BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:48 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 09:10 AM

Refresh

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM

Thanks Ebbie, you flatter me.

I'm actually trying to softpedal any conclusions of mine but help people make their own conclusions based on what is really happening up there which is frequently misrepresented on both sides of the issue.

My project, which was in the mid 90's, would've basically had me report 'up the chain of command' so my responsibility was to report to my boss and he had to report to his, etc. etc. The people I worked with and myself would've had nothing to gain by not reporting spills because those were our instructions. But it wasn't our focus. Our focus was on safety issues.

Chuck Hamel is a well known bete noir among the oil companies. I believe he's a whistleblower, which has a specific industry meaning and status, but I have not followed his activities for some time. He is not a bullsh*tter, that's for sure, in other words what he says should be listened to. doesn't make him always right (or wrong), however. Basically, he's a player with knowledge and history.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:04 PM

Robomatic, none of what you write bores me- I don't question your agenda or your approach on your posts. Your integrity shines through. I am challenging only conclusions- as well as accepting challenges to mine.

"Part of our operating instructions were to report oil spills of any kind of any size, "1 drop minimum" robomatic

I understand. But "reporting" to whom? Just to your employers/superiors? According to the 2003 agreement that BP and Nabors signed, they were to report anything that exceeded 55 gallons. That report was to the Federal watchdogs, I believe.

I've tried to find online this particular report that appeared in the Juneau Empire this morning, headlined 'Regulators: North Slope Spills Not Reported' but have not succeeded.

"AP can assert that BP failed to report spills shows that there is oversight in place, otherwise, how would we know." robomatic

The investigation took place in response to Chuck Hamel's (an industry critic) charge that BP, et al, had unreported blowouots. The regulators decided there had been no 'blowouts' but there had been at least two incidents of unreported spillage, one of which, it was determined, consisted of up to 294 gallons.

This was reported by the Associated Press.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 01:36 PM

Ebbie:
I appreciate your concern on this issue. I hope you stay interested in it and do not find my posts boring.

I want to be fair to both you and myself on your message re: reportable oil spills.

I was working up and down the Trans Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) on a special one-of-a-kind inspection project. We were not involved with day to day facility work, and we weren't "hands-on". We had to be trained for a week before we were allowed access to the facilities, and we needed specific orientation for each place we visited. Part of our operating instructions were to report oil spills of any kind of any size, "1 drop minimum". When we fueled our vehicles we had to put oil absorbent 'diapers' underneath the filler nozzle, etc. etc.

There were environmental regulations in place to a severe degree. We were not allowed to approach a self operating electrical valve in the yard because there was an active bird nest in it.

The field of oil spill reportage is loaded with data, and goes from Alaska legislation to bureacratic definition. I have looked a bit into it and have not found a 'smoking gun' but I did find this from a bulletin issued by a very official looking third party document: "Reported volumes of North Slope spills vary by more than six orders of magnitude from 0.006 to 925 bbl (0.336 to 38,350 gallons)"

oil spill info


The point being that in order to have that kind of information, someone is reporting very small spills including under a gallon. Whether or not those small volumes are tabulated into the report that YOU saw is another matter entirely that you will have to supply more information on.

Drilling muds are just that, concoctions of different ground materials in order to form a viscous seal around a drilling shaft. They are assumed to mix or absorb small amount of crude oil, hence spilled muds contain spilled oil, even if a barrel of mud contains a few spoonfuls of oil.

The fact that AP can assert that BP failed to report spills shows that there is oversight in place, otherwise, how would we know. My point is that effective oversight costs money. At this point in Arctic Slope operations even though everyone is talking about tightening the belt, there is a very well run and effective system in place RIGHT NOW. Should economic hard times hit us, should we feel 'desperate' for oil, I am positive that the first thing to suffer will be oversight, the second thing to suffer will be quality of personnel and operations. You'll see the big companies sell out to smaller companies and the smaller companies will rape the resource and go bankrupt. This is why oversight is very important.

My fear is that the environmentalists who oppose this development will oppose it because they are strong, leading to a situation where when they are weak, they will not only be in no position to oppose it, but won't even know what damage gets done, leading to far worse consequences for the environment.

Right now you can go on line and get all sorts of details as to the oil spills.

Someday you may not get any details.


Ignorance is far worse than bad news.

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

robomatic, in your opening post you said: "Oil Spills do happen, but there is a very rigorous definition of what constitutes an oil spill. I believe it is a single drop.

In actuality, they are NOT required to report a spill unless it exceeds 55 gallons.. That's a far cry from one drop.

AP reported today that BP and its associates failed to report at least two spills of drilling muds (which include crude oil) of as much as 294 gallons.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:05 AM

"If our very lifestyle were threatened"--exactly.

The only "lifestyle" which is even close to being threatened is the one that presumes it's every American's God-given right to drive a more powerful SUV every year and never have to pay any more for gas than he or she did last year.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:14 AM

Darn tootin' Ebbie. When ya don't know you're left with estimates. That's what I said, and it remains true until actual exploration is made.

I don't always agree with Thomas Friedman, but I always read or listent to him first. His talk in early 2001 in Anchorage was excellent. It was primarilly about the internet's effect on the modern world. He referred to the creation of 'super empowered individuals,' people who extended their power through organization over the web. I took notes. He mentioned the (then only) attempt to destroy the World Trade Center by Ramsy Yusef, and he mentined the threat of Osama Bin Laden. they taped it and broadcast it locally about a month later. I think I even have a copy somewhere.

A very worthwhile commentator.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:54 PM

"If the reserves are as postulated..." robotmatic Postulated by whom, robo? As you can see in Friedman's column there is no such agreement.

"I could understand, if we were down to our last barrels of oil and our very lifestyle were threatened, that we might risk believing the oil companies that they can drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in northern Alaska, without damage. But we are so far away from that." Thomas Friedman As I was saying.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:56 PM

Sorry to post twicet in a row, but I am a fan of Thomas Friedman and his column is somewhat apropos:

Geo Green By Example


He visited Alaska four years ago and gave a very good presentation at a Governor sponsored function in Anchorage. He also flew over the North Slope and put out a column against development in ANWR. He called it "Drilling In The Cathedral." I found a copy of the text but not a link:

March 2, 2001
Drilling in the Cathedral
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


Listening to President Bush's speech about his budget the other night, you could hear the theme song for his administration: "Don't Start Thinkin' About Tomorrow."

The short translation of the Bush speech is: Hey, it's not the government's money, it's your money. It's not your children's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it's your refuge, and you can drill for oil there if you want. It's not your national debt, it's your grandchildren's national debt.
Geez, and they said the Clintonites were self-absorbed - me-me, I-I,
now-now, yuppies. What about this crowd?

I'll let the experts point out the irresponsibility built into the Bush budget. As my colleague Paul Krugman, a real economist, has deftly explained, there is no way Mr. Bush's budget numbers can work without making
wildly optimistic surplus projections, or stealing from future generations,
or taking risks no serious person would take with his family's budget.
Having just visited Alaska, though, I'm troubled by what such thinking can
do to the environment. What happened to the word "conservation"? Has it gone
the way of "liberal"? Are we no longer allowed to call for conservation
without engendering catcalls? America has 5 percent of the world's
population, but consumes nearly 25 percent of world oil supplies. Yes, some
speechwriter did slip one reference to conservation into Mr. Bush's speech,
but only after he first emphasized his favored approach to our energy
deficit - more "production."

I could understand, if we were down to our last barrels of oil and our very
lifestyle were threatened, that we might risk believing the oil companies
that they can drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in northern
Alaska, without damage. But we are so far away from that. We have not even
begun to explore how just a little conservation, or a small, painless
increase in energy efficiency, could relieve us from even thinking about
risking one of the earth's most pristine environments.

Check out the Web site of the Natural Resources Defense Council
(www.NRDC.org). It notes that the most credible estimates indicate that the
Arctic Refuge contains about 3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable
crude oil - less than America consumes in six months. Risking the Arctic
Refuge to extract that pittance of oil is nuts, when it could be painlessly
extracted through better conservation and efficiency. As the Defense Council
points out, by simply increasing average fuel efficiency on new cars,
S.U.V.'s and light trucks from 24 to 39 miles per gallon over the next
decade, we would save 51 billion barrels of oil - more than 15 times the
likely yield from the Arctic. At the same time, if we just required
replacement tires for cars and light trucks to be as fuel- efficient as the
original tires on new vehicles (which have lower rolling resistance), we
would save 5.4 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years, far more than
in the Arctic Refuge.

The Arctic Refuge is a unique environmental cathedral - a 19-million- acre
expanse where mountains meet ocean, where grizzly bears meet polar bears,
where 130,000 caribou migrate each spring to give birth on the coastal
plain, where an entire ecosystem is preserved and where Mother Nature is
totally in charge. This is not Yellowstone Park, with campsites and R.V.'s.
The original idea behind the refuge's creation was to save an area of pure
wilderness, in which there would be no maps, virtually no roads and no
development. When the Bush team says it can drill in such wilderness without
harming it, it's like saying you can do online trading in church on your
Palm Pilot without disturbing anyone. It violates the very ethic of the
place.

"Wilderness as a concept is immutable," explains Richard Fineberg, an
Anchorage-based environmental consultant. "It is like perfection - there are
no degrees to it. Oil development in a wilderness, no matter how sensitive,
changes the very nature of it. It means it's no longer wilderness. If the
drill worshipers prevail in the Arctic Refuge, then there will be no place
on this continent where a unique environment will be safe from greed and
short-term interests."

What will you tell your grandchildren when they ask: How could you destroy a
unique wilderness area to buy six months' supply of gasoline? Why didn't you
just improve gas mileage a little each year? Why didn't you lift just a tiny
finger for conservation? Weren't you thinking about tomorrow at all?

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:15 PM

Ron, Ebbie:

I want to be clear on what is meant by a "case being made". In my first creationary post I felt that I was setting the case for both, clear of the hyperboles of the extremists on both sides. I do not consider myself an extremist. I consider myself somewhat better informed than a lot of folk.

If I was in a more conservative forum, I would be stressing the environmental arguments against knee-jerk pro-development under all conditions stance. But I am not in that forum.

ANWR development may or may not impact me personally, very probably it won't, in other words, I am not really arguing my pocketbook. I love the wilderness of Alaska very much, but in all honesty, I'm more of a tree person, and "ain't no trees" in the small part of ANWR that's going to get drilled. My job in those parts has been arranging to put power poles in to string the electric and comm. lines. So I tend to leave a 'forest' where none was before. But that job is over.
I've already said that the USA will remain dependent on imported oil. But having this ANWR oil, and having it soon, will save a significant amount of dollars, and provide petroleum from Amercain sources. If the reserves are as postulated, on the order of 10 Billion barrels, they are worth on the order of half a trillion bucks and will last at least 20 years. This is balanced against primarilly aesthetic values, because there is no endangerment to wildlife species, and as I said above, environmental dangers are pretty well documented and not significant, especially when compared to what's already up there. That's what I mean when I refer to and 'incremental' difference. For God's sake, there's an 800 mile honkin' pipeline already there and a much more intrusive 800 plus miles of road already in place. As the bumper sticker says: "Jesus died for your sins, make it worth his while!"

A lot of money is spent right now on keeping the oil producing areas under observation. The environmentalists get to go up there. The feds go up there. The State gets tax revenue, and there are so many oil companies up there they watch each other. It's positively Stalinesque. How much better to harvest the oil NOW while the infrastructure is as good as it will ever be and the watchdogs are strong and active. Anything else will be done by smaller companies in a diminishing industry in a weaker economy, and in those conditions the environmental care is the first to go.

As for the Inupiaqs being primarilly in favor of oil development and the Gwich'in primarilly against, this is correct as far as I know, but subject to change as the economic and political winds do blow. The Barrow area is not rich, though a few local politicians are rumored to be quite well off. The Gwich'in are actually much further away from the area, well south by hundreds of miles. Their concern has been that caribou migration routes might change due to the construction at the northern extreme of their domain, making subsistence more expensive as they may have to drive their machines further out to reach their prey. The situation is ripe for negotiation.

As for the use of Stan Rogers song, I wasn't trying to make an analogy. As I said, music as an art "cuts both ways". Stan Rogers' song gave a workers' eye view of why people can be pro-development. I think no better song could be found. I've sung it to myself many times while walking out "beyond the tank farm where the gas flare makes no sound".

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 06:25 PM

The Alaska natives are not in agreement on the ANWR act. The Inupiat are in favor of it and talk about jobs; the Gwich'in are against it and talk about heritage and quality of life. In this world today, given our yearnings for peace and sustainability, which view do we lend more credence? Especially when we know that the day is coming when we have to turn to alternative means of combustion and commerce. I don't believe for a moment that bright inventive minds are not out there.

robomatic, I am aware that, like you, more Alaskans than not favor the drilling. My position is that if we do *not* drill now, we will not have committed an irrevocable act. If the day ever comes that we *must* have more oil, hang the consequences, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will still be there for development. That day has not arrived.

Subject: RE: BS: What the Latest ANWR Vote Means
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:45 PM

Robomatic--

Re: Stan Rogers "The Idiot". A great song, really stirring especially the way he does it. I always imagine it to be an anthem for lots of rugged individualists, especially in Western Canada.

But-- the moral of the song does not hold in this case--it's a false parallel. As I pointed out, the Alaska natives who would stand to benefit from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling are not on the dole, in fact are already prosperous due to proximity to North Slope activity already going on. So the analogy fails.

As I said, anybody with both a head and a heart should recognize that drilling in the Refuge --(rather than addressing either the needless and inequitable Bush tax cuts or serious conservation measures like enforced fuel economy standards)--shows grotesquely distorted priorities.

Do you want to associate yourself with that?

In fact, as I said, the case for drilling in the Refuge has NOT been made. You have provided no info as to why it is necessary.

My source, part of Bush's government, as I said, states that the difference in energy dependence will be about 2% with the Refuge oil.

The drilling will destroy something priceless.

If you are in favor of this, that would be, to say the least, disappointing.