Exactly what is the problem with opening ANWR?

Question

I live in Alaska and for the life of me, cannot understand why people are so against opening ANWR. I can see why people in the lower 48 feel so strongly about "saving ANWR" when they see pictures of the mountains and animals. But, they just don't understand that ANWR - the refuge itself - is as large as the state of Connecticut. And, the oil would be in an area just over twice the size of Central Park in New York. The 2,000 acres that would be used for oil is so incredibly small compared to the vastness of the entire refuge.

These people who are so against it are living in furry, fuzzy animal land and really need to come to terms with reality. It's insane to keep ANWR closed because people think it will destroy the wildlife and land.

Please explain to me in rationale terms why people are against the opening of ANWR. Because, after discovering these numbers regarding the 2,000 acres wanting to be used for oil in the 19 million-acre ANWR, their arguments seem so ridiculous.

Answer 1

How about that the oil is so expensive to get out that the oil companies have refused to do it unless the taxpayers foot the bill and the oil companies just sell the oil and keep the money. This with oil at 140 per barrel.

There is only 701 days of fuel there at 1990 consumpumption levels.

At its peak it will only produce between 710,000 and a 1,000,000 barrels a day. An amount that we could get if everybody checked the air pressure in their tires once a month.

That is why 77 out of 99 senators voted against it. McCain abstained.

Hard to understand why the headline was Democrats opposed it. If you only count the Republican votes it loses too.

I will not bore with the stats on how much oil we would actually get after you subtracted the amount that it will take to get it out. Suffice it to say that the demand for oil in ANWR will exceed the amount we get out for at least a decade and will drive up the price of fuel for that time.

Answer 2

I just posed the question of "how much oil does the US spend in 1 day fighting in Iraq". I was given the answer of 340,000 barrels a day. If we just pull out of Iraq, it would probably be the equivalant of Alaska's reserves.

Back in the 60's, our family had to sue Mobil Oil for destroying our land. We had 2 wells on 500 acres, and most of it was left competely trashed. They also lied about the amount they withdrew, but not sure thats relevant here.

Thing is, accidents happen. If people would invest in windmills or solar panels we wouldn't need that little bit of oil in Alaska.

Just saw a report on ABC News, where a small city ran competely on 4 windmills, which I believe the cost is about 20,000 a piece. The US spends 10.3 billion a month in Iraq. Im not smart enough to do that math, but Im smart enough to know drilling is not the answer.

Answer 3

The obvious problem of opening ANWR to exploitation goes beyond the inevitable environmental destruction it promises, but must also address the sickness of the automobile culture.

Simply stated, we must quickly wean ourselves from the destructive infernal combustion motor! Metal, glass, and rubber boxes intended for no more than a couple of passengers (but most often carting only ONE) is a most wasteful and ineffective method of transport. Hybrid and electric automobiles are hardly the answer, as the energy they consume ALSO compromises the health of the planet. The biggest problem with the auto is by far the sheer amount of space they devour--roads, freeways, alleys, parking lots, driveways, petroleum addiction refueling centers, etc. The asphalt we spread to further the reach of the auto soaks up the heat of the Sun all day, releasing it slowly through the night and artificially increasing our planet's fever.

Had the automakers not continually resisted, thwarted, or delayed emission standards written into law, the opening of ANWR to drilling would not be considered "necessary"--it is the reckless and destructive practices of the car culture that even make drilling there an issue.

It is time to understand that the archaic automobile was an experiment that not only failed, but brought great harm to a beautiful planet.

One good first step would be the elimination of any motor activity for non-essential purposes--get rid of NASSCAR, snowmobiles, jet skis, off-road hooliganism.

Spend NO money on new freeway lanes---divert this money to its proper use--the creation of affordable and convenient public transportation. There is no reason that people should live in communities under-served by public transit. One of the motoring public's biggest complaints is that trains and buses are too crowded, too slow, too infrequent. Hey--it does not need to be this way!! Work in your communities for safe and convenient public transit. Walk once in a while!



Think how much money can be saved by eschewing the infernal combustion mistake you have paid so dearly for.

Gasoline, insurance, oil, wipers, fluids, parking, tires, cleaning---all of this could be easily saved or used toward an occasional taxi ride. If you took a cab once a week for shopping the cost would not be prohibitive.

So save ANWR for the animals that belong there and accept the painful fact that the automobile is, after the gun, mankind's most destructive creation.

Eye pray for ten dollar a gallon gas!!

Answer 4

THANK YOU!!!!

did you know the cariboo and animals huddle near the pipes for warmth! they like it!

and would you rather pay 4 bucks a gallon or drill?

atticus: you libs think everything is the most destructive thing ever.

Answer 5

I'm seconding what oikos said. It's not just about 2000 acres. You have to build all the infrastructure that allows for the use of the land. Once this has been done, there's no going back, and the impact will be far greater than 2000 acres. There's also a tendency that once a little has been given more is asked for. Before you know it, the entire area has become degraded. People like to argue that we'll engage in activities that will have limited environmental impact but the reality is this doesn't happen as often as it should

Additionally, many species have large ranges and the more continuous land you can set aside that's roadless, etc. the better for them. Biodiversity matters for many reasons so shrugging our shoulders and saying that fewer animals is no big deal might be a mistake we cannot remedy.

The arguments for opening ANWR also do not take into consideration the restorative aspect of nature. In short, it's good for the soul. We need it as much as the furry, fuzzy animals but we don't always realize it.

Finally, if a wilderness is area is public land then it belongs - technically - to all of us. This means that we all should have a say in how it's managed. I want my public lands back and for my beliefs to be considered too. We've spent enough time allowing individuals and corporations to make money off what is supposed to be held in trust for us.

I think a good question to ask is why we haven't invested in alternative sources of energy that are viable and have less of an impact on the environment (not necessarily biofuels). Then we wouldn't have to destroy all the wild places for what can often amount to a drop in the bucket given our desire to consume, consume, consume.

Answer 6

What makes you think that the oil companies are going to restrict their damage to that 2000 acre area? They will have to get the petroleum out of the area; they will be exploring to find the limits of the oil pocket; they will have to build an infrastructure to support drilling for a relatively small amount of oil. Once the oil companies get their greasy little paws on permission to despoil one wildlife refuge, they are going to go after any protected area where they see a chance to make a buck. If they really needed the oil, they would be tapping the oil sands and shale that they can tap legally. Instead, the pour their bloated profits into TV ads that try to make them look better -- that and the bonuses given to executives.

Answer 7

if you ever watch" Ice Road truckers on the History Channel" it just glorifies debeers corporation blasting cubic miles of the arctic for diamonds..........that's the Hollywood elitists telling us how to run our lives......Pres. George Bush suggested going to the ANWR, so the Hollywood elitists shut him down.........

Edit:

It is nimby'ism at it's finest.......our corporate retail culture has shifted everything to China, how about now we buy our gasoline from China?  we have shifted our needs/jobs/pollution to China and the NIMBY's are happy because it is all out of sight and out of mind....   you will not get any Hollywood elitist's bad mouthing that because they are lining their own pockets with Chinese money(case in point....Sharon Stone had to groveling back to the Chinese to apologize for her comments on Tibet)

and as far as getting enough oil out of the ANWR, there will not be enough to make a major difference.......but the real value lies in the political capitol/influence when dealing with oil producing nations....

all in all the nimby's have a point, trouble is though they lack critical thinking.....