Anwr

[WyoD_S]

Drilling in ANWR is a very controversial subject with a lot of heated debate. Here are some quotes, sources, and my opinions on why I support it.

Impacts on wildlife:

http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/faces-caribou.pdf

"Recent surveys of the Central Arctic caribou herd near the Prudhoe Bay oil field shows the herd population at its highest level ever recorded in the past quarter century. The herd has grown more than sevenfold since Prudhoe Bay development began in the mid-1970s."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/WM27.cfm

"Opponents also allege that drilling in the 1002 Area would adversely affect the porcupine caribou. These same naysayers predicted similar results for Arctic caribou in the nearby oil fields of Prudhoe Bay. Since drilling began there over 20 years ago, the Arctic caribou herd has grown from 3,000 to 27,500. Nor is there a threat to the polar bear. Alaska's polar bear population is healthy and unthreatened. No polar bear has been injured or killed as a result of extracting oil in Prudhoe Bay. Furthermore, the Marine Mammals Protection Act, which protects the polar bear in existing oil fields, also would do so on ANWR's coastal plain."

Opinion of the people who live there:

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/asrcadams.html

"The Inupiat Eskimo people are the indigenous people of the Arctic coastal environment. We rely on the land and resources of the North Slope for our physical, our cultural and our economic well-being. We have watched the oil and gas development at Prudhoe Bay and elsewhere on the North Slope, and have seen first-hand how development can coexist with our natural resources and our way of life.
It is our experience that carefully regulated oil exploration and development can take place on the private and public lands inside the Coastal Plain study area. We believe the oil industry has made good on its promise to preserve our environment, while providing economic opportunity for our people and energy security for our country."

The native people who are not in support of the proposed drilling, the Gwich'in, are very visible in their opposition. Here's the rub, they live hundreds of miles away on the other side of the Brooks Mountain Range. What the Gwich'in are slow to admit, is that they authorized oil exploration on their own lands not very long ago, none was found.

Not surprisingly, the overwhelming support of the Inupiat Eskimo peoples, who live literally right next to the proposed drilling area, is hardly ever seen on the news.

Impact:

ANWR consists of 19 million acres overall. The proposed drilling is in what is known as the 1.5 million acre 1002 Area. Only 2000 acres in the 1002 Area would be involved. 99.99% of ANWR would be left untouched.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/WM27.cfm

"Opponents of drilling in ANWR claim it is the nation's last true wilderness, a hallowed place, and a pristine environmental area. Though such attributes describe much of ANWR, they do not accurately portray the 1002 Area. In a July 20 Washington Times article titled "Hardly a Pretty Place: Use ANWR for Oil Exploration," Jonah Goldberg, editor of National Review Online, described it this way: "f you wanted a picture to go with the word 'Godforsaken' in the dictionary, ANWR would do nicely." He is not referring to the ANWR parcels often highlighted in the media and on postcards with picturesque landscapes and endearing wildlife scenes. Rather, he is describing the flat, treeless, coastal plain area at the top corner of ANWR where the oil is located. As he notes in the article, winters on the coastal plain last for nine months; there is total darkness for 58 consecutive days; and temperatures drop to 70 degrees below zero without the wind chill. Summers are not much better. The thick ice melts, but it creates puddles on the flat tundra and attracts thousands of mosquitoes.
Drilling in the 1002 Area would occur during the harsh winter months, when operations will require the use of iced airstrips, iced roads, and iced platforms. The 16 billion barrels of oil that lie untapped there would be more than enough to replace the oil Americans would purchase from Iraq over 58 years.
The Energy Information Administration, in a May 2000 report titled Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Updated Assessment, states that the coastal plain region harboring the 1.5 million-acre 1002 Area is "the largest unexplored, potential productive onshore basin in the United States."

There is another wildlife refuge in Alaska, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, that has had drilling onsite for decades. The oil production there rarely makes the news because it has not caused any problems, even though Kenai has far more wildlife than ANWR.

Environmental opponents of drilling cannot point to a single species that has been driven to extinction or even a population decline attributable to Prudhoe Bay. In addition, the drilling there was done with decades-old technology and methods far less environmentally sensitive than what would be required in ANWR.

News footage showing beautiful snowcapped mountains and rolling plains teeming with various wildlife are misleading, because the drilling would not be allowed anywhere near those areas. Only the flat and featureless coastal plain would be affected, and even there only a small portion of its 1.5 million acres. The current proposal limits the surface disturbance to 2,000 acres, a small piece of a big coastal plain in a very big wildlife refuge in the biggest state in the Union. There are plenty of truly pristine places in Alaska worth preserving, but ANWR's coastal plain isn't one of them. As it is, Alaska has 141 million acres of protected lands, an area equal to the size of California and New York combined.

What is the area really like?

Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Florida, has said the threat to the environment has been overstated, noting that the drilling would take place on only a fraction of the refuge, which is the size of South Carolina. He likened the area to a "frozen desert with few signs of life" instead of an "ecological wonderland."

A reporters take on ANWR after a visit:

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/goldberg200503180758.asp

How much oil is there?

http://www.doi.gov/news/anwrchart.pdf

http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm

"The USGS estimates that it contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. To put that into context, the potential daily production from ANWR's 1002 area is larger than the current daily onshore oil production of any of the lower 48 states."

"ANWR could produce nearly 1.4 million barrels of oil (a day), while Texas produces just more than one million barrels a day, California just less than one million barrels a day and Louisiana produces slightly more than 200,000 barrels a day."

How long would ANWR oil run your state?

http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/ANWRHowLong.pdf

Will ANWR oil production replace oil imports? Not by itself, no. What it will do is reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Will it make gas cheaper? Probably not. If exploration was started in earnest tomorrow, the first drops of oil from the field would not hit the market for at least five years. So, what's the point, you ask. Five years from now our dependence on imported oil will be even greater. Any domestic oil that is injected into the system will help offset that. Having the oil reserves of ANWR on tap will provide some relief.

During the intervening years, technology will advance. Studies currently underway to extract oil from the oil sands and oil shale will continue. It is not an optimistic view that 30 years from now, an economical way to extract oil from the sand and shale will be found.

By some estimates, opening ANWR for production could create 500,000 jobs nationwide. (the estimates range from 100,000 to 1,000,000 - I picked 500,000 as a good median) Not all these jobs will be in the oil field. The companies that actually do the drilling and exploration are vast and have major office, support, and manufacturing facilities all over the country. Added work at those facilities would require more workers. The logistics line required to support exploration and drilling would itself be immense, and mostly located in the lower 48 states. Providing clothing, food, shelter, etc… for the workers is only a small part. Think of all the materials for the field itself. The drill rigs, drilling rod, well casing, separators, computers, electronic components, pipeline, transportation of everything mentioned.

The tax revenue from the drilling operators would provide the Federal Government with billions of dollars in revenue every year for many years to come. The economical impact would be immense. The majority of the people who would work in the field do not live in Alaska, certainly not in ANWR itself. They are your neighbors. They could be you or your loved ones. Getting a job on the North Slope means a high five figure income, six for a lot of the workers, and excellent benefits. That income is taken to countless small towns all over the lower 48 and is put into the local economy.

I realize there are countless websites with differing views. To be blunt, I do not believe one word that is uttered by the Sierra Club, NRDC, or other organizations such as those. In my view, their arguments are invariably emotional rather than factual.

 

[R. Richard]

I have read that bears, caribou and other wildlife of the area regularly use the Prudhoe Bay pipeline as a heat source and their population has actually increased since the pipeline was built. Just as the pipeline is non-destructive, the same is true of the planned wells. With modern drilling technology their footprints are tiny and their ecological impact on the blighted and uninhabitable land around them is negligible.

I have also read that the area where the drilling is planned is essentially barren. For about a month in the summer scrubby grass grows there and for the rest of the year it's all mud and ice. While technically part of the ANWR, the only life there is a singularly unappealing and virtually unkillable species of flat-worm that lives in the mud. Oil companies can't even build roads on the mud plain and have to drive in and out of the area in the winter when the ground is frozen.

Just what I have read.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Ever wonder who runs Anwr.org?

Let me help:

the Energy Stewardship Alliance

Energy Stewardship Alliance Members (ESA)

(December, 2004)


60 Plus Association
Air Transport Association
Alaska Airlines
Alaska Municipal League
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
Alaska Support Industry Alliance
American Bus Association
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Moving and Storage Association
American Petroleum Institute
American Trucking Association
Associated Equipment Distributors
Associated General Contractors of America
Boating Trades Association of Metropolitan Houston
California Independent Petroleum Association
Center for Individual Freedom
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Energy Consumers and Producers Association
Equipment Manufacturers Institute
Illinois Oil and Gas Association
Independent Petroleum Association of America
International Association of Drilling Contractors
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Jacksonville Marine Association
Lake Erie Marine Trades Association
Marine Industry Association of Florida
Marine Retailers Association of America
Michigan Boating Industries Association
Montana Independent Automobile Dealers Association
Motor Freight Carriers Association
Mountain States Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association
National Association of Counties
National Association of Manufacturers
National Black Chamber of Commerce
National Business Aviation Association
National Business Travel Association
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
National Corn Growers Association
National Food Processors Association
National Foundation for Women Legislators Energy Sub-Committee
National Grange
National Independent Automobile Dealers Association
National Industrial Transportation League
National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association
National Paint and Coatings Association
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association
National Private Truck Council
National Truck Equipment Association
New Mexico Independent Automobile Dealers Association
New York State Oil Producers Association
Northwestern Lumber Association of South Dakota
Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association
Petroleum Marketers Association of America
Recreation Vehicle Industry Association
Service Station Dealers Association
Small Business Survival Committee
South Dakota Cattlemen's Association
South Dakota Chamber of Commerce
South Dakota Independent Automobile Dealers Association
Southern California Marine Association
Southwestern Peanut Growers Association
Texas Alliance of Energy Producers
Transportation Institute
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
United Seniors Association, Inc.

Petroleum Council Members
Alabama Petroleum Council
Arkansas Petroleum Council
Connecticut Petroleum Council
Delaware Petroleum Council
Florida Petroleum Council
Georgia Petroleum Council
Illinois Petroleum Council
Indiana Petroleum Council
Iowa Petroleum Council
Kansas Petroleum Council
Kentucky Petroleum Council
Maine Petroleum Council
Maryland Petroleum Council
Massachusetts Petroleum Council
Associated Petroleum Industries of Michigan
Minnesota Petroleum Council
Missouri Oil Council
New Jersey Petroleum Council
New York State Petroleum Council
North Carolina Petroleum Council
North Dakota Petroleum Council
Ohio Petroleum Council

Energy Stewardship Alliance
Associated Petroleum Industries of Pennsylvania
South Carolina Petroleum Council
Tennessee Petroleum Council
Virginia Petroleum Council
Wisconsin Petroleum Council


That's a really nice, evenly balanced and unpartisan group wouldn't you agree? And look, they count the USA group among their members:

USA being

United Seniors Association: Hired Guns for PhRMA and Other Corporate Interests - July 2002 Report

Click Here for a PDF Version of the Report • Click Here for the Press Release
Click Here for the October 2002 Update

As House Speaker Dennis Hastert strolled to the podium on May 1, 2002 to announce a new Republican proposal to subsidize private prescription drug coverage for seniors, a small group of United Seniors Association members sporting red, white and blue clothing gathered on the Capitol steps to cheer for the GOP plan. Images of the event made for a good photo opportunity, but looks can be deceiving.

Though the United Seniors Association (USA) is a conservative, grassroots organization for the elderly, the organization is just as likely to be flacking for corporate special interests as it is to be representing seniors. And as the debate on Medicare prescription drug coverage gears up to become a major federal election issue, the pharmaceutical industry is using USA as a front for its TV and radio "issue" ad campaigns.

The prescription drug industry is not the only corporate interest enlisting USA as a hired gun, however. In 2001, as Congress began considering President Bush’s national energy plan, USA was also used by several corporate energy front groups pushing for the GOP legislation.

The tools of these campaigns include grassroots mobilization, newspaper ads, press conferences and lobbying. But "issue" ads – both the type trying to affect a Congressmember’s vote and the type seeking to elect or defeat candidates – have become multi-million dollar centerpieces of USA’s work. And they are new tools for USA: prior to March 2001 there is no evidence that the organization employed issue ads to influence policy or elections.

During the last 17 months, USA has spent $12 million on issue ads – some that badger Democrats and others that praise Republican members of Congress for their votes on key legislation. (See Table 1 and Appendix A) Moreover, USA is the biggest ad spender so far in the 2002 election cycle (1) – not bad for a group that didn’t spend a cent on issue ads in the previous election cycle.

Fronting for PhRMA

USA’s largest issue ad war is a $9.6 million campaign focusing on Medicare prescription drug issues. The latest wave is a $2 million ad buy that began in early July 2002 and thanks 29 Representatives for supporting the House GOP prescription drug bill. (2) Just prior to these newest ads, USA ran a $4.6 million TV ad campaign in May/June to coincide with Republican House leaders’ push for legislative action on a Medicare drug bill.(3) And earlier in the legislative session, in August 2001, USA’s first set of TV ads on Medicare drug benefit issues began with a $3 million ad buy in 19 congressional districts. (4) (All ads are available on USA’s website at http://www.unitedseniors.org/videos/tvads.cfm)

The brand-name drug industry’s powerful trade group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), has admitted to funding much, if not all, of the $4.6 million ad buy in May/June through an "unrestricted educational grant." (5) PhRMA and USA would neither confirm nor deny to Public Citizen that the industry paid for the entire $9.6 million. But given the message contained in the ads and significant overlap in where they ran, it is quite likely that PhRMA’s funding and strategy is behind all of them.

USA’s ad spending appears to highlight a major expansion in the size and scope of the group’s activities. The $9.6 million in prescription-drug related issue ad spending during the last 12 months is more than the group’s $9 million in total expenditures in 2000 (See Table 2), the last year for which information is available.

Ad spending so far in 2002 ($6.8 million) is twice the amount spent by the group in 2000 on "program services" expenditures – the category that represents spending to meet the group’s purpose, as opposed to fundraising or management expenses. (6) In a few months in 2001, USA spent at least $5.1 million on TV and radio ads – a full $1.7 million more than the organization spent on "program services" in the year before.

Not only are the spending levels unprecedented, but the use of broadcast ads also appears to be new territory for USA. An examination of media reports and the group’s IRS Form 990s, which detail non-profit groups’ financial activities, showed no signs of sponsoring issue ads from 1998 to 2000. During the most recent three years that USA’s financial information is available, the largest expenditure was for postage and shipping ($3,056,387). Other major expenditures also revolved around mailings and included spending on printing and publications ($2,952,392), mail house ($945,568) and writing ($519,497). (See Appendix B)

Table 1:
"Issue" Ad Spending by USA, 2001 to 2002

Issue
Dates
Costs
Funded By

Medicare prescription drug issue
July 2002
$2,000,000
N/A

Making $1.3 trillion tax cut permanent
June 2002
$200,000
N/A

Medicare prescription drug issue
May/June 2002
$4,600,000
PhRMA

GOP energy plan
October 2001
$160,000
N/A

Medicare prescription drug issue
August/September 2001
$3,000,000
N/A

$1.3 trillion tax cut
March 2001
$2,000,000
N/A

Issue Ad Spending 2001-2002
$11,960,000


Source: Public Citizen analysis of USA ads reported by National Journal’s Ad Spotlight and Robin Toner, "A Health Care War Is Raging in the House," The New York Times, June 18, 2002.

Table 2: Breakdown of USA’s Budget Information, 1998 to 2000


These days, USA may be getting most of its headlines for its ads, but these are a departure from the group’s past identity as direct mail specialists. USA was created in 1991 calling itself a "conservative alternative to the AARP." Right-wing millionaire Richard Viguerie co-founded the group, which revolved around its direct-mail operations. In the years that followed, USA was assailed by media, prominent Republicans and Democrats and the General Accounting Office for mailings that scared seniors by claiming new Medicare rules would prevent seniors from paying for private care outside the government program. (See Appendix C)

More recently, during the 2000 election cycle, USA joined Citizens for Better Medicare (CBM), a drug-industry front group created by PhRMA. In a June 2000 report on CBM, Public Citizen revealed that its "broad-based" coalition – which, then and currently, includes USA – is a sham. CBM’s director, Tim Ryan, was the marketing director for PhRMA before joining CBM as executive director, and he admitted in interviews that CBM is overwhelmingly funded by PhRMA.(7) As a member of the front group, USA offered cover to CBM’s political operation, which included a budget of at least $65 million for television advertising – a large chunk dedicated to electioneering "issue" ads designed to elect or defeat candidates – during the 2000 cycle. (8)

Unfavorable media coverage of CBM’s drug industry sponsorship appears to have encouraged PhRMA to contract directly with USA to provide a veneer of "seniors" legitimacy to its advertising agenda, which promotes privatized drug coverage rather than a Medicare drug benefit that the industry fears would lead to reduced drug prices.

Political Operatives at the Helm of USA

The strong partisan, political and special interest connections of USA is not surprising given the staff and board of directors, many of whom are prominent GOP political operatives with extensive experience working for candidates, parties and large corporate interests. They include:

USA President and CEO Charles Jarvis served as deputy under secretary at the Department of Interior during the Reagan and Bush administrations. His resume also includes experience as legislative director for Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and campaign chairman for presidential candidate Gary Bauer.(9) Jarvis was also the executive vice president of Focus on the Family.
Craig Shirley, a USA board member, has long been a Republican Party public relations powerhouse. His public relations firm Shirley & Banister Public Affairs currently represents the Republican National Committee (RNC). (10) During the 1984 presidential campaign, he was the director of communications for the National Conservative Political Action Committee, America’s largest independent political committee. (11) More recently, he co-founded Conservatives for Effective Leadership, an organization devoted to defeating Hillary Clinton in her Senate bid.(12)
The New York Times called USA board member Jack Abramoff "one of the most influential – and, at $500 an hour, best compensated – lobbyists in Washington."(13) The Republican Party has long relied on his fundraising prowess, and can continue to do so, as he recently boasted that he would raise $5 million and personally give $250,000 this election cycle.(14) He was a member of the RNC executive committee from 1981-1985 and in 1985 was executive director of President Ronald Reagan’s grassroots lobbying organization, Citizens for America.(15)
USA board member Jim Wootton is president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform where he advocates for tort "reform."(16), a high priority of the drug industry which is increasingly being sued for manufacturing unsafe drugs. During the Reagan Administration he was appointed deputy administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.(17) In 1986, Wootton was appointed to the Legal Services Corporation as director of policy, communications and legislative affairs. During the 2000 election cycle, PhRMA shoveled $10 million to the Chamber of Commerce to run electioneering ads just before the November election.(18)
USA lobbyist David Keene is chairman of the American Conservative Union, the nation’s largest conservative grassroots organization. Keene’s political background includes work as George Bush’s national political director in 1980, political consultant to presidential candidate Bob Dole in 1988 and as an informal advisor to Dole in 1996.(29) Keene is a lobbyist with the Carmen Group and has lobbied for the Air Transport Association, Medstar Health and Northwest Airlines.
Beau Boulter, a USA lobbyist, is a former GOP congressman from Texas who served in the House of Representatives from 1985 to 1989. He formerly lobbied for the Carmen Group and represented the Major Medicaid Hospital Coalition, Northwest Airlines and U.S. Bank.
Lawyer Curtis Herge, USA’s corporate counsel, served as a member of Reagan’s Presidential Transition Team. He later held positions as the assistant to the secretary and chief of staff at the Department of the Interior.
Below are two case studies detailing how USA has closely collaborated with its corporate sponsors.

Case Study 1: PhRMA Uses Surrogate for Ads

USA has run three rounds of issue ads – at a cost of $9.6 million – focusing on Medicare prescription drug issues. The largest of these ad buys, a series of TV spots that ran in May/June 2002 at a cost of $4.6 million, was funded by PhRMA through an "unrestricted educational grant." It is unclear how the other ads were financed, but the similar messages and targets of the three rounds of ads suggest that the powerful drug industry trade group PhRMA could be funding USA’s entire Medicare drug issue ad campaign.

The ad campaign was kicked off in August 2001, and USA’s first set of TV ads on Medicare drug benefit issues began with a $3 million ad buy in 19 congressional districts.(20) The ads urged members of Congress to work with President Bush to "keep the promise and add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare."(21) But no action was taken in 2001 on Medicare drug issues because congressional attention turned toward responding to the September 11 terrorist attacks and anthrax scare.

Then, in early May 2002 after House Republican leaders announced plans for legislative action on a Medicare drug benefit bill, USA launched the $4.6 million TV ad campaign. These ads ran in the districts of 16 Republicans and two conservative Democrats who held key votes and influence over the House Republican drug bill, said USA’s president Charles Jarvis. "They were people that had relations on both sides of the aisle so they could affect other people in the vote," he told Public Citizen.

These PhRMA-financed ads were designed to promote President Bush’s and the House Republican leaders’ prescription drug plan, which would provide Medicare beneficiaries with subsidies to buy private insurance rather than create a comprehensive drug coverage program through Medicare. But the Republican scheme would not only limit coverage, it would also prevent Medicare from negotiating deeper drug price discounts. Giving Medicare such power on behalf of its 39 million beneficiaries is anathema to drug companies and their allies on Capitol Hill.

In early July 2002, USA began running a new set of TV ads in the districts of 29 members of Congress.(24) The ads are part of a $2 million ad buy and thank Representatives for supporting the House prescription drug plan, which passed 221-208 along nearly party lines in the early morning of June 28.(25) USA said it is running the ads to build momentum for Senate action on prescription drug legislation, which is scheduled for the week of July 15.(26)

Included among the ad’s beneficiaries are 13 Republicans and two Democrats who voted for the PhRMA-favored drug bill that passed the House and who also face tough re-election campaigns. The ads seek to aid Reps. Charles Bass (R-N.H.), Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.), Mark Kennedy (R-Minn.), Tom Latham (R-Iowa), Jim Leach (R-Iowa), Ken Lucas (D-Ky.), Jim Nussle (R-Iowa), Charles Pickering (R-Miss.), Clay Shaw (R-Fla.), John Shimkus (R-Ill.), Rob Simmons (R-Conn.) and Heather Wilson (R-N.M.).

Neither USA nor PhRMA would disclose the full extent of the drug industry funding for the seniors group. Discussing the ad buys, PhRMA spokesman Jeff Trewhitt would not reveal the total amount given to the seniors group or discuss how the money was to be used. "What we have given them is an unrestricted educational grant," Trewhitt told Public Citizen. "Literally, they are free to do whatever they want with it."(27)

USA also has not showed its true colors concerning PhRMA’s financial influence. After the $4.6 million May/June ads began running Jarvis said, "This is not a PhRMA buy. It is a national grass-roots buy."(28) But according to the Associated Press, "Several Republicans officials said they understood that the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) had provided the money for the commercials."(29)

Charles Jarvis later told Public Citizen that he is "unabashedly thankful" that PhRMA has funded his advocacy group, but says the money has not compromised his message or influenced his work. "If I got funding from McDonalds," he asked, "Would that mean that I am a representative for two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce and cheese?"

Behind the ads are people with deep connections to drug industry front groups and GOP politics. The ads in August/September 2001 were produced by Cold Harbor Films, which is headed by Alex Castellanos. Castellanos showed his influence during the 2000 election as an ad maker for presidential candidate George W. Bush, the Republican National Committee and Citizen’s for Better Medicare.(30) The May/June 2002 USA ad wave was produced by Tim Ryan, who worked as PhRMA’s marketing director until he was tapped to lead CBM during the last election cycle.(31)

The timing of the USA ads was also well coordinated: the ad campaign was announced on May 10, 2002, just one week after House Republicans announced initial plans for bringing a prescription drug bill to the floor. The ads also followed GOP strategy outlined in a polling memo written two weeks before the ad announcement. The memo stated "Right now, voters perceive the parties as headed toward a match-up of Republicans on taxes and terrorism versus Democrats on economy, education and the elderly. We need more than just taxes/terrorism to win."(32)

And now that action on prescription drug legislation looms in the Senate, USA may start running issue ads that target members of the upper body. The Washington Post reported that USA plans to run issue ads "against key senators there" after the GOP bill passes the House.(33) But Jarvis says a verdict on future ads has yet to be made. "I have not made a decision whether [using issue ads] is the best way to communicate with the Senate … I have not decided."(34)

Case Study 2: USA Teams Up With Energy Industry to Promote GOP Plan

USA partnered with the energy industry to help push President Bush’s national energy plan – a wide ranging proposal that calls for increased domestic energy production through economic incentives and by drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.(35) The seniors group promoted the energy bill through news releases and at Senate Republicans’ press conferences, but also joined several industry-funded groups and used issue ads to target members of Congress who opposed parts of the plan.

Charles Jarvis defended USA’s efforts with the energy industry saying that the issue had a long-standing value for the elderly. "Energy is a huge issue for seniors because of the costs associated with heating their houses in the winter and cooling during the summer," he said.(36)

USA directly spent $160,000 running issue ads beginning October 8, 2001.(37) The ads urged Sens. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) to vote for the GOP energy bill "to protect our country and cut dependence on foreign energy for the future."(38)

Besides running its own issue ads, USA also lends its name to front groups established by major Washington corporate interests with business before Congress. One industry-backed group, the 21st Century Energy Project, was created by lobbyist and former Enron consultant Ed Gillespie to drum up support for Bush’s energy plan.(39) Gillespie, head of one of Washington’s most prominent lobbying firms, served as a top communications aide to Bush during the presidential campaign and was on the transition team to help Commerce Secretary Don Evans move into his new post after the inauguration.(40)

USA is one of the 21st Century Energy Project’s ten members, which also include the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy and the Seniors Coalition.(41) But these members did not provide funds for the project. Instead, money for the 21st Century Energy Project came from Gillespie’s "corporate lobbying clients."(42) Enron, which stood to gain from Bush’s industry-friendly plan, kicked in more than $50,000. Daimler-Chrysler, which opposed parts of the energy plan that would have increased fuel economy standards, also gave $50,000.(43)

The 21st Century Energy Project used this money to fund an issue ad campaign that began July 10. The first wave of ads ran in Washington, D.C. for two weeks at a cost of $100,000. Three weeks later, another $100,000 (44) radio issue ad campaign began targeting several Representatives including Jack Quinn (R-N.Y.), Greg Ganske (R-Iowa), Mark Kennedy (R-Minn.) and Mike Doyle (D-Penn.).(45) The ads asked Representatives to work with Bush and said, "Congress will vote soon on President Bush’s comprehensive energy plan – one that uses 21st century technology to promote conservation, diversify our energy supply and generate environmentally clean, reliable and affordable energy."

The 21st Century Energy Project was not the only industry-backed group that used USA to push for the GOP energy legislation. USA is also a part of the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, a coalition of business and labor groups that includes the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron Corp., Dow Chemical, Dynegy, Edison Electric Institute, Nuclear Energy Institute and Shell Oil Company.(46) Among the membership list, which includes hundreds of energy companies and trade groups, USA is one of only two "consumer" groups (CBM member 60 Plus Association is the other).(47)

The Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth spent $1.2 million on TV ads that ran in Washington, D.C. from July 9, 2001 to the beginning of August.(48) The ads were similar to spots run by the 21st Century Energy Project and invoked images of the 1970s energy crisis. The alliance’s ads said, "To keep America’s economy strong and to meet the needs of tomorrow, we need a strong energy plan today."(49)

The corporate funding of the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth is almost as clear as the naked promotion of the Bush plan. "(O)il companies and the American Petroleum Institute are major financial backers of the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth," said one news source.(50) And according to a fundraising memo written by energy lobbyist Wayne Valis, "To join the coalition, you must agree to support the Bush energy proposal in its entirety and not to lobby for changes to the bill … If you are caught attempting to lobby behind the back of the White House, you will be expelled from the coalition. I have been advised that this White House ‘will have a long memory.’"(51)

Yet another business-backed energy coalition, the Energy Stewardship Alliance, also received USA’s support.(52) The alliance, described as a "pro-drilling group backed by the oil and gas industry,"(53) includes groups such as the American Petroleum Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the National Association of Manufacturers. Again, USA and the 60 Plus Association are the only two members of the Energy Stewardship Alliance that are not energy producers, unions or trade/professional groups.

And like the other groups, the Energy Stewardship Alliance ran issue ads conjuring up images of the 1970s and said, "Today America is more dependent on foreign oil than during the energy crisis of the 70s … that’s why 75 percent of Alaskans support energy exploration in ANWR."(54) The nearly $200,000 ad buy ran in Washington, D.C. in March 2001.(55)

Appendix A: United Seniors Association Issue Ads
(All ads are available at http://www.unitedseniors.org/videos/tvads.cfm.)

Appendix B: Breakdown of USA’s Program Spending,
1998 to 2000

Appendix C:
USA’s History of Deception

It is deceitful for a group to run millions of dollars worth of broadcast ads focusing on prescription drug legislation without publicly disclosing that the ads were mainly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. But USA has a history of deceitful practices that can be traced back to the group’s first days when it was used to boost the profits of its founder’s direct mail business.

In 1989, Richard Viguerie, president of the financially strapped direct-mail firm Viguerie & Associates, began creating organizations presumably dedicated to protecting Social Security and Medicare. While he continued to receive payment from contracts with his first organization, the Seniors Coalition, he founded a for-profit advocacy group called "The Retired Americans Legislative Lobby, Inc." To head this group, Viguerie appointed former Sen. George Murphy (R-Calif.), despite the fact that Murphy had voted against the creation of Medicare.(56)

In just over a year, Retired Americans fell more than $1.1 million into debt. Viguerie then created the non-profit United Seniors Association to take over Retired Americans’ assets and liabilities.(57)

Like Viguerie’s other non-profit groups, his direct mail firm was a direct beneficiary of USA’s activities. Although USA’s members were told that contributions were for issue advocacy, in reality USA’s staff was made up of direct-mail and fundraising experts (mostly former employees of Viguerie) and included no lobbyists or experts on aging issues.(58) The majority of the group’s income was funneled back into direct-mail fundraising – and into Viguerie’s business. Facing Viguerie on Larry King Live, Trish Butler, the Social Security Administration associate commissioner for public affairs under President George H. W. Bush said, "I want some accountability for the millions of dollars he’s (Viguerie) already raised for an organization that hasn’t done anything."(59)

To build its direct mail empire, USA employed scare tactics that backfired on the organization. For example, it sent millions of letters in 1992 claiming that "All the Social Security Trust Fund Money is Gone," a charge that prompted the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security to issue a report censuring USA for their "particularly egregious" misleading claims.(60)

USA made headlines again in 1998 for their misleading direct mail. First they contacted non-member seniors thanking them for their past support and asking them to renew their dues. One widow, Lee Weiss, said, "My concern is that elderly persons receiving such notices may feel obligated to pay. In the case of my four-years deceased husband, it is clearly misleading for the letter to say thank you for your support over the past year."(61)

Shortly afterward, USA mailed millions of seniors a letter that said, "you may not ever be able to use personal funds to pay for your health care if you are eligible for Medicare," and asked recipients to contribute $5-$250.(62) Seniors’ frightened response prompted the General Accounting Office to refute these claims and senators from both sides of the aisle to censure the organization for intentionally misleading seniors. Senate Finance Committee chair Sen. William Roth (R-Del.) said "I want to make it clear that those kind of statements are not satisfactory … We are not here to try to scare senior citizens with respect to their health care, and I think it was a serious mistake to use the kind of statements contained in this letter that only resulted in scaring seniors."(63)

The organization also used members’ names on at least one petition without their knowledge. In 1995, USA submitted a petition to Sen. David Pryor (D-Ark.) signed by 246 Arkansas residents supporting a GOP Medicare plan. Of the 67 alleged signers who Pryor’s staff were able to contact, 60 percent didn’t know their names were being used.(64)


And I should trust these guys and not those partial folks at the Sierra club?

Hmmm...Apparently my lobotomy has failed, cause that still don't make sense.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

the Heritage foundation, the fine folks who bring you heritage.org


Our Mission
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.


Their associate members include such fine, unbiased folks as ATT, the Ro foundation, the Brandnury fund and other unbiased folks with no agenda.

Endorsed as the finest collection of conservative minds by no less an expert than Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation

Representing a whooping 8 inuit villages. Just conincidentally also a major player in the region's gas utiltities with no less than 10 major competitors. Defintely good honest folk with no agenda or compelling reason to want drilling in anwr.

 

[cloudy]

you go, Colly.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm not green. I'm actually a conservative and occasionally read articles from the heritage foundation. I sometimes agree with them.

I don't however try to use them in a debate, because they fail miserably as authoritative sources. They fail, because an authoriative source is assumed to be objective, or, at the least, value neutral to the specific discussion. The Heritage fundation dosen't even pretend to be objective.

I don't believe in drilling in ANWR. My reasoning is simply that I don't trust turning over a pristine wilderness area to the big oil outfits. PR stunts, like a site called ANWR, supported and administered by industry shills, members and thier Lobby groups, does little to give me any faith in their credibility. They have royally fucked up things in the past. They don't apologize, until it's already screwed to perdition and then print up all kinds of "research" to say it's not that bad. That's not apology, it's not remorse, it's justification and rationalization.

I don't want to se a report in the future, authored by their surrogates, explaining to me that the Caribou herds are ten times larger than they were before we fucked their habitat up. I especially don't, when I learn the report is based on the number of caracsses found in a period of time as oppsed to a similar period of time before they got there, with the extrtapolation being if we found 10 carcasses in the area before we drilled and 100 after we drilled, assuming the death rate is the same the herds must be ten times larger. They have pulled that kinda crap before too.

 

[WyoD_S]

Ever wonder who runs Anwr.org?

Let me help:

<snip for brevity>

And I should trust these guys and not those partial folks at the Sierra club?

Hmmm...Apparently my lobotomy has failed, cause that still don't make sense.

So, why are these folks any less trustworthy than the folks over at the Sierra Club?

They both have an agenda, both are playing in a playground that has a few million dollars floating around. You don't really believe the Sierra Club and groups of that ilk are clean, pure, and rightous do you?

Now look at the message again... you'll see quotes, facts, and figures from the DOI, USGS, USFWS, DOE, etc...

When the USFWS says the caribou herd has grown more than sevenfold, that is a reliable source. When they state there has been no harm to any wildlife, again, that is reliable. I did not quote anybody trying to play games with corpse counts, that is a specious argument.

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. Yes, they represent 8 villages. What you don't know is that the native corporations in Alaska are a BIG deal. They own the land and the resources. They are million (billion?) dollar enterprises. As a comparison think of the native groups here in the lower 48 who use gambling as an income source. Sure, they want the revenue for drilling in ANWR, but at the same time they are extremely environmentally cautious. They are willing to allow drilling and exploration on their native lands, many of which they see as sacred. Just because they will get some money, that automatically makes them suspect? Give me a break.

Many parts of ANWR are pristine and should never be drilled on (and won't be by law). The coastal plain does not fall under anyones definition of pristine. It is one of the most barren, desolate, godforsaken places on the planet. There is very little wildlife, the temperatures are extreme, the land is at best inhospitible. The argument that a 'pristine wilderness' would be infringed upon is pure crap.

I have to go to work, will check back later.

 

[rgraham666]

Reading about this yesterday.

One report stated that only 2,000 acres of the ANWR will be affected.

However, they did not include the area of the roads used as these were not 'production and support facilities'. And there will be a lot of roads. Apparently the oil in the ANWR is scattered in rather small pools all over the area.

Another interesting trick is that when measuring the impact area of pipelines, they only used the areas where the supports touched the ground. Using this method I have lots of space in my room, since only where the legs of furniture touch the floor count.

And one of the biggest pieces of rhetoric, that drilling in the ANWR will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, is true only to a small degree. It's estimated that, at best, 600,000 to 900,000 barrels of oil a day will be extracted. The U.S. currently imports 10 million a day. So the ANWR will have minimal impact on imports.

Also the word 'pristine', to me, means 'untouched by man'. Not 'habitable', not 'a place I'd want to live' but 'untouched by man'. And where the ANWR is concerned I'd prefer it stays that way.

Conservation and alternate energy sources are the way to go. Unfortunately the current administration is a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the oil companies, so there will not be any movement on any of those fronts. It would be akin to crack dealers support rehab programs. Not gonna happen.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I really don't know much about the ins and outs of the ANWR debate but I do know this: drilling in ANWR is no more a solution to our energy problem than finding an unopened case of gin in the basement is an answer to your drinking problem. All it will do is allow us tro go on as we're going for a few more years, and then what? Then we're in the same fucking place we are today. You think the oil companies are going to spend those ANWR profits in developing non fossil-based fuel sources?

What we need is a government-based research effort to develop alternative energy sources--government-based, just like we did with the space program and the development of atomic energy. In 10 years we went from a standing start to walking on the moon through a government program. In two and half years we went from numbers on a blackboard to a working atomic bomb. A workable emergy program is eminently doable, and the infrastructure's already in place in the string of woefully underfunded and neglected national labs now relegated to sweeping up crumbs of work regarding atomic energy work, like Argonne and Fermi in Illinois, Stanford, Alamagordo, Oak Ridge. The money the government now gives to fusion research in this country is just pitiful. They spend more on cleaning statues in parks.

Just like with space exploration, private industry has neither the means nor the incentive to get into this kind of work, and it's time for government to assert itself as a force for good for all of its citizens and do something about it. If we would divert just half of the six billion dollars (six thousand million dollars for you Brits) we spend EVERY MONTH on whatever it is we're trying to do in Iraq, we could have this thing licked in 5-10 years and implemented in 20. And then we wouldn't have to be talking about drilling in ANWR or anyplace else.

It's become a cliche that giovernment can't do anything right and we have to rely totally on private industry, which is total bullshit. We put a man on the moon, built the Hoover dam anmd the interstate highway system, wiped out polio and a whole host of childhood diseases through government-sponsored, government-run programs, and there's no reason why we can't beat this one too. The energy problem is too fucking important to leave up to any board of directors worried about their bottom lines and maximizing profits. We need a givernment willing to commit the resources and manpower to this problem that we seem so willing to marshall in times of war. If we do that, we'll have this solved in no time.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I really don't know much about the ins and outs of the ANWR debate but I do know this: drilling in ANWR is no more a solution to our energy problem than finding an unopened case of gin in the basement is an answer to your drinking problem. All it will do is allow us tro go on as we're going for a few more years, and then what? Then we're in the same fucking place we are today. You think the oil companies are going to spend those ANWR profits in developing non fossil-based fuel sources?

What we need is a government-based research effort to develop alternative energy sources--government-based, just like we did with the space program and the development of atomic energy. In 10 years we went from a standing start to walking on the moon through a government program. In two and half years we went from numbers on a blackboard to a working atomic bomb. A workable emergy program is eminently doable, and the infrastructure's already in place in the string of woefully underfunded and neglected national labs now relegated to sweeping up crumbs of work regarding atomic energy work, like Argonne and Fermi in Illinois, Stanford, Alamagordo, Oak Ridge. The money the government now gives to fusion research in this country is just pitiful. They spend more on cleaning statues in parks.

Just like with space exploration, private industry has neither the means nor the incentive to get into this kind of work, and it's time for government to assert itself as a force for good for all of its citizens and do something about it. If we would divert just half of the six billion dollars (six thousand million dollars for you Brits) we spend EVERY MONTH on whatever it is we're trying to do in Iraq, we could have this thing licked in 5-10 years and implemented in 20. And then we wouldn't have to be talking about drilling in ANWR or anyplace else.

It's become a cliche that giovernment can't do anything right and we have to rely totally on private industry, which is total bullshit. We put a man on the moon, built the Hoover dam anmd the interstate highway system, wiped out polio and a whole host of childhood diseases through government-sponsored, government-run programs, and there's no reason why we can't beat this one too. The energy problem is too fucking important to leave up to any board of directors worried about their bottom lines and maximizing profits. We need a givernment willing to commit the resources and manpower to this problem that we seem so willing to marshall in times of war. If we do that, we'll have this solved in no time.

I agree.

I wonder if hell will freeze over?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

So, why are these folks any less trustworthy than the folks over at the Sierra Club?

They both have an agenda, both are playing in a playground that has a few million dollars floating around. You don't really believe the Sierra Club and groups of that ilk are clean, pure, and rightous do you?

Now look at the message again... you'll see quotes, facts, and figures from the DOI, USGS, USFWS, DOE, etc...

When the USFWS says the caribou herd has grown more than sevenfold, that is a reliable source. When they state there has been no harm to any wildlife, again, that is reliable. I did not quote anybody trying to play games with corpse counts, that is a specious argument.

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. Yes, they represent 8 villages. What you don't know is that the native corporations in Alaska are a BIG deal. They own the land and the resources. They are million (billion?) dollar enterprises. As a comparison think of the native groups here in the lower 48 who use gambling as an income source. Sure, they want the revenue for drilling in ANWR, but at the same time they are extremely environmentally cautious. They are willing to allow drilling and exploration on their native lands, many of which they see as sacred. Just because they will get some money, that automatically makes them suspect? Give me a break.

Many parts of ANWR are pristine and should never be drilled on (and won't be by law). The coastal plain does not fall under anyones definition of pristine. It is one of the most barren, desolate, godforsaken places on the planet. There is very little wildlife, the temperatures are extreme, the land is at best inhospitible. The argument that a 'pristine wilderness' would be infringed upon is pure crap.

I have to go to work, will check back later.

Why are they less trustworth? Um, could it be because they stand to make a boatload of money? Could it be that thjey have a vested interest in minimizing or just flat out wishing away envornmental concerns? Could it be that they have a history of minimizing thier impact, coupled with a history or being ergigiously wrong? Could it be they have a propensity to to use bad science or bad rationals deliberately to support their positions?

If you are going to quote industry sources as your primary supports, I can't take your position seriously. There is absolutely no objectivity there, they are known to lie like big Dawgs, cook the books and doctor the facts. You're basically telling me smoking isn't bad for me and the big tobacco companies don't intentionaly affect the nicotine content in cigarettes and if I don't believe it just look at this report by Dr. So-n-so, whose on Phillip Morris payroll and says... And then years later when it's thoroughly debunked and I have lung cancer, you're going to say well you should have known, just like they did?

Your authorotative sources, in as far as we can accept a government agency under pressure from the administration and congress to get in line with the party position as unbiased are used primarily to give estimates of oil avialable not to discuss enviornmental impact. Carribou population figures notwithstanding.

I think this really says it all:

Many parts of ANWR are pristine and should never be drilled on (and won't be by law). The coastal plain does not fall under anyones definition of pristine. It is one of the most barren, desolate, godforsaken places on the planet. There is very little wildlife, the temperatures are extreme, the land is at best inhospitible. The argument that a 'pristine wilderness' would be infringed upon is pure crap.

this is a wholly subjective argument, with no basis in anything but your opinion and aesthetics. I don't care if you think it's godforsaken. Momumont valley, the painted dessert, Arches national park were all considered godforsaken by the people who discovered them. They're still pristine, for the most part, because they were cosidered godforsaken so they weren't developed. We have a longstanding and bad habit of turning over areas we think are godforsaken to the natives or for national parks, until we discover something there that we want. Then, like the black hills, or like you would have with ANWR, we just go fuck it up or fuck over whomever we gave it to so we can rape whatever resource out of it we decided we want.

It's a pristine wilderness area, that supports a varried ecosystem, even it if dosen't look pretty to you. Arguments that it's ugly don't pahse me; Would it look any more beautiful with oil rigs working it, roads cut into it, pipelines criss crossing it, etc. If I want to see that crap I can already take 1-10 through Mobile, or I-95 though Jersey. Since you want to make an aesthetic value argument, what's so damned beautiful about those places?

 

[amicus]

Drilling in ANWR is a very controversial subject with a lot of heated debate. Here are some quotes, sources, and my opinions on why I support it.

Impacts on wildlife:

http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/faces-caribou.pdf

"Recent surveys of the Central Arctic caribou herd near the Prudhoe Bay oil field shows the herd population at its highest level ever recorded in the past quarter century. The herd has grown more than sevenfold since Prudhoe Bay development began in the mid-1970s."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/WM27.cfm

"Opponents also allege that drilling in the 1002 Area would adversely affect the porcupine caribou. These same naysayers predicted similar results for Arctic caribou in the nearby oil fields of Prudhoe Bay. Since drilling began there over 20 years ago, the Arctic caribou herd has grown from 3,000 to 27,500. Nor is there a threat to the polar bear. Alaska's polar bear population is healthy and unthreatened. No polar bear has been injured or killed as a result of extracting oil in Prudhoe Bay. Furthermore, the Marine Mammals Protection Act, which protects the polar bear in existing oil fields, also would do so on ANWR's coastal plain."

Opinion of the people who live there:

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/asrcadams.html

"The Inupiat Eskimo people are the indigenous people of the Arctic coastal environment. We rely on the land and resources of the North Slope for our physical, our cultural and our economic well-being. We have watched the oil and gas development at Prudhoe Bay and elsewhere on the North Slope, and have seen first-hand how development can coexist with our natural resources and our way of life.
It is our experience that carefully regulated oil exploration and development can take place on the private and public lands inside the Coastal Plain study area. We believe the oil industry has made good on its promise to preserve our environment, while providing economic opportunity for our people and energy security for our country."

The native people who are not in support of the proposed drilling, the Gwich'in, are very visible in their opposition. Here's the rub, they live hundreds of miles away on the other side of the Brooks Mountain Range. What the Gwich'in are slow to admit, is that they authorized oil exploration on their own lands not very long ago, none was found.

Not surprisingly, the overwhelming support of the Inupiat Eskimo peoples, who live literally right next to the proposed drilling area, is hardly ever seen on the news.

Impact:

ANWR consists of 19 million acres overall. The proposed drilling is in what is known as the 1.5 million acre 1002 Area. Only 2000 acres in the 1002 Area would be involved. 99.99% of ANWR would be left untouched.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/WM27.cfm

"Opponents of drilling in ANWR claim it is the nation's last true wilderness, a hallowed place, and a pristine environmental area. Though such attributes describe much of ANWR, they do not accurately portray the 1002 Area. In a July 20 Washington Times article titled "Hardly a Pretty Place: Use ANWR for Oil Exploration," Jonah Goldberg, editor of National Review Online, described it this way: "f you wanted a picture to go with the word 'Godforsaken' in the dictionary, ANWR would do nicely." He is not referring to the ANWR parcels often highlighted in the media and on postcards with picturesque landscapes and endearing wildlife scenes. Rather, he is describing the flat, treeless, coastal plain area at the top corner of ANWR where the oil is located. As he notes in the article, winters on the coastal plain last for nine months; there is total darkness for 58 consecutive days; and temperatures drop to 70 degrees below zero without the wind chill. Summers are not much better. The thick ice melts, but it creates puddles on the flat tundra and attracts thousands of mosquitoes.
Drilling in the 1002 Area would occur during the harsh winter months, when operations will require the use of iced airstrips, iced roads, and iced platforms. The 16 billion barrels of oil that lie untapped there would be more than enough to replace the oil Americans would purchase from Iraq over 58 years.
The Energy Information Administration, in a May 2000 report titled Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Updated Assessment, states that the coastal plain region harboring the 1.5 million-acre 1002 Area is "the largest unexplored, potential productive onshore basin in the United States."

There is another wildlife refuge in Alaska, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, that has had drilling onsite for decades. The oil production there rarely makes the news because it has not caused any problems, even though Kenai has far more wildlife than ANWR.

Environmental opponents of drilling cannot point to a single species that has been driven to extinction or even a population decline attributable to Prudhoe Bay. In addition, the drilling there was done with decades-old technology and methods far less environmentally sensitive than what would be required in ANWR.

News footage showing beautiful snowcapped mountains and rolling plains teeming with various wildlife are misleading, because the drilling would not be allowed anywhere near those areas. Only the flat and featureless coastal plain would be affected, and even there only a small portion of its 1.5 million acres. The current proposal limits the surface disturbance to 2,000 acres, a small piece of a big coastal plain in a very big wildlife refuge in the biggest state in the Union. There are plenty of truly pristine places in Alaska worth preserving, but ANWR's coastal plain isn't one of them. As it is, Alaska has 141 million acres of protected lands, an area equal to the size of California and New York combined.

What is the area really like?

Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Florida, has said the threat to the environment has been overstated, noting that the drilling would take place on only a fraction of the refuge, which is the size of South Carolina. He likened the area to a "frozen desert with few signs of life" instead of an "ecological wonderland."

A reporters take on ANWR after a visit:

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/goldberg200503180758.asp

How much oil is there?

http://www.doi.gov/news/anwrchart.pdf

http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm

"The USGS estimates that it contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. To put that into context, the potential daily production from ANWR's 1002 area is larger than the current daily onshore oil production of any of the lower 48 states."

"ANWR could produce nearly 1.4 million barrels of oil (a day), while Texas produces just more than one million barrels a day, California just less than one million barrels a day and Louisiana produces slightly more than 200,000 barrels a day."

How long would ANWR oil run your state?

http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/ANWRHowLong.pdf

Will ANWR oil production replace oil imports? Not by itself, no. What it will do is reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Will it make gas cheaper? Probably not. If exploration was started in earnest tomorrow, the first drops of oil from the field would not hit the market for at least five years. So, what's the point, you ask. Five years from now our dependence on imported oil will be even greater. Any domestic oil that is injected into the system will help offset that. Having the oil reserves of ANWR on tap will provide some relief.

During the intervening years, technology will advance. Studies currently underway to extract oil from the oil sands and oil shale will continue. It is not an optimistic view that 30 years from now, an economical way to extract oil from the sand and shale will be found.

By some estimates, opening ANWR for production could create 500,000 jobs nationwide. (the estimates range from 100,000 to 1,000,000 - I picked 500,000 as a good median) Not all these jobs will be in the oil field. The companies that actually do the drilling and exploration are vast and have major office, support, and manufacturing facilities all over the country. Added work at those facilities would require more workers. The logistics line required to support exploration and drilling would itself be immense, and mostly located in the lower 48 states. Providing clothing, food, shelter, etc… for the workers is only a small part. Think of all the materials for the field itself. The drill rigs, drilling rod, well casing, separators, computers, electronic components, pipeline, transportation of everything mentioned.

The tax revenue from the drilling operators would provide the Federal Government with billions of dollars in revenue every year for many years to come. The economical impact would be immense. The majority of the people who would work in the field do not live in Alaska, certainly not in ANWR itself. They are your neighbors. They could be you or your loved ones. Getting a job on the North Slope means a high five figure income, six for a lot of the workers, and excellent benefits. That income is taken to countless small towns all over the lower 48 and is put into the local economy.

I realize there are countless websites with differing views. To be blunt, I do not believe one word that is uttered by the Sierra Club, NRDC, or other organizations such as those. In my view, their arguments are invariably emotional rather than factual.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks wyoD.S...very nice job.


amicus...

 

[WyoD_S]

Reading about this yesterday.

One report stated that only 2,000 acres of the ANWR will be affected.

However, they did not include the area of the roads used as these were not 'production and support facilities'. And there will be a lot of roads. Apparently the oil in the ANWR is scattered in rather small pools all over the area.

Another interesting trick is that when measuring the impact area of pipelines, they only used the areas where the supports touched the ground. Using this method I have lots of space in my room, since only where the legs of furniture touch the floor count.

And one of the biggest pieces of rhetoric, that drilling in the ANWR will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, is true only to a small degree. It's estimated that, at best, 600,000 to 900,000 barrels of oil a day will be extracted. The U.S. currently imports 10 million a day. So the ANWR will have minimal impact on imports.

Also the word 'pristine', to me, means 'untouched by man'. Not 'habitable', not 'a place I'd want to live' but 'untouched by man'. And where the ANWR is concerned I'd prefer it stays that way.

Conservation and alternate energy sources are the way to go. Unfortunately the current administration is a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the oil companies, so there will not be any movement on any of those fronts. It would be akin to crack dealers support rehab programs. Not gonna happen.

Yes, only 2000 acres would be used. The roads built are made of ice in the coldest part of the year. That is when the work would take place. When it warms up and the ice melts, no more roads.

The pipeline supports are an important point. In areas where the pipeline is not actually buried it is generally high enough off the ground for migrating animals to pass underneath without being impeded. The places where it is not high enough to pass underneath, there are no known migration routes or game trails.

The estimate I have seen is 1.4 million barrels per day, which would be over 10%, not staggering but impact nonetheless.

I agree, alternative energy sources need to be researched more intensively, no a bit of arguement from me there. Perhaps a portion of the billions in tax revenue the government would receive from ANWR production could fund this.

 

[WyoD_S]

Why are they less trustworth? Um, could it be because they stand to make a boatload of money? Could it be that thjey have a vested interest in minimizing or just flat out wishing away envornmental concerns? Could it be that they have a history of minimizing thier impact, coupled with a history or being ergigiously wrong? Could it be they have a propensity to to use bad science or bad rationals deliberately to support their positions?

Let's see... where to start.

Sierra Club, NRDC, Greenpeace, etc... all make shitloads of money, more than you or I can imagine. Their budgets are stratospheric. They regularly employ 'scientists' to invent data that supports their position. They have a vested interest in not allowing this to happen, the longer they can hold it off the more they make in donations from people who don't have a clue. They regularly over state impact to bring in more donations. They have a long history of being horribly wrong and putting thousands of people out of work because of their massive PR programs and unquestioning support in the extremely biased mass news media.

If you are going to quote industry sources as your primary supports, I can't take your position seriously. There is absolutely no objectivity there, they are known to lie like big Dawgs, cook the books and doctor the facts.

Last time I checked, the US Fish and Wildlife Service was not in the oil business, nor is the BLM, Department of the Interior, the US Army Corps of Engineers, etc... If anything they are left of center, no matter who sits in the oval office.

What are your sources? Other than your feelings on the matter. Show me some real facts and figures.

Show me proof, not biased and baseless rhetoric.

I think this really says it all:

Many parts of ANWR are pristine and should never be drilled on (and won't be by law). The coastal plain does not fall under anyones definition of pristine. It is one of the most barren, desolate, godforsaken places on the planet. There is very little wildlife, the temperatures are extreme, the land is at best inhospitible. The argument that a 'pristine wilderness' would be infringed upon is pure crap.

this is a wholly subjective argument, with no basis in anything but your opinion and aesthetics. I don't care if you think it's godforsaken. Momumont valley, the painted dessert, Arches national park were all considered godforsaken by the people who discovered them. They're still pristine, for the most part, because they were cosidered godforsaken so they weren't developed. We have a longstanding and bad habit of turning over areas we think are godforsaken to the natives or for national parks, until we discover something there that we want. Then, like the black hills, or like you would have with ANWR, we just go fuck it up or fuck over whomever we gave it to so we can rape whatever resource out of it we decided we want.

It's a pristine wilderness area, that supports a varried ecosystem, even it if dosen't look pretty to you. Arguments that it's ugly don't pahse me; Would it look any more beautiful with oil rigs working it, roads cut into it, pipelines criss crossing it, etc. If I want to see that crap I can already take 1-10 through Mobile, or I-95 though Jersey. Since you want to make an aesthetic value argument, what's so damned beautiful about those places?

The major difference here is that the natives involved are pushing for this to happen. They know, from living there and observing oil production in the Prudhoe Bay Field, that it is viable without harming the environment.

ANWR is not a park, or a monument, or a reservation, it is a Wildlife Refuge. Legally and practically there is a huge difference. When ANWR was formed the possibility of future oil development was taken into consideration. Specific areas that would minimize impact to the wildlife and the environment as a whole were set aside.

I mentioned Kenai NWR in my first post. There has been oil development there for many years. Kenai is a much smaller area with an abundance of wildlife. Far more wildlife and more environmentally sensitive areas than ANWR could ever hope to have, despite ANWR being so much larger. There has never been a problem in the Kenai area. Why would ANWR be any different?

 

[cloudy]

nor is the BLM

you're joking, right?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Let's see... where to start.

Sierra Club, NRDC, Greenpeace, etc... all make shitloads of money, more than you or I can imagine. Their budgets are stratospheric. They regularly employ 'scientists' to invent data that supports their position. They have a vested interest in not allowing this to happen, the longer they can hold it off the more they make in donations from people who don't have a clue. They regularly over state impact to bring in more donations. They have a long history of being horribly wrong and putting thousands of people out of work because of their massive PR programs and unquestioning support in the extremely biased mass news media.



Last time I checked, the US Fish and Wildlife Service was not in the oil business, nor is the BLM, Department of the Interior, the US Army Corps of Engineers, etc... If anything they are left of center, no matter who sits in the oval office.

What are your sources? Other than your feelings on the matter. Show me some real facts and figures.

Show me proof, not biased and baseless rhetoric.



The major difference here is that the natives involved are pushing for this to happen. They know, from living there and observing oil production in the Prudhoe Bay Field, that it is viable without harming the environment.

ANWR is not a park, or a monument, or a reservation, it is a Wildlife Refuge. Legally and practically there is a huge difference. When ANWR was formed the possibility of future oil development was taken into consideration. Specific areas that would minimize impact to the wildlife and the environment as a whole were set aside.

I mentioned Kenai NWR in my first post. There has been oil development there for many years. Kenai is a much smaller area with an abundance of wildlife. Far more wildlife and more environmentally sensitive areas than ANWR could ever hope to have, despite ANWR being so much larger. There has never been a problem in the Kenai area. Why would ANWR be any different?

In point one, I never held the sierra club, nor Green peace, nor any other source up as a paragon. I pointed out that your sources are biased, in the extreme, and saying I'll take their word over that of the sierra club is irrational. I provided examples of how one member of the ESA conducts bussiness, examples that tend to reinfofrce the lack of ethical standards I have postulated in big oil companies and their operations. I provided a list of people who are members, and danmed near everyone stands to profit from opening ANWR to drilling. From the petroleum foundations down to the unions who depend on cheap fule to keep their memberships employed. In short, I asked why their word is more convincing than the Sierra Clubs word. And the only response I have seen thus far is because I like their position better, which is a perfectly acceptable position for a personal choice, but isn't at all evedenatry proof that I should as well.

In point two, I'm not arguing for change, you are. The bruden of proof lies with you as in any extradrdinay claim. And the claim that drilling won't impact the wildlife of the region is extraordinary. I could google a half dozen pages of stats and figures and "expert" opinion that it would be devesating, but what's the point? That evidence is all coming from sources just as biased as your own. In fact, I have seen very little evidence, pro or con, that comes from reputable, peer reviewed sceintific journals. And I have looked. Your estimates on the oil there are a median, for example. I've seen figures as low as 600,000 barrels, as high as 29.4 billion.

You hold up government research as impeechable, I would note the government produced the reports on second hand smoke that have been proven to be so full of bad science that a federal court judge threw it out and they have procided innumerable studies on the terrible harm of smoking Marrijuanna, none of which can be produced in independent lab studies. Government agencies work to please people with an agenda, it makes their reserach suspect.

I didn' mention native peoples or their wants. I noted your point on the coastal area being godforsaken was totally subjective. It is still totally subjective. and totally irrelevant.


At base, I'm a conservative and ANWR was the status quo before I was even born. You advocate tossing out the staus quo and drilling.

To a conservative mind, you have thus far, failed to reach any of the thresholds that would make a conservative favor drilling. You've shown no overrifing need, in fact, you have as much as admitted the oill from there won't lower costs to the consumer or significantly mitigate our dependance on imported oil. You have presented no plan, or evidence that a rational mind would accept that shows you won't be screwing up the enviornment, your only case is a lack of definitive proof it will. And you provide as sources only people who stand to make short term monetary or political gain from drilling, and confess to be confused as to why I would find these sources suspect.

If you demand I prove drilling will be bad, I honestly can't. I haven't seen any research I consider authorative and unbiased to make such an argument. But i'm not advocating we stop drilling. You are advocating we start. And you have yet to provide any concrete evidnece that it won't be a disaster. In fact, you have yet to provide even credible evidence it won't. Just a bunch of industry sponsored blogs and a few statements from goverenment agencies.

You stand on your naked assertion that it's all good. I stand on mine that it's not all good. Neither of us has provided any proofs that are credible. I don't believe you can. I freely admit I can't. So this discussion comes down to your opinion vs. mine. Unless you have evidence you have yet to present of someone else cares to chime in with evidence in either direction, I'd say we have hit logger heads.

 

[WyoD_S]

you're joking, right?

Checking all over the web... hmm... nope, Bureau of Land Management is not listed as an oil company. Pretty sure I was right.

They would be a Government agency that is in control of Government lands. Part of their assigned duties is to manage leases for use of that land, amongst many other things. One of the many things BLM land can be leased for is oil exploration and development.

If the BLM is in the oil business, then they are also ranchers, farmers, goat herders, road builders, miners, loggers, food processors, etc...

 

[WyoD_S]

In point one, I never held the sierra club, nor Green peace, nor any other source up as a paragon. I pointed out that your sources are biased, in the extreme, and saying I'll take their word over that of the sierra club is irrational. I provided examples of how one member of the ESA conducts bussiness, examples that tend to reinfofrce the lack of ethical standards I have postulated in big oil companies and their operations. I provided a list of people who are members, and danmed near everyone stands to profit from opening ANWR to drilling. From the petroleum foundations down to the unions who depend on cheap fule to keep their memberships employed. In short, I asked why their word is more convincing than the Sierra Clubs word. And the only response I have seen thus far is because I like their position better, which is a perfectly acceptable position for a personal choice, but isn't at all evedenatry proof that I should as well.

In point two, I'm not arguing for change, you are. The bruden of proof lies with you as in any extradrdinay claim. And the claim that drilling won't impact the wildlife of the region is extraordinary. I could google a half dozen pages of stats and figures and "expert" opinion that it would be devesating, but what's the point? That evidence is all coming from sources just as biased as your own. In fact, I have seen very little evidence, pro or con, that comes from reputable, peer reviewed sceintific journals. And I have looked. Your estimates on the oil there are a median, for example. I've seen figures as low as 600,000 barrels, as high as 29.4 billion.

You hold up government research as impeechable, I would note the government produced the reports on second hand smoke that have been proven to be so full of bad science that a federal court judge threw it out and they have procided innumerable studies on the terrible harm of smoking Marrijuanna, none of which can be produced in independent lab studies. Government agencies work to please people with an agenda, it makes their reserach suspect.

I didn' mention native peoples or their wants. I noted your point on the coastal area being godforsaken was totally subjective. It is still totally subjective. and totally irrelevant.


At base, I'm a conservative and ANWR was the status quo before I was even born. You advocate tossing out the staus quo and drilling.

To a conservative mind, you have thus far, failed to reach any of the thresholds that would make a conservative favor drilling. You've shown no overrifing need, in fact, you have as much as admitted the oill from there won't lower costs to the consumer or significantly mitigate our dependance on imported oil. You have presented no plan, or evidence that a rational mind would accept that shows you won't be screwing up the enviornment, your only case is a lack of definitive proof it will. And you provide as sources only people who stand to make short term monetary or political gain from drilling, and confess to be confused as to why I would find these sources suspect.

If you demand I prove drilling will be bad, I honestly can't. I haven't seen any research I consider authorative and unbiased to make such an argument. But i'm not advocating we stop drilling. You are advocating we start. And you have yet to provide any concrete evidnece that it won't be a disaster. In fact, you have yet to provide even credible evidence it won't. Just a bunch of industry sponsored blogs and a few statements from goverenment agencies.

You stand on your naked assertion that it's all good. I stand on mine that it's not all good. Neither of us has provided any proofs that are credible. I don't believe you can. I freely admit I can't. So this discussion comes down to your opinion vs. mine. Unless you have evidence you have yet to present of someone else cares to chime in with evidence in either direction, I'd say we have hit logger heads.

My proof is concrete, it is the many years of successful drilling in Prudhoe Bay and the Kenai NWR, to name just two areas, without any significant environmental impact. Not only has there been no harm, in the instance of the caribou herds there has been great gain. If I am confused, it is because of people ignoring this evidence, and saying things will happen that are the exact opposite of what has really happened.

A possible 10% reduction in reliance on foriegn oil over a 30 to 50 year period is not insignificant by any means. With rising costs I doubt we will ever see gas under $2 a gallon again. With ANWR oil available in the pipeline, it will provide some stabilizing effect. I am no economist so I don't have a clue how to explain it well enough to get you to understand.

You stated earlier 'caribou herds notwithstanding'. You'll accept that from the USFWS, but not anything else they say?

Of course there are people who are advocating the drilling that will profit, so what. The people who are against the drilling are making a profit with their opposition, yet their motives aren't suspect?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

My proof is concrete, it is the many years of successful drilling in Prudhoe Bay and the Kenai NWR, to name just two areas, without any significant environmental impact. Not only has there been no harm, in the instance of the caribou herds there has been great gain. If I am confused, it is because of people ignoring this evidence, and saying things will happen that are the exact opposite of what has really happened.

A possible 10% reduction in reliance on foriegn oil over a 30 to 50 year period is not insignificant by any means. With rising costs I doubt we will ever see gas under $2 a gallon again. With ANWR oil available in the pipeline, it will provide some stabilizing effect. I am no economist so I don't have a clue how to explain it well enough to get you to understand.

You stated earlier 'caribou herds notwithstanding'. You'll accept that from the USFWS, but not anything else they say?

Of course there are people who are advocating the drilling that will profit, so what. The people who are against the drilling are making a profit with their opposition, yet their motives aren't suspect?

Pollution

There is about a spill a day at Prudhoe Bay. The Prudhoe Bay oil fields and Trans-Alaska Pipeline have caused an average of 409 spills annually on the North Slope since 1996 (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation spill database 1996-1999). Roughly 40 different substances from acid to waste oil are spilled during routine operations. Over 1.3 million gallons spilled between 1996 and 1999, most commonly diesel and crude oil. Diesel fuel is acutely toxic to plant life.

A study of diesel spills in Alaska's arctic found that 28 years later there were still substantial hydrocarbons in the soil and little vegetation recovery. The Exxon Valdez studies show petroleum hydrocarbons pose higher risks to fish and wildlife than previously known and that there is long-lasting ecological damage. Prudhoe Bay is a major source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The oil industry on Alaska's North Slope annual emits approximately 56,427 tons of oxides of nitrogen, which contributes to smog and acid rain. This is more than twice the amount emitted by Washington, DC (EPA National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends1900-1998, 2000). North Slope oil facilities release roughly 24,000-114,000 tons of methane, a greenhouse gas. Substances associated with Prudhoe Bay drilling operations, natural gas facilities, and incinerators were detected in accumulated snow in the area. Despite improvements in drilling waste disposal techniques over the years, problems remain: During horizontal drilling of the Colville River pipeline crossing for Arco's Alpine field, 2.3 million gallons of drilling muds disappeared under the river in 1998. It is unknown where they ended up and if they will ultimately pollute Alaska's largest arctic river. At Endicott, contractors for British Petroleum illegally disposed of hazardous drilling wastes containing benzene and other toxics for at least three years until a whistleblower came forward. Some of the waste reached the surface and workers were exposed to hazardous fumes. In February 2000, BP was ordered to pay $15.5 million in criminal fines and to implement a new environmental management program, and to serve 5-years probation for its failure in reporting the dumping. BP also paid $6.5 million in civil penalties. Its contractor pled guilty to 15 counts of violating the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and paid a $3 million fine. A huge cleanup job remains across the North Slope.

For example: Hundreds of old exploratory and production drilling waste pits have yet to be closed out and the sites restored. More than 55 contaminated sites associated with the oil industry exist on the North Slope (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). Many gravel pads are contaminated by chronic spills. Oil companies will not re-use gravel from many abandoned sites due to concerns about contamination. Although there have been some pilot studies of rehabilitation techniques for gravel pads in the arctic oil fields, the technical or economic feasibility of restoring the tens of thousands of acres of roads and drilling sites has yet to be proven.

Sounds like an absolute paragon of ecological freindliness and responsibility. Yeay, a veritable show piece of industry responsibility.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Pollution

There is about a spill a day at Prudhoe Bay. The Prudhoe Bay oil fields and Trans-Alaska Pipeline have caused an average of 409 spills annually on the North Slope since 1996 (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation spill database 1996-1999). Roughly 40 different substances from acid to waste oil are spilled during routine operations. Over 1.3 million gallons spilled between 1996 and 1999, most commonly diesel and crude oil. Diesel fuel is acutely toxic to plant life.

A study of diesel spills in Alaska's arctic found that 28 years later there were still substantial hydrocarbons in the soil and little vegetation recovery. The Exxon Valdez studies show petroleum hydrocarbons pose higher risks to fish and wildlife than previously known and that there is long-lasting ecological damage. Prudhoe Bay is a major source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The oil industry on Alaska's North Slope annual emits approximately 56,427 tons of oxides of nitrogen, which contributes to smog and acid rain. This is more than twice the amount emitted by Washington, DC (EPA National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends1900-1998, 2000). North Slope oil facilities release roughly 24,000-114,000 tons of methane, a greenhouse gas. Substances associated with Prudhoe Bay drilling operations, natural gas facilities, and incinerators were detected in accumulated snow in the area. Despite improvements in drilling waste disposal techniques over the years, problems remain: During horizontal drilling of the Colville River pipeline crossing for Arco's Alpine field, 2.3 million gallons of drilling muds disappeared under the river in 1998. It is unknown where they ended up and if they will ultimately pollute Alaska's largest arctic river. At Endicott, contractors for British Petroleum illegally disposed of hazardous drilling wastes containing benzene and other toxics for at least three years until a whistleblower came forward. Some of the waste reached the surface and workers were exposed to hazardous fumes. In February 2000, BP was ordered to pay $15.5 million in criminal fines and to implement a new environmental management program, and to serve 5-years probation for its failure in reporting the dumping. BP also paid $6.5 million in civil penalties. Its contractor pled guilty to 15 counts of violating the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and paid a $3 million fine. A huge cleanup job remains across the North Slope.

For example: Hundreds of old exploratory and production drilling waste pits have yet to be closed out and the sites restored. More than 55 contaminated sites associated with the oil industry exist on the North Slope (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). Many gravel pads are contaminated by chronic spills. Oil companies will not re-use gravel from many abandoned sites due to concerns about contamination. Although there have been some pilot studies of rehabilitation techniques for gravel pads in the arctic oil fields, the technical or economic feasibility of restoring the tens of thousands of acres of roads and drilling sites has yet to be proven.

Sounds like an absolute paragon of ecological freindliness and responsibility. Yeay, a veritable show piece of industry responsibility.

ETA: I'll save you some work, here's the author's bio

Pamela A. Miller (Arctic Coordinator) Pamela A. Miller (Arctic Coordinator) has a B.S. in Wildlife Biology from The Evergreen State College and M.S. in Journalism from the University of Oregon. She came to Alaska about 25 years ago to study fish at Denali National Park. For eight years she served the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, six of them in Fairbanks, Alaska. As wildlife biologist for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge she studied bird habitats on the coastal plain and was a field monitor of seismic oil exploration. She reviewed the impacts of oil development projects in Prudhoe Bay for the Fairbanks FWS field office. She worked for The Wilderness Society as Assistant Regional Director in Anchorage and Alaska Program Director in Washington DC and chaired the Alaska Coalition working nationwide to protect the Arctic Refuge. In 1996 she opened Arctic Connections, a small business focused on Arctic oil impact research and wilderness guiding for non-profit organizations and media. She grew up in Cleveland, Ohio where she played the flute, rode bicyles, and learned to dance. Pam joined NAEC in January, 2006.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Alaskan oil spill alarms ignored

April 22, 2006

By WESLEY LOY Anchorage Daily News

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — A pipeline leak-detection system sounded warnings on four straight days in the week leading up to last month's record North Slope oil spill, but field workers interpreted the signals as false alarms, a new investigative report says.

The report, prepared by a team of BP and state investigators, confirms that the leak from a large Prudhoe Bay oil field pipeline went on undetected for at least five days "and probably much longer."

The highly technical, 125-page report also suggests that the pipeline's leak- detection system is effective only in catching leaks that release large volumes of oil rapidly. It doesn't work well in detecting small, slow leaks that over time can result in large spills.

A Prudhoe Bay worker driving along the pipeline discovered the spill March 2 after catching a whiff of petroleum in the air.

Spill responders estimate 201,000 gallons, or 4,790 barrels, of oil oozed over almost 2 acres of snow-covered tundra and the edge of a frozen lake. Corrosion was blamed for eating an almond-sized hole in the steel pipeline, which remains out of service for repairs.

The line is a major artery in the web of pipes that drain the Prudhoe Bay field, the nation's largest.

BP this week presented the investigative report to the state Department of Environmental Conservation, which continues to weigh a fine or other penalties against BP. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also is conducting a criminal investigation, BP spokesmen have said.

The seven-member investigative team included BP managers and engineers based in Alaska as well as Houston, BP attorney Randal Buckendorf, a Prudhoe field worker representing the United Steelworkers union, and Gary Evans, a DEC environmental specialist.

The report says that on four consecutive days, Feb. 25-28, the pipeline's leak-detection alarms went off "but were ruled out as a spill" after people monitoring the system considered a variety of technical factors.

For one thing, a leak should have been indicated by readings on an adjoining segment of the pipeline, but that wasn't the case, the investigators found.

Other factors also made the three-mile pipeline prone to false leak alarms, the report says. The oil flowing through it had a relatively high level of sediment, and the amount of oil moving through the line can fluctuate depending on output from an upstream oil processing plant.

All those factors create "noise" that can mask indications of an actual leak, especially a small one, the report says.

Under state regulations, the pipeline's detector is supposed to be able to spot a leak amounting to 1 percent or more of daily throughput. The leak was too much of a trickle to hit that trigger, the investigators found.

Still, the leak detector emitted alerts because it was set on high sensitivity to detect a leak as small as 0.5 percent of daily throughput.

Engineers and other workers who monitor the system were aware of the warnings but determined the alarms were false, the report says.

It stops short of blaming anyone for the spill.

A $6 million cleanup of the oiled tundra is essentially complete, and DEC officials say they believe environmental damage to the tundra will be minimal.

Taking the leaky pipeline out of service for weeks caused North Slope oil production to decline by as much as 12 percent or 100,000 barrels per day, but BP says it has restored most of that production by routing oil down other pipelines.

Federal pipeline regulators have ordered BP to closely inspect the leaky pipe and two other major trunk lines to look for potential trouble spots. They also ordered the company to step up the use of pigs — bullet-shaped devices that slide through pipelines to look for corrosion or to swab out sludge.

The above-ground pipeline leaked at a point where it passed through a mound of gravel known as a caribou crossing, which works as a sort of bridge for the migratory animals.

In 1998, a pig run identified six spots at the caribou crossing where corrosion was chewing pits into the pipe's inner wall. One of those six was where the oil leaked, the report says.

BP had not done another pig run since 1998 to test for internal corrosion.

Maureen Johnson, a BP senior vice president, has said the company plans to work with the DEC on ways to detect smaller spills that might evade leak detectors.

One idea, she said, might be to increase the use of aerial infrared surveys, which can spot warm oil obscured by snow.

BP runs Prudhoe and owns 26 percent of the production. The biggest Prudhoe owners are Exxon Mobil and Conoco Phillips, each with about 36 percent.



Ya sure you want to hold this up as concrete evidence that there won't be severe ecolgical damage?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

· BP Amoco, despite impressive environmental rhetoric, has their own list of shame. On Sept. 23, 1999, BP Amoco pled guilty to a federal felony connected to illegal dumping of hazardous waste at their Endicott Oil Field near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. As part of a plea agreement BP Amoco agreed to pay $22 million in criminal and civil penalties. In 1995, the BP subcontractor working the Endicott Field was found guilty of illegally injecting hazardous waste back into the groundwater. The subcontractor was ordered to pay a $15 million fine for violating the Clean Water Act.

· On July 24, 2000, BP Amoco launched a new public relations campaign claiming that the company was " Beyond Petroleum." The same day they made the announcement, the company agreed to pay $10 million in penalties for environmental and pollution violations discovered by the EPA.

· BP is responsible for the second largest oil spill in California history, a 400,000 gallon spill that covered twenty square miles near Huntington Beach, in 1991.

· Phillips Petroleum is responsible for two lethal explosions in Pasadena, Texas that killed more than 20 people

· The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accused Exxon of nearly 200 violations of the Clean Air Act, and demanded $4.7 million in fines, in 1998 alone.

· In August 1998, Exxon and Tosco agreed to pay $4.8 million in damages and for environmental restoration after discharging selenium, a carcinogen, into San Francisco Bay.

· Chevron has paid more than $70 million in fines, settlements, and penalties stemming from environmental violations.

· The President of Chevron U.S.A. appeared in federal court in May 1992 to plead guilty to 65 violations of the Clean Water Act and pay $8 million in fines, for illegal discharges from the company's offshore oil- and gas-production platform "Grace" off the California Coast.

· In the last 25 years there have been at least 36 spills, leaks, blowouts, or illegal discharges from Chevron oil fields, drilling rigs, or pipelines, including a spill in the Gulf of Mexico.



Really sure?

 

[amicus]

Energy Hearing in Washington D.C.


The United States Senate is holding committee hearings on aspects of the energy crisis soon to be faced by the nation. Two separate committees, one being broadcast on CSPAN, the other on CSPAN2, made some interesting points today.

Although one of the hearings is being devoted to the issues surrounding turning coal into liquid fuel, other aspects of the energy community were brought into the discussion.

When asked if the coal industry could produce enough coal to supply existing demand and also meet the potential demand for new liquefaction plants, a Coal Company CEO (no doubt testifying under oath as there were Democrats present) gave a scenario of what it takes to ‘site’ a new coal mine. The largest difficulty is in the licensing process, hindered by environmental opposition and built in expenses and delays, it was said that it takes seven to ten years before building the mine just to get government permission.

While some on this forum suggest that the Federal government tax and spend to solve the energy crisis, it turns out that government is the problem, not the solution to the shortage of energy.

The cost a new coal mine, or a new oil refinery, depending upon the capacity desired, is between three and ten Billion dollars of capital investment and just the building process to bring the plant on line takes years.

The private sector of course uses private investment capital to fund such huge projects over a span of years and through the expenditure of billions of dollars.

There has not been a new nuclear power plant constructed in over thirty years due to lengthy and expensive licensing requirements. Since the passage of the 2005 energy bill, which streamlined bureaucratic red tape and delays, nine separate Energy Companies have submitted from twelve to twenty five separate proposals to construct nuclear plants in the United Stated..

France currently supplies 77 percent of electrical energy used in that country by the use of Nuclear Energy; the United States current supplies 20 percent, or one in five consumers in this country.

Further government requirements and regulations, such as blending ‘boutique’ fuels, gasoline and diesel fuel adds to the cost per gallon and in many cases cannot be transported in existing pipelines as it contaminates other fuels that may alternately use the pipeline or tanker facility.

Alternative fuels such as coal liquefication, ethanol and other non petroleum based fuels only become economically viable when the price of crude oil rises to the $45 per barrel range. Before that level it is not economically feasible to investors to fund a money losing project.

Once again, it is government that is the problem, not the solution. Oil, Coal and Natural Gas Energy companies are ready, willing and able to expand to meet the growing demand for energy sources, government just needs to get out of the way.

There was another aspect of one of the hearings, that of energy supply and demand, world wide, taking into consideration the increasingly robust economies of several nations throughout the world. The United States is being priced out of the global market and in its own best interest needs to become energy indepent as rapidly as possible.

This means utilizing all resources available within the country and opening rights to drill and mine offshore on both coastal plains and shallow water areas.

It also means letting private industry decide what 'alternatives' are economically viable and give them every incentive and the freedom from red tape to do their job.

It would be most helpful to have a Republican Congress and White House over the next 10 year period to help bring this about.

Do a good deed this November, go out and vote for a Republican, one who is not an ecologist or a conservative.



Amicus….

 

[WyoD_S]

ETA: I'll save you some work, here's the author's bio

Pamela A. Miller (Arctic Coordinator) Pamela A. Miller (Arctic Coordinator) has a B.S. in Wildlife Biology from The Evergreen State College and M.S. in Journalism from the University of Oregon. She came to Alaska about 25 years ago to study fish at Denali National Park. For eight years she served the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, six of them in Fairbanks, Alaska. As wildlife biologist for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge she studied bird habitats on the coastal plain and was a field monitor of seismic oil exploration. She reviewed the impacts of oil development projects in Prudhoe Bay for the Fairbanks FWS field office. She worked for The Wilderness Society as Assistant Regional Director in Anchorage and Alaska Program Director in Washington DC and chaired the Alaska Coalition working nationwide to protect the Arctic Refuge. In 1996 she opened Arctic Connections, a small business focused on Arctic oil impact research and wilderness guiding for non-profit organizations and media. She grew up in Cleveland, Ohio where she played the flute, rode bicyles, and learned to dance. Pam joined NAEC in January, 2006.

I know 'Pam' quite well. She is about as far left as a person can get, I can't think of anyone who is more unfriendly to industry, be it drilling, logging, or mining. The very definition of 'environazi'.

I never said the Prudhoe Bay field was perfect, nor is any worsite on the face of the earth. Despite the doom and gloom tone of the snippet you posted, the cleanup and ongoing production in Prudhoe Bay has a very good record when compared to other areas.

The article stated that there are an average of 409 spills a year. You might be interested to know what qualifies as a spill. Of course they count oil, condensate, drilling mud, grease, diesel, etc... What makes one wonder, is that they consider anything over a cup a spill for their purposes (BLM and other agencies consider anything over 10 gallons a reportable spill). In addition, any other substance that hits the ground, is considered a spill. Including but not limited to: gravel, dirt, coffee, water, gatorade, etc...

You choose to believe the absolute worst possible scenario.

I choose to believe people are more sensitive to environmental concerns than they are given credit for.

As I've said in another post, I see the 'new oilfield' on a daily basis. The carefree days of 10 years ago don't exist anymore. Environmental concerns are at the top of the list on every jobsite. I see this happening, you don't. You don't have anything other than reams of old records and biased reporting to go by. The archaic methods that caused problems in the past are gone forever.