Posted on 11/09/2005 7:10:25 PM PST by sonsofliberty2000
House GOP leaders have decided to drop an Arctic oil drilling proposal from a budget bill.
Kill them all.
Waste the oil all around and set fire to it.....burn those geese.
So we won't have to wory about Bird Flu
"Hear that clunk? That's the sound of the testicles of the House Republicans falling off and hitting the floor."
That would be more like a "ting".
More like a dead slug bounce
A large percentage of readers of this BBS probably cannot spare a lot of time for topical in-depth thinking. But, we can scroll past superficial responses as if they are little more than bookmarks for the responders for some later time [never likely to materialize] when they will have time to do some serious thinking. Allowing for that, there remains a substantial array of shallow thinking. But, a fair number of informative ideas are embedded in the background noise, and if we have some time we can pick out these insights. If it were not so, neither you nor I would spend much time here. Right?
Yes, animals live in the wild, that we can agree upon. However, you make it sound that the small fraction of area used (2000 acres-which you never seem to address) equals the prime calving area. Another poster had a link to the actual impact area. We are talking a very small fraction of the prime land. Further you are speculating that such development will have a significant negative impact to the herd. These same arguments were made concerning the North Slope and the Alaskan pipeline. Did the sky fall? No, caribou thrived.
Everything else -- whether it would be to the benefit or detriment of a specific specie or species -- is speculation (with some speculations being more "informed" than others). The bottom lines are: the area would be altered, and the area is utilized by the wildlife of the refuge.
2000 acres impacted, millions acres that are not. Yours is an exclusive logic that would rather see us freeze to death in the dark rather than reasonably develop reserves that could be substantial with development and accomplishing that with MINIMAL disruption to the wildlife and perhaps to their benefit. Seems you want to follow the 'speculation' of the eco-extremeists that desire us to ultimately go back into the stone age.
There is not cost to the Federal Government to develop ANWR. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the competitive sale of oil and gas leases in the ANWR coastal plain will raise $2.5 billion in revenue for fiscal years 2006-2010.
As they have been saying for the last 25 years...
Would you care to explain the population of the Central Arctic Caribou Herd? They calve in the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk Oil field areas. In 1975, when the fields were just getting started, the CAH population was ~5,000. In 2002 the population was measured to be ~32,000. The herd has not moved to a new area. Also, studies have shown the gravel roads and pads give the caribou a place to get out of the tundra where the mosquitoes thrive.
It was not my intent to discuss the level of impact different development scenarios might cause. My intent was to reply to a poster and indicate that the 1002 area where oil and gas development would take place is utilized by wildlife of ANWR. 2,000 acres is not the entire prime calving area, but it's in the prime calving area. So much for stating the obvious.
Yours is an exclusive logic that would rather see us freeze to death in the dark rather than reasonably develop reserves that could be substantial with development and accomplishing that with MINIMAL disruption to the wildlife and perhaps to their benefit.
I advocate scenarios that would have maximum benefit for this country. Because of that, I advocate increased use of nuclear power and development of biofuels (notably cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass) that would substantially change our energy and fuel-use infrastructure, not prolong a dependency on petroleum that endangers our national security and long-term economic future. ANWR oil, no matter how it is sliced and diced, will have a short-term, low-impact effect on the overall fuel use profile of the United States. You might not want to take that from me -- you might want to read the post earlier in this thread that expressed the opinion of strong conservative Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, who holds a Ph.D. (in physics, I think) and see why he opposes ANWR drilling.
"Parturient female caribou (i.e., those about to give birth or accompanied by very young calves) of the Central Arctic herd repeatedly demostrated their sensitivity to disturbance during the first few weeks of life of their calves (Smith and Cameron 1983, Whitten and Cameron 1983, Dau and Cameron 1986; Cameron et al. 1992; Nellemann and Cameron 1996, 1998)."
...
"Central Arctic herd caribou may make substantial use of areas in the vicinity of oil field infrastructures during periods of moderate to high insect abundance during post-calving in July (Pollard et al. 1994). That observation is not relevant, however, to the distribution of the Central Arctic herd during calving in June nor to the assessment of Porcupine caribou herd distribution during calving in relation to potential oil development: Caribou of the Porcupine herd generally depart the calving ground during early July."
...
"To assess potential effects of development on the growth curve of the Central Arctic herd, we needed to make comparisons with an ecologically similar herd. The Porcupine caribou herd does not constitute a good ecological comparison and neither does the Western Arctic herd. The Teshekpuk Lake herd (Fig. 3.9) is the most ecologically comparable herd to the Central Arctic herd in Alaska."
"The Central Arctic herd and Teshekpuk Lake herd are certainly not identical, however: 1) both herds are relatively small in size and the trajectories of their growth curves suggest exponential growth, 2) both herds have relatively high bull:cow ratios (~80:100), 3) calving ground habitats of both herds showed similar climate trends (Kelleyhouse 2001, Wolfe 2000), 4) both herds exhibited the same dip in herd size during the mid-1990s (Fig. 3.9), 5) neither herd has consistently demonstrated the long distance migrations exhibited by the Western Arctic herd and Porcupine caribou herd, and 6) before 1987, both components of the Central Arctic herd as well as the Teshekpuk Lake herd calved in wet coastal habitats with relatively late snowmelt."
"The apparent divergence in the relative sizes of the Central Arctic herd and adjacent Teshekpuk Lake herd after 1987 (Fig. 3.9) suggests that the growth rate of the Central Arctic herd may have slowed after roads and pipelines expanded in the developed zone and the concentrated calving area in the developed zone shifted south-southwest. The relative trajectories of the 2 herds’ growth curves were parallel through the mid- to late-1980s when both herds were slightly less than 4 times as large as when first censused. Thereafter, their trajectories diverged slightly. By the late 1990s the Teshekpuk Lake herd was about 7 times larger than when first censused while the Central Arctic herd was only about 5.4 times as large as when first observed. Cronin et al. (1998) noted that exponential growth rate of the Teshekpuk Lake herd was approximately twice as great as the exponential growth rate estimated for the Central Arctic herd (0.152 vs. 0.077, respectively) from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s."
"Several ecological factors may have diluted or obscured any population consequences of avoidance of petroleum development areas by the Central Arctic herd during calving. First, only the half of the herd that used the developed zone was potentially affected. Reduction in available food for lactating females during peak lactation was demonstrated only for the females that used the developed zone concentrated calving area (approximately 25% of all females in the Central Arctic herd; Wolfe 2000)."
"Second, the Central Arctic herd remained on the coastal plain when it shifted its concentrated calving areas in the developed zone. The parturient females and calves were not displaced to the adjacent foothills where predator densities were assumed to be greatest. Thus, the shift may have incurred little if any additional mortality due to predation."
"Third, development of the complex of petroleum development areas from Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk has occurred during a period of relatively favorable environmental conditions (Maxwell 1996). The resilience of herds to abiotic, biotic, or anthropogenic challenges would be expected to be greatest during favorable environmental conditions."
"Fourth, because the Central Arctic herd obtained a relatively small proportion of its annual nitrogen budget from its calving ground compared with other herds (Fig. 3.22), the Central Arctic herd calving ground may have had less relative value to herd performance than the calving grounds of other herds."
"Fifth, calving ground density of the Central Arctic herd has been, and remains, quite low (approximately one-fifth the effective density of the Porcupine caribou herd; Whitten and Cameron 1985). Thus, even though females of the Central Arctic herd in the developed zone shifted their concentrated calving to an area with reduced total forage, the amount remaining per caribou may have been sufficient to accommodate nutritional requirements."
(I didn't write this stuff. The USGS did.)
What the heck are you talking about Delay was not indicted for perjury?
Welcome to FR btw, n00b
Do a little research. That indictment is a bad joke beig played by a partisan hack prosecutor.
This is the only way most of these bastards get re-elected. If it wasn't for Pork most would be gone. Don't for a moment think that they would change the "rules", JOB SECURITY, no change..
I can agree with much of what you stated above. However, time is an issue. It will take time to build more nukes, take ethanol from laboratory to full production, etc. To span that gap requires the continued development of petroleum resources. To do that you've got to drill and expand refinery capability and capacity.
You might not want to take that from me -- you might want to read the post earlier in this thread that expressed the opinion of strong conservative Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, who holds a Ph.D. (in physics, I think) and see why he opposes ANWR drilling.
Opinions are like armpits, everyone has a couple of them. I have a M.S. in Geosciences, big deal. I think we should and can drill in many more areas in our country not only for petroleum but natural gas, and there is a lot out there that can be gotten to in a manner that won't kill the world. And as far as the resource, that can't be fully evaluated until exploration can actually begin. In many oil producing areas, the initial finds are just the tip of the iceberg. There are some estimates that ANWR could replace our imports from Saudi Arabia for 30 years. And that would serve as a bridge over to other energy sources. It will take a VERY long time for a single nuke plant just to clear the initial regulatory hurdles, let alone the construction time, prove outs, etc until finally on-line and pumping electricty to us. What do you suggest we do to bridge the gap. BTW, conservation isn't the answer. It has been estimated that if all cars were switched over to hybreds, the fuel savings would only last a short time.
Your complete lack of realizing the continued leadership on the GWOT is ugly (for lack of a better term at the moment) - It is the single most important issue facing this Nation and priority #1 for our CIC -
The leadership shown by our CIC (and supported by the majority of GOP'ers in the House and Senate) cannot and should not be overlooked or swept away -
As you appear to have so easily done - This is what the MSM and DEM's try to continual ignore daily as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.