I beg to disagree with Hawkcreek and woodcutter. The Pruhoe Bay oil fields and the Trans_Alaskan Pipeline have suffered and average of 400 oil spills annually since 1995. The development boundary has grown from the original estimate of 12,000 acres to 640,00 acres.
You have to have your head down in the sand (may be in the permafrost in this case) to think the this is a benign environmental impact.
You could argue that with global warming the entire Alaska is environmentally doom anyway. I could not disagree with that.
Much more than stopping the ANWR drilling is required to
save this planet from rapid climate changes that will make this summer hurricanes
looks like mild summer showers in comparison.
PeakOil is You
THE Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Thread (merged)
Re: U.S. Senate endorses oil drilling in Alaska wildlife ref
by fecteau » Fri 04 Nov 2005, 12:34:51
-
fecteau - Wood
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Toronto Canada
Re: U.S. Senate endorses oil drilling in Alaska wildlife ref
by dunewalker » Fri 04 Nov 2005, 12:40:20
Sorry, fecteau, but you mis-interpreted my sentiments. I sincerely believe that opening ANWR to exploitation is one of America's great tragedies, both for the environmental damage that will ensue and for the precedent set. My only hope is that the provision proposed by Ron Wyden and passed overwhelmingly by the senate will somehow discourage the oil companies from bidding, as it will no doubt be less profitable to ship the oil to the US than to ship it to Asia.
(sorry, for the glitch--edited to clean up)
(sorry, for the glitch--edited to clean up)
"Wilderness is another civilization apart from our own." - H.D. Thoreau
-
dunewalker - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1253
- Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: northern California
Re: U.S. Senate endorses oil drilling in Alaska wildlife ref
by Specop_007 » Fri 04 Nov 2005, 13:08:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('fecteau', 'I') beg to disagree with Hawkcreek and woodcutter. The Pruhoe Bay oil fields and the Trans_Alaskan Pipeline have suffered and average of 400 oil spills annually since
1995. The development boundary has grown from the original estimate of 12,000 acres to 640,00 acres.
1995. The development boundary has grown from the original estimate of 12,000 acres to 640,00 acres.
Of which provisions exist to clean up those spills. Additionally, laws are in place to ensure the facilities are safe, clean and operate in a safe manner. Now, whether or not those provisions are met.....Whole new argument.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou have to have your head down in the sand (may be in the permafrost in this case) to think the this is a benign environmental impact.
Would you prefer to live in a mudhut and lead goats around all day? Sacrafices MUST be made. Either to your standard of living, or to the environment. I certainly wont say what we do is not at all harmless to the environment. As I've said, we need to minimize our impact while maximizing our product. But to think you could have zero impact certainly is a bit optimistic.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou could argue that with global warming the entire Alaska is environmentally doom anyway. I could not disagree with that.
Seems to have survived the previous millions of years of climate change. So while the current conditions may be doomed, I think we've not much to fear in the long run.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b] Much more than stopping the ANWR drilling is required to
save this planet from rapid climate changes that will make this summer hurricanes looks like mild summer showers in comparison.
Save the planet? You propose we stop climate change? Thats flat out impossible to do.
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
-
Specop_007 - Expert
- Posts: 5586
- Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
). Oil and gas exploration in most areas where it has been conducted with care has had zero influence and in some cases has actually increased habitat. Let me offer up some examples that I have experience with:
Unfortunately there are several billion other people who have similar ideas. Sustained development has to be the way we look at things. To this end the more professional environmental scientists (not environmentalists) involved in any of these projects the better. Does ANWR offer the solution to our problems...of course not. But by the same token if we suddenly stopped access to all those areas we thought were possible environmental problems from the perspective of energy extraction it wouldn't be long before we had a world where the remaining people were living like cavemen...albeit with pristine wildlands all around them...unfortunately they just wouldn't be able to appreciate them simply because there would be no way to get there.
