Comments on: The Alaska North Slope, ANWR and 1002

By: morgan999

morgan999 — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:10:17 +0000

Even the ‘pro oil’ people say that there’s ‘only enough oil in 1002 to fulfill the US needs for about a year and a half’…
I think the only answer is to invest all those billions of dollars in alternative energy sources.
The sun and wind aren’t doing anywhere right away.
Leave the remaining pristine wilderness areas alone.
A friend of mine used to fly a supply helicopter on the North Slope. He said that you can STILL SEE the tracks made by the first tractors that they took up their to drill the first exploration wells in the 60’s, from the air!
This is not an ecosystem that recovers quickly, folks.

By: Izzy

Izzy — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:56:17 +0000

I have been studying this topic in Geography and apparently there are 60 billion barrels worth of oil. The drillers will be killing all the animals in that area and the surrounding area. All the water and the fish in that area also will be contaminated. However, only 2,000 acres out of 19 million (Of the reserve) could be affected. The reserve is the only last safe place for Polar Bears and the last place they cannot be hunted. VOTE FOR THE SAFETY AND RESERVE OF ENDANGERED ANIMALS!!!!!!!!

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:52:56 +0000

Whoops. That looked stupid. Thanks for pointing that out (fixed).

By: Jay Diamond

Jay Diamond — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:30:06 +0000

Did you really write that the Russians sold Alaska for a “poultry price”.

I think you meant “paltry”

Please…..

By: Syrin

Syrin — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:45:59 +0000

Great history and comparison made. If USA didn’t buy Alaska from Russia.

NEWS Release
This week Arctic Power for ANWR took a delegation up to the North Slope and than on to the view the ANWR plain. They return Thursday July 17,. National Press Conference. Live Coverage of the event, with interviews. Archived at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/syrin

By: Petroleum Resources and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) « Clastic Detritus

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:39:30 +0000

[...] The map above is from a 2006 report by the MMS titled “Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Nation’s Outer Continental Shelf”, which you can get here. Another area that gets a lot of press in this debate is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I’m going to have to tackle that another time … for this post, I will focus on the OCS. Note: Chris over at goodSchist.com has a nice post about ANWR. [...]

By: Jack Faulk

Jack Faulk — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:16:14 +0000

There is a lot more oil and natural gas in Alaska’s North slope. In 1976, the largest pool of oil in the world was discovered on gull island, Alaska, just 5 miles north of the docks at Prudhoe Bay. Three test wells were drilled and each were huge gushers, more than Saudi wells. Our govt. told the CEO’s of Atlantic Richfield to keep their mouths shut, and that they had classified the oil discovery. Who were these politicians and bureaucrats and why would they want to keep this huge energy find secret? Henry Kissinger was one of the key politicians in the late 70’s to secretly cause the USA to become captive to the foreign oil producers. They new that light sweet crude set the price of oil, he went to Nigeria, which was one of the few producers and made a deal. He said that if Nigeria would denominate their oil in dollars, put a percentage of their profits in the big New York banks, and buy some of the USA debt, caused by the USA buying this foreign oil and not using our own oil, the USA would not use the oil that they have in large amounts. Who did Kissinger represent? One can check out who the largest buyers of our debt is, it is 1st. Japan, 2nd China 3rd Great Britain, and 4th the foreign oil producers. Who would want to cause Americans to pay billions of dollars more than they should? Some entity that wants a world govt.,what entity could that be? The trillion dollar rich rothchilds,the leadership of zionism, or the leadership of the vatican, or maybe all three together. Just type on google the oil on gull island, Alaska, you will get several hits telling about the huge oil and natural gas find there.

By: Silver Fox

Silver Fox — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:40:18 +0000

Okay, maybe my statement was a little over-phrased? It’s just that I got to thinking about 10 to 25 billion barrels of oil not seeming like an amount worth looking at because it would only last 1 to 3 years — if can I start thinking that a Prudhoe-sized field is small enough to dismiss, so can other people.

I think you’re right that terms like “a lot” or “significant” don’t mean a thing – “vast amounts” in particular! Definitely political and non-scientific.

By: BrianR

BrianR — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:10:53 +0000

Silver Fox says: “Barrels-per-year estimates are not a good argument against putting an area into production.”

Fair enough.
Again … I’m not recommending this be used to actually evaluate the economic feasibility. The OCS and ANWR are so politicized that I just think it’s important for a general public to understand in as many ways they can these volumes. Politicians and pro-drilling advocates are using phrases like “vast amounts”, “a lot”, or “significant resources” as an argument for putting the area into production. Is that not misleading and spurious?

By: BrianR

BrianR — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:38:37 +0000

Silver Fox says: “I think these barrels-per-year estimates … are misleading or spurious.”

It’s simply another way to visualize the amount … I don’t claim that’s how long it will last. These numbers are so large, that it’s difficult for us to comprehend. The analogy is light-years … we probably won’t ever travel at light speed, but it’s a way to visualize the vast distance.

That’s all.