Senate Votes to Allow Arctic Drilling

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

You are a very smart man, but i'm not sure if you have studied environmental issues as well as you should. And for the cost of doing this, we could make HUGE strides in alternative fuel. I just don't really think you know all the ramifications here. But, I don't want to attack you, or argue with you. so, I apologize. I'll just go find bunches of evidence.

I agree, but who really uses those. Who here has an alternate fuel car - they are pretty much available throughout the US now? Who here thinks "I will not use my comp. tonight so I can do my part to conserve" - if all computer users did that one night out of a year that would be huge. Yet, no one does it. Thus, I say drill drill drill and get it over with because the reality is it will never end before then. Also, for every study that says what your purport, there is another that is contrary

[dissention]

The amount of oil that the U.S. Geological Survey estimates could be recovered from the Arctic Refuge would amount to less than a six-month supply for American consumers. Even less natural gas occurs under the Refuge relative to U.S. demand.

At no time would oil from the refuge be expected to amount to more than 2 percent of U.S. demand. It will take 7 to 10 years for any oil to make it to market. 95% of the Alaska's North Slope is already available for oil and gas exploration and development.

Even if the highest predictions of oil in the refuge were to come true, oil from beneath the refuge would provide no more than a blip on the global oil market and would therefore have a negligible impact on the price of oil. Nor would drilling for oil in the refuge address our country's long-term energy problem.

http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories.../reu_46823.asp
U.S. government study says Alaska drilling is harmful
Tuesday, April 02, 2002

Opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling could harm caribou, snow geese, and other wildlife, a new U.S. government study said Friday, despite the Bush administration's assurances that oil exploration would have little impact.

The report, written by the Interior Department's U.S. Geological Survey, was published 10 days before the U.S. Senate is due to launch a contentious debate on whether to allow drilling in the pristine refuge on Alaska's northern coast.

According to the government report, drilling in the refuge could especially hurt the Porcupine River caribou herd, which travels some 400 miles from Canada's Yukon Territory to the Alaskan coastal plain for calving in May and June. The herd, which has dwindled to an estimated 123,000 animals, uses the entire coastal plain area which the Bush administration wants to open to drilling.

Pregnant caribou avoid roads and pipelines and calves have ''repeatedly shown to be sensitive to disturbance," it said. "Oil development will most likely result in restricting the location of concentrated calving areas, calving sites, and annual calving grounds," the report said. "Expected effects that could be observed include reduced survival of calves during June, reduced weight and condition of (pregnant) females, and reduced weight of calves in late June."

While Bush and many Republicans have repeatedly endorsed drilling, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said recently that it would take about two decades before any crude oil pumped from the refuge could reduce U.S. oil imports.

Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the new report showed why drilling is a bad idea. "The administration should take to heart the conclusive scientific findings of the U.S. Geological Survey and finally put aside plans to drill in the pristine wilderness of the Arctic," Kerry said in a statement.

[amber]

http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/...uge/facts2.asp
"Toxic spills and air pollution from permanent, year-round operations are destroying Alaska's fragile North Slope.
Once part of the largest intact wilderness area in the United States, Alaska's North Slope now hosts one of the world's largest industrial complexes, spanning some 1,000 square miles of once-pristine Arctic tundra. Prudhoe Bay and 26 other oilfields include the following:

28 oil production plants, gas processing facilities, and seawater treatment and power plants
38 gravel mines
223 production and exploratory gravel drill pads
500 miles of roads
1,800 miles of pipelines
4,800 exploration and production wells
All of this activity is taking place in an exceptionally fragile region. Because of the very short summer growing season, extreme cold at other times of the year, and nutrient-poor soils and permafrost, vegetation grows very slowly in the North Slope. Any physical disturbance -- bulldozer tracks, seismic oil exploration, spills of oil and other toxic substances -- can scar the land for decades. The National Academy of Sciences concluded it is unlikely that the most disturbed habitat will ever be restored and the damage to more than 9,000 acres by oilfield roads and gravel pads is likely to remain for centuries.

A close look at how four decades of this sprawling oil development has destroyed Prudhoe Bay dispels the myth that drilling can take place in the nearby Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain without permanently damaging the landscape and the wildlife that depends on it.




A toxic spill every day
Each year, the oil industry spills tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other hazardous materials on the North Slope. In fact, every day there is on average at least one spill either in the oil fields or at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. From 1996 to 2004, there were some 4,530 spills of more than 1.9 million gallons of diesel fuel, oil, acid, biocide, ethylene glycol, drilling fluid and other materials. In the Arctic, the environmental damage from oil spills is more severe and lasts longer than in more temperate climates. Diesel fuel, for instance -- the most frequently spilled substance on the North Slope -- is acutely toxic to plants. Even after decades have passed, tundra vegetation has been unable to recover from diesel spills.




Oil operations pollute the air with tons of emissions

Each year, oil operations on Alaska's North Slope emit more than 70,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog and acid rain. (That's three times more than Washington, D.C.'s annual NOx emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.) Plumes of pollution from Prudhoe Bay have been detected in Barrow, Alaska, nearly 200 miles away. And pollutants from drilling operations, natural gas facilities and incinerators also have been detected in snow in the Prudhoe Bay area.
Although the overall impact of these air pollutants on Arctic ecosystems remains largely unknown, some Arctic species are known to be especially sensitive to air pollutants at levels below national air quality standards. North Slope oil facilities also release greenhouse gases, which are a major contributor to global climate change. Each year, they emit 7 million to 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 24,000 to 114,000 metric tons of methane. Emissions climb even higher as North Slope oil is transported by tanker, refined, and eventually burned in engines or power plants.




Hazardous waste contaminates water and wetlands

For years, old reserve pits holding millions of gallons of drilling and other wastes pocked the North Slope. The pits typically contained a variety of toxic metals, as well as petroleum hydrocarbons and other harmful substances. Thanks partly to litigation by the Natural Resources Defense Council, handling methods for the waste in these reserve pits have improved.

While the oil industry has closed many of the pits, more than 100 remain to be cleaned. And, despite advances in disposal methods -- in which most drilling wastes are ground up and re-injected into wells -- problems remain. In 2000, for instance, British Petroleum (BP) was ordered to pay $22 million in civil and criminal fines and establish a new environmental management program because its contractors had illegally disposed of hazardous wastes containing benzene and other toxic chemicals. These crimes only came to light because a whistle-blower reported them to the EPA.

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation still lists more than 100 contaminated sites associated with oil industry operations on the North Slope. These sites contain a variety of toxic materials, including acids, lead, pesticides, solvents, diesel fuel, caustics, corrosives and petroleum hydrocarbons. Leakage from some sites has contaminated the surrounding tundra wetlands and waterways, which likely will be ruined for decades."

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

It will be devestated. At least how it is defined by environmental scientists, ecology, etc. okay, I really can't argue with you about this, sorry again.

With all due respect, you are wrong at least in the scope of how devastate is defined http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bi...y&va=devastate Again, we are all hypocrites because we can bitch and complain all we want, but none of us does anything significant about it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/...uge/facts2.asp
"Toxic spills and air pollution from permanent, year-round operations are destroying Alaska's fragile North Slope.
Once part of the largest intact wilderness area in the United States, Alaska's North Slope now hosts one of the world's largest industrial complexes, spanning some 1,000 square miles of once-pristine Arctic tundra. Prudhoe Bay and 26 other oilfields include the following:

28 oil production plants, gas processing facilities, and seawater treatment and power plants
38 gravel mines
223 production and exploratory gravel drill pads
500 miles of roads
1,800 miles of pipelines
4,800 exploration and production wells
All of this activity is taking place in an exceptionally fragile region. Because of the very short summer growing season, extreme cold at other times of the year, and nutrient-poor soils and permafrost, vegetation grows very slowly in the North Slope. Any physical disturbance -- bulldozer tracks, seismic oil exploration, spills of oil and other toxic substances -- can scar the land for decades. The National Academy of Sciences concluded it is unlikely that the most disturbed habitat will ever be restored and the damage to more than 9,000 acres by oilfield roads and gravel pads is likely to remain for centuries.

A close look at how four decades of this sprawling oil development has destroyed Prudhoe Bay dispels the myth that drilling can take place in the nearby Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain without permanently damaging the landscape and the wildlife that depends on it.




A toxic spill every day
Each year, the oil industry spills tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other hazardous materials on the North Slope. In fact, every day there is on average at least one spill either in the oil fields or at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. From 1996 to 2004, there were some 4,530 spills of more than 1.9 million gallons of diesel fuel, oil, acid, biocide, ethylene glycol, drilling fluid and other materials. In the Arctic, the environmental damage from oil spills is more severe and lasts longer than in more temperate climates. Diesel fuel, for instance -- the most frequently spilled substance on the North Slope -- is acutely toxic to plants. Even after decades have passed, tundra vegetation has been unable to recover from diesel spills.




Oil operations pollute the air with tons of emissions

Each year, oil operations on Alaska's North Slope emit more than 70,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog and acid rain. (That's three times more than Washington, D.C.'s annual NOx emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.) Plumes of pollution from Prudhoe Bay have been detected in Barrow, Alaska, nearly 200 miles away. And pollutants from drilling operations, natural gas facilities and incinerators also have been detected in snow in the Prudhoe Bay area.

Although the overall impact of these air pollutants on Arctic ecosystems remains largely unknown, some Arctic species are known to be especially sensitive to air pollutants at levels below national air quality standards. North Slope oil facilities also release greenhouse gases, which are a major contributor to global climate change. Each year, they emit 7 million to 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 24,000 to 114,000 metric tons of methane. Emissions climb even higher as North Slope oil is transported by tanker, refined, and eventually burned in engines or power plants.




Hazardous waste contaminates water and wetlands

For years, old reserve pits holding millions of gallons of drilling and other wastes pocked the North Slope. The pits typically contained a variety of toxic metals, as well as petroleum hydrocarbons and other harmful substances. Thanks partly to litigation by the Natural Resources Defense Council, handling methods for the waste in these reserve pits have improved.

While the oil industry has closed many of the pits, more than 100 remain to be cleaned. And, despite advances in disposal methods -- in which most drilling wastes are ground up and re-injected into wells -- problems remain. In 2000, for instance, British Petroleum (BP) was ordered to pay $22 million in civil and criminal fines and establish a new environmental management program because its contractors had illegally disposed of hazardous wastes containing benzene and other toxic chemicals. These crimes only came to light because a whistle-blower reported them to the EPA.

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation still lists more than 100 contaminated sites associated with oil industry operations on the North Slope. These sites contain a variety of toxic materials, including acids, lead, pesticides, solvents, diesel fuel, caustics, corrosives and petroleum hydrocarbons. Leakage from some sites has contaminated the surrounding tundra wetlands and waterways, which likely will be ruined for decades."

Play fair and cite the ones that say the contrary

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

With all due respect, you are wrong at least in the scope of how devastate is defined http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bi...y&va=devastate Again, we are all hypocrites because we can bitch and complain all we want, but none of us does anything significant about it.

Besides tell my senators I want them to vote against this which they didn't f*cking do.

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

With all due respect, you are wrong at least in the scope of how devastate is defined http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bi...y&va=devastate Again, we are all hypocrites because we can bitch and complain all we want, but none of us does anything significant about it.

With all due respect, big money has been holding back alternative fuel research from the public for decades.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Besides tell my senators I want them to vote against this which they didn't f*cking do.

I feel your pain. I do not want to drill for oil ever again. But, that is not reality. Again, we have raped the Middle East and are still raping it - not to mention China, Argentina, and other areas. Yet, we are all up in arms when it is done here That is my I in a totally cynical manner say, drill it all now - the sooner the better for the environment.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

With all due respect, big money has been holding back alternative fuel research from the public for decades.

I agree - but my point is you, me, and everyone else talk a great game about how much we hate it, but we use it as evidenced by the examples I gave above

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Play fair and cite the ones that say the contrary

Any scientist worthy of the name wouldn't ignore all this evidence. Can you really say that all these toxic substances aren't extremely harmful and believe it? Can you really see the decline of wildlife reproduction and ignore it? honestly, since you are saying these things, I just think that you are turning a blind eye, and that arguing with you is futile. With all due respect. And I think you are using "what is reality" to say it's okay. We make reality. That's probably what people said when Jim Crow was in effect. It takes people not accepting what is reality, but trying to change it for what is right, for change to come. And people who throw up their hands and say "I can't do anything, so why bother to try" hold that back.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

Any scientist worthy of the name wouldn't ignore all this evidence. Can you really say that all these toxic substances aren't extremely harmful and believe it? Can you really see the decline of wildlife reproduction and ignore it? honestly, since you are saying these things, I just think that you are turning a blind eye, and that arguing with you is futile. With all due respect.

I turn a blind eye to nothing. Again, post the article advocating safer drilling. But we need oil - all of us and we all use it essentially with relatively little care or regard for what it does to the environment to get it. Again, who here who has a car actually walks instead of drives. If anyone answers that in the affirmative - do you do it in the rain or for more than a mile? I think most do not. Why? Well, because that is inconvenient Not using oil is not a viable alternative until there is no more left. So, I say drill it all now - why should Alaska be spared the ravages thust upon the rest of the world and this nation and I still say that the harm will be relatively minor due to the advances in drilling tech.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, who here who has a car actually walks instead of drives.

Uh...Amber. But I don't think she has a car.

I'm still furious over not getting my hybrid. They called me to tell me it had come in, but when I went to the dealership, they said it had been a mistake and I was still way down on the list. It's now been a year on that ****ing list.

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I turn a blind eye to nothing. Again, post the article advocating safer drilling. But we need oil - all of us and we all use it essentially with relatively little care or regard for what it does to the environment to get it. Again, who here who has a car actually walks instead of drives. If anyone answers that in the affirmative - do you do it in the rain or for more than a mile? I think most do not. Why? Well, because that is inconvenient Not using oil is not a viable alternative until there is no more left. So, I say drill it all now - why should Alaska be spared the ravages thust upon the rest of the world and this nation and I still say that the harm will be relatively minor due to the advances in drilling tech.

You are wrong about the harm, did you read the articles? And - I do not drive. If you care to read it, here is an article why drilling in the arctic would not be cost effective at all.
http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Do...ve-Summary.pdf

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I feel your pain. I do not want to drill for oil ever again. But, that is not reality. Again, we have raped the Middle East and are still raping it - not to mention China, Argentina, and other areas. Yet, we are all up in arms when it is done here That is my I in a totally cynical manner say, drill it all now - the sooner the better for the environment.

You're not being "realistic" you're just being cynical. Reality is what we make of it. The "arctic refuge" is supposed to be an area of preservation for animals which are totally helpless against this greed and destruction (I did not say total destruction). I don't know much about oil in China and Argentina. The Middle East has helped rape itself. The wells are in the desert and they are not new, they already exist. It's not the same thing.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Uh...Amber. But I don't think she has a car.

I'm still furious over not getting my hybrid. They called me to tell me it had come in, but when I went to the dealership, they said it had been a mistake and I was still way down on the list. It's now been a year on that ****ing list.

I'd be interested to know why it takes so long to produce these cars - since the technology is already in place (the factories, equipment, etc) it seems they could get them out faster, no? *suspicious*