The Case for ANWR - From Native Inupiat Eskimos

April 25th, 2006 at 11:07 by MsUnderestimated

I have seen very few sites that have stated the case for ANWR more than the ANWR homepage itself. But, they have a new slick, very informative and compelling flashmovie, Narrated by a Native Inupiat Eskimo from that area. His name is Fenton Rexford, from Kaktovik, Alaska. I truly can’t improve on the website’s content, so I’m just going to share some of it with you here. I do urge you, however, to visit the site and look around.

ANWR.bmp

Here’s a bit about the local support:

Organizations representing the residents of the Coastal Plain and surrounding area such as the City of Kaktovic, Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, North Slope Borough, Arctic Slope Regional Corp., Doyon Regional Corporation and Alaskan Federation of Natives have all endorsed development based on their experience with Prudhoe Bay.

ANWR Support.jpg

There are also facts to predict strong jobs growth; not just for Alaska, but for the entire United States.

ANWR.org has their OWN “Top 10,” and I think they’re worth considering:

TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR

1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration: Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

ANWARTinyPlace.jpg

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury: Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are 4.2 billion dollars.

3. Jobs To Be Created: Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

ANWR Jobs.jpg

4. Economic Impact: Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America’s Best Chance for a Major Discovery: The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America’s best possibility for the discovery of another giant “Prudhoe Bay-sized” oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline: The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it’s domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 943,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly: In 2004 the US imported an average of 58% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $150 billion in oil imports and over $170 billion including refined petroleum products. That¹s $19.9 million dollars an hour! Including defence costs the number would be nearly a trillion dollars.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals: Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska ’s arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

CaribouNoImpact.jpg

9. Arctic Technology: Advanced technology has greatly reduced the ‘footprint” of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support: More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

If anybody can present a cogent argument to me to refute this veritable gold-mine, I invite you to do so - but please bring facts and ammunition. I will not debate with an intellectually unarmed idiot.

P.S. ANWR is not the total answer… but it is a necessary start.

Choose Options to Share This Post
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Fark] [Google] [MySpace] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Yahoo!] [Email] More »

 

Posted in Our Economy, Telling It Like it Is | | TrackBack | Email This Post Email This Post | Print This Post Print This Post | View blog reactions

Viewing 6 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Granted, it is a necessary first step. You know what though? I think getting anyone, Republican or Democrat to take ANY first step is really the hardest battle we face. That's my disheartened reaction to this. I've heard these and many other well-thought out reasoned plans on fixing this. Being well-thought out and reasoned, I think they may stand little chance of ever happening with our current crop of pandering yahoos in congress. Not to sound cynical or anything.
    • ^
    • v
    What I find most disconcerting is Mexico has just hit a very large find of oil in the Gulf of Mexico,and Cuba is begining to drill 45 miles off their coast,which means thats 45 miles off of our coast. Yet enviromentalist stop us from drilling any where in the gulf. Common sense does not seem to be our long suit.
    • ^
    • v
    Mark:

    Just reading this "We are at 8 year supply highs," I have to respond.

    Yes, we are producing a lot of oil, but if you'll look at the documentation from the post before this one, you'll see consumption from other industrialized nations has screamed up to the top! We're not the only ones using it.

    Ms. U
    • ^
    • v
    Mark:

    I agree with you wholeheartedly. I added a P.S. to it today. Jaiphx is right... it is a journey of a thousand miles, but if we don't start no that journey now, we'll never get "there." ANWR is a start. After all, that section of ANWR was set aside specifically for oil drilling when it was laid out.

    The thing that bothers me most about this whole thing is this - this is like trying to get a horse fat for pasture in the winter by feeding it in the fall. You HAVE to start feeding it the spring or summer before so that the horse can have enough built UP before winter strikes.

    I blame the enviro-whackos for this problem, and the politicos, both left and right, for pandering to the bunny-hugging base.

    Ms. U.
    • ^
    • v
    A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.ANWR is that first step with out it the journey never begins.
    • ^
    • v
    Not going to try to refute your ANWR arguement, because any new domestic sources make sense. But do you think this will in any way be more than a band-aid on our overall energy problem? Too often I see ANWR being shown as the solution when it is really just one prong of a multifaceted solution that needs to happen. We are at 8 year supply highs. So oil inventory is not the problem. Granted, having the inventory in beheading-intensive places does cause speculators to worry, but Katrina had nothing to do with crude problems, it was refininery problems. We have to shut down the refineries twice a year to "retool" for the varieties of reformulated gas for environmental reasons. The only environment these formulas actully affect is economic. The lack of being able to build refineries is an even more worrisome problem. We are over 95% capacity last I saw. One fire or accident at a refinery and we are screwed for months. Don't even get me started on the confiscatory gas taxes which are insane.

    Don't get me wrong, ANWR is a necessary part of fixing the energy problem, but it is only ONE part, and not the biggest by a long shot, in my estimation.

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus