anwr

March 14, 2003 11:19 AM

crunch time for ANWR [nytimes link] the administration wants to push through drilling despite what the residents think, a couple of senators in minnesota, oregon, and arkansas will cast the deciding votes... is the issue worth a call to you senator?
posted by specialk420 (22 comments total)

is the issue worth a call to you senator?

Well, considering that I live in Texas and my senators are John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, I'd have to say that the answer to your question is No.

I've snail-mailed, faxed and e-mailed Kay several times; not only does she not give a fuck what I think, she put me on her junk mail list and keeps me apprised of every asinine thing she is going to do, just to spite me. Don't let that stop you, though.
posted by RylandDotNet at 11:37 AM on March 14, 2003

...is the issue worth a call to your senator?

Well, considering that I live in the District of Columbia, I'd have to say that I've got nothing. Despite being a former Alaska resident, too.

(/derail) (sorry)
posted by mookieproof at 12:40 PM on March 14, 2003

"The residents" are not nearly as united as you might think. There are plenty of folks up here who see developing our oil resources as the best way out of our slumping state economy. If the decision to drill or not were left in the hands of Alaska's residents, it would be awfully close, and it very well might not go the way the environmentalists would like.
posted by mccreath at 12:48 PM on March 14, 2003

call or email norm -

[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

hes all about national office someday so im sure he'd like to hear from ya.
posted by specialk420 at 12:49 PM on March 14, 2003

Yes, thank you - I both called and sent email to Norm's office asking that he vote in favor of drilling for oil on our own soil. Futhermore, I'm sure it will continue to help the caribou...

"Environmentalists also said that caribou were too fearful to walk under the Alaskan pipeline. As a result, costly caribou bridges were built so that caribou could walk over the pipeline. Today, caribou walk under the pipeline unconcerned and caribou herds surrounding the pipeline region have multiplied as the pipeline provides a source of heat in the winter" - Jetson Nguyen
posted by stormy at 1:17 PM on March 14, 2003

So how much oil is up there again?
posted by Space Coyote at 1:22 PM on March 14, 2003

good for you stormy - i hope will tell your kids and your grandkids what you thought their pristine arctic wilderness should look like when they inherit it.
posted by specialk420 at 1:45 PM on March 14, 2003

So how much oil is up there again?
posted by y2karl at 1:51 PM on March 14, 2003

The authors write: "The most frequently cited estimate was 16 billion barrels, which appeared in 24 of the stories. . . . The average high estimate cited was 13 billion barrels and the average low estimate was 7.6 billion barrels, leaving readers to conclude that a number somewhere in the middle -- about 10 billion barrels -- would be roughly right. "

However, comparing the "average" 10 billion barrel figure from media reports to the mean curve in the chart of U.S. Geological Survey estimates shown above indicates that the reports on average overstated the economically recoverable reserves, at $20 per barrel, in the 1002 area by about a factor of three -- at that price, about 3 to 3.5 billion barrels.

The USGS's mean curve indicates that the amount of recoverable oil in the 1002 area is likely to range from zero to 5.6 billion barrels at oil prices of $15 to $25 per barrel, in 1996 dollars. The authors conclude "this range was only reflected by a handful of the news stories covering the topic in the last year, and most reports unwittingly left the impression that the amount of economically recoverable oil resources fell substantially above this range."
posted by y2karl at 1:55 PM on March 14, 2003

i had heard this misuse of the USGS data in prior discussions of the issue - at the end of the day the republican senators who broke ranks with the "we may as well use it now, before the rapture" crowd all agree that the loss of the national treasure outweigh the modest amount of crude they are likely to pull out of this area.

more on cheney's oil hustles
posted by specialk420 at 2:39 PM on March 14, 2003

specialk420 - the chances of my daughter seeing any part of the 2000 proposed acres of the 14 million acres of the refuge are slim at best. Currently only 1000-1500 people per year visit the place. Your knee-jerk response was foolish. I don't want environmental destruction. If 90% of the time an oil operation ended up looking like what you described, then by all means I'd be against it. However, that's just not the case. Being pro-oil does not mean I'm anti-environment nor does it mean that I'm not interested in alternate energy sources. Since mankind found out about firewood, we've continued to improve on energy sources: coal -> oil -> natural gas and now we have fuel cells providing power to parts of LA. I believe that we'll continue to strive for better, cleaner energy sources but it won't happen overnight. It has happened over the past hundred years. You're doing a real discredit to environmentalists by showing a picture and not offering a solution. The two can coexist. I'll take the relative small environmental impact oil has had in favor of the quality of life it provides as long as I see incremental improvement in alternatives. Now go back to using your oil to post to Metafilter... you do realize that it takes oil to do that right?
posted by stormy at 2:42 PM on March 14, 2003

Ice Roads and Camp Trails, Spills, The Footprint

An important difference, often ignored, between the coastal plain at Prudhoe Bay and in the Refuge is that it is much narrower in the Refuge, roughly 30 miles at the widest, compared with well over 100 miles at Prudhoe. This is of special concern with the Porcupine Caribou herd. It could be displaced into less favorable habitats in areas where oil development infrastructure (roads and pipelines) obstruct free movement or access of the herd to preferred calving or insect relief habitat in coastal areas. This kind of displacement has occurred with the Central Caribou herd around Prudhoe Bay.

Arctic Refuge Friends
posted by y2karl at 4:09 PM on March 14, 2003

yo stormy... thanks to a relatively progressive project at the local power company i am able to request that the energy i consume be purchased from renewable sources.

as for anwr -


PRISTINE -

pris·tine ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prstn, pr-stn)
adj.

Remaining in a pure state; uncorrupted by civilization.
Remaining free from dirt or decay; clean: pristine mountain snow.
Of, relating to, or typical of the earliest time or condition; primitive or original.


anwr is one of the few untrampled places left in our nation and the world - a blind alaskan recounted at hearings about drilling in anwr, that he most likely would never visit anwr but just knowing it was there in its primordial state made him proud to be an alaskan and an american....

a small effort in the area of conservation and reduced waste of energy would more than make up for any oil gained from drilling in the area in question.

call norm back and tell him you changed your mind for your daughter and other children who will inherit that national treasure.
posted by specialk420 at 4:47 PM on March 14, 2003

Indeed. It would take nearly no effort at all for Americans to save more oil than they will ever extract from the ANWR. Hell, consistently turning the central heating system down at night would do the trick. Or turning down the water heater when heading out on vacation for a week. Or even, heavens forbid, walking whenever the distance would require less than five minutes walking-time.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:18 PM on March 14, 2003

Not to mention that it will be years ere we ever see the oil. But fat contracts for someone's pals in the short term. That's all that matters.
posted by y2karl at 7:48 PM on March 14, 2003

Meanwhile, Iceland moves along in switching from fossil fuels to hydrogen.
posted by homunculus at 11:38 PM on March 14, 2003

Currently only 1000-1500 people per year visit the place.

Is this not reason enough to protect it? I do not want to live on a planet whose every resource is put to the service of human beings. What a flat and boring place it would be.
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:10 AM on March 15, 2003

Switching? it's a pilot program for a method of propulsion which, according to the columnist who got to drive the prototype, doesn't work in cold weather or have much of a range beyond 100 miles.

Some people at my office have a longer commute.

Oh well, I guess we'll just go ahead and keep sending fat checks to the snakes in the grass in the great Wahhabi kingdom. At least we'll have a pristine piece of land which is seen by 0.0004% of the country. Might be useful is the Saudis decide to send more amateur pilots to our fair cities.
posted by clevershark at 12:13 AM on March 15, 2003

Indeed. It would take nearly no effort at all for Americans to save more oil than they will ever extract from the ANWR. Hell, consistently turning the central heating system down at night would do the trick. Or turning down the water heater when heading out on vacation for a week. Or even, heavens forbid, walking whenever the distance would require less than five minutes walking-time.

And how much of this are you doing? Honestly now.
posted by fried at 9:08 AM on March 15, 2003

And how much of this are you doing? Honestly now.

Point?
posted by Space Coyote at 12:47 PM on March 15, 2003

fried: all of it, always. Indeed, I walk everywhere that's less than 15m away, and often walk a half-hour.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:45 PM on March 15, 2003

good4you fish. so many in this country would be happier and healthier if they followed your example.

fried...... a little more walking or biking wouldnt hurt your waistline now would it? honestly?
posted by specialk420 at 9:13 AM on March 16, 2003