Should Congress authorize drilling at ANWR?

[pa mt man]

Erik,I should say I'm for the drilling first, and I know the money didn't mean anything to you. But I think it does influence how the poor eskimos think. I tried to do a goggle search to find out how many of them are on goverment relief but I had no luck. I did find this and thought it was intresting.http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11716. It does say there are a lot aluetes that are poor.
The more I read about Halenburton , the more I think it's a criminal orginization.

 

[Erik in AK]

While its true that many aspects of "western" culture has wreaked havoc amongst Alaska's native people, the "poor Eskimo's" as you call them (by the way thats patronizing) are shareholders in some of the wealthiest corporations anywhere.

In 1971 and 1980 two pieces of landmark legislation changed the face of being "native" in Alaska forever. ANCSA and ANILCA aka the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. heres a link http://www.inforain.org/alaska/glabaycd/CATALOG/htm/ANILCA.htm

In summary what these acts did was establish native lands and provide Alaska Natives with a choice; be recognized as tribes and be administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or incorporate with full subsurface rights to their land and waive for perpetuity sovereignty claims to said land.

All native communities but one chose to incorporate. The people of Metlakatla in South East Alaska are the only Alaska natives fully administered by the BIA and they are the only native community that is flat broke. It is heartsickeningly sad that this state so rich in resources and opportunity could have a community that rivals any Third World armpit.

In contrast Cook Inlet Region Incorporated and Arctic Slope Corporation are in the Fortune 500 and pay their "shareholders" handsome dividends every year, as much as 60K in recent years. Not all of the corportations are this wealthy but none are "poor" either.

If ANWR gets drilled Arctic Slope Corp will most likely be the prime contractor and their coffers will get heavier.

 

[pa mt man]

I would never defend the BIA, and I would never suggest Alaska Natives can't make their own decisions. I'm for drilling, and I'm glad to see natives and everyone else in the state compensated for it. Whether its corporate dividends or permanent fund divdends, good for them!! To want to increase them is only rational and exactly what I think they should do.

Perhaps none of the native corporations are poor, but this: http://www.alaskool.org/resources/anc/anc07.htm suggests that, while their condition is improving, quite a few native individuals are poor, not just those in one community.

I found this intriguingly ambivalent dicussion of the ANCSA: http://www.alaskool.org/projects/ancsa/annancsa.htm None of the Native corporations may be poor, but apparently about 50% of Alaska natives don't own stock in any of these corporations (stock isn't given to new births, of course). And because they can sell their stock, not all shareholders are native. I can certainly understand why you would want to sell your stock--why would anyone want a portfolio consisting only of resource extraction and tourism? It's only rational to seek diversity. But for that portion of Alaskans who may not have such stock or some other means of financial livelihood, the prospects of a richer permanent fund might be significant indeed.

And are the people of Metlakatla really poor because of mismanagement? The regional Native corporations, fearing instability and inequity, share a significant portion of their profits amongst each other. Thus village corporations which may not have won the Oil and Gas lotteries of Nature are still kept from complete destitution by their regional corporation. That's pretty smart. By choosing not to incorporate, as you say, Metlakatla retains their sovereignty but cannot partake in the native corporations. Which means they are dependent on whatever resources they happen to sit upon. It may just be bad luck that they happened not to be sitting on as much as Alaska on average--a sample size of 1 doesn't allow statistically significant inference.

Was that a bad choice? That's subjective. I don't deny that it has cost them economically, but economics aren't the only measure of life. Terms like "Third World armpit" are dangerous for exactly this reason, suggesting that only First World measures of success like per capita GNP are the ones that matter. What financial price would one pay for one's own way of life, for self-determination of your community?
don

 

[Horn Seeker]

Go in there and drill for 1 years worth of oil consumption for the US.... At least that is one estimate I heard the USGS came up with. Maximum. Not worth it. We can change mileage standards/minimums on the auto industry and save that much oil in a year or two.
I dont know, it does sound like a little, insignificant portion of the refuge, but what will it lead to? Will they be drilling in the middle of the Bob soon?
Isn't it possible to drill at an angle and drill under the refuge without even stepping foot in the refuge?
Just some questions.

 

[mtmiller]

I think they plan to directionally drill and that is the reason for the "relatively" small foot print.

In this part of the country, the gas deposits are shallow and directional (horizontal) drilling is only able to go about the same distance as the target is deep. Many of the deposits are pretty small around here as well, creating a greater risk of hitting the target.

I am not too familiar with the the depth of the reserves on the "Wildlife Refuge", but they are much deeper and obviously larger reservoirs. blah, blah, blah....