Ladies Logic

Saturday, July 26, 2008

The Real ANWR

Since Politically Active Mama liked my previous post on ANWR so much I figured that my very first post here should carry on the discussion. During my research on said post, I found this website to be a great source of information about Area 10-02. The site is the product of Alaskans who would be most adversely effected if drilling at ANWR was going to harm their state. They are the ones responsible for cleanup and all things related to when "it" hits the fan. They are also the ones closest to this "pristine wilderness". They are certainly closer to it than we are here in Utah or anyone in DC has ever come (with very few exceptions). This is what they have to say about ANWR as a whole (all 19.6 million acres of it) and the 2000 acre section of Area 10-02.

Most people don't really understand where the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is located and the relatively tiny amount of space within ANWR, (the Coastal Plain), that's been set aside for potential oil and gas development.

ANWR lies in the top northeast corner of Alaska. The entire refuge lies north of the Arctic Circle and 1,300 miles south of the North Pole. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was originally formed on Dec. 6, 1960 with an original size of 8.9 million acres. In 1980 and 1983 ANWR was added to for a current size of 19.6 million acres comprising of three distinct legal areas of use within its borders. Despite its name ANWR is NOT entirely “refuge”. The southern part of ANWR taking 9.16 million acres is classified as officially “Refuge”. The central 8 million acres of ANWR is classified as “Wilderness”. The uses and definitions of these terms was legally stated in the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136, 78 Stat. 890 -- Public Law 88-577).

Lastly at the top of ANWR, there is a special area of 1.5 million acres on the Arctic Coastal Plain called the “10-02” Area. The 10-02 Area takes its name from the section of the Congressional bill, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), that expanded ANWR in 1980. In Section 10-02 Congress set aside 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Coastal Plain specifically for “oil and gas exploration”. This 10-02 Area is classified legally neither as “refuge” nor as “wilderness”, rather defined and separated by Congress for oil and gas exploration due to its well-known geological evidence of potential large hydrocarbon deposits. The 10-02 area, is bordered on the north by the Beaufort Sea, on the east by ANWR “wilderness” area and the U.S. Canadian border, and on the west by the Canning River and ANWR outer border. It is completely flat and barren with no trees, hills, or mountains. Nine months of the year is covered with snow and ice and practically void of life. Three of those months are in total 24 hour darkness. In the 6 weeks of summer the coastal plain is dotted with thousands of lakes and is covered by boggy tundra on permafrost (permanently frozen ground).


Emphasis and link mine. They also get to the heart of the fallacy that the opponents of drilling in Area 10-02 keep propagating - that we are drilling in protected lands.

To say or suggest then that “the Refuge” (meaning ANWR’s entire area) would be opened for oil and gas exploration is completely false. The Congressional definitions of “refuge” and “wilderness”, which comprises over 92% of the ANWR area, forbids any development of any kind.

Utah (in the comments to Politically Active Mama's post) posts a link to Truth or Fiction that talks about the email that Rapid Response wrote about in his post. It talks about the truth and the political commentary in the email. What needs to be noted though is that there are not falsehoods in the email about Area 10-02. That is important. For once we start having a truthful discussion on the nature of Area 10-02, the people will start seeing that drilling here is not what the Democrats and their environmentalist supporters say it is. We are not proposing drilling in environmentally sensitive or protected areas. This land was set aside by the environmentalist hero Jimmy Carter specifically for drilling for oil - something that is already happening there TODAY.

Labels:

12 Comments:

  • Very informative. Damn facts anyway.
    And here I thought the "W" in ANWR was for "Wasteland".

    By Blogger Kermit, at 1:46 PM  

  • It's not true that the "1002 area" was set aside for oil drilling. Congressional authorization is required before drilling may proceed in this area.

    Read Wikipedia for an unbiased article about ANWR. The Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that the "1002 area" has a "greater degree of ecological diversity than any other similar sized area of Alaska's north slope."

    Barack Obama and John McCain are both solidly opposed to oil drilling in ANWR. It's a bipartisan issue.

    By Blogger rmwarnick, at 12:54 PM  

  • rmwarnick - Wikipedia????? A wiki that any Joe or Jane with an agenda can edit "unbiased" PUHLEESE.....

    Instead of relying on someone else, read the link that I provided in the post to the actualy legislation (ANILCA) and read section 10-02 where is lays out when and where in the coastal plain exploration can be done and how it should be done. I think you will find it a little bit more "factual" than anything in Wikipedia.

    LL

    By Blogger The Lady Logician, at 2:18 PM  

  • The great thing about Wikipedia is that you can easily correct misinformation.

    For example, if you truly believe that the "1002 area" isn't really part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, you could put that in Wikipedia-- with appropriate references.

    Biased propaganda doesn't last long on Wikipedia, so you can expect someone to correct it.

    By Blogger rmwarnick, at 4:28 PM  

  • The scoop on wikipedia...

    It has some good information, but it's sources are often dubious, and you couldn't get away with using it as a main source for a college paper.

    By Blogger Cameron, at 8:37 AM  

  • This blog is the go-to place for dubious sources IMHO.

    By Blogger rmwarnick, at 10:42 AM  

  • I have seen false info on Wiki stay up in spite of the protestations of the person that the falsehood is written about (talk to Michelle Malkin for example)for months - in spite of repeated removal.

    Well I guess if you consider the people who are impacted the MOST by drilling in ANWR and the ACTUAL LEGISLATION to be "dubious" sources then yes you are correct. You've got me. However, I prefer to get MY INFORMATION from the source and not the biased talking points of an agenda driven organization like the Sierra Club. I'm just funny that way....

    LL

    By Blogger The Lady Logician, at 10:52 AM  

  • If Michelle Malkin is your standard for accuracy, well, what can I say?

    In fact, the Alaska Natives most impacted by the proposals to drill on the North Slope are opposed (not a Wikipedia link).

    By Blogger rmwarnick, at 4:29 PM  

  • As a side note to the issue of "sacred" federal land which is supposed to be off limits to domestic drilling because, it is argued, drilling will "destroy" the surrounding ecosystem, it is most interesting the same people who propose such a position are perfectly comfortable with setting aside land, a rather large amount of it, to put up wind farms and solar panels. If ANWR's ecosystem and the like are so precious that it forbids any violation of this pristine land by oil companies, why is it OK to violate other vast sums of land for wind and solar? What makes ANWR's ecosystem superior to the ecosystems where the wind and solar farms would be built? What makes the flat, desolate land in ANWR so special compared to flat, desolate land in Montana, California, or anywhere else?

    The argument against drilling in ANWR is specious at best. It would be laughable if I wasn't paying $4+/ gallon because of leftist dogma.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:34 PM  

  • You are paying $4 a gallon because of the Enron Loophole-- thank the GOP for that!

    By Blogger rmwarnick, at 5:29 PM  

  • There is much that you can blame the GOP for (vis a vis) the high price of gasoline, but Enron is not one of them. Enron was a producer of electricity, natural gas (and natural gas by products) - not a gasoline producer. The "Enron Loophole" was geared toward electrical speculators who were responsible for the high prices in California (among other areas served by Enron companies). The Legislation that brought about the "Enron Loophole" was signed by (wait for it....) President WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON!

    Oh and your unbiased Wikipedia has refused to allow users to edit the John Edwards entry even though the "rumor" of his mistress and child have been validated by so-called "legit" media outlets (aka not blogs or the National Enquirer).

    LL

    By Blogger The Lady Logician, at 9:01 PM  

  • Oh here is a link to a story on the Edwards thing....

    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/28/wikipedia-locks-edwardss-page-to-protect-him-from-rumors/

    LL

    By Blogger The Lady Logician, at 9:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home