C
calderhome@yahoo.com
Guest
If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/ANWR.html - with pictures, maps, and
info links
--- pasted below----
The costly symbolism of ANWR
The United States is in serious energy crisis today, in part because
of the triumph of symbolism over substance in the United States
Congress. Our political pundits have elevated the 19.6 million acre
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR (see map
http://www.sitnews.us/1105news/110505/110505_anwr_closeup.gif), into a
sacred mythical land that no man dare tread upon, least they spoil its
great natural beauty forever (picture of drilling area
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/anwr05.JPG). In reality, any future
ANWR oil exploration would only take place in the desolate, treeless
area designated as "10-02," which represents just 8% of ANWR's land
area, and which encompasses the Coastal Plain north of the Sadlerochit
Mountains. Of that 8% of ANWR land, Federal law states that only
2,000 surface acres could ever be used for actual drilling purposes.
This 10-02 area was set aside specifically for oil and gas exploration
and is not legally defined as a "wilderness" or a "refuge." None of
Alaska's ANWR region is legally defined as a "park." We allow roads,
campgrounds, hundreds of toilets, hotels, and hoards of tourists to
violate the sanctity of Yellowstone (2.2 million acres) and Yosemite (.
76 million acres), which are both legally defined as "parks," but do
allow much needed oil drilling on just 2,000 acres of ANWR, which has
3.7 times the land area of the State of Massachusetts (5.3 million
acres).
Does any member of the United States Congress really believe that
drilling for oil on just 2,000 acres will destroy all wildlife and
vegetation, leaving behind nothing but a smoldering toxic wasteland?
Using directional drilling techniques, one single oil drilling station
can snake underground pipes out to 8 miles in all directions, so the
tiny footprint of oil recovery operations in ANWR would be
inconsequential to the local ecology. When the oil is gone and the
drilling equipment removed, any evidence that there was once oil
exploration at ANWR would soon vanish. Drilling in ANWR would be like
throwing a single peanut on the wall-to-wall carpet of a very large
living room floor; hardly a cataclysmic event.
Why are we paying Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia so much money for
imported oil when we could be producing that oil ourselves and giving
Americans high paying jobs in the process? Many of the same
environmentalists who oppose ANWR drilling support the construction of
giant solar energy arrays in the American Southwest, which would cover
thousands of acres in solar panels to produce electricity. Solar
panels on a roof are fine, but when you cover virgin land with them
you create a DEAD ZONE that will remain dead until the panels are
removed and the land has time to heal itself. Other environmentalists
support the building of thousands of wind turbines, which in addition
to being unsightly, are very effective bird and bat killing devices
that end the lives of thousands of our flying friends every year. Why
is damage done by solar and wind power schemes politically correct,
but benignly extracting oil from Alaska politically taboo?
The Congressional Research Service (see 76kb pdf
http://www.anwr.org/images/pdf/DonYoung_ANWR_Offset_Spending.pdf)
estimates that if oil recovery was allowed in the 10-02 area of ANWR,
it would be worth at least $94.8 billion in Federal income taxes and
$42.8 billion in royalties, totaling $138 billion. This study uses
the most conservative estimate of recoverable oil; 10.4 billion
barrels. The actual oil treasure could climb to well over 20 billion
barrels as new discoveries and improvements in oil drilling technology
increase the size of extractable reserves. Oil drilling is supported
by the Alaskan Native communities that live in ANWR, the State
Government of Alaska, and over 75% of Alaskan residents. Declaring a
huge area of land untouchable to oil recovery at a time of national
energy crisis is irresponsible energy policy. As long as so many
American political leaders place symbolism above substance, we will
never solve our strategic national energy problems.
Also see "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
Christopher Calder
-----
Christopher Calder is an ordinary American citizen who does not own
any energy related stocks and does not work for any energy related
business. He supports the use of oil until synthetic fuels can be
manufactured through energy from truly "green" carbon free nuclear
power.
..
possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
"environmental lobby" for opposing it. See all the pertinent and
laughable facts at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/ANWR.html - with pictures, maps, and
info links
--- pasted below----
The costly symbolism of ANWR
The United States is in serious energy crisis today, in part because
of the triumph of symbolism over substance in the United States
Congress. Our political pundits have elevated the 19.6 million acre
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR (see map
http://www.sitnews.us/1105news/110505/110505_anwr_closeup.gif), into a
sacred mythical land that no man dare tread upon, least they spoil its
great natural beauty forever (picture of drilling area
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/anwr05.JPG). In reality, any future
ANWR oil exploration would only take place in the desolate, treeless
area designated as "10-02," which represents just 8% of ANWR's land
area, and which encompasses the Coastal Plain north of the Sadlerochit
Mountains. Of that 8% of ANWR land, Federal law states that only
2,000 surface acres could ever be used for actual drilling purposes.
This 10-02 area was set aside specifically for oil and gas exploration
and is not legally defined as a "wilderness" or a "refuge." None of
Alaska's ANWR region is legally defined as a "park." We allow roads,
campgrounds, hundreds of toilets, hotels, and hoards of tourists to
violate the sanctity of Yellowstone (2.2 million acres) and Yosemite (.
76 million acres), which are both legally defined as "parks," but do
allow much needed oil drilling on just 2,000 acres of ANWR, which has
3.7 times the land area of the State of Massachusetts (5.3 million
acres).
Does any member of the United States Congress really believe that
drilling for oil on just 2,000 acres will destroy all wildlife and
vegetation, leaving behind nothing but a smoldering toxic wasteland?
Using directional drilling techniques, one single oil drilling station
can snake underground pipes out to 8 miles in all directions, so the
tiny footprint of oil recovery operations in ANWR would be
inconsequential to the local ecology. When the oil is gone and the
drilling equipment removed, any evidence that there was once oil
exploration at ANWR would soon vanish. Drilling in ANWR would be like
throwing a single peanut on the wall-to-wall carpet of a very large
living room floor; hardly a cataclysmic event.
Why are we paying Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia so much money for
imported oil when we could be producing that oil ourselves and giving
Americans high paying jobs in the process? Many of the same
environmentalists who oppose ANWR drilling support the construction of
giant solar energy arrays in the American Southwest, which would cover
thousands of acres in solar panels to produce electricity. Solar
panels on a roof are fine, but when you cover virgin land with them
you create a DEAD ZONE that will remain dead until the panels are
removed and the land has time to heal itself. Other environmentalists
support the building of thousands of wind turbines, which in addition
to being unsightly, are very effective bird and bat killing devices
that end the lives of thousands of our flying friends every year. Why
is damage done by solar and wind power schemes politically correct,
but benignly extracting oil from Alaska politically taboo?
The Congressional Research Service (see 76kb pdf
http://www.anwr.org/images/pdf/DonYoung_ANWR_Offset_Spending.pdf)
estimates that if oil recovery was allowed in the 10-02 area of ANWR,
it would be worth at least $94.8 billion in Federal income taxes and
$42.8 billion in royalties, totaling $138 billion. This study uses
the most conservative estimate of recoverable oil; 10.4 billion
barrels. The actual oil treasure could climb to well over 20 billion
barrels as new discoveries and improvements in oil drilling technology
increase the size of extractable reserves. Oil drilling is supported
by the Alaskan Native communities that live in ANWR, the State
Government of Alaska, and over 75% of Alaskan residents. Declaring a
huge area of land untouchable to oil recovery at a time of national
energy crisis is irresponsible energy policy. As long as so many
American political leaders place symbolism above substance, we will
never solve our strategic national energy problems.
Also see "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
Christopher Calder
-----
Christopher Calder is an ordinary American citizen who does not own
any energy related stocks and does not work for any energy related
business. He supports the use of oil until synthetic fuels can be
manufactured through energy from truly "green" carbon free nuclear
power.
..
