I don't really buy into the argument that the drilling would be any serious wildlife threat. I just don't think it is necessary so there's no reason to change protections on Federal lands.

For any state owned lands (be that in Alaska or offshore) I'd support lifting any federal restrictions and leaving it to the states involved to make their own decisions.

I don't think drilling is a direct threat to wildlife (they certainly aren't going to plant a drill right over a den or nest). I think the effects of the drilling will cause problems. The heat from the equipment can change the microclimate. The people who are now in a formerly unpopulated area will bring with them trash and perhaps disease that the animals have never been around. The vibrations in the ground; what are the effects of those on the subterranean organisms? What happens if an animal attacks or threatens a worker? Does the animal get killed because it's now a threat to the human population in the animals habitat?

If the ANWR could produce enough oil to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, then maybe, maybe I would have a different opinion. But the 4% reduction in importing that the drilling will bring in is not worth the risk.

I have no concerns about any sort of catostrophic environmental impact. But there will be some level of impact. There's no way that drilling into the ground and creating the roads, utility lines, buildings, offices, storage facilities, traffic, etc. will have zero effect on the surrounding environment. And with such little benefit gained, it hardly seems worth the risk of even minor intrusion into these environments.

I guess I don't understand how you're using the word "risk." Risk of impact, yes obviously. But that doesn't much bother me.

Risk of harm (where harm is defined as something more than just impact) then I'm not seeing that as significant enough that it impacts my decision making.

Off shore drilling will likely reduce pollution in the ocean. Oil seepage, some two thirds of all ocean oil pollution, is caused by pressure which can be released by drilling.

Any thoughts on this potential compromise, as put forth by the "gang of ten"?

Personally, I don't love it, but I think it is a reasonable compromise, that might actually start getting something done.


The major components of the proposal include:
It will be interesting to see which way each candidate votes on it. Kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.

If I were the Democrats I'd vote for it and then next year when they have the White House anyway put the off shore ban back.

I guess I'd want to first know how extensive the increases in drilling would be on the limited, though expanded, chances for drilling and I wonder who determines where they are allowed to drill.

And after looking at Alex's post, there would certainly need to be some assurances in place. Pelosi is already playing behind the scenes telling vulnerable dems it's OK to vote for drilling to protect the seat (tell 'em what they want to hear even though the party has no intention of allowing it - gotta love Pelosi!) while not allowing debate on the floor.

I've said before, I have no issue with off shore drilling using existing platforms and infrastructure that are retrofitted and inspected to be safe at today's standards.

My issue is with creating new structures, new infrastructure in the ocean and drilling in AK.