Bye bye Alaska...
Mar 16th, 2005, 05:34 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
The cost of production and recovery is among the highest in the world in Alaska.. my husband worked in the industry for awhile and had all the numbers.. they are pushing more towards natural gas. My bills for natural gas have been horrible, electric is actually less costly here, and we do have the -20/30 winter cold snaps here on the peninsula.
We also sell all our timber to Japan and fish as well.
I hate to think about gasoline going any higher. We've been paying through the nose, and because it gets trucked back down from Anchorage after it's been refined here, we are lucky to pay another .20-30 cents more.
You can bring all the known culprits into this discussion, love of giant SUV's or whatever. True as said before, not all of us live in more urban areas where we are able to utilize other modes of transport.
Myself, I'd just as soon walk or ride a horse, but then I'd have cranky moose to contend with, kids on atv's, and transient hitchhikers.
My main gripe has been that they promise jobs to Alaskans, and out of staters usually seem to be the ones who snag them through their connections to the management. So we have no state income tax to collect from them, still no cruise ship head tax(lucky for the cruise fans I guess), but the Alaskan legislature can't seem to find the money for vital services, like education. Sad days indeed.
We also sell all our timber to Japan and fish as well.
I hate to think about gasoline going any higher. We've been paying through the nose, and because it gets trucked back down from Anchorage after it's been refined here, we are lucky to pay another .20-30 cents more.
You can bring all the known culprits into this discussion, love of giant SUV's or whatever. True as said before, not all of us live in more urban areas where we are able to utilize other modes of transport.
Myself, I'd just as soon walk or ride a horse, but then I'd have cranky moose to contend with, kids on atv's, and transient hitchhikers.
My main gripe has been that they promise jobs to Alaskans, and out of staters usually seem to be the ones who snag them through their connections to the management. So we have no state income tax to collect from them, still no cruise ship head tax(lucky for the cruise fans I guess), but the Alaskan legislature can't seem to find the money for vital services, like education. Sad days indeed.
Mar 16th, 2005, 08:24 PM
#22
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NPR stated this morning that the majority of Alaskans are in favor of this measure. Is it because of the expectation of good jobs? (They also said that these numbers do not accurately reflect the attitudes of the native peoples.)
Mar 16th, 2005, 08:47 PM
#23
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently had dinner with a neighbor who keeps a home here on Maui (where he spends most of the year) and a home in Alaska (which is claims is his "primary" residence). He unabashadly told us why he supports developing AMWR resources--because as long as they are pulling oil out of Alaska he gets to avoid state income tax and recieve his annual dividend from the pernanent fund. Apparently it's not much (he says only $1000 this year), but it's enough to warrant him keeping his AK driver's license.
Mar 16th, 2005, 09:41 PM
#24
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, while I hate to bust stereotypes ... the native population isn't a monolith on ANWR drilling, support or opposition varies by location and band.
It's not a white Alaskan vs. Native issue. It's far more complex than that -- despite the attempts by so many visitors to simplify or mytholigize all things Alaskan.
Gardyloo made some good points. There's a lot of hype and overstatement, plus a real failure to put this area into perspective.
But, that said, I'm opposed to opening it primarily for the same reason as Gardyloo, plus a distrust of what the oilies have done on the North Slope.
Many in urban and semi-urban Alaska are out of touch as well. One of the more telling items is the bumper sticker that Alaskans have borrowed from Oklahoma and Texas.
``Please God, let there be just one more oil boom and I promise not to p--- it away this time.''
It's been around for 20 years.
It's not a white Alaskan vs. Native issue. It's far more complex than that -- despite the attempts by so many visitors to simplify or mytholigize all things Alaskan.
Gardyloo made some good points. There's a lot of hype and overstatement, plus a real failure to put this area into perspective.
But, that said, I'm opposed to opening it primarily for the same reason as Gardyloo, plus a distrust of what the oilies have done on the North Slope.
Many in urban and semi-urban Alaska are out of touch as well. One of the more telling items is the bumper sticker that Alaskans have borrowed from Oklahoma and Texas.
``Please God, let there be just one more oil boom and I promise not to p--- it away this time.''
It's been around for 20 years.
Mar 17th, 2005, 05:55 AM
#26
One of the more telling items is the bumper sticker that Alaskans have borrowed from Oklahoma and Texas.
``Please God, let there be just one more oil boom and I promise not to p--- it away this time.''
It's been around for 20 years.
Along with a couple of others that are sure to make a comeback,
"Happiness is a Texan heading south," and "I don't give a damn how they do it outside."
"Outside" being the Alaska term for the rest of planet Earth.
To extract whatever faint hope one can from such things, I suspect the ANWR exploration will be like the airlines after a mechanical fault causes a crash - the scrutiny will be so intense, the media and public eye so focused on catching them in a goofup, that it will be a model of environmentally-sensitive work, and not one caribou calf will suffer. They promise these things anyway, of course, but in this case they're walking on eggs and they know it.
``Please God, let there be just one more oil boom and I promise not to p--- it away this time.''
It's been around for 20 years.
Along with a couple of others that are sure to make a comeback,
"Happiness is a Texan heading south," and "I don't give a damn how they do it outside."
"Outside" being the Alaska term for the rest of planet Earth.
To extract whatever faint hope one can from such things, I suspect the ANWR exploration will be like the airlines after a mechanical fault causes a crash - the scrutiny will be so intense, the media and public eye so focused on catching them in a goofup, that it will be a model of environmentally-sensitive work, and not one caribou calf will suffer. They promise these things anyway, of course, but in this case they're walking on eggs and they know it.
Mar 17th, 2005, 09:54 AM
#27
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do I dare join in such a political discussion? Let me just say,
I am not appraised of all the issues involved but please consider this:
Alaska has one of the lowest tax rates in our nation.
Each Alaskan receives a "dividend" from the profits of the pipeline.
Every Alaskan wants to better their standard of living -- like we do in the lower 48. They want and need jobs -- just like we do in the lower 48.
Enviromentalist do bring up good points -- until they hop on a plane and go testify at the next congressional hearing, probably not giving much thought as to how the fuel for the plane was obtained and how much our standard of living has benefited by modern technology.
I am not appraised of all the issues involved but please consider this:
Alaska has one of the lowest tax rates in our nation.
Each Alaskan receives a "dividend" from the profits of the pipeline.
Every Alaskan wants to better their standard of living -- like we do in the lower 48. They want and need jobs -- just like we do in the lower 48.
Enviromentalist do bring up good points -- until they hop on a plane and go testify at the next congressional hearing, probably not giving much thought as to how the fuel for the plane was obtained and how much our standard of living has benefited by modern technology.
Mar 17th, 2005, 10:29 AM
#28
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am old enough to remember the wailing and knashing of teeth that went on when the north slope exploration and the pipeline were being considered. I specifically remember scientists and politicians predicting the caribou herds would be decimated. Guess what? After all this time with the pipeline in operation the caribou herds are four times larger than they were when construction started and, to my knowledge, no species has had any significant degradation as a result of the pipeline or the oil fields.
It may be unfortunate but, at least for now, we live in an oil-based economy. We must have it or suffer economic dislocations that would make the Great Depression look benign by comparison. Oil is where you find it and it has to be drilled and transported to be useful.
While much of the Alaska oil goes to Asia, that is becuase the type of oil that is produced is better suited for refining in the plants there than in the plants we have. If we were not exporting that oil, the Asian countries that are receiving it would be in competition with us from our own sources, making the oil we purchase much more expensive. Our only other choice would be to create refineries to be able to efficiently use north slope oil and the costs of that - both monetary and ecological, finally paid by you and me, would be horrendous.
I'm all in favor of doing all we can to ensure that ecological damage is minimized or eliminated but we need that oil and I, for one, am glad Congress finally mustered the courage to ignore the professional nay-sayers.
While I respect the opinions of Jimbo, who started this thread, and others who disagree with my position, I wonder if any of them can point to any severe and long lasting damage from the north slope fields or the pipeline that feeds their distrust of the ANWR exploration and development?
It may be unfortunate but, at least for now, we live in an oil-based economy. We must have it or suffer economic dislocations that would make the Great Depression look benign by comparison. Oil is where you find it and it has to be drilled and transported to be useful.
While much of the Alaska oil goes to Asia, that is becuase the type of oil that is produced is better suited for refining in the plants there than in the plants we have. If we were not exporting that oil, the Asian countries that are receiving it would be in competition with us from our own sources, making the oil we purchase much more expensive. Our only other choice would be to create refineries to be able to efficiently use north slope oil and the costs of that - both monetary and ecological, finally paid by you and me, would be horrendous.
I'm all in favor of doing all we can to ensure that ecological damage is minimized or eliminated but we need that oil and I, for one, am glad Congress finally mustered the courage to ignore the professional nay-sayers.
While I respect the opinions of Jimbo, who started this thread, and others who disagree with my position, I wonder if any of them can point to any severe and long lasting damage from the north slope fields or the pipeline that feeds their distrust of the ANWR exploration and development?
Mar 17th, 2005, 11:20 AM
#29
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I watched a 60 Minutes segment a few years ago and by the end of the show it seemed like the sceptic reporter almost was sold on it, based on directional drilling and other areas where the drilling was done during the winter dissapeared in the summer. Now if the project gets approval from Congress in this years budget (which it looks likely) shouldn't we focus on demanding that the impact is minimal where we can.
Also just a side note, but I remember learning in the 80's that the Sierra Club had a large investment or interest in the Alaska Pipeline...
Also just a side note, but I remember learning in the 80's that the Sierra Club had a large investment or interest in the Alaska Pipeline...
Mar 17th, 2005, 11:56 AM
#30
Actually something along the lines of 5% of Alaska production was exported overseas after the ban on export was lifted in '95, following the Slope's peak production period. If anything, the export percentage has gone down since then.
There are so many misconceptions and over-interpreted statistics and theories - on both sides - that the chatter only makes reasoned analysis more difficult.
That's why I so strongly believe we need to take a long view of petroleum-based energy dependence, and not rely on the production companies, or oil company stipend-funded academics or lobby-dependent politicians to interpret the data for us. If we can balance the budget in 10 years, or solve social security in 20, or put a woman on Mars by 2040, why the hell can't we vow to reduce our need for petroleum-derived energy provide by more than 50% of the (inflated, not current) need by 2040 or some such date?
There are so many misconceptions and over-interpreted statistics and theories - on both sides - that the chatter only makes reasoned analysis more difficult.
That's why I so strongly believe we need to take a long view of petroleum-based energy dependence, and not rely on the production companies, or oil company stipend-funded academics or lobby-dependent politicians to interpret the data for us. If we can balance the budget in 10 years, or solve social security in 20, or put a woman on Mars by 2040, why the hell can't we vow to reduce our need for petroleum-derived energy provide by more than 50% of the (inflated, not current) need by 2040 or some such date?
Mar 17th, 2005, 12:12 PM
#31
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gardyloo,
I had promised myself I would stay off any political topics (I make and break that promise to myself all the time), but...
Again, I agree with you, and certainly will defer to your (and others') authority. However, I think this "chatter" at least gets some people thinking. Sure, a lot of it is ridiculous, but it's a start. I mean, I had my local news on last night and the top story was Robert Blake's acquittal (the guy from the tv show Baretta). I was momentarily apoplectic. The TOP story??
Naively yours,
Leely
Mar 17th, 2005, 12:23 PM
#32
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leely - I share your frustration with news coverage. The thing that gets me, is that it seems the media doesn't do a great job of checking out its facts. Whatever a politician says is reported as fact. Isn't it their JOB to research this?
What's even more frustrating is that whenever it snows here (in Phila) that's the TOP news story. We are all in trouble if something major that happens that day, b/c we'll never hear about it. But we will hear, ad naseum, about how many inches it snowed in center, and at the Jersey shore, and in the NW suburbs, etc. etc. etc. (And c'mon it's not like it snowed in Miami, we live in the Northeast - snow is expected in winter!)
uuhhh- I don't believe the current administration is doing, environment-wise, what is in MY best interest. I do think they review the data - and then vote in favor of industry regardless. Public opinion polls overwhelming show that most Americans favor environmental protection, clean air, clean water, etc. But our nation's environmental policy does not reflect this.
What's even more frustrating is that whenever it snows here (in Phila) that's the TOP news story. We are all in trouble if something major that happens that day, b/c we'll never hear about it. But we will hear, ad naseum, about how many inches it snowed in center, and at the Jersey shore, and in the NW suburbs, etc. etc. etc. (And c'mon it's not like it snowed in Miami, we live in the Northeast - snow is expected in winter!)
uuhhh- I don't believe the current administration is doing, environment-wise, what is in MY best interest. I do think they review the data - and then vote in favor of industry regardless. Public opinion polls overwhelming show that most Americans favor environmental protection, clean air, clean water, etc. But our nation's environmental policy does not reflect this.
Mar 17th, 2005, 04:25 PM
#33
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a leap of logic . . . that you can't use a plane and be concerned about the environment.
Dwooddon, here's the information you're looking for. It's from from March 5, 2003:
Experts Conclude Oil Drilling Has Hurt Alaska's North Slope -- it's a New York Times story on a report requested by GOP lawmakers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AA0894DB404482
If you don't trust the NYT, here's the full report:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10639.htm..._newsdoc030403
Then there's the whole Alyeska Pipeline/Wackenhut escapade against the those who revealed the thousands of code violations. What the oil interests did to Chuck Hamel was truly disgusting. Not only did Alyeska reportedly run a sting in its own legal department to stop a flood of leaks, but it settled with Hamel for a reported $5 million.
Dwooddon, here's the information you're looking for. It's from from March 5, 2003:
Experts Conclude Oil Drilling Has Hurt Alaska's North Slope -- it's a New York Times story on a report requested by GOP lawmakers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AA0894DB404482
If you don't trust the NYT, here's the full report:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10639.htm..._newsdoc030403
Then there's the whole Alyeska Pipeline/Wackenhut escapade against the those who revealed the thousands of code violations. What the oil interests did to Chuck Hamel was truly disgusting. Not only did Alyeska reportedly run a sting in its own legal department to stop a flood of leaks, but it settled with Hamel for a reported $5 million.
Mar 17th, 2005, 05:13 PM
#34
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leely, you are correct. The top story was Robert Blake. Why ? To distract from the REAL issues ! You are soooo right ! Everyone: as mentioned earlier Write Your Senator !!!! How long will it be before your kids/grandkids have no idea what 'wildlife' is ? It is shrinking... so sad. Too many people buy into the politics and BS they feed the public. I'm happy I was able to take my 82 yr old Mother ot Alaska and Colorado this year while the beauty and wildlife is still intact ! Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw : Time to trim the BUSHes. 
Mar 17th, 2005, 06:17 PM
#35
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
okay karens, how about the country's best interest...
by your logic, if you drive a car, are you acting in your best interest? better ride a horse.... wait... can't do that either... poop pollutes. do you have electricity in your house? where did it come from?
point is, lines have to be drawn. and regardless of what you think, they're not always drawn on the side of industry. btw, what would your life be like without industry?
by your logic, if you drive a car, are you acting in your best interest? better ride a horse.... wait... can't do that either... poop pollutes. do you have electricity in your house? where did it come from?
point is, lines have to be drawn. and regardless of what you think, they're not always drawn on the side of industry. btw, what would your life be like without industry?
Mar 17th, 2005, 07:34 PM
#36
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am so very proud that I had no part in the second coronation of King George II. The King must now pay back energy corporations for going to bed with him. The John always has to pay for the services of the Whore.
Mar 21st, 2005, 10:19 AM
#37
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nuclear power plants, smoke stacks burning coal and spewning soot, barges spilling oil on fragile coastal shores and oil drilling in enviornmentally senitive areas.....anyone want to choose???!!! I can remember studying all of these dismal options back in the early 70's and conservation with new forms of anti polluting energy methods is always the preference. Unless I've missed something, outside of a few attempts at wind power I'm not seeing mass movements towards a really new source of energy. Infact, most of the people living on Cape Cod right now are up in arms about the thoughts of a wind farm drilled in Nantucket Sound.
Mar 21st, 2005, 10:33 AM
#38
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An op-ed piece in last week's NYTs (last I looked not a neocon forum) concluded that environmentalists were about to become obsolete as they have repeatedly been way less than objective about nearly all recent environmental issues.
Seems we have more than a few such ... on this forum.
M
Seems we have more than a few such ... on this forum.
M
Mar 21st, 2005, 10:38 AM
#39
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm....A democratic website gathered 260,000 signatures in less than 24 hours.
Objectively it's an issue of whether or not you think it's right to kill thousands of animals for oil. Some people like wildlife, others think it is okay to kill it to get what you want.
Objectively it's an issue of whether or not you think it's right to kill thousands of animals for oil. Some people like wildlife, others think it is okay to kill it to get what you want.
Mar 21st, 2005, 10:49 AM
#40
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as the Wall Street Journal occasionally publishes liberal op-eds ``for balance,'' so the NYT will offer conservative opinions at times. It's no surprise.
As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says, suggesting environmentalists have hobbled their movement by exaggerating crises is like blaming racial prejudice for the stridency of some civil rights activists.
Every movement, right or left, has its hyperbolic fringe.
As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says, suggesting environmentalists have hobbled their movement by exaggerating crises is like blaming racial prejudice for the stridency of some civil rights activists.
Every movement, right or left, has its hyperbolic fringe.
