There is a critical vote today in the US Senate on drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. NPI Blog has some information on how you can (quickly) voice your opposition.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Failed 49-51. Fucking Landrieu voted Nay.
I’m sure there are more steps that can be taken, but this was the prime opportunity.
What about Inouye and Akaka from Hawaii? Their support would have been critical. Apparently they were promised big bucks for Hawaii if they voted against the amendment.
Why not ask Alaskans, or more importantly – the Alaska natives who live on the North Slope, what they think about exploring in ANWR? I think you’d find a majority in favor of development. It seems like lower-48 liberals like to decide what is best for Alaskans.
I grew up in Hawaii, so I’m as pissed as anyone, but the issue’s a complicated one (from Akaka’s perspective, anyway):
http://www.senate.gov/~akaka/s.....21730.html
Rick @ 3
Just a reminder that that land does not belong to the natives on the north slope, nor, in fact, to Alaska. Federal land belongs to the Federal government; i.e., all the people, including lower 48 liberals and conservatives. I wasn’t here at the time it was dedicated, but there is a reasonable likelihood that MRNP and ONP might have been clearcut if the decision had been left to the locals.
I know this decision may seem like a bad one for everyone on the left…..but all of you use oil in one form or another and you are against outsourcing, right?
Before you get too upset, read about the plan for drilling. It is as safe as it gets. Remember when the oil pipeline was going to be put in and all the knee jerk environmentalists were against it because it would destroy the caribou herds? Well, not only did it not destroy them…their numbers increased because of the pipeline.
And by knee jerk environmentalists I mean people who don’t do their research but instaed have a visceral reaction to this……
I am as concerned as anyone about drilling here…but the plan is a good one. And since we all use oil it’s reality.
If you want to be really upset about environmental disasters go look at the pulp mills in Oregon[joe…are you listening?] or any of the big chemical companies. We do need to stop the trading of air quality, everywhere.
Dems shouldn’t forget just how much of ANWR Jimmy Carter set aside for oil exploration — 1.5 million acres, if I’m not mistaken. They’re only talking about 2,000 acres now.
For unnumbered centuries of human history the wilderness has given way. The priority of industry has become dogma. Are we as yet sufficiently enlightened to realize that we must now challenge that dogma, or do without our wilderness? Do we realize that industry, which has been our good servant, might make a poor master? Let no man expect that one lone government bureau is able—even tho it be willing—to thrash out this question alone.
[….] Our remnants of wilderness will yield bigger values to the nation’s character and health than they will to its pocketbook, and to destroy them will be to admit that the latter are the only values that interest us.
—Aldo Leopold
The plan is NOT a good one. The reserves are tiny, and will not come on line for a decade or more. It’s a waste of time. We’d be better off spending the next 10 years funding cooperative R&D technology projects, and working to reduce our consumption.
The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders.
—Edward Abbey
Dems shouldn’t forget just how much of ANWR Jimmy Carter set aside for oil exploration – 1.5 million acres, if I’m not mistaken. They’re only talking about 2,000 acres now.
–Mark
Actually Mark, the reserve is 19 million acres and 1.5 million have been set aside for future drilling. The current legislation provides that DRILLING can occur on only 2000 acres, not including connecting roads and support facilities. A single drilling pad is generally around 10 acres. Thus, they can spread 200 drill sites throughout the reserve, all connected by roads and pipelines. That is not my definition of a wilderness reserve.
Rick @ 3
Why should Alaskans be the only ones to have a say in what happens to an area of national or even global environmental significance? That area belongs to all of us, and is important to all of us, not just those Alaskans looking to line their pockets.
Im not against drilling, but in 2000, bush shoved the mandatory clean up legislation to the back burner, and there it remains.
Companies should be required to post enough bond, for the eventual clean up that will be necessary.
Currently, they are paying bonds, averaging 10% of what clean up costs have been running.(approx., i dont have the numbers right here, but i’ll find them).
There was legislation ready to ba passed to cure this problem, but as soon as bush was “appointed” in 2000, one of his first actions in office, was to take this mandatory clean up language off the table.
As far as the size of drill pads, I dont know about alaska, but i built many pads in wyoming, and they were much smaller than 10 acres. 2 acres would be closer, and i think maybe that is stretching it a bit.
Some of the things people worry about when they hear about drilling, are simply not true.
There were many times, I drove a truck or piece of equipment through herds of deer and elk.
The animals were not concerned much about me, unless i hopped out and spooked them.
they went about their business as did I.
these animals would walk right through the drill site, without hesitation.
I’ll tell you what did the biggest damage to these huge herds that once were, was over harvesting.
When we worked out there, we knew the area well. The game dept., would count herds in one spot, then come back after herds moved a few miles, and count them again as new animals.
It was crazy.
they sold so many tags, they killed off huge herds.
Today, where in the 70’s you could see hundreds of deer gathered, there are handfuls.
Another mass killer was several terrible winters when I was there.
One year, when the snow melted, there were piles of deer, antelope, and elk lying where they had sought shelter from the wind, and gotten buried in drifts.
When properly reclaimed, even the huge uranium mines, were re seeded and support many grazing anumals.
I remember the year yellowstone burned, how people were spreading rumors how the animals had no where to go now.
Funny, within 6 weeks, greens were up and the animals were all over it.
Probably more animals after the fires, as now the grasses could grow where before there were nothing but pines.
sorry about the rambling.
Torridjoe@9….actually the reserves are not tiny ,they are estimated to be 10.4 BILLION barrels of oil. They usually underestimate the amount of oil when they come up with these numbers as they did in Pruhoe Bay where they actually found three times more oil than predicted. This oil in ANWR is the second largest discovery of oil in U.S. history to put it in perspective for you.The plan is about as environmentally friendly as you can get when it comes to drilling. They will only be working during the winter months and all roads will be “ice roads” that melt away come spring thaw.
Oil is a big part of our lives ….you are reading this post on a computer made form oil.The soles of your shoes are made from oil…..and probably the chair you are sitting in as well as the thread that they stitched your jeans together with.You cannot escape it……
The R&D goes on in parallel with this drilling. They are not mutually exclusive…fortunately.
If there is one thing that I am passionate about it’s the environment, and that’s why I do my research and pay attention. And as much as we all want to live in Richard Brautigan’s “In watermelon sugar”[ if you haven’t read it….you should] we don’t…we live in a world that is fueled and built by and of OIL. That’s reality….I want it to change to, but until it does, that is reality. All the wishful thinking in the world won’t change it.
steven @10
“Actually Mark, the reserve is 19 million acres and 1.5 million have been set aside for future drilling. The current legislation provides that DRILLING can occur on only 2000 acres, not including connecting roads and support facilities.”
So, with 1.5 million acres, only 2000 acres of that with messy technology, we get some good hunting roads. Meanwhile, 17.5 million acres remains pristine? Wow, sounds like a bargain to me.
marks @ 14
“Meanwhile, 17.5 million acres remains pristine?”
I think it is more like 18 million. And not only are they pristine, but they’re loaded with bugs in the summer. The ANWR site tries to downplay it, but one apparently doesn’t want to open their mouth outside during “bug season.” Drives the caribou crazy, too.
steven @ 10
I tried to find the exact language, but because it is wedged into the budget, it isn’t simple. If you’ve got the actual language, please post a link. I’ll reserve further comment until I read it.
Mark @15
Maybe that is why I don’t hunt there…
TJ @ 9, ghost @ 13
Whether the ANWR reserves are “tiny” or large depends on your perspective. Most experts think ANWR holds about 7-9 billion barrels of recoverable oil, which makes ANWR one of North America’s 5 largest oilfields. But measured against world and U.S. consumption (83 million barrels per day and 21 million bpd respectively), ANWR could supply the world for 3 months or the U.S. for a little over 1 year.
ANWR will not ease short-term supplies or prices because it will take 10 years for ANWR oil to hit the market. By then, it won’t even add to existing supplies, it will only replace dwindling flows from Prudhoe Bay. It will stave off depletion of our Alaskan supplies for a decade or so, but that’s all ANWR can do.
Over half the world supply comes from a handful of “supergiant” fields. Most of these have been producing for 50 to 75 years, and are in decline. The last supergiant field was discovered in the 1960s and most experts believe none remain to be found.
The planet’s original endowment of oil is believed to have been 1.8 to 2 trillion barrels. Mankind has consumed 900 billion barrels in the last 150 years. At current consumption rates, the remaining oil will last about 30 more years. But long before the supply is exhausted, production will peak and then decline, and no amount of technology or investment will be able to prevent a shrinking supply. When that happens, prices will spike sharply. It’s important to remember the world economy doesn’t just depend on oil, it depends on cheap oil, and the era of cheap oil is nearly over — possibly within the next 3 to 5 years.
This does not mean the world is nearing exhaustion of nonrenewable fossil fuels. Far from it. Tar sands alone contain at least three times as much oil as the world’s original liquid petroleum supply. Much of this supply is concentrated in two super-super-giant tar sands fields, both in the western hemisphere. One is in Canada, and is currently producing 750,000 barrels of oil a day. The other is in Venezuela, and is untapped as that country is still working off its huge oil reserves. In addition, the U.S. has over 1 trillion barrels of oil-equivalent — more than the Middle East’s oil reserves — of what is commonly called shale oil. This material is not oil but a chemically incomplete hydrocarbon called kerogen that requires processing to be usable as fuel. Finally, the U.S. alone still has a 500-year supply of coal.
The Middle East has by far the lowest extraction costs — around $1.50 to $2.50 per bbl. By comparison, marine and arctic oil is expensive to product — about $15 to $20 per bbl. Canadian tar sands mining and processing costs have fallen to a competitive range — around $10 per bbl — and Canada is expanding its tar sands production.
However, the vast untapped supplies of so-called alternative fuels (tar sands, shale oil, etc.) are not grounds for complacency. Mining tar sands and shale oil is environmentally destructive and requires vast quantities of water. America’s kerogen-bearing ores are located in the dry West where the necessary water supplies are nonexistent. In addition, cooking the kerogen out of the rock causes the rock to expand, which results in the slag occupying more volume than the hole it came out of — this means that after the processed ore is dumped back into the excavation pits there will still be gigantic slag heaps left over with no place to go except to sit as ugly eyesores on the landscape, leaching caustic chemical residues into the surrounding soils. One company is experimenting with using genetically engineered bacteria to convert the kerogen into petroleum underground, which could then be pumped out of conventional wells without need of mining pits, oceans of water, or slag heaps. Unless some imaginative technology like this actually works, the U.S. may never be able to utilize its shale oil reserves.
Although fossil fuels almost certainly will be around beyond our lifetimes, they will not last forever. Petroleum should be viewed as a one-time gift of nature that we must use wisely to get us through the transition period to the energy technologies that will sustain humanity into the distant future. Accordingly, we should be do everything possible right now to develop those technologies, instead of just cruising along on the status quo until an energy crisis hits us between the eyes. If we fail to what probably is a one-chance window of opportunity properly, the world of the future is likely to be one of unceasing conflict as nations war over the remaining fossil fuel supplies.
Human economic history is largely a history of steadily rising standards of living and increased economic efficiency largely because of the development of ever-more-efficient fuels and the increasing mechanization that went hand-in-hand with history’s previous energy transitions — from wood to coal, and coal to oil and gas. Right now, there is no substitute for oil. It is still the cheapest energy, and we can’t shift to other energy sources with losing economic efficiency and suffering a lower standard of energy. Is energy cheaper and more efficient than oil? Yes, absolutely. There is more energy in the sunlight that strikes the earth in one day than there was in all the oil the planet ever had.
But an even larger threat to humanity and the environment than use and eventual depletion of oil and other fossil fuels is human population growth. Not only does a growing world population consume energy and other earth resources at an accelerating pace, but the huge human population is severely pressuring the global environment and threatens to push many other animal species into extinction. In nature, animal populations continue growing until the food source is maxed out, then when environmental change occurs the species experiences massive die-off. Will the human species experience a die-off (including possibly a total die-off) by overstressing the planet until its ability to support our species suddenly collapses? That’s a possibility. Will it happen in our lifetimes? Possibly, but probably not. But we owe it to our progeny to not leave them a world in dire crisis for lack of any effort to plan the future and prepare for it by the generations now living.
Of one thing, I feel certain. From web sites I’ve read, there are right wingers out there who believe we will never run out of oil because the oilfields are constantly being refilled from limitless reservoirs of oil buried deep in the earth’s mantle from which oil is slowly seeping upward. Any geologist can tell you this is obvious quackery because the heat and pressure below 17,000 feet crack oil into natural gas, and liquid oil can’t exist below that depth. I also know that some of the right wing religious fanatics believe there is no need to worry about oil depletion, global warming, or environmental destruction because the End Times are near and soon all the righteous human souls will be lifted into Heaven, so the need to preserve an inhabitable Earth beyond our lifetimes does not exist.
While I don’t know the answer to our energy problems, I do feel very certain that entrusting government policy to these wackos is incredibly dangerous for us all.
great post don.
Don
read this would you?
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
Don @ 17
Just when I’m about to write you off as a senile, vitriolic old coot, you go and post something “meaty,” (I presume) fact-based and coherent.
“Tar sands [are] concentrated in two super-super-giant tar sands fields, both in the western hemisphere. One is in Canada.”
I say we draw up those invasion plans!! ;)
Dig @ 19
That’s certainly an interesting article, and it got me thinking. PERHAPS I DO KNOW THE ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY PROBLEM! I think we should revive research into the construction of a Perpetual Motion Machine. This contraption, as you know, is a device that produces more energy than it consumes. Consequently, it can run forever without fuel! If we can get this thing to work and make it about as small as an automobile engine our troubles are over!
Now, there are those who say a Perpetual Motion Machine can’t possibly work because it violates the fundamental laws of physics. However, they are overlooking a crucial fact, which I will get to momentarily. Their miscalculation is very understandable considering it originates from the theories no less than Einstein himself. But Einstein, well meaning though he was, also overlooked a critical fact. I should point out that Einstein also failed to come up with a Unified Theory, which I believe is linked to the flaw in his General Theory of Relativity.
The General Theory of Relativity holds that matter can be converted to energy and vice-versa, but energy/matter cannot be created from nothing nor destroyed. While this may be generally true, a lifetime of empirical observation convinces me that this facet of the General Theory of Relativity does not apply to jelly donuts.
I can easily prove this to you with a box of jelly donuts and a simple bathroom scale. The experiment is simplicity itself, and you should be able to easily replicate it in your own bathroom. All I have to do is strip down butt-naked, step on the scale, record my weight, step off the scale, eat one jelly donut, then step back on the scale and record my new weight. If you observe this process, you will immediately see that although I have just eaten a jelly donut weighing three ounces, I have just gained three pounds.
Now, clearly we have two pounds and thirteen ounces of weight added to my frame that are unaccounted for. Not only that, but closer examination will reveal that essentially all of that weight consists of FAT. After many years of pondering this phenomenon, I have come to believe that if we can somehow harness to ability of jelly donuts to create fat out of nothing in a mechanical form, we should be able to fairly easily build a Perpetual Motion Machine. For quite a long while now, I have not been able to get past the hurdle of coming up with a conversion process to transform body fat into fuel for the Perpetual Motion Machine.
But your link to the article on biodiesel fuels may hold the critical key to solving this problem. Obviously, jelly donuts is to the Perpetual Motion Machine what yellowcake is to a nuclear reactor — the basic ore from which we create the raw material for the biodiesel fuel to run the machine. Happily, the world has an inexhaustible supply of jelly donuts, and Krispy Kreme stock will go up forever. It is now clear, thanks to reading your article, that what we need to do is reprocess human bodies — after their owners no longer need them — or at least the fatty portions thereof into biodiesel fuel. It’s incredibly simple, after all. We just feed certain selected human beings jelly donuts until they’ve produced as much fat as they’re going to, then we process them in the rendering plant into diesel!
You’ve done it, Diggin! We’re on our way to a working Perpetual Motion Machine!
Will all the Republicans please line up in front of the table with the boxes of jelly donuts.
Don…..very good writing. Gives everyone much to think about.
Mark @ 7
In a recent post you implied that you had had some study of philosophy, so you know that the idea of a thing can be more important than the thing itself. It’s the symbolism it contains, like in a flag, a star, a cross. ANWR is such a symbol. It’s a symbol of our reason giving way to our rapaciousness. I am unlikely to ever visit the place, but am very saddened by the vote.
Tom Friedmann’s column in today’s (THursday) NYT addresses some of the reasons why the vote is so discouraging.
RDC @ 22
I understand the symbolism thing, but you also have to be realistic. Don’s post @ 17 is something to consider, but we also have to admit that even the most tree-hugging Americans are still dependent on oil. You gotta admit that seeing a raft of eco bumper stickers on some beat-up, smoke-belching, 20-year-old import car is pretty ridiculous. At this point, there are few, if not no, truly viable energy alternatives. People propose wind farms and get denied because they ruin the view or they kill owls or something. Siginificant solar would take panels the size of Montana. The list goes on.
I’m not saying I’m thrilled with the idea of ANWR drilling, but it is a bird in the hand. It isn’t like there were all of these alternatives implemented in the 90’s.
Mark
One alternative is to curb our rapaciousness. Part of the sadness in this event is having to admit that that doesn’t seem very realistic. Today’s Seattle Times has a very good editorial on the ANWR vote which discusses its symbolism.
I don’t know or need to know how old you are, but if old enough, you may remember that conservation of energy got a lot of attention in the Carter administration, and the country was doing quite well following his lead. When oil prices fell and supply increased, those efforts fell apart. I’m not trying to start an OT debate, but this is one of the reasons I was very disappointed in Reagan. He was a natural leader who could have done much to continue Carter’s efforts, and chose not to.
Mark – I’m not a pie-in-the-sky environmentalist (i.e. “let’s get everyone out of cars”) but there are alternatives to drilling in ANWR that will allow us all to keep our cars, avoid massive new infrastructure investments and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
First, let’s be clear – drilling in ANWR will supply oil for at most 3 years (and as little as 6 months). It will take 10 years to get that oil, and at peak production provide 5-10% of our needs during the 1-3 years the fields are active. That’s not nothing, but not even a “drop in the bucket” if we’re trying to really reduce the impact the robber barons in OPEC have on our economy. So, I look at drilling in ANWR as, at best, the proverbial Dutch boy “putting a finger in the dike.” Let’s get real. If I do the “ROI” analysis, it hardly seems worth it when you consider the risks to the environment and the inability for drilling to be any kind of long-term solution.
Instead, Congress should pass another increase in CAFE laws, like we did in the 70s, forcing auto makers to raise average fuel economy from 20 to 40 mpg (or even 30). This would reduce by about 1/2 our dependence on foreign oil (providing 10 times the effect that any drilling would), plus it would be good for the environment. Sure, auto-makers resist, but they always have (see David Horsey’s recent cartoon: )
We could do this by promoting hybrids, which are in their infancy in terms of how efficient they could make cars and don’t require new fueling or road infrastructure (like electric or fuel cell cars). Toyota and Honda expect to be making hybrids sedans with double to triple their current gas mileage in 10 years. Plus hybrids provide even better gas mileage in stop-and-go/city traffic and even accelerate faster than gas-only cars (woo!).
Even hybrid SUVs cut gas consumption by about 1/3. For example, the new Lexus RH400 SUV gets 25-40mpg, vs. the 13-21 that the RX330 gets.
In simply pragmatic terms it makes far more sense to require an increase in average gas mileage than it does to drill one tiny area which will provide little gas, and risk ruining the environment at the same time.
David Horsey link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....sp?id=1174
Don, that was very funny, and while the notion of thousands of far right krispy creme addicts in stocks and leg irons, keeping my diesel truck economical to operate thrills me, I think this particular research is one of the most promising in the renewable energy field.
If theories are proven, the r.o.i will be very attractive also.
Now if we could just get everyones attention on another location, say, anwr, we could flood death valley, and get to work on the future energy supply.
Don @21,
That’s more than just a “green” solution to our energy needs… it’s a Soylent Green solution.
Uh oh, I think I see a flaw in my plan. We’ll need to keep a large supply of Republicans on hand in perpetuity. That’s not good. Donut-stuffed Republicans are more toxic than plutonium and seem to pollute the environment just as long!
Oh well, back to the drawing board.
Don @ 21 & 30
I think you’re onto something, but have a flaw in your calculations.
Take a look at the energy numbers that would come from Teddy Kennedy. Not only would you have your fat conversion — which, BTW, would seem to equal a few weeks of ANWR drilling — but you also have all of the hot air blasting from his gaping maw every day. It is my guess that the Cape Wind project, which Kennedy opposed, was counting on his presence in the area at least part of the time. Now that I think of it, one might also want to test the thermal properties and gas content of his bloviations.