away from it.

As I said earlier, would you care to debate degrees of virginity?

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 02:48 PM

Try this experiment- go to the largest room in your house or office.   Drop a penny on the floor.   That represents the amount of space drilling in ANWR would make up.   See if this violates the "pristine" beauty of your room.

Every barrel of oil from ANWR is one less from the middle east and one step closer to independency.    Renewable energy is the future, but it is not here yet.   I am currently working on using renewable energy to power two of the largest sporting events in the world.   The first one is proceeding very nicely.   (tell you more later after the contracts are signed) Here are some facts about renewables.

Current cost for my utility to produce energy:   under $20 per MW
Current cost of wind energy in my state

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 02:54 PM

Sorry- hit the wrong button my mistake:

current cost to produce electricity    under $20 per MW
current cost to produce wind energy          $58 per MW
current cost wind (other states)             $35-$40 MW
current cost biomass                         $45-$50 MW
current cost solar                            $80-$120 MW
small impact hydro                            $80-$120 MW
geothermal                                    none in my state

According to global solutions 76% of all future renewable energy will come from wind farms in the next 15 years.   Right now renewable enrgy is not economical.   I cant ask customers to pay double or triple for electricity from renewable standards.   Renewable energy needs to come down to the $30 MW range to be competitive.   Until then, we will need oil.    Right now, ANWR looks like the best possiblity for oil.

PS:   Just celebrated earth day by planting 4,200 trees in one hour (new guiness world record) along with Atlanta and Seattle.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 05:12 PM

Re: Ron Davies and Larry K:

I guess I'd challenge both of you, Ron to consider the likelihood that you will be backpacking in the northern reaches of ANWR and Larry you don't give any kind of information as to what those numbers really mean: Dollars per installed generating equipment? The cost of energy from those sources? Electric energy is sold by the Kilowatt HOUR or Megawatt HOUR. Retail home-owner's costs vary from $0.05 to $0.25 per Kilowatt Hour. Scaling up that would make $50. to $250 per Megawatt HOUR ignoring demand charges which I suppose might make sense with what you say allowing for wholesale cost reduction. I'm surprised the alternative energy costs you quote are so reasonable. And renewable energy may not have to go down as much as you say if the fossil fuel costs go up, thereby increasing the point at which they are competitive.

The real danger to the atmospheric environment will probably come from cheap coal, which will not only release carbon dioxide, but carbon monoxide and sulfur.

The real savior will probably be nuclear for taking care of base loads. Wind and solar and some form of mass energy storage will play increasing rolls.

In the United States there is great potential for conservation gains.

Congratulations on the trees.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 10:52 PM

Robo--

1) Quality of life ( expanded definition--see my earlier post, in which I explained it in detail) (24 March 2005 11:31 PM)

2)Stewardship

You ignore them both.


Also, still waiting for your opening argument on degrees of virginity.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 11:26 PM

Larry--

I echo Robo's congratulations on the trees, and obviously it's good you're working on renewable energy.

However:

1) What are your feelings on the recently defeated amendment (to the energy bill) which required auto manufacturers to raise MPG?

2) There are many ways to lessen dependence on foreign oil without touching the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which, as I noted earlier, would only make a difference of about 2% in energy dependence, according to Bush's own government.

3) In addition to Robo's comments, you provide no source for your info--you should know by now that in order to be taken seriously around here, you need to give it.   Or perhaps being taken seriously is not your goal.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Apr 05 - 03:07 AM

Ron:

I answered your post of 24 March 2005 with mine of 25 March 2005. I'm not really disagreeing with you, just saying that the oil under northern tip of ANWR *may* be significant. Balanced against esthetic concerns not endangered critters. We are in a good position to require that those esthetic concerns be addressed by big oil, as opposed to a future where we're all more desperate and poorer.

As for degrees of virginity, there was a beautiful young woman crying by herself alone on a sunny beach. A handsome young man came by. Noticing her tears, he asked her what was wrong.
"I've never been kissed"
He looked down at her, smiled, bent down and planted a definite yet caressive smack on her lips. "Now you've been kissed!"
...
Ron, I'm going to stop there. Surely you've heard that one before!

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Apr 05 - 01:56 PM

Robo--

So please define a kiss that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be happy with. I would venture to say it might include a photographer.

Would it include an "exploratory" oil well?

Give your head a shake.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 01:06 PM

Ron:

Forgive me if I posit that you're English. I haven't got a blind idea of what you're trying to say in your previous post. But it has all the self-righteous clipped indignation that I've enjoyed with some other denizens of Old Blighty.

You should come over and take a hike in the region. I'd be happy to have you (I have a lot of room). And I should, too.

robo, who is shaking his head indeed

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 01:07 PM

I thought you that you were supposed to give as much as you take.

Lets face it, drilling for oil is not harmless.

Not only that, there's not enough oil there to justify the damage or to meet the needs of the consumers.

Why bother?

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 02:04 PM

* robomatic, I'm not sure how far one can take the analogy: Some years ago there was a company that was trying to reopen an old mining operation just over the hill from Juneau. They proposed many new technologies but the inherent risks could not be denied.

That is a whole separate story. My point is that while they were waiting for the permits to start mining, they did exploration mining. In the process, they despoiled a pristine little valley with 30-foot high piles of rock and rubble that stand there today. In the end, it is difficult to say they were NOT mining.

* As to the costs of exploration and the possibility (make that 'likelihood') of dry holes, I believe that robomatic is correct in saying that those costs are borne by themselves - offset by tax breaks and state and federal monies for exploration.

Conoco Phillips recently had to stop saying in their television ads that it cost more to drill for oil in Alaska than anywhere else, when it was revealed that out of the 38 most costly regions, Alaska was in 19th place. Now Conoco Phillips just says that Alaska is "one of the most expensive regions", etc.

* Last week a huge (941 feet long) tanker stopped in Juneau on its celebratory journey to Valdez. It is the first double-hulled ship to go online since it was federally mandated after the disastrous 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound.

* Last winter, of course, a tanker split in two off the Aleutian Islands. Far less oil escaped from its holds but at this point we still don't know what the effects on wildlife will be.   Every day - and for a long time to come - single hulled ships, each and every one loaded with life-altering potential, travel the northern waters.

* I still would like to know whether the natural predators on caribou are in abundance on the North Slope or whether it is possible that the caribou flourish in such huge numbers because of a diminished predator population.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 02:04 PM

There's a lot of bother in 500 Billion Dollars

There's oil there for 20 to 40 years of pumping.

Drilling for oil is not harmless. Driving to work is not harmless. Eating too much starch is not harmless. Throwing a banana peel on the floor is not harmless.

I give and I give and I give.

Take that!

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 02:07 PM

Ebbie:
We cross-posted. My little effort above was in answer to Dianavan.

Your post has real questions, statements and information. Your points are well taken.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 11:00 PM

I'm American.

I'll take your observation as a compliment.

My wife, Jan, is English, flavored by Irish and Italian--but my style is my own, as yours is your own.


More on the debate later--she needs access to the computer.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 12:07 AM

Actually I probably should have pointed out that Davies is Welsh, in fact a very common Welsh name. So I would likely not be English anyway.

But that would be thread creep--later on, back to the topic.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 07:41 AM

No problem Ron. I've spent time with Kiwis and Ozzies and a few odd Poms and it colored my expressiveness but I never got around to spelling color with a 'u' or aluminum with an extra 'i'.

And the Welsh are swell. I think Thomas Jefferson and Jesse James were Welsh and we know how well they turned out.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 09:22 AM

Ron/Robomatic:

The prices I quoted were generation costs in megawatt hours.   I did not include transmission costs to keet the comparisons apples to apples.   I should have used MWh to be more accurate.

source for numbers.   My utility (DTE) charges about $.095 per killowatt hour.   If you go to the Michigan Public Service Commission web site- they post the PSCR or power service cost recovery (cost of generation)   This is where I got the cost of electricity.   As a side note Consumers Energy - the other large utility in our state has an average PSCR at about $30 per MWh.

The wind cost is the actual contract between the three windmills in Michigan and Consumers energy. They have quoted me the same rates.   Community energy and other wind developers have quoted me the prices I list for wind energy in other States. The solar numbers were from a Unisolar presentation at a renewable energy conference in Traverse City last year.   Note- Solar also has a high cost of equipment you have to factor in.   Small hydro I got from the MEEA (midwest Energy Efficiecny Alliance) conference in Chicago 2 years ago.   They have one of the best energy conferences in the coutry each year in Sept.   Check out their webwite.   Last year they has 6 public service commissioners along with the #3 person in the department of energy among other great speakers.

That is my sourcing.   You can accept it or reject it- but they numbers are real.   The public service commssion has requested that we sign up 60,000 customers for renewable energy by 2008.   That would put our renewable program in the top 5 voluntary renewable programs in the country.

We are also filing a net metering tarriff this week to buy back energy from people with renewable sources in their home.   I am also involved in a PAYS (pay as you save) pilot to fund energy efficiency projects on their uitlity bill.   This was done in New Hampshire and we are looking at it.   I also have a speech for the UAW on Friday about saving money on your energy bill.   should be a busy week.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 09:30 AM

I wanted to address the higher fule milage issue in a separate e-mail.   I heard the most rediculous presentation from GM on this issue.    It was made by Dr. Tom Walton at the Fed Reserve Bank energy conference on March 14 2005.   (you asked for sources)

Dr Walton argued why it was bad for the USA to have higher gas milage in cars.   Think about that for a second.   Bad to have higher gas milage.

His logic was that higher gas milage would lead to more people driving which would cause more traffic congestion and more polution.   In addition, any oil that would be saved would be from the USA and therefore cut our USA oil production which would cost more jobs.    I couldn't believe the insanity of this argument.

That is like saying people should not eat healthy because it would hurt the junk food industry and than people would live longer which would cost more in Social Security benefits.

That is the thinking at GM.   No wonder they lost a billion dollars this last quarter.


PS:   Every other presenter posted their presentation on the Fed Reserve Bank web site for the conference except GM.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 10:48 AM

Larry K:

Thanks for posting. I share your opinion of GM, but I don't think Ford is much better, I believe their fleet mileage went down over the past 15 years below what they had predicted and aimed for.

GM already earned my ire by pretty much taking over an issue of Scientific American roughly three years ago with their shameless promotion of their hydrogen 'skateboard' concept car, full of gladsome tidings with negligible hard data or concepts. A good copy of Popular Mechanics had more content than that issue of Scientific American. A few months later a publication put out by IEEE came my way with a short article by some students who were working out a real hydrogen fuelcell vehicle and in five pages they had more hard data and experience than Scientific American.

We're seeing a real lack on the part of the US national administration to 'step up' to the plate regarding alternative energy development, but it sounds as if there are steps being taken at grass roots level towards this ideal. I just heard Thomas Friedman on the radio urging students in colleges to establish 'Hummer free' zones.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 09:22 PM

Robo--

You and I are going at this from totally different perspectives.

It really makes no difference to me if I ever go back-packing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--it will not change my firm conviction that it should be preserved--as is--that is with no oil drilling whatsoever----for future generations, visitors from all over the globe--and even more, for the sake of the ecological community which now exists there.

There is an intrinsic good in a wildlife refuge--which nothing but the direst circumstances can overbalance.

A difference of 2% in energy dependency doesn't even come close.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 10:27 PM

Ron:

I always appreciate hearing from you. I don't think there's anything wrong with your values or your decision.

At this point I can be perfectly satisfied if they do drill, and I won't terribly mind if they don't. I just think people have a right to know what's at stake.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 11:29 PM

Interestingly, a Justin Blair article in the Juneau Empire this morning had an update on the Inupiat's (Eskimo) shifting view of the proposed drilling.

The Inupiat had been overwhelmingly in favor of opening ANWR because of jobs and because they didn't personally feel threatened by it. However, now that Governor Murkowski has kind of hinted that he didn't necessarily disapprove of offshore drilling, the Inupiat are apparently split about 50-50, with anti-drilling sentiment growing.

The article said that for the first time in memory a small anti-drilling demonstration greeted a delegation of US Senators and Cabinet Secretaries on their factfinding trip last month.

That is because, just like the Gwich'in who fear the disruption of caribou's habits, any change in which would affect their subsistence, the Inupiat fear the effect there could be on their culture and lifestyle. Whales are paramount in their culture and they are afraid that ocean drilling would send the bowhead and other whales farther afield, so to speak, and also are alarmed at the potentiality of oil spills in the waters which would have a direct effect on them.

When it appeared that no permits would be granted for ocean drilling, the village of 188 adults didn't see any serious downside to the project, but now they are afraid, in light of Murkowski's comments, that any on land drilling would lead to pressure to permit offshore drilling. (The Inupiat are the only settlemnt within the Refuge)

There is a great quote given from a resident: "When you're bringing in the whale, the feeling you get is overwhelming. Practically the entire town is at the beach hollering. It's just one big, glorious, happy day. All the crews feel we accomplished something- we just fed the town."

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: podman
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:56 AM

So does this mean "promote drilling to save the whales"? ;-0

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:20 AM

Ebbie: I am full of admiration at the way our Alaska representatives and leaders have been able, every time they plug oil development, to raise resistance wherever they go, from paying money to lobby Congress a few years back to the events you relate.

It was a sad day when Gov. Murkowski was elected. Never that bright, he'd used up much of his energy in the Senate and seemed to proceed with running for Governor as though he was entitled a 'retirement' level position rather than being put out to pasture. And the good folk of Alaska agreed.

I'm assuming by 'offshore' what is meant is actually drilling into the seabed via a man-made island or an offshore well. With directional drilling you can actually drill several miles 'off' shore from a site on the mainland, with no danger of involvement of sealife. There has been at least one 'offshore island' built up there but I don't know any of the details regarding its success or environmental record.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 11:31 AM

Oh, I don't know, robo - I've heard Murkowski described as a clown. *G* I've lived in Alaska 17 years and I'm still amazed at the people we elect. (Hey, Anchorage Mayor Begich comes across as a thinking person- is that a correct impression?)

As to offshore drilling- and I believe they are picturing the kind of drilling off the California coast - it's all in perception, isn't it. In any equation, worry weighs heavily.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 04:26 PM

Ebbie: Mayor Begich is one of the best native grown politicians, he got elected on a fluke naturally, which is a hilarious story its own self, although Mayor Nystrom was very capable as well. He comes from a venerable political family, his father was Congressman and unfortunately lost and never found on a light twin flight with Hale Boggs (Cokie Roberts' father) in 1972 and that is why Don Young (well known gross Alaska product) has been the Representative ever since). The continuous re-election of Don Young is cause for extreme humility on the part of all Alaskans. He is fat, dumb, but has a sort of low cunning probably derived from the brain-stem, cause there sure ain't much happenin' on points north.

I don't know enough about offshore drilling to comment on it technically or not. Natives are entitled to worry and express that worry and have those concerns addressed. In the past I spent a lot of time in native villages, though not on issues related to oil. I have also spoken to people who felt very frustrated by their native interactions. Bottom line, they are people too and quite capable of political finagling with the best of Boston pols.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 06:06 AM

Heard a fascinating program on this issue on To the Point--debate program on NPR last night while coming back from rehearsal--a debate between a representative of the American Petroleum Institute and one from the Sierra Club.

The American Petroleum Instititute man had a warm mellifluous tone and was the embodiment of sweet reason. However the most telling point was the fact that even he put the difference in energy dependency with Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil at 5%.

As I said earlier, Bush's own government (the US Energy Information Energy, a branch of the Department of Energy) puts the difference at a HIGH of 2%. I would put considerably more credence even in Bush's government than in the (possibly self-interested?) American Petroleum Institute.

But even for 5%, it's emphatically not worth it to throw away a crown jewel. And anybody who believes there will be only one road is self-deluding. Once the "virgin" aspect is gone, guess what happens.

The Sierra Club rep had, to my mind, an excellent metaphor. It's like hocking your grandmother's heirloom ring for $500 to pay a $50,000 debt--after you've done it, you are still in deep trouble--and you'll never see that ring again.

I'm still waiting for any defenders of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to give their views on the (recently defeated) attempt to put some requirements to raise the average miles per gallon in the current energy bill.


One other thing: actually it's too bad most of us have fallen into the habit of the "ANWR" shorthand (and too bad about the title of this thread--though obviously space is a factor.)
ANWR--sounds like a Turkish pot-holder--or perhaps a "Martin-Gibsonism".

We are in fact talking about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a vibrant--and irreplaceable--ecological community.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 10:00 AM

I support drilling in ANWR but am against MANDATORY requirement to raise the average miles per gallon.   I prefer to let the market decide.   With the current cost of gasoline, SUV and Hummer sales are down while hybrids are up.    The market will raise the average mileage by iteself.   

Companies that invested in hybrids will prosper.   Companies like GM that put all their eggs in SUV's will falter.    To me capitalism is working very well in this area.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 11:02 AM

There is a much lower risk of environmental damage from developing this resource than drilling offshore. ie: Georges Bank and Continental shelf areas. Having said that, the oil industry has been forced to take great care in preventing its offshore developments causing extensive environmental damage. Legislation, and monitoring by environmental groups has forced this rather than any corporate will, but it has proven effective. I am sure the environmental concerns for this area will force heavy penalties, fines and legislation to control the industry standards of exploration and production. Modern science and wildlife experts can mitigate the way this development encroaches on their habitat.

LarryK has hit the nail on the head when he talks about capitalism working well to control technology and consumption. Most companies and government agencies are looking at conserving oil use and using alternate sources of energy because of security and consumer demands to do so. With better education, the next generation of consumer will, because of social conscience demand we protect our environment and reduce reliance on fossil fuels even more. Industry must cater supply to demand. People will buy into the new technology, but in the end, we will still need this oil before we have sufficient affordable alternate technology to replace conventional transport. For these reasons I support the development of this oilfield.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 11:05 AM

I think that Larry is basically right, when consumers face facts, that energy costs are higher and will go up not down, the capitalist market driven system will present 'guidance' in the same form as gravity presents to a hang-glider - necessity.

Yet I feel the government is showing a lack of leadership, and in fact is more likely to lead in the wrong direction. Government should call attention to the facts, and should encourage us to be saving energy, not declaring that the energy solution is any one thing - and funneling government funds to their friends - I'm referring to Bush's State of the Union speech two or three years ago when he 'declared' that a hydrogen economy would be the solution.

I think a leader would spearhead a cooperative program to open ANWR to exploration tied to a commitment on the part of the big auto makers to pursue fuel economy in all vehicles, and take out the "Hummer exemption" that allows businesses to make tax write-offs if they buy large enough vehicles.

There has been a sad lack to use the bully pulpit to rally an American concern for economy.

As for pronouncing A N W R, it saves time and in a way prevents a misconception - that there is going to be oil exploration in any part of it other than a small portion of the reserve which consists of relatively featureless tundra (although coastal, which is significant), and presents no hazards other than aesthetic.

As for roads, they are so expensive and time consuming to lay down that they would be minimized as a matter of economy. With some bargaining power, environmental groups might insist on a 'no access road' provision similar to what was done with the Alpine Project to the west of Prudhoe.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 12:35 PM

I use ANWR (pronounced AnnWar), Ron, but I try to spell it out often to highlight the REFUGE aspect. But you are right in that many people, both in other countries and south of Alaska, have no idea what the acronym stands for.