Talk:Arctic National Wildlife Refuge/Archive 1

Untitled
According to the House resolution and debates, the vote was to do "exploratory drilling in and around ANWR". That is slightly different than "drilling for oil in ANWR". For that reason, I've made the minor edit to the article. Kainaw 17:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ANWR and Oil
After reading many of the articles on the ANWR website, I decided it would be proper to explain the oil issue in a little more detail than "Bush wants to drill for oil there". There is a lot more information that may be of interest to add, but I'll leave that for others. I didn't add information about who the reserve belongs to (the local Inuit), and what they think about drilling there. I also didn't add much about the ongoing debate in Alaska, in which many feel it is irresponsible not to drill there (right off the ANWR website). I figured that would bring the heat from environmentalists and cause an edit war. Kainaw 22:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that would be interesting. This article doesn't have enough info.  Why don't you put your proposed changes here and we can discuss them in a civilized fashion?  ;)  user:TitaniumDreads 05:54, 10, Apr 2005 (UTC)

Under the ANWR and Oil section, there was the claim that the Senate passed provisions for exploratory drilling in ANWR. I read the bill (actually, I searched for and read the sections with Arctic and/or ANWR in them) and all I could find was mention that they passed funding for the drilling if and only if another subcomittee passed provisions for exploratory drilling. To me, this sounds like they are saying, "We'll pay for it if you guys take responsibility for doing it." That is different than saying "We'll do that." We all know that, in the end, they'll pass the provisions - but I think it is improper to claim that the Senate passed the provisions when all they passed was funding for the provisions if they get passed later. Kainaw 23:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It is insanely inaccurate to delete all mentions of oil from the ANWR entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.8.97.18 (talk • contribs).


 * Who deleted all mentions of oil? Last I checked, there is a link to an entire article all about ANWR and oil. --Kainaw (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oil consumption
There is a highly disputable addition to the page. It claims that there was 1.2 billion barrels of oil consumption in America in 2004. By America, does it mean the United States? According to the Department of Energy in the US on their website (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html), 2004 had oil consumption of 20.4 million barrels of oil per day through the first 10 months of 2004. That is about 300 days, or a total of 6.3 billion barrels of oil consumed in the first 10 months of 2004. So, according to the DoE, the claim that 1.2 billion barrels of oil were consumed in 2004 in all of America is way off. I'll remove it until a better figure is produced. Kainaw 18:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lets avoid an edit war
Okay so my main goal is make this article as informative as possible while simultaneous avoiding an edit war. This is a rough outline of some additions that I think would be helpful. Please feel free to comment

this is from an NRDC factsheet: http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts2.asp
 * How much oil does the US use per day? I've seen estimates at 5 million barrels*.
 * list of organizations working for and against drilling
 * I understand that if legislation was passed today, we wouldn't see oil for about 10 years
 * Role of conservation vs drilling
 * The oil in the region is extremely high in sulfur content, that adversely affects usage and refining costs in the US.
 * I think we should have a few really good essays from each side listed.
 * There needs to be information about how oil spills hit this area particularly hard because of climactic conditions.

From 1996 to 2004, there were some 4,530 spills of more than 1.9 million gallons of diesel fuel, oil, acid, biocide, ethylene glycol, drilling fluid and other materials. In the Arctic, the environmental damage from oil spills is more severe and lasts longer than in more temperate climates. Diesel fuel, for instance -- the most frequently spilled substance on the North Slope -- is acutely toxic to plants. Even after decades have passed, tundra vegetation has been unable to recover from diesel spills.

What do you think about a paraphrase of this and where should it go?


 * (Note: Sign your entry with four squiggles)
 * There is a very nice article linked from ANWR's website: http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm
 * That website covers most of the topics you brought up. It also covers some re-information.  Some anti-drilling sites quote articles from the 60's and 70's that have been superceded by new information.  An example: an old government study showed it would take about $16/barrel to get oil out of ANWR.  At the going rate of $12-14/barrel, drilling in ANWR was a losing proposition.  Things have changed.  It is cheaper to get oil out now with the pipeline from Prudoe Bay.  Oil also costs much more (over $50/barrel).  So, it is rather important to keep up on the information.
 * I've eased off the whole oil thing for two reasons. First, I want to avoid an edit war also.  Personally, I see it as an issue of 'when' we will pump the oil out of ANWR, not 'if' we will pump the oil.  Until every last drop of oil is gone, Americans will keep driving bigger and bigger cars. (Has anyone considered drilling on Mars yet?)
 * The second issue is far less a POV one. This is supposed to be an article about ANWR, not about Oil in Alaska.  I've tried to balance the length of the oil text with non-oil text.  I feel that it may very well be necessary to make a separate article strictly about Oil in Alaska.  Then, let the edit war rage on over there and I'll stay over here in the ANWR article playing with the muskoxen :) Kainaw 03:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * How much oil does the US use per day? I've seen estimates at 5 million barrels*.

This has nothing to do with ANWR.


 * list of organizations working for and against drilling

I'd like to see this too.


 * I understand that if legislation was passed today, we wouldn't see oil for about 10 years


 * I've heard that also. Based on USGS and other figures it appears to be a canard spread by drilling opponents.


 * Here are the estimates for oil recovery year by year:


 * YEAR PRODUCTION (barrels)
 * 1 139,892
 * 2 533,000
 * 3 871,824
 * 4 990,068
 * 5 1,023,032
 * 6 1,079,120
 * 7 1,372,139
 * 8 1,609,660
 * 9 1,640,000
 * 10 1,595,064
 * 11 1,442,052
 * 12 1,281,332
 * 13 1,127,500
 * 14 990,962
 * 15 874,002


 * Role of conservation vs drilling

This does not belong in an ANWR article but in an oil conservation article.


 * The oil in the region is extremely high in sulfur content, that adversely affects usage and refining costs in the US.

So what? Drillers willing to pump the oil must refine to appropriate standards. If they choose to incur those extra costs who are you or I to stop them?


 * I think we should have a few really good essays from each side listed.

OK. You're free to add links to them. As for adding the essays themselves, I believe that would make this article too long.

this is from an NRDC factsheet: http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts2.asp
 * There needs to be information about how oil spills hit this area particularly hard because of climactic conditions.

One sentance with your link should do it. --Kirby Morgan 20:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

POV
The end of this article has some pretty bloggish/POV headlines. 'How Much Oil' looks like a headline from an oil company PR leaflet or FAQ.

The estimate of 2 million jobs is utterly ludicrous. There are 16 billion barells in the reserve. If those are extracted in full over a ten year period and the cost of extraction is $50/barrel and all the money is spent in the US would be 800 billion dollars, or 80 billion a year. That would be 2 million jobs at $40K each.

In fact the real extraction cost would have to be much less than $10/barrel for developing the field to be attractive given the license fees, taxes, financial risks etc. involved. So this is very obviously a tall story being told by a partisan outfit. --Gorgonzilla 03:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to change the title of the section if you feel it is POV. As for the 2M jobs - where is your source?  The author stated a source.  You disagree with the source, but provide no source.  So, the author is merely stating a reference.  You are stating your POV.  Therefore, you are attempting to make the article POV. Kainaw 13:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The source is clearly a partisan one. The claim is utterly preposterous on the basis of the figures given. If someone claims that ANWR would create a billion jobs it is not POV to point out that its a fraud. --Gorgonzilla 13:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A source can be partisan. Look at the USA PATRIOT ACT article.  It is so packed full of partisan sources that it doesn't come to any conclusion of any kind.  Regardless, it is your job to fix the POV.  You don't do it by censoring an article (which appears to be your agenda: complain about POV until the article mentioned is removed from the article).  You append to what is already there.  Why didn't you just add a paragraph in the jobs section explaining what you explained above?  Why didn't you find a source that disagrees with the source quoted?  All partisan outfits have opposing partisan outfits who waste money disputing each other every day.  It shouldn't be hard to find someone who disagrees with the article.
 * If you read the comments above, you can see that I was against the talk of oil in this article all together. When I first read it, it was nothing except "Bush is evil and wants to kill all the animals for oil."  I put effort into limiting the oil talk and increasing talk about the refuge.  It is my opinion that there be no oil talk in this article at all, but that would be POV by censorship, which is exactly what I want to avoid having you do. Kainaw 14:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If the statistic is reliable it will have been repeated by one of the many elected politicians who support drilling. The minority estimate the number of jobs at no more than 65,000. This is a significant number of jobs and does not need to be inflated with bogus claims. Incidentally the largest of the claims they are responding to is 750,000 which is significantly less than the 2 million. I can't find anyone using the 2 million figure. This is an issue of national importance, one of the major political issues of the day. A think tank report should not be considered reliable unless it is cited by a major national elected official. --Gorgonzilla 14:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

OK I found several secondary cites for 735K jobs. But no case where a GOP senator uses the figure themselves. That strongly suggests that nobody wants to put their reputation on the line for even that figure. But it is the figure that is responded to and so it is notable. I cannot find any evidence of the 2 million jobs claim being mentioned in the Senate committee debates. The bottom line is that if it would require 2 million people to get the oil out of ANWR then the reserves would be simply uneconomic. Alaska is more expensive to drill than the gulf or Texas but it is considerably cheaper than the North Sea.

The article is still POV because it makes no mention of the environmentalists objections to ANWR drilling. --Gorgonzilla 15:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I get the feeling that you are not reading what you are commenting about. First, the 2M job quote was not "It will take 2M people to get oil out of Alaska."  It was "If we get oil out of Alaska, American oil companies will have more profit and expand, allowing for them to create up to 2M more jobs."  In my opinion, there is a big difference between those two quoted comments.  Second, you claim that there is "no mention of the environmentalists objections".  I did not just edit the article to slip in comments about disruption of herds and the environmentalist's push to have ANWR declared a wildlife monument.  Both of those are from the environmentalist's side.  Perhaps you want to expand on them.  The rest of the bulk of the oil junk (I think it is junk because it isn't about ANWR) is a boring list of what congress voted here and there.  It is still my opinion that the whole oil think be chucked into a new article, leaving this one only about ANWR. Kainaw 15:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's hard to believe he and I are reading the same article. Environmentalist objections have clearly been in the article for some time. Although I like the new headings on the last two paragraphs, the objections seem to want to censor facts to serve the censor's POV. I agree also the ANWR article should be about ANWR and very little about oil in the Arctic Coastal Plain section or the battle over its recovery. Small reference should be made to the estimates of how much is there and how much of an above ground footprint it would take for recovery. There should be a separate article (and a pointer from here to there) about the battle over the oil's recovery and how many jobs extracting it would create in the US economy both directly and indirectly. BTW - Sen Jeff Bingaman cites 1.5 million jobs. He's a Democrat. I wonder if that was why someone said they couldn't find a GOP Senator who confirmed the large jobs count. --Kirby Morgan 21:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll take that as a second to my suggestion to split the article and split the oil stuff off. If anyone feels it is necessary, the talk here can be copied to the talk page of the new article. Kainaw 23:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the discussion page containing two sections - pro-drilling arguments and pro-refuge arguments. I feel that letting both sides have their say, (backed up with sources) is the most fair way to deal with the controversy over drilling. There are so very many misconceptions about the refuge, and about which groups are pro-drilling and which against and why. One thing on the 'discussion page' of anwr controversy which i find subtly racist is that the position of the natives who oppose drilling have their stance phrased as 'belief' or 'feeling' while drilling proponents have their stance phrased as 'estimates'. another very important point is that anwr is not the largest oil deposit in north america, it's the largest in the US. the athabaska oil sands in canada is much larger. the article is wrong.

check out this ANWR site
thinkertees.com

The current issue of the drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR, pronounced "anne wahr") in Alaska has been blown out of proportion by the media. From the messages the media is sending, it sounds like President Bush wants to destroy the entire Alaskan environment. Many Americans have gullibly believed the liberal propaganda of the media once again, and they think that the beauty of Alaska is going to be gone. Ironically, the media never seems to mention the fact that the area of land in ANWR which is being drilled is just 2,000 acres out of the 19 million acres that makes up ANWR. No one likes to see nature be destroyed, but if this minuscule sacrifice can help relieve our dependence on foreign oil, the .0105% (one tenth of one percent) of ANWR that is being considered for drilling is well worth it. So don't take everything the media says verbatim because they report on the biased opinions of environmental activists who obviously never took math in school.


 * Wikipedia is not a message board or a blog. If there are factual errors or missing facts from the article, feel free to fix the problems.  As for the opinions of a t-shirt printer, this is not the appropriate place. --Kainaw (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Canadian treaty/international tribal connections needed
I don't recall the details, but prior research I did on the history noted that ANWR was created as part of an effort to resolve native peoples issues who depended on migratory herds they live off that required access to the coastal plain in the US for part of their historic migration. I don't recall any details, just vague historical context that I expected to be reminded of in this article. Mulp (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oil in this article
I just removed comments about oil production and usage (again). There is an article for anything and everything someone may want to say about oil and ANWR. I do not want to start down a slippery slope by putting one thing about oil in this article, then another has to creep in to debate it, then another creeps in, then another, and eventually the oil article takes over this one. So, I strongly feel that this article should have absolutely nothing more than a link to the oil article. --Kainaw (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are completely wrong. It's highly relevant to any article on ANWR that there are probably substantial crude oil reserves there.  Its a fact, not a controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.97.18 (talk • contribs)


 * I agree that it is relevant. In fact, I have made the point that it is so relevant that the topic has an article all to itself.  When a topic splits into a new article, information on that topic belongs in the new article, not the parent one.  That keeps it all in one place - easy for readers to find it. --  k a i n a w &trade; 01:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the deletion of the addition made by the anon IP. I added a bit more to the summary, since one sentence for an entire section seems light. The additions are taken from the summary section of the main article.--Work permit (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

2008 Elections
An anon user keeps insisting on adding a section to this article about the 2008 elections with the claim that the oil debate was a major part of the election. It has been removed by other users (including myself). I have removed it because there is nothing notable about the fact that it was brought up in the 2008 elections. It was brought up in the 2004 elections, the 2000 elections, the 1996 elections, etc... So, why is it so important to make note of the 2008 elections? -- k a i n a w &trade; 18:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It should definitely be noted that it's been a recurring issue in several general elections over the years. This is how most people know of ANWR and there's a political reality that is central to ANWR's existence and future existence. 98.71.213.217 (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article currently states "The question of whether to drill for oil in the ANWR has been an ongoing political controversy in the United States since 1977." Unless you can point out why the 2008 election made ANWR more notable than previous elections, I cannot see a reason to specifically point out that one year.  In my opinion, ANWR was not near as big an issue as it has been in past elections. --  k a i n a w &trade; 14:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "ongoing political controversy since 1977" covers "a recurring issue in several general elections over the years", "the 2008 election". This is a stub entry for the main article on the drilling controversy.--Work permit (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)