(T) said:And why can't we drill for oil in ANWR? ANWR consist of
19 million acres,only 2000 acres is needed for
drilling.
False. The 2000 acres refers to what is called "footprint",
and is a measure of what the North Slope Borough can levy a
property tax on. It does *not* include garbage dumps,
gravel pits, any part of a pipeline not actually touching
the ground, roads, or parts of airports. The "footprint"
for the Prudhoe Bay industrial complex is only about 10,000
acres, yet it covers an area of about 10 miles deep by 100
miles long and is one of the largest industrial complexes
in the world.
In fact, the "affected" part of ANWR will amount to
virtually the entire 1,500,000 acres of the 1002 Area, the
"coast plain".
Quoted message said:Oil reserves in ANWR are estimated to be in the billions of
barrels (geologist,not Bush).
The USGS says there might be 7.668 billion barrels of
technically recoverable oil in ANWR. Even at $40/barrel we
could probably only get about 6.4 billion barrels pumped
out. That is not exactly a huge amount of oil (Saudi Arabia
has over 250 billion barrels of proven reserves.)
Assuming that much is actually found, adding it to the
market would amount to about a 1% increase in the supply of
crude, and might result in a 50 cents per barrel drop in the
price. That works out to about 4 cents per gallon for
gasoline at the pump for you.
Which is to say, it won't have a significant economic effect
on US dependence on foreign crude, nor will it really affect
how much it cost you to drive your car. It *will* do two
things though! It will provide many billions of dollars to
the multinational oil companies, and a few billions of
dollars to the State of Alaska.
Hence, it is reasonable for Alaskans and British Petroleum
stockholders and employees to push for drilling ANWR, but
you'll get nothing out of it.
Quoted message said:pollution?well Russian explorers noted oil seeping to the
surface in many sites in the present ANWR,
No Russian explorer ever visited ANWR. They never even
got close!
Quoted message said:natives in that area used to cut out blocs of oil soaked
tundra to use as fuel for heating/cooking.
Please provide a reliable cite for that. I've never heard of
it. They used seal oil and whale oil. They were aware that
coal burned and there are many coal deposits on the
North Slope, but it just isn't a good as seal or whale
oil, from their perspective.
I've never heard of an oil seep in ANWR that could be used
as you describe, or of anyone doing so.
Quoted message said:One village of 200 natives is the only inhabitants in
ANWR.You want to make
Kaktovik, an Inupiat Eskimo village on Barter Island in the
Arctic Ocean, is on the edge of ANWR. But your point is
poorly taken. There are several Gwich'in Indian villages
(Arctic Village, and Venetie are good examples) along the
southern edge of ANWR, and the boundaries were chosen
*specifically* to not include the villages but to include as
much of the range of the Porcupine Caribou herd as possible.
ANWR is the result of a treaty signed with Canada to protect
the Porcupine herd because the Gwich'in (also called "The
People of the Caribou"😉 are totally dependent upon it. There
are also parks and refuges on the Canadian side of the
border. There are about 9,000 Gwich'in people.
Quoted message said:the people who hate us richer? Then go right ahead,it will
come back to haunt us in the not too distant future.
Destroying ANWR would be a disaster.
We should note that virtually *every* caribou biologist that
has ever done any field work with North Slope caribou says
that oil exploration and production in ANWR would have a
negative impact on the Porcupine Herd. You cannot find a
single qualified biologist who will say otherwise.
--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [email hidden]
