Alaskan's weigh-in

I'm not an alaskan but I am for it . . . . . . we've had the refineries and chemical plants in NJ long enough . . . .somebody else's turn and those Caribou have it too easy anyway . . .

Drill, Drill, Drill, Drill, and Drill some more. It's a frozen wasteland in the winter and a swampy mosquito breeding ground in the summer. The wildlife issues are nothing but a red herring to scare folks into being against it.
Truth is, the wildlife benefits more from oil developement than if there was no developement. Heavy restrictions are in place in the development areas prohibiting oilfield employees from messing with the wildlife and prohibting the public from entering into the areas where production is taking place. Wildlife is overly protected in the production areas to the point operations cease while wildlife is in the area.
The western Arctic caribou heard grew as a result of the pipeline. They use it for shelter. Even the areas along the pipeline corridor open to the public restrict hunting to archery only five miles either side of the pipeline and no motorized vehicles are allowed. Skis, dog teams and LPCs only.
The 1002 area of the coastal plain is only a couple thousand acres in size compared to the 20+ million acres making up the rest of ANWR.
Those campaigning against developement are the usual list of amimal rights and enviro nazi malcontents and agitators.

They should end up with more money on their tax refunds. Maybe the dems in Alaska will bet so PO'd they'll move over to the Yukon or British Columbia.

alright, so heres what gets me about it.

those opposed to drilling in ANWR keep blabbering on and on how it will ruin not just the ecosystem/environment, but also will make the viewing of wildlife in the ANWR not as enjoyable.
take a look at the map in the left of this page: http://www.anwr.org/

i gots a newsflash for the PAB's that *think* they know whats best for alaska and its environment: NO ONE GOES TO ANWR!!!!!
only the indigenous peoples live up there.

okay, so theres also like some native tribe that says its going to mess up their 'traditional hunting grounds'. yeah, so they'll have to ride their snowmobiles an extra 10 miles to hunt elsewhere, whoop-dee-effin-doo!

okay, so the caribou go to this area to have their calves because the grass there is rich in nutrients. so the 130,000 caribou will drop down to 110,000, whoop-dee-effin-doo!

oh yeah, and with the bigger PFD checks us alaskans will be getting, i'll be able to buy more guns!

I did my master's research in coordination with Alyeska (trans-Alaska pipeline service company). From my understanding, modern oil drilling and harvesting is actually much, much less invasive than it used to be. Supposedly, only one square acre needs to be destroyed to set up a drilling platform and then after that there is no other environmental impact, barring spills. The trans-Alaska pipeline has had little adverse effect on the indigenous wildlife population. The caribou just walk under it.

What spiff and steve said

WildgimmeoilAlaska

Alaska

DRILL----DRILL----DRILL
Ship all the oil to Japan----no place to use it on the left coast

Ship all the oil to Japan----no place to use it on the left coast...

Click to expand...

Heck, it's probably worth more in Japan, anyway.

I heard somewhere that anwr can produce a million barrels of oil a day for 30 years. And, that can be take from 2000 square miles out of 130,000 square miles in anwr (are those numbers right?). Anyway, I'm all for drilling in anwr and anywhere else domestically oil can be found. It's good for the economy, good for jobs, good for national security. It's a winner.

Spiff, what's a PFD check and how can I get one?

Riley Mc, it's 2,000 acres (just barely over three square miles) out of all those square miles.

I've been around a fair number of drilling rigs. The deep-hole rigs, down to around 14,000 feet or more, don't take up a full acre of land. A multi-hole site, with ancillary protective buildings, would not need more than a very few acres, total. I dunno; three to five at most?

The proposal is to use "rolligons", vehicles with giant wide tires to do service along the pipeline. Less impact on the tundra; less need for a heavy-duty road.

Overall, much less negative impact on the environment than the North Slope/Alyeska project, and the NS/A hasn't been nearly as much as even the proponents considered possible. Basically, we've gone from an R&D situation to a more nearly off-the-shelf deal.

Art

2000 acres ain't hardly nothin' in Alaska, and if it's good quality crude, not the sulfur crap I understand they have in Mexico, we got a winner. Problem is refinement (cracking?) as I understand. I heard that any oil coming out of California, for example, has to be shipped to Japan or somewhere, as EPA (or the CA version of EPA) won't allow refineries in CA. You got refineries in Texas, though, dontcha?

I heard that any oil coming out of California, for example, has to be shipped to Japan or somewhere, as EPA (or the CA version of EPA) won't allow refineries in CA.

Click to expand...

Plenty of refineries in the Bay Area. In fact, Contra Costa County passed a local .50 BMG ban in [2003?] because they were afraid that terrorists would buy .50 BMG rifles and poke holes in refineries. Errr, something like that, anyway.

There are lots of refineries in Calif. With in 20 miles of where I live there are 5 refineries. Almost all of the gasoline sold in Calif is refined here because it is a Calif only formula.

okay, so the caribou go to this area to have their calves because the grass there is rich in nutrients. so the 130,000 caribou will drop down to 110,000, whoop-dee-effin-doo!

Click to expand...

and

The trans-Alaska pipeline has had little adverse effect on the indigenous wildlife population. The caribou just walk under it.

Click to expand...

Its my understanding that the trans-Alaska pipeline has been credited with INCREASING the population of caribou ... something to do with the slightly warmer temperatures right around the pipeline itself making for more grass later into the winter for caribou or something like that.

riley, for you, you'd have to move up here and become my butler. then i'd sponsor you and give you a good recommendation to the PFD board. it might take 5 or maybe 10 years before the money can be legally passed to you (portion of the profits from oil in alaska goes back to alaska citizens).
so you'll just need to sign the checks over to my name.

sound like a plan? oh yeah, i'm not gay, but if you dont bring me a single nubile female between the ages of 21 and 26 and between the weight 100 lbs and 110 lbs, either a redhead or a brunette, then i'll be forced to make you be just a little *more* than my butler.

Spiffy quit solicitin fer chicks. just take your oil money and buy ammo

WildletsrapenatureAlaska

"There are lots of refineries in Calif. With in 20 miles of where I live there are 5 refineries. Almost all of the gasoline sold in Calif is refined here because it is a Calif only formula."

A gas for all seasons. Roger roger

I was wrong about no oil refineries in CA
http://www.energy.ca.gov/oil/refineries.html

So I understand the native people of AK will directly benefit from from drilling ANWR. They will get royalty money or something? Are there 'reservations' like here in the lower 48? In CA the indians open gambling casinos on their reservations, and are making tons of $$.

(portion of the profits from oil in alaska goes back to alaska citizens).

Click to expand...

I didn't know that. Plus, Alaska gets way more money from the feds than it sends down in taxes.

You lazy welfare bums...

So I understand the native people of AK will directly benefit from from drilling ANWR. They will get royalty money or something? Are there 'reservations' like here in the lower 48? In CA the indians open gambling casinos on their reservations, and are making tons of $$.

Click to expand...

well, we've been getting Permanent Fund Dividends for the last 25+ years. see here for more details.
we assume that opening anwr to drilling and the income recieved from oil companies securing leases will further benefit alaskans.

its not the Native alaskans who will be the sole beneficiarys, but all alaska residents.

alaska natives were already compensated over 30 years ago when the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was put into action. corporations were formed for the major regions of alaska, and both land/money was divided up to be given to them. many villages also were incorporated and provided assets from their regional corporation. once this was done, it was left up to the regional and village corporations to do with the land/money as they saw fit. many went belly up because they made bad financial decisions. some have become filthy stinking rich and share the wealth with their shareholders. others are sitting on their money so that generations down the line might have something.

not every alaska native is a shareholder. there was a cutoff date for the shares being given out, and that was back in 1970. shareholders can pass their shares on when they die to whomever they wish. since natives have been compensated, they can only complain or raise holy hell over things such as 'traditional hunting/fishing grounds' being compromised from things such as big oil companies. they cannot be compensated any more for any land however.

I am not from Alaska but would like to visit. I do not have any problem with drilling within ANWR. However; it does not matter how much oil that can be produced if there is no place to refine it. There has not been a new refineory(sp) built in the US in over 20 years. Hate to agree with an OPEC rep but one of them is quoted the other day as saying that they could supply us with all the oil we want or need but what difference does it make if we cannot refine it.

Hate to agree with an OPEC rep but one of them is quoted the other day as saying that they could supply us with all the oil we want or need but what difference does it make if we cannot refine it.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt they could, but would they? I don't like the idea of having to trust them. Kinda like contracting Iraq to make our rifles

I say drill. Anyone complaining about 3 sq. miles out of 130,000 needs to have a reality check.

But of course, it is Bush and the big oil companies. I wouldn't be suprised if people are complaining more for that reason than anything else.

I suppose I can post here as a "former Alaskan" (with three PFD checks to my credit). Drill away. I had to go to some remote villages (to give ASVABs), and from the air an oil rig on the North Slope looks like a postage stamp on the 50yard line on a football field. Drill in ANWR, there's still two Texas' worth of untouched wilderness left over.

I agree with you guys. DRILL. Probably (outside of scientists and oil geologists) there have been only about eight people visit that area in the last ten years and about the same number in the next ten! Also, the small amount of land they need for the drill sites AND the little environmental damage they do nowadays is no big deal.

Mostly it is the environatzis and the 'mother earth green goo' folks that are up in arms. They get me cause they are all saying, in effect, "stop whatever you are doing so we can keep on doing what we are doing".

Do you suppose these greenie-weenie's always:

Do not drive or use other motorized vehicles/tools?
Do not use synthetics made from oil?
Do not use any animal or animal by products?
Do not use electricity?
Do not use anything with dyes in/on them?
Do not smoke?
Do not grill hotdogs/hamburgers outdoors?
Do not produce waste (human and otherwise) that has to be desposed of?
Do not eat food grown with chemical fertalizers and protected while growing or stored with insectacides?
Do not use gas, fuel oil, wood or electricity to keep warm in the winter?
Refuse to have kids so as not to increase population growth?
Never fly to 'greeney-weeney' conferences or demonstrations?
Never use aerosols?
Always eat raw food to safe fuel used in cooking?


I think you get the point: "You stop what you are doing so I can keep doing what I am doing".