Finally something's going to be done to make use of the most godforsaken spot on the planet.
As I predicted some while ago, the change in the balance of the Senate finally paid off and they just passed a bill opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling.…
Article comments
26 - gonzo marx
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!
27 - Dave Nalle
>>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
28 - Eric Olsen
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.
29 - Dave Nalle
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
30 - Eric Olsen
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
31 - Aaman
And which national (or notional) interest, precisely, is at stake?:)
32 - gonzo marx
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!
33 - Eric Olsen
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
34 - Richard
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.
35 - Richard
National interests are at stake to increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, but have they done so in an effective manner? NO
36 - Roger Asbury
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?
37 - RJ
"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.
38 - Dave Nalle
>>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
39 - RJ
"big LUmber gets for clearcutting our National Forests?"
They don't do clear-cutting anymore...
40 - RJ
"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!
41 - Dave Nalle
>>"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
42 - gonzo marx
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!
43 - Dave Nalle
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
44 - gonzo marx
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!
45 - Dave Nalle
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
46 - Victor Plenty
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.
47 - Dave Nalle
>>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
48 - gonzo marx
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!
49 - Dave Nalle
>>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
50 - gonzo marx
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!
51 - Dave Nalle
>>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
52 - gonzo marx
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!
53 - Dave Nalle
>>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
54 - gonzo marx
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!
55 - Dave Nalle
I believe that the grand extent of our agreement was about equivalent to "trees are good".
Dave
56 - gonzo marx
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!
57 - RJ
"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!)
58 - RJ
"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...