Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Alaska oil drilling back on agenda

Old 11-10-04, 11:26 PM
  #26  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Lake Ridge, VA
Posts: 6,311
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Alaska oil drilling back on agenda

By Senate rules, opponents of drilling cannot filibuster a budget measure. ANWR qualifies as a budget measure because it will generate income for the government from oil companies.
If it is that easy, why was there such a problem doing it during Bush's first term?
Old 11-11-04, 02:13 AM
  #27  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
DarkestPhoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With the shitload of land that's set aside up there, and the limited wildlife, I can't understand why the tree-huggers haven't already allowed us to run one friggin' pipeline through there...
Old 11-11-04, 04:39 AM
  #28  
Moderator
 
DarkElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 18,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Brett, should I even bother wasting my time and energy on this mass of ignorance?

What I'm amazed at the most in this thread (it's hard to pick just one from all the nonsense) is that several people are equating a single pipeline with a complete drilling infrastructure. Yeah, they're the same thing...

Have you people ever BEEN to Alaska? Have you SEEN the Trans-Alaska pipeline? I spent the better part of an afternoon exploring a portion of the pipeline out in the middle of nowhere, marveling at the technology, yet enjoying the absolute peace and quiet. It's actually quite serene, and in an odd way, kind of beautiful, like a bridge spanning a rocky gorge. And it's definitely not an impediment to the wildlife that live there, that was plainly obvious to me.

Contrast that to what is going on in nearby Prudhoe Bay. Or don't, because ignorance is bliss.

People will believe what they want to believe. They'll ignore all the personal accounts from people who live or visit the area. They'll ignore the ecological issues going on in ANWR's neighbor, instead insisting that ANWR will be drilled without any impact on the environment or wildlife. They'll ignore the fact that the information being put out by this administration is horribly misleading, because after all, misleading facts fit their personal agenda much better than actual facts.

I used to be modestly in favor of developing ANWR, believing it _might_ be done in an environmentally safe manner. But the more I've read on the subject, the more I've talked to people, the more I've seen with my own eyes, the less in favor of it I've become. And a few months ago, I got to talk to people who actually live up there. I listened to conversations at the next table when in bars. I chatted up my very Conservative and very Republican friend who lives up there, as well as his buddies. The only people who seem to be in favor of drilling ANWR are the people who will get rich off it.

A few quotations from REP America's Fall 2004 Green Elephant newsletter:

"Oil production is a heavy industry requiring powerful equipment, large work crews, and complex infrastructure. One look at Prudhoe tells you there is no way an oil production complex could be tiptoed into the Arctic refuge without disfiguring the place.

Adding a relatively small bucket of Arctic refuge oil to the global petroleum pool would do little to solve [our] systemic supply-and-demand problem. Drilling the refuge would mean surrendering to old habits rather than finding long-term solutions, like a heart patient who “solves” his weight problem by buying a bigger pair of pants."

There are certainly new technologies since Prudhoe that should reduce the impact on the environment, but to insist that there will be NO environmental impact in ANWR is pure denial.

I say fuck the hypocrite Democrats and the UAW. President Bush, raise CAFE standards by just a few MPG. Push hard for alternative energy sources. Stop buying bigger pants and for God's sake, leave ANWR alone. Sadly, I know better than to expect this administration to do any such thing. With a +5 swing in the Senate (4 new REPs +1 moderate gone), I fully expect there to be at least 53 pro-drilling Senators, and for ANWR to go down in the next few years.

Last edited by DarkElf; 11-11-04 at 04:41 AM.
Old 11-11-04, 07:48 AM
  #29  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Jaymole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: N.Y, N.Y
Posts: 9,272
Received 17 Likes on 10 Posts
Does anyone know how much oil will be produced & by what percent will reliance of foreign oil be cut if we decide to drill in Alaska?
Old 11-11-04, 07:52 AM
  #30  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Jaymole
Does anyone know how much oil will be produced & by what percent will foreign oil be cut if we decide to drill in Alaska?
ANWR is basically an unknown quantity. There are varied estimates depending on how folks feel about the issues. Those opposed tend to have very low expectations of the amount of oil recoverable. Those who favor exploration and drilling tend to have higher expectations.
Old 11-11-04, 11:31 AM
  #31  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,776
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
As I've heard the average resident of Alaska is in favor of oil exploration in ANWR so I did a little looking around for what the opinions of the residents of Alaska are.
With Alaskans invested in oil, residents are better informed than Americans generally about the industry's environmental record, said pollster Dittman. That's why they overwhelmingly support exploration in ANWR while a majority of Americans, "scared" by environmental groups in fund-raising appeals that contain "outright lies," have expressed reservations, he said.

Environmental groups have put out poll results that show Alaskans divided. The Alaska Conservation Alliance commissioned annual polls from 1998 to 2000 showing a nearly even split when residents were asked if ANWR should be "protected from oil drilling."

But the pollster, Ivan Moore of Anchorage, said respondents apparently considered the word "protect" ambiguous, noting that other polls consistently show 70 percent support for drilling. Many Alaskans think the refuge could be protected from oil drilling even while it was going on, he said.

In February, the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund did a more specific poll. Alaskans were asked to choose between not drilling because ANWR is "a national treasure" and because the oil that could be recovered is only a small portion of U.S. consumption, or drilling because oil deposits could reduce gas prices, while drilling will affect only 2,000 acres of 19 million in the refuge. Fifty percent said drilling should be allowed while 38 percent said it should not.

Dittman said the real test is the Legislature. Of 60 legislators, only three voted against a resolution this year urging Congress to open the ANWR coastal plain to oil exploration. In recent years, the Legislature has provided funding totaling $3.75 million to Arctic Power, a private industry group that lobbies Congress to open ANWR to drilling.

Gov. Tony Knowles has been so pro-industry that he wrote a scathing letter to former President Jimmy Carter, a fellow Democrat, after Carter urged President Clinton, unsuccessfully, to declare the coastal plain a national monument.

"It's the largest oil field in America that will be discovered and developed there," Knowles said. "And this is something that has been anticipated ever since the wildlife refuge was created."

Alaska has more wildlife refuges and park acreage than all other states combined, the governor added.

Alaska's three-member, all-Republican congressional delegation argues that the ANWR coastal plain must be developed to ensure the nation's independence from unfriendly oil-producing nations. A voice-mail greeting in the Washington, D.C., office of Chuck Kleeschulte, an aide to Sen. Frank Murkowski, tells callers that 57 percent of America's oil comes from other nations.

The North Slope has played a major role in the national energy picture. At the peak, in the late 1980s, the various oil fields there and in Cook Inlet in Southcentral Alaska produced 2 million barrels of oil a day, about a quarter of U.S. production. Now Alaska production has dropped by half, and the North Slope gives the nation about one in six barrels of its domestic oil, even as oil imports have increased to more than half of the overall U.S. supply.

But the Alaskans battle a perception that the industry, based on its record to date, would despoil the last sizable chunk of pristine wilderness in the world.

"Misleading propaganda" is holding up the issue in the House, said Alaska Rep. Don Young. Industry supporters say environmentalists' complaints about numerous oil spills on the North Slope are misleading to non-Alaskans because the reporting law requires any and all spills to be documented, no matter how small.

"There's probably more oil spilled in a Wal-Mart parking lot on a daily basis than on the North Slope, from oil seeping out of cars," Dittman said.

"Very few spills escape the gravel pads on which we operate," said Ronnie Chappell, spokesman for British Petroleum, which operates the Prudhoe Bay unit.

Even critics concede that the industry has made significant technological progress since the huge Prudhoe Bay strike in 1968. The 429-million-barrel Alpine oil field, west of Prudhoe Bay, which went into production last November, is touted as the new way for the industry. It was constructed without permanent overland access, with ice roads used during the winter to transport equipment to the site.

http://juneauempire.com/anwr/oilandgas.shtml
Polls show Alaskans overwhelmingly support ANWR drilling, though a significant number also want it "protected."

For about 15 years until 2000, Republican pollster Dave Dittman of Anchorage asked Alaskans the question "Do you feel oil and gas exploration should or should not be allowed within the ANWR coastal plain?" Support for drilling held steady at about 70 percent, he found.

Dittman said he stopped asking the question in recent years because the answer was so obvious and clients didn't want to pay for it. "I don't think it has changed," he said of the majority viewpoint.


Dittman said poll participants still answer "ANWR" most frequently when asked to name the most important Alaska issue, outside of the state government's fiscal problems.

http://www.newsminer.com/senate/?p=2...ve=4&story=464
Both candidates for senator in Alaska were pro-exploration of ANWR.
Old 11-11-04, 11:48 AM
  #32  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
funny how a bunch of people in new york and san francisco are whining that the president doesn't support their views and doing things they don't agree with and yet they are all for restricting the right of alaskans in deciding how they manage their state.
Old 11-11-04, 01:11 PM
  #33  
Moderator
 
DarkElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 18,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by al_bundy
funny how a bunch of people in new york and san francisco are whining that the president doesn't support their views and doing things they don't agree with and yet they are all for restricting the right of alaskans in deciding how they manage their state.
I tend to agree with this point of view in many instances, but not with things that require federal regulation (because humans can't be trusted). If Wyoming's state government suddenly decided that they were no longer going to protect the environment, closed all the state parks for the purposes of mining/drilling/cutting, she we as a nation let them? Many of you would probably say yes, but I say no. I don't believe human rights are a state's issue, nor do I think environmental protection should be a state's issue either. But that's just a personal viewpoint.

Much more importantly, this is _not_ just a state issue. In fact, it's very much a national issue as this administration and Congress are determining the fate of ANWR, not Alaskans. Won't MY senators and representative be voting on this issue? Yes they will, and they represent the people in my area. Therefore, I most definitely have the right to express my opinion here on this forum, and to my representatives in Congress.
Old 11-11-04, 01:38 PM
  #34  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
would you be in favor of wyoming closing all the natural gas wells in the state because they don't like how they look? a very large percentage if not most of the US natural gas comes from wyoming.
Old 11-11-04, 02:22 PM
  #35  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Capitol of the Empire! Center of all Commerce and Culture! Crossroads of Civilization! NEW ROME!!!...aka New York City
Posts: 10,909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have one question for environmentalists (seriously)


Why do you rave about the super technology available out there for cars and energy generation that is supposedly so clean, yet ignore the technological advances in oil drilling that is also 'clean'?
Old 11-11-04, 02:23 PM
  #36  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by al_bundy
would you be in favor of wyoming closing all the natural gas wells in the state because they don't like how they look? a very large percentage if not most of the US natural gas comes from wyoming.
We know what state produces the most natural gas, don't we?

Hint: It's not Wyoming.

Second varies between Louisiana, New Mexico, and Wyoming.
Old 11-11-04, 02:33 PM
  #37  
Moderator
 
DarkElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 18,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by X

Alaskans were asked to choose between not drilling because ANWR is "a national treasure" and because the oil that could be recovered is only a small portion of U.S. consumption, or drilling because oil deposits could reduce gas prices, while drilling will affect only 2,000 acres of 19 million in the refuge. Fifty percent said drilling should be allowed while 38 percent said it should not.
Including this clause in the poll is misleading.

#1, the area of interest to the oil companies is the coastal plain, which is a pretty small chunk of the entire refuge. Yet this is also the area of the refuge that is much more important to the wildlife. So effectively, forget the other 17.5 million acres because that's not in the picture (except to mislead the public).

#2, we aren't talking about the entire facility being shoehorned into 2000 contiguous acres, which is what the industry wants you to believe.

But anyway, I know about this poll. It was done in 2000, and in general, the results match what I found in my travels around the state, that Alaskans STRONGLY favor environmental protection, that you can have a clean environment and a strong economy, and if forced to make a choice between the two, they'd pick the environment.



Alaska's three-member, all-Republican congressional delegation argues that the ANWR coastal plain must be developed to ensure the nation's independence from unfriendly oil-producing nations. A voice-mail greeting in the Washington, D.C., office of Chuck Kleeschulte, an aide to Sen. Frank Murkowski, tells callers that 57 percent of America's oil comes from other nations.

The North Slope has played a major role in the national energy picture. At the peak, in the late 1980s, the various oil fields there and in Cook Inlet in Southcentral Alaska produced 2 million barrels of oil a day, about a quarter of U.S. production. Now Alaska production has dropped by half, and the North Slope gives the nation about one in six barrels of its domestic oil, even as oil imports have increased to more than half of the overall U.S. supply.

But the Alaskans battle a perception that the industry, based on its record to date, would despoil the last sizable chunk of pristine wilderness in the world.

"Misleading propaganda" is holding up the issue in the House, said Alaska Rep. Don Young. Industry supporters say environmentalists' complaints about numerous oil spills on the North Slope are misleading to non-Alaskans because the reporting law requires any and all spills to be documented, no matter how small.

"There's probably more oil spilled in a Wal-Mart parking lot on a daily basis than on the North Slope, from oil seeping out of cars," Dittman said.

"Very few spills escape the gravel pads on which we operate," said Ronnie Chappell, spokesman for British Petroleum, which operates the Prudhoe Bay unit.

Even critics concede that the industry has made significant technological progress since the huge Prudhoe Bay strike in 1968. The 429-million-barrel Alpine oil field, west of Prudhoe Bay, which went into production last November, is touted as the new way for the industry. It was constructed without permanent overland access, with ice roads used during the winter to transport equipment to the site.
Yes, that's a nice rose picture from the petroleum industry.

Now let's try to balance that with an article from the NRDC.

http://www.nrdc.org/amicus/01sum/arctic.asp

It's pretty long, so I shouldn't quote the article, and there would be plenty to bold anyway, but I strongly encourage you to follow the link and read the entire article. That's your homework. Then post your comments on what you've read.
Old 11-11-04, 02:39 PM
  #38  
Moderator
 
DarkElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 18,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by al_bundy
would you be in favor of wyoming closing all the natural gas wells in the state because they don't like how they look? a very large percentage if not most of the US natural gas comes from wyoming.
Well, I just randomly picked Wyoming for no reason. I wasn't specifically picking on Wyoming.

But anyway, no, I wouldn't. I'm of the opinion that, like the war in Iraq, what's done is done. Now do your business and get out.
Old 11-11-04, 02:47 PM
  #39  
Moderator
 
DarkElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 18,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Tommy Ceez
I have one question for environmentalists (seriously)

Why do you rave about the super technology available out there for cars and energy generation that is supposedly so clean, yet ignore the technological advances in oil drilling that is also 'clean'?
Well, first off, who's ignoring the technological advances in oil drilling? I've already clearly stated earlier in this thread that because of these advances, ANWR won't be as bad as Prudhoe Bay. But despite these advances, it's still a major spiderweb of industry and will negatively impact the environment and the wildlife.

Also, are these new advances "clean'? They are "cleaner", yes, but "clean?

IMO, it's much cleaner to improve fuel efficiency of automobiles than to simply build more and more wells. Hydrogen cars are years away, and maybe we'll never see them, but the emission is water. That, my friend, is clean.
Old 11-11-04, 03:02 PM
  #40  
Moderator
 
DarkElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 18,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by classicman2
ANWR is basically an unknown quantity. There are varied estimates depending on how folks feel about the issues. Those opposed tend to have very low expectations of the amount of oil recoverable. Those who favor exploration and drilling tend to have higher expectations.
Which side of the fence would you consider the US Geological Survey to be on? I'm piecing together the info I know from a number of sources.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, commercial operations have a fifty-fifty chance of profitably recovering 3.2 billion barrels of oil from the coastal plain (given world oil prices of $20 per barrel, which the Geological Survey considers a fair mid-range figure). What this means, over the forty-year average lifespan of such an oil field, is that the refuge would contribute roughly 1 percent of our nation's oil supply every day. And this will reduce our current dependency on foreign oil from 57 percent all the way down to 55 percent. Woohoo!

At $29 per barrel, for example, there is a 95 percent chance that approximately 3 billion barrels could be produced profitably, equivalent to about six months of total domestic consumption.

A greater quantity of profitable oil might be available at today's price, but the chances are smaller. Geologists give only 5 percent odds that the total quantity of profitable oil at the $29 per barrel price would be 10 billion barrels.

And according to a U.S. Department of Energy estimate, refuge oil would reduce petroleum imports only 2 percent, from 62 per cent to 60 percent, by 2020. Woohoo!

Another recent Energy Department analysis estimated that full-tilt production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would cut foreign oil's share of U.S. consumption from 70 percent to 66 percent by 2025. Woohoo!

Notice the trend? Our dependence on foreign oil keeps increasing the further out we go with our projections. Sure glad ANWR oil will help so much!
Old 11-11-04, 03:18 PM
  #41  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
All projections of what ANWAR would do are meaningless until the drill some test holes. The haven't ever even been allowed to do that. If it turns out to be so little that it isn't worth it, I would think we wouldn't bother, but I think environmentalists are afraid to test drill because it could be a lot.

All I am asking for is test drilling so that we can actually have a conversation with some actual figures behind it so we can stop the speculation about the amount of oil in ANWAR.

Why is that so awful?
Old 11-11-04, 03:24 PM
  #42  
Moderator
 
DarkElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 18,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Something else to chew on...

The recent report on Arctic warming notes that one of the results of Arctic warming is that the oil industry is having major problems with tundra roads in the summertime because the tundra is no long rock hard and this is destablizing pipelines, roads and airstrips.

And then we get this from the oil industry:

The 429-million-barrel Alpine oil field, west of Prudhoe Bay, which went into production last November, is touted as the new way for the industry. It was constructed without permanent overland access, with ice roads used during the winter to transport equipment to the site.
Hmm... Coincidence?
Old 11-11-04, 03:37 PM
  #43  
Moderator
 
DarkElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 18,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by kvrdave
All projections of what ANWAR would do are meaningless until the drill some test holes. The haven't ever even been allowed to do that. If it turns out to be so little that it isn't worth it, I would think we wouldn't bother, but I think environmentalists are afraid to test drill because it could be a lot.

All I am asking for is test drilling so that we can actually have a conversation with some actual figures behind it so we can stop the speculation about the amount of oil in ANWAR.

Why is that so awful?
Because test drilling amounts to more than a few guys with shovels?

Actually, I don't know what would be so awful about the test drilling. I don't know what's involved with that, and how large the operation is when you're just test drilling. But you can't just drill in one place. The industry wants to put up wells over the entire coastal range of ANWR, and I imagine testing would also have to be similarly spaced out to be reasonably accurate.

And even then, how accurate would it be? The Alpine field is proving to be much more successful than they expected.

Also, it's isn't totally about how much is down there, but how much can be profitably extracted, and that depends greatly on the price of oil. For instance, I've read that if oil falls down into the mid teens, ANWR would be a non-starter, regardless of how much oil was there.

And when the the USGS and DoE gives numbers with the 95% confidence level, that seems pretty accurate to me.
Old 11-11-04, 03:48 PM
  #44  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As the independent oil men that I know say of the U. S. Geological Survey - they make nice maps.

The USGS has been notoriously over conservative in their recoverable oil estimates. I could go through the list, but since I've done it numerous times, I'll spare the forum.
Old 11-11-04, 03:52 PM
  #45  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the USGS estimates were correct - California, Oregon, Washington, & Alaska would not, today, be receiving oil for Prudhoe Bay.

I'll take the figures from the folks actually in the business any day over the USGS & the DOE. The DOE caters to the whims of the administration in power.
Old 11-11-04, 03:59 PM
  #46  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by DarkElf
Because test drilling amounts to more than a few guys with shovels?

Actually, I don't know what would be so awful about the test drilling. I don't know what's involved with that, and how large the operation is when you're just test drilling. But you can't just drill in one place. The industry wants to put up wells over the entire coastal range of ANWR, and I imagine testing would also have to be similarly spaced out to be reasonably accurate.

And even then, how accurate would it be? The Alpine field is proving to be much more successful than they expected.

Also, it's isn't totally about how much is down there, but how much can be profitably extracted, and that depends greatly on the price of oil. For instance, I've read that if oil falls down into the mid teens, ANWR would be a non-starter, regardless of how much oil was there.

And when the the USGS and DoE gives numbers with the 95% confidence level, that seems pretty accurate to me.

those were from clinton's DOE. if the DOE were to come out with new estimates now that show more oil, would you give them more credence?
Old 11-11-04, 04:04 PM
  #47  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,776
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally posted by DarkElf
Including this clause in the poll is misleading.

#1, the area of interest to the oil companies is the coastal plain, which is a pretty small chunk of the entire refuge. Yet this is also the area of the refuge that is much more important to the wildlife. So effectively, forget the other 17.5 million acres because that's not in the picture (except to mislead the public).

#2, we aren't talking about the entire facility being shoehorned into 2000 contiguous acres, which is what the industry wants you to believe.

But anyway, I know about this poll. It was done in 2000, and in general, the results match what I found in my travels around the state, that Alaskans STRONGLY favor environmental protection, that you can have a clean environment and a strong economy, and if forced to make a choice between the two, they'd pick the environment.

Yes, that's a nice rose picture from the petroleum industry.

Now let's try to balance that with an article from the NRDC.

http://www.nrdc.org/amicus/01sum/arctic.asp

It's pretty long, so I shouldn't quote the article, and there would be plenty to bold anyway, but I strongly encourage you to follow the link and read the entire article. That's your homework. Then post your comments on what you've read.
I was commenting on multiple polls that showed 70% public support as well as the support of recent candidates of both parties.
For about 15 years until 2000, Republican pollster Dave Dittman of Anchorage asked Alaskans the question "Do you feel oil and gas exploration should or should not be allowed within the ANWR coastal plain?" Support for drilling held steady at about 70 percent, he found.

Dittman said he stopped asking the question in recent years because the answer was so obvious and clients didn't want to pay for it. "I don't think it has changed," he said of the majority viewpoint.
And I do think the people closest to the situation, such as the state's residents, should have much more say than people who, a vast majority of whom, won't ever even enter their state.
Old 11-11-04, 04:22 PM
  #48  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Low ANWR estimates - another Texas

Top ANWR estimates - 5 Texas
Old 11-11-04, 04:47 PM
  #49  
Moderator
 
DarkElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 18,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by X
I was commenting on multiple polls that showed 70% public support as well as the support of recent candidates of both parties.
...while ignoring that the previous paragraph talks about multiple polls showing nearly even support.

Ivan Moore, the man you whose quotation you bolded, is the very same pollster who was commissioned to do the poll for LCV. And the fact that he used very misleading wording when asking specifically about drilling, that makes me a little suspicious of some personal bias.




For about 15 years until 2000, Republican pollster Dave Dittman of Anchorage asked Alaskans the question "Do you feel oil and gas exploration should or should not be allowed within the ANWR coastal plain?" Support for drilling held steady at about 70 percent, he found.
Once again, it's all in the wording, now isn't it? "Do you support oil and gas exploration?" Interesting word choice, isn't it?



And I do think the people closest to the situation, such as the state's residents, should have much more say than people who, a vast majority of whom, won't ever even enter their state.
I'm not sure I agree on this point, well, maybe a little. I'd definitely agree if this were a local issue. But this is a national issue about how to use federal land.

But this affects them a bit more than us because more drilling means more royalty money in their pockets. But this country's energy policy affects ALL of us.

Alaskans are always bitching about the feds stealing all their land, and you have to filter through that animosity when finding out if Alaskans truly support drilling.

Last edited by DarkElf; 11-11-04 at 04:49 PM.
Old 11-11-04, 04:58 PM
  #50  
Moderator
 
DarkElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 18,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by al_bundy
those were from clinton's DOE.
The very same estimates the current administration is using too. If they felt the science and the numbers were suspect, would this administration continue to use them?

if the DOE were to come out with new estimates now that show more oil, would you give them more credence?
More credence than what? Are you asking if I'd believe the DoE now that Bush is in power?

If there was general agreement from the scientific community on the amount of oil in the ground, and from the economic community on what that means globally, then yes. If the only groups to disagree are the fringe eco-nuts, then I'd discount their bitching. But there doesn't seem to be much disagreement on the _current_ numbers from what I have read.

But given how this administration is picking and choosing which science it wants to believe, I have to be honest here and say I'd be a little wary of his soundbites. I'd want to read the entire report.

Last edited by DarkElf; 11-11-04 at 05:02 PM.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.