I don’t have any expertise on the whole issue of ANWAR and energy exploration. But I find it very disturbing that Gale Norton has decided to advocate for oil drilling on the Editorial Pages of the New York Times. She is nothing but a shill for the mining, timber, and now, oil industries. Isn’t that the exact opposite of what the Secretary of Interior is supposed to be?

Even though it is noon, the landscape is pitch black. The wind chill stands at 70 below zero. A lone man drives across a vast frozen plain on a road made of ice. He sits atop a large, bug-like machine with enormous wheels. He is heading for a spot on the tundra pinpointed by satellite imagery to explore for oil. When the spring thaw comes and the road melts, any evidence that a man or a machine ever crossed there will be gone.

This is the world of Arctic energy exploration in the 21st century. It is as different from what oil exploration used to be as the compact supercomputers of today are different from the huge vacuum tube computers of the 1950s. Through the use of advanced technology, we have learned not only to get access to oil and gas reserves in Arctic environments but also to protect their ecosystems and wildlife. Gale Norton’s NY Times Editorial

I’m willing to entertain the idea that we have made advances in environmentally friendly ways of exploring for oil. But what about when we actually find oil?

Will we have one lone man up there pumping oil. Will there be no activity except during winter months?

In 1980, when Congress created the refuge, it set aside the 1002 area for possible future energy development. To date, Congress has not approved this development because of environmental concerns. In the meantime, America’s domestic production of energy has declined and we have become more and more dependent on imported oil.

Has Gale Norton advocated for alternative energy sources? Or just for less regulation for her special interests masters?

Not today:

more on the flip…

As part of a comprehensive energy strategy of promoting conservation and reducing dependence on foreign oil, we must increase our energy production here at home.

No mention of alternative energy sources. And she claims her plan is comprehensive

The 1002 area is potentially the largest untapped source of oil and gas on American soil. While we cannot promise that there will be no impact on the wildlife and habitat of the 1002 area, we can promise no significant impact.

Define significant impact, Gale.

Technological advances in oil exploration are at the heart of a debate over America’s energy future. Congress will soon decide whether to open up a sliver of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – called the 1002 area – to energy development. Opponents will pretend that new, less invasive technology doesn’t exist. It is important for Americans to understand that it does, and that it works.

In past decades, Arctic oil development involved huge amounts of equipment that had to be moved over gravel roads and laid upon large gravel pads. The machines that transported this equipment often scarred the land, especially in spring and summer.

American ingenuity has tackled this problem. Today, oil exploration in the Arctic occurs only in the frozen winter. Workers build roads and platforms of ice to protect the soil and vegetation. Trucks with huge tires called rolligons distribute load weights over large areas of snow to minimize the impact on the tundra below.

Meanwhile, innovations in platform development and directional drilling mean that we need fewer and smaller pads to tap into oil and gas reserves. From a single platform, we can explore an underground area nearly the size of the District of Columbia.

That’s all very nice. But exploration is one thing, and a full extraction and production operation is another. Am I wrong or she is describing what the environmental impact would be if we never found any oil?