Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Animals Arctic Wildlife Refuge Drilling

  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 szhismine

szhismine

    why must you hurt me in this way Harry...

  • Islander
  • 13,661 posts

Posted 01 August 2005 - 10:30 PM

drilling in a wildlife refuge is, IMHO, unacceptable. does the government even know they're planning to drill in a refuge? it will throw off the balance that the animals live in and it will affect their habitat and ways of life. that's why the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) started a petition against it.

the petition is so the Canadian Prime Minister will speak out about the drilling project. you don't need to be Canadian to sign it. they're looking for 40,000 signatures and they already have about 30,000. your help would be greatly appreciated.

the petition.

themain site.
Neville: "My grandmother forbids me from using raunchy language."
Harry: "Well your grandmother is a Blast-Ended Skank!"
Neville: *GASP*
Hermione: "He doesn't mean it Neville, he's just testing out some wizard swears."
Harry: "I mean every word I ever say ever, because I'm Harry Potter." --'Wizard Swears', Potter Puppet Pals

Hermione: "What's your problem Harry?"
Harry: "My parents are dead, my life sucks, I can't hold down a girlfriend, and I'm surrounded by f*ck*ng goblins and sh*t all the time. I mean what the f*ck?"
Ron: "But it's magic Harry. The goblins are magical!" --'Wizard Angst', Potter Puppet Pals

Me: "It's just a matter of looking past [McKay's] arrogant exterior to see his warm, fuzzy, probably angst-filled interior."
Hawkeye: "You harperchondriac girls think everyone has an angst filled interior."

"Good gods, you sniff out angst like a police dog sniffs out drugs." --Lyric (to me)

#2 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,225 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 08:18 AM

Does anyone on-line ever see who signs the petition? If it says either way on the website I didn't see it.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#3 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 08:37 AM

szhismine, on Aug 1 2005, 10:30 PM, said:

drilling in a wildlife refuge is, IMHO, unacceptable. does the government even know they're planning to drill in a refuge?

Um, . . . yes.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#4 Corwin

Corwin

    fortitudo ac honor

  • Islander
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 10:15 AM

Actually, it wouldn't do a thing to the animals or migration patterns, (outside of a catastrophic accident).  They are only talking about developing about 2000 acres (3 square miles) in an area that's larger than south carolina.  Modern drilling, capping and extraction techniques are extremely low environment impact.  

The WWF petition web site main page is nothing more than doom-saying progoganda and offers NO facts to support ANY conclusions.  If they have actual scientific studies to prove that modern drilling would be harmful, I'd suggest they show those instead of just trying to frighten people with their sorcerous ways based on an outdated and hokey religion.  (sorry, I've been reading the Star Wars Annotated Screenplays....darn you and your dialogue G.L.)

Corwin
"The Enemy is upon us, so Lock and Load, Brothers.  The Emperor Calls and the Forces of Chaos must be driven back.  Though all of us will fall, none of us shall fail!"

#5 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 11:37 AM

Corwin is right. Besides, All one has to do is look a bit to the west of ANWR to see the effects of drilling on the Caribou population. They've been drilling up at Prudhoe Bay for decades, and the popoulation of the caribou herd in that area has increased in that time. They actually like the buildings there and huddle near them (somehow it keeps a particular fly from attacking them and laying eggs in their hide).

Also untold by the environmental groups is that the drilling operations would take place during the winter months, when the area the oil is in is nothing but a frozen wasteland.

#6 Rhiannonjk

Rhiannonjk

    Woof!

  • Islander
  • 1,507 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 11:43 AM

Though the wildlife impact is not as great as sometimes made out to be, why drill these reserves, when in the long run, we may tick off all our foreign neighbors and actually *need* the oil we can provide for ourselves?  It seems like it would be a matter of national security to leave these oil fields untapped.

***Is easily distracted***


#7 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,215 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 11:55 AM

^The problem is that it takes so long to get the oil. The drilling and construction will take years. If we tick off our suppliers it would take years to replace that oil, so drilling and getting started now is a sound idea.

#8 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 12:05 PM

Lover of Purple, on Aug 2 2005, 09:55 AM, said:

^The problem is that it takes so long to get the oil. The drilling and construction will take years. If we tick off our suppliers it would take years to replace that oil, so drilling and getting started now is a sound idea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Good point! Matter of fact, if Pres. Clinton had had a little foresight 10 years ago and not vetoed drilling in ANWR, those fields would be coming on-line right as we speak.

#9 Raina

Raina

    Cpt. Raina 'Starlee'

  • Validation Team
  • 6,009 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 12:15 PM

Ok I'm confused: it's a petition to the Canadian government, but it's saying that it's the US that wants to do the drilling. Is this area along the Alaska/Yukon border then? :unsure:

Edited by Raina, 02 August 2005 - 12:16 PM.


"First thing they tell you is to assume you're already dead... dead men don't get scared or freeze up under fire. Me, I'm just worried that hell's gonna be a lonely place. And I'm gonna fill it up with every toaster son of a bitch I find." -Racetrack

"I believe what goes around comes around and if I am the instrument of 'coming round' then I'll do it happily. " -Shal


Viper Squadron CAG
Roman Warrior
Browncoat

#10 Talkie Toaster

Talkie Toaster

    There's no Shepard without Vakarian

  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 12:34 PM

Rhiannonjk, on Aug 2 2005, 04:43 PM, said:

Though the wildlife impact is not as great as sometimes made out to be, why drill these reserves, when in the long run, we may tick off all our foreign neighbors and actually *need* the oil we can provide for ourselves?  It seems like it would be a matter of national security to leave these oil fields untapped.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Well, the US is sitting on top of the world's largest supply of Kerogen...
Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

#11 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 02:11 PM

A good site examining the pros and cons of drilling in ANWR:

http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm

Personally, I have no idea what to believe since the rhetoric on both sides of the controversy has been so filled with distortion. So I don't know if ANWR is going to get trashed for the amount of oil we could save if we'd park our SUVs or if the caribou anxiously await more pipelines to cuddle with through the long winter.

But that site appears to do a fair job of sifting through the hyperbole. And yet again, I'm not enough of an expert to know for certain.

All I'd bet on at this point is that, for good or ill, ANWR will be drilled, some people will make lots of money from it, and it may or may not prove to have been worth it.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#12 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 02:12 PM

Quote

Talkie Toaster: Well, the US is sitting on top of the world's largest supply of Kerogen...

And collagen! ;)
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#13 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 03:11 PM

Spectacles, on Aug 2 2005, 12:11 PM, said:

A good site examining the pros and cons of drilling in ANWR:

http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm

Personally, I have no idea what to believe since the rhetoric on both sides of the controversy has been so filled with distortion. So I don't know if ANWR is going to get trashed for the amount of oil we could save if we'd park our SUVs or if the caribou anxiously await more pipelines to cuddle with through the long winter.

But that site appears to do a fair job of sifting through the hyperbole. And yet again, I'm not enough of an expert to know for certain.

All I'd bet on at this point is that, for good or ill, ANWR will be drilled, some people will make lots of money from it, and it may or may not prove to have been worth it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


That's a pretty fair-minded page, though it hasn't been updated in a couple of years. Now that oil is up around $60/barrel, there's a lot more oil that's economically recoverable.

#14 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 03:38 PM

^ Of course, oil prices probably wouldn't be nearly that high if we (in North America) had more refining capacity.  (Well, possibly, at least.  I could get into all the possible reasons for $60 a barrel, but... ;) )

Edited by Jid, 02 August 2005 - 03:45 PM.

cervisiam tene rem specta

#15 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 07:14 PM

Corwin, the problem with "only" 2000 acres is that those 2000 acres are scattered about in individual drilling pads--it's not isolated all in one place.  All those pads are going to need roads to connect them to bring in the service equipment.  Then there's the pipelines and the rights of way that go with them.  I don't know if you've ever seen a working oilfield, but take it from this Texan that the kind of thing they're talking about for the Refuge will tear the place all to hell.  There is simply no such thing as an "ecologically sensitive" drilling operation except in Big Oil propaganda.    

If you want to know why some folks consider Bush outright evil instead of just stupid or misadvised, it's because of his absolute determination to commit the kind of destruction drilling will bring to the Refuge.   It's not economically justifiable, and there are greater resources elsewhere.  It's simply doing harm for harm's sake.
Posted Image

#16 Fire_Storm20

Fire_Storm20

    I love the smell of napalm in the moring...

  • Islander
  • 187 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 07:58 PM

ANWR has already been drilled.  The test platform has already been used, and has an extremely tiny footprint (a 250 square foot concrete pad).   :)

#17 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 08:08 PM

waterpanther, on Aug 2 2005, 05:14 PM, said:

Corwin, the problem with "only" 2000 acres is that those 2000 acres are scattered about in individual drilling pads--it's not isolated all in one place.  All those pads are going to need roads to connect them to bring in the service equipment.  Then there's the pipelines and the rights of way that go with them.  I don't know if you've ever seen a working oilfield, but take it from this Texan that the kind of thing they're talking about for the Refuge will tear the place all to hell.  There is simply no such thing as an "ecologically sensitive" drilling operation except in Big Oil propaganda.     

If you want to know why some folks consider Bush outright evil instead of just stupid or misadvised, it's because of his absolute determination to commit the kind of destruction drilling will bring to the Refuge.   It's not economically justifiable, and there are greater resources elsewhere.  It's simply doing harm for harm's sake.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I have two words for you w, Ice Roads. The plan is to drill during the winter, when this area is nothing but a frozen wasteland.

And, as is witnessed by other drilling in Alaska, the wildlife seem to not mind the pipelines much at all, and even use them for their benefit.

And pray tell, where do we have these "greater resources elsewhere"?

P.S.: The environmental websites you seem to be using for your data need to update their numbers. At $60/barrel a lot of the oil up there is economically recoverable.

#18 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 08:39 PM

And of course, the rigs, the roads and the rest of the damage will magically go away in the spring and summer.  Wanna buy a nice used bridge?

Some of those greater resources are off the coast of Florida.  Jeb doesn't want that area drilled, though, because it's off a number of Florida resorts--and Shrubby's not pushing it because drilling there might have a negative impact on a member of his family.  

The other pipelines you're talking about are not smack in the middle of the caribou calving grounds.  ANWR is.  We don't know what effect pipelines might have on the Porcupine herd.  We do no that the Gwit'chin (who live in the area even when it's "nothing but a frozen wasteland"* ) don't want the Refuge drilled.  Don't you think the human residents of the area might legitimately be allowed a say in what happens to it?

*Fact-free Republican Talking Point #14
Posted Image

#19 Corwin

Corwin

    fortitudo ac honor

  • Islander
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 10:46 PM

waterpanther, on Aug 2 2005, 06:14 PM, said:

Corwin, the problem with "only" 2000 acres is that those 2000 acres are scattered about in individual drilling pads--it's not isolated all in one place.  All those pads are going to need roads to connect them to bring in the service equipment.  Then there's the pipelines and the rights of way that go with them.  I don't know if you've ever seen a working oilfield, but take it from this Texan that the kind of thing they're talking about for the Refuge will tear the place all to hell.  There is simply no such thing as an "ecologically sensitive" drilling operation except in Big Oil propaganda. 


Attached File  anwr.jpg   80.79K   56 downloads

They are talking about opening up a 2000 acre area for drilling. If I can get the picture to post, the area is the tiny one in the little red square.  So no, I don't believe that this will have any noticable detriment to wildlife in the area.  Yes, there will be roads, yes they'll have to be a pipeline, but the entire way they do things today is very much different than they did even 20 years ago.  Yeah, I live in Texas, and have lived here all my life.  I was here during the oil boom and during the crash.  I've seen and been on working oilfields and ones that have been shutdown.  The ANWR conditions and situation are completely different, as is much of the technology they will be working with to get the job done.

I am most certainly not in favor of haphazardly throwing up rigs all over the region, but 2000 acres is miniscule in comparison to an area the size of South Carolina.  

Corwin
"The Enemy is upon us, so Lock and Load, Brothers.  The Emperor Calls and the Forces of Chaos must be driven back.  Though all of us will fall, none of us shall fail!"

#20 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 03 August 2005 - 08:25 AM

This is a great example of how environmentalists tend to essentially work against themselves and against the environment. There's not the faintest shred of any kind of reason to think this will harm the ecosystem there in any way (as you can tell from the fact that they themselves can't even give a single explanation of HOW or WHY it would; they just say THAT it would).

There ARE sound environmental reasons to oppose drilling there, due not to the immediate effects on the immediate area but to this issue's part in the bigger picture. I don't want this case to establish a precedent of allowing industrial concerns to dominate on what are supposed to be wildlife refuges. And we shouldn't be making it easier to continue using oil for longer; we should LET it be a troublesome thing to deal with so that the time we let go of it happens sooner.

But those aren't the reasons we hear from environmentalists. Instead, they're sticking with the transparently invalid reasons that only discredit them, which makes it appear that they must not have anything better than that, which in effect makes it easier and more likely for the other side to win.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Animals, Arctic Wildlife Refuge, Drilling

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users