Mick Stockinger notices something odd in a CNN report on a US Senate vote over oil drilling in Alaska.
The picture's caption reads: "Musk ox graze in an area proposed as a possible site for oil exploration inside Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."Hmmm. Considering that the proposed drill site is on the coastal plain and that the Brooks range is nearly over the horizon, at the southern edge of ANWR wilderness area, I would say that this is a flat-out lie.
[...]
There are actually two kinds of deception going on here. The site may well have been included in a 1987 proposal to congress, but it bears no relevance to the current ANWR drilling proposal. Captioning the photo makes me very suspicious that this is no inadvertant mistake or simple sloppiness. Aside from the equivocation on which proposal is being discussed, I believe CNN inserted this photograph because it has a much more appealing esthetic than the coastal plain where the facility is actually proposed to be built. Tundra just doesn't tug at the heart strings the way snow- capped mountains do.
Via Michelle Malkin.
The location where the drilling is going to take place is a desolated desert like wastland whre oil actually is seeping up from the ground. You'll never see that picture on any of the anti-drilling ad campaign.
I used to live in oilsands country. There was at least one beach on the shore of Cold Lake where crude ran out of the ground and into the water.
Pictures were posted of ANWR once on NRO.Jonah Goldberg took them, and it was a bog.The delicate ecosystem of blackflies,horseflies,toads,snakes and water rats deserves it's own National Geographic spread.
Remember, prior to Jimmy Carter, this land was originally designated as a "Naval Petroleum Reserve" in 1923, and later renamed "National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska" in 1976. It was made a wildlife refuge to thwart development. This area needs to be drilled. Oh, by the way, there are some 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas there, too. This is the cleanest burning hydrocarbon available, producing one third the CO2 of coal when used in electrical power generation.
I saw a report on that on Fox I think yesterday. They didn't do a 360 or anything like that but every direction they shot in was nothing but a lot of frozen nothing. I think they were mainly there covering a demonstration by natives who were in favor of the drilling. At least the guy who spoke to the camera looked to be a native (Indian? Eskimo? I dunno what's correct). The only thing I caught him saying was "it's a teeny tiny piece of land".
Well, careful there. The Brooks Range is not at the southern edge of the ANWR, but fills most of the centre of the ANWR, and comes up close to the southern edge of the 1002 area (the area set aside in 1980 for potential exploration and development). (See maps here: http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section1.htm#Background)
Mick gives some details about distance to the nearest peaks from the "drill site," but as far as I can tell, he is taking his "drill site" from this map showing a "Proposed Development Area (to scale) - 2000 Acres":
http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf
I have about seven years of work experience in the oil industry, and let me tell you, the 2000 acres of development won't be in one neat 2000-acre square. Kate, you grew up in oil country, you know that. The technology has improved, so the pads can be smaller and draw from larger areas, but the large oil reserves being discussed in ANWR won't be accessed from one compact mega-pad. Nor will the proponents be stating any exact drill sites at this stage. Mick mentions "the equivocation on which proposal is being discussed" - you bet there's equivocation. Has been for years. Just try googling "ANWR 2000 acre".
Those diligent, professional, fact-checking aces at the Globe and Mail seem to have used this photo or one from the same series to misrepresent the area in today's edition.