Should the United States Congress allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

It’s “secede”

No. Why would you want to risk a disaster like the Gulf in the pristine wilderness of Alaska?

With enough political will (and less lobbying by big oil business), reducing our oil dependency could happen now, with technology that already exists. Why should we continue to stampede like lemmings toward an inevitable energy crisis? Why not look to the future, for once, and be proactive?

There is no legal or peaceful way for a state to leave United States once admitted.

Nope. Not at these oil prices. Wait until oil is selling for $300 per barrel and gasoline is $10.00 per gallon. Then we can evaluate the situation and decide. Until then, keep off that land.

I don’t think there should be drilling in a wildlife refuge. It was established to preserve the area and conserve the species (of plants and animals) that are found there. Drilling in that area would put all of that at risk. I agree with @syz that we need to focus on reducing our oil dependency.

@syz Are you proactive? Do you drive a car? Purchase goods that require oil to manufacture them? It all sounds so nice, to say what you are saying, but impractical. At least if there was an oil spill there it would not kill all the fish and upset the total balance of nature like in the sea. Proposed development may need to be spread out, but drilling can be made seasonal to avoid disruptions to animal migration. Caribou herds move into ANWR during specific and predictable times, thus drilling can be scheduled, which would reduce the impact of human activity.

No.

No. Especially not in an animal refuge.

@RANGIEBABY A spill in that area would damage the land and the caribou would be out of a home when they came back. Once the vegetation of the area is destroyed by an oil spill, it would take a while to get things back on track. Until that time, the animals wouldn’t survive due to lack of food. Oil spills are detrimental to whichever environment they are in. They definitely should not be in an area that is specifically meant to protect the area and the plants and animals in that area.

@RANGIEBABY You’re being obtuse. Yes, individuals can make changes to minimize their impact, but that’s clearly not what I was talking about. My point is that with moderate support (financial and legislative), we could develop viable alternatives to oil for transportation and energy generation. But if you’d rather bury your head in the sand and just hope that affordable oil doesn’t run out in your lifetime, that’s your choice. It probably won’t, and who cares about those future generations, hmmm?

Much of the ecosystem that would potentially be impacted is incredibly delicate, relying on a very subtle balance. And much of it is already being negatively affected by rising temperatures and pollution. There’s a lot more wildlife than just caribou that could be affected, including species of migratory birds, which would have a ripple effect in more places than just Alaska. Drilling and piping there could be like playing with matches.

And yes, I do try to do what I can. I drive a care that gets 43 mpg and I car pool with a coworker. I recycle, I compost, I donate, and I buy local. All small things, no doubt, but I’m making an effort.

@syz That is very kind of you to call me obtuse. Very grown up way to have a discussion. Nonetheless, an oil pipeline runs through ANWR already, and the same argument (ecology) was used to attempt to oppose that pipeline’s construction. However, the pipeline actually increased caribou numbers. Perhaps “keystone” species are not as sensitive to disturbance as has been supposed. I have not heard of any damage to herds of yet. And the fact of the matter is we don’t have a viable option as yet to handle all the we need.

The footprint of any disturbance caused by the proposed new drilling in ANWR would be the equivalent of placing a sheet of paper on a football field.

I would prefer to drill in the Bakkan formation. But current Dept of Energy policies will not even allow drilling on private property there.

No. They should be looking for alternative sources of renewable energy and creating jobs by sending stimulus money into these projects. Our Presidents have been mouthing words to the effect that we must reduce our dependency on oil as a matter of national secruity since the time of Kennedy.

This isn’t the 1960s. There are many viable technologies now that only need developement and have been developed in other countries. But our elected officials in Washington no longer work in the interests of the constituencies that elect them, but for the corporations that pay for their election campaigns and provide them with lobbyist positions and seats on corporate boards of directors after they have committed their treasons.

If our government’s obfuscation, delaying tactics and refusal to take control of the oil spill in the Gulf doesn’t convince the American Public that our government is completely controlled by corporations, nothing will.

Matt Simmons has an investment firm, Simmons and Company, that specializes in oil exploration and speculation and he is considered the pre-eminent investment banker in this field. He started out as a young oil rig worker (He is considered a loose canon in the industry for his theories on Peak Oil, but he makes more money than Warren Buffet). Here he advocates exploring alternative technologies ASAP and faults the industry and the government for not doing so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IwtAQzrfiw

Matt Simmons is the guy on the right in the video interview below. Here he is saying that there is another, much larger leak that BP is ignoring. This is on Day 37.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDGAoU1H2gM

This is an interview with Matt Simmons on July 21st, around Day 60. He is much more emphatic about the mistakes made by BP, a government cover up and the real damage to the Gulf.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwX9RXFRJD4&feature=fvw

Huffington Post, August 9th, 2010: Matt Simmons Found Dead..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-hidary/matt-simmons-dead--oil-ma_b_675573.html

The Guardian (UK), August 19th. 2010: NOAA Scientist Admits Lying About Success of Cleanup and Extent of Damage to the Gulf:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/19/bp-oil-spill-scientist-retracts-assurances

@Espiritus_Corvus There has always been talk, talk, talk. Until something viable is in place, we need to do something like drill in ANWR, in my opinion. I have not heard of any disasters on land caused from oil wells, have you?

@RANGIEBABY

OK, no problem. I think I might be able to enlighten you a bit on this subject.

Pipelines under the Guadalupe Oil Field in California’s San Luis Obispo County leaked diluent—a kerosene-like petroleum product used to facilitate oil extraction—for decades, before a whistle-blowing Unocal employee reported it to the California Department of Fish and Game’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) in 1994.

Chronic, long-term leaks like this are more common and less noticeable than large, sudden releases and acute exposure to spilled chemicals. So they don’t get as much media and public attention.

The actual amount of diluent released into the environment at Guadalupe will never be known, but experts estimate that it was something between 8.5 and 20 million gallons. If it was 11 million or more, that would exceed even the Exxon Valdez.

The 4th largest oil spill in history was the spill in Uzbekistan Fergana Valley in 1992
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mingbulak_oil_spill

I think if you take a look at Shell, Venezuela, and the surrounding area on Google Earth, you will see the effects of inland drilling on pristine environment.

Here are a few more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell

Russia – 1994 – 84 million gallons
A broken pipeline in Russia leaked for eight months before it was noticed and repaired.
http://www1.american.edu/ted/komi.htm

The Lakeview Gusher Number One was an immense out-of-control pressurized oil well in the Midway-Sunset Oil Field in Kern County, California, resulting in what is regarded as, untill recently, the largest oil spill in history, lasting 18 months and releasing 9 million barrels (1.4×10^6 m3) of crude oil. In what was one of the largest oil reserves in America, pressure built to an extreme due to the quantity of crude oil in the area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakeview_Gusher

There are quite a few more, but I haven’t the time to dig them all up. Keep in mind, this list does not include land spills due to terrorism and war, like the disaster in Kuwait during the first Gulf War and many other troubled countries. But this list does illustrate how, given the lattitude, these oil companies will cut costs by using inferior equipment and do their bests to bypass existing regulations and spend vast amounts of money to lobby for deregulation. They have demonstrated throughout the world that they have no concern for the environment.

And to say that things like this cannot happen in ANWR is a denial of the real situation. It just happened in the Gulf of Mexico and BP, Haliburton and Transocean are doing their best to avoid responsibility. In light of the industry’s track record of lies and irresponsibility, if given the green light to drill in ANWR, do you really believe that they would actually keep their word and only pump during certain seasons?

@Espiritus_Corvus Thank you for your research. Looks like I have some reading to do. However, the USA needs urgently to reduce its dependence on foreign oil producers. At present the United States needs 10 million barrels of imported oil a day, and much of this comes from unstable or unfriendly areas of the world, for example the Persian Gulf, Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran. National security depends upon ensuring that the American economy is never held hostage to foreign oil interests, and the government should act to achieve energy independence. An important part of this is the exploitation of untapped US reserves, including the huge ANWR oil fields in Alaska. So with all of your points you enlighten me with, I still think with extra inspection of sites to prevent long term spills, is better than our country coming to a screeching halt. You may not be one of those suffering, and I mean suffering, so your importance is placed elsewhere.

Name one major oil corporation that is wholly American owned that can handle something the size of ANWR or the Continental Shelf Reserves?. One which is not dependent on foreign stockholders. Even the Federal Reserve Banking System, the private banking cartel which controls the US money supply, is 60% foreign owned.

@Espiritus_Corvus I have not done any research on the American owned oil companies. But you can be sure I will.

Amoco, the largest and the last, was sold to BP not long ago—which makes BP as American as it is British. But I could be wrong, please get back to me.

@Espiritus_Corvus I will get back to you in the future, I have a house guest coming for a month and will be busy.

If the Govt would open the Bakken formation to exploration and use, we would not have to drill in ANWR at this time.

Oil people have known about Bakken since 1953. It wasn’t until ‘74 that it was technologically possible to get profitable amounts of oil out of that area. Since the late 1980s, I can’t see where the government has stood in the way of anybody wanting to drill in the Bakken:

“The greatest Bakken oil production comes from Elm Coulee Oil Field, Richland County, Montana, where production began in 2000 and is expected to ultimately total 270 million barrels. In 2007, production from Elm Coulee averaged 53,000 barrels per day (8,400 m3/d) — more than the entire state of Montana a few years earlier.

New interest developed in 2007 when EOG Resources out of Houston, Texas reported that a single well it had drilled into an oil-rich layer of shale below Parshall, North Dakota was anticipated to produce 700,000 barrels (111,000 m3) of oil. This, combined with other factors, including an oil-drilling tax break enacted by the state of North Dakota in 2007, shifted attention in the Bakken from Montana to the North Dakota side. The number of wells drilled in the North Dakota Bakken jumped from 300 in 2006 to 457 in 2007. Those same sources show oil production in the North Dakota Bakken increasing 229%, from 2.2 million barrels (350,000 m3) in 2006 to 7.4 million barrels (1,180,000 m3) in 2007.

There are a number of publicly traded oil and gas companies that have drilling rigs in the Bakken region, including EOG Resources Inc., Continental Resources Inc., Whiting Oil & Gas Inc., Marathon Oil Corporation, Brigham Exploration, Hess Corporation and Samson Oil and Gas Ltd. A niche fund, the Williston Basin/Mid-North America Stock Fund (ICPAX) invests in the publicly traded companies that are profiting from this massive oil find.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation#History_of_Bakken_oil_generation_estimates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Coulee_Oil_Field

But these are all exercises in futility. Drilling for more oil is not the future. Our future lies in existing renwable energy technologies. While we pour money and effort into fossil fuels, we are ignoring the very technologies that can save us financially, environmentally, and in maters of national security. I am not naive enough to believe that America will just give up their SUVs, for Detroit to build only alternative energy vehicles, for people to start moving closer to work and for the US to begin developing European or Japanes-style mass transit grids overnight, but we are headed there whether we like it or not and should be putting much more effort in this direction.

But, in order to do that, we must have leadership that represents the people and not the multinational corporations which have every interest in fossil fuels and not the health of this nation. Which brings us to the real problem, I believe, which is how to get our democracy back.

N E G A T I V E