NationStates Jolt Archive

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051219061109990001&cid=842

Yes folks, by grafting a little bit of legislation onto a defense bill the House finally paves the way for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In other words, the war in Iraq is for oil! Indirectly. You see they would have had to deny funding for the troops, in order to deny funding for the oil companies. It was actually very clever.

So, what do you think? Big oil gets a victory thanks to government, and enviro-nuts and the environment gets a big fuck-you. Merry Christmas!

Good news actually. Better we use American oil than oil from let's say, venezuela or some other country that loves us. As far as the enviromental damage scare. I am not worried about this. That area is huge up there and the footprint for a new oil field is small compared to the overall area.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051219061109990001&cid=842

Yes folks, by grafting a little bit of legislation onto a defense bill the House finally paves the way for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In other words, the war in Iraq is for oil! Indirectly. You see they would have had to deny funding for the troops, in order to deny funding for the oil companies. It was actually very clever.

So, what do you think? Big oil gets a victory thanks to government, and enviro-nuts and the environment gets a big fuck-you. Merry Christmas!

This seriously pisses me off. I'm at a loss for words as to how wrong this is.

IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!! Maybe now we can stop relying on foregin oil, and prices will drop...eventually. So a few caribou have to learn to go under a pipe, big deal! Alaska is gigunonormous! We won't even make a scratch on the car door of the wilderness SUV!! :p

Good news actually. Better we use American oil than oil from let's say, venezuela or some other country that loves us. As far as the enviromental damage scare. I am not worried about this. That area is huge up there and the footprint for a new oil field is small compared to the overall area.

So basically you excuse this because of the usual nationalism/trade protectionism/better-not-do-business-with-brown-people bit...

and that oil wells are perfectly OK in a place called a "National Wildlife Refuge." Tell me, do you also like to take a shit in the kitchen? I mean, the actual footprint of human feces is pretty small...

We have oil wells off the coast here in Santa Barbara. You can't go to the beach without getting oil and tar on your feet. I can only surmise that that isn't good for any wildlife either. But since it's not a National Refuge here, I don't really object.

But this is kind of like logging in Yosemite National Park just so we don't have to buy any wood from those Canucks.

So basically you excuse this because of the usual nationalism/trade protectionism/better-not-do-business-with-brown-people bit...

and that oil wells are perfectly OK in a place called a "National Wildlife Refuge." Tell me, do you also like to take a shit in the kitchen? I mean, the actual footprint of human feces is pretty small...

We have oil wells off the coast here in Santa Barbara. You can't go to the beach without getting oil and tar on your feet. I can only surmise that that isn't good for any wildlife either. But since it's not a National Refuge here, I don't really object.

But this is kind of like logging in Yosemite National Park just so we don't have to buy any wood from those Canucks.

Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and South America all of a sudden stop selling. China won't share, and our reserves are depleted in two years, three tops. Uh-oh! Now we are fooked.

Some sacrifices by nature must be made. Just move the preserve 100 or so miles east, west, or south and it will all work out.

IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!! Maybe now we can stop relying on foregin oil, and prices will drop...eventually. So a few caribou have to learn to go under a pipe, big deal! Alaska is gigunonormous! We won't even make a scratch on the car door of the wilderness SUV!! :p

Um. Not that much oil is actually expected to be produced. That is the scratch on the car door.

On the other hand, the estimated impact on the wildlife refuge is enormous.

Motherfucker! :mad:

I call corporatism.

We should protect the enviroment. I don't know why but I just think we should. Wait... How much oil are we talking about here? ;)

Good news actually. Better we use American oil than oil from let's say, venezuela or some other country that loves us. As far as the enviromental damage scare. I am not worried about this. That area is huge up there and the footprint for a new oil field is small compared to the overall area.
Bad news, actually. Reminds me too much of this:
Better we use American soil than soil from let's say, Europe or some other countries that love us. As far as the enviromental damage scare. I am not worried about this. That continent is huge and the footprint for a new nation is small compared to the overall world.

Besides, oil is one of the deadliest chemicals you can add to a wildlife reserve. But then you'd probably argue that it's the wildlife's fault it's sitting on top of all that oil, right? Oh, wait, no - those were the Arabs, my bad...

Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and South America all of a sudden stop selling. China won't share, and our reserves are depleted in two years, three tops. Uh-oh! Now we are fooked.

Yeah, now all we have as a bargaining chip is our stated ability to completely fucking destroy any nation on the planet at the press of a button! What ever shall we do?

All you are doing with this is extending that two, three years to - what - two point five, three point five years? That doesn't exactly change the situation if every oil producing nation on earth stops selling to us, does it?

And grafting this measure onto a defense bill is kind of like saying "OK, we'll feed your soldiers, but only if the President's oil buddies can get to rape the Arctic!" In other words, blackmail by holding hostage every American soldier in Iraq. It's a disgusting tactic on a moral level.

And that's coming from a guy who generally enjoys disgusting tactics.

Um. Not that much oil is actually expected to be produced. That is the scratch on the car door.

On the other hand, the estimated impact on the wildlife refuge is enormous.

And yet, several scientific sources say that the damage is often exaggerated.

I rarely trust evironmentalists. Too many of them will say anything to get more funding for their own stuff.

All I know is, we need the oil, the Middle East won't always sell to us, and I want to dive my big, uberpolluting, gas guzzling SUV.

So basically you excuse this because of the usual nationalism/trade protectionism/better-not-do-business-with-brown-people bit...



Think you reading a bit to much into my comments there. It is better to have ones own resources than to have someone else control your nations life blood. Be it white, yellow, brown red or whatever color you have in your head.



and that oil wells are perfectly OK in a place called a "National Wildlife Refuge." Tell me, do you also like to take a shit in the kitchen? I mean, the actual footprint of human feces is pretty small...



They log in National forests. So why wouldn't they drill on a national refuge? They could revoke its refuge status. Then they wouldn't have to "drill" in a "national wildlife refuge".
You always a sarcastic twit btw?



We have oil wells off the coast here in Santa Barbara. You can't go to the beach without getting oil and tar on your feet. I can only surmise that that isn't good for any wildlife either. But since it's not a National Refuge here, I don't really object.

There really is oil and tar on the beach in SB? Do you have a link to verify that? Not that I don't believe you...


But this is kind of like logging in Yosemite National Park just so we don't have to buy any wood from those Canucks.

We have plenty of places that we can log on Federal land without disturbing a National park. They do log in Yellowstone National Park now to reduce the fire hazard. I saw that while visiting within the parks boundries. Now your not a dumb guy SB. You know that oil can only be found in certain areas. One of the possible largest fields happens to have a refuge on top of it. Thats life....

Yeah, now all we have as a bargaining chip is our stated ability to completely fucking destroy any nation on the planet at the press of a button! What ever shall we do?

All you are doing with this is extending that two, three years to - what - two point five, three point five years? That doesn't exactly change the situation if every oil producing nation on earth stops selling to us, does it?

And grafting this measure onto a defense bill is kind of like saying "OK, we'll feed your soldiers, but only if the President's oil buddies can get to rape the Arctic!" In other words, blackmail by holding hostage every American soldier in Iraq. It's a disgusting tactic on a moral level.

And that's coming from a guy who generally enjoys disgusting tactics.

Buddy, if you actually understood politics, you'd realize that it was grafted into the defense bill because it'd be the only way to get it passed. Would Congress not pass a bill to support our soldiers? I don't think so.

It's not blackmail, it's good tactics.

And grafting this measure onto a defense bill is kind of like saying "OK, we'll feed your soldiers, but only if the President's oil buddies can get to rape the Arctic!" In other words, blackmail by holding hostage every American soldier in Iraq. It's a disgusting tactic on a moral level.

And that's coming from a guy who generally enjoys disgusting tactics.


You know damn well that all sorts of bills are tagged with items to get them through. Politicians of both parties do this crap. That's how most pork barrel projects get done. Stop playing stupid or your going to make me think you are.

And yet, several scientific sources say that the damage is often exaggerated.

I rarely trust evironmentalists. Too many of them will say anything to get more funding for their own stuff.

All I know is, we need the oil, the Middle East won't always sell to us, and I want to dive my big, uberpolluting, gas guzzling SUV.

I'd love to see your "several scientific sources."

Do they address how little oil we expect to get from Alaska compared to how much we consume? We will still need mostly foreign oil.

EDIT: Here (http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm#section2) is information from Bush's own F&W Service.

I'd love to see your "several scientific sources."

Do they address how little oil we expect to get from Alaska compared to how much we consume? We will still need mostly foreign oil.

Nice way to change your tone there cat. Now its compared to how much we consume. ;) Nice little shift. What I have read and of course there could be opinions of the opposite. That this may be one of the biggest fields around. We will not know until we investigate. We should ween ourselves off foreign dependance of oil as much as possible. Another plan of attack would be to invest heavily into alternative fuels. Which I'm all for btw.

Nice way to change your tone there cat. Now its compared to how much we consume. ;) Nice little shift. What I have read and of course there could be opinions of the opposite. That this may be one of the biggest fields around. We will not know until we investigate. We should ween ourselves off foreign dependance of oil as much as possible. Another plan of attack would be to invest heavily into alternative fuels. Which I'm all for btw.

Um. What switch? :confused: My position has been consistent.

Both the FWS and DOE think we will get little oil from ANWR. We have investigated.

It is better to have ones own resources than to have someone else control your nations life blood.

Mercantilism died with the Spanish Empire. I'm a free market proponent, which means I don't share your irrational trust of Americans in control of oil nor do I have an intrinsic distrust of other nationalities in control of oil.i

They log in National forests. So why wouldn't they drill on a national refuge? They could revoke its refuge status. Then they wouldn't have to "drill" in a "national wildlife refuge".
You always a sarcastic twit btw?

I notice you didn't actually answer the question. Look, you could just change the title of the room. Instead of a kitchen, it's a bathroom. Instead of a sink, it's a toilet. No problem, right? I'm being 100% serious. And calling me a "twit" doesn't really help your argument.


There really is oil and tar on the beach in SB? Do you have a link to verify that? Not that I don't believe you...

Uh, I don't need a link, I go there regularly. Yes, there really is.


We have plenty of places that we can log on Federal land without disturbing a National park. They do log in Yellowstone National Park now to reduce the fire hazard.

Yeah, and that would be different. That is actually a pro-environmental measure.

Now your not a dumb guy SB. You know that oil can only be found in certain areas. One of the possible largest fields happens to have a refuge on top of it. Thats life....

Yes, oil can only be found in certain areas. Like the Middle East! Oops, you can't bear the thought of trade with anyone in the Middle East, so that's not an option. So much for "that's life."

All I know is, we need the oil, the Middle East won't always sell to us, and I want to dive my big, uberpolluting, gas guzzling SUV.

All I know is, we need the oil, everything is finite including any oil in the Arctic, and one day your stupid SUV will come to a grinding halt and you'll be whimpering cuz da car no go fo-ward! :(

I guess thats why we need to work on finding alternate sources of energy and making sure the Middle East does sell to us. Or would that require science and diplomacy... teh horrors!

Buddy, if you actually understood politics, you'd realize that it was grafted into the defense bill because it'd be the only way to get it passed. Would Congress not pass a bill to support our soldiers? I don't think so.

It's not blackmail, it's good tactics.

Hurh hurh, I didna understand politics, me too dumb!

It IS blackmail. I already pointed out it was a clever tactic in the FIRST POST. You aren't justifying anything here, just finding a way to imply that I'm too stupid to understand politics. I appreciate the attempt - it's cute, really it is - but you'll have to do better than that.

You know damn well that all sorts of bills are tagged with items to get them through. Politicians of both parties do this crap.

Oh, well that excuses it! Yes, I know that all sorts of bills are tagged with items to get them through. I also know that this IS crap.

That's how most pork barrel projects get done. Stop playing stupid or your going to make me think you are.

Yeah whatever, if you're going to think I'm stupid that will be entirely your own choice. Don't blame me for your own thoughts.

Yeah whatever, if you're going to think I'm stupid that will be entirely your own choice. Don't blame me for your own thoughts.

My thoughts heh, SB I bet your a real gas in person.;)

Don't laugh, the oil well is an endangered species. Shrinking habitat and everything.

Plus, people like you are using electric power produced by oil and/or natural gas to run your silly little computers, thus reducing their numbers even more.

Have you no heart?

My thoughts heh, SB I bet your a real gas in person.;)

I sure am! :D

You know damn well that all sorts of bills are tagged with items to get them through. Politicians of both parties do this crap. That's how most pork barrel projects get done. Stop playing stupid or your going to make me think you are.
That doesn't mean it's a viable excuse for the other. It's not a game of tag.

this is the worst idea since funding the taliban

It's about time we put that little bit of god-forsaken wilderness to work. If it buys some time while coming up with alternatives to burning petroleum, it's effort well spent. If it only buys us time, that's our fault.

this is the worst idea since funding the taliban

We didn't fund the Taliban. Your thinking of the Mujahadeen. The Mujahadeen were the Jihadist against the Soviets. The name Mujahadeen is basically means Jihadist. That is a blanket name for all Jihadist in that area fighting the Soviets. There were two groups of these. The native afghani's which the US trained funded and provided weapons. The latter was the "Arab" Mujahadeen or Jihadists that Bin Laden belonged to. The US did not train the foreign Arabs in afghanistan or did they lend cash or arms.

this is the worst idea since funding the taliban
Worse than entering Iraq? Worse than the PATRIOT Act? Puhleeze, get a fucking sense of proportion.
And to the rest of you, its a patch of empty wilderness that does nothing for anyone. Sure, it is pristine, the moon is also pristine. Mars is pristine. Pluto is pristine. New York snow is pristine for 2.3 seconds after it falls. The world has enough Pristinity to keep itself filled up, Oil, however, is in shorter supply.

That doesn't mean it's a viable excuse for the other. It's not a game of tag.

This political process has been going on forever. Is it a viable excuse for anyone that does it? Or as someone posted earlier just a political tactic that gets results for the party that is attaching said bill/legislation. That is just the facts of dealing with Washington politics. All parties are guilty of this manuever.

Fuck. this is bloody depressing. and there I was thinking American law-makers were on the right track for once when they voted this down several weeks ago. The oil up there is basically a drop in the bucket int the bigger picture of the US's enegy needs -worth something like a few weeks' worth of demand. Bloody hell.

Worse than entering Iraq? Worse than the PATRIOT Act? Puhleeze, get a fucking sense of proportion.

I agree.


Sure, it is pristine, the moon is also pristine. Mars is pristine. Pluto is pristine. New York snow is pristine for 2.3 seconds after it falls.

Of course, the moon, Mars, Pluto, and New York snow have not been designated wildlife refuges.

The world has enough Pristinity to keep itself filled up, Oil, however, is in shorter supply.

It'll still be in shorter supply after this goes through, but I guess the supply of government-sanctified oil profits in the hands of dubya's friends will go up a bit. Hooray for fascism! :)

We didn't fund the Taliban.
But you didn't really mind them either...;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

But you didn't really mind them either...;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

In all fairness you are showing a "Clinton" years story. That is another topic for a completely new thread on how Clinton let Osama go.

In all fairness you are showing a "Clinton" years story. That is another topic for a completely new thread on how Clinton let Osama go.

Hmmm the Clinton did it defense.

So when did the Soviets invade and who was President at the time. And after that?

Hmmm the Clinton did it defense.

So when did the Soviets invade and who was President at the time. And after that?

Well it's just as simple as providing a link if your interested.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0802662.html

In all fairness you are showing a "Clinton" years story.
Bush was Governor in Texas then, wasn't he?

But yes, all sides of the divide couldn't give a shit about the type of people the Taliban were.

We didn't fund the Taliban. Your thinking of the Mujahadeen. The Mujahadeen were the Jihadist against the Soviets. The name Mujahadeen is basically means Jihadist. That is a blanket name for all Jihadist in that area fighting the Soviets. There were two groups of these. The native afghani's which the US trained funded and provided weapons. The latter was the "Arab" Mujahadeen or Jihadists that Bin Laden belonged to. The US did not train the foreign Arabs in afghanistan or did they lend cash or arms.


my mistake. I knew it was a jihadist group against the soviets.

Awesome! It's about time they followed through with this.

Alot of people don't appreciate how big the world really is. There is a TON of land out there, the reserves and parks are simply gargantuan. The only thing that could even scratch an area of land that big is agriculture, which doesn't happen so much up there because of the climate anyway. As far as oil spills it is the best possible situation, as the ground is frozen in permafrost most of the year and an oil spill wouldn't go anywhere.

Alot of people don't appreciate how big the world really is. There is a TON of land out there, the reserves and parks are simply gargantuan. The only thing that could even scratch an area of land that big is agriculture, which doesn't happen so much up there because of the climate anyway. As far as oil spills it is the best possible situation, as the ground is frozen in permafrost most of the year and an oil spill wouldn't go anywhere.

Actually I have read the reserves are questionable in size.

Oh and oil spills are not the concern.....

Yay for disgusting tricks to fund the oil robber-barons!

Honestly. The prediction is that there is not enough oil to do much to even DENT oil prices significantly. Basically, the only winners in this are the Alaskan people (who get checks for the oil they ship elsewhere) and Exxon and friends. Moreso, there is an already unstable population of Caribu that migrate into that region yearly who WILL be effected by the massiveness of oil projects (they take up much more space then you'd think). Beyond that, we have to ship all that many tons of oil OUT of Alaska, when we do this, which means all the more risk for oil spills in the sea (Oh that won't happen! After all Alaska has never had, say, America's largest oil spill! :rolleyes: Exxon told the people of Price William Sound there was no risk of a spill too.).

Discounting all of that, there's still one more issue. Why are we wasting the money that will go towards gaining this oil on such an unsustainable supply? Why are we pandering to Big Oil, when we could fund Biodeisel fuel research, Hydrogen Car Reasearch, some of the more obscure fuel sources, or even just green heating and power sources?

Enviro-nuts be damned, there are plenty of environmental issues that corporate America screws PEOPLE over on, and this is one of them.

(singing poorly)

Oiiiiiil in Nooooome for Christmas...
Thaaaank the G.O.P..

Well then! If we're finally drilling in Alaska that means I can start driving my stretch hummer right? hell why don't I go burn those 200 barrels of oil I was saving!

seriously though I'm all for it. however...

I hate to be they bringer of bad news but any solution that has to do with drilling is strictly temporary, so unless we find a new energy source or figure out how to make alchemy work were screwed

Bush was Governor in Texas then, wasn't he?

But yes, all sides of the divide couldn't give a shit about the type of people the Taliban were.

Governors don't get to decide who can and can't come into their state.

I hate to be they bringer of bad news but any solution that has to do with drilling is strictly temporary, so unless we find a new energy source or figure out how to make alchemy work were screwed

BINGO! We have a winner!

Everybody is falling all over themselves to set up in China and India. Never mind the fact that improving incomes, etc. adds another billion or so gas consumers to the equation.....

So a few caribou have to learn to go under a pipe, big deal!didnt a study find, that the oilpipelines actually are good for the cariboupopulation? else how could the caribou population have more than quadrupled in the area through which the oilpipeline from 1973 goes through in that time.And grafting this measure onto a defense bill is kind of like saying "OK, we'll feed your soldiers, but only if the President's oil buddies can get to rape the Arctic!" In other words, blackmail by holding hostage every American soldier in Iraq. It's a disgusting tactic on a moral level.did you think it was disgusting to attach a torture ban to the defense bill?Basically, the only winners in this are the Alaskan people (who get checks for the oil they ship elsewhere) and Exxon and friends.if you know that, why dont you buy stock in exxon? this way you could be winner too.
take a mortgage on your house and buy exxon call options! or maybe you arent so sure?

Tell me, how many people here have ever actually been to ANWR? Anyone? I'll be waiting.

...


ANWR is mostly just desolate landscape; this isn't Yellowstone we're talking about. Pumping oil out of ANWR isn't going to result in the destruction of any species, same way the Alaskan Pipeline was hyped up as the doom of Alaskan wildlife and nothing came of it.

Good news actually. Better we use American oil than oil from let's say, venezuela or some other country that loves us. As far as the enviromental damage scare. I am not worried about this. That area is huge up there and the footprint for a new oil field is small compared to the overall area.
That area 'up there', being tundra, is one of the most fragile ecosystems on earth. It doesn't take much to damage it. And it's not just about the oil field itself, it's about the pipelines, which have already disrupted the caribou herds migrations in other areas where pipelines exist. This is a major sticking point for native people in Alaska, and the Yukon, and Northwest Territories of Canada. However, natives in the Canadian territories have more political power to ensure that strict environmental guidelines are followed...stricter guidlines than exist under Federal regulations. It doesn't seem that the Alaskan Gwitchin have that same sort of bargaining power. I only hope that a reasonable compromise is struck...and that as much as is possible (not just as much as is required) the companies going into that area ensure that they have the least possible impact.

Tell me, how many people here have ever actually been to ANWR? Anyone? I'll be waiting.

...


ANWR is mostly just desolate landscape; this isn't Yellowstone we're talking about. Pumping oil out of ANWR isn't going to result in the destruction of any species, same way the Alaskan Pipeline was hyped up as the doom of Alaskan wildlife and nothing came of it.
Desolate landscape? I take it you haven't been there in the (very) brief summer? I lived high above the Arctic Circle for 3 years, and have been as far north as Holman. Even on that island, the incredible growth of flowers, berries and mosses during the summer is spectacular. Do you know how much it takes to permanently kill of a patch of moss/flowers/berries? A footprint. A single footprint. Oh, eventually that area will be seeded/spored and grow again...but we are talking years, not seasons. The word 'fragile' doesn't do justice to how easy it is to cause major damage in that ecosystem.

And while it is true that the Alaskan pipeline did not decimate the caribou herds, it DID cause one large herd to lose its calving grounds. That herd migrated elsewhere, and it's population rebounded...BUT, what has to be kept in mind is that oil and gas exploration up north is booming right now. More and more pipelines are being proposed, and more and more drilling sites are being set up. Steps beyond what have been traditionally taken (raised pipelines, etc) need to be considered NOW...because you can only move a herd away from its calving grounds so many times, before you run out of space for them to find 'new' ones. Yes, the territories are vast up there...but the range of these animals is just as vast, and the various herds avoid competition with one another because they have not been forced together yet.

I only hope that a reasonable compromise is struck...and that as much as is possible (not just as much as is required) the companies going into that area ensure that they have the least possible impact.

Or Steven Seagal will use his roundhouse kick... (god, I hated that movie).

Tell me, how many people here have ever actually been to ANWR? Anyone? I'll be waiting.
I think you confused 'refuge' with 'zoo'.

Um. Not that much oil is actually expected to be produced. That is the scratch on the car door.

On the other hand, the estimated impact on the wildlife refuge is enormous.
Migratory routes might change, until construction is finished and land restoration done. It won't have that big an impact.

An oil line over ground from the Arctic to mainland U.S. is actually an environmental move. Far less oil will end up spilled into in the seas off our combined coasts.

Or Steven Seagal will use his roundhouse kick... (god, I hated that movie).
With all the native 'mysticism', the fringed jacket he wore, and the good versus evil plot? Oh just DIE Steven! You are NOT an indian, you are NOT a ninja, and you are NOT COOL!!!!^*&#*&^$#(@(*@(&#*(!!!

In March 2004, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in response to a Congressional request, issued an analysis of potential oil reserves and production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The report projected that for the mean resource case (10.4 billion barrels technically recoverable, according to the U.S Geological Survey), ANWR peak production rates could range from 0.6 to 1.6 million bbl/d, with initial ANWR production possibly beginning around 2013, and peak production possible around 2024.

So at peak production, ANWAR can supply oil for about 18 years. Note - bbl/d means barrels per day.

The United States consumed an average of about 20.6 million bbl/d of oil during the first nine months of 2005, the same amount year-over-year as in 2004.

So ANWAR would be able produce about 8 percent of our daily oil.

Assuming that it operates at the high end of estimates for production and life span. At the low end, it's about 3 percent.

Just for the idly curious or non-math inclined, 20.6 million bbl/d means that our country uses approximately 7.5 billion barrels of oil a year. So another way of looking at it is that ANWAR could supply about a year and halfs worth of oil, total.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Oil.html


Elicere

Migratory routes might change, until construction is finished and land restoration done. It won't have that big an impact.

On the herds. It won't have a big impact on the herds. But it has a heck of an impact on the native people. They have to range out much further to hunt...which may not sound like a big deal, but we are talking about areas with few roads...people quad or skidoo out hundreds of klicks, and there is STILL a high risk of getting lost and dying from exposure. This increases the further they have to go.

The elders in Inuvik had a huge meeting last year about how the caribou herd in that area has begun shifting away from its thousands-of-years-old migration pattern. People were going out three hours further into the bush just to catch the edge of the herd. Again, that may not sound like much...but when you're hunting in -30 degree weather, with a wind-chill that makes it more like -50 degrees, the danger to your safety increases by a pretty hefty percentage the further you have to range out. There are many traditions involved in the hunt...certain elders are given the privilege of 'trail breaking'...it's a very important ceremony, but a dangerous one. It's also harder to bring the carcasses back that distance.

So development in these areas DO have an impact. And a very real one for certain people...but it is easy to discount native hunting and native interests, especially when so few people understand anything about them, do not respect their culture, and are so far removed from them that their problems seem utterly insignificant.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051219061109990001&cid=842

Yes folks, by grafting a little bit of legislation onto a defense bill the House finally paves the way for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In other words, the war in Iraq is for oil! Indirectly. You see they would have had to deny funding for the troops, in order to deny funding for the oil companies. It was actually very clever.

So, what do you think? Big oil gets a victory thanks to government, and enviro-nuts and the environment gets a big fuck-you. Merry Christmas!
SIGH! This is wrong ... period. :(

If we really wanted to stop relying on forgeign oil, we would find out a way to get the oil out of the rocks in the west. I hear there is so much oil out there, like Alaska has nothing compared to it. But, the rocks have low permeability, thus the oil is near imposssible to extract. However, if we wanted to stop oil from other nations, wouldn't the gov't be trying to find a way to get this oil out of these rocks? I just think this is another right-wing conspiracy wanting to destroy our enviroment.:rolleyes:

Well it's just as simple as providing a link if your interested.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0802662.html

Thanks but I am a little older then you think.

I followed it when the Soviets first invaded.....

Just think about how much money is being spent on development, on building the infrastructure to pipe oil and gas down...we're talking billions of dollars, not just on this project, but on the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline as well. For stocks that seem huge...but can only last for a few years. Why on earth are we not putting that money into weaning ourselves off of oil? I mean...I understand that politicians are short-sighted, but this is ridiculous! It's like this...you are running low on fresh water. You know that you need water to survive, and that as the stocks deplete, you can make more and more money off of what is left...so you sink billions into getting at that water. But while you do that, you pay only token attention to the fact that once it's gone, IT'S GONE...and what are you going to do then? Scramble around at the last second to find ways to purify salt water so you can keep consuming water at the levels you always have? It's insanity!

Thanks but I am a little older then you think.

I followed it when the Soviets first invaded.....
And the US did help support the Taliban as part of the 'War on Drugs'.

The whole article (http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/hardball/242.html)
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: Los Angeles Times, May 22 2001 Contact: letters@latimes.com Website: http://www.latimes.com/ Author: Robert Scheer Note: Robert Scheer Is a Syndicated Columnist.

BUSH'S FAUSTIAN DEAL WITH THE TALIBAN

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti- American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Don't forget the deals being made over a Central Asian pipeline (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/bostonglobe092001.html)...deals that benefited the Taliban as well.

Of course, the US likely would've supported whichever faction (though the largest at the time was the Taliban (http://www.rense.com/general14/rise.htm)) as long as the pipeline was a go. So did they directly aid the Taliban, and help them above the others? Not necessarily, and not as directly as they'd helped other groups in the past. But the US did have a hand in their rise.

Just think about how much money is being spent on development, on building the infrastructure to pipe oil and gas down...we're talking billions of dollars, not just on this project, but on the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline as well. For stocks that seem huge...but can only last for a few years. Why on earth are we not putting that money into weaning ourselves off of oil? I mean...I understand that politicians are short-sighted, but this is ridiculous! It's like this...you are running low on fresh water. You know that you need water to survive, and that as the stocks deplete, you can make more and more money off of what is left...so you sink billions into getting at that water. But while you do that, you pay only token attention to the fact that once it's gone, IT'S GONE...and what are you going to do then? Scramble around at the last second to find ways to purify salt water so you can keep consuming water at the levels you always have? It's insanity!

I can answer all that up from a comment I have heard a few executives said at one time or another.

"It's not my problem, it's my successors problem"

I can answer all that up from a comment I have heard a few executives said at one time or another.

"It's not my problem, it's my successors problem"
Aboslutely. That's what politics is about. It's scary though...we need to be able to think past a 4 year term.