Originally posted by: dullard
Drilling blocked in Senate.
Originally posted by: dullard
Drilling blocked in Senate.
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: dullard
Drilling blocked in Senate.
Sweet!
It can be filibustered.
This is a good thing on so many levels. Obviously it's fantastic for America and Americans but it's also a good thing for Alaska. What's more, it keeps all the oil underground.
Hopefully "you wont see a drop of that oil forever..."
*happy dance*
Originally posted by: Harvey
Strong the forces of ignorance are in this one. No Jedi knight, here. :roll:Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Exactly. Since Oil is NON-renewable resource, it was only a matter of time until the government was forced into drilling up there to meet our energy demands.
Besides, ANWR is a sub-arctic wasteland. Almost no one is going to miss it, except for a few animals that will probably be smart enough migrate elsewhere.
Under the most optimistic estimates, Anwar contains one to two years of oil resources, probably less, and it will take at least ten years before we would see any of it. The "few animals" you mention are part of an ecosystem. As a service to planet Earth, and with all due respect, please STFU until you understand at least a little about the ramifications of your ill infomed, mindless statement.
Thanks on behalf of the residents of Planet Earth.
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Dude... you're the mindless, ill-informed one. Using your math, Prudhoe Bay would have dried up 26 years ago. Is Prudhoe and the pipeline not a vital national interest? Of course it is. ANWR would add to that and be a productive national resource for another 20-30 years (Long after Prudhoe is expected to dry up).
As for the ecosystem... It has been proven time and time again that the ecosystem adapts quite well to the circumstances. Carribou herd populations have thrived in drilling areas all over the slope. They nurse, migrate and play all over, under and around the pipeline. It doesn't bother them. And by using the newer technologies that have been developed since Prudhoe and Kuparuk the overall footprint needed to extract will be smaller than those projects.
You are simply wrong on this one.
LinkWhat's the risk in development?
Depends who you ask. The oil companies say modern technology makes drilling for oil in sensitive areas far safer than it ever was.
The Inupiat say they are satisfied that development can be carried on safely. They point to the Prudhoe Bay oil field to the west of the refuge as an example of how development and traditional life can co-exist.
However, BP Amoco, the major oil company at Prudhoe, has had some challenges. On Sept. 23, 1999, the company pleaded guilty to a federal felony connected to illegal dumping of hazardous waste at their Endicott Oil Field near Prudhoe Bay. As part of a plea agreement BP Amoco agreed to pay $22 million in criminal and civil penalties.
The U.S Public Interest Research Group says between January 1997 and March 1998 BP was responsible for 104 oil spills in Prudhoe Bay.
The Gwich'in argue that drilling for oil and building the pipelines that will be needed to ship it south will endanger the caribou herd.
The Porcupine herd has been steadily growing over the past few decades. However, an American government study on the caribou herd concludes that while the herd appears strong now, "productivity [of the herd] can and will decline if the cumulative loss of preferred habitat, when superimposed on natural forces, is sufficient to compromise nutrition."
Environmentalists have described it as the American Serengeti ? the country's last chunk of pristine wilderness. It is home to caribou, musk oxen, moose, wolves, polar, brown and black bears, and 180 species of migratory birds. The caribou form the huge Porcupine caribou herd, which migrates between Alaska, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Dude... you're the mindless, ill-informed one. Using your math, Prudhoe Bay would have dried up 26 years ago. Is Prudhoe and the pipeline not a vital national interest? Of course it is. ANWR would add to that and be a productive national resource for another 20-30 years (Long after Prudhoe is expected to dry up).
As for the ecosystem... It has been proven time and time again that the ecosystem adapts quite well to the circumstances. Carribou herd populations have thrived in drilling areas all over the slope. They nurse, migrate and play all over, under and around the pipeline. It doesn't bother them. And by using the newer technologies that have been developed since Prudhoe and Kuparuk the overall footprint needed to extract will be smaller than those projects.
You are simply wrong on this one.
Dude, we've discussed this already and the fact is no one knows how drilling would affect the caribou because this is their calving area and even the Gwich'in stay away from the area because of how skittish the caribou are during this time
Besides you think we should trust the oil company?
LinkWhat's the risk in development?
Depends who you ask. The oil companies say modern technology makes drilling for oil in sensitive areas far safer than it ever was.
The Inupiat say they are satisfied that development can be carried on safely. They point to the Prudhoe Bay oil field to the west of the refuge as an example of how development and traditional life can co-exist.
However, BP Amoco, the major oil company at Prudhoe, has had some challenges. On Sept. 23, 1999, the company pleaded guilty to a federal felony connected to illegal dumping of hazardous waste at their Endicott Oil Field near Prudhoe Bay. As part of a plea agreement BP Amoco agreed to pay $22 million in criminal and civil penalties.
The U.S Public Interest Research Group says between January 1997 and March 1998 BP was responsible for 104 oil spills in Prudhoe Bay.
The Gwich'in argue that drilling for oil and building the pipelines that will be needed to ship it south will endanger the caribou herd.
The Porcupine herd has been steadily growing over the past few decades. However, an American government study on the caribou herd concludes that while the herd appears strong now, "productivity [of the herd] can and will decline if the cumulative loss of preferred habitat, when superimposed on natural forces, is sufficient to compromise nutrition."
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
We've been there and done that. We know it doesn't hurt them. They are and have been just fine.
Originally posted by: loup garou
I'd just like to give a big thank you to the asshole attached this crap to the bill along with hurricane relief. Merry Christmas motherfvckers and thanks for getting our relief money shot down in the Senate.
Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
We've been there and done that. We know it doesn't hurt them. They are and have been just fine.
The oil companies have been in the ANWAR and they have drilled for oil there and we know that it doesn't affect the caribou?
Is that what your trying to tell me?
Man your not making any sense
How about this, say they write into law that drilling will be allowed but all oil checks go straight to the Gwich'in
Would you still support this, you know, for the greater American good and all
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
It's ANWR... Not ANWAR. No, we haven't drilled there. Yes we have drilled all over the North Slope. There are carribou in many other places besides ANWR. Previous drilling has had no ill effect on carribou, bird or any other wildlife populations.
The Gwich'in are in Canada. Why would we pay them? And what oil checks are you referring to anyway?
The Gwich'in are caribou people. They have lived in the north and depended on the caribou for more than 20,000 years. Caribou are at the very heart of Gwich'in culture. As Gwich'in activist and Caribou Commons Project speaker Norma Kassi says, "The relationship between the Gwich'in and the caribou is not one of convenience; it is one of necessity. A healthy Porcupine caribou herd is necessary for the continued survival of Gwich'in culture."
I don't care anymore. Drill all the fvck they want up there. Just keep the controversial sh1t off a bill with relief money that is needed NOW.Originally posted by: loup garou
I'd just like to give a big thank you to the asshole attached this crap to the bill along with hurricane relief. Merry Christmas motherfvckers and thanks for getting our relief money shot down in the Senate.
Biologists and Gwich'in Elders know that this sacred area is too sensitive to support industrial development. Female caribou with their newborn calves avoid the sights, sounds and smells of oil development. They would be forced to calve their young elsewhere, in places where nutrient-rich food is less plentiful and predation is greater. Wildlife biologists say that oil development would almost certainly trigger a devastating increase in caribou calf mortality, which would affect both the herd and the Gwich?in who depend on it.
The oil industry's record of environmental abuse ranges from huge disasters such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill to the less headline-grabbing daily befouling of the Arctic's land, air and water. The oil industry says it does things differently now, but every year tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other hazardous wastes continue to be spilled in Alaska?s once-pristine Arctic north slope. The oil fields annually produce more air pollution and greenhouse gases than the municipality of Washington, D.C. Ninety-five percent of Alaska's Arctic coastal plain is already open for oil development. Thousands of miles of roads and pipelines, airstrips (3.7 MB MP3), production facilities, airports and gravel pits have changed the face of the Arctic forever. It is not too late to preserve and protect this remaining five percent?also known as the 1002 Lands?in the Arctic Refuge.
It's not an oil royalty fund. It was started with oil royalties but has since diversified into one of the largest privately held trusts in the world. It is invested in everything from the stock market to real estate. SOME of its profits are derived from oil but those percentages are getting smaller and smaller.Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
It's ANWR... Not ANWAR. No, we haven't drilled there. Yes we have drilled all over the North Slope. There are carribou in many other places besides ANWR. Previous drilling has had no ill effect on carribou, bird or any other wildlife populations.
The Gwich'in are in Canada. Why would we pay them? And what oil checks are you referring to anyway?
It's caribou not carribou
There has been no ill effect on the caribou because there has been no previous drilling on their calving grounds
I am talking about your dividend check from your state's oil-royalty fund
The Gwich'in are caribou people. They have lived in the north and depended on the caribou for more than 20,000 years. Caribou are at the very heart of Gwich'in culture. As Gwich'in activist and Caribou Commons Project speaker Norma Kassi says, "The relationship between the Gwich'in and the caribou is not one of convenience; it is one of necessity. A healthy Porcupine caribou herd is necessary for the continued survival of Gwich'in culture."
Since these people would be the ones most directly affected from something happening to the caribou it would make sense they should get the checks
Link
Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
They don't KNOW that. It is their rationale for not wanting ANWR drilled.Biologists and Gwich'in Elders know that this sacred area is too sensitive to support industrial development.
This is completely false. Female caribou calve around drilling sites all the time. I've personally seen herds walk right through drilling fields like they weren't even there. They also use the pipeline to keep their young warm by pressing their calves up against it. The caribou don't care.Female caribou with their newborn calves avoid the sights, sounds and smells of oil development. They would be forced to calve their young elsewhere, in places where nutrient-rich food is less plentiful and predation is greater. Wildlife biologists say that oil development would almost certainly trigger a devastating increase in caribou calf mortality, which would affect both the herd and the Gwich?in who depend on it.
Link? Prove that one.The oil industry's record of environmental abuse ranges from huge disasters such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill to the less headline-grabbing daily befouling of the Arctic's land, air and water. The oil industry says it does things differently now, but every year tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other hazardous wastes continue to be spilled in Alaska?s once-pristine Arctic north slope.
Link? Prove that one too...The oil fields annually produce more air pollution and greenhouse gases than the municipality of Washington, D.C.
It's open for development but that doesn't mean it's being developed. We only go where the oil is. Go to Google Earth and try to find prudhoe bay just by zooming in. I know where it is and I have a hard time finding it. Find Kuparuk. Find Alpine. Maybe that will give you some perspective of just how tiny a spec of land we use for development there.Ninety-five percent of Alaska's Arctic coastal plain is already open for oil development.
Thousands of miles of roads and pipelines, airstrips (3.7 MB MP3), production facilities, airports and gravel pits have changed the face of the Arctic forever. It is not too late to preserve and protect this remaining five percent?also known as the 1002 Lands?in the Arctic Refuge.
Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
All those quotes you want me to prove all came from that link
Look, I grew up in a one room former cp rail bunkhouse, no running water, used a coal/wood stove for heating and cooking. Coyote, fox skins streched out on the walls. My family were big time hunters/trappers/fishermen and nobody knew and understood the land better. The best conservationist are the hunters themselves. If the Gwich'in say it's so, that's good enough for me. If this land is sacred it should be left alone.
From everything I'm reading the only people to profit from this are going to be the oil companies and some out of state workers ( I guess you haven't admitted getting a check every year for the oil royalties so I don't know for sure if you benefit or not )
By law, industrial activities like oil drilling can only occur on National Wildlife Refuges if such activities are formally determined to be compatible with wildlife conservation. Oil drilling has never been found to be compatible with wildlife conservation on any National Wildlife Refuge anywhere in the United States.
The oil industry claims drilling will not harm the habitat and wildlife of the fragile coastal plain. However, extreme temperatures, a short growing season, and ice limit the speed of the Arctic ecosystem's ability to recover from degradation. Despite impressive technological advances, even "responsible" drilling cannot mitigate the noise from traffic and facilities, the extraction of gravel, water loss, and the blockage of water flow, snow laced with metals such as zinc and lead, and air pollution.
The scars left on the land by drilling would extend outward in a network potentially including: 50 to 60 gravel drill sites and waste pits; three production facilities; one to three sea water treatment plants; three more airports; 280 miles of roads; ten to 15 gravel excavation sites; 100 to 150 miles of main pipeline; one to five pump stations; two to three gravel causeways; two to three marine facilities; two solid waste disposal dumps; housing for 1,500 workers; and sewage treatment, maintenance and administration facilities. A massive industrial complex would be born - on a wildlife refuge!
Today, no suitable alternative habitat exists for the Porcupine Caribou Herd if they are driven from their calving grounds by oil development. The Department of the Interior (DOI) believes that oil development would contribute to a 20-40 percent decline in the caribou population. The DOI also determined that musk oxen populations would decline by 25-50 percent and wolverine populations by 50 percent. Polar bears are particularly at risk as they are highly sensitive to human disturbances and likely to abandon their dens.
The lessons of 20 years of oil production at nearby Prudhoe Bay demonstrate the damage caused by drilling:
* Contrary to oil industry claims, oil field facilities at Prudhoe Bay are not harmless to the Central Arctic caribou population. Female caribou with newborn calves have been extremely sensitive to surface development and human activity. Over time, calving caribou withdrew from the general oilfield area and sought acceptable habitats elsewhere. Calving no longer occurs in the original Prudhoe Bay complex, and calf production and survival were occasionally very low near the oilfields.
* Prudhoe Bay has averaged 500 oil spills a year. From 1972 to 1986 the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation reported 23,000 spills of oil and other hazardous materials on the North Slope. Yearly emissions of air pollutants on the North slope include at least 4,000 tons of hydrocarbons, more than 600 tons of methane gas, and 6,000 to 27,000 tons of nitrogen oxide - as much as in Washington D.C.! US Fish and Wildlife Service studies report that snowfields around Prudhoe Bay have high concentrations of heavy metals such as zinc, lead, and copper.
rilling proponents assert that oil from the Arctic Refuge is the only viable prospect to significantly decrease our national dependence on foreign oil, increase national security, and develop a sound national energy strategy. A close look at the facts shows a very different picture.
* The United States consumes 26 percent of the world's oil. Considering that by the most optimistic figures, the Arctic Refuge will yield only 0.4 percent of the world's known oil reserves, Arctic oil will not significantly decrease our dependence on foreign oil.
* The lifting of the 22 year-old export ban on Alaskan oil in 1995 illustrated that oil from the Arctic Refuge was not needed for national security reasons.
* Simply raising the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for new cars by ten miles per gallon would save more oil in one year than all the commercially recoverable oil estimated to be found in the fragile coastal plain. Instead of feeding our national addiction to oil, a strong national energy policy must work towards energy efficiency and conservation.
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
This is completely false. Female caribou calve around drilling sites all the time. I've personally seen herds walk right through drilling fields like they weren't even there. They also use the pipeline to keep their young warm by pressing their calves up against it. The caribou don't care.
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: dullard
Drilling blocked in Senate.
Sweet!
It can be filibustered.
This is a good thing on so many levels. Obviously it's fantastic for America and Americans but it's also a good thing for Alaska. What's more, it keeps all the oil underground.
Hopefully "you wont see a drop of that oil forever..."
*happy dance*
Please explain to me how this is good for Alaska? This is like telling Michigan they can't let GM or Ford open a new plant. (Except slope jobs pay more)
I guess we'll see if Stevens will really execute plan "B". That would be for him to filibuster the ANWRless version of the bill and keep everyone there over Christmas.
What pisses me off the most is that this in just another thing that would pass easily in a straight up or down vote. Democracy "inaction" I suppose.
Because it never gets an up/down vote. It gets filibustered every time. If it would actually get a fair up/down vote it would pass. It would have passed a dozen times but the Dems keep blocking it. It's hard to blame Stevens for trying to work around the filibuster when he consistantly has the votes but is constantly blocked by the minority.Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: dullard
Drilling blocked in Senate.
Sweet!
It can be filibustered.
This is a good thing on so many levels. Obviously it's fantastic for America and Americans but it's also a good thing for Alaska. What's more, it keeps all the oil underground.
Hopefully "you wont see a drop of that oil forever..."
*happy dance*
Please explain to me how this is good for Alaska? This is like telling Michigan they can't let GM or Ford open a new plant. (Except slope jobs pay more)
I guess we'll see if Stevens will really execute plan "B". That would be for him to filibuster the ANWRless version of the bill and keep everyone there over Christmas.
What pisses me off the most is that this in just another thing that would pass easily in a straight up or down vote. Democracy "inaction" I suppose.
It's good for Alaska as the land remains untouched, unspoilt and as pristine as ever.
It may be bad for Alaskans as they will not get the increase in the yearly check - given that the federal govt spends $2 on Alaska for every $1 it gets from there what justification do the residents have for their yearly check. Perhaps the residents should pay for that extra $ and then divide whatever remains.
I'd like to see Stevens filibuster the ANWRless version of the bill. That would be priceless!
If you think this will pass easily in an up or down vote they why does Stevens have to resort to dirty tricks after trying to pass this for 25 years?
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: dullard
Drilling blocked in Senate.
Sweet!
It can be filibustered.
This is a good thing on so many levels. Obviously it's fantastic for America and Americans but it's also a good thing for Alaska. What's more, it keeps all the oil underground.
Hopefully "you wont see a drop of that oil forever..."
*happy dance*
Please explain to me how this is good for Alaska? This is like telling Michigan they can't let GM or Ford open a new plant. (Except slope jobs pay more)
I guess we'll see if Stevens will really execute plan "B". That would be for him to filibuster the ANWRless version of the bill and keep everyone there over Christmas.
What pisses me off the most is that this in just another thing that would pass easily in a straight up or down vote. Democracy "inaction" I suppose.