Results 1 to 26 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    12,200

    Thumbs down The destruction of wildlife refuge in Alaska begins

    The Senate insisted Thursday on opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling after being blocked by environmentalists for decades, then voted overwhelmingly to prohibit exporting any of the oil pumped from the region.

    Opening the refuge, which was set aside for protection 44 years ago, has been one of President Bush's top energy priorities.

    Bush can now add one more notch to his tasklist of anti-environment accomplishments.

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Under the sea
    Posts
    4,208
    This is totally ridiculous. I can't believe that they are allowing this to happen.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    602
    It wont do any good if the refineries are at full capacity so guess whats next.... More Refineries, Probably Haliburton

    I disagree with this decision and will be writing my senator - wish I wasa informed on this vote earlier.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    215
    Its a shoe in to go through as the House has often voted for this plan.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    I know this ahs been on the cards ever since Bush became President but i didn't think it would actually come to pass like this.

    What is it they call Alaska, one of the only true wildernesses remaining in America and the world. Areas like this should not only be declared National Parks but have true protection so they may continue to thrive. A window into the past.

    To override such laws or regulations would requrie something severe and desparate indeed, and their reasons for choosing to do it now are neither of those things.

    Critic,
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Critic
    I know this ahs been on the cards ever since Bush became President but i didn't think it would actually come to pass like this.

    What is it they call Alaska, one of the only true wildernesses remaining in America and the world. Areas like this should not only be declared National Parks but have true protection so they may continue to thrive. A window into the past.

    To override such laws or regulations would requrie something severe and desparate indeed, and their reasons for choosing to do it now are neither of those things.

    Critic,
    I invite Alaskans to leave the US and join Canada...
    Jean-Pierre Abboud / I'm the TekGURU
    www.Gotekky.com / Managed and Self-Managed hosting solutions
    Toll free: 1.888.915.4400 / Local: 1.514.316.1885 / Live chat
    Cloud VPS Hosting

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boise, ID U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,503
    Quote Originally Posted by J-P
    I invite Alaskans to leave the US and join Canada...
    I'm sure that will get a big response, because Alaskans really hate being subsidized by oil royalties, and they're just dying to start paying sales tax and income tax.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,802
    As I said before, it is a bad move.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Acroplex
    The Senate insisted Thursday on opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling after being blocked by environmentalists for decades, then voted overwhelmingly to prohibit exporting any of the oil pumped from the region.

    Opening the refuge, which was set aside for protection 44 years ago, has been one of President Bush's top energy priorities.

    Bush can now add one more notch to his tasklist of anti-environment accomplishments.

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html
    Personally, I just wish that all the time and effort thats been spent in fighting and debating ANWR was invested in solving the root problem: we use too much oil.

    If we could make ANY kind of headway with that issue - then the whole ANWR debate would be moot.

    Even with drilling allowed, consumers aren't going to feel even the slightest relief for many years.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    12,200
    The US does not use too much oil; wait a couple more years till China goes full force into the market as a consuming megagiant.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Acroplex
    The US does not use too much oil; wait a couple more years till China goes full force into the market as a consuming megagiant.
    Sure, we do. No one disagrees with that. Why do you think the high prices have held steady? We can't afford not to pay - there are no other alternatives.

    Of course, with China developing (and India too) the issue of supply and demand is only going to become more intense.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Interesting article.

    http://www.sierraclub.org/arctic/jus...debehavior.asp

    To many the solution to ending our dependence on foreign oil is simple: increase domestic supply.

    While close to half our oil is produced domestically, the U.S. has less than 3% of the world's known oil reserves. The numbers will never add up to oil independence. And our oil deficit is only getting worse.

    The U.S. currently imports 55% of its oil. At the height of the oil crisis in 1975, the U.S. imported just 35% of its oil. Within the next few years the U.S. Energy Information Agency projects that we will be importing nearly two-thirds of our oil.

    The persistent and growing dependence on foreign oil leaves American families vulnerable to oil exporting nations led by OPEC. The recent decision by OPEC to reduce oil supply to the world market in order to increase profits is having a direct impact in the U.S. and serves as yet another reminder that our economy and economic growth are at the mercy of foreign countries.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    9,576
    It's a good thing Bush has a history in the oil industry then...



    .... oh wait, he only drilled dry holes. My apologies. I'm sure he's a much better businessman nowdays though....

    .... or not... deficit?
    Former Webhost... now, just a guy.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,009
    Thanks for that Greg. I had to wipe the sarcasim dripping from your post, from my screen.
    AussieHost.com Aussie Bob, host since 2001
    Host Multiple Domains on Fast Australian Servers!!

  15. #15
    That's what happens when you get greedy right wingers running the country.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northwest Colorado
    Posts
    4,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Critic
    What is it they call Alaska, one of the only true wildernesses remaining in America and the world. Areas like this should not only be declared National Parks but have true protection so they may continue to thrive. A window into the past.
    They're selling the National Parks out from under us, too. And the monuments, grasslands, national forests, wildlife areas, wildlife reserves... if I've left anything off the list, don't interpret it to mean there has been any area of environmental policy that hasn't been savaged by the Bush administration. They've even undone environmental protections enacted by Reagan and Bush 41.

    Many of us career folks who thought in the latter days of the Clinton-Gore administration that things were turning around for the better in terms of public land managers finally addressing the national crisis in off-road vehicle management on our public lands, requiring vehicle route designation and rangeland reform, as well as requiring forward planning for true biodiveristy protection and global warming implications were shocked with the reversal of all environmental progress with the advent of the Bush administration. Vice President Gore's Hammer Program requiring increased government efficiency and accountability was replaced with a fraudulent program of how to ensure all subsidized uses continue with lessened restrictions under the guise of "collaboration" and "voluntary conservation". Even where discovered truths, sound science, established law and public opinion speak otherwise.
    http://www.billingsnews.com/story?st...7959&issue=280
    http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/hom.../braun/ig.html

    Heck, the excerpt above is only from the comments on the first link, about Marlene Braun's crony-induced suicide. It seems she preferred to die, than watch all her hard work be undone to appease the powerful (believe me, I live in ranch country) ranching lobby. The Bush administration's environmental policy would also have us believe that after a natural disaster like a fire or hurricane, the health of the forest and the safety of surrounding communities require so-called "restorative" logging:

    http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2...5-11-03-06.asp

    The question about this ANWR decision, is why is it tacked on as a rider to the budget bill? Perhaps because budget bills can't be filibustered and only require 51 votes instead of 60 to pass in the Senate. This is an abuse of the system and an appalling means to circumvent normal procedures to ensure that the ruling party has its way despite public opposition to the drilling proposals, and a lack of the support necessary if this issue were debated on its own merit (which is why it's never passed the Senate before). Why play by the 61-vote game if you can change the rules and get by with ten fewer?

    http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2...5-11-03-10.asp

    One thing that was added, was the requirement that this oil only be sold domestically. What's up with that? I thought we were supposed to be an open-market economy. There isn't enough oil up there to make much of an impact on our demand for foreign oil (a reduction from 55% to 50% at best). In fact, the only way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our consumption. Anyway, what purpose is served by not even selling the oil extracted on the open market? That's right, none except to sell this bill of goods as a necessity and promote the lie that it's essential for national security. Sorry for the paid NYTimes link, but there's a shenanigan regarding how the new map was drawn, and what happened to the only "official" map made of the disputed ANWR coastal plain:

    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...A90994DD404482

    The most reasonable open-market customer for this oil? China. Don't laugh, look at who the biggest customer for North Slope crude is -- not the U.S. That's right, we don't impose this restriction on the oil we currently ship out of Alaska, nor do we keep it all to ourselves to "reduce dependency on foreign supplies" or any such hogwash. Why not? Damn expensive to ship it from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico where the refineries are. Cheaper not to send supertankers through the Straits of Magellan, as they're too big for the Panama canal. Thus, cheaper to import Saudi oil than to use our own Alaskan supplies. Pure spin to sell the public on the concept, as is the contention that we're only talking 2,000 acres here. What we're really talking about, is preserving the 5% of Alaskan North Slope coastal plain that isn't already developed by the petroleum industry, in its entirety including the "2,000 acres" in dispute:

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200511040004

    You have to go to the media debunking sites to cut through the spin on ANWR drilling, big surprise. Find the link on that page to the earlier report and watch the clip of (Colorado's own, ugh) Gale Norton on Hannity. Notice how the caribou herds are only there in the summer (aka, calving season) so they won't be bothered by the drilling operations, which mostly occur in the winter. I'm sure a semi-dormant drilling operation and village won't have any effect on calving.

    Hannity and Norton go on to talk some dubious bull about how the Prudhoe Bay herd actually expanded due to drilling operations. This wildly misses the point, that any future study of the impacted species must take into account whether or not any increase or decrease was related to human activity. We simply don't know what the impact will be on the porcupine caribou herd's continued viability, but we don't want to find out the hard way that those who would downplay the potential impact were wrong. One thing we're supposed to do, is consult Canada on this, according to a Reagan-era agreement to not disrupt the calving of that herd. If we've bothered to consult them, we sure aren't listening to what they're saying, which is in fact what we used to say:

    Canada believes opening up the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas development would seriously disrupt the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd and threaten other migratory wildlife Canada shares with the United States.

    The herd of more than 129,000 caribou ranges across northeastern Alaska, northern Yukon and the Mackenzie Delta in the Northwest Territories. Thousands of Aboriginal people in both countries depend on the herd for food and for the survival of their traditional way of life.

    In 1987 Canada and the United States signed the Agreement on the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, under which they agreed to protect the herd and its habitat and to consult promptly if either the herd or its habitat were damaged or its migration routes disrupted. U.S. and Canadian scientific experts have concluded that any development in the coastal plain could pose a major threat to the calving and migration patterns of the herd.

    ...

    Much of the herd's Alaskan habitat lies within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, created in 1960 and expanded twenty years later under the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act. Although development is prohibited in most of the refuge, the calving grounds lie in an area east of Prudhoe Bay that Congress set aside for possible oil and gas development under Section 1002 of the act. The act instructs the Secretary of the Interior to consult with Canada in evaluating the impact of development,"particularly with respect to the Porcupine Caribou Herd."

    The 1.5-million-acre coastal area known as the 1002 lands is home to a rich variety of other wildlife--wolves, wolverines, polar bear, barren-ground grizzlies, muskox and Dall sheep. About 140 species of birds, including bald eagles, tundra swans and snow geese, use the area as a staging ground for migration. Many of these species migrate between Canada and the United States.

    Canada is most concerned about the effects of development on the Porcupine caribou, whose life cycle makes it particularly susceptible to disturbance.

    In the spring the cows begin their migration from the herd's winter range (located mostly in Canada) to the calving grounds on the coastal plain. Although some calving takes place in the Yukon's Ivvavik National Park, most of the calves are born in Alaska on a narrow band of tundra that lies between the Brooks Mountain Range and the Beaufort Sea--the 1002 lands.

    After calving is complete, the rest of the herd joins the cows to form an enormous aggregation along the coast where the caribou graze and gather strength for the fall migration. The density of the herd (up to 50,000 per square mile) provides protection from predators.

    A scientific advisory panel to the International Porcupine Caribou Board set up under the Canada-U.S. agreement reported in 1993 that the calving and immediate post-calving period is the most important phase of the caribou life cycle and the time when the animals are most sensitive to human disturbance.

    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.

    Because of the potential consequences for Canadian wildlife and Aboriginal people of developing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain, Canada has repeatedly urged the U.S. government to permanently protect the area by designating it as wilderness, as Canada has done for the area in Yukon Territory where the herd occasionally calves.
    http://www.canadianembassy.org/envir...lopment-en.asp
    http://www.unc.edu/~money/geography/history.html

    That site does a nice job of presenting both sides of the issue. Bear in mind, though, the environmental record of the oil industry in Alaska when considering their pleas of environmentally-friendly methods. Also, remember ANWR was created by the (Republican) Eisenhower administration, and reaffirmed twice under Reagan:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANWR
    Eric J. Bowman, principal
    Bison Systems Corporation coming soon: a new sig!
    I'm just a poor, unfrozen caveman Webmaster. Your new 'standards' frighten, and confuse me...

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boise, ID U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,503
    There seems to be a contradiction between Sierra Club's contending that drilling the ANWR will cause massive destruction and their contention that this is the last remaining 5% undeveloped. The North Slope is enormous and highly undeveloped. There is only one major road, the gravel Dalton Highway, that crosses it to Deadhorse/Prudhoe Bay, and guidebooks advise travelers who attempt it to be well supplied, because they will be very isolated on that road. So if the potential future oil drilling site is on the last 5%, that is either a very small area, or "developed" means a lot of area for which there are drilling rights on the books not being utilized.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Disgruntled
    There seems to be a contradiction between Sierra Club's contending that drilling the ANWR will cause massive destruction and their contention that this is the last remaining 5% undeveloped. The North Slope is enormous and highly undeveloped. There is only one major road, the gravel Dalton Highway, that crosses it to Deadhorse/Prudhoe Bay, and guidebooks advise travelers who attempt it to be well supplied, because they will be very isolated on that road. So if the potential future oil drilling site is on the last 5%, that is either a very small area, or "developed" means a lot of area for which there are drilling rights on the books not being utilized.
    That's might be true, but one of the other arguments made against drilling in ANWR (and more well founded in my opinion) has to do with the amount of environmental damage caused by the drilling and development.

    If "development/drilling" on one acre causes damage on five (a ripple effect in essence), then you've got a big problem and I think thats the true nature of the argument.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    La Habra, CA
    Posts
    1,775
    Its sad that its happening but then again, gas prices are slowly going down. Its now $2.49/gallon and it was $2.89 3 weeks ago. Hit $3.05 about a month and a half ago.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boise, ID U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,503
    If it is perfectly square, one acre is surrounded by 8 acres.
    If it is perfectly square, 1.5 million acres is surrounded by 4,903 acres.
    1,504,903 acres is 2351.4 square miles, which is about 49 miles by 49 miles. From Fairbanks to Barrow is about 500 miles. Not every acre for which there are drilling rights has an oil pump on it. I think the caribou can still find some room on the North Slope.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Why should they have to "find" room when they already have it?

    There is absolutely no tangible evidence that there will be any advantage to drilling up there other then to fill the already overflowing pocket of the oil companies, AKA friends of Bush.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northwest Colorado
    Posts
    4,630
    Quote Originally Posted by blue27
    Why should they have to "find" room when they already have it?
    Yes, that would seem to defeat the purpose of a wildlife reserve. How many acres would an oil spill from a pipeline leak cover, and how many caribou (particularly calves) will be coated in the sticky goo of crude? I know, how about if we don't pump oil within the wildlife reserve, then we won't have to worry about oil spills within the wildlife reserve. Why risk the very herd we mean to protect, by going ahead with the great drilling experiment and hoping for the best? Assuming everything will be OK defeats the entire concept behind setting aside ANWR in the first place.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    154
    Does anyone have any information on the Bush Administration's plan (or lack thereof) for long-term energy policy ?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northwest Colorado
    Posts
    4,630
    The key factor to keep in mind here, is the total production expected from ANWR is about what we consume in a year:

    The U.S. Geological Survey, in a 2001 study of the 1002 area and the adjacent area that extends 3 miles offshore, estimated that there is a 90 percent chance that the total amount of technically recoverable oil in this area is 5.7 to 16.0 billion barrels, with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northwest Colorado
    Posts
    4,630
    Quote Originally Posted by owocki
    Does anyone have any information on the Bush Administration's plan (or lack thereof) for long-term energy policy ?
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/energy/
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050808-6.html

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    12,200
    Update - seems that even GOP members use their brains sometimes:

    WASHINGTON - A solid phalanx of Republican moderates drove House GOP leaders to drop a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wilderness area to oil drilling as a sweeping budget bill headed toward a vote Thursday.

    A plan to allow states to lift a moratorium on oil drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts was also axed.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051110/...ctic_refuge_11

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •