please write an email to oppose this disgusting act.
go to the below link and write congress!

thanks jody

http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/arctic0103/forward/88nk7e41783nxd

Calypso, can you please share with me why the drilling will be a bad thing? I do not mean to sound rude, I am simply ignorant of this situation. When you say, "The Arctic" where are you refering too? I assume Alaska? If so, I am assuming these would be platform operations off of the coast of Alaska. If so, what does this harm (Barring an Oil Spill?)

I would think this would be a great economy boost.

D'art

Originally posted by D'Artagnan
Calypso, can you please share with me why the drilling will be a bad thing? I do not mean to sound rude, I am simply ignorant of this situation. When you say, "The Arctic" where are you refering too? I assume Alaska? If so, I am assuming these would be platform operations off of the coast of Alaska. If so, what does this harm (Barring an Oil Spill?)

I would think this would be a great economy boost.

D'art

Club a Seal, Pave a Whale.

The drilling is supposed to take place in a nature reserve. I'm lukewarm on this issue. I don't feel strongly enough either way to act on it at the moment.

ahm, no, we must be productive and make use of this wasteland

I dunno if I'd go so far as to call it a wasteland when it is a national wildlife refuge, Kontra...

BUT... The total amount of land for proposed drilling is utterly miniscule compared to the total land of the refuge. A little research shows american oil companies up there have to go to extraordinary lengths to protect the environment as well. Thier trucks have to have full length skid plates to catch any fliud seepage from the engine & tranny for example.

I honestly don't have any problem with it as long as it was kept limited & all environmental laws were adhered to

Mind a Brit offering an opinion? Thought not. :D

It's probably not worth drilling in ANWAR, especially now that Iraq's oil has probably been secured. The reserves there are comparatively beeny - America's only got about 22bn barrels of proven resources in total, and consumes 7bn per year. There's not enough oil in ANWAR to seriously reduce America's dependency on foreign oil. If a major energy crisis were looming, then maybe there'd be a stronger case for drilling. As it is, the horizon's pretty clear as regards oil supplies, and will probably remain so for a good few years. Why go drilling when you could hold off for a few years without harming supplies or the economy, and maybe see if any of the mooted replacement technologies hit mainstream in the meantime.

Hello! I am a new member at discuss anything im 13 doing a project on AnWar Oil Drilling I have no Idea what it :confused: is I was wondering if you guys can tell me about ANWAR OIL DRILLING. All I know is that it has something to do with Alaska and people drilling oil out of the ground. but they want to protect the enviorment..At least thats what my teacher said... :hmm: I want to know what will happen if they drill the oil...

It's actually ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), unless you're referring to digging up and 'drilling' Anwar Sadat.

It all depends on how much impact drilling will have on nature. Lack of houses does not define a place as being a "wasteland". If we dont want all the Earth to be "wasteland" we should be careful what we do with it. Perhaps nature reserves can be extended else where to make up for any damage that takes place, but the amount of expected environmental damage should be minimal before this should be approved.

The drilling will take place right across a migration route for a herd of Caribou. This route is taken by the herd ot get to better feeding grounds for the summer. This means that if they are unable to cross this path; because of pipelines, contruction, oil rigs and the like then the herd will not have enough strength to survive the winter.

This path also lets them go to the shoreline so they can escape the persistant biting of the black flies and mosquitos on the tundra. The constant biting stresses the animal, particularly the pregnant females and the young calfs. This causes them to be unhealthy and they tend to get sick and die.

Now some say it is natural selection for the weakest to die and the herd will only grow stronger by this... an oil drilling facility in the middle of their migration route is not a part of natural selection.

Drill The Caribou!

Drill The Caribou!


Won't you need a step ladder to do that? :confused:

Now some say it is natural selection for the weakest to die and the herd will only grow stronger by this... an oil drilling facility in the middle of their migration route is not a part of natural selection.

And so it's your position that Caribou are'nt smart enough to walk around an obstacle? How'd they ever beat out the competition for scarce resources, I wonder.

And so it's your position that Caribou are'nt smart enough to walk around an obstacle? How'd they ever beat out the competition for scarce resources, I wonder.

No they can walk around an obstacle... but a huge pipeline that is not tall enough for them to go under because their antlers would hit... and the pipeline is miles and miles long, which would take them along distance outof their way into the territory of other herds and so forth.

So it is not a matter of not being smart enough but it is a matter of the lack of physical ability to go around it.

as for competition the herd that is there (Porcupine herd) was the one that one out over the scarce resources...they won out against other herd and other species. If humans did not drill there then they would continue to thrive barring any disease or natural diaster.

No they can walk around an obstacle... but a huge pipeline that is not tall enough for them to go under because their antlers would hit... and the pipeline is miles and miles long, which would take them along distance outof their way into the territory of other herds and so forth.

So it is not a matter of not being smart enough but it is a matter of the lack of physical ability to go around it.



To be honest, this does not sound like an unsolvable problem. I'm a complete neophyte, so you'll have to bear with me, but could'nt the pipeline be built high enough to allow unfettered passage by antlered caribou? Alternatively, could it not be run underground through caribou migration routes? Did'nt they already do this with the Alaskan Pipeline?

Not that I want to see the thing built anyway but if the main problem is lack of space between ground and pipe then build it a few feet higher. Surely the continued existance of this herd is worth the fairly minor extra dollar amount this would cost.

The problem you have is perma frost. there is certain engineering problems. Higher means more weight. more weight means more heat to keep the oil movin in the pipe... at the same time you need to keep the pipe line supports cold so it does not melt the permafrost. If it melts the permafrost the supports sink in the ground and cause the pipe to warp and crack.. which is not a good thing. :)

As for underground...well similar problems with permafrost. you have to heat the pipe to keep the oil moving.

I spent two year in alaska studying wildlife management and we studied the impact of various pipelines as well as how they had to design the pipeline to survive in the extreme cold

Oh please....

So then mound dirt up over the goddam pipe at 100' intervals so that the deer can go over it then...
If we can make it to space, we can surely build a pipeline that is deer friendly.

Oh please....

So then mound dirt up over the goddam pipe at 100' intervals so that the deer can go over it then...
If we can make it to space, we can surely build a pipeline that is deer friendly.


Ok so should we mound up dirt over the oil wells also since that is also in the path?

The other piece of it is that studies have shown that there is oil there but the amount is so small it will not actually last more than 10 years. (now that is the number I heard a few years ago it may have changed)

Ok so should we mound up dirt over the oil wells also since that is also in the path?

The other piece of it is that studies have shown that there is oil there but the amount is so small it will not actually last more than 10 years. (now that is the number I heard a few years ago it may have changed)

Stop changing directions...

They can go around the oil wells!

Put up signs for the dumb critters... *Detour*

Stop changing directions...

They can go around the oil wells!

Put up signs for the dumb critters... *Detour*

Not changing directions just showing you more of the issues with this.

Oil well complexes tend to be pretty big... Oh and not to mention that by the time they get the oil wells in place the herds would have been scared off from all the construction vehicles, the tundra would be torn to pieces from the heavy trucks and such.

So it is actually more than just the animals.

But just to keep the direction going... if the caribou die out in that area then so will the wolves that feed on them. Some of the plants may not survive either as their seeds are spread on the coats and in the scat of the caribou.

See it is all linked together and balanced.

Ok. Where do you propose that we get oil from?

Sure... the perfect solution would be to use a less destructive power source all together... but that is a transition that takes time. We need oil, and it needs to be taken from somewhere.

I'm not trying to start an arguement. I just get tired of people seeing one side of a problem. I would be willing to bet that the same people that oppose the drilling of the arctic are the same people who will complain when the price a gas for their petro-guzzling SUV goes through the roof.

Animals are worth preserving... fine. Would you pay an extra .50/gallon at the pump in order to preserve these deer? If so, then I salute you for your consistancy.

:nice:

I can relate to this type of situation.
The family business is a stone quarry.
Yuppies in Philly, New Jersey, MD, wherever, want their big beautiful stone homes, but many of them also do not approve of the mining of the stone.

Alaska doesn't solve it. The war in Iraq doesn't solve it.

Research may solve it, and we've gotta' dump a hell of a lot of money into that, because renewable sources of energy are our only hope for long-term sustainability.

Ok. Where do you propose that we get oil from?

Sure... the perfect solution would be to use a less destructive power source all together... but that is a transition that takes time. We need oil, and it needs to be taken from somewhere.

I'm not trying to start an arguement. I just get tired of people seeing one side of a problem. I would be willing to bet that the same people that oppose the drilling of the arctic are the same people who will complain when the price a gas for their petro-guzzling SUV goes through the roof.

Animals are worth preserving... fine. Would you pay an extra .50/gallon at the pump in order to preserve these deer? If so, then I salute you for your consistancy.

:nice:

I can relate to this type of situation.
The family business is a stone quarry.
Yuppies in Philly, New Jersey, MD, wherever, want their big beautiful stone homes, but many of them also do not approve of the mining of the stone.

In short yes I would pay that. As it is I contribute to various wildlife funds. Now don;t get me wrong I am not one of these Greenpeace nuts that sink ships and such. I just think we (humans) as a species need to learn we are part of this world and need to take responsibility for what we have done and are doing to the environment.

As for only seeing one side of the argument well... I kinda see it the same way. Most people only see that there is oil in alaska, not alot but probably enough to lower prices substantially for a few years to a decade. Peopel hear that and say "Hell yeah lets drill" not realizing that in the meantime they are sacrificing the wild at the same time for saving a half dollar per gallon of gas.

I do know we can not cut our dependency on oil.. that will never happen until the oil runs out.. which will happen at some point.. Maybe not in our lifetime but it is a nonrenewable resource. What we need to do is start looking now for things not when it is an emergency and there is no oil left.

Alaska doesn't solve it. The war in Iraq doesn't solve it.

Research may solve it, and we've gotta' dump a hell of a lot of money into that, because renewable sources of energy are our only hope for long-term sustainability.

Exactly!

We still need oil now until we find these renewable resources, but not at the expense of the environment.

The problem you have is perma frost. there is certain engineering problems. Higher means more weight. more weight means more heat to keep the oil movin in the pipe... at the same time you need to keep the pipe line supports cold so it does not melt the permafrost. If it melts the permafrost the supports sink in the ground and cause the pipe to warp and crack.. which is not a good thing.

And these engineering problems were solved decades ago when they built the Alaskan Pipeline, were they not?

...

If we're going to ever ween ourselves from ME oil, we're going to have to do more than just sit around and talk about windmills. Utilizing the not insubstantial energy resources we have in our own country is a start. Windmills help too. Most things do, but it does'nt move the ball down the field when we purposely ignore a large piece of this puzzle.

Peopel hear that and say "Hell yeah lets drill" not realizing that in the meantime they are sacrificing the wild at the same time for saving a half dollar per gallon of gas.


There are MORE Caribu as a result of the current pipeline. It's been good for them.

Drilling in ANWR wouldn't harm a fly, the footprint is so small compared to the actual size of the place.

And these engineering problems were solved decades ago when they built the Alaskan Pipeline, were they not?


In most cases yes. they have little radiators on the top of the pipes with fans to help keep the supports cool..but from what I know of it is very high maintence. The other thing is there is a max height they can do it before the weight/height/heat/cooling factor is very hard.

Now possibly they can do it better now. Not sure I have not done any research on it in the past year or so.

There are MORE Caribu as a result of the current pipeline. It's been good for them.

Drilling in ANWR wouldn't harm a fly, the footprint is so small compared to the actual size of the place.

The foot pad of the pipeline is small...but it is a long footpad that blocks a good portion of the range.

Or do you mean the actuall well sites and such?

as for being more caribou because of the pipeline...the only way that would be even remotely true is because the wildife managers have kept a much closer eye on the herds because of the concern of the impact from the oil wells and all. Since they are watching much closer than can make the necessary adjustments they need legally/managerial in order to make sure the herds stay viable.

as for being more caribou because of the pipeline...the only way that would be even remotely true is because the wildife managers have kept a much closer eye on the herds because of the concern of the impact from the oil wells and all. Since they are watching much closer than can make the necessary adjustments they need legally/managerial in order to make sure the herds stay viable.

Actually, I think it has to do with radiant heat from the pipeline that keeps the area next to the pipe clear(er) of snow and ice. More food for the hapless caribou.

Actually, I think it has to do with radiant heat from the pipeline that keeps the area next to the pipe clear(er) of snow and ice. More food for the hapless caribou.


Hmm I will have to look that up.. it kinda goes against a theory called the 'Core Theory' ( I think that is what it is called)

Basically it says that wildlife tends to stay a certain amount of space away from various thing, ie roads. so if you make a road wider the animal looses space. The same thing happens with the pipeline. Now maybe the herds near the current pipeline are getting used to it after 3-4 decades and therefore roaming closer.

Interesting

It's disturbing when I read stuff on internet message boards that has no basis in reality.....oh...I almost forgot...that's what internet message boards are for :D

As someone who has spent more than 20 years working in the oil & gas industry...this is just an untenable position taken concerning the migration routes of caribou on several reasons.

1) The footprint of any O&G operations is so small compared to the ANWR it's laughable
2) The technology exists to accomodate the Caribou in any way the environmentalists want to....just open up a dialogue!
3) It's one thing to "study" and make estimations of the reserves in place and it's quite another thing to actually have reserves "proven" and recoverable....it may be much more than has been estimated Or much less. Won't know until you start drilling and getting an idea of what the reservoirs hold.
4) The oil industry has proven itself over and over to be excellent environmental stewards with the technology available to maintain the highest standards of any area.....

Drilling and Production already take place in Alaska on the north slope in the Cook inlet.....offshore California....in the city of Los Angeles, in the Rocky mountains for crying out loud. It is a giant red herring that these problems cannot be resolved thru exisiting technology and be compatible with ANY environment standards ANYWHERE in the WORLD.

The area we are talking about is about the size of the state of South Carolina and the drilling footprint is about as large as the average airport.

Also, we will not really know how much oil is there until we start drilling there.

Also, even putting aside the fact that this would reduce our dependence on foreign oil producers, we are doing more damage to the environment by NOT drilling under own stringent American standards.

The oil has to come from somewhere so the environmental question now becomes: do we drill it in our own country under our stringent environmental regulations or do we get it from a third-world country that simply does not have the same environmental safeguards?

The area we are talking about is about the size of the state of South Carolina and the drilling footprint is about as large as the average airport.

Also, we will not really know how much oil is there until we start drilling there.

Also, even putting aside the fact that this would reduce our dependence on foreign oil producers, we are doing more damage to the environment by NOT drilling under own stringent American standards.

The oil has to come from somewhere so the environmental question now becomes: do we drill it in our own country under our stringent environmental regulations or do we get it from a third-world country that simply does not have the same environmental safeguards?
I agree with this guy. Not only that, we would have FAR less oil issues if the EPA would get their heads out of their asses and we used the oil that we get from our own country. But, noooooooo, there's too much carbon in it :rolleyes: