NY Times included Republicans' claim minimizing impact of ANWR drilling, omitted Democratic rebuttal
A November 3 New York Times article by staff writer Robert Pear on congressional consideration of legislation to authorize oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) included Republicans' assertion that the plan would use "only 2,000 acres" of land for oil production, but omitted Democrats' rebuttal of the Republican claim -- namely, that the 2,000 acres refers only to the actual drilling area and does not include the roads, airstrips, pipelines, and other support facilities that would be necessary to begin drilling in the reserve.
The article included a quote from Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), who supports drilling in ANWR:
"The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 19 million acres," Mr. Stevens said Wednesday on the Senate floor. "The area set aside for oil and gas exploration is 1.5 million acres. Because of advances in technology, only 2,000 acres of that will be needed for production."
But the article did not include Democratic senators' objections to this claim, voiced during the same November 2 floor debate in which Stevens made his remark. During debate on the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 (S.1932), which includes a provision to authorize oil drilling in ANWR, Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) offered a pointed critique of the argument advanced by Stevens.
In response to remarks by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), who advanced an argument similar to Stevens's, Cantwell stated:
I point out there is a misrepresentation that somehow drilling in ANWR only covers a small area. Drilling in the refuge will really create a spider web of industrial activities over the entire 1.5 million acre coastal plain, so it is much larger than just a small footprint. This legislation might also open up nearly 100,000 acres of native land on the Arctic coastal plain. So it is a much bigger impact than my colleague [Domenici] might have commented on. I want to make sure that point is clear.
Durbin stated:
The argument that this is just going to affect 2,000 acres -- I am sorry -- having flown over this area, having seen what happens, I know and the Department of Interior knows it isn't just about the pad where you drill. It is about roads and airstrips and pipelines and water and gravel sources and base camps and construction camps, storage pads, power lines, power plants, support facilities, coastal marine facilities -- it is a huge undertaking. You may see that postage stamp[-sized plot] of drilling [on a map presented by Domenici], but there is a lot more in support of it that is going to have an impact on this environment.
Media Matters for America has previously noted drilling supporters such as Fox News host Sean Hannity and Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton similarly promoting the misleading 2,000-acre figure.
i am so glad the elk and other wild animals in the barren waste will be protected
Being that the "barren waste" is their home, perhaps they don't share your optimism.
Well played, k2
Wasn't there also concern about the Alaska pipeline having a devastating impact on the caribou and it turned out they flourished, or at the very least were unaffected? How long are we Dems going to cry wolf over every single issue, only to have our gloom and doom predictions proven to be nonsense. We need the oil people. I'm a long time Dem, probably voted first before many of you people were born, but I find it harder and harder to support this bark at the moon, the sky is falling attitude I read here. I retired from the oil industry. It fed my family, put my children through college and funds my retirement in addition to heats me, cools me and propels my car. Technology towards my last years had improved tremendously in terms of clean production.
It would be different if the amount of oil up there were more than it takes to fill a thimble. The problem with this whole thing is that the Republicans have yet to prove that the process is worth the billions of dollars its going to take to drill up there when the output isn't going to solve any of our supply problems. Its already been proven scientifically that the amount of oil up in ANWAR is minimal and won't solve either supply or dependency problems. The reason the republicans don't like science because it always proves them wrong.
Most of our nation heats with natural gas, not oil. No. 2 oil is used extensively in New England, where I lived. Prior to oil being discovered, other sources were used for heating, namely wood, coal and peat. I will also not that many modern office buildings need to be COOLED in the winter months, not heated.
Oil has also allowed us to not plant many acres of our farmland. Oil based pesticides and herbicides that are routinely used to maximize the yeild per acre also end up in our aquifers.
You might start looking into the relationship between energy and how water is mined. Potable water is a resource that none of us can live without, and in many areas of the US it is not being replenished - we are mining it faster than aquifers can be recharged. Moving water requires a lot of energy. Check it out.
Gasoline derived from oil has also allowed us to develop our land into suburbia and exurbia, styles of living that will prove to be untenable as fuel costs continue to rise. Those that have a 45 mile commute - common in many areas - will soon be looking for alternative ways of getting to work. And that's just the start.
The basic argument against drilling in the ANWR is that it wil not provide enough oil to make the expense worth it.
I would add that those with concerns write the author of the piece directly. It has been my experience tht they are thoughtful people like we are, and willing to have an intelligent dialog.
---I retired from the oil industry. It fed my family, put my children through college and funds my retirement in addition to heats me, cools me and propels my car. by intrepid_purveyor - Friday November 4, 2005 08:59:18 AM EST
Most of our nation heats with natural gas, not oil. No. 2 oil is used extensively in New England, where I lived. Prior to oil being discovered, other sources were used for heating, namely wood, coal and peat. I will also not that many modern office buildings need to be COOLED in the winter months, not heated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I would presume that the intrepid purveyor lives somewhere (like the southeast) where people tend to have central air. People there use electricity for both heating and cooling and his local power company or co-op may be an oil fired plant instead of coal or nuclear.
ANWR could only supply the US oil needs for three months. As far as our real national interests, it's nothing. It won't make a dime's worth of difference at the pumps. But as usual, our real national interests take a back seat to big oil profits, cheered on by the brainless corporatist robots.
I know big oil is doing it for money, but their apologists just seem eager for the destruction itself -- as if their main desire is to show environmentalists once and for all that they can rape whatever they want.
Sagra, If there's so little oil there, why do you think the bid, bad oil companies want to go to such a barren, inhospitable wasteland to just get a couple of barrels full? They just like killing Caribou for fun?
Fact: Estimates are between 5 and 15 Billion barrels of oil in Anwar; Fact: once in production, estimates are that it will produce 1 - 2 million barrels a day; Fact: We import approx that same amount per day from Canada, Saudi Arabia and Venezuala. Conclusions: Assuming 1 million barrels a day of production and assuming 5 Billion barrels of reserves that would be a supply AT THAT RATE OF PRODUCTION that would last about 13.69863 years, if the reserves are actually 10 billion barrels at that daily rate the supply would last 27.39726 years, and finally if the reserves are 15 Billion, the supply, at that rate of production would last 41.09589.
It's also interesting to note that the evil, anti human oil companies that will be going up there, investing Billions to produce this oil, will not see any production therefore return on their investment for about 10 years. When the oil does finally begin for flow, they can't be certain of whether they will get $10 a barrel, or $100 a barrel for their product because even though Tex doesn't understand capitalism and world markets, they don't set the price. No question, if the price is $100 barrel or more, Tex and the rest of the anti capitalists around here, will cry big crocodile tears and lament the evil oil companies huge profits. Of course, if the price of crude at that time is $10 barrel and the oil companies are losing their shirts, we'll hear nary a word from all the economics challenged, angry posters here at MMFA. There will be no investigations, and no calls to help prop up the price. Hypocrisy???? or just ignorance??
by intrepid_purveyo "Wasn't there also concern about the Alaska pipeline having a devastating impact on the caribou and it turned out they flourished, or at the very least were unaffected?"
I'm not certain about this claim I have heard it from some sources, but I don't have the intelligence, nor the time to distinguish science from junk science and grass-roots from astro turf. But I have heard through several PBS shows that I have seen and one article listed below that the Porcupine Caribou have been in recent decline. And my understanding is that the warmer summers caused by global warming have forced the Caribou to spend its time outside of their natural grazing areas and into the cooler mountains where they can avoid rising mosquito populations.
I know that may have been a little off topic of ANWR, but I think it relates on the basis of man's activities in the area and the impact on the wildlife that we're supposed to be protecting. [link to www.pbs.org]
The benefits that will be derived from drilling there dont outway the cost. Gas prices wont be lower and the amount of oil we get wont have an impact on our demand which is the real problem. It took near a hundred years to see the inpact on the wolves had on yellowstone national park and finally in the last decade they we're reintroduced to fix the problems they were having there. Just because you are feed the line about the caribou thriving by radio talk show hosts who do not have any knowledge in ecology or populations or any type of science doesnt make it fact. BTW its not "environmental wackos" that first pushed for the arctic wildlife refuge it was a republican Dwight Eisenhower, how quickly the right turns its back on its original ideals of "conserving"
"[The New York Times] omitted Democrats' rebuttal of the Republican claim--namely, that the 2,000 acres refers only to the actual drilling area and does not include the roads, airstrips, pipelines, and other support facilities that would be necessary to begin drilling in the reserve."
Yep, it must be that conservative bias over there at the NY Times that caused them to omit the Dems' response. Seriously, though, I do not understand people who make the argument that the Times is more right than left (politically). Here's a paper that hasn't endorsed a conservative for over half a century and features all-liberal or -Democratic op-ed writers. It's got Tom Friedman, Frank Rich, and Maureen Dowd, plus a few others I can't recall at this time. Where are their counterparts? Because a fair newspaper (like USA Today) would make a point of consistently representing both sides equally.
"Where are their counterparts? Because a fair newspaper (like USA Today) would make a point of consistently representing both sides equally"
Opinion is different than news.
Ever heard of Safire?
Truth isn't balanced. All media outlets should be held to a standard of truth. If that's 90% liberal, or vice versa then so be it. Balance is not a solution.
- Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) offered a pointed critique of the argument advanced by Stevens. - mmfa ================================================================
Their responses may have been pointed...but they were ineffective. The House Republicans steamrolled the democrats and have approved drilling in ANWR.
mmfa and its legions might be more effective by promoting the radical left's positions rather than constantly looking backwards and promoting yesterday's news.
mmfa and its legions might be more effective by promoting the radical left's positions rather than constantly looking backwards and promoting yesterday's news. by sweeney
***
Awwwww…isn’t that cute. Sweeney’s made up his own little talking point that he is going to use in every post on every topic and ignore the actual issue being discussed.
mmfa, by definition, reports on yesterday's news...just thought I would offer you some free advice. But it doesn't bother me one bit if the radical left wants to have group cries about their shabby treatment in the media...they don't appear to have much else to offer.