House Drops Arctic Drilling From Bill

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87
I know, it is kind of a funny thing to watch. What makes the land in ANWR worth saving but the farm fields being goggled up south of Chicago not? Both are wilderness that will be developed for the use of this nation.

Wait, so anwr AND farmland south of a MAJOR metro area are both "wilderness?" Jebus *effing* christ, did you get this from Rush, maybe Hannity, or O'Rielly? Wait, probably all three, eh? Land that has been developed by man for the cultivation of crops is not wilderness OR a National Park. Sorry to burst your buble like that kiddo.

What makes the land within a "national" park so special? Because some special interest group lobbied enough in congress to get it cordoned off?

Your logic breaks down bigtime.

So, your logic is: to hell with it all? Mine it, drill it, pave over the damn thing, rape it all you want. Im not going to have kids, but my sister has kids and they may have kids.

BTW, the land within a National Park is special because Scientists (biologists, geologists, ecologists, etc) have deemed it so. What is so special about your black heart? Maybe we can just take it out and see what happens? Afterall, its only trained professionals claiming that it does anything, eh?

Oh, I didnt realize scientists made laws regarding our national parks. That is interesting stuff right there.

My point is quite simple. What about ANWR makes it not worth touching? We have no problem tearing up millions of acres of farmland and forest around our urban areas each year for expansion and forcing the wildlife off of it. Yet we have a problem developing 2000 acres in a remote wilderness park 3 people visit a year and 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of American will never see and I bet 98% doesnt even know where it is on a map?

You point is obviously pitted with lots of anger about land you will never see.

Your myopia and the right-wing myopia has no bounds. Were you part of the "Regan/ME" generation? Take all you can get NOW, to hell with the future...snort it, drink it, spend it, inject it, take it, *eff* it.

And what if I am? What does that have to do with this discussion about why we should or shoudnt drill in ANWR?

I think your idea that land around a city is not worth as much as land in a remote wilderness to be hypocritial and lacks reasoning

You dont know anything about logistics or what constitutes pristine land do you?

The infrastructure for getting the oil to the ships is already there.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Genx87
26 years @ 1 million barrels a day.

No small amount of oil.

For these numbers you better start providing links for your source.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Bullsh!t. Big oil has LOTS of money to burn, why not throw a few billion in there to get a little oil out. Of course they would.
Your last little dig assumes this thing is going to go through. We'll see. If it's anything like the rest of Bush's dream list, it ain't goin no fvckin place. Oh, except for the war. That continues to go to hell in a handbasket. :thumbsup:

I have a lot of money. I don't waste it on piddly investments. Nor would I take a gamble at getting only a few percentage points return. Just because big oil has a lot of money doesn't mean they piss it away. You, obviously, are not going to get rich off of any investments. I hope your boyfriend makes the financial decisions.

There is well over 2 billion barrells of easily recoverable oil in ANWR. There may be as many as 10 billion barrles of the stuff. That could provide us with 1 million barrels of oil per day for anywhere between 5 years and 25 years. That is a lot of oil. Imagine if we could boycott the ME oil for 2 or 3 years?

ANWR will eventually go through. I guarantee it.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: pinion9


There are about 200 people that live on ANWR. 200 people in 19 million acres. That is about 100,000 acres per person. They won't notice the oil companies there. If they do, F THEM!

Perhaps you can learn along with me. Caribou migrate
Thus affecting more then just the aboriginal people who live directly in the ANWR
The Anwr is the calving grounds

Because the herd's principal calving and post-calving grounds lie within the area proposed for development, this most critical phase of the caribou's life cycle could be severely disrupted. The 1002 lands contain the richest grazing land and the most protection from predators and insects. If the herd were displaced to poorer and less protected feeding grounds, the survival of the cows and newborn calves during migration could be threatened. Canada is also concerned that the pipelines, roads and other infrastructure associated with development could alter the herd's migration routes into Canada
Any decline in the herd would significantly alter the lifestyles of Aboriginal people who have depended on the Porcupine caribou for thousands of years. The herd is the primary source of food and an essential element of social structure for the 7,000 members of the Gwitch'in Nation in Canada and Alaska. Unlike Aboriginal groups who live on the Alaskan coastal plain, the inland Gwitch'in would have few alternative sources of food if the caribou herd were diminished or its migration routes altered.

Link

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: homercles337

You dont know anything about logistics or what constitutes pristine land do you?

If you think the land they want to drill in ANWR is "pristine" then you don't know much about pristine land either.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87
26 years @ 1 million barrels a day.

No small amount of oil.

For these numbers you better start providing links for your source.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr...fe_refuge/html/analysisdiscussion.html

Statistical mean of 10.3 billion barrels of oil recoverable in area 1002 and a 5% chance it can be near 16 billion barrels.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: pinion9


There are about 200 people that live on ANWR. 200 people in 19 million acres. That is about 100,000 acres per person. They won't notice the oil companies there. If they do, F THEM!

Perhaps you can learn along with me. Caribou migrate
Thus affecting more then just the aboriginal people who live directly in the ANWR
The Anwr is the calving grounds

Because the herd's principal calving and post-calving grounds lie within the area proposed for development, this most critical phase of the caribou's life cycle could be severely disrupted. The 1002 lands contain the richest grazing land and the most protection from predators and insects. If the herd were displaced to poorer and less protected feeding grounds, the survival of the cows and newborn calves during migration could be threatened. Canada is also concerned that the pipelines, roads and other infrastructure associated with development could alter the herd's migration routes into Canada
Any decline in the herd would significantly alter the lifestyles of Aboriginal people who have depended on the Porcupine caribou for thousands of years. The herd is the primary source of food and an essential element of social structure for the 7,000 members of the Gwitch'in Nation in Canada and Alaska. Unlike Aboriginal groups who live on the Alaskan coastal plain, the inland Gwitch'in would have few alternative sources of food if the caribou herd were diminished or its migration routes altered.

Link

The carribou are in ANWR... not where they want to drill. ANWR is bigger than a lot of states.

And then there is my response to your other "Oh NOES the Carribou!" post.

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Canadian Environment Minister Stephane Dion has said the plan will disrupt a caribou herd that migrates through the Yukon to the refuge.

He said that would make life harder for aboriginals who depend on the herd for food

It looks like this would affect some aboriginal people
We are not just talking about trees

This argument comes up every time we open a new field. It has yet to come true. All of the doom & gloom prophecies concerning the carribou have not only turned out to be false, they have been 180 degrees out of whack.

The best example of this was the belief that the pipeline would kill off the Porkupine carribou herd. Not only did it not kill off the herd... in just under 20 years the heard tripled in size from ~8000 animals to just over 24,000 animals.

They also thought the pipeline would disrupt migration patterns. Again, nope. Carribou walk under it, over it, around it... they hold their calves up against it in the winter to keep them warm.

What's more, the herd in question doesn't hang out on the coast. They are pretty far inland, where drilling isn't going to happen.

(And there isn't a tree within 100 miles of where the drilling is going to happen.)

EDIT: Mixed up my herd names... but my point still stands.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: pinion9


There are about 200 people that live on ANWR. 200 people in 19 million acres. That is about 100,000 acres per person. They won't notice the oil companies there. If they do, F THEM!

Perhaps you can learn along with me. Caribou migrate
Thus affecting more then just the aboriginal people who live directly in the ANWR
The Anwr is the calving grounds

Because the herd's principal calving and post-calving grounds lie within the area proposed for development, this most critical phase of the caribou's life cycle could be severely disrupted. The 1002 lands contain the richest grazing land and the most protection from predators and insects. If the herd were displaced to poorer and less protected feeding grounds, the survival of the cows and newborn calves during migration could be threatened. Canada is also concerned that the pipelines, roads and other infrastructure associated with development could alter the herd's migration routes into Canada
Any decline in the herd would significantly alter the lifestyles of Aboriginal people who have depended on the Porcupine caribou for thousands of years. The herd is the primary source of food and an essential element of social structure for the 7,000 members of the Gwitch'in Nation in Canada and Alaska. Unlike Aboriginal groups who live on the Alaskan coastal plain, the inland Gwitch'in would have few alternative sources of food if the caribou herd were diminished or its migration routes altered.

Link

They said the same thing about the pipeline and were wrong:

"When the pipeline was put in, environmentalists warned that it would be the end of the world and would kill wildlife. Instead, the caribou population increased by six-fold and they loved snuggling up to the warm pipes. The western Arctic Caribou herd went from 75,000 to 490,000 since the pipeline was installed."

Link

The oil companies spend a LOT of money to ensure that there are no ill effects on wildlife. They hire biologists, do studies, and make changes if necessary. Ever heard of survival of the fittest? These herds will adapt, as they always do. They provide food for 7,000 members? You are telling me we shouldn't drill, which will help the 300 million Americans, because it may affect 7000 people? That is .002 % of the population of America. Ever heard of "The greastest good for the greatest amount of people?" 300,000,000 is 5 orders of magnitude greater than the people it would affect.

Have you ever been to Alaska? Have you ever visited ANWR? Do you have any idea what 19 million acres looks like? Do you realize that if ANWR were a state, it would be bigger than 10 other states in the US? We are only talking about a piece of desolate, barren coast line roughly the size of 8 of the astro-dome parking lots? We could fit the following states into ANWR: Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey and Massachusettes. All for 220 residents?
Link
Plus, when the oil runs out, it isn't as if the oil companies raze the structures and call 'er done. They completely restore the land.

I fail to see any convincing argument not to drill in ANWR. Claiming it is a pristine wilderness is not a valid argument.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Good point... IIRC they actually pay into a fund that is kept specifically for restoring the land when they are done. I know that pipeline revenues are saved for its removal when they are done with it.

FYI to all the haters out there... here is a map of the 1002 section of ANWR... NOT ANWR... Just the small 1002 section of ANWR. The yellow areas are the areas where drilling will occur. Note how it hugs the coast. There are no carribou on the coast.

Link

 

[Orignal Earl]

The best example of this was the belief that the pipeline would kill off the Porkupine carribou herd. Not only did it not kill off the herd... in just under 20 years the heard tripled in size from ~8000 animals to just over 24,000 animals.

I'm just learning about this as I go along
By reading the link, i assumed that this drilling was going to happen in the calving area

Because the herd's principal calving and post-calving grounds lie within the area proposed for development, this most critical phase of the caribou's life cycle could be severely disrupted

Which had not been drilled before, and so we don't know how it would affect the herds

I've seen the effects of stopping the seal hunt for the well being of some city folks mental state, so I do realize that not all environmentalists should be listened too
I'm open to all points on this topic

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

I'm just learning about this as I go along
By reading the link, i assumed that this drilling was going to happen in the calving area

Which had not been drilled before, and so we don't know how it would affect the herds

I've seen the effects of stopping the seal hunt for the well being of some city folks mental state, so I do realize that not all environmentalists should be listened too
I'm open to all points on this topic

I submit that the calving area is arbitrary. There is nothing special about it. It is just there. They will move if interrupted. I would also like to submit a link to a picture of a developed area.
Caribou near structures
Can you tell me, do they look tramautized? It has no affect on them. The area is very large. It is akin to having a big tree in your yard. Sure, you can't walk through it, but it is very easy to just walk around it. It isn't as if there is a nest of caribou and they put it on top of their hive.

 

[pinion9]

CaribouHere is another great picture of some caribou hanging out on a concrete pad.

The animals don't care about the structures. They act as if nothing happened. See more pictures of wildlife interacting with the structures here. Please, someone give me a convincing argument with empirical evidence that this ruins wildlife. I don't care if it "looks ugly." We have already established that you have 19 million other acres to look at.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Genx87
26 years @ 1 million barrels a day.

No small amount of oil.

QFT.

Although it is a small fraction when you look at how much oil the US consumes on a daily basis (around 20 million barrels) it is hardly "a small amount" of Oil as the leftists would have us believe.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

The best example of this was the belief that the pipeline would kill off the Porkupine carribou herd. Not only did it not kill off the herd... in just under 20 years the heard tripled in size from ~8000 animals to just over 24,000 animals.

I'm just learning about this as I go along
By reading the link, i assumed that this drilling was going to happen in the calving area

Because the herd's principal calving and post-calving grounds lie within the area proposed for development, this most critical phase of the caribou's life cycle could be severely disrupted

Which had not been drilled before, and so we don't know how it would affect the herds

I've seen the effects of stopping the seal hunt for the well being of some city folks mental state, so I do realize that not all environmentalists should be listened too
I'm open to all points on this topic

Thank God.

Welcome to Alaska's plight. One fraught with environmentalists who are more than willing to distort, manipulate, omit, exaggerate and generally mangle the truth to get their point across.

The photo I posted above is a good example. Just because carribou happen to cross over a part of 1002 doesn't mean that they are in jeapordy because of drilling on it.

And even if the carribou were in the immediate vicinity of the drilling we already know that they very rapidly adapt to the machinery being in their back yard. On more than one occasion, while driving from one camp to another camp in Prudhoe, I have had to stop to allow a herd of carribou to cross the road. They don't seem too upset about their situation. Half the time they just stand there and you have to wait for them to move along.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Nice pics pinion. I can't find my pics from my trips to Prudhoe. I had a great shot I took from the plane of a bunch of carribou gathered around and walking under a distrubution pipe.

 

[DealMonkey]

I would be more receptive to opening ANWR if there are some concessions made: First, the 50/50 split in royalties that Congress is looking for ... that 50% should be reinvested in (A) Further subsidies for hybrid vehicles, (B) Alternative fuel R&D, (C) Direct investment in hybrid (or other fuel-efficient) vehicles to replace existing fleets of standard gas vehicles (i.e. the USPS vehicles, etc.).

Additionally, the big oil companies that win contracts in ANWR need to: (A) Agree to reinvesting a certain percentage of their profits to building new refineries, and (B) Give up the tax cuts they received in the energy bill.

Make it happen and we can talk. 😀

 

[Orignal Earl]

I looked at the pics from the oil company site and saw the animals hanging around
( and the cute eskimo lady who works for the company 😉 )

There's a big difference between that and the place that an animal will give birth
Things as simple as vibration and noise will cause a grizzly to abandon cubs
I've seen alot of pics of happy lions sitting in zoo's. but somehow i don't think they are really happy

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
I looked at the pics from the oil company site and saw the animals hanging around
( and the cute eskimo lady who works for the company 😉 )

There's a big difference between that and the place that an animal will give birth
Things as simple as vibration and noise will cause a grizzly to abandon cubs
I've seen alot of pics of happy lions sitting in zoo's. but somehow i don't think they are really happy

In a zoo they have maybe a few thousand square feet to hang around. ANWR animals have 19 million acres in which to choose to roam. If they didn't like it, they would be elsewhere. Comparing 19 million acres of free space to a zoo is ignorant. Those animals choose to be there.

As far as the vibrations, I would need to see some sort of evidence that it is the case.
Edit: I would also assume that a grizzly would leave her cubs if the vibrations startled her. If they are used to the vibrations, they will not be startled and not left. As a preemptive measure, we could start vibrating the ground before drilling 😛

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Legend
Can an environmentalist explain something to me. Would oil drilling really affect more than 5% of the Alaskan wilderness?

I'm for alternate energy research, but I'm trying to understand why not to drill oil in the meantime.

It would affect about 2000 acres out of millions. These same people who cheer for this will be back here in 10 years complaining about oil prices.

10 years huh? Try like 6 months until we're back at the level we are now if we started drilling today. Drilling in ANWR won't do anything but allow the soccer mom's to keep driving their minivans a little while longer.

What we need is money funnelling into research for alternative sources and NOT into some big oil company's CEO's pocket.

President Carter helped the U.S. raise gasoline prices from $0.61 to $1.38. The Democrats said; "we should be paying $5 a gallon like they do in Europe."

Vice President Gore promised to tax the American Automobile out of existence partially through taxes on gasoline. The Democrats voted for him.

Senator Kerry, in 1999, tried to pass a $.50 tax hike on gasoline which would have raised it from $1.50 to $2.00. The Democrats voted for him.

Bush helped the U.S. raise gasoline prices from $1.69 to, currently, $2.15. For the challenged that is less than the tax hike introduced by Kerry, less than the promised hike by Gore, and much less than Carter, even ignoring inflationary adjustments. The Democrats say; "Bush Lied, People Died!"

It is not about the cost of gasoline or oil it is about who is in office.

Another example. The oil company Vice President Cheney was paid by has been given many awards for their environmental practices. The Democrats hate that he was involved with an oil company, or at least that is what they say. Vice President Al Gore has been cited many times by the EPA for polluting the land and water on his land. The environmental groups have charged him and his company for environmental damage. The Democrats love him.

It is not the act it is the person. Reality is to be ignored when it does not fit their agenda.

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I would be more receptive to opening ANWR if there are some concessions made: First, the 50/50 split in royalties that Congress is looking for ... that 50% should be reinvested in (A) Further subsidies for hybrid vehicles, (B) Alternative fuel R&D, (C) Direct investment in hybrid (or other fuel-efficient) vehicles to replace existing fleets of standard gas vehicles (i.e. the USPS vehicles, etc.).

Additionally, the big oil companies that win contracts in ANWR need to: (A) Agree to reinvesting a certain percentage of their profits to building new refineries, and (B) Give up the tax cuts they received in the energy bill.

Make it happen and we can talk. 😀

a lot of times the companies that drill for oil, are different than those that refine it. Valero only refines oil. Same with Exxon.

The only reason those 5 execs testified is because most gas stations carry their name. there are hundreds of companies in the US alone that are in some part of the oil business.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I would be more receptive to opening ANWR if there are some concessions made: First, the 50/50 split in royalties that Congress is looking for ... that 50% should be reinvested in (A) Further subsidies for hybrid vehicles, (B) Alternative fuel R&D, (C) Direct investment in hybrid (or other fuel-efficient) vehicles to replace existing fleets of standard gas vehicles (i.e. the USPS vehicles, etc.).

Additionally, the big oil companies that win contracts in ANWR need to: (A) Agree to reinvesting a certain percentage of their profits to building new refineries, and (B) Give up the tax cuts they received in the energy bill.

Make it happen and we can talk. 😀

It's supposed to be 90/10.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: pinion9


In a zoo they have maybe a few thousand square feet to hang around. ANWR animals have 19 million acres in which to choose to roam. If they didn't like it, they would be elsewhere. Comparing 19 million acres of free space to a zoo is ignorant. Those animals choose to be there.

But were not talking about all 19 million acres, You want to drill where the caribou are birthing
The caribou don't just pick a place on a map and go there, they go to the place because its ideal for the birthing, away from preditors, lots of grazing land etc
And this is all done in a real delicate balance

You can almost set your watch to when the Porcupine caribou calve ? almost always between June 1 and 10. Adult females are in the poorest condition of the year when they arrive on the calving grounds and, after giving birth, are dependent on the area?s high-energy food to produce milk for their nursing calves. The general absence of wolves (who aren?t in the area because of a lack of denning sites), and the steady cool breeze off the ice of the Arctic Ocean (which keeps the insects at bay) are just some of the characteristics that make this area worthy of a 2-month-long 1,000km migration (see Calving Grounds backgrounder). Even with this sanctuary, life is difficult. An average of 25% of the calves get killed by golden eagles, grizzly bears, sudden storms, and accidents in their first month of life.

Cows are least tolerant of human disturbance while on the calving grounds, which is why the Gwich?in people have a longstanding taboo against even visiting the area. It is a taboo that is being disregarded by the oil and gas companies, as well as the Alaskan and US federal governments, who are keen on opening up fossil fuel reserves in the heart of the caribou?s calving grounds

Link

Now if all 19 million acres is exactly like this then I guess you may be right

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
It is not the act it is the person. Reality is to be ignored when it does not fit their agenda.

QFT.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

But were not talking about all 19 million acres, You want to drill where the caribou are birthing
The caribou don't just pick a place on a map and go there, they go to the place because its ideal for the birthing, away from preditors, lots of grazing land etc
And this is all done in a real delicate balance

Now if all 19 million acres is exactly like this then I guess you may be right

They will find another spot. What would happen if there were an earthquake and that land became unusable and rocky. Would they die? No, they are adaptive. It isn't as if that is the ONLY place in the 19 million acres for them to birth. Who cares if they are displaced by a mile?

Again, we would be benefitting 300 million Americans. You are saying that the birthing ground of caribou is inherently more important than partially eliminating a dependence on foreign oil. Look at your own state. Where are you from? Alaska's reliance on imported oil is 0%. Florida's reliance on imported oil is 69%. New York's reliance on foreign oil is 87%. North Carolina's reliance is 53%.

It isn't a binary choice. We can develop ANWR while looking at fuel alternatives. But ANWR oil will help us, and even if we came up with mainstream hybrid cars, we would STILL need oil to heat our homes and power the "legacy" vehicles, as well as jets, boats, etc. ANWR isn't THE answer, but it is part of the solution to a big problem that will only get worse.

Alternate solution: Neutron bomb all of middle east and take over the place. I would LOVE that solution, but it won't happen.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I would be more receptive to opening ANWR if there are some concessions made: First, the 50/50 split in royalties that Congress is looking for ... that 50% should be reinvested in (A) Further subsidies for hybrid vehicles, (B) Alternative fuel R&D, (C) Direct investment in hybrid (or other fuel-efficient) vehicles to replace existing fleets of standard gas vehicles (i.e. the USPS vehicles, etc.).

Additionally, the big oil companies that win contracts in ANWR need to: (A) Agree to reinvesting a certain percentage of their profits to building new refineries, and (B) Give up the tax cuts they received in the energy bill.

Make it happen and we can talk. 😀

It's supposed to be 90/10.

You think Alaska's getting 90%? Or Congress?