Sotu '06

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Stan4dSteph

Oh and scaeagles, drill in ANWR? Stupid idea. I would vote against someone based on this one decision alone.

I don't understand why. There is a wide disparity of opinion as to how much oil is there. Some artificially low, some artificially high.

When the Alaskan oil pipeline was built, there were environmental outcries about risks, damage, etc. None of that has developed. In fact, the warmth generated by the pipeline has led to dramatic increases in caribou populations.

600 acres of development in a 2 million acre preserve. Not unreasonable.

[Stan4dSteph]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I don't understand why. There is a wide disparity of opinion as to how much oil is there. Some artificially low, some artificially high.

When the Alaskan oil pipeline was built, there were environmental outcries about risks, damage, etc. None of that has developed. In fact, the warmth generated by the pipeline has led to dramatic increases in caribou populations.

600 acres of development in a 2 million acre preserve. Not unreasonable.

I would tend to believe the 506 scientists who signed a letter to the president opposing the drilling. It's not about the amount of land, it's about which land is being drilled. Animals are disturbed by the presence of the pipeline and drilling equipment. Female caribou stay away from the current pipeline, particularly when they are calving. Disruptions in the size and movement of herds could lead to reductions in populations. The Porcupine caribou population has been declining since 1989.

Some species of birds do not nest near structures like oil wells. If these are placed near to traditional nesting grounds, populations will suffer. It doesn't matter that it's only a small percentage of the total area.

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/archive/an...on-update.html