Energy Independence: ANWR and the Environmentalists

I was listening to the radio earlier today, and caught Sean Hannity‘s show on KSL. It was an interesting listen as Hannity was raving about how gasoline prices were up to about $4 a gallon. It seemed interesting to me how he mentioned that Bush went over to the oil producing countries, asking them to produce a little more to help reduce the cost of energy in the United States.

Inevitably the whole ANWR drilling topic came up. It’s interesting as I thought that the ANWR debates were done and over with by the time I hit high-school. Obviously not. Personal interests for my point of view include things like lowering gasoline prices, increasing the amount of time we have to research better fuel sources, and keeping the United States economy slugging through this slow growth period.

I never really understood why ANWR had always been a place that environmentalists have consistently forced the US Government to require oil producing companies to stay off. From what I’ve read on Wikipedia, is that main complaints are pointed entirely at companies like Shell for not promising to reduce the amount of damage to the eco-system, and protecting some whales.

I really don’t understand the problem with re-shaping ANWR, and allowing exploits of where we believe oil to be. Even if we manage to pull 5% of our dependence away from foreign oil purchases, it will help reduce oil costs, and give a decent jolt to our economy despite that it isn’t permanent. Oil isn’t ever permanent.

People complain that doing that would damage the Caribou and various wildlife, but I still believe that if the animals end up with the necessity to move, they will adapt. How else did they keep alive as long as they did. On top of that, we take a look at where we are interested in drilling. It’s a relatively small area, and even then we know that the oil is in certain parts of the 1002 area.

It feels like it’s just a small town that continues to believe that it should dominate the resource and leave it sitting there because they refuse to allow change and progress. I guess it could also be related to nuclear waste dumping here in Utah. The real difference is we don’t know how long it would take for the nuclear waste to become less of a threat, while with oil, we are able to take all necessary precautions.

Let’s drill for oil, and support the economy. Let’s have the animals migrate and adapt, just like we do as humans.


2 Responses to “Energy Independence: ANWR and the Environmentalists”

  1. borealdreams Says:

    Yes, you are right, the ANWAR debate has been waxing and wanning for decades now, and it is always decided that ANWAR is not the answer or solution to our energy problems. Not to be disrespectful, please don’t just advocate for something you “think” you know all the ins & outs about, or you come across to anyone that knows the basics of the ANWAR debate to label you a whore for the oil industry.


    IF it were able to be up & pumping instantaneous at full production today, it would only supply 2-3% of our daily domestic use.

    It would take 5-10 years to get it up & pumping at full production.

    An additional 2-3% of current US demand will neither make use energy independent or dent our daily imports.

    IF the estimated reserves were able to be pulled out of the ground instantaneously and supplied all US petroleum needs by themselves, it would power the country for less than a year. Last I remember, it was round 3-4 months.

    A large percentage of oil produced on the North Slope oil fields, all that goes through the Alaskan Pipeline, goes to markets in Asia.

    A 2-3% increase to only the US supply of the World Supply & Demand curve, what is predominantly driving the price of gas in the US, would “drop” the price a few cents per gallon. On this note, and the reserves available, this is “The Gas Tax Holiday” repackaged to provide jobs instead of cutting them, with the same end result; denial of reality of Peak Oil and the need to research & practice conservation.

    These are all facts based on profits & “sense,” so do I even need to go into this, “Let’s drill for oil, and support the economy. Let’s have the animals migrate and adapt, just like we do as humans,” when it has nothing to do with the animals, environment or adaption?

  2. freyar Says:

    I can see your points here, but from what I’m seeing you haven’t really given any negatives to this solution. The only thing you’ve said is that “It’ll take awhile, and it won’t make a major dent”. However from that I see that it will still make a *little* bit of a dent in our imports. I never said ANWR was the end-all-be-all solution, but it is definitely in our interests to lessen the negative impacts of this energy crisis we have.

    Supporting ourselves a small amount is better than not at all, especially when we have people already looking at alternative fuel. The idea is to lessen the impact while we transition over to alternative fuels.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: