Energy Poll

[AddisonStSox]

Just Curious.

[southsider2k5]

I voted yes, but it isn't my first choice. I read that if we had built all of the nuclear power plants that were being planned, but got cancelled after 3 Mile Island, that the US would have long since met the Kyoto numbers for coal pollution. Nuclear power I think is a much better option.

[Rex Kickass]

There's really very little point. The development and production will be incredibly expensive and from what I've read, the amount of oil down there isn't really enough to make a huge impact on oil prices or our foreign dependence on oil.

[AddisonStSox]

There's really very little point. The development and production will be incredibly expensive and from what I've read, the amount of oil down there isn't really enough to make a huge impact on oil prices or our foreign dependence on oil.

 

Not to spark (no pun intended) a serious debate here:

 

 

The amount of recoverable oil in ANWR, if drilled for, would make for a 45% increase in total U.S. proven reserves. The development in ANWR has also recieved not only a large majority support from both the Alaskan and Eskimo populations, but also promises to benefit both Federal and State treasures. Also, those worried about potential harm done to animals can rest assured knowning the development has no negative impact on animals. Since first developement in the 1970s, the caribou population has increased nearly 1000%.

 

-the developement could yield over 10.3 billion barrels of oil

 

-domestic production would increase by nearly 20%

 

-drilling in just the 1,000 acre proposed location (.01% of the total ANWR) would produce 1 million barrels of oil a day for more than 30 years

[FlaSoxxJim]

Can you please cite a source for those numbers, Addy. They look like complete bunk compared to the numbers even the USGS has been throwing up.

 

And there are a good many native peoples opposed to drilling as well, primarily those in the immediate vicinity of the impacted area. One tribe, the Gwich'in, consider the Coastal Plain so sacred to the that they will not exploit or even enter it even during a famine. Interestingly, because nearly all the Gwich'in are Episcopalian, the Episcopal Church's main office in DC has come out very strongly against ANWR drilling. This is a fact I love to throw in the face of an arch-conservative, pro-drilling, son-of-an-Episcopal-minister friend of mine, because he has no rebuttal.

 

Quite the Pyrrhic victory though I guess, since it looks like they're going to open it up anyway.

[KipWellsFan]

Also, those worried about potential harm done to animals can rest assured knowning the development has no negative impact on animals.

 

 

[AddisonStSox]

Can you please cite a source for those numbers, Addy.  They look like complete bunk compared to the numbers even the USGS has been throwing up.

 

And there are a good many native peoples opposed to drilling as well, primarily those in the immediate vicinity of the impacted area.  One tribe, the Gwich'in, consider the Coastal Plain so sacred to the that they will not exploit or even enter it even during a famine.  Interestingly, because nearly all the Gwich'in are Episcopalian, the Episcopal Church's main office in DC has come out very strongly against ANWR drilling.  This is a fact I love to throw in the face of an arch-conservative, pro-drilling, son-of-an-Episcopal-minister friend of mine, because he has no rebuttal.

 

Quite the Pyrrhic victory though I guess, since it looks like they're going to open it up anyway. 

 

Certainly.

 

http://www.anwr.org/

 

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/

[FlaSoxxJim]

Thanks

[FlaSoxxJim]

OK, while I plow through some of that, please answer this for me so I can get in my Bush Math mindset. So, ok, there are 1,000-2,000 acres being looked at as the sum total of drilling impacts, according to the pro-drilling side.

 

Question: How does all the drilling equipment get there? Roads perhaps? Hundreds of miles of roads perhaps?

 

Why are the roads not considered in the impact footprint, particularly when disruption of caribu migration patterns is one of the key impacts anti-drilling folks are concerned about?

 

Ice roads are often tossed out ther as the answer (although these still fragment habitat), but that's not going to completely mitigate the problem. Moreover, ice roads are getting harder to use and using them exclusively will cut transport of heavy machinery to only about a hundred days a year. In 1970 the ice roads would meet state rules for heavy equipment transport (tundra ground must be frozen to 12 inches deep andf covered by > 6 inches of snow) twice that many days, but since the Arctic winters are becoming shorter (any guesses why?) that time has been cut in half.

 

Going back to 2003, Representative Markey foresaw that the ice roads weren't going to cut it

 

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a vocal opponent of ANWR development, said that "for years, proponents of drilling in the Arctic refuge have unpersuasively argued that by doing all their development during the winter season on ice roads, the impact on the tundra would be negligible."

 

"Now they admit that they can't afford to drill unless they are allowed to trample the tundra in the non-winter season," he said. "The supreme irony is that the winter season is getting shorter because of a pronounced warming of the climate brought on, in part, by the burning of oil."

 

Anyway, that's just one example of where the minimal impact numbers are intentionally very misleading. Those other numbers you posted are also misleading, though I've not yet cross-checked them. The bottom line is that it is going to take 10 years to extract no more than 200 days worth of the current national daily oil requirement at a today-cost of at least $30 a barrel. If the numbers you posted jibe with those figures then they are in the ballpark. If so, that is an insanely small ROI that should never justify opening up the reserve.

 

And on its own, it probably never would. But rolling it into a big energy plan full of pork and corporate handjobs and it will be rammed through.

 

At stake here is a lot more than just opening up ANWR. It's a foot in the door to canging the way 300+ million acres of protected land in western states are managed, making it that much easier for the public good and the good of the land to be subjugated for the good of corporate profit.

[AddisonStSox]

 

Please provide some statistics that would prove otherwise.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Provide what, statistics on how a project not net carried out has done damage to the system?

 

In an impossibly perfect world with zero petroleum spills, you still have the habitat fragmentation, the road traffic, the noise pollution, and the anthropogenic impacts on the area. And unfortunately, there is no such "perfect" world, and small scale petroleum spills are a regular (unreported below a defined volume threshold) occurrence. The large, headline-grabbing spills like Valdez account for less than 15% of the annual totals.

 

Spills do occur, large and small. Unless the oil companies looking to make $billions in ANWR are willing to put clean-up money into an escrow account, opening up this federally protected area should not have even been considered. As a reference point for how much that amount should be, the initial 3-year cleanup effort after Valdez cost more than $2 billion.

 

As far as evidence of the damage spilled crude oil can do to biological systems, how much do you want?

 

Here's a quick sidebar piece I just finished authoring for a biotechnology website I'm developing at work:

 

Oil and Water: A Bad Mix

 

There are very many oil-contaminated harbors and coastal environments in the world today.  Massive, headline-grabbing spills like Exxon Valdez clearly demonstrate the need for rapid, effective, and environmentally safe cleanup strategies.

 

Oil spills can have a variety of effects on the natural marine systems in which they occur.  Oil can physically smother marine animals, plants, and sediments.  Sizable spills can also disrupt normal nutrient cycles as a result of the influx of hydrocarbons to the system.  This can potentially alter the diversity of energy pathways within the natural microbial community by selectively favoring those species capable of utilizing and breaking down hydrocarbons.

 

Oil spills also demonstrate toxicity to many types of marine life.  Toxic effects may be manifested as negative effects on respiration, metabolism and growth, reproduction, behavior, molting and other physiological processes.  Toxicity is chiefly attributable to the water-soluble component of the oil spill.  The soluble compounds are the ones most likely to come in contact with or be taken up by organisms in the vicinity of the spill.  Of concern, as natural breakdown processes convert complex hydrocarbons from crude (unrefined petroleum) into less complex forms these new products tend also to become water-soluble. The potential therefore remains for persistent spills to continue to impact local organisms even as natural breakdown progresses.

 

Many of the hundreds of different petrochemical (oil-derived) compounds known as total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) – like hexane, benzene, and naphthalene – also find their way into the environment.  These are often highly toxic, with effects in humans ranging from headaches, nausea and dizziness to organ damage and even carcinogenicity.

 

As far as the duration of spill impacts, spill emulsifications (so-called "mousse") that contaminate shorelines are very resistant to degradation. Mousse is resistant to biodegradation, the important final weathering stage, and in shallow marsh environments it can persist within sediments for years to decades.

[jackie hayes]

These are often highly toxic, with effects in humans ranging from headaches, nausea and dizziness to organ damage and even carcinogenicity.

Yeah, fine, but at least they're low-carb, right?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yeah, fine, but at least they're low-carb, right?

You're quite the cup-is-half-full kind of guy Jackie...

[jackie hayes]

You're quite the cup-is-half-full kind of guy Jackie...

Half full of carcinogens, that is! Mmmm....

 

(The sad thing is that's only half kidding, considering how I've been eating most of my life.)

[AddisonStSox]

Provide what, statistics on how a project not net carried out has done damage to the system?

 

There has been on-site work since the early 70's.

 

EDIT: The caribou statistic was researched in the North Slope oil fields, 80 miles west of ANWR.

Edited April 28, 2005 by AddisonStSox

[FlaSoxxJim]

There has been on-site work since the early 70's.

And this work has guaranteed that crude oil will not be spilled to the environment at any point during extraction and transport, or that none of the combustion byproducts will enter the biogeochemical cycles of northern Alaska??

 

Wow, that is some piece of work.

[AddisonStSox]

And this work has guaranteed that crude oil will not be spilled to the environment at any point during extraction and transport, or that none of the combustion byproducts will enter the biogeochemical cycles of northern Alaska??

 

Wow, that is some piece of work.

 

When debating anything of an academic nature, do you always carry youself with such a self-rightous, pompous attitude? I have been nothing but professional and you've struck quite the tone.

Edited April 28, 2005 by AddisonStSox

[jackie hayes]

I don't think that's fair, Addy. First of all, Jim's got good questions, and second, this is a topic he has some expertise on.

 

That said, if there's no better way of saying "biogeochemical cycle", then I wish one would be invented.

[AddisonStSox]

I don't think that's fair, Addy.  First of all, Jim's got good questions, and second, this is a topic he has some expertise on.

 

That said, if there's no better way of saying "biogeochemical cycle", then I wish one would be invented.

 

He's a big boy. He can answer for himself.

[jackie hayes]

He's a big boy.  He can answer for himself.

No doubt. So this was just an attempt to start a firefight. Great.

[AddisonStSox]

No doubt.  So this was just an attempt to start a firefight.  Great.

 

Spare me.

 

No attempt, just asked him a question.

 

I have much to learn on the subject and acted accordingly.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I apologize if I'm coming off that way. I truly do.

 

But the issue is close to my heart. The heart and spirit of the national preserved lands system is about to be gutted not by a fair debate, but by slipping the drilling provision into a special interest-friendly energy bill that basically has to be passed despite its grevious shortcomings.

 

101 years of congressional promises to actually protect and preserve the lands it told the people of the United States it would protect is once again in jeopardy. The "tragedy of the commons" has to be repeated yet again to line the pockets of big oil and further enable their resistance to actually looking toward viable alternative energy strategies.

 

Here's another look at the math from a different angle. The US consumes around 20 million barrels of oil a day (about a quarter of the world production). Now, let's be really optimistic and concede that there could be 10 billion recoverable barrels in ANWR (the pie in the sky number that has become gospel for the pro-drilling side). That's still just 500 days of US oil needs. That's less then 2 years, for an impact that can never be erased.

 

As for the caribou numbers... pointing to a "1000% increase in numbers in the last 30 years only indicates the populations are very likely cyclical. The numbers in no way suggest that human presence is responsible for the increase, but the people that point to these numbers as an indication that animal populations are safe sure want you to believe it.

 

Here's a bit on that from an Audobon column a while back:

 

The central-Arctic herd at Prudhoe Bay has grown fivefold since that area was developed for oil, much to the delight of the oil industry. But biologists such as Mauer say the boom is misleading: Caribou numbers were low when development began, perhaps because of years of severe weather. A closer study of that herd by state biologists during the 1980s and 1990s showed that the concentration of calving shifted away from industrial sites to alternative calving grounds with less forage.

[kapkomet]

On issues like these, I for one am REALLY glad you're around here, Flaxx. It's great to see someone who knows what they are really talking about and is not spewing political BS (at least on this issue... )

[KipWellsFan]

Please provide some statistics that would prove otherwise.

 

When I walk to the bus stop there are effects on animal life.

 

We, as members of the world should take steps to reduce the proverbial footstep we leave on the earth.

 

There will be effects on wildlife, everything is interconnected.

[FlaSoxxJim]

...and is not spewing political BS (at least on this issue... )

Why I oughta...