Offshore Drilling Ban to be Lifted by Bush

[Ghoulish Delight]

Here are some enlightening numbers.

According to government statistics, drilling in ANWR will mean, in the best case estimates, that in 30 years we will be importing 46% of our oil instaed of 51% of our oil.

Boy howdy, that'd show Chavez a thing or two!

Oh wait, don't forget the astounding 1% that drilling offshore will contribute. Totally worth risking a few species of animals.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Well, you know, they're just animals. It's not like they're good for anything.


/gag

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

[color="Purple"]Well, you know, they're just animals. It's not like they're good for anything.

Not true. I hear polar bear steak is delicious.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Pair it with a couple scrambled penguin eggs.

[Alex]

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.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

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.

[Alex]

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

All I'm saying is that we don't have an impressive track record when it comes to getting our industrial infrastructure to coexist with natural environments. I don't have anything to back it up, I'll admit to this being conjecture, but I'd say more often that not that over the long run, presence of human-constructed and run operations in an environment does not have a positive affect on the flora and fauna. Not necessarily disastrous, and not even necessarily an impact that isn't recoverable in the even longer run. But if it's a question of "which is more likely" I fall on the side of it's more likely that a large scale drilling operation will have a net negative impact than a net neutral impact. So that, combined with the rather minuscule projected benefit to oil supply, is enough for me to prefer we just stay out of there.

[scaeagles]

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.