Posted by
Rich on Saturday, June 28, 2008 8:46:10 PM
Below are a series of pictures highlighting the size of ANWR, the size
of the part of ANWR that Republicans want to drill in, what that small
area really looks like during the summer and winter, and pictures of
the existing oil rigs at Prudhoe Bay and what it looks like during the
summer and winter.
This
first diagram shows the size of ANWR and Alaska compared to the
continental U.S. Clearly ANWR, while containing 19 million acres, is
small when compared to the entire U.S.
This second diagram shows the actual proposed drilling area of 2000 acres.
These
are a series of photos of that 2,000 acre area in ANWR in the summer
and in the winter. Note the stark and desolate landscape in the area
that is proposed for drilling. Pictures normally shown in the media are
of areas of ANWR much further to the South.
The drilling area in the summer.
The drilling area in the winter.
These
are pictures taken at the oil rigs located at Prudhoe Bay.
Environmentalist were concerned that oil drilling in Prudhoe Bay would
be an ecological disaster and harm the local animal populations.
Clearly neither of these dire predictions came true.
Prudhoe Bay in the summer.
Prudhoe
Bay in the winter. Note the similar desolation of Prudhoe Bay and the
proposed drilling area. Neither is hospitable in winter.
As Paul Driessen of Townhall.com points out, "
One
of our best prospects is Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
which geologists say contains billions of barrels of recoverable oil.
If President Clinton hadn’t bowed to Wilderness Society demands and
vetoed 1995 legislation, we’d be producing a million barrels a day from
ANWR right now. That’s equal to US imports from Saudi Arabia, at $50
billion annually.
Drilling in ANWR would get new oil flowing in
5-10 years, depending on how many lawsuits environmentalists file.
That’s far faster than benefits would flow from supposed alternatives:
devoting millions more acres of cropland to corn or cellulosic ethanol,
converting our vehicle fleet to hybrid and flex-fuel cars, building
dozens of new nuclear power plants, and blanketing thousands of square
miles with wind turbines and solar panels. These alternatives would
take decades to implement, and all face political, legal,
technological, economic and environmental hurdles.
ANWR is the
size of South Carolina. Its narrow coastal plain is frozen and
windswept most of the year. Wildlife flourish amid drilling and
production in other Arctic regions, and would do so near ANWR
facilities. Inuits who live there know this, and support drilling by an
8:1 margin. Gwich’in Indians who oppose drilling live hundreds of miles
away – and have leased and drilled their own tribal lands, including
caribou migratory routes.
Drilling and production operations
would impact only 2,000 acres – to produce 15 billion gallons of oil
annually. Saying this tiny footprint would spoil the refuge is like
saying a major airport along South Carolina’s northern border would
destroy the state’s scenery and wildlife.
It’s a far better
bargain than producing 7 billion gallons of ethanol in 2007 from corn
grown on an area the size of Indiana (23 million acres).
It’s
far better than using wind to generate enough electricity to power New
York City, which would require blanketing Connecticut (3 million acres)
with turbines."