Talk:Arctic Refuge drilling controversy/Archive 1

POV Check Banner
I added the POV Check Banner because I felt it was high time that this article be flagged for neutrality. Many of the previous posters have made some good points as this article seems to rather one sided. Biwhite2 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean because one section calls itself "Opposing views" and presents only one?

Why not?
I want to confess up front that I know nothing about energy policy. That is, however, the reason I'm asking this question.

What is the con for drilling in ANWR? As someone who knows nothing except what I've seen on TV about the topic, this article is wonderfully objective. But it doesn't tell me why some people object to drilling here. Apparently lots of folks are opposed, but why? What are their arguments? What is the research that supports it/opposes it? Reading this article, all I know is how much oil there might be and who like/dislikes it. This is in severe need of correction. George 07:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't been watching this article since November, but the current incarnation of this article is extremely poorly written, poorly factually supported, and makes statement in a blatantly opposing POV is many parts of the article.


 * First, it is important to note that every single statement of "fact" supporting or describing the "against drilling" viewpoint is not supported by an reference or source, while many of the statements of fact supporting the "for drilling" viewpoint are supported by links to sources. For example, there is a mention of a 1987 DOI report that concludes major damage would be done to wildlife if oil development commenced, but there is no source cited for that report.  Also, the statement, "The Canadian government believes that any oil development in ANWR could disrupt migratory routes of the herd in the region," in the History section is not supported with any citation.  (It's also grammatically incorrect, since it's in a section that describes a past time in history, but that's a different issue.)


 * Second, it seems obvious to me that whomever has been making major changes since December is primarily interested in injecting politically-charged statements into this article, and is far less concerned about creating a fair and neutral POV article. This is primarly due to the arguments without citations that are mentioned above.


 * Third, there are clear factual errors that I will attempt to research and correct. The most obvious of these, to me, is the statement in the "2001-Present" subset of the History section that the House of Representatives passed a bill authorizing drilling in 2000, but that bill was rejected by the Senate in 2002.  A bill passed by the House in 2000, but not acted upon by the Senate, would have died at the end of the congressional legislative session in 2001. Thus, it would have had to be reintroduced and passed again  by the House in 2002, and subsequently rejected by the Senate.  I will research this issue and see if this was, indeed, the case.


 * Overall, I think this article is in need of a lot of work. I will attempt to help make as many changes as I can to make it more neutral and factually correct.   Jhortman 04:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've made edits all the way down through the "opposing views" section. I'm done for the day, but will try to finish the process of verifying facts and stating the arguments in a more neutral POV tomorrow.   Your input is requested, and appreciated!  Jhortman 06:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * jhortman, thanks for your efforts on the anwr pov page. however, while 'fixing' the article you deleted some relevant information and changed it back to making it seem as if the environmentalists know more about the land and the natives than the natives do. you also put in some mis-information. while we appreciate your efforts at locating sources, we would appreciate it if you leave the opinion of the kaktovik and point hope inupiat in the article. the purpose of this page is to show two sides to the issue, both well represented, 'not' two neutral views. because the pro-drilling people have not added to their part of the page does not mean that the native people's argument should be removed. also, luci beach is definitely a woman. heh. and, we find it a subtle slight that our native opinion is phrased as 'belief' while the proponents of drilling have their opinion phrased as 'estimates'. next time you 'work' on the article, maybe you could adjust that. thanks.


 * the locals are against it? says who? I heard they were for it. Did they change their stance or something? In response to "why not" i seriously cannot answer. Look at oil prices now. Did you know oil prices drop in anticipation or a shortage? Will there be anticipation of a future shortage if there is drilling in ANWR? Enviromentalists show videos of SOUTH EAST ALASKA (near anchorage) in anti-drilling commericals. In fact, after seeing one on TV i counted two images of ANWR, and none of them even close to the actual drilling site. I have seen a picture in the Fairbanks Daily Newsminer of a flagged drilling site and it literally was barren flatness until the horizen. No shrubs, no trees, no animals. Alaska does not have a dense animal population. We do have a lot of spread out animals. Likewise, caribou herds near current drilling sites have done FINE and the actual migration locations of the caribou herds in ANWR vary from year to year. Who's against drilling in ANWR? People who did absolutely no real research and people who were paid to be against drilling from special interest groups. Every person in the senate who as ACTUALLY VISITED ANWR is for drilling in it. Why is the contiguous US against ANWR? THey dont live here, they will surely never visit ANWR, and they have no right to tell us what to do. Why is this even a national issue (rhetorical question)? I had a biologist tell me whats wrong with ANWR. They backed up their position with asenine arguments such as "I dont see how ice roads could work" and "it wont cure all of our energy needs". That is your typical "expert" who is against ANWR. They just dont understand. -- James from Fairbanks

Need to present anti-drilling side
Only one side is presented here -- the side in favor of drilling. More information that comes from the other side needs to be provided, as well as some sort of explanation of the criticism.--AaronS 14:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This article provides as much information as i given to them. if you want it changed, then change it.


 * You should provide a list of what you see as "pro-drilling". Then, provide a list of "anti-drilling" information that is missing. Kainaw 18:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether you are pro-drilling or anti-drilling, the article lists the refuge as North America's largest oilfield. The article then states that there are (at a maximum) 16 billion barrels of oil in the refuge. Apparently, the author did not realise that the Athabasca oilsands deposit in northern Alberta (Canada) holds 1.6 trillion (1,600,000,000) barrels of oil, with 237 billion barrels recoverable. This refuge may be the largest oilfield in the United States, however.

I agree, this flag for dispute is unnecessary without more information or an edit.

i live in alaska and consider myself fairly well informed about the anwr issue. i find that the article here states the facts pertaining to the various attempts to drill anwr in an objective manner. i agree that there are a few difficult to decipher sentences toward the end of the article. i agree that there is much more information about the issue which could be presented, for example, the estimated length of time that the recoverable fuel will last at current use rates, the position of the gwich'n and why they oppose drilling and why other native groups are proponents, about the export ban provision added nov. 4, and the language that was cut from the reconciliation bill in order to make it non-Byrdable in Stevens' attempts to get the bill passed. that the current bill does not provide for new e.i.s. statements and has left out important labor agreements, and about alaska's constitutional allowance of 90% royalties that have been waived by Stevens for the 50-50 split proposed in the budget bill language. that the current bill does not provide for new e.i.s. statements and has left out important labor agreements. i think it would also be relevant to show there have been an average of over 400 spills a year on the slope, and that the pipeline has been shut down for maintenance, (it's getting old), and that alyeska has a history of serious violations of the laws, (they have often not found leak/spills for days or longer), and has demonstrated a disregard for the safety of their workers and the environment. i also think it would be relevant to point how the amount of time it will take before this oil is available to any consumers (even if it is sold to the chinese). i agree with one of the later statements that the number of jobs created will be minimal as most of the infra-structure for drilling is present on site and will be adapted.206.174.11.152 13:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)22

Estimates of oil reserves
This section is incoherently written. I am a native speaker of English and I can barely make heads or tails of it, specifically:
 * ''USGS studies show between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km³), 5 to 95 % probability range existed in ANWR, with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels (1.7 km³).

The part of the sentence "probibility range existed in" seems to be missing some puncuation that might elicudate what it means. Does that mean there is a 5% probibility of 5.7 billion barrels and 95% that there is 16? Or does it mean 5-95% probability (which is a really fancy way of saying "no idea"). Is it saying no one can agree on the amount OR the probability? And what is with the past tense existed existed as of when? Where did it go? In all I suppose I am just wondering what on earth it is saying. If I coudl figure it out for I would fix it. Dalf | Talk 06:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's probably 95% probability - twice the standard deviation is a common metric in statistics. -- 70.124.112.65 06:49, 5 November 2005


 * I gave the source data, a 1998 USGS ANWR petroleum assessment report, a quick review. It appears that the quoted numbers are approximate minimum and maximum expected, with the probabilities representing the likelihood of the levels being "at least that large", which means the 95% number represents the smaller amount, and the 5% the higher. Since neither of the "mean values" stated is half the sum of the its given data points, I assume that they represent a mean of the entire dataset, which I think (but am not sure) means they can be considered 50% likely. (Someone whose statistics training isn't a quarter of a century old ought to give the report a look.) I'm not sure how relevant such a mean is, given that nobody wants to make expensive business decisions based on a 50/50 flip of the coin, but I'm sure the numbers are useful in political arguments. Anyway, I've revised the text to attempt to make this a bit clearer (and changed the tenses appropriately). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked a couple of sentences (mostly grammatical mistakes) and cleaned up the intro. Didn't change the supposed pro-drilling bias, however.


 * i am not pro-drilling, and i did not find the article to be pro-drilling. i think it's pretty objective, mostly covering the history of the attempts to drill. 206.174.11.152 13:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)22

ALSO- I find it particularly important, although nobody seems to have mentioned it here, to include the projected savings to the consumer. I read recently in NY Times (although I have no clue where, off-hand) that the savings to the consumer would be only 1-2 cents per gallon. Without citing my source I don't want to be any more brash than this, however, I do think it is important to include such information. Proponents for the bill focus largely on oil availability, whereas opponents focus on Wildlife preservation, creating a large gap insofar as interest is concerned for the average person. ie. an average person may be willing to sacrifice a couple animals if we're getting a dollar a gallon off, but not for 1-2 cents....see what I'm saying? Kingerik 18:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

and: the oil won't be available for any consumers for many many years, by which time 1-2¢ will be nothing... 206.174.11.152 01:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)22


 * It may be seen as anti-drilling by thouse who support opeing the area to drilling. But a discussion of the overall inpact on the US market might be worthwhile.  I don't have numbers off hand but I seem to recall seing something or reading something that pretty much made it symbolism over substance and making a few people rich.  Somethign like 5% of total us consumption for a year if you coudl extract it all at once.  Then again I don't rally remember and the numbers I read were unequvicly from an anti-drilling source.  Either way a discussion of what the various estimates would mean if they were correct might be worth persuing (but only if it iws well refrenced). Dalf | Talk 10:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There is an updated USGS study (2000) on the oil estimates. Go to http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm#section2  and link to the ¨How much Oil is in the Arctic Refuge?¨ section.  --Patpecz 10:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following section:


 * A 2002 USGS study found

"'likely ranges between 5.9 and 13.2 billion barrels, with a mean (expected) value of 9.3 billion barrels. An estimated 1.3 to 5.6 billion barrels of those technically recoverable oil resources is economically recoverable at market prices of $22 to $30 per barrel. Technically recoverable, undiscovered nonassociated natural gas for the same area likely ranges between 39.1 and 83.2 trillion cubic feet, with a mean (expected) value of 59.7 trillion cubic feet.'"

This study deals with the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska (NPRA) area, not the ANWR 1002 area. Francis Small 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed: "There have been conflicting reports as to the amount of oil in ANWR."

It appears that all current citations for estimated reserves use the 1998 USGS study - I haven't seen any other reports that are cited as being more recent or accurate. Nor have I seen any criticisms of the USGS report, so I don't think there is any basis to state that there are conflicting reports. Different citations will of course use different figures included in the report based on their point of view, but that is a different matter. Francis Small 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarified estimates

I tried to make a distinction between estimates for the entire USGS assessment area (includes Federal and Native lands and State waters) and assessments for only the Federal area. (The USGS study provides more detailed information for just the Federal lands than for the entire assessment area.) I included the best information available for economically recoverable oil estimates since, ultimately, it is the economically recoverable oil that matters. Francis Small 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph: "However, not everyone is as optimistic..."

Removed the paragraph: However, not everyone is as optimistic as USGS about potential resources. Chevron Texaco, BP, and ConocoPhillips, who are the main operators in the North Slope, and, as such, have a good knowedge of the region's geology, all withdrew from lobbying for opening the region. (http://www.alternet.org/story/21512/Alternet).

I have read the referenced article. I am not questioning that these companies have withdrawn from lobbying, but there is no indication that they have done so as a result of questioning the estimates contained in the 1998 USGS report. At best I think one could speculate that they have done so because of the political difficulties of getting Congress to approve drilling in the area. This may be appropriate to include in the article, but not under the section of "Estimates of Oil Reserves". However I also question the appropriateness of citing this article in the first place. The web site has a decidedly anti-drilling point of view and the referenced article contains a factual error biased against drilling (the 3.2 bbo estimate for economically recoverable oil reserves is too low based on the USGS report). The article thus seems inappropriate for supporting an anti-drilling argument.

Removed Paragraph: "This means that if drilling in the ANWR was to start in 2008 that the first barrel of oil would arrive in 2018 and that the oil arriving has a 50 percent chance of being 2.6 billion barrels. The United States currently uses 8 billion barrels per year."

At best this paragraph is unclear and provides no elucidation to the quote above it. At worst it is a poor attempt at manipulation. The "2.6 billion barrels" referenced is from the mean of two different estimations on the oil retrievable (1.9 billion and 4.3 billion). I can't understand by what reason a person would conclude that the mean has any real importance to statistical probability. You can't even say that there is a 50% chance of it being higher and a 50% chance of it being lower without any detailed understanding of the metrics being used to make the estimations used to create the mean provided. This is to say nothing of the fact that the included quotation does not provide the method by which 2.6B is arrived at as the mean of 1.9B and 4.3B.

Additionally, the paragraph seems to say that the total oil retrievable is the amount that will arrive in 2018. Nowhere does the article claim that 2.6B will be produced the first year, but that it will be the total production of the region. That this seems manipulative is further reinforced by the following line stating the US oil consumption rate is 8 billion barrels per annum.

Taken as a whole, it is highly likely that an uncareful reader will leave thinking that there is a 50% chance that 2.6B barrels of oil will arrive in 2018 and supply over a quarter of US energy demands.

Gmanod (UTC)

Practical Relevance?

I find this whole discussion about estimates bothersome. Estimates offer no real or credible frame of reference to the average reader. The number of billion barrels available is almost meaningless. First, based on government statistics for 2005-2007, US daily oil consumption ranges from 20.68 to 20.8 million barrels/day.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#Econ

However, current "popular" estimates for 2008 place that value above 21 million barrels/day.

Divide whatever estimate finds consensus here by US daily consumption. For example:
 * 1.3 billion barrels divided by 20.8 million barrels/day = a 62.5-day supply of oil at the US rate of consumption for 2005.


 * 4.9 billion barrels divided by 20.8 million barrels/day = a 235.6-day supply of oil at the US rate of consumption for 2005.


 * 13.2 billion barrels divided by 20.8 million barrels/day = a 634.6-day (1.74-year) supply of oil at the US rate of consumption for 2005.

Furthermore, I believe the "Pro" discussion states that the ANWR oil reserves will help improve US Energy Independence and lower price. The question begs asking. Will either a 62.5-day supply or a 1.74-year supply of oil contribute significantly to US energy independence or make a measurable impact on global oil pricing? BigBrudda84 (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets give people credit by presenting the facts. There is 10.4 bn barrels of reserves in ANWR.  Production is estimated to be about 700k bbls/day at its peak.  Divide these numbers by what you like to "prove" your POV, these numbers are FACTS.  How much is 10.4bn barrels?  Its half the proven reserves in the US.  Total probable reserves are 120bn barrels.  The Department of Energy report (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf) estimates that at peak output, ANWR would produce between 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day. The average figure that it settles on is 780,000.  As a basis of comparison, increasing fuel economy standards for cars to require an average fuel economy of 35 mpg by 2020 would result in a decrease of oil consumption by 1.2 million barrels per. So ANWR production is of the same order of magnitude as realistic increase in CAFE.  I can go on.  I think Texas produces something like 1m bbl/day. Based on your logic, that means nothing. Louisiana produces about a third of that. That's even less then nothing.  If we keep saying none of these numbers make a difference, we end up producing nothing and doing nothing--Work permit (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Estimates, Variables, Data ...

"Probable" is not proved. Expressing the supply of oil in days based on US Consumption is a legitimate "fact" (data). The projected/"estimated" longevity of an oil reserve is highly relevant. It also provides a different/new perspective. The results of the calculation will not change based on opinion or interpretation.

Interpretation of a fact provides bias. The figures for ANWR and US oil reserves (barrels) are "estimates." The US rate of consumption is a variable that will change with time. At the moment, the lay press reports that it is higher than in 2005.

Higher gas mileage for cars could reduce consumption but a larger population driving cars could increase consumption. The variable of US consumption could go up or down. The estimates for oil reserves may be too high or too low. None of us are prescient. Furthermore, the presence of an oil reserve in the US gives no assurance that the oil will be sold in the US. BigBrudda84 (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue of you putting your relative analysis in the "opposing" views section. But I think the "facts" section should more or less stand as it is. We both agree there is 10bn barrels in ANWR. The section already compares that to 120bn barrels of "maybe we have it" reserves and cites the doe as saying the impact on prices is minimal. You want to compare it as barrels per day of TOTAL US consumption? I'll compare it to the INCREMENTAL consumption expected out of china. Or the INCREMENTAL demand in the US. ANWR production is of course INCREMENTAL, isn't it? Comparing any INCREMNTAL addition to supply (or INCREMENTAL decrease in demand) to the TOTAL demand is biased, imho. Keep the section as is, you have a point to prove, do it in the other section.--Work permit (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree or disagree with the "estimate" of 10 billion barrels. Like you, I have no way of verifying whether it is accurate. I placed facts in the Opposing "Views" because I was sure the "Pro" bias, that your writing reflects, would object otherwise. To present ANWR reserve supplies as a "single figure" estimate that uses large numbers (that are inconceivable to truly perceive), "billions" of barrels, is just as biased. Not only is the supply pumped incrementally, the daily amount supplied is not constant and will progressively diminish as the reserve is depleted -- becoming progressively more difficult to glean with current technology. If you are "guessing" that the US has 120 billion gallons more oil available in the future, how do we know what world oil supplies and consumption will be in 2030 (facts?). Hopefully, the United States will no longer be using petroleum as its primary source of energy for transportation and supplies distribution by 2030 -- that would be "doing something." The average American citizen, who thinks in terms of the 15-gallon capacity of a car's gas tank, sees the term "billions of barrels" and typically equates it with a near inexhaustible supply of oil by comparison. Similarly, providing daily output estimates for ANWR in barrels and offering a "relative analysis" that presents these figures as a "percent" of US consumption carefully avoids the actual value in barrels/day of US consumption (more bias?).

The individual who edited the paragraph I added to the Opposing Views did an excellent job of streamlining the text and preserving the meaning. However, I find it unsettling that the "bullets" in the Supporting Views section about reduction of US dependence on foreign imports and price reduction have been permitted to stand. It is doubtful that either a 3-month supply or a 1.4-year supply of oil will significantly contribute to US energy independence or have a measurable impact on global oil pricing. Do short-term gains in revenues and jobs justify long-term impacts on wildlife, the environment and the native peoples affected? The Arctic “National” Wildlife “Refuge” is supposed to be just that, a "refuge." BigBrudda84 (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Research and support
I'm a student attempting to do a paper on both sides of the issue- to drill or not to drill. I'm irritated with this article because, although you say that this subject has been a "hot-button issue," you never actually explain the debate. I'm confused by the fact that you did the research for solid evidence that supports drilling (creation of jobs, possiblity of a great ammount of oil,) but didn't bother to research soild ground for NOT drilling (which, just to let you know, DOES show pro-drilling bias, whether you support drilling or not.) You should research both arguments and add them to this article. They are vital to understanding the CONTROVERSY. The title of the article is "Arctic Refuge Drilling Controversy," but nowhere do you actually explain the controversy itself. Why do people oppose drilling? Why do they support it? What are the facts of this controversy? What are the assumptions? What is the core disagreement? Without this information, you may as well change the title of your article. If you want to tell us about the controversy, please do.

-Nadine M.

while it would be nice to have that info for the benefit of the integrity of the article itself, you have no business being 'irritated' because it does not. wikipedia does not exist to ensure that you have info readily availabe to do your homework, but rather relies on people, like you for instance, to contribute the knowledge necessary to fill these pages. instead of demanding the information be provided to you, why don't you provide it. please be sure to cite your sources :) -Imindink (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There are actually several arguements against from different points of view:

Fiscal Conservative/Libertarian POV

Why should the federal govt subsidize the drilling when it won't be seeing any of the profits? Why should the federal govt subsidize the drilling when oil companies profits were up 60%? Strictly Libertarian: Why should the federal govt subsidize anything?

Energy Indepedence POV:

Artic drilling will only be a short term band aid to the real problem. The billions of tax payers dollars would be better spent in alternate energy subsidies for R&D.

Of course the environmental POV is well known but I can add this which is not often talked about:

ANWR is the last nature preserve that hasn't been drilled in or logged to some degree and I believe in part that this is one of the resons so many groups have drawn a line in the sand over this.

Now from a purely logistical POV Artic drilling will not do much to decrease oil prices for the following reason:

The maximum capacity of the Alaskan pipeline is 2 million barrels per day. The pipeline already transports 1 million barrels per day. Source: That would represent a 1/19th drop in the price of crude if every drop were sold only to the USA, which it won't be. The price decrease caused by drilling in ANWR to the world, which consumes an average of 100 million barrels per day would be less than one percent.

By the time you add in production, labor, and shipping costs the actual price decrease to the American consumer it wouldn't be enough to justify spending 35 billion dollars tax dollars IMO. Dyre42 03:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Libertarian POV: is a vote to allow drilling automatically a vote to subsidize it, though? I believe a vote yes is to allow drilling by private companies... where does the subsidization come in? None of these are covered in the article.--Gloriamarie 05:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I don't follow this at all. I believe the controversy is over whether to ALLOW drilling, not whether to subsidize it.Bdell555 (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Breaking news
CNN reports the neocon's Alaskan refuge and off-shore oil drilling push has been killed by moderate GOP in the Senate.

"Rather then reversing decades of protection for this publicly held land, focusing greater attention on renewable energy sources, alternate fuels, and more efficient systems and appliances would yield more net energy savings than could come from ANWR and would have a higher benefit on the nation's long-term economic leadership and security," Rep. Charles Bass of New Hampshire said in a letter signed by twenty-five Republicans, asking GOP leaders to strike the Alaskan drilling provision from the broader $54 billion budget cut bill.

And it happened, see: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/09/arctic.refu ge.ap/index.html


 * It should be noted, at least in the print article of NY Times, that the Senate proposes to re-introduce the provision before final vote, in an effort to gain more moderate support. (Headline House Leaders Postpone Vote on Budget Bill, 11-11-05, Front Page, continued page A18, By CARL HULSE) Kingerik 17:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Update
 * The House and Senate bills are now going to committee meetings to finalize the terms of the Budget Reconciliation Bill. Once approved in committee, both the House and the Senate must vote again on the final language of the bill in order for it to be presented to the President to be signed into law.16:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Update
 * Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) is now (Dec. 15, 2005) planning to attach ANWR drilling language to the annual defense appropriations bill. This House-Senate conference committee compromise bill - which has provisions for both hurricane Katrina and for defense spending - will be hard for the other senators to vote against. Stevens is chairman of both the Senate Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee and of the joint House-Senate conference committee appointed to work on the annual defense spending bill.

Update
 * The language is now (Dec. 19, 2005) attached to the defense spending bill. There's still a chance that the Parliamentarian will uphold a point of order and block this - if it comes to that.


 * oh, those pesky "neocons"

Check out this ANWR site
(t-shirt selling link removed)

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.

Cleanup
This page needed cleaning up so I did that. As you can tell by an earlier post I'm for drilling in ANWR so take a look at my changes and keep me in check. That said I think I kept things fair. Yes there is almost no factual information against ANWR other than opinions that it may disrupt the wildlife. Thats life. So heres basically what happened. I was reading this article and followed one of the sources on the "con" side and found the write had mis-interpreted a paragraph of information on the official ANWR website (either deliberatly or accidently). I completely deleted the incorrect statement because fixing it made it irrelevant to the issue at hand. Next to go were the things against oil drilling in general. Yes some of these were facts. Unfortunately, one of the paragraphs I considered keeping didn't have a source to it (and the only source provided did not provide any of the information actually in the paragraph). The other paragraph was about an oil spill in the pipeline. This is irrelevant and honestly as a resident of Alaska I never heard of such an event happening, nor to the extreme the article painted. Remember this is about ANWR, not drilling or resource gathering in general. I most likely have angered some people by completely deleting their contributions, however its misinformation to try to tie irrelevant facts into a topic to try to persue the reader to feel the same way you do. IF you feel your contribution was unjustly deleted, please review the history and try see and fix what part of the criteria it did not fit. The reason I feel oil drilling in general should be left out is because there are many pros and cons to that topic that could be added to this article at will. I.E. oil is bad cuz of exxon valdez. Well oil is good because out of state tuition at UAF is only $3k - $4k (or something, I didnt look it up) all thanks to oil revenue. Ect. this can go on. A lot of oil drilling facts just come off as BS to me. The oil companies make things sound way too awesome and people against it make everyone in the oil industry sound like greedy monsters. Next was the people of KAKTOVIK. They were previously listed as being against drilling yet after reviewing sources this clearly is not true. I added a section explaining their situation and in my opinion, their stance is the most important of all.

Here I'm proposing a criteria for information that I feel will help keep things balanced: When posting information ALWAYS give a reputable source. Enviromentalist sites have unfortunately been known to mis-inform, so always cross check your references and avoid them if possible for a source such as a newspaper or official government site. There are way too many enviromentalist links on this page. When posting a picture, a picture of ANWR in general is probably not appropriate due to the size of the land. Hint, if you can see a mountain, or a hill, then it isn't of the proposed drilling site. Unfortunately people tend to associate any picture of alaska with the actual proposed ANWR drill site simply by looking at it, so avoid these as well. Any pictures actually of the proposed site are great to add. I wish I could find the one of the stake in the ground I saw years ago. Opinions of the any alaska native is ok. Any update on the people of kaktovik is great. Do not post anything anti or pro drilling in general because this is too broad. For now, take the footprint estimate "as is". Economic information is great, but do not make your own speculations given information since a lot of sources leave important things out. I read somewhere that the government would lose money over opening ANWR, and they gave statistical information in an attempt to prove it. Trust me, if the government actually thought this, then this would never be an issue. Finally, dont try to make a claim look less than it is. I.E. dont give a fact and then immedietely say "however, blah blah blah" as this comes off as slant. Let the reader decide and put your "however" in the appropriate section. You could theoretically "however" almost every fact on this page.

You may have noticed I gave some facts under "why not" but I did not put them in the article. This is because I recieved some of that information from a personal source close to Sen. Stevens (R-AK) and information confirming or rebuking it does not seem to be printed anywhere. As such I cannot post it, and I cant garuntee its accuracy (so pretend I put it in a "I heard" context instead of a factual context). I would love to see a stat of who has actually visited the area of interest and their stance on it.

Also someone needs to update the history section in light of current events, although I'm too lazy to do it. I'd rather gripe and delete stuff :P -- James from Fairbanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.126.164.1 (talk • contribs).


 * I would like to give you some advise. First of all, this article is heavily debated, so be carefull and only insert things that are fuklly cited. Do not just delete pieces, especially not if you are just lazy. I think you did not kept things fair. Furthermore, I will assume good faith but sentences as trust me are not helping to ensure that, to the contrary, they are arguments based on authority, and especially in contengious articles like this, they work like red flags on most people. What you say about Enviromentalist sites can be equally said about government sites, both can be partisan and a government that never misleads their own people is an oxymoron. KimvdLinde 09:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier, there was FLAT OUT WRONG information. I followed the "citation" and found NO INSTANCES of that actual information presented in them. For one, the offical site DOES NOT SAY that 1002 is diverse with wildlife. It is in a completely different paragraph and is concluding paragraph about ANWR in general. That is to be removed because this is called MISINFORMATION. There is a sentence that says that "the people of Kaktovik", when there is no source that states anything close to the statement that they are against drilling in ANWR. Rather, less than half of the town at one point in time, signed a petition. SO, that sentence IS TO BE DELETED. In fact, I used a source that one of the sources already used used when I wrote the Kaktovik information (confusing sentence I know).


 * Follow the citations in this paragraph and tell me this paragraph doesnt say something different: The US Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that because of its compact size, the 1002 area has a "greater degree of ecological diversity than any other similar sized area of Alaska's north slope." The USFWS also states, "Those who campaigned to establish the Arctic Refuge recognized its wild qualities and the significance of these spatial relationships. Here lies an unusually diverse assemblage of large animals and smaller, less-appreciated life forms, tied to their physical environments and to each other by natural, undisturbed ecological and evolutionary processes."[16] It is because of this great diversity, and fear of its harm or outright destruction, that many environmental groups argue against drilling for oil in the 1002 area.


 * The paragraph in the article says: The US Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that because of its compact size, the 1002 area has a "greater degree of ecological diversity than any other similar sized area of Alaska's north slope." The USFWS also states, "Those who campaigned to establish the Arctic Refuge recognized its wild qualities and the significance of these spatial relationships. Here lies an unusually diverse assemblage of large animals and smaller, less-appreciated life forms, tied to their physical environments and to each other by natural, undisturbed ecological and evolutionary processes."  It is because of this great diversity, and fear of its harm or outright destruction, that many environmental groups argue against drilling for oil in the 1002 area.


 * I followed the link to, and found this text (in which I highlighted the quotes as indicated):
 * ''The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which exists entirely north of the Arctic Circle, is an intact continuum of six different ecological zones spanning some 200 miles north to south. Such a diverse spectrum of habitats and associated fish and wildlife populations within a single conservation area is unparalleled in the circumpolar north.


 * ''Much of the Refuge north of the mountains incorporates the 1.5 million acre coastal plain (referred to as the 1002 Area), which comprises only 3.2% of the Arctic Coastal Plain and 4.6% of the Arctic Foothills ecological zones found in Alaska. The physical and biological components of this area are unique compared to the rest of northern Alaska.


 * ''The terrain of the 1002 area includes mostly foothills and low relief coastal plain, with few lakes and ponds; areas to the west have extensive wetlands, including large lakes. The distance from the mountains to the coast in the Refuge also is several times smaller than it is farther west. This relative compactness of habitats provides for a greater degree of ecological diversity than any other similar sized area of Alaska's north slope.


 * ''Those who campaigned to establish the Arctic Refuge recognized its wild qualities and the significance of these spatial relationships. Here lies an unusually diverse assemblage of large animals and smaller, less-appreciated life forms, tied to their physical environments and to each other by natural, undisturbed ecological and evolutionary processes.
 * You say: For one, the offical site DOES NOT SAY that 1002 is diverse with wildlife.. Well, I do not see where the article claims that, it says It is because of this great diversity which is in line with the source that says: a greater degree of ecological diversity than any other similar sized area of Alaska's north slope. KimvdLinde 04:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (continued) The paragraph: "On March 2, 2006, British Petroleum reported a leak in the 34 in (860 mm) transit line which sends oil to the trans-Alaska pipeline. Reports vary as to the amount spilling. According to an unnamed source, the meter is off by 800,000 US gallons (3,000 m³), but BP will only say publicly that they don't know how much has spilled. The hot oil melted through snow cover and spread out onto at least two acres (8,000 m²) of tundra near a frozen lake at a caribou crossing. Cold weather will help in the recovery process, at this time, (March 6) 1,100 barrels (175 m³) have been recovered. There is also some discrepancy in the time between when the leak was suspected, and when it was reported, as many as 36 hours may have passed before BP shut down the line. The line carried about 10% of the daily flow to the pipeline. [citation needed]" will probably never get the proper citation and is debatable if it falls into the "about oil drilling in general". Like I said, this article could selectively grow three times it size and only be about 1/5 relevant if you want to talk about the historical pros and cons of oil drilling. This pargraph doesnt have much to do with ANWR specifically.
 * Well, it highlights exactly the objections of many people wuith opposing views. So, it is relevant. It is not under a section history or so and historical pro's and con's are relevant although I can see that they are inconvinient for pro drilling people. Furthermore, most of the information is generally available, and you could have blocked the citation needed section without deleting it so that people can provide the sources before making it visible again. KimvdLinde 04:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is not directly relevant to the pros and cons of the proposed drilling. It should be something like: "There is an ever-present danger of oil spills, as illustrated by the spill near Prudhoe Bay in winter 2006," and then have a short, one-sentence summary with a link to further discussion (e.g., maybe give the spill its own article). Jarbru 01:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have changed the section, hope this is better. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (continued) "Lobbyists with ASRC do not represent all Alaska Natives nor do they represent any Alaska tribes, they represent only the ASRC." is a SLANT SENTENCE. IT was obviously written by someone anti-drilling and contributes nothing to the article. Why dont I just go around adding "oh and the gwitchn only reprsent the gwitchn and blah blah blah only represent blah blah blah". Its stupid, so it should be removed.


 * Finally, I fixed the ackward sentence "Most residents of the United States [14] and Canada [15] are also opposed to drilling in the wildlife refuge according to polls." Which should be "According to polls, most residents of the United States [14] and Canada [15] are also opposed to drilling in the wildlife refuge"
 * Changed. KimvdLinde 04:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (continued) I did not delete parts of the article out of laziness, I didn't touch the history section because I had already spent over an hour on the article as it was. I deleted parts that were placed by someone trying to push their belief, and reorganized some parts (such as the "howevers" that could be split between two sections). There was one portion of the "pro" section I wanted to move into the "con" section but couldn't figure out a smooth way of doing so.
 * About the lazy remark, you made it: Also someone needs to update the history section in light of current events, although I'm too lazy to do it. I'd rather gripe and delete stuff. KimvdLinde 04:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (continued) I'm sorry the anti-drilling section's beefiest portion is questionable but that is just the way things seem to be. Also, remember that an enviromentalist site that does not site facts is invalid, and likewise if an enviromentalist site does site facts then you should just use the facts from the sites that they site instead (such as in elementary school, use the primary sources whenever you can). The government actually funds projects that research information, which in turn usually gets put into a press release. -- James from Fairbanks — —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.126.164.1 (talk • contribs).
 * First of all, take it easy. I have not reverted your stuff, and I have added just one of your remarks adn I am sure it will hold. Furthermore, it is custom here to sign your postings at talk pages with ~ which is translated in my case to KimvdLinde 04:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC) so that it becomes easier o link changes as seen in watchlists etc with the actuall text. So, by just looking at some of your claims, I just have to come to the conclusion that your arguments do not hold. KimvdLinde 04:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Kudos on adding sources to the oil info. The sentence that still bothers me is: The Kaktovik Inupiat, and 5,000 to 7,000 Gwich'in peoples feel their lifestyle would be disrupted or destroyed by drilling [13] [14]. I followed the sources and Kaktovik is not in either link. Considering the source says something different I dont see why that sentence should stay. For me the opinion of the people closest to where this is actually happening matters a lot (even though they have no official say). Take this source for example (a direct survey given to the people of Kaktovik)  here I dont see how you can say they are against oil drilling. While yes you could selectively pick people in the town who are known to be for oil exploration and administer the survey to them, there isn't really a much better way to find the town's opinion. This is why I feel a special section is needed explaining the importance of their opinion and why its controversal as to what the "whole" stands for. - James 18:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.126.164.1 (talk • contribs).
 * Being contructive mean that you not just delete things, but improve things. If you have good reasons that things are different, you can also improve it. Deleting antio-drilling stuff, especially if you claim to be pro-drilling is very quickly considered inserting POV (Point of view) to your liking. The best way with this kind of controversial topics is to copy the sentence to the talk page, indicate what you think is wrong, and suggest how to chaneg the sentece to reflect the truth better. So, if 50% is in favour and 50% against, than that is what needs to besaid, not to be omited. The same with the spil example. It just took me 5 minutes to find all the information, if it bothers you, improve it, do not delete it. Because I could delete all pro-drilling stuff as "it was inserted by pro-drilling people so it is wrong". KimvdLinde 21:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue I have with things that are drilling in general is that I see this page as "drilling in ANWR". Some people are against drilling completely regardless of where it is. So why tell them what they already know? To me, having to explain the facts about "drilling in ANWR" implies that someone is willing to listen would actually allow drilling SOMEWHERE. Surprisingly, I haven't seen an article about the pros and cons of drilling and oil companies in general. Otherwise I would recommend moving all general info about drilling into that article and then crosslinking it with this article. As for deleting- people have done that to contributions in other articles I have given for the exact same reasons I gave (lack of creditable sources). I think people have different ideas of how articles and wikipedia should work (and dont always follow the seemingly growing number of rules) and there is always going to be conflict over it.


 * Anyways, since you dont seem to be complaining about moving Katovik out of the "con" section and into its own section, I'm going to do that. When I get time I'll see if I can update the history section, but it wont be today. --James 64.126.164.1 03:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I made very clear that I do not agree with moving it out of that section. KimvdLinde 03:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * After doing more research I've found that the statement "a majority americans are against drilling in anwr" is only true on certain sources. Doing a google search on "ANWR poll" the answer of if whether to drill in ANWR or not seems to depend on the question. Take this for example: "The Luntz Research findings challenge the claims of a Zogby International poll sponsored by the Wilderness Society and other environmental groups which claim that the majority of Americans oppose opening ANWR." So what to do then? If polls conflict each other then do you just leave the fact out or do you pick a side? --James 64.126.164.1 04:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC).

Citations needed and POV language
These two last paragraphs in the pro-drilling part of the article need to be looked over and/or verified:

"Arguments describing harm to animals in the drilling area have been empircally proven wrong. Prior to development at Prudhoe Bay, environmentalists screamed that the drilling would inevitably lead to the extinction of the Caribou herd. Since the building of the drilling plant in 1968, the Caribou herd has increased in size from 3,000 to 32,000. [11]

Within the ANWR, Natives own 92,000 acres of land which they would like to lease for oil development. However, action by the federal government has stopped production on this private property. "We feel as if we are a colony and that the imperial powers are dictating to us," Inupiat Eskimo Donald Olson, M.D. tells me by phone. "We've got a right here that is being infringed upon by the federal government. We are being held as economic hostages by people from the lower 48 who never have been to Alaska or the North Slope." Olson states that oil companies "have had 30 years of environmentally sensitive dealings with us. We anticipate this will be the same way.""

The link in the first one doesn't provide a citation for it's claim. In addition to that, it uses less than professional language like "environmentalists screamed...", and it's claim that the argument has been "empiraclly proven wrong" reeks of POV, especially considering it's source doesn't provide any empirical evidence whatsoever. Just an allegation.

The second paragraph needs a citation.

Also, I believe this:

"However, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), which was formed as part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and owns 92,000 acres (370 km²) of subsurface mineral rights in ANWR, is in favor of drilling."

should be removed from the anti-drilling part of the article. This particular part was already explained, in some detail, in the pro-drilling part. It's just redundant to put it in the anti-drilling part. -- Eric

Also, what's up with the last two paragraphs of the pro-drilling section:


 * Within the ANWR, Natives own 92,000 acres of land which they would like to lease for oil development. However, action by the federal government has stopped production on this private property. "We feel as if we are a colony and that the imperial powers are dictating to us," Inupiat Eskimo Donald Olson, M.D. tells me by phone. "We've got a right here that is being infringed upon by the federal government. We are being held as economic hostages by people from the lower 48 who never have been to Alaska or the North Slope." Olson states that oil companies "have had 30 years of environmentally sensitive dealings with us. We anticipate this will be the same way."


 * Olson, a Democratic state senator who practices general medicine, notes that his constituents in Kaktovik (pop. 256) "do not have running water or a sewer system. That means they are relegated to Third World conditions where people have to melt ice to bathe and to drink. They use five-gallon honeypots for sanitation." This absence of flush toilets causes sometimes-fatal cases of hepatitis A and contributes to high infant mortality rates.

The first paragraph says "tells me by phone". Who is "me"? Sounds like these two paragraphs were snipped from a newspaper article from somewhere. Any ideas? Andrew Eisenberg 15:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits to supporting views
Removed "which explains why..." (1st paragraph)

I removed the last part of the 1st paragraph which read: , which explains why, in areas of Alaska affected by the drilling, natives support drilling by an overwhelming majority (78% support, 9% oppose) (http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/shrek/3.html)

This citation refers to the 2000 Kaktovik survey. The results of this survey are contained elsewhere in this article so it seems redundant to include them here. Also, as described in the article, the residents of Kaktovik have since passed a resolution critical of Shell. Given the resolution, and given that the 2000 survey only had 68 responses, I don't think one can use it to represent that there is current, widespread Native support for drilling. Francis Small 22:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Spelling lessons
By all that is holy, the word is ARCTIC (note the C behind the R)!!!! I have no idea whatsoever what an "artic" is and neither does any dictionary I can find.hipshot49 01:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Organization suggestion
I have a hard time evaluating the for and against arguments in the article, mostly because the arguments on each side are clumped together with no consistent internal organization. To review the pro-drilling argument that an anti-drilling counter-argument is attacking, I need to scroll up and then search through the pro-drilling section to find it. This organization also impacts the ability to present the issues in a NPOV, because there isn't a good place for counter-arguments on the pro-drilling side, whereas the anti-drilling section does have counter-arguments. I suggest one of the following: Neither of these solutions is without problems, but I think either would do better than the current organization. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 12:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) One section per issue, no overall for/against split in the organization.  This will require categorizing the arguments broadly enough that each "issue" is really something both sides have a position on, and not just a talking point of one side.  Start each section with the arguments from whichever side started the debate on that issue; follow up with counter-arguments.  It may not be possible for each of the issues to determine what is the original argument, and which is the counter-argument, but I don't think this presents serious problems to this organization.
 * 2) One subsection per issue, within for/against sections.  This will require identifying the argument/counter-argument in each issue for proper placement, but probably won't require as much care in dividing up the arguments as the first organization.  These subsections would have the same internal organization, with arguments and counter-arguments.


 * I have edited the article, adding an NPOV, weasel, and peacock tag, citation needed tags, and some of the worst POV language. I support these reforms; an article on a controversy shouldn't have one big long essay for one side and another big long essay for another side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.97.185 (talk • contribs)

--- I have revised and reorganized the portion on Projections and Estimates, defining 'Estimates' as pertaining to oil production and 'Projections' pertaining to the price of oil on the global market. Aaron Sawyer (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Issues with the article
There are an obscene number of messages on the article currently, and it's difficult to evaluate which ones are legitimately needed, and which ones can be removed. So, I've removed all of them, and they should be re-added only after leaving a comment below about why the tag is needed and where specific issues of the article are. Thanks. --MZMcBride 01:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Reserves and time to depletion
The figures given for estimated oil, daily U.S. oil usage & the resulting longevity of deposit, don't match.

Opposing views
The following is not an "Opposing View:

"However, as oil prices have increased, a June 29, 2008 Pew Research Poll marked a change when it reported that 50% of Americans "favor" drilling of oil and gas in ANWR while 43% oppose compared to 42% in favor and 50% opposed in February of the same year. [25]"

Why was it placed in this section? Counter-points have not been added to the "Supporting Views." .BigBrudda84 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Theoretical Reserve/Production numbers needed rephrasing for NPOV
I think the way it is worded right now is non-neutral, I'd suggest we edit the reserves section with some citations--also, better math!
 * I think we should stick with the wording of the Department of Energy. Also, it's better math!--Work permit (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Undiscovered US reserves?
What is the source for the "estimated, undiscovered, technically recoverable 120 billion barrels" of oil in the US? The CIA World Book of Facts reports a "proved reserve" of 21.76 billion barrels in 2006. 120 billion barrels of undiscovered oil seems overly optimistic.BigBrudda84 (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please check the definition of "Proven Reserves" before using it as a comparison to the estimates from ANWR.--Work permit (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am bewildered. What is the relevance of this 120 billion barrel figure to the topic of ANWR Drilling Controversy? BigBrudda84 (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I took the quote verbatim from the DOE report on ANWR Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They see it as relevant --Work permit (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the citations/sources provided for the "Estimates of Oil Reserves" section. I find no mention of or reference to this "undiscovered" 120 billion barrels of oil in the US. This appears to be a shameless attempt at injecting an unsubstantiated, "Pro-Exploration" (oil) bias into this article. BigBrudda84 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please give benefit of doubt before calling people names. Thank you--Work permit (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If direct quotes are being used, why is this not indicated in the text?::

Deleted unsubstantiated statement (bias) with no relevance to 'Arctic Drilling Controversy':: "In comparison, the estimated volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in the rest of the United States is about 120 billion barrels."BigBrudda84 (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Look again at Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I'm bewildered by your bewilderment.  If anything, by saying there are 120bn barrels of oil in the US, I'm supporting YOUR anti-drilling argument by making ANWR reserves small in comparison.  I'm putting it back in.

I stand corrected regarding the citation. My oversight, sorry.

However, I do not retract my position that the statement has no apparent bearing on the controversy. My take was that ANWR is just one more area of the many unexplored 120 billion barrels that anti-drillers are preventing the US from consuming. If this figure includes "oil shales," there is no current techology to use/convert the non-oil, wax-like compound present. So that makes it POV, imo.BigBrudda84 (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want, I'll dig up more references on the topic. I remember the range went up to 200bn barrels.  The majority of the 120bn is NOT "oil we get get if tree huggers just let us".  It's "Oil that's around but we haven't "proven" it by sinking a well".  "Proven" reserves is a VERY narrow definition.  Definetly not including oil shale, that's somethink like 1 or 2 trillion bbls--Work permit (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Name calling? Please ... I have avoided significant response to your multiple subjective jabs.
 * Jabs, maybe :).  But I never said you were shameless.  We're having a good debate about this article, I respect your views.. we both want to make the article better--Work permit (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If I had known it was your comment, perhaps I would have been more personal(If you are using direct quotes, shouldn't you be indicating that in the text? I have read the definition of proved reserves. I find the definition of uproved reserves sufficiently vague and nebulous to allow "pro-exploration" types plenty of license.BigBrudda84 (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The ANWR figure of 10bn barrels is unproven, technically recoverable reserve. In the oil industry, it's standard terminology and routinely used by usgs.  I was briefly tempted to compare it to the figure of US PROVEN reserves of 20bn barrels, but I felt that WOULD have been shameless, "Pro-Exploration" distortion.  Using that comparision would imply that ANWR is HALF of the rest of the oil in the US, which would have been a wild exaggeration.--Work permit (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

States vs. Cautions.

The first sentence of the Uncertainties Section of the overcited and plagiarized EIA report does not caution. It clearly "states" there is uncertainty.

The Supporting "Views" section (BTW views are POV -- Point of VIEW) has created bullets from "comments" within an EIA report that are in direct conflict with data already presented -- and are clearly POV. The Supporting "Views" section appears to have remained unscathed by edits yet the Opposing Views have been gutted on a number of occasions. I offered a an analogy (Visual Example) that was verified with credible data (statistics) but it was deleted just the same.

This experience has confirmed my suspicions and the multiple complaints I have heard about Wikipedia. Furthermore, plagiarism appears to pass in lieu of direct quotes, routinely. I won't waste anymore of my time generating un-refereed "Gray Literature." .BigBrudda84 (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

RESERVES RELATIVE TO TIME

As written in the Wikipedia topic of OIL RESERVES subsection UNITED STATES:

"United States proven oil reserves declined to a little less than 21 billion barrels (3.3×109 m3) ... This represents about an 11 year supply of oil reserves at current rates of production. United States crude oil production has been declining since reaching a smaller secondary production peak in 1988 (caused by Alaskan production)Italic text."

As I presented on multiple occasions the US consumption is 21 million barrels a day. What does this 11 years supply.

Bias & Equivocation

The bias of omission is flagrant and outrageous equivocations abound here. .BigBrudda84 (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

where did the reference section go?
note numbers are still there but i can't see the reference section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.158.32 (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Debatepedia external link
Is the Debatepedia external link acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.98.193 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a link to an empty page on a site that fails our guidelines. So no, not really. -- SiobhanHansa 02:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahem... I totally disagree with your reasons!


 * 1) It is not an empty page.


 * 2) It is listed as an external link, not as a reference; hence, it is open to debate which is less credible as a "source", that link or "our" wikipedia page! (And yes this page has some very serious credibility issues.)


 * 3) If you want to delete links that are not credible, IMHO you'd have to delete almost every pro-drilling link listed! (And of course in someone else's opinion most anti-drilling links would have to go too.)  Regardless of that, I would point out to you that www.anwr.com is an example of a site that has absolutely no credibility at all, and yet nobody is suggesting that all references to it be removed from this article.


 * I do not disagree with removing the link. But the reason is simply that it provides absolutely no enlightenment on the topic of this article.  None!
 * Floyd Davidson 08:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that's the best reason of all not to include it! The page was empty when I was editing yesterday - along with others to the same site that this and related IPs added.  I guess there was a glitch on the site since they are all now showing content.  I don't understand your point number 2.  I wasn't claiming it was a references - the wikilink I provided was to our guidelines on external links, which this site falls foul of being a newish open wiki without substantial editing history from many contributors, and with no particular reputation on this subject.  We may not be great on all subjects, but that doesn't mean we should be expanding those issues by creating a big association of untrustworthy pages.  As to removing other links from this page - you may well be right.  I was not trying to push a POV by removing this one.  I was cleaning up after a campaign to spam Wikipedia with links to this particular website so I wasn't looking at the links here as a whole.  I would encourage a clean out of other links that are not credible, and to putting POV comments and sites in their appropriate context, but I'm not sure I would know where to begin on a subject like this.  -- SiobhanHansa 15:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Text Missing from History Section
A portion of text is not displaying in the History section. You can see it on the edit page, but I cannot determine what's causing the problem. If someone can clean that up, feel free to also delete this comment. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dissento (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Dissento (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any text in the source code that isn't being rendered. If you mean the text in between the tags, those are references: see WP:FOOT for more information. Thanks for taking the time to comment, and let me know again if I missed what you're referring to. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the assistance. In the History Section, you can a sub-heading that says 1987-1999.  But when you look at the edit box, you can see a block of text with the heading "2000-Present" that does not display on the main page. Dissento (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There was an open ref tag. I think I fixed it. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk Radio
Mark Levin and Michael Savage, others have charged that the US govt is kow-towing to the "Damn Eco-(You fill in the blank)s", and that is why Anwar is not being drilled, gas prices are going to $5.00 a gallon. Can that be mentioned? 65.163.115.254 (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh... no. Austinmayor (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You could add it on their respective pages, perhaps quoting them under the 'controversies' section as it is a fact about them, but the presence of a non-elected celeb taking up one side of this issue or another is not relevant.Aaron Sawyer (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Math
Is the match used in the line "In total, the oil deposits in ANWR contain as much oil to solely support U.S. consumption for 10 years (4.3B estimate) to 20 years (16B estimate)." correct? The article claims the US consumes 20 million barrels per day. If the ANWR were the sole source of oil, at 4.3 billion barrels, the oil would last 215 days and at 16 billion barrels, the oil would last 800 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.86.64.29 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The math is correct, however the way it is presented could be misleading to some I suppose. The figures quoted are based on ANWR oil providing 5% of America's daily use.  5% of 20,000,000 barrels = 1,000,000 barrels.  The low estimate of available ANWR oil of 4.3 billion barrels divided by 1,000,000 barrels a day = 4,300 days of supplying 5% of America's daily oil consumption.  The figures work the same way for the 16 billion barrel high estimate.    Mrfridays (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of this math is shady. We need to be careful to source everything. Those percentages of imports from Canada, Saudi Arabia, etc, were linked to a source that didn't use percentages, and I could not figure out how those percentage calculations were made. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-06-13 14:36Z


 * This info on Anwar is pretty far to the right in my opinion and has a lot of shady math.The oil in ANWAR wont do much for the 45% of oil we import of currently lil over 20 million barrels.Never mind the fact that by the time it comes on line in 5-7 years as our oil consumption increases it will do very little to relieve us.What most people don't know and the pro drilling estimates never say is what ever oil they estimate is under the ground will never all be pumped out. A lot of the Saudis oil is unreachable even tho they have a black ocean under their feet. 18:39 06/17/08.


 * This sort of back-of-the-envelope calculation might be illustrative to some, but in the end it does more harm than good. The calculation sort of imagines that ANWR oil would somehow be isolated from the rest of the world and be consumed only in the United States. But that's not at all how oil markets work. The oil would be drilled by private companies, sold to private refineries, and eventually auctioned off to private retail outlets throughout the world (and even if most of the oil physically went to the US, the price is still set by global supply and global demand). This is why economists have compared oil embargoes to a futile game of musical chairs. The popular conception that there is an isolated US oil market is wrong and ought to be put to bed. Miguel Chavez (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Visual Example
I wanted to bring in some discussion for a visual representation mentioned on the site to depict the quantities of oil in ANWR compared to the production in the rest of the world. I feel the example passes the test of the site's purpse: helping to portray the situation being debated which relies heavily on the premise that oil production in ANWR will be capable of affecting the global market. The phrase under question is:

"ANWR's addition to world market production represents the addition of a tablespoon (15ml) to a two liter bottle (0.7%)."

It has twice been deleted by the same contributor. I want to see if other contributors feel it's a valid addition. Will anyone else speak in favor of this? Aaron Sawyer (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Even if it's true (you haven't bothered to source it), it's not particularly informative and actually fairly misleading.  First, because the market for oil is highly inelastic, even adding a few hundred thousand barrels of oil per day has a much larger effect on the market than your analogy suggests.  Second, that figure should probably be 80% higher: the number quotee above for the average daily oil production in ANWR is around 1 mmbd, with the oil production article listing total global output at around 80 mmbd.  Third, the phrase itself is highly POV.  Perhaps instead you'd like to note that three square miles of development (out of 30,000 in ANWR) would increase US oil production by 20%?  --71.226.238.102 (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A couple of points. 1. Gasoline prices are directly correlated with world oil production, global refineing capacity, and of course the demand side of the market. Any short term price reductions caused by news of increased production (such as the opening of ANWR) are eventually corrected in the long term by the actual interplay of supply and demand. 2. Although the current estimates for world oil production are closer to your figure, Aaron has a point, for by the time ANWR begins to put anything to market the global level of production will be well over 100 mmbd. Third, I suspect you know very well that US oil production (whether it's up 20%, 40% or even 100%) has little, to nothing, to do with the price of gasoline. We are a small player in this very big global market, and to parade the figure that opening up ANWR would increase domestic production by 20% is either very naïve or very misleading. It is an irrelevant metric. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons:

To make comparisons, reported statistics from credible sources should be used. For example: World Proved Reserves of Oil, Most Recent Estimates (2005 statistics)

BP Statistical Review

World Total -- 1,201.332 billion barrels (petroleum reserves)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

ANWR estimate of 10.4 billion barrels vs. 1.02 trillion barrels of proved oil reserves. The estimated ANWR reserve is 0.87 % of the estimated Proved World Reserves. However, a new problem arises. The World Reserves estimated is termed "Proved." Is the ANWR estimate classified as a proved reserve? . BigBrudda84 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ANWR reserves are not "proved". "Proved" reserves are a very narrow definition. To start with, It is necessary that production, gathering or transportation facilities be installed or operative for a reservoir to be considered proved. .  By the way, not to nitpick but your estimate of world reserves includes natural gas condesates and liquids.--Work permit (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Good edit. However, to be consistent/unbiased you need to report US proved reserves as oil and gas condensates as well (21-29 billion barrels). Your statement implies that the US estimate does not include gas condensates. .BigBrudda84 (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. By the way, the 21 bn figure I gave DOESN'T include condensates.  Check the notes in the reference I gave:
 * Estimates of proved crude oil reserves do not include the following: (1) oil that may become available from known reservoirs but is reported separately as "indicated additional reserves"; (2) natural gas liquids (including lease condensate); (3) oil, the recovery of which is subject to reasonable doubt because of uncertainty as to geology, reservoir characteristics, or economic factors; (4) oil that may occur in undrilled prospects; and (5) oil that may be recovered from oil shales, coal, gilsonite, and other such sources. It is necessary that production, gathering or transportation facilities be installed or operative for a reservoir to be considered proved. --Work permit (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand. However, the estimates from the table/reference I provided (US Department of Energy) indicate that US "proved" reserves (with condensates) range from 21 to 29 billion barrels. If we are to state both US and World we must be consistent in classification/comparison.

"1 Proved reserves are estimated quantities that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html" .BigBrudda84 (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded the proved statistics to maintain conistency within the sentence and with the DOE table's definitions. This article relies heavily on reports and data from the EIA of the DOE. Therefore, statistics reported by the DOE should be "defined" by the DOE. BigBrudda84 (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate to nitpick again, but the US DOE reports proved US reserves as 21bn. This is the source The world estimates, are NOT calculated by the DOE.  Check the disclaimer in the table:
 * Reserve estimates for oil, natural gas, and coal are very difficult to develop.  The Energy Information Administration (EIA) develops estimates of reserves of oil, natural gas, and coal for the United States but does not attempt to develop estimates for foreign countries. As a convenience to the public, EIA makes available foreign fuel reserve estimates from other sources, but it does not certify these data. Please carefully note the sources of the data when using and citing estimates of foreign fuel reserves.


 * The 29bn figure you're citing is for end of 2005, and includes both crude oil and natural gas liquids. the 22bn is end of 2006, and includes crude oil and condensate. --Work permit (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While being a nitpick, the ANWR esitimates are for curde AND natural gas liquids. So the 29bn figure for US reserves is more appropriate comparison.  --Work permit (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the last revisions, however, I too must nitpick. The DOE acronym should be referenced parenthetically for the reader. The word "compiled" was spelled incorrectly. And the phraseology using the word proved after a noun is misleading. That is, the wording "reports proved" or "estimates proved" is confusing and leads the reader to believe that either the "report" or "estimate" 'proved' the statistic provided. .BigBrudda84 (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good edits. The great thing about nitpicking is the article continues to improve.  --Work permit (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

RESERVES RELATIVE TO TIME

As written in the Wikipedia topic of OIL RESERVES subsection UNITED STATES:

"United States proven oil reserves declined to a little less than 21 billion barrels (3.3×109 m3) ... This represents about an 11 year supply of oil reserves at current rates of production. United States crude oil production has been declining since reaching a smaller secondary production peak in 1988 (caused by Alaskan production)Italic text."

As I presented on multiple occasions the US consumption is 21 million barrels a day. What does this 11 years supply.
 * Oh gosh, no please! US "Proved Reserves" in 1900 was less then 4 billion barrels.  We SHOULD have run out A LONG TIME AGO based on this logic.  PLEASE don't introduce this into this ANWR article.  Go to peak oil and do it there!--Work permit (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias & Equivocation

The bias of omission is flagrant and outrageous equivocations abound here. .BigBrudda84 (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate? I'm a pro-driller, and by my edits, as I read the article, it's pretty much "factual" AND "anti-drilling" to boot.--Work permit (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be happy to “elaborate” when you can return the several hours I have wasted attempting to provide accuracy to this article while bantering with you. That you are pro-drilling is no revelation. Many of your facts change with qualifying definitions.


 * You choose words that strengthen pro-statements and edit opposing statements with words that dilute.


 * You are clearly aware of the entire content of the EIA report but have made no effort to include information from that report that contradicts the Supporting Views (omission). How is that providing a Neutral Point of View/balanced presentation?


 * You are quick to attack opposing data/terms that are imprecise but take advantage of any opportunity to use generalized data/terms that support the pro-position(e.g. omitting classifications that identify your statistics as unproven – 50% confidence interval, i.e. the equivalent of flipping a coin for projections/estimates).

caution – to warn (conditional?), reprove with “mildness”

state – to declare in words; to express particulars of in writing or verbally.

Save your pretenses … I have no more time to waste, except to prevent your continued attempts at equivocation. .BigBrudda84 (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. Sorry you feel that way. All our bantering has, I felt, led us both to jointly create a better article, and on the whole a stronger "anti-drilling" one (and me, a pro-driller).  I enjoyed working through these issues with you, but clearly you have not. I'm sorry you feel that way.  I won't waste any more of your time, apologize for any bad feelings you have--Work permit (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Last "unproven" edit, again imprecise. Cautions vs. states, equivocation (subtle?). Bad feelings, not really, just bored with the obvious bias (omissions and connotations). Obvious manipulations, annoying and maybe even abrasive. Final blatant omission (because it is not contained within the journal quality EIA report/gospel), oil recovered from ANWR will be sold on the international market not necessarily for US consumption (perhaps just a tad misleading/deceptive?). Improved anti-drilling counterbalance, close to neutral but with many omissions still. I won't continue to add valid statistics/comparisons only to have them deleted without justification by the grand Kahuna of oversight or constantly re-edited for dilution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBrudda84 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sensitive to your time, and so I'm reluctant to explain myself. Let me say I started with the quote from the ANWR report, which was 10m bbls of oil in ANWR.  The same report staes 120bn bbls of oil in the rest of the US, using the same methodolgy.  So I included that.  10bn vs 120bn would lead most people to think "ANWR ain't alot of oil".  You wanted to include the US figure of PROVED reserves.  That IS the "PRO DRILLERS" argument.."HEY! ANWR is half the oil in the rest of the country!"  That I felt would be a very biased (pro-driller) comparison.  But you wanted to include it so we did.  As we went into this, I reread the ANWR report and found that the estimates INCLUDE natural gas liquids.  Not sure you realize this, but natural gas liquids ARE NOT equivalent to crude.  They are about half as valuable.  I felt we should include that as well. It makes ANWR less valuable.  I'll mention that I took your other suggestion about "point-counterpoint" in the poll and split it as I think you would agree it should.  I really am not sure what you mean by equivocation, dilution, conations, etc but don't feel you need to explain yourself to me.  Again, I am senitive to your time and frustrations--Work permit (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My last addition was overidden by your last response. I review government proposals and journal articles frequently. I am more objective than most and do my best to avoid subjective criticisms. The free-for-all here is a bit much. I prefer the more binding approach of peer review and rebuttal. I provided these clarifications in the interest of goodwill. I admit that I probably generalized my frustrations onto a few of your comments/edits. Good luck with this ... Big Brudda will be watching. .BigBrudda84 (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm always for including all of the "facts" pro or con. My only objections to the estimates were the lack of world values and absence of consistent classifications for statistics. .BigBrudda84 (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. That's how we had to get into the whole "proved" issue, and nat gas condensate issue as well.  I agreed that we had to include world estimates, but world estimates were on PROVED reserves, and ANWR is not proved.  We needed to make that distinction, which makes ANWR estimate even smaller (10bn unproved vs. 1 trillion proved).  However, the world estimates of proved are a bit shakier.  They don't adhere to the same standards as the DOE (or SEC).  Some OPEC countries are suspected to overstate their "proved" reserves to increase their quotas or just their bragging rights.  Important enough to make the distinction that world estimates are NOT DOE estimates.--Work permit (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have/had no problems with anything that improves "accuracy" of data/statisics. I wanted clarification on unproved estimates and a broader framework (trillions) for the reader to assess perspective. If you feel this strengthens your position, great. I'm satisfied. However, the reader should be able to see/assess total US daily consumption (20.8 million barrels/day) with respect to proved reserves. They should also be aware that this oil will be made available to the highest bidder (foreign or otherwise) and not necessarily to citizens of the United States. .BigBrudda84 (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how consumption per day vrs proved US reserves has anything to do with ANWR. If your point is "The US is going to run out of oil in 29bn/(20.8m x 365) years, then that is just wrong.  I can see comparing US consumption in bbls per day to the projected ANWR production numbers in the second paragraph, though of course we are comparing future production to present consumption. Is that what you mean? Regarding your point on oil not necessarily being sold to US citizens, I will point out that export of oil from Alaska was banned from 1973 to 1995.  The ban was lifted when there was a glut of oil on the West Coast.  I have no idea what law may be passed regarding exports of oil from ANWR ten years from now.--Work permit (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if you socialized the oil industry in Alaska, where oil recovered from ANWR is sold exclusively to U.S. refineries, and that gasoline is sold eexclusively to US markets, the only thing you're doing is changing how the oil is being distributed to the marketplace. You're not actually changing the value of the commodity, or even the volume of gasoline available the United States. That value is determined by the global supply and demand for oil. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly what you say is true when markets are open. And I agree with you, the 23 year ban on oil exports from alaska did nothing but make oil more expensive for americans.  However, some would argue that there are times when markets are not open.  The American organized oil embargo led the Japanese to bomb pearl harbor so that they could and immediately sieze oil fields on Borneo, Java and Sumatra.  The Germans in the same war lacked access to crude oil resources, regardless of price.  I don't place this high on my personal list of concerns, but we should acknowledge the concerns many americans have when they talk of "dependence on foriegn oil"--Work permit (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First, we do live in a free market. Second, I think it would be far more productive to acknowledge professional oil economists who believe politicians -- along with the American's they pander to -- are foolish when they emote about our "dependence on foreign oil." It makes as much sense to complain about our foreign dependence on oil as it does to complain about our dependence on African diamonds, Caribbean sugar cane, or central American bananas. Its not a simple matter of will power or our American ingenuity. When the commodity isn't here, it just isn't here, and there is nothing we can do about that. Contrary to the popular myth, America is not a veritable Saudi Arabia just waiting to be tapped. ANWR is just a tiny drop in the bucket. Shouldn't the readers be made aware of that uncomfortable fact? Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one to make a passionate argument on this issue.  I agree that "Dependence on foriegn oil" is a political issue, not an economic one. I wouldn't dismiss political issues as quickly as you would (wars, embargos, and protecting herds of caribou are political as well), but I'm not the one to argue the case.--Work permit (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fossil fuels took on the order of 100 million years to form. Our rate of fossil fuel consumption has been exponential along with our population growth (3 billion to 6 billion people from 1960 to 2000).  The supply of oil is finite. As in physics, there is no perpetual motion machine in biology -- oil reserves do not spontaneously regenerate.  Assuming we could pump oil as fast as we are currently consuming it (but we can't), world proved oil reserves will be gone in 36.4 years.  I would like to see the data and calculations for "29bn/(20.8m x 365) years."  .BigBrudda84 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, US proved reserves won't be gone in 29bn/(20.8m x 365) years. That's not how proved reserves work.  Proved reserves are a very narrow definition.  The amount of oil actually recovered is far higher.  A quick example.  In 1977, proved oil reserves in Alaska were 8.4bn bbls.  At the end of 2006, it was 3.9bn bbls.  From 1977 to 2006, Alaska produced 15.4bn bbls.  (8.4bn-3.9bn) != 15.4bn.  I can show you this same effect by oil field, region, or country.--Work permit (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What you CAN say is that, assuming we continue to produce at the current rate, oil prices don't rise, technology doesn't advance, and we don't drill any more wells, we are 95% confident that we WON'T run out in 11 years''.--Work permit (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not committed passionately to a position either. There are two valuable commodities a stake here, oil and a pristine natural ecosystem. How one determines which is more valuable is beyond me. What I have a problem with, however, are individuals who argue that this is a issue of national security and individuals who claim that oil recovered from ANWR will significantly reduce the price of gasoline. This point is very black and white and should be obvious to anyone. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The cornerstone of the pro-position is a total reserve (single) estimate (10.4 billion barrels) with a 50% confidence interval, a coin toss, and other dependent statistics reported by the USGS in 1998. As you have aptly pointed out, this total volume is not instantaneously available. This same number and other projections derived from it about “future” production and consumption were derived in the “past.”

“The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case … The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030 … In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030.”

Estimates and data from the past used to generate future outcomes? Using the same arguments you have just made, these values are meaningless. Therefore they too should not be included in this article. Furthermore, the USGS provides no insight as to how these projections were calculated.

I have provided a new statement and placed it in the “Opposing Views” section. It is a dispassionate presentation of DOE reported “fact” with neither interpretation nor equivocation and therefore wholly “unbiased.”

The DOE reported that annual United States consumption of crude oil and petroleum products was 7.55 billion barrels in 2006 and again in 2007, totaling 15.1 billion barrels.

If this unbiased fact/statistic is deleted, I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bias surrounding this Wikipedia article is “flagrant.” And my further participation would be, at the least, an unproductive use of my time. .BigBrudda84 (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand me and/or/because I wasn't clear. I can see comparing US consumption in bbls per day to the projected ANWR production numbers in the second paragraph, though of course we are comparing future production to present consumption.  I was only suggested you put the statement in the second paragraph of the facts section (on production) rather then the first paragraph (on reserves).  Do you mind if I move it to the facts section (second paragraph)?  To be equivalent to the quoted production, I think it should be converted to 21m bbls/day (rather then bbls/year).  How do you feel about including figure on crude imports as well, which aew around 10m bbls/day?--Work permit (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think these data, as presented in "billions of barrels," provide much needed substantiation/statisical reference to the "Opposing Views" section and should remain there as stated. They follow logically after the DOE quotes about potential ANWR impacts and the USGS estimates.

However, if you want to add them again to the 2nd paragraph of the facts section in millions of barrels/day, I have no objection. .BigBrudda84 (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost forgot, I think import statistics would a valuable contribution to the overall credibility of this article. .BigBrudda84 (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag
I've rearranged the article to start with the facts, and then go on to "supporting" and "opposing" views. I think this makes more logical sense.--Work permit (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to removing the POV tag? The article seems pretty clean now--Work permit (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

History
I've added more back history (cited of course), and gave more context to the cairbou issue and treaty.--Work permit (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Views
I've rearranged the opposing views section. Moved part of poll data to support (we shouldn't have "point-counterpoint" in the same section). Still need more citations for opposing views. Also deleted the "homegrown" math, EIA trumps wp:OR. Finally I added a couple of, I'm confident these can be cited, just too lazy tonite--Work permit (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations tag
I removed the citations tag on the article. It seems reasonably cited now--Work permit (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncertainity of estimates
I understand there seems to be some misunderstanding of the wording regarding the uncertaintity of the DOE (USGS) estimates of oil resources of ANWR. This is minor wording, but the USGS caveats its estimates of ANWR oil resources.--Work permit (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The previous and current wording are/were correct. There are no inaccuracies and the sentence is well written.  There is no justification for continued revision.  This is a reference to (from) a "DOE" report.  The "DOE is reporting" about the USGS estimates.  The statements of uncertainty about the "uderlying resource base" in ANWR were made by the "DOE" in their 2008 report (p. 15, lines 1-9).  The USGS is not talking about its own estimates in this report (because it is not a USGS report).  Your statements have been incorrect and confusing.BigBrudda84 (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * DOE Report (2008) link:
 * http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

BigBrudda84 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)