ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:
And some perspective:
Note where the proposed oil development area is (it's in the "ANWR Coastal Plain" shown here):
This is what deceptive people show you when they talk about ANWR.
Although these ARE photographs of ANWR...
Isn't ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place?
Well that's not exactly the truth...
Do you remember the map?
The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain!!!
Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you? NO they don't because they are NOT coastal plain!!
What's going on here?
The answer is simple.
That is not where the oil is in ANWR!
This is what the tiny proposed oil area in the coastal plain actually looks like in the winter:
And this is what it actually looks like in the summer:
Here are a couple screen shots from Google Earth:
As you can see, the area where the oil is is pretty much a barren plain!!
Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife.
Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the "depleted wildlife" situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay*. Don't you think that the caribou have been decimated by that oil drilling and transport?
Here's that same spot during the winter.
Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay*.
*The Prudhoe Bay area accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production
Now, why do you think some people want to fight about this? Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee has stated on the record, "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market." And Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif,) also is on the record, stating, "This... uh, will be about, basically taking over and the government running all of [the oil] companies."
Patrick Leahy asked in a recent Congressional hearing where the oil company executives were summoned just exactly how much money the oil company executives earned last year. J. Stephen Simon, executive vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp answered that he received about $12.5 million in his total compensation "package." last year. Congress wants to go after these "fat cats" and take away their compensation and give it to the poor people who are hit hardest by the oil prices. Let's see, Americans use 385 million gallons of gasoline a day (according to U.S. Govt. DOE.) 1.25 billion pennies are in 12.5 million dollars. Divide1.25 billion pennies by 385 million gallons shows that Congress robbing J.Stephen Simon of 100% of his earnings for one year would lower gasoline prices by one penny per gallon for just over three days for Americans!! Wow!! Sounds like a smart plan, huh? Can't wait!! (and that's if you allow zero dollars for bureaucratic administrative costs and could every actually get the money from the IRS to the people for free.)
And some perspective:
Note where the proposed oil development area is (it's in the "ANWR Coastal Plain" shown here):
This is what deceptive people show you when they talk about ANWR.
Although these ARE photographs of ANWR...
Isn't ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place?
Well that's not exactly the truth...
Do you remember the map?
The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain!!!
Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you? NO they don't because they are NOT coastal plain!!
What's going on here?
The answer is simple.
That is not where the oil is in ANWR!
This is what the tiny proposed oil area in the coastal plain actually looks like in the winter:
And this is what it actually looks like in the summer:
Here are a couple screen shots from Google Earth:
As you can see, the area where the oil is is pretty much a barren plain!!
Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife.
Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the "depleted wildlife" situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay*. Don't you think that the caribou have been decimated by that oil drilling and transport?
Here's that same spot during the winter.
Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay*.
*The Prudhoe Bay area accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production
Now, why do you think some people want to fight about this? Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee has stated on the record, "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market." And Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif,) also is on the record, stating, "This... uh, will be about, basically taking over and the government running all of [the oil] companies."
Patrick Leahy asked in a recent Congressional hearing where the oil company executives were summoned just exactly how much money the oil company executives earned last year. J. Stephen Simon, executive vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp answered that he received about $12.5 million in his total compensation "package." last year. Congress wants to go after these "fat cats" and take away their compensation and give it to the poor people who are hit hardest by the oil prices. Let's see, Americans use 385 million gallons of gasoline a day (according to U.S. Govt. DOE.) 1.25 billion pennies are in 12.5 million dollars. Divide1.25 billion pennies by 385 million gallons shows that Congress robbing J.Stephen Simon of 100% of his earnings for one year would lower gasoline prices by one penny per gallon for just over three days for Americans!! Wow!! Sounds like a smart plan, huh? Can't wait!! (and that's if you allow zero dollars for bureaucratic administrative costs and could every actually get the money from the IRS to the people for free.)
This is great information, and these pictures really deliver the message that drilling in ANWR is no sweat off the environment. If you're reluctant to support drilling in ANWR, this post should make you re-think your position.
There's my two cents.
3 comments:
Thanks so much for putting up the visuals. This seems to help the small minded drones that believe anything the libs seems to throw out on drilling in ANWR. Most of the time the libs and their knuckle dragging drones need picture books to understand anything...words are far above their head.
I will be forwarding this on to as many people as I can. It is important that the average person gets some perspective on what we are talking about when we say drill in ANWR.
Thanks
Aaron
www.elephantforum.blogspot.com
In response to this blog I must admit first that our dependency on foreign oil must decline, so any supply from American soil is a good thing. However, ANWR is not going to provide the complete relief we need.
Erika Bolstad of the Anchorage Daily News wrote a decent article
http://www.adn.com/anwr/story/414808.html
about the latest reviews of ANWR. She quotes a Washington source in saying
WASHINGTON -- If Congress were to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, crude oil prices would probably drop by an average of only 75 cents a barrel, according to Department of Energy projections issued Thursday.
The report, which was requested in December by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, found that oil production in the refuge "is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices."
She goes further from the same article
The report was unveiled Thursday by the Department of Energy's research arm, the Energy Information Administration. It comes a day after the Department of Interior issued an inventory that found 60 percent of federal lands that hold potential sources of natural gas and oil are closed to leasing. The Bush administration report urged another look at those domestic energy sources.
This is not a mere attempt to contest your points, but to say that ANWR is not the cure-all that you are implying. If 60% of federal owned lands that contain natural resources, ANWR included, we should be investigating these further with the goal of decreasing American dependence on foreign oil and studying the best approach to them
Drilling in ANWR will have positive affects though, in the form of the Alaskan pipeline. Bolstad quotes Phillip Budzik, an author of the report saying
For one, it keeps open the Alaska pipeline operational past 2030, Budzik said, which means that oil producers might continue to explore smaller, less lucrative North Slope prospects simply because they have a way of getting their oil out of the state. That means oil production will continue to be a mainstay of the Alaska economy.
And if ANWR oil replaces foreign oil barrel-for-barrel, that means the United States is importing less oil, Budzik said, and fewer oil imports mean a stronger U.S. dollar.
Also, the Department of Energy found that unlike previous reports on ANWR, U.S. oil consumption is projected to decline, in part because of recently enacted fuel efficiency standards. High oil prices are expected to slacken demand too.
Another counter or additive argument to your blog is the US renewable energy consumption statistics. According to the following link, which I have admittedly only studied briefly, American commits only 7% of our dependency on renewable energy forms (Solar, Hydroelectric, Geothermal, BioMass, and wind energies).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelrenewable.html
If we were truly seeking to decrease our dependency on foreign oil we must also spend significantly more time and budget dollars in researching better methods to make our country run smoother on energies that are not purchased from…shall we say oil flourishing countries.
One specific way that buildings in America can reduce their dependency on traditional and inefficient systems is through the use of ground-source heat pumps. Ground-source heat pumps utilize the natural temperatures of the earth in areas where buried systems are possible to heat/cool the buildings. Piping systems are run underground and pick up heat or cooling from the ground and send warm or cooled water to Air handling units. The systems also recycle water and have cyclical refreshments of the source water, reducing the amount of water needed to heat or cool a building.
For more information on these systems check out
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/heatpumps/heatpumps.html
This is just one example of new systems that could help curb our dependency on the traditional systems and energy sources. Imagine what we could do if the government funded more research to develop even better ideas?
Is ANWR drilling alone to solve all our problems? No. Is it a step in the right direction? Yes. If we couple those kinds of steps with funding new energy technologies we will find the right balance of energy sources and eventually drop our need for oil significantly. It does need to start now, but needs to be more thought out than what some, dare I say it, republicans are aware of.
Just a few thoughts for you
Thanks for your comments!
You are absolutely correct - ANWR will not solve all of our oil problems. I hope I'm not suggesting that, because it is certainly not the case.
I don't know that I can deny the stats you offer, but the $.75/barrel difference seems suspiciously small for two reasons. First, if ANWR can produce 1 million barrels per day (which is a figure that I've seen in many, many places), and we use 20 million barrels per day, that should make for a much bigger piece of the pie than $.75. If you factor in the fact that only 12 million of those barrels per day are imported, we end up replacing almost a full 10% of our oil consumption. I'm skeptical that that would only amount to $.75/barrel in cost reductions.
And, you also have to take into account the speculation factor. Even the idea that the U.S. is serious about going for more oil will have a dramatic effect on the price of oil. Just look at what has happened in the past couple weeks - since Bush rescinded the Presidential ban on off-shore drilling, and since the GOP has actually exhibited some spine in developing more energy resources, the price has dropped by 20%. Now, just think what would happen if we took that next step!
I agree with your broader point, though - I believe we need to open up ANWR, but also drilling in North Dakota, oil shale development in the Rockies, off-shore drilling, natural gas exploration, clean coal, and much, much more nuclear power. Any one of these isn't likely to rescue us from the current crisis; all of them together will. We can also look more into alternate energy sources, but I would stipulate that government needs to stay out of it. We should open it up to the free market, and let those who develop viable sources of alternate energy find success based on that.
I heartily agree with you that we need a comprehensive package to deal with things, but I disagree with your suggestion that Republicans don't get it. In fact, the GOP is even now trying to get a vote on a House bill called "All of the Above" which does exactly what you and I think needs to be done! Pelosi refuses to bring it to a vote. For all their (many) faults, the Reps have finally found a clue on this issue, and thus deserve our support on it. They keep hammering on oil drilling because it's the kingpin of the issue, but judging from the bill itself, they understand it takes more than just drilling.
Thanks for all of your excellent information!
Post a Comment