Spoken like someone who has never seen the land encompassed by ANWR. You use interesting buzzwords such as "wasteland" which have about as much to do with the area as tasty donuts with sprinkles.

ANWR is not a wasteland. It is the primary breeding grounds of many of the animals in Alaska, including caribou, a primary food source of many of the people in the state.

It is also the nesting grounds of many migratory birds, a resource utilized far beyond the state of Alaska.

Your interesting, and unattributed photo of a bear "lounging" on the pipeline is humorous, yes, but not representative of the pipeline as a whole. The current infrastructure is falling apart.

To counter your bear, I present a rusty pipeline:
<img src="http://blogcritics.org/mt/mt-comments.php?mode=red&u=http://www.urbanraven.com/pictures/pipeline/rusthole.jpg" alt="rusty pipeline" align="left">

Pushing forward with this project, in which no one can seem to decide the benifits, if any, or when they'd be seen, seems to me quite shortsighted. We should be investing our money in alternative energy.

Hmmm, can't seem to edit our comments. Sigh. The image I refer to is here

Why bother developing alternative fuel vehicles when the government is more concerned with obtaining oil and preserving the status quo? Besides, the H2 will surely wipe out whatever may be in the ANWR reserves.

>>Besides, the H2 will surely wipe out whatever may be in the ANWR reserves.<<

By the H2 I assume you mean the Hummer 2? Interestingly, the H2 may soon be available with a hybrid engine. One has been developed by a company called UQM for the military and there's a good likelihood it will be available to regular consumers who buy H2s soon.

Dave

Dave, make sure you don't tell her that H2 drivers are subsidized and only pay $0.25 a gallon!

>>Spoken like someone who has never seen the land encompassed by ANWR. You use interesting buzzwords such as "wasteland" which have about as much to do with the area as tasty donuts with sprinkles.<<

What term do you prefer for land which is incapable of supporting life 9 months out of the year? You seem not to understand that ANWR is an enormous area, and the northern part where they plan on drilling is absolutely, correctly described as wasteland, even if the southern part isn't.

>>ANWR is not a wasteland. It is the primary breeding grounds of many of the animals in Alaska, including caribou, a primary food source of many of the people in the state.<<

Again, the southern area, NOT the area where the drilling will take place.

>>It is also the nesting grounds of many migratory birds, a resource utilized far beyond the state of Alaska.<<

How do we use those migratory birds again? Plus aren't their breeding areas on the coast far south of where the drilling is planned?

>>Your interesting, and unattributed photo of a bear "lounging" on the pipeline is humorous, yes, but not representative of the pipeline as a whole. <<

It's actually just one of many such photos which are all over the web, showing bears and caribou using the pipeline for warmth. I picked it because it's easier to see the bears in this photo than in most. And you can find the original link easily if you just open the image in its own window.

>>The current infrastructure is falling apart.

To counter your bear, I present a rusty pipeline:<<

I bet if you went back and photographed that rust spot today it would be gone. The pipeline isn't of value if it leaks oil instead of delivering it to the intended destination. One thing businesses do well is look out for their own interests and an efficient, non-leaking pipeline is in the best interest of business. Pipeline maintenance workers are one of the main sources for photos and reports on what a wasteland ANWR is.

>>Pushing forward with this project, in which no one can seem to decide the benifits, if any, or when they'd be seen, seems to me quite shortsighted. <<

The benefits are obvious. A bit more oil to make us a little less dependent on foreign oil. It doesn't solve the problem, but it's part of the overall solution.

>>We should be investing our money in alternative energy.<<

I agree with you there - as you may have noticed that's one of the main thrusts of my article. What we should really do is provide a good tax incentive or disincentive to encourage alternative energy vehicles. I'm for a $1 per gallon hike in the gas tax.

But whatever we do, alternative energy vehicles are still going to be slow in taking over the marketplace, and in the interim we need to keep oil flowing, hence ANWR.

Dave

Too bad ADD will probably distract your reader from your best sentence, "But whatever we do, alternative energy vehicles are still going to be slow in taking over the marketplace, and in the interim we need to keep oil flowing, hence ANWR"

People expect solutions to arrive overnight, like magic.

I liked the burrowing owl and three bears pictures, myself!

>>People expect solutions to arrive overnight, like magic.<<

This is because certain people - mostly of the liberal persuasion are given to Magical Thinking.

Dave

Yep. I went to school (briefly) with a number of students who exhibited this kind of thinking. Needless to say, they didn't last long at an engineering school...

>>What term do you prefer for land which is incapable of supporting life 9 months out of the year? You seem not to understand that ANWR is an enormous area, and the northern part where they plan on drilling is absolutely, correctly described as wasteland, even if the southern part isn't.<<

I'd call it part of the state that I live in and enjoy. More specifically, I'd question your claim of nothing being there for 9 months out of the year, and ask you to back it up. The site you mention (anwr.org, not suprisingly a site run by those that want to open ANWR) itself mentions an array of animals living in the area including caribou, polar bear, wolves and moose, but downplays developmental impacts:
http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/otherwil.html

>>How do we use those migratory birds again? Plus aren't their breeding areas on the coast far south of where the drilling is planned?<<

Bird species that utilize the coastal plain (the area in dispute) include:
Loons, teals, scaup, Harliquin ducks, Bald & Golden Eagles, northern goshawk, rough-legged hawk, Merlin Falcon, Peregrin Falcon, Sandhill Crane, various sandpipers, gulls, finches and swallows.
http://arctic.fws.gov/birdlist.htm

>>It's actually just one of many such photos which are all over the web, showing bears and caribou using the pipeline for warmth.<<

>>I bet if you went back and photographed that rust spot today it would be gone. The pipeline isn't of value if it leaks oil instead of delivering it to the intended destination.<<

This is incorrect. The picture was taken a while ago, and that hole is not only still there, it is larger. The problem is, the hole is on the outer jacket of the pipeline. A hole here does not cause the oil to leak, but does allow water to enter and continue to corrode the out jacket, and probably compromise the insulation. I've emailed Alyeska pipeline about the problem multiple times, and have never received so much as a form letter reply.

If you are in Alaska, I suggest you stop by the pipeline roadside visitors center just north of Fairbanks. You will see this hole, and many like it along the entire length. You'd think that the one place they'd want the most visably appealling section of pipeline is where people from all around the world will see it.

>>Pipeline maintenance workers are one of the main sources for photos and reports on what a wasteland ANWR is.<<

Not exactly an unbiased source for information, is that? It's not like they are going to show you stuff that might prevent them from expanding their job.

>>The benefits are obvious. A bit more oil to make us a little less dependent on foreign oil.<<

The benefits are far from obvious, and even hinted to in that sentence. "A bit more"? Will we gain more energy than we expend getting it? Why have all but one major oil companies pulled out of the Arctic Power consortium? Most cited costs and pressure from their investors. If your investors don't think there's money to be made...

>>I agree with you there - as you may have noticed that's one of the main thrusts of my article. What we should really do is provide a good tax incentive or disincentive to encourage alternative energy vehicles. I'm for a $1 per gallon hike in the gas tax.<<

We can certainly agree on that! :) It's rather amusing to listen to people complain about the price of fuel, yet realize that we still get it cheaper than most other countries.

Additionaly, I feel (or at least hope) that open debate on the topic helps to spur development towards the goal of better efficiency.

But whatever we do, alternative energy vehicles are still going to be slow in taking over the marketplace, and in the interim we need to keep oil flowing, hence ANWR.

Man, do I wish there was an edit feature. :(

That last sentence was a quote from Dave's message, and certainly not my opinion. *blush*

Well, what was your point in relation to Dave's last sentence?

I think my point would be that while you and Dave may THINK that environmentalists expect an overnight efficiency miracle, that's not really the case.

As much as many of us would like to see hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles on the roads in large numbers, we know it's not going to happen as quickly as we'd like.

However, we also know that a fuel crisis is equally as unlikely to occur over night. The need for every drop we can get our hands on is not there.

That's open to debate, we probably are working off our own definition of "crisis". I'd say that right now there is not a crisis, but there is good reason to consider that a crisis may arise in the near future.

You are correct, American pay a lot less than most others, when I left Germany gas was about $4 a gallon. Peolpe still drove a lot, though, and the trains and busses were highly used, so I can't really draw any conclusion from the price vs. conservation standpoint.

>>I'd call it part of the state that I live in and enjoy. More specifically, I'd question your claim of nothing being there for 9 months out of the year, and ask you to back it up. <<

The thing is - and you ought to be aware of this - that ANWR really is two (or more) distinct environmental zones. There's the grass plains where most of the species live, and there is the area of mudflats and semi-tundra in the north. The pipeline runs through the southern part, but the drilling is all planned for the northern part. The southern part makes some sense as a wildlife refuge, but that vast expanse of frozen mud really is a wasteland from all the reading I've done on the subject. Yes, I haven't been there - my reading has convinced me there's not much reason why I'd want to visit the area - does your experience suggest that the mud flats portion of ANWR is not as described?

>>This is incorrect. The picture was taken a while ago, and that hole is not only still there, it is larger. The problem is, the hole is on the outer jacket of the pipeline. A hole here does not cause the oil to leak, but does allow water to enter and continue to corrode the out jacket, and probably compromise the insulation. I've emailed Alyeska pipeline about the problem multiple times, and have never received so much as a form letter reply.

If you are in Alaska, I suggest you stop by the pipeline roadside visitors center just north of Fairbanks. You will see this hole, and many like it along the entire length. You'd think that the one place they'd want the most visably appealling section of pipeline is where people from all around the world will see it. <<

That certainly seems idiotic. Can't imagine why they'd neglect that particular area of the pipeline of all places.

>>The benefits are far from obvious, and even hinted to in that sentence. "A bit more"? Will we gain more energy than we expend getting it? Why have all but one major oil companies pulled out of the Arctic Power consortium? Most cited costs and pressure from their investors. If your investors don't think there's money to be made...<<

Do you not see that none of this makes any sense? If there's no money to be made, why would any company want to go drill there? If the oil will cost more to pump than it will be worth, why is anyone even bothering? Is there some secret conspiracy at work here? Is this just a cover for some sort of massive caribou hunting operation?

>>We can certainly agree on that! :) It's rather amusing to listen to people complain about the price of fuel, yet realize that we still get it cheaper than most other countries.<<

That's because those countries have whopping big taxes on it. I generally don't like taxes, but I think they're a better way to encourage conservation than an arbitrary system like raising the CAFE standards. Higher gas taxes would make it more worthwhile to get a more energy efficient car, and that will let the marketplace drive changes in that direction.

Dave

>>Yes, I haven't been there - my reading has convinced me there's not much reason why I'd want to visit the area - does your experience suggest that the mud flats portion of ANWR is not as described?<<

In my experience, yes. My, admittedly short, in person experience involved a flyover of the area several years ago with people from both sides of the debate, and also before I had formed an opinion one way or the other.

A basic map of the area can be found on the anwr.org website at:
http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf

This map shows the two most obvious divisions (coastal plain & everything else) as well as a proposed drilling site of 2,000 acres. The area is far more than mud flats.

A vegitation map can be found here:
http://andrew.bromage.org/causes/anwr-images/anwr.gif
The key to which, unfortunately, is on another page, here:
http://andrew.bromage.org/causes/anwr-images/anwrveg.key.gif

Admittedly, it would have been nice if those were on the same page for the sake of usability. Notice, gray is the collor for barren land, or mud flats. You will only find that on the map along rivers and in the mountains. The coastal plain has been outlined.

>>Do you not see that none of this makes any sense? If there's no money to be made, why would any company want to go drill there? If the oil will cost more to pump than it will be worth, why is anyone even bothering? Is there some secret conspiracy at work here? Is this just a cover for some sort of massive caribou hunting operation?<<

Nah, I'm not into conspiracy theories. :) But I can also simply point out that of the original members of the Arctic Power consortium, only one industry player remains, Exxon. That's not guesswork, it's a fact. British Petroleum and ConocoPhilips have pulled out.

Many Alaskans, including those in positions of political influence (Ted Stevens, Don Young, the Murkowski's) hope that it will bring jobs to the state and an influx of employment and development. I can't say as I blame them for that motive, the economy of Alaska has been tanking for years.

My guess is that that is where the momentum is coming from. Both British Petroleum and ConocoPhilips seem to be content with their North Slope holdings, and potential reserves in other, less environmentally fragile locations. I applaud those efforts.

ok...just wanting to touch a few points here..

if memory serves the deposit of oil that is speculated to be in the area proposed for exploratory drilling totals somewhere between 150-185 million barrels and will take somewhere between 9-12 years to develop before the first barrel is pumped out...this is from the US Geological survey that was used in the Senate debate

i'm not even going to touch the ecological points here..there are others more qualified to debate those issues..mainly the folks that live there..

but i tend to side with Teddy Rosevelt where it comes to our National Parks and Wildlife Reserves...they are our NATIONAL resources..

so answer me this...will whomever gets awarded the contract to drill up there pay fair market value for the priveledge of exploiting our National Property?

or will this be like the sweetheart leases that big Cattle gets to graze on our National Lands..or what big LUmber gets for clearcutting our National Forests?

perhaps if we ensured that Business interests paid fair market value for exploiting National Resources we could lower some of the crushing Debt that has been run up in the last 5 years

i'm all for that...especially if the fines for polluting said lands was equivalent to the $550k PER INCIDENT that the FCC levels on broadcasters rather than the measly $25k PER DAY that is the maximum fine allowable for corporate pollution

evil bastard that i am..i would be happy to say let's drain 1 pint of blood from the CEO for every barrel of pollutants inflicted on our national lands...if he runs dry we go for whomever takes the position next

bet they would be lining up for the job then

ok...that solution might be a little bit over the top..

but i can Dream...can't i?

even at the best estimates, the entire deposit under ANWR equals about 3-5 weeks usage for the US

someone better at risk/reward calculations will have to work this out for us...but it seems the only one to come out on top of this deal are whatever Company gets the contract..and i will wager a double chocolate chip cookie that they will NOT be paying anywhere near fair market value for exploiting OUR Resource

me..i'll stick with Teddy Rosevelt's goal for our National Lands...

Excelsior!

Dear Dave --

Use all the buzzwords you want to support your fantasies about drilling in ANWR. There are two things you neglected to discuss.

Over many years, I have heard many Gwich'in speak of how this oil development will affect their lives and I agree with their assessment. Based on this I view opening ANWR as something incredibly destructive and will support the Gwich'in in their struggle to preserve their cultural ways as long as they desire. Specifically, the construction activities and permanent drill sites would interfere with their lifestyle and directly affect the Gwich'in people, whose whole culture is based on the celebration of the reindeer. If you get the chance listen to their story. A very good article on the Gwich'in: http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/anwrgwichin.html also just recently the article "Gwich'in plead to preserve caribou refuge" http://www.ktuu.com/CMS/templates/master.asp?articleid=11908&zoneid=4


Other discussions are polar bear den sites -- Polar bears den areas are only in a few places, difficult to find, and are protected under an international treaty (probably the first lawsuit filed if the federal budget is passed). The area where the drilling would take place is a nursery for reindeer and den areas for nanook's (i.e., polar bears). The reindeer do (porcupine herd) have differing locations every year but remain in the same general area of the arctic -- yet the female nanook, if disturbed, will abandon the den and leave the cubs to fend for themselves in the harsh arctic climate. To state the obvious, the polar bear population would dramatically decline due to human interaction.

Ok, omnibus responses to everyone:

>>However, we also know that a fuel crisis is equally as unlikely to occur over night. The need for every drop we can get our hands on is not there.<<

But given the fact that the oil is there and the plan for drilling would do remarkably little damage to the environment, why put it off. It seems like a no-lose situation.

>>A basic map of the area can be found on the anwr.org website at:
http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf<<

One thing that map makes very clear is the incredibly tiny area the drilling will take place in. I have a neighbor whose yard is more than 2000 acres - well, it used to be a working ranch, but the point is that in an area that huge, drilling on 2000 acres is literally like the proverbial needle in a haystack.

As to the vegetation maps, the key clearly shows that the entire area of coastal plains has nothing but varieties of tundra sedge, a seasonal pseudo-grass which only grows three months out of the year. This is NOT a heavily vegetated area or one where there are significant numbers of animals. Tundra sedge won't support significant herds and if the herds won't go there neither will the predators.

>>But I can also simply point out that of the original members of the Arctic Power consortium, only one industry player remains, Exxon. That's not guesswork, it's a fact. British Petroleum and ConocoPhilips have pulled out.<<

Doesn't Exxon have a larger already established presence in the area so that it would require less initial investment to start drilling in the area? That might explain why they ended up as the primary participant.

>>but i tend to side with Teddy Rosevelt where it comes to our National Parks and Wildlife Reserves...they are our NATIONAL resources..<<

When Roosevelt said this he clearly intended that the role of government was to protect those resources for future use by the people, not for some pointless indefinite exclusion of humanity. That's not what Roosevelt's conservationism was about. It was about preserving resources so we'd have them to USE in the future.

Dave

And a response just for Polar Bear:

>>Over many years, I have heard many Gwich'in speak of how this oil development will affect their lives and I agree with their assessment. Based on this I view opening ANWR as something incredibly destructive and will support the Gwich'in in their struggle to preserve their cultural ways as long as they desire. <<

By which you mean preserve their political power.

>>Specifically, the construction activities and permanent drill sites would interfere with their lifestyle and directly affect the Gwich'in people, whose whole culture is based on the celebration of the reindeer. If you get the chance listen to their story. A very good article on the Gwich'in: http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/anwrgwichin.html also just recently the article "Gwich'in plead to preserve caribou refuge" http://www.ktuu.com/CMS/templates/master.asp?articleid=11908&zoneid=4<<

I've read up extensively on the Gwich'in. Their primary hunting food source are the Northern Arctic Caribou and the Porcupine Caribou, which do breed in the northern part of ANWR. However, the area where the breeding takes place is outside of Gwich'in tribal territory so they really have no direct stake in what goes on there. In addition, as was demonstrated with the oil drilling sites to the west of ANWR which were also in Caribou breeding areas, when the drilling started there the Caribou either moved small distances away to breed or just bred around the drilling rigs. There was no appreciable impact on their population or breeding practices.

>>Other discussions are polar bear den sites -- Polar bears den areas are only in a few places, difficult to find, and are protected under an international treaty (probably the first lawsuit filed if the federal budget is passed). The area where the drilling would take place is a nursery for reindeer and den areas for nanook's (i.e., polar bears). The reindeer do (porcupine herd) have differing locations every year but remain in the same general area of the arctic -- yet the female nanook, if disturbed, will abandon the den and leave the cubs to fend for themselves in the harsh arctic climate. To state the obvious, the polar bear population would dramatically decline due to human interaction. <<

Well, since we currently have a problem with Polar Bear overbreeding that might not be such a bad thing. However, polar bears also den where drilling is already going on. Here's the assessment of that situation from Polar Bears International:

"In the United States, extraction activities on the North Slope of Alaska have been carefully monitored and restrictive permit conditions have been enforced. Perhaps as a result, there have been no bear mortalities nor discernable impact on them."

Doesn't sound so bad does it? And that's with hundreds of wells in a much smaller area than the north portion of ANWR. The area of ANWR to be drilled is so tiny in comparison to the amount of land there available for Polar Bear denning that it's ridiculous to expect their lives to be significantly disrupted.

Dave

hello Dave...

i believe we only differ here in our Thought on how Teddy meant for us to "use" said Land and Resources..

him being an avid hunter and outdoorsman, as well as many of his personal writings on the subject, his use of the word "preservation" in so much of his discourse on the subject seems to indicate to me keeping said areas as pristine as possible for future generations to enjoy undisturbed by the hands of Man as much as is possible..

as i had said...show me the Benefit to the Nation for utilizing a portion of said lands...and demonstate how they will be utilized safely, and effeciently...with fair market value paid to the Government for the exploitation of said Resources..and i will happily sign off...but i will require they put it back the way they found it when they are done..factor that into the cost analysis, and then see if the "bidders" still think it's worth it

i also require those numbers upfront during the bid process

we are all Aware of the fiasco of the last time our government sent out something to be done on a "no-bid" basis(IMO if we had our normal situation of "checks and balances" we would be hip deep in Investigations right now..but that's another Argument for a future discussion)

call me a Cynic if ya like..but it still feels like big Oil is hoping for a something for nothing deal on exploitation rights ...

hopefully we are smart enough to not let that happen, and good Things can come of this..

but i wouldn't bet rent money on it..

Excelsior!

>>as i had said...show me the Benefit to the Nation for utilizing a portion of said lands...and demonstate how they will be utilized safely, and effeciently...with fair market value paid to the Government for the exploitation of said Resources..and i will happily sign off...but i will require they put it back the way they found it when they are done..factor that into the cost analysis, and then see if the "bidders" still think it's worth it<<

I think that you and me and Teddy agree here. As I've shown in my last message or two I think the drilling planned for ANWR is as close to harmless as you can get. So all that remains is to make sure a fair price is paid to drill there. The last bids for drilling rights in the National Petroleum Reserve area near ANWR went for about $54 million between several bidders, so drilling rights aren't exactly cheap. Plus, I think the Alaskan legislators pushing to open up drilling ANWR see the main payoff as more jobs and business in Alaska and employing Alaskans, and that certainly has value.

Dave

hey..have them put that in writing..open the bid on it...and require them to hire Alaskans...we could have a winner...

bet me that cookie that the Reality of it will be far from the Mark?

c'mon...i double dog dare ya..

Excelsior!

Dave, some food for thought on this by Thomas Friedman of the NYT, in an article about other issues

On energy, the Bush team's obsession with drilling in the Alaskan wilderness to increase supply is mind-boggling. "I am sure China will be thrilled with the Bush decision to drill in Alaska," said the noted energy economist Philip Verleger Jr. "Oil in Alaska cannot easily or efficiently be shipped to our Gulf Coast refineries. The logical markets are on the West Coast of the United States and in Asia. Consumers in China and Japan, not the U.S., will be the real beneficiaries of any big Alaska find.

"With a big find, China and Japan will be able to increase imports from a dependable supplier - the U.S. - while consumers in the U.S. will still be at the mercy of unreliable suppliers, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. It is simple geography. [Also], a big find will lead to lower prices in the short term, promoting more emissions and more warming."

oh..yeah..one other thing 54 million for drilling rights ain't cheap?

if we go with the meadian estimate of 150 million barrels..and the conservative thought of oil being at ..oh..let's say $50 a barrel in 8-12 years (yeah , right)..that would mean those drilling right would be worth a MINIMUM of 12.5 billion...nice investment...

i would bet it will be worth considerably more by the time it is pumped out..

the Devil will be in the details..and i am fairly certain those details will be worked out in some back room on K street, and not to the benefit of the American Taxpayer...nor to the Land involved...

Excelsior!

>>hey..have them put that in writing..open the bid on it...and require them to hire Alaskans...we could have a winner...<<

I haven't heard that the bidding isn't open. And there's no way to legally require them to hire Alaskans, but no matter who they hire it will bring money into Alaska because the people will be in Alaska and spending money there.

>>oh..yeah..one other thing 54 million for drilling rights ain't cheap?<<

Not compared with some bids for drilling rights, which have gone for much less.

>>if we go with the meadian estimate of 150 million barrels..and the conservative thought of oil being at ..oh..let's say $50 a barrel in 8-12 years (yeah , right)..that would mean those drilling right would be worth a MINIMUM of 12.5 billion...nice investment...<<

First off, $50 a barrel isn't a conservative estimate, it's highly inflated. There's no reason not to expect oil to go down substantially in the next decade. The current price isn't the result of natural shortages, but of refinery limitations and deliberate production cutbacks.

You're also not taking into consideration the considerable expense involved in drilling and transporting oil from such a remote location. It's a hell of a lot more work than just sucking it out of the ground in Saudi Arabia and correspondingly much more expensive.

>>the Devil will be in the details..and i am fairly certain those details will be worked out in some back room on K street, and not to the benefit of the American Taxpayer...nor to the Land involved...<<

Do you revel in the relentless negativism?

---

Oh, and a side note to Aaman. I'm pretty sure that the real reason for drilling in ANWR is not the oil it will provide, but to make the point that it CAN be done as a precedent for future drilling and just to stick it to the environmentalists.

Dave

Dave, mischievously inflammatory title aside, your arguments are not unreasonable. But what this is really about is drawing a line. Your perspective is if it's "reasonably safe" then every little bit helps. My perspective is this is an excellent place to draw the line because what is available there will not make any qualitative difference in the big picture, only a minor quantitative difference for a relatively short period of time. It seems much more prudent to me to concentrate on weening our economy off of oil as quickly as is feasible, with the urgency of a Manhattan Project, rather than clinging to the teat of every possible oil reserve.

Ah, but Eric, there's another line being drawn here too. That's the line of how far environmental activism will be allowed to go to gratuitously stop perfectly reasonable and non-harmful projects just because they want to stop everything and flex their muscles. ANWR is important not because of the oil, but because it establishes the principle that unreasonable environmentalism can't be allowed to have its way when national interests are at stake.

Dave

the point of contention there would be "perfectly reasonable and non-harmful" - I am in no way an environmental extremist and I don't think it's prefectly reasonable or non-harmful

And which national (or notional) interest, precisely, is at stake?:)

yes..i constantly revel in relentless negativism..a hobby of mine actually

{8^)

and i would have to go with Eric on this one...it IS the proverbial Line in the sand..

do we, as a Nation, really mean it when we talk about preservation and conservation..

or will we sell out at the flip of a coin...

stay tuned, kiddies..methinks the excrement is soon to impact the rotating airfoil...

Excelsior!

and I am not opposed to taking strong action to make a point - that underlies much of my support for the war in Iraq; but that point is against terrorists, potential terrorists and their sympathizers, not against our fellow citizens who happen to value wilderness and/or feel the time has come to aggressively find/develop energy sources other than petroleum

People are using the word environmentalist like it is a bad thing. Remember we all breathe air and drink water, and eat food that does the same thing. Maybe they should be called precautionists? Also, hummers are crap, and no matter what source of energy you use for them, they weight too much for sensible people. Only guys with little wangs (or brains)drive hummers.

National interests are at stake to increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, but have they done so in an effective manner? NO

Sorry for getting back to this so late... One of the joys of Alaska is a lack of broadband internet access. If I only lived a half-mile closer to Fairbanks. *grin*

To address some more of Dave's points:
>>But given the fact that the oil is there and the plan for drilling would do remarkably little damage to the environment, why put it off. It seems like a no-lose situation.<<

That is a topic that could be endlessly argued, depending on who's data you choose to accept. One accident can do irreperable damage. Clean up still continues from the Exxon Valdez accident that damaged hundreds of miles of coastline. Minor leaks are a common occurence along the existing pipeline, as well as the pump stations and refineries between Prudhoe Bay and Valdez. Major leaks, while infrequent, do occur as well. Apparently, all it takes is one drunk idiot with a rifle.
http://www.urbanraven.com/pictures/pipeline/pipeshot2.jpg

>>One thing that map makes very clear is the incredibly tiny area the drilling will take place in. I have a neighbor whose yard is more than 2000 acres - well, it used to be a working ranch, but the point is that in an area that huge, drilling on 2000 acres is literally like the proverbial needle in a haystack.<<

The map on the anwr.org web site shows ONE proposal out of many. Once exploration on the coastal plain begins, nothing is stopping them from going beyond what is shown there. In fact, many argue about the small impact of the single site, but neglect to mention that it could very well be several small sites interconnected by roadways and pipelines. People who claim ice roads cause no environmental damage have clearly never studies their impacts.

Ice roads compress the tundra beneath them, require more water to create then exists naturally in the area. When they melt, the runoff water erodes the local landscape, can raise water tables and melt permafrost. This all deteriorates the existing landscape.

>>As to the vegetation maps, the key clearly shows that the entire area of coastal plains has nothing but varieties of tundra sedge, a seasonal pseudo-grass which only grows three months out of the year. This is NOT a heavily vegetated area or one where there are significant numbers of animals. Tundra sedge won't support significant herds and if the herds won't go there neither will the predators.<<

Again, I'm guessing a lack of study on your part. Even the anwr.org web site acknowledges the existance of herds of animals including caribou and moose in the coastal plain. If they aren't eating the season vegitation, what are they eating?

"I'm for a $1 per gallon hike in the gas tax."

I'm not.

Taxes of gas are HIGHLY inflationary.

Every single item in the every single store you go to was shipped there, via a truck that runs on gasoline.

Raise the cost of gas, you raise the cost of all those products.

>>People are using the word environmentalist like it is a bad thing. Remember we all breathe air and drink water, and eat food that does the same thing.<<

Environmentalist wasn't a bad word until the environmentalists made it one by their constant, unreasonable, uncompromising extremism and their anti-human insanity. This is why I call myself a conservationist. I believe in preserving and protecting nature so that future generations of humans can use and enjoy it indefinitely, not just because it's there.

Modern environmentalists are more about using environmental issues as a means of imposing a political agenda on the country and making war against business than they are about actually protecting nature. That's why they have gotten a bad name.

>>National interests are at stake to increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, but have they done so in an effective manner? NO<<

This is because the CAFE standards are inherently inequitable and arbitrary. They don't take into consideration the needs or means of the consumer. The right way to handlle this issue is to artificially raise the price of gas with a whopping big tax. That will expand the market for alternative fuel vehicles, especially alternative fuel SUVs, which are the real answer to the problem.

Dave

"big LUmber gets for clearcutting our National Forests?"

They don't do clear-cutting anymore...

"On energy, the Bush team's obsession with drilling in the Alaskan wilderness to increase supply is mind-boggling. "I am sure China will be thrilled with the Bush decision to drill in Alaska," said the noted energy economist Philip Verleger Jr. "Oil in Alaska cannot easily or efficiently be shipped to our Gulf Coast refineries. The logical markets are on the West Coast of the United States and in Asia. Consumers in China and Japan, not the U.S., will be the real beneficiaries of any big Alaska find."

Oil is a global commodity. You increase the supply, you lower the price.

Japan and Red China get ANWR oil? Great! We just closed the trade gap.

And Venezuelan and Mexican and Saudi oil (which goes to the US) also went down in price.

Everybody wins!

>>"I'm for a $1 per gallon hike in the gas tax."

I'm not.

Taxes of gas are HIGHLY inflationary.<<

Not necessarily. There are better methods of distribution which we aren't using and should be. Consumer prices in Europe aren't appreciably higher than here despite the higher gas costs - and $1 wouldn't bring us close to their level.

>>Every single item in the every single store you go to was shipped there, via a truck that runs on gasoline.<<

Actually diesel. I didn't say we should up the tax on diesel fuel.

>>Raise the cost of gas, you raise the cost of all those products.<<

Raise the cost of gas you increase the viability of local distribution of locally produced products, particularly agriculture. You make the family farm viable again and maybe can cut farm subsidies.

Imagine what cutting all farm subsidies and raising the price of gas by a dollar a gallon would do for the budget deficit.

Dave

and RJ...about clear cutting..c'mon up ta Maine and i can show ya around..

of course now..they clear 1000 acres and leave a 1 acre wide strip uncut around it..

thas so it can bypass the legal imposed definition of a "clearcut"...

but i think ya get my meaning..

thanx for playing tho..please try again...

Excelsior!

Actually, Gonzo your 1000 acres cut with a 1 acre clearcut is impossible under Maine forestry law. You can't even cut 1000 acres of land in a clearcut, and the requirements for separation zones are much more stringent than that.

According to the Maine Forest Service as of 1989 clearcuts are limited to 250 acres maximum and the size of the separation zone ranges from a minimum of 250ft to an amount equal to the land cut on larger clearcuts. The 250ft separation zone is the smallest one and applies only to clear cuts up to 20 acres - so that wouldn't meet your description, as the separation zone would likely be larger than the clearcut. That's a category 1 clearcut

For larger category 2 or 3 clearcuts the restriction is that the clearcut MAY NOT be larger than the separation zone in area. So if you have a 200 acre piece of land only 100 acres can be clearcut. Again, not matching your description. Plus clearcuts are limited to a total of 250 acres.

In addition there are also some very stringent restrictions on when you can come back and harvest the separation zone to guarantee that the clear cut area has time to grow back.

Perhaps your impressions of practices in Maine are a bit out of date? Or maybe you've got illegal loggers in your area - turn them in to the MFS - the penalties are pretty severe.

Dave

as usual, you are correct in your statistical facts...

the specific area i mentioned was done outside of regulatory standards..and those responsible have had their fun with the Authorities...

when ya feel like it, scope some of the aerial photos of the zones that lie within those regulation..the seperation zones and open areas are quite striking...and not observable from the roadways, but quite clear from the air

so mea culpa, mea maxima on the factual inaccuracy concerning the dates of the Incidents in my memnory...

the point remains the same, as does the scale of the Sin...

in the southwest the new federal regulations for timber companies to log on Federal land are quite amusing...

the Resoning put forward by the administration is to aid in the prevention of fires by going straight to the root of the problem...

trees...

so Dave, tell me..how much did your Haliburton stock go up after the ANWR vote?

thanks for the help here...

Excelsior!

Actually, Gonzo your 1000 acres cut with a 1 acre clearcut is impossible under Maine forestry law. You can't even cut 1000 acres of land in a clearcut, and the requirements for separation zones are much more stringent than that.

According to the Maine Forest Service as of 1989 clearcuts are limited to 250 acres maximum and the size of the separation zone ranges from a minimum of 250ft to an amount equal to the land cut on larger clearcuts. The 250ft separation zone is the smallest one and applies only to clear cuts up to 20 acres - so that wouldn't meet your description, as the separation zone would likely be larger than the clearcut. That's a category 1 clearcut

For larger category 2 or 3 clearcuts the restriction is that the clearcut MAY NOT be larger than the separation zone in area. So if you have a 200 acre piece of land only 100 acres can be clearcut. Again, not matching your description. Plus clearcuts are limited to a total of 250 acres.

In addition there are also some very stringent restrictions on when you can come back and harvest the separation zone to guarantee that the clear cut area has time to grow back.

Perhaps your impressions of practices in Maine are a bit out of date? Or maybe you've got illegal loggers in your area - turn them in to the MFS - the penalties are pretty severe.

Dave

Libertarians will keep losing elections. That is the basic lesson to learn from this article.

It is a masterful use of controversy to draw traffic to a web page. The very same shock value that spurs the debate here also helps keep the libertarian worldview marginalized when people cast their ballots.

Most people are intelligent enough to sense the folly in the libertarians' irrational faith in the power of market forces. This "invisible hand" that promises to create a paradise on earth (if only the government gives free rein to all economic exploitation) is the ultimate form of magical thinking.

>>so Dave, tell me..how much did your Haliburton stock go up after the ANWR vote?<<

May I just say 'woohoo'? Actually, it didn't spike much over ANWR. It's not a big enough project to make much difference to Halliburton. Remember, they're a huge corporation supplying just about every oil outfit on earth, and those support services are where the money is, not their relatively limited drilling and refining operations. But...I bought Halliburton right at the start of the War in Iraq and it sure has performed magnificently since then.

As for clearcutting in Maine and elsewhere, I'm against it. I'm glad that my house in Maine is on protected land that will never be logged, though there is a provision in the Forestry act to let us clear out enough trees to keep the forest functional.

Regarding the forests in the Southwest, there isn't any question that all the forest fires we've had recently are the result of forests allowed to grow out of control. A nice policy of weeding out every third tree would take care of that problem much better than limited clearcutting would. I'll have to take a look at the new and apparently humorous regulations.

One final note. Are you aware that we have roughly double the forested land today in the US that we had in 1900? The decline in the number of small farms and all the land that has been left to reforest as a result is largely responsible.

Dave

as to yer "woohoo" there, Dave..

might i say just how refreshing it is to experience a war-profiteer who openly revels in his endeavor..your Honesty makes me appreciate our little Dialogues all the more..

as to the "we have roughly double the forested land today" bit..

let me put this to you..i might just buy that statistic due to your notorious penchant for Factual accuracy..but let me lay this one on you

over 80% of that replanted land is covered with quick growing scrub pine for pulp use instead of the old growth hardwoods that had been there in the first place

now pine is nice..but you seriously can't compare an old growth forest..underbrush and all, with a mono-culture of pine...let's leave all the wonderful undergrowth out of it for a second as habitat...and just look at the difference between leaf mulch and acidic pine needles and what that does for topsoil over extended periods..

but ya get the point, eh?

i still fall in the camp that responsible Profits are exemplary..and unadulterated Greed is to be fought against...

but thas just me..what the heck do i know....

Excelsior!

>>as to yer "woohoo" there, Dave..

might i say just how refreshing it is to experience a war-profiteer who openly revels in his endeavor..your Honesty makes me appreciate our little Dialogues all the more..<<

In general war is not good for business, so no one who's interested in profits is going to support or encourage war. However, when there is a war it only makes sense to shift some investment capital into stocks which do well in a wartime situation and out of stocks which will suffer under those conditions. Same is true for any change in the world situation which might impact businesses.

>>as to the "we have roughly double the forested land today" bit..

let me put this to you..i might just buy that statistic due to your notorious penchant for Factual accuracy..but let me lay this one on you

over 80% of that replanted land is covered with quick growing scrub pine for pulp use instead of the old growth hardwoods that had been there in the first place<<

I didn't say it was covered with the same trees.
However it's not just covered with pine.

While pine is typically planted to replace cut trees under current reforestation practices, it's not what comes in and plants itself on abandonned farmland, which is a lot of what we're talking about here. That kind of land is reforested with a mix of whatever the dominant and easily propagated species are, including oaks, elms, maples and some others - some of which have commercial value.

>>now pine is nice..but you seriously can't compare an old growth forest..underbrush and all, with a mono-culture of pine...let's leave all the wonderful undergrowth out of it for a second as habitat...and just look at the difference between leaf mulch and acidic pine needles and what that does for topsoil over extended periods..

but ya get the point, eh?<<

You've got no argument from me on the general point. There's a market for pine and that's what they plant. It's commercially practical. A young pine forest IS a good environment for some animals - especially deer the vermin of the forest.

>>i still fall in the camp that responsible Profits are exemplary..and unadulterated Greed is to be fought against...<<

Is it better to have more trees some of which are of questionable value or to just have fewer trees? Current reforestation solutions are certainly not ideal, but they're better than the clearcutting without reforestation which went on in the 1800s.

Dave

i agree that some replanting is better than none..no argument there

but i woudl like ta know where this reforested "abandoned farmland" is...seriously..i don't know of it up here in Maine..and if it is some new phenomenon elsewhere in the country i would be greatly intrigued by it...definately something worth looking into

as to the pine planting..part of my problem is the whole monoculture thing..

an old growth forest is far more then just trees...yet anyone that has taken a drive thru the replanting areas up here won't see much but pine and needles

hence my earlier misstatement..i live near a bunch of those pre-1989 clearcuts..20 years later, and the area's are still devastated, the soil is now mostly sand..a Ranger friend of mine with various degrees in such things explained that it was due to the undergrowth being gone, the pines planted...nothing to hold the original soil in place for quite the while, and the only humus supply were the highly acidic pine needles that fell..not leaves or other undergrowth plants..

as for the "vermin" deer...let the wolves and mountain lion populations come back...adjust the hunting seasons (they do well with that here in Maine), and the deer population is relatively easy to control and maintain in a healthy fashion

now, we can ageree that the current attempts to make things better are much superior to what went on prior ...but as my previous example scratched the surface of...the damage can be quite lasting..

it takes hundred, if not thousands of years to create a healthy , old growth forest...

it takes mere months with chainsaws to fuck it all up

know what i mean?

Excelsior!

>>but i woudl like ta know where this reforested "abandoned farmland" is...seriously..i don't know of it up here in Maine..and if it is some new phenomenon elsewhere in the country i would be greatly intrigued by it...definately something worth looking into<<

Actually, there's plenty of it in Maine too. Just take a look at a detailed map of the state from the 1880s and compare it with today. It needs to be a very detailed map which shows farm boundries and what kind of use land was put to. I'd guess that there is not as much abandonned farm land in Maine as in some other states - there's lots and lots here in Texas - but I personally know of scores of abandonned farms which have been reclaimed by forest in the area of Maine where we have our house. Every Island of any size off the coast of Maine at one time had a family farm or two on it and they are almost all gone and most of those islands are now covered with trees.

Because of the way we farm now we get more output from less land and the family farm just isn't competitive anymore, hence fewer farms and that land ends up going wild again. The same thing happened in Europe after the Black Death.

>>an old growth forest is far more then just trees...yet anyone that has taken a drive thru the replanting areas up here won't see much but pine and needles<<

Pine needles do eventually form a mulch which other things can eventually grow in. I wonder how much trouble it would be to introduce birch and alder into the mix. They'll grow well interspersed with pine and they're also fast growing and very adaptable, plus the wood is just about as marketable as pine is. Seems sensible to plant more than one species.

>>hence my earlier misstatement..i live near a bunch of those pre-1989 clearcuts..20 years later, and the area's are still devastated,<<

It does take more than 20 years for forest to really reestablish itself.

>> the soil is now mostly sand..a Ranger friend of mine with various degrees in such things explained that it was due to the undergrowth being gone, the pines planted...nothing to hold the original soil in place for quite the while, and the only humus supply were the highly acidic pine needles that fell..not leaves or other undergrowth plants..<<

That sounds about right, but there are lots of plants which will grow really well in sandy soil, not just pine. Once the pine start to die and fall on their own they'd create conditions in which mosses and ferns and larger ground covering plants could grow. But that's a lot more than 20 years.

>>as for the "vermin" deer...let the wolves and mountain lion populations come back...adjust the hunting seasons (they do well with that here in Maine), and the deer population is relatively easy to control and maintain in a healthy fashion<<

Maybe in Maine. Here in Texas the deer are out of control. Same thing in the northern midwest. We can't hunt enough of them fast enough to offset population growth.

>>it takes hundred, if not thousands of years to create a healthy , old growth forest...<<

Most states have laws against cutting true old growth forest. I'd have to go back to the regulations for Maine for details, but I'm pretty sure there were two sections protecting old growth forest, one for virgin woodland and one for areas where there were individual protected trees of a specific age or size.

>>it takes mere months with chainsaws to fuck it all up<<

It doesn't even take chainsaws. They cut more trees in the 19th century with good old fashioned two-man saws than they are cutting today. And my grandfather and great grandfather and great-great etc. made the saws.

Dave

hurm...my only contention with the "most states" bit when it comes to old growth forests woudl be that a lot of the Administrations policies, as we previously discussed...are based in some of the last of those forests which are on National Forest lands..

there's also the whole bit in the Northwest surrounding the redwood and sequoia forests that are being cut and /or litigated to be cut...

i'm funny like that tho..i like trees..and plankton...since they produce the oxygen we humans need to breathe/live

so i feel a bit defensive about them

i'm also all about biodiversity...hate those fewking monoculture lawns..

and, as we talked about previously..Teddy Rosevelt and his Progressive policies that created our National Park system in the first place is one of my few favorite things the Government has ever done...

so anytime somebody wants to fuck that up just to line their pockets...well, i get a bit defensive...

i do agree many so called "environmentalists" go too far...but i also believe some so called "conservationalists" don't go far enough

once again..call me silly..but i will go with that musty old Greek adage of "Do no Harm"

know what i mean?

Excelsior!

>>hurm...my only contention with the "most states" bit when it comes to old growth forests woudl be that a lot of the Administrations policies, as we previously discussed...are based in some of the last of those forests which are on National Forest lands..<<

As I understand it the cutting in any National Forests opened for lumbering is going to be on a tree by tree thinning basis as has been done before with a strict limitation and the objective of making the forest less vulnerable to fire. This is something that really has to be done, and it's not unreasonable to let private industry do the job under proper supervision and make a profit on it. Way better than paying some forestry service workers to do it and then letting the wood go to waste.

>>there's also the whole bit in the Northwest surrounding the redwood and sequoia forests that are being cut and /or litigated to be cut...<<

I'm with you that those relatively rare trees should be left alone, but I haven't heard much about lawsuits or actual plans to cut those forest. Last I heard logging in those areas had been pretty much shut down by state laws.

>>i'm funny like that tho..i like trees..and plankton...since they produce the oxygen we humans need to breathe/live<<

We can agree that oxygen is good.

>>i'm also all about biodiversity...hate those fewking monoculture lawns..<<

You'd like my disastrous lawn then. BTW, it's on reclaimed farmland and we've got a 100+ tree elm forest going - and when you cull some trees out it does make the rest healthier. I keep having to do it and it's tedious.

>>again..call me silly..but i will go with that musty old Greek adage of "Do no Harm"<<

Um ,that was Hypocrites and he was talking about medicine.

Dave

heh..i know who it was...and what he was talking about..i believe the Metaphor applies to almost All Things..

as for the rest of the above Post...

stop the presses folks..we have Agreement!!

isn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse..the Red Sox win the Series...Dave and i agree on something...

check to see if Lucifer is ice skating, will ya?

Excelsior!

I believe that the grand extent of our agreement was about equivalent to "trees are good".

Dave

i never said it was a large agreement...merely that a point of Equilibrium had been reached..

if i had thought a more comprehensive meeting of the Minds had occured, i would be giving out the Infernal Hockey Leagues scores for the day

Excelsior!

"there are lots of plants which will grow really well in sandy soil, not just pine."

Yup. Like just about everything here in Florida.

The "soil" here sucks! Yet all kinds of flora and fauna thrive in the wooded areas...

(And there are also a number of commercial crops that also thrive here...and not just citrus!)

"Here in Texas the deer are out of control. Same thing in the northern midwest. We can't hunt enough of them fast enough to offset population growth."

I hear the even imported predator canines into New Jersey of all places in order to "naturally" deal with the overpopulation of deer in that state...