Talk:Arctic Refuge drilling controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Contents

[edit] NPOV

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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 [1], 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."[2]

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.

[edit] 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: [3] 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)

[edit] 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"

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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."[4] 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 [5], 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 [6] 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) [7] 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: [8] "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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

  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.

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)

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)

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


[edit] 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!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 <ref> 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)