The bill passed by the US House allows for drilling on 2000 acres of the 1.5 million acres of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Not great, but probably a good compromise, I thought.

Now I learn that those 2000 acres do not have to be contiguous. And that only the land under each drilling rig will be counted in the 2000 acres. The entire 1.5 million acres can be dotted with rigs and roads.

Source: Time Magazine August 13, 2001

Did you all know this? Do you feel as conned as I do?

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Answers

I doubt the reindeer or the tundra will be disturbed because 2,000 acres anywhere are drilled. I doubt if 2,000 of 1,500,000 acres of RHODE ISLAND or Mass. or even LOS ANGELES were drilled there would be any serious impact.

GOT ANY PROOF THERE WOULD BE ANY IMPACT AT ALL WITH THAT SMALL A PERCENTAGE OF ACREAGE DRILLED?

IN FACT, got a shred of evidence of SERIOUS, LASTING DAMAGE caused by removing all the oil that the Alaskan Pipeline has carried all these years?

EVIDENCE not Green Opinion only please. ACADEMIC JOURNAL EVIDENCE.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

No, I do not feel conned.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Just for the record an acre is 43,560 square feet,a square 209'by 209'.

Only counting the land under the rig could be a huge issue. Let's say a rig takes up 1/4 acre. That allows 8000 rigs. Suppose each rig needs 25 acres to hold support buildings and equipment. Now you have 200,000 acres.

Then you need a road to getto the rig. Let's say that a road is 30 feet wide. Then each mile will use 4 acres. If the average rig has a 10 mile road, that's 40 acres per rig. you're looking at 320,000 acres used for roads.

So now we have 520,000 acres commited, 1/3 of the 1.5 million. I'd say that that is significant.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

John,

It sure WOULD be significant ... if that's how they were doing it. They're not.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Oh cpr, there's no need to yell at me.

I don't find most of the building that humans have done very attractive. I like sections of the planet that have no buildings or roads. We just came back from seeing a part of the Outer Banks in NC. The National Seashore is fantastic. The strip commercial along RT. 13 is hideous.

Put oil rigs in Los Angeles? Fine with me. It's ugly to begin with. Scatter the rigs all over somewhere pristine AND add roads and support buildings? That's a terrible idea. Doesn't matter if they leak or not.

I'm quite sure your attitude will prevail because we do need the oil. But allow me to feel sad because instead of a 2000 acre chunk cut from the edge of ANWR, there will be 200, 10-acre parcels with additional acres for roads and buildings all over ANWR. Why stop with oil rigs? How about Pizza Huts? Brew Threws? Waffle Houses? We have 1.5 million acres for heavens sake.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Hey, Ms. Pam, ever hear of the La Brea Tar Pits?

Oil has been pumped out of the area around L.A. for many Earth circlings. Decades even. Many decades. Totally destroyed the 'Eco- virons" of the primative "rain forest" that S. Calif used to be. (rain forest sounded better than Jungles to the "enlightened" save the Earth Flakes. Of course, in true doom zombie spirit, we have to see where that has lead. Perhaps you are not familiar with the fact that the State of California is not exactly where it looks on TV.
This is because The Rulers have a plot which prevents you from knowning that the State has been floated out to sea and sunk except for certain pockets of Friends of the Rulers who aided the Cover Up in Beverly Hills, parts of Silicon Valley, Coronado Beach and S.F.

When the pumping started the San Andreas Fault was not a Fault it was a minor detail. But when in 1991, the entire State of California split and fell into the ocean (making W. Arizona landowners most happy because they now had Ocean Front to go with their sandy desert), geologiest concluded that all the oil that was removed, processed and then burned set off the "Domino Effect" because the pollution added to very heavy rains and the extra weight of the rain broke off Calif.

Why the people didn't listen to Brer Gary Duct Tape back in 1989, who was advocating both "fleeing the Sin Cities of S. California" and trying to hold the State onto the rest of the Continent with Duct Tape" is unfathomable. Luckily, people in 90210 lead by Cher Horowitz's Totally Prominant Attorney Father additional shells of the Beverly Hills Bubble which kept out the panicking Valley Girls fleeing directly from the Valley Malls. (Maybe you can see his actions in reruns daily of Clueless).

As luck would have it when "The Big One" struck in 1992 (coinciding with the 30% collapse of real estate pricing), Beverly Hills, 90210 landed on a Reef in LA bay where it continues in its new role as Atlantis 2001 broadcasting re-runs of "how California living really is". Wolfgang Puck escaped to open a string of Gourmet Pizza shoppes in conjunction with Godiva thereby insuring a steady supply for the Heart Doctors who pooled their money to finance the shoppes. Gary Duct Tape had to file bankruptcy along with all his followers (3) because they could not complete their attempted corner of the World Supply of Duct Tape. They should have taken a lesson from Rocky and Bullwinkle who thwarted Mr. Big's attempt to corner the Box Top Coupon Market.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

1. You can't much live on the Outer Banks. Mutha Natur has a way of getting rid of any housing built there. I come from the Hamptons where the construction of jetties on the barrier beach to 'save' million dollar homes, has lead to one of the more erosion W. and E. of areas not protected. It did however save the bayside homes and parts of the Inland waterway so vital for the entertainment of yet another collection of millionaires who have their Captains move their large cabin cruisers from Florida to L.I., Cape Cod or Bar Harbour, aine. We appreciate all you tax payers helping my friends but would like some money spent on preserving all the private golf courses emperiled by local school taxes. I see no reason I have to fund education not that I have mine.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, CHECK OUT ROUTE 66. Rt. 1 and assorted older roads for a rival of your tawdry billboard, motel cluttered road in N.C. THIS PROOF OF GENERIC AMERICAN BAD TASTE IS 100 years old. The CAR and the CHOO CHOO brought people into areas where local business had to attract them. Result: BILLBOARDS.

Luckily, most of them in DFW are relatively new and while quite large (this is Texas), 100% of them are tastefully done even the "practice safe sex" which leads to the question, how do teen agers "practice" that?

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

An acre of 43,560 sq. ft. is NOT a sq. 209 X 209 (typical of Greenie math rounding up and up and up and up). It is NOT necessarily a square. Were it a square it would be 208.71032 **2.......FEET SQUARE. And Feet squared are not equal to square feet. (see the definitions).

The extrapolations after that are equally questionable. EVEN SO. WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT ALL THE DRILLING AND REMOVAL OF ANYTHING FROM ALASKA OVER THE YEARS (even whale oil) has 'damaged anything'. This is another Greenie RED HERRING. Dragged around with a smell to distract from the issue that little harm is done. VS. the harm that 300 years of Western Civilization upon the land in the contiguous states have done by men and women simply raising families and adding population. It is clear that only a complete return to the days of the Huge Buffalo (bison) herds and the wandering life style that co-existed with it practiced by the Plains and other Native Americans is satisfactory. The question after that is when will the Bureau of "indian" Affairs get its act together to march the Dreaded Honkies out of the Cities and into tents?

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Another minor question never answered is WHO did the "Native Americans" get their DEED from? And when did they get it? When they migrated over the Al-Siberian "bridge"?

And that question blows away the contempt the Greenies have for PRIVATE PROPERTY for if the NATIVE AMERICANS.....SEIZED THE LAND...what was so wrong with the Honkies taking it (even for trinkets ala: Manhattan) and putting it to the Highest and Best Use, (trading pieces of paper in a building near the original settlement behind a Wall on a street that runs from the East River to a Cemetery)???

The arguments for most of the Greenie efforts are naked attacks on the rights to Private Property. MY ANSWER TO SUCH SOCIALISTIC EFFORTS IS SIMPLE: you give up the DEED TO ALL YOU OWN FOR YOUR CAUSES, and I.....well I'll think about it.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

What is left of the Route 66 type trash development is increasingly seen by the "tasty people" as "roadside art" and local Hysterical Societies want to protect that which their own ideological ancestors sneered at.

A 1950s teen ager drive-in, 193os log cabin stlye motels, tacky roadside attractions at Wisconsin Dells, etc have all become high-campp, worthy of protection. What a farce. These are the same people who think it is cool to watch 30 year old Lawrence Welk schmaltz on PBS.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Lars:

You are just jealous because Rte 66 didn't go through Indiana. My, all time favorite, was the billboards in Indiana in the 60's. Word went out; from Russelville to Richmond, from Evansville to Angola; the billboards went up.

They read something like: THE THREE G'S, GOD, GUTS AND GUNS; IMPEACH EARL WARREN AND LEAVE THE UN.

Weren't well done, but I will always remember them with fondness. *<)))

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Why the people didn't listen to Brer Gary Duct Tape back in 1989, who was advocating both "fleeing the Sin Cities of S. California" and trying to hold the State onto the rest of the Continent with Duct Tape" is unfathomable. Luckily, people in 90210 lead by Cher Horowitz's Totally Prominant Attorney Father additional shells of the Beverly Hills Bubble which kept out the panicking Valley Girls fleeing directly from the Valley Malls. (Maybe you can see his actions in reruns daily of Clueless).

ROTFLMAO

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Save Burma Shave!

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Hi cpr--

Humor is better.

I live in the middle of nowhere but that doesn't mean I haven't been anywhere. When we were in Los Angeles, we had a choice of seeing Paramount Studios or the La Brea tar pits.......we chose the tar pits. That should make you laugh.

I'm not in favor of wigwams.......although they certainly are low impact housing. [g] I think we can both agree that there sould be some better resolution between the USA and the Native American Nations. I'd also like to find out who really was here first. It may or may not have been Native Americans.

Lars--

It's amazing what some people want or collect. Old ugly stuff is still ugly.

It all comes down to the eye of the beholder, doesn't it? Coming home from NC we drove through VA Beach, Norfolk, Hampton Roads. How can people stand to live there? But they do. A few places left untouched by humans is a good idea to me.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

Pam:

A few places left untouched by humans is a good idea to me.

There have been Inuit peoples living in the area for some time. Not long, but for a while. I'm sure you meant to suggest something other than they aren't human. *<)))

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2001

COUNTERING THE SPIN ON ANWR

Well, folks, looks like we're going to see what Tom Daschle's spine is made of. Without a filibuster, I don't think we'll have the votes to stop drilling in ANWR.

Although I'm angered by the House's approval, I'm not seriously worried - yet. Daschle isn't a dummy, and he knows he's got to fight this one with everything he's got. And so do the other Democrats. The simple truth is that despite the endless propaganda blizzard the Cheney/Bush regime have unleashed to try to pump up public enthusiasm for trashing ANWR, the majority of people are still opposed to the idea. And with good reason - it's a mind-bogglingly stupid idea.

Funny how the regressives recently stopped talking about gas prices. For a while, they were practically guaranteeing that if those radical environmentalist types didn't quit hollering about destroying the "wasteland" (one of the Bushies' favorite terms for ANWR) and open it up to Cheney/Bush's buddies in the oil industry, gasoline prices would triple. But then - darn it! - the price of gas started declining. A few weeks ago, I drove past my favorite gas station (their prices are always the lowest around...of course, they also sometimes run out of gas, and their credit card machine never works, but it's nice knowing that Exxon/Mobil isn't getting my money), saw that gas had dropped another few cents, and got the giggles picturing Shrub on his knees praying: "Please, dear Jesus, make gas prices go up again!"

Of course, drilling in ANWR wouldn't have any real effect on gas prices, and the more intelligent right-wingers know that...but it did make for good rhetoric. Luckily for them, there's plenty more rhetoric to go around, and plenty of ignorant regressives who'll swallow the pap and then regurgitate it at every opportunity.

I used to wonder why the Bush supporters remained so stubbornly clueless about the facts involved with drilling in ANWR, until I realized that the truth is that they simply don't care about the facts. Most likely, the vast majority of the little lemmings are dimly aware that this would not be a good move on the environmental level; many of them probably realize that it wouldn't be a good move on ANY level, except the "make-the-oil-industry-happy" level. So why do they support it? Well, first, it's a simple way (because they're fed easy-to-remember talking points) to support their Commander-in-Thief, and -- as recent polls have shown -- he needs all the support he can get right now. And secondly, it's a way for them to fight back against those who care about the environment and believe we ought to all take a little responsibility for ensuring that the world is an acceptable place to live a few generations down the road. Nothing gets a regressive hotter under the collar than the suggestion that he or she ought to be responsible. And the sad truth is that they really don't care about the environment. They are short-sighted, selfish and greedy, and the Cheney/Bush regime has repeatedly told them that it's okay to be this way...and they are by God going to defend their selfish, greedy short-sightedness as best they can.

It'd be nice if we could just assume that any rational person would look at both sides of the issue (we'll skip over irrational people -- their minds won't be changed, and it's pointless to waste time on them) and realize that drilling in ANWR is a mistake. Unfortunately, that would require a fair, unbiased media; and we haven't had that in this country for a long, long time. So it's important to know the facts in order to counter the right-wing spin, and hopefully grab the attention of those right-wingers who are still capable of seeing reason.

So the next time you hear someone blathering about the "energy crisis" and the need for drilling in ANWR, slap them down with the facts. It's entirely possible that they have never heard them.

First, drilling in ANWR will not in any sense stop us from being dependent on foreign oil. We wouldn't even GET the damned oil for 10-15 years, and the US Geological Survey has done extensive studies proving that while the oil from ANWR might have a TINY (and we're talking pennies here) effect on prices, the effect would last for less than a year.

And more oil is not a be-all end-all solution. These are not magical oil reserves...they will not renew themselves. When the oil's gone, it's gone. Period. Other solutions need to be found if we give a damn about the future.

Secondly, the scare tactics used by the right to make people believe that we've got to have our own supply of oil so we're not "dependent on foreign oil", and would be able to fight Saddam if necessary, is just downright silly. Not just because drilling in ANWR wouldn't rid us of this dependence, but also because of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve - over 570 million barrels of crude oil that could be used in a war effort. We have about twice as much oil in reserve (plus the capacity to extract more) than will ever be found in ANWR.

Right-wingers have gone back to championing "states' rights" after their brief departure in the Selection 2000 debacle, and often claim that we should leave the decision of drilling in Alaska up to Alaskans. This sounds sensible until you think about it for five seconds. Would we support New Yorkers if they decided to trash the Statue of Liberty? Would we give a wink and a nod to Montana, Wyoming or Idaho if they decided to pave over and "develop" sections of Yellowstone National Park? The key word here is "National", and let's not forget that that's what the N in ANWR stands for. It doesn't belong to Alaskans alone -- it's mine, too. And yours.

It is true that some Alaskans support drilling. Why? Well, follow the money. A large percentage of the profits from drilling (over half) would go to the residents of Alaska. So, naturally, the more greedy residents of Alaska want those profits. The same holds true for the Inupiaq Eskimos - their corporation, formed in 1970, would receive millions of dollars from the destruction of ANWR. But the argument that the "native people" of Alaska, to whom the land belongs, support drilling falls apart when one considers that the Gwich'in tribe is staunchly opposed to drilling...and the land belongs to them, too.

No doubt, if you engage in debate on this issue, you'll be told that a poll was taken which showed that the American public supports drilling. But this poll consisted of only 803 people -- and while it's true that repondents said they favored drilling, it is ALSO true that they said they favored it ONLY AFTER outlawing environmentally-destructive SUVs and investment into renewable energy sources. And since responses invariably fall along partisan lines - those who voted for Bush support drilling, those who voted for Gore oppose it - than it's clear that the "No"s have it.

To those Bush-lemmings who scoff at environmental concerns and state that drilling in ANWR wouldn't hurt anything, I honestly think that the only appropriate response is derisive laughter. Anyone who truly believes that drilling is environmentally friendly is a fool. Of course, the truth is that the regressives who spout such nonsense simply don't give a damn about the environment, so giving them the facts won't change anything.

But if you enjoy beating your head against concrete walls (or if you find someone who does care about the environment, but is genuinely misinformed), you can always point out that unlike Prudhoe Bay, the possible oil reserves in ANWR are highly unlikely to be found in one big field -- they are scattered about, which means that rather than one large production site, a multitude of smaller production sites would be necessary, all connected by roads, pipelines, landfills, utility lines, etc etc etc. I don't think you'll find anyone who'll argue with a straight face that oil spills are GOOD for the environment, and if you find someone who argues that oil spills won't happen, my suggestion would be to ask "Oh, will the Tooth Fairy prevent them?"

And yes, the caribou will be harmed. It's true that the drilling in Prudhoe Bay has not had as much of an adverse effect as was feared, but the primary reason for that is because the caribou were able to move away from the areas of production. In ANWR, there are almost no other places for them to go...so the two cannot be logically compared.

There is one reason, and one reason alone, to drill in ANWR - and that is to fatten the pocketbooks of the oil industry bigwigs.

Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool, a liar -- or, more probably, both.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 2001

First of all, Old Faithful and the park around it exists because of a fluke in History and J.D. Rockefeller Sr. and Jr.

OR .......because of OIL DRILLING and DISTRIBUTION. That is what PROFITS CAN DO. Far better than letting the tax money go through the D.C. Waste Machines.

The Rockekefellers bought huge tracts of land near Jackson Hole and along the way, The National Park was set up. Recently, one of the Rockefeller Family Tracts was donated to the Park.

In case anyone doesn't know this: ROCKEFELLER WAS STANDARD OIL and the richest man in the world thanks to OIL.

PUHLEESE. The "Oceans" are "ours" also. We drill in them. The Whales and Seals don't seem to mind.

The rain forests (JUNGLES) belong to all of God's Chillun and we drill in them also. The Lion King and Tarzan have not lead demonstrations on the Capital Mall yet.

Your "only reason" for drilling i.e. profits will come from SUPPLYING ENERGY IN ASSORTED FORMS TO CONSUMERS TO BURN. OR.....what is left over after the costs of the mining, processing and distributing, is the profits.

WE DRILL ON TEXAS STATE OWNED LAND. THE MONEY SUPPORTS PLACES LIKE THE U. OF TEXAS AND TEXAS A&M. At one point in the 1980s and it still may be true, the Texas University System was one of the richest State University Systems and was not a drain on the taxpayers. ITS STILL A "Great Deal" for Students.

If you care about the Park so much, go find out why their budgets are cut so badly they are years behind in needed work (after 8 years of a VP who loves the environment so much). Then get the Parks budgets raised again. Or take the Oil Co money and make sure it goes to Park Improvements.

We have huge "National Parks" such as the Smokies where timber interests are allowed to log. 20 years ago, one Park Ranger Official decided that putting a road for the loggers through a stand of Native American Azalea Species complete with overlooks would be ok. We got 250,000 signatures and 100 CongressBodies to try to stop it. It was stalled for years then the same Fathead tried to put the road through again. All the TWIT had to do was re-route the road. Finally we got that done. The LOGGERS LOG and MAKE A PROFIT FROM THAT and it is justified in the name of "thinning out" the trees to prevent Forest Fires and promote younger stands. The Azaleas are happy and so are their Botanist Friends. The AZALEAS COULD NOT BE REPLACED.

That was the compromise.

In ALASKA, RUDOLPH, DONNER AND BLITZEN AND THEIR BUDDIES ........CAN BE MOVED(EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT WANT TO WATCH THE DRILLING AND YOGI STEALING THE PICNIC BASKETS OF THE DRILLERS).

AND THE ANIMALS RELOCATED CAN BE FED WITH THE FEES THE OIL COMPANIES WILL PAY TO DRILL INSTEAD OF IT COMING OUT OF "OUR POCKETS" WHEN THERE IS ***NO FOOD*** ON THE TUNDRA.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

http://www.thedailycamera.com/opinion/editorials/27eedit.html

The 2,000-acre ruse

When dealing with big oil, one expects the rhetoric to be slick. But it's not just unctuous. It's fallacious.

Early this month, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration. The vote was called a compromise, because oil and gas exploration would be confined to a mere 2,000 acres. The Coastal Plain of the wildlife refuge is 1.5 million acres. In that context, sacrificing 2,000 acres sounds like a trifle.

But that's exactly what the oil companies wanted. And it's no trifle. The 2,000-acre restriction is neither a compromise nor an accurate picture of drilling in ANWR. It is, however, indicative of the equivocation about this issue.

President Bush says the nation is plunging into an energy crisis. Energy consumption is expected to outpace domestic energy production. Such an imbalance, he says, requires that the nation increase its production of oil and other resources. Central to that strategy is drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The so-called 1002 area of the refuge might contain between 3.6 billion and 10.4 billion barrels of oil. The United States burns about 7 billion barrels annually.

President Eisenhower established ANWR in 1960, and President Carter doubled its size in 1980. The coastal 1002 area, east of the Prudhoe Bay oil fields, is off limits to oil and gas exploration. It is the last 5 percent of the Alaskan coastal plain that is still closed to oil and gas development.

That might change. The House has voted to drill, but the Senate could reject the 2,000-acre ruse.

The bill that passed the House (and the one pending in the Senate) would require that the government lease no fewer than 200,000 acres of the refuge for oil exploration. That 2,000-acre restriction applies only to drilling rigs, and only to that portion of the equipment that touches the ground.

The 2,000 acres would not have to be — and would not be — contiguous. A modern drilling rig covers 10 acres. Do the math. It's not fuzzy.

This is no compromise. It's exactly what President Bush and the oil barons wanted.

Furthermore, that 2,000-acre restriction says nothing about the rest of the infrastructure used to pump oil out of the ground, across the tundra, and down to the lower 48. The House voted to allow the construction of 200 miles of roads and 200 miles of pipeline in the refuge.

Developing oil requires more than drilling rigs, roads and pipelines. There must also be barracks, power stations, maintenance sheds, storage facilities, sewage-treatment and water-extraction facilities. Ice roads, used in winter to move heavy equipment over tundra, consume about 1 million gallons per mile. This water is sucked from critical fish habitat. The U.S. Department of Interior estimates that 2,000 acres of drill rigs would spawn a maze of facilities spanning between 130,000 acres to 303,000 acres.

And how necessary is this oil? Writing in Foreign Affairs magazine this month, energy experts Amory and Hunter Lovins note that the coastal plain could yield an average of 292,000 barrels per day over 30 years. That would power only 2 percent of American cars and light trucks.

But that much oil could be saved if light vehicles became 0.4 miles per gallon more efficient. Today, American cars average 24 mpg, a 20- year low. Congressman Mark Udall, who represents Boulder, notes that raising the average to 40 mpg by 2010 would save 10 times as much oil as would likely be extracted from ANWR.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the last genuinely wild places on Earth. The oil companies have shown no reason to despoil it. Their distortions only underscore the need to preserve it.

August 27, 2001

E-mail this story to a friend | Printer-friendly version

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Copyright 2001 The Daily Camera. All rights reserved. Any copying, redistribution, or retransmission of any of the contents of this service without the express written consent of The Daily Camera is expressly prohibited. Users of this site are subject to our User Agreement. You may also read our Privacy Policy. Comments? Questions? Suggestions? E-mail us at webmaster@thedailycamera.com. Click here to contact Daily Camera staff.

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2001