I'm not an Alaska resident but enjoy visiting the state for the fishing.

What is the opinion from Alaskans about opening ANWR to oil drilling? Is there a consensus among the people?

I only seem to read about politician's opinions, Alaskan and non-Alaskans. And of course, the energy companies (I live in Oklahoma) and the environmentalists who don't live there.

I can say this, on the gulf coast, its seen a few spills over the years. There can be a temporary effect on fishing and wildlife but it goes away pretty quickly.

Wife and I fished in Valdez on our honeymoon. Caught salmon left and right off the beach on the side of the road.
This was 95, we found tar evidence only if you turned over enough "rocks" at teh water line...

Not much fishing happening in ANWR. The area is known to have considerable potential and the state is in a bad way financially, of our own legislators' doing.

Drill Baby, drill!

From what I've heard about Gulf of Mexico, the oil platforms are fish magnets.
Sounds like a plus to me.

anytime you put structure where there was none, you improve a fishery and the fishing. Every now and then a disaster is going to happen. Hurricane. Oil Spill etc...

I've often wondered how much "oil" goes into the ocean on a daily basis from runoff alone. Give that a percentage based on gallons of water. Compare frequency and percentage to an oil spill. Granted they are nasty when they happen and for a few years after.

But like I've said before, spill the oil in the pasture here at home and its like you dropped fertilizer there....

Just like an oil well that overflowed the waste water. It did kill a couple of our trees over 30 yeras of time. But the pasture is there the grass is as good as ever, and we got a benefit from the well a bit...

ANWR is on-shore, so no structural effects... and the Beaufort Sea is very shallow for a very long way off-shore and the only fishing is in the rivers and lakes. The window is mighty narrow for that.

In saltwater there is icefishing but no population to use it much. During the summers I got to do some fishing by helicopter and had unreal char, dolly varden, and salmon fishing well west of ANWR.

We need ANWR opened. It is a tiny part of the refuge that is available plus the directional drilling used further minimizes the impact/pad size.

Keep in mind the ANWR the liberals show in their *anti* ads is not the same ANWR where the drilling will occur.

Google on "KIC #1 well" and you'll see some pics of the landscape and learn about the ANWR anticipated petroleum production area.

Some images for reference:

Thanks for the info.
Great example of "a picture says a thousand words".

Will Heimo Korth be forced out?

Geez us Pete


When I went to the redwood forest with the fam many years ago there was some old biddy in the park lot with a petition to stop drilling in Anwr to save the polar bears

Tried to have a discussion with her that turned into an argument

Some lil fat hippy chick that claimed to have lived in Ak and her dreadlocked boyfriend chimed in on the old lady's side

We overtook that couple on the trail later going uphill so I slung my then 5 year old up on my shoulders and the wife and other kids passed them like they were standing still

Mentioned she must have not seen much of ak if that was their normal gate


I love this place and don't ever want to see it overdeveloped, but I loathe how east coast liberals benefitted from the use of their natural resources and now want Ak just to be a giant park that few of them will ever step foot upon

We're an extraction economy plain and simple

Drill and mine, but not pebble please

Heimo is south of the Brooks Range and a long ways from the coastal tundra area. There should be no problem with cabin sites of "The Last Alaskans" reality program.

I have worked my whole life in the oil and gas industry. Mostly offshore in the Gulf. It is foolish to not develop our own oil and gas fields on land that belongs to us. The govt gets a huge fee from it that almost equals what the IRS collects. At one time it was only 2 or 3 % less.
Set some standards like we have in the gulf and enforce them. Let people bid on leases and let them go in there and make themselves and our country some money. Plus it adds jobs and energy security. I's so cold there most of the year if you spilled oil you could scoop it up with a loader or back hoe. They can do it without making a mess if it is properly regulated.

The last estimate of total land impact for all development in ANWR was ~ 2,200 ac. That's for drill pads, roads, pipeline routes, holding ponds, structural pads for oil/gas production facilities, housing, maintenance, power generation, water treatment, etc...

All of those acres will not be in one giant facility, but scattered, so the overall impact will be dispersed.

One careful look at the effects on wildlife at Prudhoe Bay and you'll find that caribou numbers have climbed, the herds are healthy, the small game and birds are thriving, and the marine mammals are increasing.

The Native opposition from the NE Alaska Natives is racism, pure and simple. It is, and has been, fueled by the enviro-whackos since the beginning of the Prudhoe Bay exploration and development.

Drill, baby, DRILL!

Ed

VernAK,
That was tongue in cheek, but I think you knew that.

You guys watch that chit? I made the connection only from context above....

Here is another way to look at it that I read somewhere:

If Alaska is a tennis court, ANWR occupies a newspaper sized piece, and the proposed drilling area (not actual acrage used- but the 8% above), is a postage stamp.

HEY!

Some folks believe all those Alaskan Reality Programs.

This time of year most of us are down to eating red squirrels ya know!

If I lived in Delta a red squirrel might seem like the most suitable companion...

Drill Baby Drill!


It's basically 2,000 acres out of a total of 20,000,000.

LOL, what a question.

He was more concerned about Sue!

Is it actually viable to drill oil in that climate, pipe it..put it in a tanker and ship it...with $50/barrel oil and all the new pipelines coming on line? Is there something about the oil that it's refinery specific or something?
Looks like $50 oil is gonna be the norm for quite a while.

But....but.....the caribou.....the polar bears......they'll all die.

Every time this comes up, the libs go crazy. You'd think they were going to cover it up with wells and dump millions of gallons of crude on a daily basis.

Putting it in a tanker requires getting it to Prudhoe Bay by pipeline and putting it in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to send to Valdez... that is where the tankers are. The Arctic Ocean is frozen solid for much too long each year for tankers.

$50 oil would probably make ANWR marginally profitable but it would take 7-10 years to bring it on line so a long term perspective is needed.......I'm sure environmental regulations would be very stringent.

Standards in Alaska are generally more stringent than the gulf.

I'm all for responsible development. The states hurting financially and if a major field isn't brought on line in the next ~10 years the Trans Alaska pipeline is going to have some serious issues flowing at reduced rates.

The thing to remember is ANWR is federal land, so the state won't be getting the same royalty checks they do for developments on state land. That said, the jobs and support industry will be a huge boon for the state.

Open it up to lease sale and see if whoever wins the lease's can develop it economically.

I don't profess to know much about the oil industry but it just seems like with bakken and now Canada the logistics of North Alaskan oil don't much add up.

Oil naturally seeps up from the floor of the gulf of mexico.

I live in Alaska because of the vast wilderness. To me, being able to walk or paddle, hunt or fish for days or weeks and not see another human being is worth more than a few years of oil. I think the mountain men would feel the same.

I don't buy the argument that only 2000 acres would be affected. There'd be pipelines and far more helicopters and airplanes.

I don't want to be camping on an ANWR night and see lights from an oil field. Check out the satellite photos of the lights of Prudhoe at night.

If I wanted to see wilderness developed for maximum profit I'd live in the Lower 48. That used to be wilderness too.

Even they had to make a living. They bought traps, guns and horses. Went into town for women and whiskey. They even liked to share stories of their adventures with others. Of course they didn't have a computer to write blogs, but I think it was those stories that spurred western expansion.

The mountain men were utilizing natural resources to make a profit.

So everyone on Alaska should incur an income tax and the elimination of the PFD so a handful of people can enjoy ANWR. Makes perfect sense...

I bet the mountain men who lived to be old men were sad when the whiskey money and the wilderness of their youth was long gone.

Glad to see you use no petroleum to move about and exist... otherwise I would see you as a two-faced pos...

I see both sides here actually.

But in reality the world will have to keep moving forward. And exploration is mostly temporary.

Rather than fund muzzies, I'd deal with the lights personally.

Obviously I'd prefer not to, but then I understand reality.

I do use petroleum and I support drilling, but not everywhere, all the time.

With every change of administration, the ANWR debate comes up again. The dumb part of this debate is the fact that the debaters don't know if there is any oil in ANWR. The Feds did the seismic survey decades ago but they never drilled an exploratory well.....maybe it's dry!

BP and Chevron drilled KIC #1 off target and on native lands but that data wasn't shared with the Feds even after a court battle.

When flying over that area in a heli accompanied by geologists, I noticed they tended to wet themselves when they see the Marsh Creek anticline but that hardly constitutes a viable discovery nor fills the pipeline.

Holy crap...is this for real...if so you guys may be saved...lol

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/10/investing/alaska-oil-discovery-repsol-spain/

Certainly a nice discovery and a badly needed addition addition to North Slope production but hardly a Prudhoe Bay size.

We'll take it!

We have several Democrats in our Legislature that ran as Republicans and they will be looking for a way to tax it prior to production.

Either that or change the tax structure so that it never goes into production.

I have been here in times of "No Oil" and "Oil". "Oil is better! Do you remember paying state income taxes on your outboard motor and your snowmachine? That really sucked! The biggest problem here is that the politicians spend a lot more than what is coming in. Folks get used to the benefits of State spending and the demand it as a "right". We all need less government. If we do get a chance to develop our own resources, We just need to keep the politicians from spending/wasting it all! We can let "those Sand Folks" eat their sand. With the recent developments in directional drilling, the drill site footprints will be smaller and further apart. Like Governor Hickle said Our oil discoveries are in just the right place. It's cold and practically uninhabited. We really don't hurt anyone if there is a problem. Look at all the money that comes into the NSB. Given a choice, I prefer "Oil".

I agree....as long as I have my own home with it's asphalt roofing, Tyvek® membraned, polyethylene vapor barriered, vinyl floored, poly plumbed, vinyl insulated electrical home and a lifetime supply of fuel for heating, or getting heating fuels, and transportation fuels. Other than that......oh, and a few miles of asphalt roads to drive on...oh, and a few tires as well as more plastics for my cars, snowmachines, ATVs, sleds....aw heck, I'm even willing to trade one or two of my sons, nephews...to go kill a few brown people and protect our 'right' to buy oil from them.



The mountain men would most likely not recognize most of the wusses who call themselves 'wilderness men' in today's world.



Even if you might see those lights from the 1% of the area from which they might be visible, I really doubt that it would affect any, other than the very smallest, minutest fraction of the population who might go there when it gets dark at night. And I already know of a gazmillion places in Alaska where I can travel 30 miles without the need for airplane access and not be able to see a single light or glow from human-sourced lights.



I hate development as much as the next person, but reality is an unfortunate and unavoidable.......'reality'. The population of the state has nearly doubled in the short time I've been here. There is a vast portion of the population which has never really been 'to Alaska'I suspect (based on what they know - or don't). Realize that the Alaska you wish it was would be just fine without newcomers like Fairbanks and Anchorage.

Craig is that you? Haven't talked in years. We quit shooting in 2004 or so IIRC, as dad was dying... now try to visit AK every fall.

Jeff and Carolyn

Jeff-PM to me your email.
Craig

Buck-The more that I think about your post, the more upset I get. It is quite obvious that you have never even been to that part of Alaska. Much less flown into or even over that area. I have. I have hunted in March, along the Canning River South to the mountains. We went for Sheep on a registration hunt in March. That was before Point Thomson was discovered. We left from Dead Hoarse and traveled East on an Ice Road to the Canning River and then South. You wouldn't like us--we rode those noisy, stinky snowmachines. I have to admit that for two weeks-we did not see or hear any manmade sounds except ours. I see from your website that you used a stinky noisy airplane to get to your drop off/put-in. So I guess that when you want to, it's OK for you to disturb someone else's peace and quiet. This is a huge place and you can find a lot of room to go and have your Wilderness Experience". I don't know if you would intentionally bar the folks at Kaktovik the opportunity to use their boats, wheelers or snowmachines or even use their lights for fear of disturbing your wilderness. You just might see the reflection from their village or hear their mode of transportation. Put on your REI approved gear, throw your canoe up and hike another 100 miles South. Like others have said, the pipelines will go straight West and then south in the existing pipeline. Now the only thing that you might bump into is the site at Point Thomson. I suppose that even seeing that would disturb you. What I am trying to tell you is "Get your facts" before you go and show your true colors about locking up the State so that you Can have that Wilderness Experience" you crave. Oh, leave your SPOT at home. That way you will not hear or see the helicopter come and rescue you when a disaster happens. I'm still not sure that traveling alone is a real good idea either.
Favor Center

Well said... made a few points for me better than I could. I started a few times and got pissy.

You mean you couldn't get past f-n tree huggin hypocrite?

Yeah, that is about it.

I've really enjoyed Bucks blogs and pix of his adventures

He does some cool stuff and traveling solo? I'm guilty as well, though I've not gone on as long of adventures as Buck has solo


And I'm not trying to pile on, but I too sense a bit of hypocrisy in his take on no development in anwr. I've been fortunate to tramp around in ANWR a fair bit

We're an extraction economy pure and simple


It's an outdoor forum by and large, I've never seen these guys cry out for paving paradise , but most of them have families, homes, autos and bills and use planes just like Buck

We gotta eat, which means we probably are gonna need to do some drilling

Just seems factual to me

Oh and Buck has been in ANWR Pretty sure I read of his exploits of hiking & floating east border to west coast

He gets around and sees some stuff, I just disagree with him about drilling in ANWR

I don't think Buck is wrong for having an opinion, hell I agree, I'd like to see less folks on this planet period. And we could start by thinning some of the ones off this website for starters. LOL

But reality says, IMHO, its not that large of an impact, and again, I'd rather be a bit independent when it comes to energy, rather than rely on Isis provided energy.

And I really don't think Buck disagrees either so much, he realizes, but yet is holding out hope....

I get serious heart burn with elitists. I.e. I got mine, but F everyone else.

I would like to see the same opportunities for my children and grand children as well as the children and grandchildren of friends and neighbors throughout the state. That requires a balance of protecting the wild places and just as importantly providing an economy that allows for jobs for them as well as a stable tax base.

Most Alaskans are beyond clueless as to how they have benefitted from the oil industry. I'm not just talking about fuel to stay warm, power to transport them around the state and synthetic clothing. I'm talking about the infrastructure around the state that would not exist without the billions in tax revenue over the past 40 years not to mention the majority of government jobs that wouldn't exist without the $ from oil.

There are tons of things in AK infrastructure wise as you point out, not possible money wise without the influx of the revenue from oil in one form or another.

In the meantime I go home and have to see a neighbor from where we live and I"m still mad about that.

Soon enough I'll see my bosses house on top of it. Ugh....Lol

true stuff right there ^

I'm a newby to urban Alaska, so I'm still in the pondering stage about what makes places like Fairbanks 'float', with all it's Seattle-ites, Tennessee-ites, Colorado-ites, and every other flavor of 'ite' you can imagine, which seem to outnumber the folks who have actually spent time in the greater part of the state. And as near as I can tell, it's oil and all its peripherals, and the military bases of Wainright and Eilison. Pull the plug on them and the unions would cry and die, and at least half the population would wither and go away. Grocery prices would go up, selection would go down, real estate prices would drop, $10 jobs would be scarcer than $50 jobs are now.

Air services would diminish in service and some would disappear, while prices would increase (as competition and volume decreased.) Life would become a lot less convenient for many folks. It would be wonderful....for some.

Yeah, I was thinking about invoking Joe Vogler and have him freeze in the dark.

I think every state should set aside an area equal to ANWR for wilderness, that and ban any 'urban' areas larger than"area 1002", (the area proposed for potential development in ANWR).

* the states of Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Hawaii, West Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland would all, of course, be returned to wilderness. I wouldn't have any problem with that.

Seems fair.

Works for me.

Obviously you haven't negotiated with the Eskimos living there in Alaska which aren't present in the lower 49, since all the aboriginals have been wiped out or displaced in those areas.

Drill it!

A relevant question based on an Aldo Leopold quote(sic).

"The trouble with wilderness is everyone wants to see it, touch it, feel it, but when they are done there is no wildness left in the wilderness."

So who does the most damage, the one person that puts down the first tracks in a remote valley in 20 years or the crowd swarming a National Moneymint?

Stole the Moneymint line from Ed Abbey...

I don't live in Alaska so really it's none of my business.

My opinion?

Well, I wish that we'd develop large scale geo thermal energy development in the lower 48 before developing ANWAR.

The way to see if it is economically feasible is to put some leases up for bid. There are companies producing in N. AK now. The company I work for has a project up there that has been producing for several years. If it's economic companies will bid on it. The oil industry is responsible for some amazing advances in technology. If it can be done they will find a way or invent one. I'm constantly amazed at the advances that have been made throughout my career.

Yeah, how do you suppose we will get the geo-thermal up here to drive around? Or to benefit the people of AK? And did you catch the relative size of ANWR?

Drill it ...yesterday!!!!

[I'm a newby to urban Alaska, so I'm still in the pondering stage about what makes places like Fairbanks 'float', with all it's Seattle-ites, Tennessee-ites, Colorado-ites, and every other flavor of 'ite' you can imagine, which seem to outnumber the folks who have actually spent time in the greater part of the state.]

To me, "Bareflanks" is too hot in the Summer and too cold in the Winter. Down in the Fairbanks bowl, the Winter air is like trying to breathe Kerosene. My experience is that most people in Fairbanks "march to the beat of a drum that no one else can hear"?

Landed in Fairbanks because of an emergency once and the Flight Attendant over the loud speaker said "Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Fairbanks, please set your watches back 15 years!"

hard to argue with that

Not any more. It seems a lot like Seattle Lite these days, IMO of course. Lots of plastic houses and plastic people now.