|
12 Oct 05 - 07:29 PM (#1581819) Subject: BS: Latest on ANWR From: robomatic 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. |
|
12 Oct 05 - 07:43 PM (#1581835) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: pdq ...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. |
|
12 Oct 05 - 08:01 PM (#1581850) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: CarolC 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. |
|
16 Oct 05 - 10:19 AM (#1584103) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: robomatic 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." |
|
16 Oct 05 - 01:01 PM (#1584182) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: pdq 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 |
|
16 Oct 05 - 02:59 PM (#1584222) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: DougR We need the oil if we are ever going to become less dependent upon getting it from the Middle East. DougR |
|
16 Oct 05 - 04:09 PM (#1584239) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: robomatic 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. |
|
16 Oct 05 - 11:45 PM (#1584397) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: CarolC 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. |
|
17 Oct 05 - 02:51 PM (#1584773) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: GUEST,rarelamb 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). |
|
17 Oct 05 - 03:43 PM (#1584799) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
17 Oct 05 - 04:30 PM (#1584829) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: DougR 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 |
|
17 Oct 05 - 05:17 PM (#1584864) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: robomatic 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. |
|
18 Oct 05 - 11:20 PM (#1585895) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
18 Oct 05 - 11:36 PM (#1585908) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: robomatic Ron, I agree with your last statement, but would add that the rise in fuel prices is the ultimate advocacy. |
|
19 Oct 05 - 08:09 PM (#1586621) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: pdq ...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 |
|
20 Oct 05 - 07:40 AM (#1586832) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
20 Oct 05 - 08:37 AM (#1586876) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: GUEST,H Yes, the "decrease in calf survivability" in ANWR will probably cause the Chicago area to become a vast waste land. Good grief! |
|
20 Oct 05 - 10:25 PM (#1587472) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ron Davies 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? |
|
21 Oct 05 - 12:49 AM (#1587531) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: DougR 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 |
|
21 Oct 05 - 02:35 PM (#1587902) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: DougR 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 |
|
22 Oct 05 - 12:34 AM (#1588199) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
22 Oct 05 - 08:47 AM (#1588360) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: robomatic 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. |
|
24 Oct 05 - 09:50 PM (#1590169) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
24 Oct 05 - 10:30 PM (#1590205) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: GUEST Have you been to the northern part of ANWR? |
|
24 Oct 05 - 11:25 PM (#1590237) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: DougR Ron: I was quoting from a story in the Arizona Republic. That was the only figure used in the story. DougR |
|
25 Oct 05 - 11:03 AM (#1590495) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: robomatic 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? |
|
25 Oct 05 - 11:41 PM (#1590870) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
26 Oct 05 - 12:58 PM (#1590925) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Bill D 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. |
|
04 Nov 05 - 07:45 AM (#1597195) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: beardedbruce http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/04/anwr.drilling.ap/index.html |
|
04 Nov 05 - 10:47 AM (#1597312) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ebbie 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." |
|
04 Nov 05 - 10:46 PM (#1597797) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
04 Nov 05 - 11:36 PM (#1597819) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Cluin 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. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 12:00 AM (#1597826) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Peace Seems that when oil companies want 'more', they create less. I am of the opinion that most of the shortages have been manufactured. |
|
09 Nov 05 - 11:29 PM (#1601140) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ebbie 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. |
|
09 Nov 05 - 11:40 PM (#1601144) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: number 6 "most of the shortages have been manufactured" HuH ??? sIx :) |
|
10 Nov 05 - 06:05 AM (#1601282) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: GUEST,ANWAR Oil volume is just hyped up 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. |
|
10 Nov 05 - 04:26 PM (#1601678) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: robomatic 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. |
|
10 Nov 05 - 10:45 PM (#1601952) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
10 Nov 05 - 10:48 PM (#1601957) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ron Davies The Guest however is correct-Refuge oil is indeed hyped up. |
|
21 Dec 05 - 01:19 PM (#1632277) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ebbie 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 |
|
21 Dec 05 - 03:19 PM (#1632367) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: robomatic 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'" |
|
21 Dec 05 - 04:18 PM (#1632410) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Don Firth 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 |
|
21 Dec 05 - 05:16 PM (#1632435) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ebbie 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. |
|
21 Dec 05 - 08:56 PM (#1632552) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Peter K (Fionn) 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. |
|
22 Dec 05 - 12:24 AM (#1632651) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ebbie 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..." |
|
22 Dec 05 - 02:39 AM (#1632683) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: dianavan 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. |
|
22 Dec 05 - 10:22 AM (#1632903) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: CarolC 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. |
|
22 Dec 05 - 10:28 AM (#1632907) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: CarolC 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. |
|
22 Dec 05 - 03:54 PM (#1633196) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: robomatic 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). |
|
22 Dec 05 - 05:51 PM (#1633303) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: CarolC 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. |
|
23 Dec 05 - 01:06 PM (#1633916) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: robomatic So provided the caribou can be provided for, which is feasible, you have no objections to proceeding with oil exploration? The caribou are not endangered by any proposals I've heard. The impact most mentioned is a change in caribou migratory paths which would impact the humans who hunt them. |
|
23 Dec 05 - 01:27 PM (#1633936) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: CarolC So provided the caribou can be provided for, which is feasible, you have no objections to proceeding with oil exploration? Not necessarily. I need to know a lot more about other factors related to environmental impact before I could say I have no objections. |
|
23 Dec 05 - 08:13 PM (#1634238) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: dianavan From Indian and Northern Affairs Canada - "The Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation has about 400 members, most of whom live in Old Crow, a community located north of the Arctic Circle in the Yukon Territory of Canada. The Vuntut Gwitchin depend heavily on the Porcupine Caribou, a source of food and other products that has sustained them for thousands of years. In recent years, intended oil exploration and development in the area has threatened the herd's calving grounds." The female caribou need the rich source of protein which they find on the calving grounds. They need these plants to sustain them during lactation as well. If the caribou die, the Gwitchin culture will also die. Thats called cultural genocide. |
|
23 Dec 05 - 08:26 PM (#1634251) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: robomatic I can't speak for the Canada side, but I've been through calving grounds during calving season, and no Caribou were dying. Due to the strong State Regulations and Regulators, there were travel restrictions imposed and equipment operating restrictions. These appeared to work in the area I actually saw. There are many caribou herds throughout Alaska and I'm not aware of any of them being threatened. They are all monitored and some if not the majority are hunted. There are Gwichin on the US side of the border with concerns as to migratory changes that may occur. Their culture is alive and well. They have a political voice and they use it. Thanks for your concern. |
|
23 Dec 05 - 08:47 PM (#1634270) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: GUEST almost buried in the good news is the detail about how Stevens tried to sneak it in by attaching it to another important bill...literally at the last minute..(luckily, caught and removed). This sort of last-minute attachment was supposedly outlawed by Senate rules awhile back, but is 'routinely ignored' according to the Wash Post. I'd LOVE to see a serious ban against marrying unrelated bills for the sake of pork-barrel legislation....but I suppose every politician wonders when HE will need that trick for his own purposes. |
|
24 Dec 05 - 03:15 PM (#1634682) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: Ron Davies Guest------Bingo. |
|
24 Dec 05 - 05:25 PM (#1634762) Subject: RE: BS: Latest on ANWR From: dick greenhaus Does any old fart (beside me) remember a Crocket Johnson comic strip called Barnaby? There was an episode where Mr. O'Malley, his fairy godfather, pushed an unpopular bill through Congess as a rider on a motion to adjourn. Somehow, it was funnier then (ca 1942) |