Oil Drilling Stripped From Defense Spending Bill

On December 21, 2005, mike in alaska wrote:

how can this be considered a victory? the small portion of ANWR that will be affected by exploration and drilling will have NO EFFECT on wildlife. wildlife populations have grown on the north slope since it was developed for oil. most the activists belonging to groups such as this one live in cities larger than the amount of land we are talking about. 3.3 square miles, smaller than the smallest of towns. i live in a village of 300 people that is larger than the area that would be used. this whole anti ANWR movement is just another example of people who have no knowledge of the facts telling others they are wrong. tell me we need to leave that oil in the ground only if you walked to work on dirt roads to an office lighted by candle, the electricity to run your computer coming from a generator running on something other than fossil fuel.
If your lifestyle is AT ALL dependant on fossil fuels your condemnation holds no ground.

On December 22, 2005, Jewel from Ohio wrote:

It is a small victory that shows the power of voting,but we still have a long way to go. Even though there were people who voted to protect the area who use fossil fuels, still have to heart and willingness to do what’s right so that other states can be beautiful and thriving.

On December 22, 2005, jimmy,in the bush wrote:

the area you speak of protecting is less than 2000 acres of the 19 million acre ANWR. if ANWR were a state it would be larger then the smallest 10 states, about the same size of the smallest 6 states combined. all that is being considered for exploration is 1.5 million acres and all that will be developed is less than 2000 acres. if we cannot develop an area the size of a small farm in an area larger than west virginia then we need to go back to burning candles and walking on dirt roads as Mike stated above. if we are to continue using fossil fuels at all some development must take place. the area we are talking about is not the beautiful wooded hill country you see in the anti-human, i mean anti-oil, commercials. it is barren, flat and expansive. the animals displaced by development have literally millions of acres to relocate, although most simple move to the edge of the development. i think its time to end the emotion based arguments and get the facts. i cannot understand how any one that knows the facts and still depends on fossil fuels to any degree could logically oppose drilling in ANWR.

On December 22, 2005, PO wrote:

Give an inch take a yard. We all know that once they get their foot in the door it will spread like wildfire. WAKE UP! It’s good it did not go through. All of this intrusion has to stop somewhere, since it’s getting WAY OUT OF CONTROL.

On December 22, 2005, jimmy, in the bush wrote:

PO

i doubt you realize the vastness of this state. a realistic comparison to the development in ANWR to the state of Alaska is like a half acre playgound to the state of Wyoming.

as to they (we) getting their (our) foot in the door, we have. in prudhoe bay, alpine, bedami and others. most people have been painted a dirty picture of the north slope oilfields. in fact they are cleaner than any city. it is illegal there to spill drinking water on the ground. nothing gets polluted without being cleaned up. companies like BP and Schlumberger have set environmental standards higher than those of the government to ensure low impact. we have proved we can safely get the oil out with a minimal effect on the environment and wildlife.

it is perplexing to me that you would think the development of our oil fields is out of control. as Alaskans we have done a great job keeping things in perspective. in a state over twice the size of Texas we have less infrastructure than the city of Seattle. we have proved to be capable stewards of our state and need no help in doing so.

this topic is far to important to think with emotions rather than fact, so please inform yourself.

On December 25, 2005, Kati George wrote:

YES!! That’s it exactly, PO. I agree whole heartedly! KG

On December 26, 2005, jimmy,in the bush wrote:

It cannot, as you say, spread like wildfire. all that is can be opened is the 1.5 million acres on the coast. it was left in limbo so it could be used at a later date if so desired. development of the rest of ANWR is not open to debate.

On December 27, 2005, mike in Alaska wrote:

Jimmy in the bush is right, the area of land that we are talking about is less than 1/10 of 1 percent of ANWR now just think how little land compared to all of AK that is. The amount of land that would be disturbed is minuscule compared to the benefits that everyone would receive.

Also, let us not forget that this is not the last time that this bill will be brought to congress for approval. Congress changes and people change their minds. This bill will be passed at some point, whether in its current form or in another form. Jewel said this was a victory that showed the power of voting. First of all the only reason this bill didn’t pass was because of a few groups like FoA, not the majority of people in the US. I know more people, not just in AK, that wanted ANWR to open up than not. People want the natural resources that are in that region. Until we find (and fund) a viable alternative energy source then we have no choice but to use whatever fossil fuels we can.

This was not a victory that showed the power of voting it was a few lobbying groups that represent a few people forcing their will and beliefs on everyone else, making everyone else suffer their consequences, like high oil and energy prices. So, since groups like FoA stopped us opening up ANWR how about they pay for the rest of our increased gas and heating bills.

[Blog editors’ note: Mike is correct to observe that legislation is repealable. That’s why animal rights (not laws - rights) would change everything and would animate environmental law in a way that’s never been seen before.]

On January 5, 2006, s rively wrote:

Thank God they won’t be drilling-at least for a while!! There is nothing sacred any longer, we seem to be out to destroy only (humans) thank you FoA for keeping us updated, we are glad you are here!

On January 16, 2006, Debi wrote:

Once again those who don’t live in Alaska or for that matter have probably never even been in Alaska KNOW what’s best for Alaskan’s. If you all only knew what a small percentage would even be involved. Hopefully you’ve read Mike and Jimmy’s comments and you may know a little more. I’m sure you all have hybrid vehicles, ride a bike EVERYWHERE or walk? I doubt it. Let’s just keep getting our oil from the middle east and endure the consequences of that. GOD put the oil in our GREAT state for a reason, but I’m sure you probably have something to say about GOD as well. As an Alaskan for over 15 years I know how much we care and take care of our state. So you all just keep going to the gas pump, filling your tanks and complaining about the cost, just keep it to yourself because this Alaskan doesn’t want to hear it! You at this group have such a dislike for Alaskans and you want others to boycott, well I say HIP HIP HOORAY!! First of all we won’t miss ya, second it’s your loss as this truly is the most beautiful place on earth. So for your next vacation go to Iraq and send some of our boys home!

And yes I know I’ll get some ‘editors’ note’ but it really is hard to have a battle of the wits with an unarmed opponent.

[Blog editors’ note: It sure is.]

On January 16, 2006, Whitewolf wrote:

I cant belive you guys.All of you exept for s rively and PO and everyone against this, is selfish you have to reallize this is serious. If this goes though then the wildlife and land will die and it would be humans’ fault and that is really stupid because I cant live with out the beauty of nature and animals.

On January 17, 2006, Debi wrote:

I know that you meant your little editors’ notes as an insult, but believe me I didn’t take it as one. You have nothing better to do than add your little side comments actually I added that just to see if you would, so thanks for not disappointing me! Just for the record I am a VERY armed opponent as I have my MBA from USC and I’m currently working on my PhD. I wish you all the best and thank you for NOT coming to Alaska. Now go fill up your tank with gas!

[Blog editors’ note: Is that an accredited university?]

On January 20, 2006, jimmy, in the bush wrote:

Whitewolf,
please do your homework. i realize the seriousness of this topic, it is far too serious to let our opinions be formed by merely jumping on the environmental band wagon. get the facts and base your opinions on them. the facts will include data that proves wildlife can and does prosper amongst oil development in the arctic. i have personally witnessed tens of thousands of caribou migrating within view of deadhorse. i have seen grizzly and polar bear in deadhorse. the oil fields have become a sanctuary for migratory water fowl as predators are a bit shy about being around people. if the land is disturbed it is reclaimed back to a state as close to natural as possible. as you call us selfish and stupid please explain how anyone, yes i mean you, can use fossil fuels and be against the developing of these fields in an environmentally sound fashion. next time you go to walmart look at the parking lot. its bigger than an oil well pad. urban sprawl has a far bigger effect on habitat and thus wildlife than does arctic oil development, yet the majority of those voicing opinion about such matters either live in the urban areas or support them by shopping there.

this topic is serious. it is 45 degrees below zero at my home today and heating oil cost almost $3 a gallon. i think we should get what we can domestically, rather than support the middle east. or should we talk about their environmental policies? how much do you think a culture that doent even respect womens rights feels about animal rights? sorry, i digress. lets stick to the facts.

jimmy allen

On January 21, 2006, jimmy, in the bush wrote:

if you would like to see the migration it happens the first part of july every year. the hunters who gather there that time of year count on it. you may be lucky enough to view a small herd of musk ox at the same time, we were last year.


a polar bear in deadhorse in august is a real rarity. usually the ice pack, which is where they live, is too far out for them to swim to the mainland that time of year. it was more likely a grizzly bear and they do cause problems sometimes by entering buildings or vehicles.

i am sorry you did not encounter more wildlife on your visit. it is a huge place and there are not always animals within site. you could have been dropped off in the middle of ANWR for a week and not seen many either. it doesnt mean they are not there. now that the boycott is over perhaps you should visit again. let me know, i would be happy to guide you to any species you wish to see.

would you agree with me that in todays world fossil fuel use is necessary? of course you would, we all use it. even you. perhaps in a perfect world we would be using the sun and wind more, but the fact is today we need fossil fuels. if we are going to use them we need to get them somewhere.

On January 21, 2006, Debi wrote:

It seems you want to make those who do not agree with all of what you say to seem like idiots. Well I have written twice since your sarcastic remark about my education being from as you put it an ‘accredited’ university and since my MBA is from one of the top universities in the country you have chosen NOT to include any of my last comments. Is that to make yourself ‘appear’ more intelligent? As I’ve stated in my past comments my degree is from University of Southern California and yes it is highly accredited. I do not disagree with all you stand for, just would like you to do your homework before judging Alaska and Alaskans’. Just for the record we do not get HUGE profits these ventures, at the moment the only person who seems to be getting HUGE profits is our Governor (and I respect him as our Governor, as I was taught by great parents to respect my elders and those in authority. However, I’m not a HUGE fan, and thank God I live in the great USA where I can say that freely as it’s my right), we just have something that not only America needs, but the world. I would love to see a world in which war, pollution, global warming and the killing of not only innocent animals, but innocent human beings does not exist. However, at the moment it’s not the case and is something we need to work on. In the meantime perhaps at least trying to get along would be a start. Perhaps you’re not a fan of USC, (that’s Univ. of Southern CA) but as far as accredited, well for the record, IT IS! I live in Anchorage, so if you do make it here please be nice as my city is my home and is beautiful.

On January 22, 2006, jimmy.in the bush wrote:

Priscilla,

it seems we may have a bit of common ground. i lived in barrow for a while and it does profit from oil money. it is the headquarters of the north slope borough which profits from the oil taken from the land they govern. some of what they have done with that money is questionable.

i have seen polar bear in barrow as well as prudhoe. were you able to view any on your visit there? they really is quite spectacular, as are wolves and all wild animals, i have never stated otherwise.

i also agree with you point about bears being drawn to human developments for food. its a huge problem in anchorage as well.

i doubt we will ever agree about ANWR. i believe the impact from the development will be miniscule and worth the rewards. i have not asked anyone to agree with me but just to find out the facts before they form an opinion. you, of course, have and i respect that you have formed an opinion based on fact rather than emotion. it is all i have asked.

i disagree with debi as i have posted several opposing views and have not been made to feel like an idiot. (ok, the dreaming about the caribou was close. im a big boy and can take it.)

jimmy allen

On February 15, 2006, jimmy allen wrote:

Lee:
sorry i took so long to respond , thanks for the link. very interesting concept, not gonna fly up here, but interesting nonetheless.

of course global warming is a problem and oil production adds to it. but until we start relying on alternate energy we need to get the oil from somewhere. my opinion is that if we need to have an oil field, what better place than the north slope.

Pricilla stated that prudhoe was ‘(a hideous industrial complex)’ and ‘the worst example of what happens to wilderness after the oil companies intrude’. i suppose i would agree that it is a bit out of place but is it really worse than any other oil field? absolutely not. in fact it is more environmentally sound than others because of where it is.

we will need the oil, its got to come from somewhere.

i believe the perception that anwr will be another ‘gold rush’ or ‘pipeline’ is false. of course alaska will benefit but not nearly to the extent that most believe it will. comparatively it is not a big field.