THE Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Thread (merged)

[backstop]

If the "wealthiest" and most"powerful" state on the planet cannot afford to maintain the little gesture parcels of nature that it has at least notionally isolated from harm,
then it's surely about time that those who recognize the ecological imperative shift their focus of effort from the ISOLATION of fragments of nature to society's INTEGRATION within nature.

Environmentalism has for three decades failed even to constrain the damage - it plainly shows no serious prospect of any better performance in future. That it focusses public attention on arguing over the ANWR, rather than raising billions for sustainable forest energy, seems a fair evidence of how it is now a part of the problem, not the solution.

[alpha480v]

Gas prices are going down,oil is going down,there is no problem with oil depletion anymore.Right?

[bobcousins]

Clearly, Douglas Adams had it right. We should adopt the leaf as currency. At a stroke, all our problems with unstable fiat currencies and the destruction of the environment are solved.

[BabyPeanut]

If the leaf was currency I'd be raking in the dough now: photo

[RonMN]

Wait 'till people get there very first taste of NO HEAT in the winter...there will be more drilling in ANWAR than in ted kennedys vacation home!

[savethehumans]

Beautiful pix of autumn leaves, Baby Peanut!
The drill-happy politicos are foiled again![smilie=icon_cheers.gif]
Yes, I know it's just temporary. But better a temporary victory than a permanent defeat, right?

[Starvid]

Drilling in ANWR will probably be needed later, but doing it before serious conservation and efficency reforms have been implemented is just perverse.
As someone said, drilling in ANWR is the same as cutting down the last tree on Easter Island. The allegory is not perfect (oil is not renewable, we have other sources of energy) but it is still rather striking.

[Tanada]

Drilling in ANWR will probably be needed later, but doing it before serious conservation and efficency reforms have been implemented is just perverse.
As someone said, drilling in ANWR is the same as cutting down the last tree on Easter Island. The allegory is not perfect (oil is not renewable, we have other sources of energy) but it is still rather striking.

Have no fear, the two senators from AK will put ANWR back in the legislation in the conference commitee, or if not it will be in supplementla legislation during this congress.
The delay between leasing and production will be sufficient for the conservation reforms you are looking for to take place, ANWR will be a trickle fed into the flood of demand. It will add a little to the USA energy balance, but anyone who can do simple aruthmatic knows it can never replace imports at the level we have now.

[Aaron]

Link

[DoctorDoom]

Nice piece. It hits one of my pet peeves, though, in presenting increased efficiency versus more oil exploration as an either-or choice. A similar argument is often made against expanding nuclear power. The problem is, while conservation is definitely worthwhile, it won't reduce demand to zero, and the energy we need after conservation measures are adopted will still have to come from somewhere. The magnitude of the problem is big enough that we need to do both: we need to improve efficiency and we need to develop alternatives.

Another quibble is that they claim 500,000 barrels / day from ANWR won't make a difference in prices. Yet we've seen that because of the inelasticity of both supply and demand that small imbalances have led to sharp price rises over the past year. An extra 500,000 barrels / day could easily tip the price of crude the other way - for a while. (IMO that's not a reason to drill ANWR, the goal of energy policy shouldn't be to keep prices low per se, but to assure that needs continue to be met.)

We will someday drill in ANWR - we'll have no choice. Given a choice between "mad max" deprivation and drilling ANWR, we'll drill ANWR. And drilling for oil in less than 1% of the ANWR won't IMO be the catastrophe people are making it out to be.

[MonteQuest]

Another quibble is that they claim 500,000 barrels / day from ANWR won't make a difference in prices. Yet we've seen that because of the inelasticity of both supply and demand that small imbalances have led to sharp price rises over the past year. An extra 500,000 barrels / day could easily tip the price of crude the other way - for a while. (IMO that's not a reason to drill ANWR, the goal of energy policy shouldn't be to keep prices low per se, but to assure that needs continue to be met.)

ANWR in 2025 will produce 900,000 bpd. By then it won't even offset decline much less increase supply to meet needs. Prudhoe didn't offset decline but for a heartbeat, then it continued downward unabaded.
43 minutes of oil/day in 2019 for the USA.

[Ludi]

Folks will only drill in ANWR if it makes economic sense to do so. If energy is too expensive to set up the infrastructure in order to extract the oil there, it won't be extracted.
I'm very very surprised it was decided to preserve the area for the time being.

[mekrob]

Lol, I gotta say though that film was so awesome, mainly because of the '50's film clips and pictures of Rummy and Saddaam from the 70's.

[pup55]

Isn't that Reagan doing the narration in the clip at :48?

Anyhoo, I remain unconvinced of the arguments both for and against drilling ANWR:
a. The oil is only a drop in the bucket.
b. The extra oil will accomplish practically zero to get us out of imports.
c. The investment to get the drop out of the bucket is going to be really marginally worth it economically.
d. The net job creation of the ANWR project will just about be offset by population growth and/or exported jobs to elsewhere.
e. The worst case scenario, namely the Exxon Valdez, has already happened and nature was able to recover, mainly.
f. There is not squat up there but reindeer and tundra.
g. The argument over ANWR is just a distraction from the real issue, which is the fundamental unsustainable lifestyle of US energy consumption coupled with the unsustainably high growth rate of global population.
h. Any extra fuel that we conserve/extract will be sucked up by the Chinese on the global market anyway.
i. Global warming is a far bigger danger to the region than the oilers drilling holes and being sloppy.

I still say, let them drill it, get it over with, and make them cover up the hole in the ground when they are done and give it back to the reindeer.
The argument is wasting valuable time and emotion better used for the real issue.

[mekrob]

Drilling was postponed once again, thankfully.
Link

[mekrob]

I used to be furiously against ANWR because it really wouldn't help out much, and I just wasn't that sure about the environmental damage that might happen and more importanly the precedent it would set for other refuges and the coastlines. I always thought that it was best to save this fairly massive amount of oil in case of an emergency or for the future shortage.
But given enough time to think (10 hours to Pittsburgh), I realized that whether Peak Oil hits in the next few years or not, demand will probably start to outstrip supply and future supply disruptions are very likely, meaning that prices will surely reach over $100. Rather than risking the loss of the public, the Congress and President would most likely in this scenario push through drilling and make it very easy to drill whereever the oil companies desire. Consumer rage would increase and demand vast amounts of cheap oil. This would force the oil companies to risk oil spills and environmental damage to the coast or refuge. It just seems much more likely that in the future when this oil is needed much much more, then people won't care if the environment is damaged as long as they get their oil. So drilling now would ensure for at least a short time that much damage would not occur.
Sorry, just some ramblings of mine.

[MonteQuest]

I used to be furiously against ANWR because it really wouldn't help out much, and I just wasn't that sure about the environmental damage that might happen and more importanly the precedent it would set for other refuges and the coastlines. I always thought that it was best to save this fairly massive amount of oil in case of an emergency or for the future shortage.
But given enough time to think (10 hours to Pittsburgh), I realized that whether Peak Oil hits in the next few years or not, demand will probably start to outstrip supply and future supply disruptions are very likely, meaning that prices will surely reach over $100. Rather than risking the loss of the public, the Congress and President would most likely in this scenario push through drilling and make it very easy to drill whereever the oil companies desire. Consumer rage would increase and demand vast amounts of cheap oil. This would force the oil companies to risk oil spills and environmental damage to the coast or refuge. It just seems much more likely that in the future when this oil is needed much much more, then people won't care if the environment is damaged as long as they get their oil. So drilling now would ensure for at least a short time that much damage would not occur.
Sorry, just some ramblings of mine.

Even if they scrap all environmental laws in toto, they can only deliver 1 mbpd via the Alaskan pipeline. Wouldn't change a thing.

[mekrob]

Exactly, that's why I was against it. But even thought the market is tight right now, it's not to the point of urgency, so they aren't pressed to violate laws. It would bring no extra profits to them. But if they wait until later, then they will be pressed to get it out as fast as possible, only maximizing the chance of a catastophe. From the environmental point of view, those desiring to actually save the environment should allow the drilling since it has a better chance at doing less harm, unless of course you believe we will find a magicle massive pool of hydrogen soon and find the money to convert our economy to one based on hydrogen.

[KingM]

In general, I am in favor of preserving the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but I recognize that it will not remain protected forever. There are too many economic pressures insisting on its development. The arrival of peak oil, whether it comes in the near term or 20-30 years in the future, will make the billions of barrels of oil in ANWR an irresistible prize. Knowing that these resources will be developed sooner or later, it is wise to put a plan in place that will cause the least amount of damage possible to this wilderness area.

For conservationists like myself, it is tempting to view everything through an aesthetic lens. An unspoiled landscape is beautiful to the human eye. Ironically, this may be because it awakens something in our evolutionary past that sees an unspoiled landscape as fresh territory, where one's family or tribe can settle and enjoy the rich, untouched resources.

Read the rest.

[Heineken]

ANWR is already doomed---global warming will wreak special havoc there. So, indeed, why not kick it in the teeth while we still have the chance.