Drilling in Alaska

Protect the environment.

And are there any drilling technologies that can be applied without completely destroying the environment? Oil is a necessary resource, so it is a pity that it cannot be got from any place possible.

Well, that's the question, steissd. Will it completely destroy the environment? I would just love to say I have access to enough unbiased information to come up with an answer. I've heard from people in favor of drilling that the areas under consideration are only a very small portion of the wilderness, and environmental damage would be negligable. This position is obviously biased, but not necesarily incorrect.

My corner of New Mexico contains more oil and gas wells than the entire middle east oil fields (just not as productive) and we have suffered little environmental damage, partly because of existing regulations, and partly because a completed and productive well just sits there and doesn't bother anybody until it needs to be either serviced or abandonded.

This may not be the case in Alaska, as I believe climate and landforms make the area more vulnerable. I also believe damage can be held to acceptable limits. It is a certainty that the area involved is going to contain a heck of a lot of service roads and pipelines that are not there now, and they are going to be unacceptable to someone.

It is almost a given, though, that if the region is not produced now, it will when the need becomes great enough.

I am afraid that the oil drilling in Alaska is unacceptable only to extreme environmentalists and protecters of the Eskimos' authentic life. General population would prefer drilling whle the strict anti-pollution regulations are to be imposed on those that drill.

"General population would prefer drilling whle the strict anti-pollution regulations are to be imposed on those that drill.

the general population, at this point in time, seems to disfavor this option. as far as your statement "unacceptable only to extreme environmentalists and protecters of the Eskimos' authentic life" so far from true it reeks of diatribe usable only by ignorance of current responsible thought. as Roger aptly stated, all the information is not in.

In such a case, an unbiased scientific research is to be performed. It must answer the two following questions:
1. Is it possible to drill without causing severe irreversible damage to the environment?
2. If it is possible, which measures are to be taken to minimize the possible damage while keeping production expenses on reasonable level?
And opinion of the general population may change drastically if the gasoline prices exceed certain level...

"causing severe irreversible damage to the environment?"
please provide operational definition.

IMHO, this is the damage that makes biologic life in the affected areas impossible or strongly problematic, and such a situation cannot be reversed. Example: area located in close vicinity of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant after the explosion of the latter.

the proposed drilling is on the last 5% of Alaskan northern coast and has been set aside as a wildlife preservation area,The United States Geological Survey scientists estimate that there is very likely only enough oil under the Arctic Refuge to supply America's needs for six months! And the oil companies themselves admit that the oil would not be available for at least ten years. The oil under the Arctic Refuge (if there is any) will not lower gasoline, home heating oil, or electricity prices for consumers or reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil.

Well, if the oil resources of Alaska are so insufficient, then I agree with you. But if this is the situation, then why do the oil companies crave to start drilling, and apply pressure on the administration? If there is so few oil, they will not get a return on their investment.

For starters, we should analyze the probable effects on the environment as stated in the proposal. The reason we see few detrimental effects in New Mexico is that, with some notable exceptions, there is rarely environmental damage from drilling operations. In fact, wildlife often prefer the habitat created by humans, especially during the winter months. Also, ANWAR is essentially a solid sheet of ice nine months of the year, and the proposed drilling operation, while sizeable, comprises an extremely small part of this vast refuge. To give you an idea, if we were to assume that ANWAR was reduced to the size of a football field, the drilling area would then shrink to a square forty inches on each side. Our experiences in Idaho with wilderness designation and endangered species issues indicate to us that, in most cases, the truth about environmental controversies is badly skewed by the Sierra Club and its radical allies. It appears to us that the environment is always harmed by urban growth far more than by development of natural resources. After we drill, mine, graze, or harvest, we can almost always restore the land to it previous state, or often even better. This is not true once you build houses on it.

While i may be charged with being prejudiced, and prejudiced i certainly am. I am prejediced against tyranny over both humanity and nature. I am prejudiced against sacred cows, the favorite pets of tyrants. I am prejudiced in favor of democracy and nature. I am prejudiced in favor of an equitable and settled domestic life. I am prejudiced in favor of wild creatures and their wild habitats. I am prejudiced in favor of charitable relations between humanity and nature. I am prejudiced on behave of the personal proprietorship of land, of proper property. I am prejudiced in the cause of private landowners, small farmers and small ranchers. But my prejudice is balanced by another kind i call public property, not "government land", but as wild land, wild property, that belongs fo everybody, inculding the wild creatures native to it. I understand the likelihood of one kind of property is not safe without the other. You cannot lose you land and remain free, if you keep your land, you cannot be enslaved. My great fear is the fear of dispossession. There is no longer any honest way to deny that a way of living that our leaders continue to praise is destroying all that our country is and all the best that it means. If i am to keep the sanctity of my property then i am indebted to keep the sanctity of "public" property for when i allow public property to be ursurped for the "common good" i likewise allow the ursupation of my personal property. If we as a nation to not keep the faith of protector of what is wild in nature we will lose the faith in what is our own personal freedom.

Steissd

I love your criterion for environmental consequence of noteworthiness...Chernobyl. Nothing like educated, nuanced thought to get to the nub of a discussion.

There is absolutely something that speaks directly to the human soul when one is standing in an unspoiled bit of wild territory. Just knowing it's there is comforting to many many people. Oil drilling may be harmless, but it may also cause problems. Is it worth the risk for a paltry (if dys is right) amount of oil?

US Fish & Wildlife: Arctic National Refuge

It sounds to me that the USFW thinks there'd be significant damage to wildlife were we to do more drilling up there. There are a grid of track lines through the tundra where survey trains road to do seismic readings. The marks have not gone away in 15 years. That is only of aesthetic significance, but think of the implications. That ecosystem is very fragile. One of the most fragile there is. Think of the Valdez oil spill. Think of the miles and miles of pipelines already spoiling the view. Think of the birds in your back yard that may migrate up there for breeding - imagine they stop coming around to the old bird feeder in your back yard. Look at the pictures in that link - how do they make you feel? What if we lose that forever?

Ladies and gentlemen, opposing Alaska drilling for oil! I wonder, whether you drive cars and use electricity in your household? Do you know that gasoline is made of oil, and majority of electric energy is being produced by means of burning the fossil fuel? (Alternatives, like hydrogen usage, do not eliminate need for oil: you have to invest some energy to disintegrate water into hydrogen and oxygen, and this energy meanwhile can be obtained mainly from oil and/or natural gas). If you do, how do you imagine normal supply of energy in case if your point of view prevails in the world, and all the new drilling is prohibited in order to protect wilderness? Or, maybe, you consider that all the allegedly ecologically dubious projects are to be performed exclusively in the Third World?
I guess, people have to find a reasonable compromise: to permit the oil companies to drill for oil in the places where the latter substance is available in sufficient quantities, but to oblige them to minimize negative effect of their activities on the environment.
Prospect of returning to the Stone Age in favor of protection of wilderness does not seem to me (and, I guess, to many other people both in the USA and abroad) a fair alternative to the above compromise solution.

Returning to the Stone Age if we don't drill in Alaska? A bit over the top.

Not only in Alaska. I mean general opposition of the environmentalists to oil drilling and other human economic activities. Alaska is just an example.

I drive a very fuel efficient car. I have voted, for as long as I have been able to, for alternative energy. I've protested, I've written letters to my government..... don't drill on my account.