BS: Latest on ANWR

Subject: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 07:29 PM

Back here in Alaska and the outdoors / hunting columnist for the Anchorage Daily News stuck his two cents (tup'ny worth)into the fray. He is not known for either liberal views nor for gilding the lily. I share his opinion that there has been misdirection if not downright lying on both sides of the debate. I also think he's right that there is value in the pristine-ness of the land as it now is, and that is what will be lost should there be extensive drilling up there.

Column on ANWR from Anchorage Daily News

I'm starting a new thread on the topic because I think it will be revisited in public rather soon due to the high cost of oil and gasoline (although the high cost of gasoline is more due to refinery bottlenecks and fear). I also like to see Alaskan opinions being aired which might not fit our preconceptions.

At this point I am not personally solidly against the drilling, because what is being proposed is exploratory drilling which will be very very minor on the land. And I am partial to trees, and there ain't no trees up there.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: pdq
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 07:43 PM

...from the article above...

"The result ... is that the public policy ends up becoming a liars' contest. So much of American politics seems like that today, and it's a sad commentary on us all."

One of the most profound statements about American politics I have heard in a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 08:01 PM

What the author of that article fails to mention is the fact that the "short" period of time the caribou herds inhabit the area targeted for oil extraction just happens to be the most important time for the long term survival of the herd. Calving time.

http://www.taiga.net/coop/indics/pchcalv.html

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part1.htm


http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2007/teams/finalwebsite/environment/te_pcaribou.html

"The Coastal Plain is vital to the calves� survival for two main reasons:

1)    fewer brown bears, wolves, and golden eagles live on the coastal plain so newborns have greater chance of survival in their first week until they are strong enough to outrun their predators. (USGS Fish and Wildlife, 2003)

2) Coastal Plain provides proper nutrition needed for calving. There is an abundance of plant species and after a long winter, the cows need to have good nutrition"


http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/anwrcaribouscience.html

Before authorizing oil leasing within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Congress should consider that the Porcupine Caribou Herd is much more concentrated on its calving ground than the smaller Central Arctic Herd and may therefore be more vulnerable t o disturbance. Although calving has occurred historically over a fairly targe area of the North Slope in Alaska and the Yukon Territory, most calves are usually born in a smaller region that includes much of the area being considered for oil development ( Fancy and Whitten 1991). During late June and early July, essentially all cows and calves and many bulls of the Porcupine Herd use the potential development area every year.

Calf survival is generally high when the Porcupine Herd calves in the traditional coastal plain area that includes the potential oil lease area (Fancy and Whitten 1991, Whitten et al. 1992). Rapid, nutritious plant growth often occurs in this area during calving (National Biological Service, unpubl.). The coastal plain calving area is also relatively free of predators, and calf survival declines when late snow melt forces caribou to calve in nearby mountains and foothills where wolves, grizzly bears and g olden eagles abound (Whitten et al. 1992). The Porcupine Herd is already large and near its historic population high. If petroleum development were to displace it from part of its traditional calving grounds, suitable alternative habitat might not be avai lable. Consequently, the Porcupine Herd might not fare as well as the Central Arctic Herd apparently did during the early years of Prudhoe Bay.

Porcupine caribou normally herd in much larger groups than Central Arctic Herd caribou. Studies in the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oilfields show that larger groups (100 or more caribou) have difficulty crossing roads and pipes ( Smith and Cameron 1985). Grou ps of several thousand caribou occur throughout the summer in the Porcupine Herd, and from mid-June through July, group sizes in the tens of thousands are common.

In summary, development of the Prudoe Bay oil field displaced caribou and disrupted their movements. Similar long-term displacement now appears to be occurring elsewhere, even in the "state-of-the-art" Kuparuk and Milne Pt. Oil fields. Mitigation measures proposed for Arctic Refuge oil fields will likely be even less effective in allowing access to critical habitats for the larger, more densely aggregated Porcupine Herd. The caribou resources at risk in the Arctic National Wildlife for petroleum developme nt far exceed those found at Prudhoe Bay. Development of the coastal plain may well cause a long-term decline in calf survival, thereby decreasing population size over time, with serious consequences for many residents in both Canada and the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 10:19 AM

Great Quotathon, Carol.

At worst, caribou have been inconvenienced. But as the columnist I initially referenced said, "The Nelchina and Fortymile herds are doing fine, though they cross roads and pipelines and get shot at by people. There is no reason to believe it would be any different for the Porcupine caribou. The number of caribou might decline, but the caribou wouldn't disappear."

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: pdq
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 01:01 PM

State                 Area Ranking    Area (square miles, including water)
______________________________________________________
West Virginia                              41       24,200 square miles
______________________________________________________                        

ANWAR                                                       19,600 square miles               
______________________________________________________

Maryland                                    42               12,400 square miles
Hawaii                                         43               10,932 square miles
Massachusetts                              44               10,555 square miles
Vermont                                       45                9,615 square miles
New Hampshire                           46                9,351 square miles
New Jersey                                 47                 8,722 square miles
Connecticut                                 48                 5,544 square miles
Delaware                                    49                  1,954 square miles
Rhode Island                              50                  1,545 square miles
District of Columbia                    51                       68 square miles

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: DougR
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 02:59 PM

We need the oil if we are ever going to become less dependent upon getting it from the Middle East.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 04:09 PM

This is about to return to the same set of arguments as several other threads so I'm going to say quickly:

1) While we do not know how much oil is under ANWR the expectation is that it is significant.

2) There is no way that ANWR oil will take the place of imported oil, now, near future, far future. The US consumption rate is far above the Alaska pipeline at its most productive, which was almost three times the current flow.

3) It is arguable that ANWR combined with conservation could help the US toward a balance of trade.

My main point in bringing forth this thread was to point out that well informed Alaskans are aware of the complexity of the issue, and that there is a lot of hyperbole on both sides of the issue, some of which has cropped up in this thread, whether it is a bland assumption that all the oil we need is there or that caribou are threatened by the development. Craig Medred, the author of the first citation in this thread boiled the arguments down rather well.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 11:45 PM

I thought this part was the more important part, robomatic...

The caribou resources at risk in the Arctic National Wildlife for petroleum developme nt far exceed those found at Prudhoe Bay. Development of the coastal plain may well cause a long-term decline in calf survival, thereby decreasing population size over time, with serious consequences for many residents in both Canada and the U.S.

The only people who will benefit from oil extraction from that location are the oil companies. We won't be able to get much oil out of there, and we won't be able to get it into our gas tanks for several years. By that time, we'll probably already be much less dependent on foreign oil supplies in this country.

All that oil is, is unharvested money for some already very wealthy people. Extracting it doesn't benefit anyone else, and the lives of quite a few people will be very severely impacted by the kinds of reductions they are projecting for the porcupine herd, should the area be developed.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 02:51 PM

I say sell off all of that useless federal land. You want to protect the caribou, you're welcome to it. Otherwise get out of the way for others who want to use the land for something 'society' is willing to pay for (meaning productive).

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 03:43 PM

Uh, lessen our dependence on foreign oil?   Somebody's been listening to Mr. Limbaugh, the source of all wisdom, again.

The difference in dependence, when the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil comes onstream,-- according to Bush's own DOE--, will likely be 2% -- tops------- (see "What the Latest ANWR Vote Means"--24 March 2005 11:34 PM.

As I've seen suggested, it would be like hocking your grandmother's ring for $500 (or $1,000, to fit the 2%) to pay a $50,000 debt.

After you've done it, you're not quite out of debt--and that ring is gone forever.

Sure is funny there isn't more concern-- on the part of the people agonizing about foreign dependence-- to do something about raising fuel economy.

Every time that is slipped into an energy bill, it gets deleted.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: DougR
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 04:30 PM

Carol C: I find your statement that "we likely will be less dependent upon foreign sources for oil" interesting. How do you think that will come about?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 05:17 PM

If you are hocking your granny's ring to buy 100 lotto tickets that's one thing.

If your kids need shoes it's another.

The utility of the oil balanced against the willingness to conserve will make the difference. If we as a country are trying to suck another billion barrels out of the land to prop up $2 gasoline for tax-supported Hummers, then I subscribe to Ron's position. If we are trying to achieve a more responsible use of energy, and heat our homes in the winter, there is an argument to be made to proceed with ANWR.

Carol: Your repetition of your existing quote for emphasis merely highlighted a speculative opinion not supported by any facts that I'm aware of. No one expects the Porcupine Herd to be severely depopulated. There exists a possibility that its nomadic route might vary.

As for who profits from domestic oil, I would add that the oil companies in Alaska of any size are publicly traded, that domestic oil defrays a severe imbalance of trade in the United States, and whether or not oil is developed in time to supplement energy technology transfer or not is speculative. You sound more like our president who maintained that the US would transfer to a hydrogen economy without mentioning that right now hydrogen fuel comes mostly from natural gas, another likely product of ANWR.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:20 PM

Concerning lotto tickets vs needing shoes--the problem appears to be an insistence on Air Jordans (SUV's) vs Thom McAnn (serviceable vehicles).

I'd still like to know why anybody thinks it's reasonable that the Refuge be violated for a 2% difference in dependency.

I'd also like to know why the Anchorage writer is confident that the number of various types of wildlife is as low as he claims. I'd like to know the methodology used by the sources he lists to arrive at his low numbers. As PDQ notes, the territory covered by the Refuge is greater than the state of Maryland. I suspect some extrapolation was done--therefore the low numbers have no more validity than the higher numbers cited elsewhere.

Furthermore I have read about pressure being put on government employees to lowball this sort of estimate.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

There is no reason to expect more objectivity--on this subject especially-- from government sources.


It's still funny about the lack of support (by drilling advocates) for fuel economy standards. The silence is deafening.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:36 PM

Ron, I agree with your last statement, but would add that the rise in fuel prices is the ultimate advocacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: pdq
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 08:09 PM

...ooops...several web sites have square miles and acres confused...here is an ammended post...


State                   Area Ranking          Area (square miles)

South Carolina                  40                32,007
___________________________________________________

ANWR                                                   30,625
___________________________________________________

West Virginia                     41               24,231
Maryland                           42                12,407
Hawaii                               43                10,932
Massachusetts                   44                10,555
Vermont                            45                  9,615
New Hampshire                46                  9,351
New Jersey                         47                  8,722
Connecticut                        48                  5,544
Delaware                            49                  1,954
Rhode Island                      50                  1,545
Washington DC                                           68.25

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 07:40 AM

Why do the phrases "fouling their own nest" and "selling their birthright for a mess of pottage" come to mind?

As former Congressman Tom Evans (Republican of Delaware) has put it "How long will it take the Bush administration to figure out that conserving and preserving is a 'conservative' thing to do?"

But then of course we've already established that this "administration" is not in fact conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: GUEST,H
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 08:37 AM

Yes, the "decrease in calf survivability" in ANWR will probably cause the Chicago area to become a vast waste land.
Good grief!

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 10:25 PM

So, Guest H, what kind of music do you like to play or sing?   Or are you one of our delightful "politics only" posters? And why do you think wildlife dying is worthy of ridicule?

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: DougR
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 12:49 AM

Ron Davies: so what has Guest H's taste in music have to do with his right to have an opinion? I think it has been firmly established by Max, and other Mudcat gurus that performing or even enjoying listening to music is not a perequisite of participating in the Mudcat. You been giving a "policing" commission or something by the "high-ups?"

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: DougR
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 02:35 PM

I noted in the morning newspaper that the Senate Energy and National Resources Committee voted 13 to 9 to approve granting two oil leases in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Since the House has repeatedly approved doing so, and the President is sure to approve,this is a first step toward making the U. S. less dependent on oil from the mid-east. While not the total answer, it's at least a start. The newspaper article stated that "experts project that geologists believe that 10.4 billion barrels of oil likely lie beneith the tundra in the northeastern corner of Alaska."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Oct 05 - 12:34 AM

So, Doug, you rejoice at the start of desecration of the Refuge? Spoken like a true Philistine. Your attitude, like that of your mighty leader, goes a long way toward explaining why the US is so beloved the world over.

"Not the total answer"--how about a 2% difference in 10 years in foreign oil dependency, according to Bush's own DOE? Anything but fuel economy standards, eh? Heaven forbid we should detract from your current comfortable lifestyle one whit.

By the way, what newspaper are you quoting with your 10.4 billion barrels? According to the Wall St Journal 17 March 2005, estimates of oil under the Refuge range from 6 to 10 billion. I wonder why you just happened to settle on the high end. And why does your figure have any more validity than any other by "experts", who are all over the map? Pardon me when I prefer the Journal's reporting over any impeccable source you may somehow come up with.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Oct 05 - 08:47 AM

Rather than repeat what went before, I refer to a pretty informative thread that ranged over a lot of this territory:

What The Latest ANWR Vote Means

Among the points made was this post by Ron and an answer by myself:

"6)   "Having additionally locally produced oil and more control over our consumption" will lead to lower oil prices. Wonderful. Your naivete is touching. What pill do you intend to feed US consumers so they do not take lower oil prices as an invitation to the next SUV or other gas-guzzler craze?

I'm glad you're touched (don't let it go to your head). The core argument in favor is that it will save tens of billions of dollars from going overseas. We don't know what the price of oil is going to be in 2020. It may already be $200/ barrel. Having ANWR derived oil on tap will be better than not having it, under any foreseeable conditions. Remember this is not going to solve our energy problem, it goes toward giving us more breathing room.

A year ago ten billion barrels of oil was worth about four hundred billion dollars. Right now it's worth about six hundred billion dollars. The higher cost of gasoline has resulted in the US consumption dropping markedly. Therefore whatever the percentage of domestic consumption being made up by future ANWR development, it is proportionately higher than it used to be, making ANWR development of greater significance than it was. Half a trillion dollars will not solve problems, but it fosters solutions, rebuilds cities, and gives us a cushion.

Right now the environmental lobby has a lot of moral and political clout. If times get more desperate, a lot of this might get ignored. Development under a powerful environmental lobby is preferable to waiting until we're desperate.

The government under 'W' has shown a marked lack of leadership in the area of conservation. That doesn't mean that leadership can't be assumed by others, esp. the aforementioned environmentalists. Businesses which develop lower energy products will prosper regardless. We are moving into an era of LED lighting, for instance, instead of flourescent and incandescent. Industries have already been developing cogeneration strategies, wherein power generation facilities are located near enough to factories and end-users so what would have been waste heat is used as part of building heating facilities. Having government fail to lead is better than having government wrongly lead.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 09:50 PM

Robo-

I'm tempted to return the compliment with quotes by you and my replies.

I'll content myself with simply mentioning again the analogy with hocking your grandmother's ring--after it's gone the debt is still there-----and the ring is gone forever.

You give a false choice of development in the Refuge now or development later. Drilling in the Refuge is not, despite your assertions, unavoidable.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:30 PM

Have you been to the northern part of ANWR?

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 11:25 PM

Ron: I was quoting from a story in the Arizona Republic. That was the only figure used in the story.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 11:03 AM

Ron:
Just mentioned previous posts to forestall going into interminable loops with positions already stated and already answered. And as for hocking the ring, that was already taken care of within this thread right here. If you hock the ring for money for a night on the town, shame on you, but if you hock it so you can put clothes on your children, no shame. If you hock it so you can go into business and eventually buy the ring back, smart you!

Guest: Have YOU?

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 11:41 PM

Robo---As I already stated-- perhaps the ring is to be hocked to buy shoes--but the owner of the ring is insisting on Air Jordans, not just serviceable shoes.

Just keep the ring.

Doug--I'll trust the Journal way over the Arizona Republic.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 12:58 PM

In my opinion:

Drilling in ANWR will just give a false sense of security with no serious reduction of dependence. It will just delay the search for alternate energy. Oil companies will make big $$$$$, and the environment will suffer. Bet you 25¢

Open this thread again in 15-20 years and send me my quarter.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 07:45 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/04/anwr.drilling.ap/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 10:47 AM

I live in Alaska but like most of us have not seen the ANWR. Again, like most of us, I have done a lot of reading about it- and ended up being against the drilling. It seems like a low reward at a high cost- and even higher risk.

However, if they DO drill there I hope they find enough oil to make it worthwhile- and by means of their vaunted technology - avoid spills, avoid ruining the fragile environment and have minimal impact on the wildlife there and on the people who depend on that wildlife.

I do think that Stevens is somewhat disingenuous in saying this (from the link) :
"America needs this American oil," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. He called opposition to pumping the refuge's oil "ostrich-like" and said the refuge's reserves are "crucial to the nation's attempt to achieve energy independence." He KNOWS that this will not bring about energy independence.

I think there's a whole lot more truth to this:

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, who led the effort to continue the ban, called drilling in the refuge a gimmick that will have little impact on oil or gasoline prices, or U.S. energy security.

"Using backdoor tactics to destroy America's last great wild frontier will not solve our nation's energy problems and will do nothing to lower skyrocketing gas prices," Cantwell argued."

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 10:46 PM

As I pointed out earlier, in the first thread on this topic, back in the spring, one of the more revolting aspects of this is that Bush and his apologists are being even more despicable than usual--in that they are not even honest about why they want a bill with drilling in the Refuge now.

They know full well no oil will ever come out of the Refuge til long after Bush is a bad dream. But right now they want to play budget games--and have budgeted $2.5 billion in oil leases in the Refuge.

Anything to protect the sacrosanct tax cuts, which of course primarily benefit his fellow rich parasites.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 11:36 PM

Once again the ostensible wants and needs of the oil industry trumps all other concerns on the planet.

We supposedly had an "energy crisis" back in the 70s and there was talk of finding other sources of energy for our growing needs. You'd think they'd have shown a thimbleful of progress in that direction in over 30 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Peace
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 12:00 AM

Seems that when oil companies want 'more', they create less. I am of the opinion that most of the shortages have been manufactured.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 11:29 PM

As of today, the word is that the ANWR language has been taken off the House budget bill, although it could be put back in Conference. It makes me glad that even our government entities are seriously divided on the matter. When that is so, a good case can be made for doing nothing irrevocable and irreparable.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: number 6
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 11:40 PM

"most of the shortages have been manufactured"

HuH ???

sIx :)

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: GUEST,ANWAR Oil volume is just hyped up
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 06:05 AM

We ought to save the oil for the next oil shock.

The amount of oil is less than what is consumed by the US in 6 months and at the same time Saudi Arabia, the largest producer, is reaching oil peak and oil production has been exceeding oil discovery. So relying on domestic oil is a DUMB DUMB idea before the 2nd Great Oil Shock occurs.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 04:26 PM

Guest, the issue of the amount of oil has been dealt with in previous ANWR threads. Suffice it to say that IF ANWR holds significant amounts of recoverable oil it can make a dent in the severe unbalance of trade.

As far as 'saving' the oil until we really really need it, remember:
1) The pipeline is already thirty years old. It will probably not last another thirty years.

2) By the time we are desperate, the environmental lobby may be so weakened that development will occur with few environmental regs and little or no oversight.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 10:45 PM

The Refuge can again be saved from drilling. What's interesting is that, in a desperate attempt to keep Refuge drilling in the bill, advocates are now offering to raise fuel standards (finally), in exchange for Refuge drilling.

1) Drilling in the Refuge would be a band-aid for a severed artery.   Fuel economy standards should be #1. Refuge drilling is worse than useless. As I said earlier, Bush knows full well no oil will ever come from the Refuge til long after he is a bad dream--he and his apologists just want to play budget games---and have included about $2.5 billion in oil leases in the Refuge in, I believe, the 2007 budget, (rather than touching the sacrosanct tax cuts).

2) #2 should be cancelling the planned tax cuts, which (yet again) benefit primarily the rich--Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, if I recall correctly, termed the robber barons and their ilk the "criminal rich".

3) Anybody who feels the Refuge should remain, as Robo described it in his first posting on this topic ( in the first thread), "pristine", should contact his or her Senators and Congressmen (or -women) and tell them so.

4) The choice is not between Refuge drilling now and Refuge drilling later. It is at least as likely that the "environmental lobby"--i.e. people who care about the environment--will be as strong or stronger later than now. To say otherwise is defeatist--"No, Mr. Lincoln, General McClellan is right--we'll never win this war. Let the South be independent".

I have the list of the moderate Republicans who signed the letter stripping the Refuge drilling provision from the bill. I will be glad to give their phone numbers or e-mails to anybody who wants to encourage them in standing up to the Republican "leadership" in this.   Just PM me.

Democratic Senators and Congressmen should also be contacted to enforce the necessity of resisting this needless and senseless Refuge drilling.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 10:48 PM

The Guest however is correct-Refuge oil is indeed hyped up.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 01:19 PM

I need good news these days, so here's a bit of a lift:

WASHINGTON - The Senate blocked oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, rejecting a measure that had been put into a must-pass defense spending bill in an attempt to garner wider support. Drilling supporters fell four votes short of getting the required 60 votes to avoid a threatened filibuster of the defense measure over the oil drilling issue. Senate leaders were expected to withraw the legislation so it could be reworked without the refuge language. The vote was 56-44.


Reprieve

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 03:19 PM

Ebbie, I came on-site wanting to have a word about this event and ya beat me to it!

Regardless of my views as stated above and in other threads, the ham-handed way that the Alaska delegation has gone about pressing its case has been disappointing. With all the subtlety of a brick, Sen.
Stevens has either talked of or tried attaching ANWR development to Katrina relief package and now defense package. Reminds me of a snatch of dialog between Arthur Dent and Ford Prefect:

Arthur: "On Earth we have a word-"
Ford: "HAD a word."
Arthur: "Called 'tact'"

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 04:18 PM

Maria Cantwell, the junior senator from Washington State came on strong on this issue.

A few years ago I had my doubts about her. She voted in favor of giving Bush war powers prior to his invasion of Iraq when our senior senator, Patty Murray, voted against it (and gave a good, impassioned speech to the Senate as to why she was voting against it). But it seems that Maria has grown a spine within that last few years.

Way to go! Keep it up, Maria!!

Cartoon

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 05:16 PM

Sorry, robo. I just got excited. :)

Sen. Stevens has acted like such a jerk in connection with this. I'm sure I'm not the only one who wishes he would keep his word about resigning. He has made it such a personal crusade that I don't see any indication that he even bothers to consider whether opening it is right or wrong. Getting his way seems to be the important thing to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:56 PM

What kind of a cynical ploy was this, tagging the wildlife-refuge drilling on to the back of a defence spending bill? And they came within four votes of getting aay with it.

Having probably seen more of Alaska than nearly everyone in this thread, I m completely dismayed at the prospect that its priceless eco-system should be put at risk so that dopes like DougR can carry on squandering oil with complete peace of mind.

People of the DougR mentality are on course to destroy Alaska, and consequently the rest of the continent, regardless of what happens in the ANWR. If they think that sounds far-fetched, they need to look at what's been happening to the temperature of the permafrost in recent years. From this they will realise that the permafrost will melt some time soon, reducing much of Alaska and northern Canada to an arid desert. As the region is such a colossal proportion of the north American continent, the ramifications will be felt across the whole continent.

No need for Doug to worry though - it's not going to happen in his lifetime, quite. The mess will be for his kids, and their kids, to sort out.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 12:24 AM

Pat Henry, Juneau, Alaska

"We're biting off more than we can chew
We're biting off more than we can chew
We're biting off more than we can chew
Me and you. So what are we going to do?
We'll leave it to our children
We'll just leave it to our chldren..."

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 02:39 AM

I'm so happy to hear this.

Someone is finally listening.

So much irreversible damage for so little, short term profit.

It also shows how sleazy some politicians can be.

Good on ya, U.S.

This is a very good sign.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:22 AM

Carol C: I find your statement that "we likely will be less dependent upon foreign sources for oil" interesting. How do you think that will come about?

Innovation, DougR... and technology, science, entrepreneurial spirit... you know... the same stuff that put men on the moon. Just because something hasn't occured in your mind yet, doesn't mean it will never occur.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:28 AM

Carol: Your repetition of your existing quote for emphasis merely highlighted a speculative opinion not supported by any facts that I'm aware of.

Your not being aware of them is not proof, or even an indication that they don't exist.

No one expects the Porcupine Herd to be severely depopulated.

Obviously someone does... hence the quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 03:54 PM

There are no anticipated serious consequences to the Porcupine Caribou Herd. The anticipated serious consequences 'may' be to human beings who want to exploit the Porcupine Caribou Herd.

So it's mainly a competition between resources animal and resources mineral. (Ain't many vegetables up there).

Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:51 PM

That's not necessarily true, robomatic. This article discusses research done on the caribou herd as well as other herds that shows a potential for serious impact on the caribou herd from petroleum development in the north slope...

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part5.htm

According to the following site, the consequences go far beyond just economic considerations for humans...

"The porcupine caribou herd are a vital part of ANWR's eco-system and therefore must be taken into great consideration when planning the most environmentally efficient way to extract oil . The porcupine' caribou herd's relation to the Coastal Plain is part of an unaltered system which brings new life to the Caribou after a long and harsh winter."

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2007/teams/finalwebsite/environment/te_pcaribou.html

And they have a good point. The caribou is a lynchpin species in that part of the world. They are not a species that can be eliminated without serious consequences for the whole system.