I bet you won't complement me on this post, Doug. :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: W. on the Environment
> > But, I just have to repost this funny "fact" from the web site that you
> > posted:
> > "Fact: No matter how well done, oil development will industrialize a
> > unique, wild area that is the biological heart of the refuge."
> >
> > In other words, no matter what anybody else has to say, we're not
listening.
>
> That's just a statement of fact, John. If you cover 12,000 acres (not 60,
> Interior Department estimate*) of a previously pristine area with oil
drilling
> infrastructure - roads, airstrips, barracks, platforms etc. spread over
> hundreds of miles of the preserve, you have industrialized it.
Ah, Doug, there are approximately 19 million acres of land in ANWR. 12,000
acres is about 0.06% of the land. I have a hard time believing that this
will turn the area into an industrial area. West Texas certainly doesn't
qualify as an industrial area. The North Sea doesn't qualify as an
industrial area.
Doug, have you ever been near an oil platform? Do you have an idea of how a
well is drilled and how it is produced? Do you know about the wildlife at
Prudue Bay, and how industrialized that still is or isn't?
I have friends that have gone up there to work. From the sounds of things,
just outside of camp,it is really wild. Indeed, going from the rig to the
housing unit, they had to carry a gun, just in case the polar bears attacked
them.
>Personally, I'll take the word of an individual or group of individuals
that have little
> or nothing material to gain over giant, greedy, power mongering
corporations
> that have everything to gain anyway.
>
The problem is that some of these groups live in alternate realities. For
example, Greenpeace successfully lobbied against locating a low level
radioactive dump in an area in Conn. By low level I mean things like the
booties that people wear into areas that have very low level contamination.
The levels people were talking about were at the levels comparable to the no
salt (potassium chloride) that you can buy at the local store. I quit
Greenpeace when they refused to budge on this issue. They considered me
prejudiced because I work with radiation.
On a slight tangent, I have a great deal of difficulty with the California
attitude towards energy production and conservation. SUVs are very popular
there. But, they won't allow oil wells off their coasts. They are
perfectly happy getting oil from Gulf Coast wells, or North Sea wells, or
African Wells, but not Californian wells.
They are shocked at the power shortage, but they won't build power plants.
If they authorized nuclear plants, they could have electricity that did not
contribute to global warming. But instead, they relied on plants in other
states.
IMHO, if California was serious about the environment, they would impose a
$5.00/gallon tax on gas and a $0.10c a kWh tax on residential electricity
usage to promote conservation, with tax rebates given to make it revenue
neutral and to minimize the impact on the poor. It won't happen, though.
Back on task, I could sketch a plan to drill in Alaska with a fairly minimal
impact on the environment. I'd use a few big platforms and run a lot of
horizontal wells. I'd have them use the type of drilling fluids used in the
North Sea by the Norwegians. (and you should know that they are strong
environmentalists.)
As I said before, I think this small reserve (about 4 bbl economically
recoverable at today's projected prices) should be saved for when we really
need it and oil is dear. But, we've been able to drill for oil in countries
that have very stringent environmental regulations like Norway quite
successfully. I don't see why Alaska cannot follow Norway's success.
Dan M.
