POLL - Should Bush drill for oil? [Archive]

DRM

05-21-2001, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by BALLCRUSHER:
That's sad that you feel like "giving in" to the demise of the few protected areas left.

Giving in? I think not...
You can "dream" all you want, I am just smart enough to see reality. NO - I don';t like everything reality has to offer, but being in denial about it gets us nowhere...

Why not hope for or support alternative energy such as solar and the fuel cell?

You tell me the last time "hope" invented or improved something and I will start "hoping" full time <IMG SRC="smilies/tongue.gif" border="0">
And where did I say we shoudl stop researching alternative fuels or power sources? Don;t read things that aren't there...
In actuality, if you pay attention to my outlook - I would say we should research ALL options - solar, wind, water, etc. This would be part of the "being prepared" I mentioned above, wouldn't it?

Why do we have to constantly search for an unrenewable resource such as oil---when we know eventually it will run out? <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0"> I know our infrastructure and transportation are currently set up to support oil use, but one day that will be gone along with once protected lands. <IMG SRC="smilies/frown.gif" border="0">

First off - it is NOT "unrenewable". It is just renewing slower that we are presently consuming.

Hey - you have lofty ideals here... but come back to reality! We do not yet have a viable alternative energy source to replace fossil fuels, so what do we do in the mean time? No, we must plan ahead...

It would be wonderful IMHO if we found possible sources of oil in these areas and never touched then. We just know they are there "just in case". And by then - perhaps we will all be surviving just fine off of alternative fuel sources <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

[ 05-21-2001: Message edited by: Birfield King ]

Paul Gagnon

05-21-2001, 11:19 AM

David, in one of my posts above I provided a link to the Fish and Wildlife Service website on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If you cannot even take the time to click on that link then there is nothing that I can say to you that will prove anything or convince you of anything. I gave out the link and you didn't read it. I will provide it again. http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/refinfo.html If you don't want to read the information that it contains then you have no business arguing with me about this.

EQuin

05-21-2001, 11:30 AM

Interesting discussion. I don't know enough about oil exploration and drilling practices of the big oil companies to know whether there will be any destruction, permanent or otherwise. However, I do know of the never-ending fight between surface landowners and mineral rights owners here in Texas and in the other oil rich states.

As many of you know, in Texas and most other oil rich states, the landowner, or "surface" landowner as the term is used in the oil industry, owns the land subject to the rights of the mineral rights owner. As the term suggests, the "mineral rights owner" owns the right to extract the minerals and other resources from the subsurface. Often, the mineral rights owner leases his/her interest to oil companies, who in turn drill for and store the oil on-site.

In so doing, many surface landowners, such as cattle ranchers, farmers and yes, even loggers, often complain of the "destruction" to their land from this practice. One example of such "destruction" can be found from the use of oil pits in and near Smackover, Arkansas, just north of the Louisiana state line. Many of the surface landowners in Smackover, most of whom use the land to harvest pine trees, complained to state and federal authorities of the "mess" the oil pits left on their land. EPA inspectors discovered massive oil pits, which were simply huge pits dug out of the earth where crude oil was stored. Many times, heavy rains would cause the oil filled pits to overflow and spill off-site onto the rest of the land and into nearby ditches and creeks, which in turn eventually flowed into rivers and water systems used by the local towns for their drinking water supply. Although crude petroleum and its byproducts are exempt from the definition of a "hazardous substance" under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601, (thanks, in part, to the oil industry lobby), crude oil is toxic nonetheless, as evidenced by the fish kills in some of the water systems where oil had been discharged. However, what can be more toxic than oil itself is the salt-water brine that often comes up from the well-head with the crude. For this reason, most states require permits for salt-water re-injection facilities.

Many of the oil production storage facilities in Smackover, Arkansas and other parts of Texas are considered small, "Mom and Pop" facilities, where a few barrels of crude a month is the expected production capacity. It is unknown how much oil can be produced out of the Alaska reserve, but I am sure it would not be produced by Mom and Pop businesses who operate marginally and can only afford to use earthen oil pits to store the oil. Be that as it may, there will still be some damage/destruction inherent in the operation, although how much or to what extent I have no idea. Some of the damage I can envision would be the construction of roads through pristine areas in order to transport the heavy machinery and oil production equipment to the site. The oil producing site itself will most likely see some damage also as the area is cleared for drilling purposes. However, I am not sure if this damage would be considered minimal and temporary, or major and permanent, nor do I know how this damage would affect the wildlife in the area.

Even with the assurance of little to no damage, my personal conviction would be to vote "no", but not necessarily for environmental reasons. My reasons for voting "no" are mostly for national interest reasons and not so much for environmental reasons. For one, I feel the Alaska reserve should be saved for emergencies, such as during a time of war, in the event our supply lines from foreign oil are somehow placed at risk or curtailed. As most of you know, the oil from OPEC countries comes from huge, slow-moving oil tankers. During World War II, the German U-boats and Japanese submarines took pleasure in sinking our merchant marine vessels. If there were a war today, I'm sure enemy submarines would take just as much pleasure sinking slow moving oil tankers on their way to our shores, despite the use of Navy escort destroyers to protect the tankers.

Instead of investing in domestic oil production, my focus would be on investing in research and development of alternative fuels and other technologies in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It irks me that after sacrificing our soldiers' lives and spending billions freeing Kuwait and defending the other oil rich Arab countries, OPEC, which is dominated by the same oil rich Arab countries, including Kuwait, has decided to cut production, reduce supply and in turn inflate prices to our detriment. As a result, our economy has begun to falter and signs of a recession are looming, just as it happened in the 70's. I would prefer to bite the bullet now and pay more for gas at the pump in the meantime, while we subsidize the research and development of hybrid engines, fuel cells, and other fuel alternatives and technologies that would serve to reduce, if not outright replace, our dependence on foreign oil.

That's my humble opinion on the subject. Take care folks,

DRM

05-21-2001, 11:33 AM

Paul, for your information I did follow the link - and am still reading through their rather poorly formated information.

But their explanations still leave me with the same questions - what IS "damage"?

A quote I found:
"The report concluded that oil development and production in the 1002 Area would have major effects on the Porcupine Caribou herd and muskoxen. Major effects were defined as "widespread, long-term change in habitat availability or quality which would likely modify natural abundance or distribution of species."

There are several problems with calling this "damage". For one, they work under the assumption that the migratory paterns of the caribou are static. Secondly, they assume that any change in these patterns are detramental by nature, and that the animals could not adjust, or possibly thrive under the changes. And just what is "long term"? Long Term to me may be 50 years... but in the timeline of the earth - 50 years is miniscule!

This is my problem - all too often we are bing egocentric in our terminology and line of thiking. I often see people say "damage" when the proper terminology should be "aesteticly unpleasant".

So again I ask an honest question - what "damage" could be done? I did not ask for you to get on the defensive, only for you to explain exactly what "damage" you have repeatedly claimed there will be.

DRM

05-21-2001, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by EQuin:
For one, I feel the Alaska reserve should be saved for emergencies, such as during a time of war, in the event our supply lines from foreign oil are somehow placed at risk or curtailed.

This is the same thing I am saying. But come war time or the day they cut off our oil supply - do you think there will be more or less damage to the area if we rush in and need oil ASAP, or if we had planned ahead?

That's my humble opinion on the subject. Take care folks,

Thanks - that is the first down to earth "lets ask the hard questions" look at this I have seen here. Lots of good info there to be sure <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

[ 05-21-2001: Message edited by: Birfield King ]

Paul Gagnon

05-21-2001, 12:45 PM

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/cleveland/bushpolicy.htm http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2001/02/02162001/krt_akoil_42061.asp

DRM

05-21-2001, 12:51 PM

Thanks for the links paul, but there is no info there in what "damage" you claim will result from drilling.

Also, I would hardly consider ENN a non-biased source for information, would you?

05-21-2001, 02:02 PM

heres my thought
i read in a science mag that they have built a mobile drilling rig that can drill in any direction. They then move this mobile rig into place and use computers to guide the drill heads toward the oil deposits. thus only one hole needs drilled to get the oil from many places. the only damage would be a road to the spot where rig would be stationed. if i could vote i would vote yes they need to find out how much oil is up there.

Paul Gagnon

05-21-2001, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Birfield King:
Thanks for the links paul, but there is no info there in what "damage" you claim will result from drilling.

Also, I would hardly consider ENN a non-biased source for information, would you?

Not normally but I read the whole article before I decided to post a link to it. It seemed to be an unusually fair article (for an environmental group) giving examples reasons for both sides.

This is again from the FWS webpage. I guess that you haven't read it yet since you are still asking for examples. http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/issues1.html

Some other links: http://www.runet.edu/~swoodwar/CLASSES/GEOG235/biomes/tundra/tundra.html http://www.amap.no/assess/soaer10.htm (see blue charts on "OIL-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT")

DRM

05-21-2001, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Paul G:
This is again from the FWS webpage. I guess that you haven't read it yet since you are still asking for examples. http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/issues1.html


Paul - I followed that link. If you see some examples there, then post them for me as I guess I am just too dense to see them. Otherwise just admit you won't or can't answer my very specific question.

Paul Gagnon

05-21-2001, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Birfield King:
Paul - I followed that link. If you see some examples there, then post them for me as I guess I am just too dense to see them. Otherwise just admit you won't or can't answer my very specific question.

I guess it is completely hopless. I give up. I guess you need step by step instruction and explanation for everything. You can't come to a decision on your own or research anything on your own. Everything has to be handed to you on a plate doesn't it? I gave you links that have other links. I gave you information on the ecosystem, on the animals and plants. You can't see anything in there that warns of potential damaging effects? You found nothing that shows any signs of a major environmental impact to an area that is ALREADY protected should oil and gas production start? Did you read it or did you just look at the pictures? Hell, even if you just looked at the pictures some of them should be enough to make you stop and think about the potential impact.

You have the last word again David. :throwinghandsintheair: It is like talking to a brick wall. http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/images/smilies/banghead.gif

[ 05-21-2001: Message edited by: Paul G ]

GloNDark

05-21-2001, 03:03 PM

I voted yes. I agree that we need to search for alternative fuel sources as well as alternative fuels. I don't see anyone here runing out and buy one of the electric hondas? Why? Alternatives are expensive. Even with the rising price of gas it's still cheaper to run Gasoline. And hey let's face it, most people given the choice will choose the cheaper of the 2 alternatives. I think that Davids opinion of researching first and then knowing all the information before actually needing it is a great way to explore new areas of production.

GloNDark

05-21-2001, 03:08 PM

I was just curious if anyone really thinks that the Middle east actually cares about the migrational habits of the Northern 2 hump camel when it comes to them drilling for oil. No, all that they think about is money, how much can we charge the rest of the world for this product. Given some more competition, there might be a change in that.

DRM

05-21-2001, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Paul G:
I guess it is completely hopless. I give up. You can't see anything in there that warns of potential damaging effects?

So Paul - are we talking about "damage", or are we talking about "potential damageing effects"? Make up your mind please, as they are VERY different things.

I have read the links, and I even addressed the claimed "evidence" of "damage" one of them offered.

Why do you find it so hard to answer my question? I am quite sure it is because you do not have an answer.

I am myself tiring of your personal attacks here. I have done nothing but rationally dive into this topic only looking for answers Anyone who has been on the Land Use Mailing List (Yes Paul, been on that for 4 years now) asking these same questions. You come here claiming "damage" - then you say "potential damage" - which is it? And you still can't seem to tell me just what you think 'damage" is.

Stop hiding behind these accusations that I am doing something here that I am not. I am simply asking questions, and it is becoming more & more clear that you do not have the answers, or even want to attempt to answer. You just roll off more links that contain nothing to answer my questions. To me, that looks like you are skirting the question - why are you scared to answer?

So, since you are not mature enough to attempt an answer, does anyone else see any "damage" that will result from exploratory drilling, and what exactly is "damage"?

DRM

05-21-2001, 03:49 PM

And no Paul, I am not looking to argue or get into some battle with you. I am honestly, sincerely, and truthfully interested in exactly what different people are calling "damage". it has been my experience in talking this out on the ORML, LUN, and other forums that the term "damage" is often mis-applied.

Lance

05-21-2001, 03:50 PM

I don't understand what the so-called irreversable 'damage' is, either. As others have stated, I can see that during construction, temporary visual marks (that will grow back) will be made, such as dirt roads, etc. I definitely do not consider that 'irreversible damage'. Animals are adaptive. They adapt to their environment. Did building the Alaskan pipeline destroy/wipe out anything? Not that I know of. I see pictures all the time of wildlife co-habitating with the pipline, just as if it had been there for 1000's of years. So what's the difference? All I ask is to be enlightened. <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">

[ 05-21-2001: Message edited by: Lance ]

GloNDark

05-21-2001, 03:52 PM

Well said Lance. Everything adapts and grows back. That's what life is all about. Right? <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

gnob

05-21-2001, 04:10 PM

i try to stay away from politics for the most part because its like a bag of worms especiall in a forum as such, dave and paul having it out.
it goes with everything else, if it can be done smartly, without tearing the shit out of the place its fine, it would be great if we could supply our own fuel and not have to buy from the desert, for pc reasons thats the reference to the mid east, because like they said the desert doesnt give a shit about us just the buck.
my PERSONAL OPINION on the oil goes something like this, first and foremost we need to get away from fossil fuels and start with solar or the cold fusion shit, because the environment is worth more than money,
secondly, if we arent going to get away from it then little georgy pussy needs to step up and finish what the old man started and go back to the desert and just take the oil back from those camel fucking terroists, seeing as how they only use it to fuel anti aircraft guns and thier military, and dont use the money to help their people.
alright, enough sorry if i offended any bleeding hearts.
peace

Paul Gagnon

05-21-2001, 06:04 PM

Look at these picture and tell me if they represent what you think of as a Wildlife Refuge. These are not propaganda photos. They are from the Prudhoe Bay area on the North Slope of alaska. This is the place to compare to if you want to see what the area 1002 could become. http://www.arcticcaribouinn.com/pics.html
http://www.geocities.com/bcause_itsme/Alaska/alaska.html

Some other info on tundra: http://www.envf.port.ac.uk/geog/teaching/environ/ec2_4.htm#environ

JeepinIan

05-21-2001, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Lance:
I don't understand what the so-called irreversable 'damage' is, either. As others have stated, I can see that during construction, temporary visual marks (that will grow back) will be made, such as dirt roads, etc. I definitely do not consider that 'irreversible damage'. Animals are adaptive. They adapt to their environment. Did building the Alaskan pipeline destroy/wipe out anything? Not that I know of. I see pictures all the time of wildlife co-habitating with the pipline, just as if it had been there for 1000's of years. So what's the difference? All I ask is to be enlightened. <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">

[ 05-21-2001: Message edited by: Lance ]

I agree w/ Lance on this. I do not know enough to state what will be damamged & what won't be damaged, I do believe that we can EXPLORE the possibility of tapping into the oil reserve that is there.
Yes, we need to also improve on the alternative fuels.
Caterpillar has made a diesel eng that runs on synthetic diesel.
I believe that we are able to bring the oil to the surface, transport it, and use it w/o major permanent damage. We have oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico that are full of fish and are great fishing sites.
Is the risk of damage to the environment more or less than shipping the oil from overseas? I believe it is less.
I have seen too many oil spills here in the Carribean, and damamges to islands are tremendous.
Look at the damage that was created by the Exxon Valdez. When was the last time that type of environmental damage was done on a land based transport? I do not know of any.
Also, as environmentally sensitive as the Everglades is, did you know that they have wells in the middle of it? I've seen them.

[ 05-21-2001: Message edited by: JeepinIan ]

Paul Gagnon

05-21-2001, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by JeepinIan:
I agree w/ Lance on this. I do not know enough to state what will be damamged & what won't be damaged, I do believe that we can EXPLORE the possibility of tapping into the oil reserve that is there.
Yes, we need to also improve on the alternative fuels.
Caterpillar has made a diesel eng that runs on synthetic diesel.
I believe that we are able to bring the oil to the surface, transport it, and use it w/o major permanent damage. We have oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico that are full of fish and are great fishing sites.
Is the risk of damage to the environment more or less than shipping the oil from overseas? I believe it is less.
I have seen too many oil spills here in the Carribean, and damamges to islands are tremendous.
Look at the damage that was created by the Exxon Valdez. When was the last time that type of environmental damage was done on a land based transport? I do not know of any.
Also, as environmentally sensitive as the Everglades is, did you know that they have wells in the middle of it? I've seen them.

[ 05-21-2001: Message edited by: JeepinIan ]

It is not a question of exploring to find out if it is worth drilling. Oil exploration IS drilling.

DRM

05-21-2001, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Paul G:
Look at these picture and tell me if they represent what you think of as a Wildlife Refuge. These are not propaganda photos. They are from the Prudhoe Bay area on the North Slope of alaska. This is the place to compare to if you want to see what the area 1002 could become. http://www.arcticcaribouinn.com/pics.html
http://www.geocities.com/bcause_itsme/Alaska/alaska.html

Some other info on tundra: http://www.envf.port.ac.uk/geog/teaching/environ/ec2_4.htm#environ

What does it matter what a "wildlife refige" looks like? I see pictures of animals that seem to be doing ok right along side man...

Paul I understand your concerns, but you have to realize there is amidde ground between no-mans land, and complete urbanization. That is why I suggest slow and well thought out use of this land. not rushing into anything, but taking our time to make sure man's impact is minimal.

Berzerker

05-22-2001, 02:57 AM

Damn, I leave for the weekend and miss it all! Anyways for some reason Paul still has the patience to deal with you DRM, but I really don't even feel like devoting the time to you cause lets face it, your not too bright and not going to change your mind from any discussion over the internet. I don't know what it would really take to open your mind. Maybe if georgy bush and texico discovered oil in your back yard and told you to just "live with it" when they installed a huge drilling operation there, after all its only "visually un-appealing". You could live with that right, it wouldn't disturb you? Anyways you've stated yourself and made it very apperent you have NO CLUE as to the irriversable environmental damage that would occur if the oil companies were let lose in the ANWR. Why don't you go to college and take an Environmental Science 101 class and then we can hear your thoughts on the subject cause I guarantee you that they won't be the same.

Oh yeah, oil is NOT considered to be a renewable resource by anyone at all, other than some uneducated hick trying to apply a dictonary defination to real life <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

DRM

05-22-2001, 05:57 AM

Berzerker - very childish reply you managed to add in here.

I have done nothing here but ask legitimate questions about what damage will be caused. lance asked the same question - are you planning to apply your name calling to him as well, since we asked the same thing? I doubt it very seriously...

You people amaze me. I come here trying to stick to the topic, no name calling, no attacking, and all some of you can manage is to personally attack me - yet I am the one who is in the wrong here? <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">

Berzerker - instead of looking for a fight, how about you back up these claims of damage with PROOF. Is that so hard? Stop atacking me, and explain it to me if you think there is so much damage that will be done. I have said all along I am open to any suggestions of damage if there is damage (and yes, I am sure there may be some). So if it is there - why do you find it so hard to give even one example?

Some of you really need to grow up and learn how a discussion works. Insead of spending your time attacking me, how about you back up the claims you are making here.

This is not about who is right or wrong - this is about coming to an understanding of what REAL "damage" is.

I do find this rather funny - as I have been overly polite and calm in this thread, yet some of you are trying to make it seem otherwise. IMHO - it comes down to the fact that you have no basis for your arguement, and therefore have to resort to other tactics to cover yourself. Amazingly, Paul has reply after reply and still can't asnwer a simple, single one line question I posed at the very beginning.

Lance would like to know the answer too - are you calling him all of the same names you are calling me?

gnob

05-22-2001, 10:06 AM

DRM,
as far as the first question goes, there is not a reason to drill there will all the sonar tech and other mapping abilities. i am a big discovery fan and have seen the technologies out there, there is no need to drill to find it with these things. they arent out in the middle of the ocean doing exploratory drilling are they? thats the point man, i dont really think we need to be up there at this time, what about the oil there in his home state of texas, oh yeah he has already ruined texas, why let him screw up a pristine wilderness such as alaska, i do realize that things come back, but think about the damage caused by spills like the prince william sound, they are still feeling it. that is why we should hold off drilling is AK.
Is that a good non argumentative answer?

Paul Gagnon

05-22-2001, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Birfield King:
Amazingly, Paul has reply after reply and still can't asnwer a simple, single one line question I posed at the very beginning.

Lance would like to know the answer too.

David, by posting links to information about the wildlife refuge and the nature of life on the tundra as well as links to the effects of oil exploration and production I was hoping that people would be able to read both and see that there is a reason to keep protecting this area. I guess I was thinking that someone else out there thought that some remote place far away was worth keeping as a wild area. What I failed to realize was that to some people no cost is too great. That makes me sad. It makes me wonder if there will be anything left at the end of it all. It appears that areas are only protected until a way to make money from them can gain popularity.

I tried to find unbiased scientific information but unfortunately I did not have the time to search everything or maybe I used the wrong search terms. There is so much propoganda from both sides that it is hard to sift through it all. All I can say is that I think it should be a No vote and when gas is double what it costs now I will still think it should be a No vote. Some places are worth protecting even if I never get to go there.

Whitewater

05-22-2001, 10:48 AM

We do need oil so yes more exploration and drilling needs to be done but by no means should they be given carte blanch, which it seems is what some people want. The earth will eventually run out of oil and fossil fuels in general. We need to direct more resources to alternative fuel and energy methods.

Berzerker

05-23-2001, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by Butthole King:

I have done nothing here but ask legitimate questions about what damage will be caused.

I come here trying to stick to the topic, no name calling, no attacking, and all some of you can manage is to personally attack me -

Stop atacking me,

Insead of spending your time attacking me, how about you back up the claims you are making here.

as I have been overly polite and calm in this thread, yet some of you are trying to make it seem otherwise.
http://www.bc4x4.com/ubb/smilies/cwm45.gif
Seriuosly, you are by far thee most ego-centric and self rightious person i've ever heard talk. Sometimes when you type stuff I think you must be kidding.

Originally posted by Butthole King:
Lance would like to know the answer too - are you calling him all of the same names you are calling me?

Wow what a suprise, more crying. Can't fight your own battles here davey? What me to call Lance stupid and get my self banned? No, Lance isn't stupid, he isn't informed on the matter. You on the other hand have posted many times proving your stupidity over and over again. Thats the difference, the degority comments are all for you, now doesn't that make you feel special?

Anyways, now that the unrelated to the topic crap is aside I have a life to live, but I will try to get around to posting some real information soon, so if your up to it check back.

DRM

05-23-2001, 04:22 AM

Berzerker, your immaturity here is prety obvious to everyone else as well as me. Grow up, and try to be useful here, ok?

It is funny though, I have only asked ONE question here, Lance asked the same one too -now you are backpedaling like crazy saying somehom my question was different? What a little wuss you are <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> scared of Lance <IMG SRC="smilies/tongue.gif" border="0">

How many more personal attacks will you toss out and still not present anything to do with the topic? Typical...

YellowSub1962

05-23-2001, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by gnob:
i am a big discovery fan 

I am assuming you're referring to the Discovery Channel in this statement. Even if you are not, this is just an FYI for everyone. The Discovery Channel is one of the biggest green channels on TV, along with their subsidiaries(?), Animal Planet, TLC. So take what they say at Face Value and do the research, as they have a way of distorting things to make the uninformed viewer think whatever they want... Just FYI...

Oh, and lets get back to topic at hand and save all the name calling crybaby crap for <IMG SRC="smilies/roxy.gif" border="0">'s section <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

gnob

05-23-2001, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Yellowsub1962:

I am assuming you're referring to the Discovery Channel in this statement. Even if you are not, this is just an FYI for everyone. The Discovery Channel is one of the biggest green channels on TV, along with their subsidiaries(?), Animal Planet, TLC. So take what they say at Face Value and do the research, as they have a way of distorting things to make the uninformed viewer think whatever they want... Just FYI...

Oh, and lets get back to topic at hand and save all the name calling crybaby crap for <IMG SRC="smilies/roxy.gif" border="0">'s section <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

yeah thats the reference, i figured they had to be green considering the topics of the programs.
and is there anything on tv we can take at face value...i dont think so tim. i was just arguing the point, not really supporting them or any greenies. but they do have some good stuff on there once in a while.
and i mean we do need to watch the envorinment, otherwise this topic would not have even started, i care about it as should you and the greens have the right too, even if none of them have been there. i see far too much litter and shit left from lazy ass necks and everyone in the woods or even along side the roads. i think we should get some of those collars like in that movie "death lock" i think it was where if the two cons got too far apart their heads blew off, and get them out there picking up the trash and things, at least that way out tax $ would be goping somewhere useful.

Moose

05-23-2001, 09:51 AM

Call me what you want, but what about other "alternative fuels" What about solar? What if the money we devoted to developing oil drilling went to developing more effective solar collectors. We need to realize that this is more then a Dem/Rep or hippie/whatever-is-anti-hippie thing. We will all be out of power soon, conservative and liberal alike. I do not think any of you can honestly say that you belive that drilling Alaska will have no negative effects on the environment, and I don't think that anyone can honestly say that drilling will destroy the world. The truth is that there is less intrusive ways to get power. Maybe we should look at those. I do also believe that the power of our contry is no longer in the hands of the people but the rich. Oil Companies are rich and deep into this Presidency. We will drill, and i guess we will see what happens. I just wish that they could find somewhere else to do it, but who the hell am I?

Moose

05-23-2001, 10:17 AM

Birfield

You guys can talk about it all you want, but about wanting proof of environemtal "damage" here you go. I agree that there is a difference between damage and ugly, this is what I found for you:
http://www.turtletrack.org/ManyVoices/Issue_3/Drilling.htm

Records of environmental abuses include the 11 million gallon Exxon-Valdez oil spill that fouled over 1,500 miles worth of shoreline, roughly the length of Massachusetts to North Carolina.

Over 12,000 acres of wildlife habitat and 508 acres of marine and estuarine habitat have been destroyed by gravel pits, excavations and waste disposal.

Other major oil spills on the North Slope since 1990, according to state records and news reports:
 August 1993, as much as 30,000 gallons of oil spilled at an oil processing facility in Prudhoe Bay.
 December 1993, about 15,000 gallons spilled when a Prudhoe Bay flowline cracked in the winds.
 May 1994, about 5,000 gallons spilled when workers tried to connect a pipeline from Point McIntyre into a pipeline at Prudhoe Bay.
 April 1996, about 6,300 gallons spilled at Prudhoe Bay's Gathering Center 2 because of pipeline corrosion.
 March 1997, about 4,900 gallons spilled at a Prudhoe Bay drill site due to a pipeline rupture.
 March 1999, about 6,400 gallons spilled at a Prudhoe Bay drill site in a pipeline leak.
 August 2000, 30,300 gallons of oil and water spilled inside a gathering center.

http://www.american.edu/ted/projects/tedcross/xoilpr15.htm

The oil companies that drilled in the rain forest were responsible for "felling thousands of acres of trees, dynamiting the earth, spilling vast amounts of oil, destroying habitats, and fouling rivers." Fish have died from water pollution and the game the tribes once hunted have retreated deeper into the jungle as a result of the deforestation.

don't know how it will come out, but what the hell.

Even you have to agree that destroying rivers, killing fish, blowing up land goes a little beyond ugly to "damage" which is defined by webster as "a loss due to injury or harm." All of this "damage" has been done by oil drilling, you can go check the websites. let it go, oil drilling does do "damage" however you define it. I guess the problem comes from balancing that "damage" with the need for power.
Birfield

DRM

05-23-2001, 10:30 AM

Thanks for the info Moose.

I think some of you misunderstand my position, and are stuck thinking an "all or none" mentality. There IS middle ground here between wanton destruction of all of earth's resources and the "save the trees - kill yourself" way of thinking. As a matter of fact, I would be willing to bet most of us do fall somewhere in that middle ground - we realize we must balance the earth's needs with man's needs...

Take the cutting of trees mentioned. First off, anyone who uses the term "rainforest" I can see where their slant is right off (not you, the author). That is one of those terms created simply to make people feel all gushy, gushy about what anywhere welse would be called a forest, or here in the south "woods" <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

If you want to talk about REAL destruction, what we do every day to build shopping malls and parking lots is FAR worse than using a couple of acres of a million acre wildlife preserve to drill for oil.

Talk about selling out - most of us have already written off the land we have here - forgetting that "preservation" starts at home. So we let them bulldoze acre after acre across the street, but get all in a huff about millions of acres half a continent away that we will never see.

But hey, some of you would label me as not caring, so I guess I better stop mentioning these things <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Berzerker

05-23-2001, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Butthole Queen:
Berzerker, your immaturity here is prety obvious to everyone else as well as me. Grow up, and try to be useful here, ok?

How many more personal attacks will you toss out and still not present anything to do with the topic? Typical... 

I'm pretty sure that what was obvious was that I wasn't really trying to add to the conversation yet, I was just trying to piss you off, let you know again what a moron you are, and let off some steam at the same time.

Originally posted by Butthole Queen:
 It is funny though, I have only asked ONE question here, Lance asked the same one too -now you are backpedaling like crazy saying somehom my question was different? What a little wuss you are scared of Lance 

<IMG SRC="smilies/crybaby2.gif" border="0"> Quit personally attacking me! <IMG SRC="smilies/crybaby2.gif" border="0"> Wait, who does that sounds like? <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> I was pretty sure I made this clear last time. Lance presents himself in a intellegent manner, you on the other had consistantly present your self in a selfrightious and idiotic manner. Therefore, you are stupid, Lance isn't. Maybe thats why you can't quite grasp that simple concept. Lance doesn't make off the wall ignorant comments like "oil is a renewable resource". The question you two asked was the same and a decient question, you just made yourself look a whole lot stupider doing so. Got it now? Probably not, but oh well what can I expect from you....

DRM

05-23-2001, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Berzerker:
<IMG SRC="smilies/crybaby2.gif" border="0"> Quit personally attacking me! <IMG SRC="smilies/crybaby2.gif" border="0"> Wait, who does that sounds like? <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

This is getting old. If you don't have any valid info to add, stop looking for a fight.

Lance doesn't make off the wall ignorant comments like "oil is a renewable resource".

Maybe you should educate yourself on the definition of "renewable". Are you claiming no new oil is being formed within the earth right now? This is a pretty simple concept, try to follow along.
Oil IS a renewable resource - we are just presently using it faster than it is being formed.
If we were to stop today, and switch over to alternate power sources, then guess what would happen? Oil supplies in the earch would INCREASE. Yes, that's right - they would RENEW. Do you understand yet, or do you want to continue to babble on with your sadly uninteligent use of the definition of renewable?

The question you two asked was the same and a decient question, you just made yourself look a whole lot stupider doing so.

This is too funny. Simple question, you can;t answer, so you ridicule the person asking it. Shows your intelligence, as well as your lack of informaiton and educationon the matter.

What other brilliantly childish ravings do you want to add? You are the one looking the fool here, just keep it up for all to see <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Or, you could back up your claims with info, and stop with the whining like YellowSub suggested... Your call, but I don';t expect much from you...

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: Birfield King ]

DRM

05-23-2001, 12:08 PM

Hey Berzerker - how about you stop being a boy and be a man - feel free to email me directly on this matter if you feel you have a beef. Otherwise respect the forum and shut your trap unless you have something valid to add...

Think you can handle that? I doubt it...

GENA

05-23-2001, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Birfield King:
Maybe you should educate yourself on the definition of "renewable". Are you claiming no new oil is being formed within the earth right now? This is a pretty simple concept, try to follow along.
Oil IS a renewable resource - we are just presently using it faster than it is being formed.
If we were to stop today, and switch over to alternate power sources, then guess what would happen? Oil supplies in the earch would INCREASE. Yes, that's right - they would RENEW. Do you understand yet, or do you want to continue to babble on with your sadly uninteligent use of the definition of renewable?

[
This is too funny. Simple question, you can;t answer, so you ridicule the person asking it. Shows your intelligence, as well as your lack of informaiton and educationon the matter.

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: Birfield King ][/QB]

No, maybe YOU need to educate yourself and stop telling somebody who is an Environmental Science major that he needs to get "educated" on the subject.
Here is the definition:

re·new·a·ble [ri nb'l ] adjective

1. able to be renewed: capable of being renewed

2. not likely to run out: able to be sustained or renewed indefinitely, either because of inexhaustible supplies or because of new growth

So, I ask you, have you seen a live dinosaur lately...I'm not talking Barney here either. <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> Oil is not a renewable resource...stop fighting that issue at least.
Why are we fighting the issue, because oil is likely to run out. There is only so much of it to extract and use. By the way, I hope you are not using oil in terms of non-fuel or fossil fuel oils. If you are trying to be smart and group oil from the human body in there...I'm not going to even bother arguing that.

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: BALLCRUSHER ]

DRM

05-23-2001, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by BALLCRUSHER:
No, maybe YOU need to educate yourself and stop telling somebody who is an Environmental Science major that he needs to get "educated" on the subject.

Just who is the Envorinmental Science major, and what does that have to do with definitions of words?

Here is the definition:

re·new·a·ble [ri nb'l ] adjective

1. able to be renewed: capable of being renewed

What part of the fact that oil is still being "created" today in the earth do you not understand? This only serves to prove what I was saying - thanks for showing it.

2. not likely to run out: able to be sustained or renewed indefinitely, either because of inexhaustible supplies or because of new growth

What a stretch you are applying here! General concensus (this was an arguement used earlier) agrees that trees are a "renewable resource". However, that is based only on current use levels. If we all of a sudden set out to do so, we COULD start consuming our forests faster than they can "renew" themselves... According to you - that means trees would then somehow - under no actions of their own - become a "non-renewable resource"? Does that make any sense? NO.

You are basing your definition not on the resource itself, but on it's use level - this is a poor arguement that lacks any sense of logic.

Theoretically we could increase the level of consumption of any resource, but that in no way changes whether or not a resourse is RENEWABLE.

Some of you need to go back & get a refund on the supposed "higher learning" schooling you are touting... <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

So, I ask you, have you seen a live dinosaur lately...I'm not talking Barney here either. <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> Oil is not a renewable resource...stop fighting that issue at least.

That has to be the most absurd thing I have seen so far. What is this supposed to mean? <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">

Why are we fighting the issue, because oil is likely to run out. There is only so much of it to extract and use.

See now - make up your mind. If it is non-renewable - that means it WILL run out. So "will" itr run out, or is it "likely to" run out?

But yes, in part you are correct. We WILL run out at our current levels of use (and I am all for reducing that level BTW). Sheesh - the way we are burning the stuff up is amazing! What makes me even more sick is that the REAL problems - big companies - are allowed to "buy" their way out of cleaning up their factories to be more efficient by buying & selling environmental impact credits, and other underhanded (IMHO) ways of skeaking around cleaning up their act <IMG SRC="smilies/pissed.gif" border="0">

But I digress - yes, it is sad we are arguing back & forth. I would have preferred to have this be a DISCUSSION about ideas, but some have seen fit to carry on otherwise...

Thanks for your input though <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

gnob

05-23-2001, 03:20 PM

i always thought the refernce to renewable resourse was one that we had control of i.e. trees.
like as in we can plant more trees if need be.
we cannot just produce more oil if need be, or do you know something i dont.

as far as the dino goes, to the best of my knowledge they call in fossil fuels because it is produced from the break down of these elements over years and years. we have nothing going on today that can compare to that.

the reality is we need to get away from the oil, and move on to something less damaging. its not just that fact that it can damage the earth from getting the oil, but oils are damaging to earth in no matter what form, whether it be crude, or vehicle exhaust.
just cuz your are buddies with bushy doesnt mean we have to agree there B.S. King <IMG SRC="smilies/flipoff.gif" border="0">

DRM

05-23-2001, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by gnob:
just cuz your are buddies with bushy doesnt mean we have to agree there B.S. King <IMG SRC="smilies/flipoff.gif" border="0">

Who said a word about Bush? Get over your petty partisan politics here and work on the issues...

gnob

05-23-2001, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Birfield King:
Who said a word about Bush? Get over your petty partisan politics here and work on the issues...

i am,
its funny the only thing you've ripped me on is the politics
or so i make too much sence for your mind

DRM

05-23-2001, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by gnob:
i am, its funny the only thing you've ripped me on is the politics or so i make too much sence for your mind

Come back & try again when you can form a coherent sentence... I don't have a clue what you are trying to say here <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">

CJ5-Man

05-23-2001, 06:16 PM

I say drill. George W said we have the technology to do it right, and I believe him. As far as lining the oil companies pockets, I don't think thats what this is about. I think its pretty bad that the most powerful country in the world relies on the middle east as much as we do. Will oil companies make money off it, yes, because it is a domestic drilling process. It would also give our dwindling economy a kick in the ass and help pick things up a bit. I don't see any reason to keep the land completely closed to drilling. Yes, it is an untainted wildlife reserve, but it can be kept that way. I live in Texas, and drive up and down I45 regularly, and there is drilling all over the place that you wouldn't notice if you weren't paying attention (my dad's in the biz, so I have a learned habit of noticing this stuff.) Now as far as looking for alternative feuls, thats something that needs to be investigated ASAP. American Engineers have a terrible problem with efficiency. Im not trying to criticize them, since I studied engineering or a year and realize engineers work their asses off, but with everything from cars to programming computers, all the problems are tackled by adding more power. Not by thinking of a better way to deliver the answers. In overseas countries, a big powerstroke diesel is unheard of and unnecessary. v8's in a famliy car, and even sports cars, are overkill. And with programming, how many new programs come out that don't require bigger and better computing power? very few. But this is a whole nother can of worms that I probably shouldn't have opened. Anyway, thats my opinion, peace <IMG SRC="smilies/beer.gif" border="0">

DRM

05-23-2001, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by The Flem:
I say drill. 

To be honest, if they followed *my* ideas for how to handle this, there would be any drilling for YEARS, possibly 10 years or more. Like I said - I don't expect or want them to go crashing in there tomorrow - I want them to research EVERYTHING... and that includes domestic oil sources, solar, hydro, etc... Reasearch ALL options...

Berzerker

05-23-2001, 09:55 PM

Ahh, well that was a fun little pissing match, eh davey? I hadn't done that with you in a while and felt it was time <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

Now that that is out of my system...

Through common sense and all the links that Paul took the time to post its very easy to see that drilling for oil there in the reserve, weather or not it destorys the environment(which it will), isn't a good idea. Asuming the BEST there will be barely enough recoverable oil up there to last us at our current rate of overcomsumption not even a year and more like six months. Its not going to lower ANY prices or even be seen on the market for a good 10 years. Its not any sort of a solution to our current energy needs. The Reserve is our last intact example of unspoiled arctic and subarctic ecosystem, why would you want to ruin it for nearly nothing?

Remember the Exxon Valdez spill? Wildlife still hasn't recovered ten years later. In 1999 alone, spills released 45,000 gallons of crude oil, diesel fuel, propane and ethylene glycol, among other toxic substances. Oil also is released into the arctic environment through leaks in the Trans-Alaska pipeline system.

North Slope oil and gas operations generate enormous amounts of waste – all of it exempt from hazardous-waste regulations because of a loophole in the law. As a result, millions of gallons of oily liquids and sludge, toxic brine and other wastes are dumped into open pits, frozen into the permafrost or simply discharged into the environment.

The existing oil operations also annually spew more than 56,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, a source of acid rain. That’s more than the amount released into the air from cars and smokestacks in many of the nation’s biggest cities. North Slope oil facilities release 24,000 tons of the greenhouse gas methane every year, too. Think this new site will be any different? No.

What about the sprawl?

"You have to connect all those points with pipelines, roads. You still have to have airports; you have to have places to live," said Charles Clusen, an oil expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Even using the best technology, you're still talking about a very major industrial facility on the coastal plain of the arctic refuge."

Along with landfills, water reservoirs, docks and gravel causeways, production plants, gas processing facilities, seawater treatment plants, power plants and gravel mines.

As it now stands, she said, 95 percent of the arctic coastline of Alaska is open to oil development, with only the refuge protected. No matter how well done, oil development would wound the land forever. It would degrade the habitat with pollution, road and pipeline construction, noise from helicopters, trucks and ships, and seismic surveys and drilling. It would deface the wilderness with all the ugly machinery that now mars the once-pristine landscape at Prudhoe Bay.

So DRM do you want your kids to only be able to read about the real wilderness in books or do you want them to be able to see it?

Then on top of all this there is the fact that once the oil is raped from the land what is going to be done with it? Its going to be burned to further pollute the air and speed up global warming that much more. <IMG SRC="smilies/idea.gif" border="0"> Hey, I guess your kid could still enjoy the ANWR after its drilled after all, through breathing the toxic fumes that will be emmitted through burning the oil. What we should be doing instead of wasting our time and money on such crap as this is researching and improving other sources of energy that don't destroy the environment at every turn.

Oh yeah, and I'm the environmental science major that BallCrusher was talking about <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0"> Hope you learned something today!

Moose

05-24-2001, 09:03 AM

Correct me if I am wrong, which I am sure you will do. Oil does not need to come from dinosaurs just large amounts of Carbon (similar to Coal), and the dinosaurs where a pretty large supply of carbon, the problem is that it takes a really really long time to create it, and we are using it really really fast.

About Bush saying that we can do it saefly now is political crap in my opinion. He has to say that, but the truth is, like in life or 4wheeling, if it can go wrong it will.

I do agree with Birfield, it is not a party thing, we are all going to be screwed pretty soon.

DRM

05-24-2001, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Berzerker:
Ahh, well that was a fun little pissing match, eh davey? I hadn't done that with you in a while and felt it was time <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

No, it was actually pretty childish on your part, but think whatever you like...

Through common sense and all the links that Paul took the time to post its very easy to see that drilling for oil there in the reserve, weather or not it destorys the environment(which it will), isn't a good idea.

You keep claiming damage, but cannot explain what damage IS.

Asuming the BEST there will be barely enough recoverable oil up there to last us at our current rate of overcomsumption not even a year and more like six months.

Your point? I think it is pretty clear everyone here thinks we should LOWER the current consumption levels...

Its not going to lower ANY prices or even be seen on the market for a good 10 years.

The fault here is that you seem to lack the foresight to plan ahead. The whole reason I suggested drilling is not for immediate results - only a fool thinks we would see benefits NOW.

Its not any sort of a solution to our current energy needs. The Reserve is our last intact example of unspoiled arctic and subarctic ecosystem, why would you want to ruin it for nearly nothing?

Again - false information. It will not be "ruined" - but there will be a "visual impact" and there will be "change".
Also, I would like to know where you are qualified to discount that amount of oil as "nearly nothing".

Remember the Exxon Valdez spill? Wildlife still hasn't recovered ten years later. In 1999 alone, spills released 45,000 gallons of crude oil, diesel fuel, propane and ethylene glycol, among other toxic substances.

So you pick the worst "what might happen" and now assume that is a GIVEN if they drill there? Poor logic again.

Oil also is released into the arctic environment through leaks in the Trans-Alaska pipeline system.

Are you assuming this, or do you happen to have info to back this up? And if it is "leaking" out, do you have info that shows this has killed animals, changed their habitats, etc?

North Slope oil and gas operations generate enormous amounts of waste – all of it exempt from hazardous-waste regulations because of a loophole in the law. As a result, millions of gallons of oily liquids and sludge, toxic brine and other wastes are dumped into open pits, frozen into the permafrost or simply discharged into the environment.

What does a legal loophole have to do with the topic? I don't like it either - so are you fighting to have these laws changed?

What about the sprawl?

"You have to connect all those points with pipelines, roads. You still have to have airports; you have to have places to live," said Charles Clusen, an oil expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Even using the best technology, you're still talking about a very major industrial facility on the coastal plain of the arctic refuge."

But is this "damage", or just "change"? Answer this, and we have the core of my original question...

No matter how well done, oil development would wound the land forever. It would degrade the habitat with pollution, road and pipeline construction, noise from helicopters, trucks and ships, and seismic surveys and drilling. It would deface the wilderness with all the ugly machinery that now mars the once-pristine landscape at Prudhoe Bay.

BINGO! So is it actual "damage", or just "visually unpleasant"? See what I mean when I asked my original question?

So DRM do you want your kids to only be able to read about the real wilderness in books or do you want them to be able to see it?

Do I want them to read about winderness - where the government made it off limits to EVERYONE? NO - I do not want that.

Then on top of all this there is the fact that once the oil is raped from the land what is going to be done with it? Its going to be burned to further pollute the air and speed up global warming that much more.

Ahhhh... "raped", "global warming"... Global Warming is BUNK - wake up & see it.

What we should be doing instead of wasting our time and money on such crap as this is researching and improving other sources of energy that don't destroy the environment at every turn.

You think ahead much, do you? Only a fool fails to research ALL aspects for the best route to take.

Oh yeah, and I'm the environmental science major that BallCrusher was talking about <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0"> Hope you learned something today!

Some, but not much... I have been in college long enough to know that just because you are majoring in something, doesn't mean you know all that much about it...

But I do see you are eating up some of the green propoganda hook, line, and sinker...

[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: Birfield King ]

Moose

05-24-2001, 11:50 AM

You guys need to give up, If Birfiled can't understnad what "damage" will be done by drilling for oil by now he will never see. Just let it go. Luckily my vote will cancel his I guess...

Berzerker

05-24-2001, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Moose:
You guys need to give up, If Birfiled can't understnad what "damage" will be done by drilling for oil by now he will never see. Just let it go. Luckily my vote will cancel his I guess...

I know... One last try though <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Berzerker

05-24-2001, 01:18 PM

Allright davey what the hell are you looking for? I just gave you numbers, examples, and facts, how much simpler can it get? <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">

Your point? I think it is pretty clear everyone here thinks we should LOWER the current consumption levels...

My point is that its not worth it to destroy the reserve for such a small amount of oil that wont even help anyone out in the long run.

The fault here is that you seem to lack the foresight to plan ahead. The whole reason I suggested drilling is not for immediate results - only a fool thinks we would see benefits NOW.

I lack foresight?!? Your the one who wants to contine to use oil as an energy resource! Its NOT going to work anymore! WE have to pioneer NEW environmently sounds ways of generating energy and stop burning fossil fuels.

It will not be "ruined" - but there will be a "visual impact" and there will be "change".

Yes, and the "change" you speak of is going to ruin it forever. Animals will die and the area will become barren unhospitable to anything. The ecosyystem is gonig to be destroied, not just inconvienced like you seem to think so. Here are some more FACTS for you to read:

RISKS TO POLAR BEARS FROM OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Disturbance of females while denning could cause them to abandon cubs.

Death, injury or harassment resulting from encounters with humans.

Damage or destruction of essential habitat (e.g., feeding, breeding and especially denning areas) by dumping, dredging, drilling and construction of platforms, pipelines, roads and support facilities.

Contact with and ingestion of oil and other contaminants (e.g., ethylene glycol antifreeze, heavy metals, organochlorines, etc.) used in oil production.

Attraction to industrial areas with subsequent habituation to humans and increased control actions.

Harassment (disturbance) by aircraft, ships and other vehicles (stress/overheating when fleeing, interruption of feeding).

Detrimental effects on the polar bear's main source of food, ringed seals, due to impacts of oil, noise and other contaminants.

SOURCES for above: Workshop on Measures to Assess and Mitigate the Adverse Effects of Arctic Oil and Gas Activities on Polar Bears, Marine Mammal Commission (1989) and other sources.

And thats JUST the Polar bears.

The majority of the Bowhead Whale popluation resides in the Western Artic sea and they're just recovering form the brink of extinction. First, it travels in leads where oil concentrates. Further, the whole population migrates together, so a spill in their path would be disastrous. Oil damages their eyes, clogs their sensory hairs and impairs their breathing. Finally, noise from drilling and ice breakers disorients whales, interferes with motion, nursing and cow/calf bonds, and masks whale calls.

Musk oxen are shaggy ice age relics that inhabit the range year round. Extirpated at the turn of the century, they were reintroduced into the area 25 years ago and currently number around 600. In the summer and early winter, muskoxen depend on lowland riparian willows, which would most likely be dug up during excavation of gravel to be used during construction. Highly specific in their choice of habitat, they are unable to adapt readily to habitat destruction.

Pipelines and related activity affect the migration routes of wolves’ primary food source: caribou. Wolf populations are low in the Arctic Refuge and extremely sensitive to prey population fluctuations and shootings.

Millions of birds migrate to the Arctic coastal plain each spring to nest in its wetlands. The birds travel from locations on 6 continents. In North America, birds from the Arctic Refuge visit all of the lower 48 states. Over 185 species of waterfowl, shorebirds, and seabirds have been observed in the Arctic Refuge, including, tundra swans, common eiders, arctic terns, and breeding brants. Oil drilling would disturb these species' nesting and foraging habitats as well as potentially have toxic effects felt here and wherever the birds travel. Of course, any declines of these migratory birds in Alaska would affect populations in the lower 48 states. External oil effects: inability to fly, loss of buoyancy potentially resulting in drowning, and hypothermia. Internal effects: toxicity, embryotoxicity, a decrease in the growth rate of young birds, and reproductive damage.

There are plenty more examples, need I go on?

So you pick the worst "what might happen" and now assume that is a GIVEN if they drill there? Poor logic again.

No, you don't seem to be able to read right. "In 1999 alone, spills released 45,000 gallons of crude oil, diesel fuel, propane and ethylene glycol, among other toxic substances." Thats an average year, business as usual for big oil, <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> That is a given. And how do you know a big spill can't happen? That like not putting on your seat belt when you get into your car cause car crashes rarely happen <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

What does a legal loophole have to do with the topic?

That wasn't the point. The oil company is still going to produce millions of gallons of oily liquids and sludge, toxic brine and other wastes and no matter where you put it its bad for everyone.

But is this "damage", or just "change"? Answer this, and we have the core of my original question...

Y-E-S!!! can't you read??? I'm starting to doubt that you even went to high school here. Habitat will be ruined aka damaged perminatly!!! I really don't understand what is so hard to see about that I've stated numerious facts in my previous post and again in this one. You on the other hand havn't proven shit as to how the oil companies are going to minimize their impact.

Do I want them to read about winderness - where the government made it off limits to EVERYONE? NO - I do not want that.

Its not offlimits to everyone, people go there all the time. I just want to keep development out of it, whats hard to understand about that? When did I ever say i wanted to keep everyone out? Get out of your paraniod right wing mindset and quit reading in to what you want to.

"global warming"... Global Warming is BUNK - wake up & see it.

After reading this I should definatly know that there is no point in contining to argue with you. Are you really that stupid? There isn't anything to argue. Its fact, there is hard evdience. Really, what the fuck are you talking about? Too bad its going to be your children and their children that have to suffer because of YOUR ignorance and stupidity.

..I have been in college long enough..

Well its pretty obvious that this is a blantent lie by now so cut it out.

DRM

05-24-2001, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Berzerker:
Allright davey what the hell are you looking for? I just gave you numbers, examples, and facts, how much simpler can it get? <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">

Yes, you gave some numbers, some facts, some opinions, and some incorrect statements <IMG SRC="smilies/tongue.gif" border="0">

My point is that its not worth it to destroy the reserve for such a small amount of oil that wont even help anyone out in the long run.

There you go with your generalizations again. The pand will not be "destroyed", so stop saying it. Yes, some of the land may be "changed", and and yes, some of it may be "damaged" if there is a spill, etc. But stol generalizing - it serves to reduce the credibility of the other things you say (some of which does make sense BTW).

I lack foresight?!? Your the one who wants to contine to use oil as an energy resource! Its NOT going to work anymore! WE have to pioneer NEW environmently sounds ways of generating energy and stop burning fossil fuels.

Calm down & pay attention to what I said. Yes, in the rather distant future it would be wonderful to think we could all but eliminate fossil fuel usage... but that doesn' happen overnight, and last time I checked there is still not even the slightest clue when a viable replacement can be found... unless you know something I don't...

Yes, and the "change" you speak of is going to ruin it forever. Animals will die and the area will become barren unhospitable to anything.

Oh please, spare us all your overdramatized comments. Drilling for oil will not turn it into a barren wasteland - stop acting like it <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

The ecosyystem is gonig to be destroied, not just inconvienced like you seem to think so. Here are some more FACTS for you to read:

RISKS TO POLAR BEARS FROM OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Disturbance of females while denning could cause them to abandon cubs.

"Could"? Looks like that is not a FACT of damage, but a POSSIBILITY. Get your FACTS straight.

Death, injury or harassment resulting from encounters with humans.

So are you saying we should not drill, or should we not allow ANY human into the area? This "fact" has nothing to do with drilling, but it does have to do with humans in the area. But since you used this, I guess you are all for locking humans out of there forever - good plan <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Damage or destruction of essential habitat (e.g., feeding, breeding and especially denning areas) by dumping, dredging, drilling and construction of platforms, pipelines, roads and support facilities.

Are you saying you have proof that they could not accomodate some intrusion into their feeding, breeding, etc grounds? Do you have informaiton to say that they could not adapt?

Contact with and ingestion of oil and other contaminants (e.g., ethylene glycol antifreeze, heavy metals, organochlorines, etc.) used in oil production.

Yeah - people putting bowls of antifreeze out for them to eat... whatever <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Harassment (disturbance) by aircraft, ships and other vehicles (stress/overheating when fleeing, interruption of feeding).

Again - you seem unable to separate two issues - oil drilling, and human presense in general. Make up your mind which one you are talking about.

[/b]Detrimental effects on the polar bear's main source of food, ringed seals, due to impacts of oil, noise and other contaminants.[/b]

How will inland drilling affect seal population?
And for that matter, how will offshore drilling somehow kill all of these seals?

The majority of the Bowhead Whale popluation resides in the Western Artic sea and they're just recovering form the brink of extinction. First, it travels in leads where oil concentrates. Further, the whole population migrates together, so a spill in their path would be disastrous. Oil damages their eyes, clogs their sensory hairs and impairs their breathing. Finally, noise from drilling and ice breakers disorients whales, interferes with motion, nursing and cow/calf bonds, and masks whale calls.

Again, are we talking about land or offshore drilling? I thought we were talking about land drilling...

Musk oxen are shaggy ice age relics that inhabit the range year round. Extirpated at the turn of the century, they were reintroduced into the area 25 years ago and currently number around 600. In the summer and early winter, muskoxen depend on lowland riparian willows, which would most likely be dug up during excavation of gravel to be used during construction. Highly specific in their choice of habitat, they are unable to adapt readily to habitat destruction.

Pipelines and related activity affect the migration routes of wolves’ primary food source: caribou. Wolf populations are low in the Arctic Refuge and extremely sensitive to prey population fluctuations and shootings.

Millions of birds migrate to the Arctic coastal plain each spring to nest in its wetlands. The birds travel from locations on 6 continents. In North America, birds from the Arctic Refuge visit all of the lower 48 states. Over 185 species of waterfowl, shorebirds, and seabirds have been observed in the Arctic Refuge, including, tundra swans, common eiders, arctic terns, and breeding brants. Oil drilling would disturb these species' nesting and foraging habitats as well as potentially have toxic effects felt here and wherever the birds travel. Of course, any declines of these migratory birds in Alaska would affect populations in the lower 48 states. External oil effects: inability to fly, loss of buoyancy potentially resulting in drowning, and hypothermia. Internal effects: toxicity, embryotoxicity, a decrease in the growth rate of young birds, and reproductive damage.

There are plenty more examples, need I go on?

So you pick the worst "what might happen" and now assume that is a GIVEN if they drill there? Poor logic again.

No, you don't seem to be able to read right. "In 1999 alone, spills released 45,000 gallons of crude oil, diesel fuel, propane and ethylene glycol, among other toxic substances." Thats an average year, business as usual for big oil, <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> That is a given. And how do you know a big spill can't happen? That like not putting on your seat belt when you get into your car cause car crashes rarely happen <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

What does a legal loophole have to do with the topic?

That wasn't the point. The oil company is still going to produce millions of gallons of oily liquids and sludge, toxic brine and other wastes and no matter where you put it its bad for everyone.

But is this "damage", or just "change"? Answer this, and we have the core of my original question...

Y-E-S!!! can't you read??? I'm starting to doubt that you even went to high school here. Habitat will be ruined aka damaged perminatly!!! I really don't understand what is so hard to see about that I've stated numerious facts in my previous post and again in this one. You on the other hand havn't proven shit as to how the oil companies are going to minimize their impact.

Its not offlimits to everyone, people go there all the time. I just want to keep development out of it, whats hard to understand about that? When did I ever say i wanted to keep everyone out? Get out of your paraniod right wing mindset and quit reading in to what you want to.

No, from your comments above (even thought quoted) you are forkeeping humans out completely. Not reading into it - YOU wrote it here above when you stated all of the "damage" mere human contact would cause...

After reading this I should definatly know that there is no point in contining to argue with you. Are you really that stupid?

Great line...

There isn't anything to argue. Its fact, there is hard evdience. Really, what the fuck are you talking about? Too bad its going to be your children and their children that have to suffer because of YOUR ignorance and stupidity.

Ouch.. more personal attacks - that is the best approach for you when you can't back your info up...

Well its pretty obvious that this is a blantent lie by now so cut it out

What is funny is you think your comments to this thread in some way make you look intelligent. All you have done is cut/paste more of the greenie mantra, and when forced to address specific points, you resort to personal attacks... Keep it up big boy, you are digging your own hole <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

Maybe you should take some debate classes, or are you too busy with your "green" classes to take real courses?

Moose

05-24-2001, 02:17 PM

Shezz man, slicker then our well-oiled George W.

[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: Moose ]

DRM

05-24-2001, 02:53 PM

Berzerker, I am tired of going round & round with you on this. You still cannot grasp the intent, or scope of my original questions, and have instead wandered off on tangents and personal attacks...

You are willing to make false statements and generalizations, I can't stand them. Perhaps we should leave it at that.

Whitewater

05-24-2001, 03:07 PM

I'm really not taking sides or saying who is right and who is wrong but from what I've seen Berzerker had presented a pretty well argument, so has DRM but the FACTS do appear to lie in Berzerkers court.
Perhaps I'm biased because I do consider myself an environmentalist, I am also reasonable and rational or at least try to be. I do agree that we need oil and we should try to provide it without other countries assistance but I truly am against the way the current policy's are heading, no I can't recommend anything better at the moment.
I also strongly agree that more, a lot more resources need to be devoted to alternative feuls, no we don't have anything ready and waiting to replace fossil feuls that's why more resources need to be devoted to it. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that these resources will be depleted to a level that will not even come close to maintaing our current usage, let alone our increasing usage. just my $.02

Berzerker

05-24-2001, 05:17 PM

There you go with your generalizations again. The pand will not be "destroyed", so stop saying it. Yes, some of the land may be "changed", and and yes, some of it may be "damaged" if there is a spill, etc. But stol generalizing - it serves to reduce the credibility of the other things you say (some of which does make sense BTW).

No, its not a false generalization anymore now that I've PROVED that it will be destroied. Therefore I can make it.

"Could"? Looks like that is not a FACT of damage, but a POSSIBILITY. Get your FACTS straight.

Oh, ok. I'm glad your willing to take a risk such as that since your sooo well educated on the subject of environmental science.

So are you saying we should not drill, or should we not allow ANY human into the area? This "fact" has nothing to do with drilling, but it does have to do with humans in the area. But since you used this, I guess you are all for locking humans out of there forever - good plan

No, stop putting words into my mouth. With all the development that will occur as they drill, the amount of human contact with Polar bears will increase a hundred fold what its is now with only visitors. Humans can go in when ever they want, they just can't build mutipule perminat structures.

Yeah - people putting bowls of antifreeze out for them to eat... whatever

You know, cause the bears would know not to eat the poisons SPILLED on the ground, like the 45,000 gallons I mentioned before???

Again - you seem unable to separate two issues - oil drilling, and human presense in general. Make up your mind which one you are talking about.

No, right now the animals aren't interrupted and people go in there. I don't know why you keep confusing humans going in and development <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">

are we talking about land or offshore drilling? I thought we were talking about land drilling...

Uhhh, do you even know where the Reserve is? Incase you didn't its on the coast of the Beaufort Sea. How do you think the oil companies are going to get their oil out of there? Backpack it out? There going to bring in huge oil rigs to hual it out. Plus the noise from drilling isn't totally kept inland do you know how sound travels?, you seem to have skipped the physics department in your "education" too.

What is funny is you think your comments to this thread in some way make you look intelligent. All you have done is cut/paste more of the greenie mantra, and when forced to address specific points, you resort to personal attacks... Keep it up big boy, you are digging your own hole

Ok, so now that you've lost the arguement and instead of admiting your wrong your going to attack my form of arguement?? How about you address the issues instead of wasting my time with this crap.

You still cannot grasp the intent, or scope of my original questions, and have instead wandered off on tangents and personal attacks...

Your a sore loser. Hope you don't teach your kid the same poor attitude. I answered your questions and backed my informantion with facts, what else do you want?

DRM

05-24-2001, 05:36 PM

Berzerker, you are wway too wrapped up in yourself. Yes, you presented some good info, but some of it was also comepletely useless, and some of it was completely false as well.

I really don't have a problem with you wanting the place to remain off limits - shoot, everybody gets an opinion on that matter and not all opinions are the same. But if you go back and pay atention to why I got into this thread, you will see my ONLY focus was on what exactly IS "damage".

You, Paul, others - you fail to see the core of what I was saying. We have a fundamental problem when everyone's definition is different in regards to what constitutes "damage". I personally think this is one of the biggest stumbling blocks between different groups. Some would define a lone set of tires tracks as "damage", others (myself included) are smart enough to see that is NOT damage, but it may be "visually unpleasant" to some people.

I did not have the intentions of getting into some drawn out battle over POSSIBLY damage from drilling in the area. But when you come across using worst case scenerio's and presentig that as the norm, I called you on it. NO, I am not saying there will be no actual damage, but I am smart enough - and you should be too - not to assume the other extreme.

Berzerker, you had a real chance here to present some information in a non-confrontational way. IMHO - you blew it big time with your childish rantings from the start. Why? Do you think it helps your position? I would have loved to have seen the INFORMATION without your RANTINGS, and I am quite sure everyone else agrees. Don't be surprised when your words are not effective when intertwined with personal attacks.

So in closing, do me one favor - try to just consider my point. Try to realize my intentions for bringing it up. And if you do think about it, I am sure you will see how the definition of "damage" is so different to so many people, and a big problem in a duscussion such as this.

Ramstein

05-24-2001, 05:44 PM

Well now that we've come this far, here's a little tidbit for ya to chew on.
The bottom line is "WE" create the need for oil by driving cars that run on fosil fuels. "We" drive the market and create the need to drill. "We" hop in our cars and drive to work, school, the local bar and sit around bitching about the price of gas or the environmental impact of drilling, meanwhile forgeting that until "We" start driving electric or alternative fuel cars, "We" have no right to bitch about these issues.

There are two options here. We can either be pro-active or re-active. Yes, we will run out of oil at our current rate of consumption. So become pro-active and start riding a bike or driving an electric car to work now or become re-active later and accept the actions taken by the suppliers to quench our need for oil (until the tap runs dry) and then be forced into a situation where we have no choices.

I dont ride a bike, drive an electric car or walk anywhere I can drive to, so I am an offender. I have accepted that we are heading for some harsh realities very soon and it causes me think what kind of an asshole am I for being a part of the problem by driving my trucks and waiting around to become re-active.

So to those of you who ride bikes and drive alternative fuel cars, my hat is off to you and thank you for being proactive. What a fine example you set for the rest of us and I hope that there are enough of you to save us from ourselves.

For the rest of you who (like myself) are unwilling to take personal steps to be a part of the solution,,,I'll see ya on the trail in my gas guzzling V8 pig mobile barfing out noxious fumes along the way.

Ramstein

05-24-2001, 05:55 PM

Oh yeah, almost forgot. I voted yes.

Curtis

05-24-2001, 06:42 PM

To me (you know I was going to eventually say something didn't you?) it is this simple.

Dam-age: NOUN : 1. Harm or injury to property or a person, resulting in loss of value or the impairment of usefulness. 2. damages Law Money ordered to be paid as compensation for injury or loss. 3. Informal Cost; price.

I'd say that #1 is the definition we need to pay attention to. So, we all agree people go into the area now and revel in its beauty and undisturbed splendor, right? Okay. If the area is disturbed in anyway, the area suffers an "impairment of usefulness" for the people who now go there to enjoy its undisturbed splendor. Yes, that is aesthetics, and there is such a thing as aesthetic damage. That is one way damage is done.

Another damage is that many small animals (mice and such) live in dens just under the surface of the ground in these areas, much like they do in meadows. As a person moves across the ground, there is a chance he or she will crush one of these animals. However, foot traffic is allowed in there right now. But, as a vehicle moves across the ground, it has a larger foot print on the ground and runs a higher risk of killing small creatures. Then take it up a level to road building. That is a HUGE foot print and chances are that atleast ONE animal will be killed (anyone who argues there is no chance of this happening is on crack). If an animal is killed, we are talking permanent and irreversible damage.

As the tundra is disturbed and the alkali (mentioned in one of the articles posted her as links) is spread out, lifeless zones are created. Since the arctic circle and the tundra areas are basically cold deserts, the chance that rain can wash the alkali down into the soil once again is remote. Some alkali areas above the arctic circle have been proven to be in existence for thousands of years. It could end up taking another serious ice age to scrub the area to allow plant life to return. Pretty serious long term damage in my book.

Well, there's more, but I hope everyone gets the gist of it.

Berzerker

05-24-2001, 07:09 PM

Berzerker, you are wway too wrapped up in yourself.
<IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/laughing.gif" border="0">

Oh god, that has to be the most ironic thing I have ever seen on this board!! Your too funny davey.

But if you go back and pay atention to why I got into this thread, you will see my ONLY focus was on what exactly IS "damage".

So pretty much while we were all arguing with facts, science, and common sense. You were arguing over how to define a word. Yep, sounds right.

you blew it big time with your childish rantings from the start. Why?

Hummm... cause its fun? I still proved my point and you wrong so does it really matter?

try to just consider my point.

Did. Done with it. Its a load of crap.

YellowSub1962

05-24-2001, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Curtis:
 If an animal is killed, we are talking permanent and irreversible damage.

I can't help but wonder how the eskimo's have been around so long with all this "killing of animals for food" going on (irreversible damage, as stated above). Since they are still hunting animals for food to this day, why are we not stopping them from purposely damaging the environment?? Is it because they need to hunt to survive? The eskimos have damaged (killed) more animals to date than a pipe line is likely to ever damage. Why is this any different? Their hunting damages the environment, more than any drilling would likely do, but is acceptable?

I think we need to step back and look at the big picture here. What are we actually doing to minimize the impacts of our existence?

Cutting down on fossil fuel consumption/dependentcy is one option. Most of us choose not to give up our big engines due to a lack of an alternative equivelent. I'm sure a lot of us would switch to ethanol if it was more readily availible (practical). I would have no problem switching if I could get it wherever I would normally be able to get gas. I'm not sure I could even drive to Las Vegas anymore if I had an ethanol burning vehicle. This would default me to travelling by air. More pollution than my original gasoline engine. To convert everything to alternative fuel at once would put the country into economic shock.

The other choice I see is to use what we have availible to us now, in a controlled manner, while we slowly phase over to other methods. I think that with todays technologies, we should have absolutely minimal chances of permanently damaging the area by drilling for oil. After the pipeline are in place, all the roads could be decomissioned and allowed to return to their previous condition.

Animals have been disrupted since the beginning of history, including humans (remember we are animals too <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">). How many of you are 100% direct decendents of the first "people" evolving on this land. Not many, but look at all the animals (humans) living in this "new habitat", which is "damaged" (changed from its original state). We have adapted, as do all animals.

I guess my point here is that we need to determine what is an "acceptable" level of "damage". I do not see building a few roads as damaging. Everytime any of you go wheeling, you are (hopefully) using a road that at one point was made by "damaging" (according to the above definition) the original habitat. Why is it acceptable for us to use and keep fighting to keep roads open that originally "damaged" habitats?

DRM

05-24-2001, 07:37 PM

Good points Yellowsub and Curtis (I will ignore the childishness of Berzerker from now on, not worth my time)

Curtis, in a way I agree - all of those could be considered "damage". But again, this comes down to personal definitions of what damage is. You think all of those are damage, many others do not.

Following the strictest guidelines, we need to go to all of those old indian cave dwellings and remove that awful defacing cave painting off the walls. We also need to dig up all of those burial mounds, since they are "scars" on the landscape. How about Stonehenge? Those rocks were horribly disfigured from their natural state, then placed on some completelt un-natural locations.

Yes, under thr strictest definitions, anything man does on this earth is "damage".

So who do you feel it is so important to save this wilderness area you will likely never see, but are willing to let your 4x4 leak oils all over your yard? Do you not have small criiters living just under the surface of your property? Then you better get rid of your house, and your vehicles, and YOU - since you are DAMAGING the land you are on.

What gets me here is the blatant double standard. You want an extremly strick definition of "damage" applied in one place, but when it hits home in your back youard, there are excuses and backpedaling...

Yellowsub hit it right on - it is about BALANCE. Humans are here to stay, and ZERO impact (or "damage") is an impossibility. So we have to just figure out how to minimize it as best we can.

[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: Birfield King ]

Curtis

05-24-2001, 08:43 PM

Come on David. You wanted specific examples of what damage would be done to ANWR if drilling (or even exploratory drilling) were allowed. I gave a few, and instead of accepting them you go to the extreme and start making examples using my yard? The reason I do not support any drilling in ANWR is that it is one area man's impact has not spoiled. My yard is already spoiled. Why is it such a bad thing, even though I readily admit I will never see ANWR, to have an area we can point to on a map and say atleast we haven't spoiled everything there? So, you see there is no double standard. My yard and areas I venture into regularly were spoiled way before I was around so I cannot do anything about that because it is impossible to return them to their natural state. Stick to ANWR and stop dragging in already spoiled areas please.

Yellow, like Daivd, you use examples that really have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Stick to the discussion (ANWR) please. Start another thread about hunting if you want to talk about that. You will find I am just as much against that as I am against spoiling ANWR.

Berzerker

05-24-2001, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Birfield King:
(I will ignore the childishness of Berzerker from now on, not worth my time)

<IMG SRC="smilies/frown.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/crybaby2.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/frown.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/crybaby2.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/frown.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/crybaby2.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/frown.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/crybaby2.gif" border="0">

Does this mean you never talk with me again? Promise? Your such an ass...

DRM

05-25-2001, 04:43 AM

Curtis, I brought up your yard because it shows a double standard. If you TRULY care about the environment, they ARE related and they ARE the same. How sad that you are making EXCUSES for where you live "it was that way before I got here" and "it is already lost" - you someone else to save another area, but are unwilling to do anything about where you live.

But back to the wilderness area - again, it depends on what damage is. I don't see roads, or small areas used for human life to be damage. Obviously, you do. I am quite positive that the area can handle SOME drilling and human intervention. NO, not widespread drilling all at once.

Maybe this comes down to misunderstandings on other levels. I would not want to see widespread drilling there, perhaps limit it to just a few operations at any given time. Maybe you assume that if it is allowed, they will go throw up 200 drilling operations everywhere they can find a place to drill. I don't want that any more than you do.

DRM

05-25-2001, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by Curtis:
If an animal is killed, we are talking permanent and irreversible damage.

Thsi is INCORRECT. Animals die every day in the wild, and one tire killing one mouse will not destroy the species, and is NOT "irreversable" in the scope of that ecosystem. Since you are such a stickler for definitions here, try looking that one up and applying it.

JeepinIan

05-25-2001, 05:42 AM

I don't want to be part of this argument, which is what it seems to have turned into, but I do want to say a couple of things.
Antifreeze is tasty to some animals. Ever seen a cat drink it? They like it even tho' it will kil them. Who knows if bears, carabu, muck ox also like the taste?
I've had the unfortunate pleasure of having tasted it myself, it is a little sweet.

As for the damage to the environment, it will happen if we drill. How much damage is the real issue here.The unfortunate part of this is that most people don't seem to care about the potato chip bag they throw away. Just look at our trails and you will see that FACT.

Does anybody know HOW much oil is down there? I do believe that it can be found out and a close estimate made BEFORE any drilling is done. Sonar (of some sort) can accomplish this, and yes the sound will impact the environment, but at least there will be some knowledge of the amount of oil in the ground up there. Then, an return on investment can be made.

From what I understand, one of the reasons that we import so much oil, is that the cost of producing it here in the USA, is more expensive than importing. From what I gather, this is strictly due to the amount of money that the oil workers are paid. (BTW, I don't want to argue the pay factor).

Reality is, we (as humans in general) will continue to use fossil fuels until we have no choice but to switch. Some individuals are going to go to alternative fuels before hand, and they should be applauded for that.
Until there is a viable and widespread alternative, this FACT will not change.

Back in WWII, the germans were producing synthetic fuels for their tanks and weapons if war. We do have the knowledge and the ability to produce a better synthetic fuel now. This is PROVEN by the Dodge concept truck w/ the SYNTHETIC deisel eng it has. What I have been told is that the cost of the syn fuel is very high, due to the limited amount that has been produced so far. Will the price drop a little, probably.

We all agree that we need to save the environment. We also agree that we like to be able to enjoy the environment.

Quit taking the personal attack base and work w/ each other. I'm really sick of attacks on each other like the greenies do to us. Work out your differences on another forum.

DRM

05-25-2001, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by JeepinIan:
Antifreeze is tasty to some animals. Ever seen a cat drink it? They like it even tho' it will kil them. Who knows if bears, carabu, muck ox also like the taste?
I've had the unfortunate pleasure of having tasted it myself, it is a little sweet.

First off - the animal would have to drink a substantial amount of the stuff to die from it. My point was it is absurd to assume there will be huge puddles of antifreeze just paying around for animals to drink. This is just more extremism examples that are not really relevant.

Does anybody know HOW much oil is down there? I do believe that it can be found out and a close estimate made BEFORE any drilling is done. Sonar (of some sort) can accomplish this, and yes the sound will impact the environment, but at least there will be some knowledge of the amount of oil in the ground up there. Then, an return on investment can be made.

Check the links given - they should cover how much oil they think is there, and how much money they think they can make from it.

The one part not mentioned though is all of these are ESTIMATES, and cannot positively know how much oil is there. There could be more than they think, or less...

From what I understand, one of the reasons that we import so much oil, is that the cost of producing it here in the USA, is more expensive than importing. From what I gather, this is strictly due to the amount of money that the oil workers are paid. (BTW, I don't want to argue the pay factor).

True. But if you bring in the fact that current alternative power sources are even more expensive, I think it is a wash over all. Prices are going to go up - any way we go.

[ 05-25-2001: Message edited by: Birfield King ]

Curtis

05-25-2001, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Birfield King:
Thsi is INCORRECT. Animals die every day in the wild, and one tire killing one mouse will not destroy the species, and is NOT "irreversable" in the scope of that ecosystem. Since you are such a stickler for definitions here, try looking that one up and applying it.

ir·re·vers·i·ble: ADJECTIVE : Impossible to reverse

Sorry David but it is irreversible in the way I used it. There is NO way to revive a creature killed by man. AND, you try to cloud the issue once again instead of just admitting that I am right in this manner. Of course animals die every day in nature, but right now in ANWR animals are not killed through direct action of mankind.

And, perhaps you just didn't read what I wrote about my yard and applying my thoughts on that it is already spoiled and IMPOSSIBLE to return to its natural state to ANWR. Look at these facts:

-ANWR is unspoiled. My yard is spoiled. Right?

-If I were to tear down my house and till my yard, it would NEVER return to its natural state because it has already been disturbed. Right?

So, how the heck are the two even related? There's no double standard. One is unspoiled and in its pristine state while the other is spoiled and impossible to return to its pristine state no matter how much money or time is spent simply because it is already disturbed. And saying what I believe is "sad" is not a very well thought out logical arguement but more of a personal attack. PLEASE use the same polite tone I am using. AND, you have no idea what I do around my yard and such to protect and ensure the environment's health. We take more steps to ensure a healthy biosystem in our yard than most people would even think of doing. This means NO pesticides, NO chemicals, NO killing anything even insects (we let spiders build their webs, we let snails eat what they want, etc.), we have things under our vehicles to catch oil as it drips from our vehicles, whatever oil does get into the dirt we dig up and send to hazardous waste centers, and we spend our own money feeding and carring for stray cats. There's much more we, but the list would go on and on and on.

As for roads, they are damage by definition unless you have some other definition of damage. Please tell us what definition you use. I gave examples of what I call damage. What do you call damage (specific examples please)?

Curtis

05-25-2001, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Birfield King:
First off - the animal would have to drink a substantial amount of the stuff to die from it. My point was it is absurd to assume there will be huge puddles of antifreeze just paying around for animals to drink. This is just more extremism examples that are not really relevant.

Wrong. The biggest danger facing the California Condor when it was re-released into the wild was coolant. Three of the original released condors were found dead from drinking a small amount of colant or coolant tainted water. It is not an extreme example but instead an example that is proven correct every day. I know someone who left a small amount of coolant in a pan in his back yard without thinking (it was less than a quart). You could hardly tell any of the coolant was gone, but three neighborhood cats, one racoon and one oppossum were found dead from injesting the coolant.

YellowSub1962

05-25-2001, 01:49 PM

My original intent was not to talk about hunting, but that was an example of resource usage that I chose. I know I probably could have articulated my thoughts better. Basically, my point was Balance needs to be achieved. I chose hunting as an example to counter the "if one animal dies it is damage" position. Granted, some mice and such will be run over, but I would hardly call this in tolerable, or destructive, as they will return to the earth one way or another. Animals die every day. They are then consumed by other members of the food chain (be it people, other animals, bacteria, plants, etc.). This is the cycle of life. To me this is a renewable resource. I was making the point that these animals are killed on a regular basis for food and are still thriving. Basically, life as we know it would cease to exist, if animals were not a renewable part of the food chain.

Back to the topic. I feel it would be possible to drill and obtain minimal "damage" to the environment. We (myself included) need to change our resource consumption habits before all our resources are exausted. If we slowly start changing now, as some are doing (I tip my hat to them), then there will be no future need for oil exploration anywhere. If we continue at our current consumption rate, we are in for some trouble. I don't think people will accept alternative fuels as the standard soon enough in the future, so some controlled drilling may be necessary now. After the alternative fuels have become standard, the oil wells and pipelines could be decomissioned, removed and the natural fauna can reclaim the roads and "platform" areas...

I think we need to start exploring our options in a very careful manner. If we don't go in and survey everything first, conduct EISs and such, when the time comes to actually need to drill, getting the oil will be a no holds barred environmental nightmare.

So I still say drill, using a cautious, concerned for the future well being of the ANWR approach. There will always be differences of opinions, but if everyone looks at this from the side they would normally oppose, they might find that there is a middle ground that can be achieved. It's all about thinking thing out and coming up with a reasonable solution that works best for everyone. This total "all or nothing" attitude is what makes the gags tick. In this regard, we are better than them, we are capable of using our resources wisely and finding a "common ground" solution.