How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 goodbye to Arctic wildlife   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

goodbye to Arctic wildlife

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


0 posted 11-14-2004 01:11 AM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

goodbye to the Arctic wildlife
you're about to get a royal drilling
so someone can make another schilling,
in case anyone wondered why gas prices are high
perhaps it was to justify this?
perhaps to keep your mind on your pocket book instead of the environment?
goodby to the caribou
and maybe in the long run
goodbye to me and you?

Drilling on Alaska tracts wins approval
Reuters News Service
WASHINGTON - The Interior Department on Friday gave final approval to a plan by Conoco Phillips and partner Anadarko Petroleum, both based in the Houston area, to develop five tracts around the oil-rich Alpine field on Alaska's North Slope.
The department's Bureau of Land Management authorized the first commercial development of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, allowing the companies to go forward with developing the tracts, which are in the northeastern corner of the reserve.
Production from these fields, which together hold more than 330 million barrels of oil, will start by 2006, the bureau said.
Environmentalists have criticized the plan to develop these Alpine satellite fields as a rollback of environmental protections promised during the Clinton administration.
The bureau said it modified the original development proposal to offer greater protection to wildlife and sensitive habitats in the reserve.
The Bush administration believes Congress next year will approve oil drilling in the separate Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Krawdad
Member Elite
since 01-03-2001
Posts 2627


1 posted 11-14-2004 01:29 AM       View Profile for Krawdad   Email Krawdad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Krawdad

Another chapter in The Empire of Oil Chronicles.
From Alaska to Africa to Iraq, it is all about oil.
We will have it any cost.

And for the sake of all life on this planet, the sooner we run out the better.

e
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


2 posted 11-14-2004 02:05 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

The world’s human population going
from six to nine billion in less than fifty
years is apt have a far greater impact on
the survival of other species.  Perhaps
efforts should be made or not made
as will drastically curb that
number and its consequences.


Krawdad
Member Elite
since 01-03-2001
Posts 2627


3 posted 11-14-2004 02:21 AM       View Profile for Krawdad   Email Krawdad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Krawdad

Huan Yi,

What's your point, with respect to oil?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


4 posted 11-14-2004 02:42 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Krawdad,

I’m sorry, I thought wildlife endangerment
was the concern.
Krawdad
Member Elite
since 01-03-2001
Posts 2627


5 posted 11-14-2004 02:54 AM       View Profile for Krawdad   Email Krawdad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Krawdad

Huan Yi,
Perhaps I was reading between the lines.  Human population, unchecked in its growth, does indeed doom us all, wildlife and humans alike, oil or not, but oil is playing a large part in accelerating the global impact we have, and faster than the population growth itself, it would seem.
I thought you might have a point about that connection.

e
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


6 posted 11-14-2004 02:54 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Simple solution, guys. Stop using your cars.

When you've done that, then perhaps you can convince everyone else to follow suit. Problem solved.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


7 posted 11-14-2004 03:04 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Krawdad,

Without human demand there would be little if any
oil coming out of the ground except by accident.
The more humans the more demand.  Oil production
is just trying to catch up with the increases that have
already occurred and things aren’t going to be improved
by those expected to happen by 2050.

ice
Member Elite
since 05-17-2003
Posts 3059
Pennsylvania


8 posted 11-14-2004 09:26 AM       View Profile for ice   Email ice   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for ice

­

"Drilling on Alaska tracts wins approval"

I assume, with strong confidence, that private environmental groups were not asked for input on this matter, much less approval..  I guess approval by Norton and Leavitt is all that matters...Certainly there was no objection from the EPA, as it's head (Leavitt) is a known environmental criminal, nor from his coconspirator, and former appointee to a state position(Utah), Kathleen Clark (present head of the BLM)

"The bureau said it modified the original development proposal to offer greater protection to wildlife and sensitive habitats in the reserve."

I would like to see those modifications, does anyone have a link, so I can see the original documents and the accepted modifications?

Off hand I assume that the modifications are hogwash, like all that are proposed by anti environmentalist that classify everything's worth by its dollar value.

"The Bush administration believes Congress next year will approve oil drilling in the separate Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

Of course they do, they believe only in the God of profit, The priests of that religion have a Pope who approves, and the senator-bishops have won more seats in the last election.

The cold facts are that there is no way that the present thought that we can drill our way to energy independence is possible...considering we can extract only a 180 day supply from sucking all the oil out of this proposed drill site, and further knowing that the US holds only 3 percent of the worlds oil under its land mass.

95% of the Arctic coastline is already opened by law for drilling and exploration...and considering that there is , on average, one oil spill or accident each day at Prudhoe bay (under very strict environmental rules) I would consider a mandate to control what is already in effect before even considering further drilling in that area.

"We had a very interesting discussion about capacity. For example, had ANWR been passed -- had it not been vetoed in the past, we anticipate an additional million barrels of oil would have been coming out of that part of the world, which would obviously have a positive impact for today's consumers." (George W. Bush-Source: Presidential Cabinet Meeting, May 19, 2004)

Yes an impact that lowers the price of gas at the pump by 1 or 2 % and for a very short term...

What is the value of an Arctic fox, a pregnant Caribou?

Oh, I forgot..it is only humans that count, and their rights to ride roughshod over the environment in their Hummers takes precedent over protecting the lives of endangered creatures..

Peace-------ice
       ><>

  


­
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


9 posted 11-14-2004 12:00 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

“Oh, I forgot..it is only humans that count, and their rights to ride roughshod over the environment in their Hummers takes precedent over protecting the lives of endangered creatures..”

What is needed is a Camp Hitchcock
where coordinated tactics and strategy
can be learned.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


10 posted 11-14-2004 12:53 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Oh, I forgot..it is only humans that count, and their rights to ride roughshod over the environment in their Hummers takes precedent over protecting the lives of endangered creatures..

I assume you ride a horse to work, then?  

When you use a product, be it illicit drug or petroleum-based energy, don't you implicitly condone its production? The profiteers aren't just trying to make money. They're trying to make money off YOU.
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


11 posted 11-14-2004 01:26 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

all the more reason to fight for alternative fuels, and to demand vehicles that get great mileage AND make them be affordable to people like me, who are currently unemployed but living in an area with an inadequate public transportation network
bit transportation is only part of the problem, we need to be less dependent upon nonrenewable sources for heating and manufacturing
ice
Member Elite
since 05-17-2003
Posts 3059
Pennsylvania


12 posted 11-14-2004 02:17 PM       View Profile for ice   Email ice   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for ice

­John
I don't know what a "Camp Hitchcock" is, please explain..

Ron

"I assume you ride a horse to work, then?  

When you use a product, be it illicit drug or petroleum-based energy, don't you implicitly condone its production? The profiteers aren't just trying to make money. They're trying to make money off YOU."

I don't ride a horse to work, but I do make sure that someone else rides with me to our jobs, we take as few vehicles as possible and use the smallest amount of gas we can...

I condone its production under the condition that it be used wisely, not foolishly in gas guzzlers such as the (private)"Hummer"

I was born into a society that is shortsighted, and still is when it comes to non renewable recourses such as oil, whose members never count the total costs of its production because it doesn't come off their bottom line..

We are not bombarded by suggestions of how to save energy in all aspects of our lives..conservation is a profane word in the books of large corporations and the government...We have been urged to be exploiters, and when that urging doesn't work we are forced to comply by economic pressure....If I am to make what little I keep I have to join the exploiters club in some way...But I can nurture in other ways....Live a simple lifestyle, grow a garden, eat the fish I catch, make venison stew, heat my house with wood from my own small plot of earth etc..which I do.

Peace-------ice
       ><>


­­
­
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


13 posted 11-14-2004 07:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Kacey, are you saying then that all of the arctic wildlife is going to disappear because of these decisions?
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


14 posted 11-14-2004 10:02 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

ARE you suggesting we take the chance, just to get a few barrels of oil?
This country has had multiple opportunities in the past twenty five or so years to disengage ourselves from oil dependency, but the oil industry has pumped billions into making sure no one spends sufficient time or money into alternative fuels, which would hurt the oil barons bottom line.
The porcupine herd caribou graze near Beaufort Lagoon. Oldsquaw ducks and other migratory fowl breed and feed there annually, in a relatively pristine habitat in ANWR.
Oil drilling damages the sensitive fragile ecosysytem, tears up the tundra. In Prudhoe Bay, approximately 43000 tons of nitrogen oxide gets spewed out daily, polluting the air and land. The estimates for the proposed new drilling include putting in over 280 more miles of roads, hundreds of miles of new pipes, and over 50 million cubic feet of gravel...which will be 'taken' from nearby streams and lakes. And worldwide climate changes are already putting a dent in Alaska's landscape. The permafrost is melting so fast, most of the highways have to be re-done yearly. When I lived there (for 6 years) one major highway was rebuilt with the expectations it would last at least 10 years HAHA, after a full year of rebuilding, it still sank in several spots, and is being 'redone' in multiple places almost monthly. And that's just one example of the problems with roads in Alaska. I know people in Prudhoe Bay, and in Barrow. They aren't convinced the drilling and pipeline work can be done without major damage to the entire ecosystem. One is a wildlife biologist, and I think he is a more reliable source than any oil baron or government  spokesman as to what the dangers are to the wildlife there.
And no, Mike, I sure don't mean to say ALL wildlife would become extinct, and hope you aren't suggesting that would be acceptable? or that even if many could die, that would be OK? Not to mention the lifestyle of the G'wchen natives, who rely on traveling and substance fishing and hunting for survival, Not one of the G'wchens I know want to see the drilling happen. They are the closest to the land. And yet, hundreds of thousands have been spent by oil company front men attempting to buy these people off. I'm sure some may have accepted the $, since they figured the US govt would go ahead in spite of all protests and environmental concerns.
It's not just a bout a handful of caribou, the arctic tern, the ducks, the polar bears, the people who live there. Its also one of the last places on this earth where we have a chance to say NO, we will not rape the land and the environment this way.
To drill in the sensitive ecosystem of the arctic is absolute insanity.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


15 posted 11-14-2004 10:30 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

" I sure don't mean to say ALL wildlife would become extinct, and hope you aren't suggesting that would be acceptable?"

I must confess I have no idea in the world where that came from. Where did I say ANYTHING that would suggest that - or was that just a smoke screen you threw up?  A good part of your reply to my question deals with world wide climate conditions damaging Alaska? Does that have something to do with the oil drilling I'm not aware of? You make it sound like it's an "either-or" situation where we either drill for oil or the wildlife lives. I don't see why both are not possible. I believe in the ecology and I also believe in protection of wildlife. You will have to go a long way to find someone who does not love animals as much as I. I also believe that some of the ecologists are nutcases who present their views with tactics that border on sordid.

As an example, a few years ago the topic of drilling in Alaska was a subject receiving quite a bit of publicity from the environmentalists. They ran tv ads showing the pristine beauty of several Alaskan areas, wildlife cavorting in abundance, and then footage of (somewhere) oil drilling, their point being that oil drilling in these areas would destroy all of that natural beauty. Afterwards, the Discovery channel showed a documentary on where actual oil drilling was going on in Alaska. It was in a very desolate area, far removed from all of the postcard setting the environmentalists displayed. There was minimal wildlife in these barren areas and, even then, the managers of the oil exploration went into great detail of all the steps being taken to preserve all of the wildlife in the area...and there were many.

That's why I asked you the question - not to back you in a corner but to ask if you really believed that the presence of one would eliminate the presence of the other. Personally, I don't believe so....
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


16 posted 11-14-2004 11:11 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

'are you saying then that all of the arctic wildlife is going to disappear '
well, maybe it was the way you wrote this?
questionning the validity maybe?
Anyway, I did make one error, the G'wichens actually are just south of ANWR, not IN ANWR. But they do not support the drilling, though the Eskimos of Kaktovik do, and no wonder, they make beaucoup revenues off the Prudoe Bay money because it was Eskimo land.
I'm not the least bit impressed with the testimony of people who support this drilling who also stand to make a profit. In the background, there are even some Eskimos who are keeping their fingers crossed that the drilling doesn't go too far.
Climate change affects the way the roads are developed and consequently their stability. Drilling and road development affects the tundra, the permafrost further south, and the entire region. I know there have been improvements in oil field management, in drilling techniques. I know many people in that industry (including one of my family) try to do their best to minimize the impact on the land. But the fact is, the tundra is extremely sensitive, and even the constant pressure from walking on it disrupts the fragile living organisms.
I think as a nation, we are being so short sighted, that we are sacrificing far too much for the oil that is within the refuge, and not being honest about the potential permanent damage that will be done. And all because we want to have a steady flow of oil at a low price, even if it means there'll be no oil at ANY price 50 years from now.
Oh yeah, I heard that by then, we'll have it all figured out and not need the oil anyway. I also heard that same spiel about 30 years ago, and have seen little change in our total consumption patterns. And in addition, what else is scary? NOW in China they are selling more cars than 30 years ago, and in many developing countries, everyone wants to have a car, and suck up more oil.
There are so many other side issues to this topic, not all of which I can address in this thread.
The bottom line is, we have to find other energy sources. Sucking up ANWR is not the answer.

But since it looks like its going to happen, I hope they at least have some plan as to how to deal with the up and down heave/hoe movement the pipelines go through at least twice a year as the freeze/thaw cycles happen. Not to mention how to protect it from terrorists or drunks with shotguns (another true story of an incident about three or four years ago) And that someone has ways to let all the migratory animals not to land nearby, but give them some directional arrows to go east, young bird, go east . LOL, have to make at least one joke to survive this environmental insanity.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


17 posted 11-14-2004 11:41 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"I'm not the least bit impressed with the testimony of people who support this drilling "

Isn't that the crux of it, Kacey, not being impressed with anyone whose views are different from what we want to believe? That's why these threads seldom go anywhere.

I still didn't see a response as to whether you consider this an "either/or" situation or whether you think that just possibly both are possible.
bbent
Senior Member
since 01-07-2001
Posts 534
Alaska


18 posted 11-15-2004 12:01 AM       View Profile for bbent   Email bbent   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit bbent's Home Page   View IP for bbent

money talks,reason walks...seems to be sadly true.funny no one mentioned the canada/alaska natural pipeline thats going in also.even sader the little press givin to the recent anouncment by scientist that there will be no polar ice caps or the creatures that depend on them for life by the end of this century at todays rate of global warming...dang might as well cast my barb at the feds and there harp project too,blasting holes in the ozone with microwaves from deep inside pristine alaska.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


19 posted 11-15-2004 12:28 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Scientists also predict with certainty that the earth will be covered with another ice age in the future and that thousands of forms of life, from plants to animals will continue to pass into extinction. Why? Because that is the cycle of the history of earth. You are giving way too much importance to the contributions of man with regards to microwaves, global warming and the like. Mother Nature has her own cycles which have been carried on since the beginning of time, even long before man made his unwelcome arrival...and She will continue to do so.
bbent
Senior Member
since 01-07-2001
Posts 534
Alaska


20 posted 11-15-2004 01:25 AM       View Profile for bbent   Email bbent   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit bbent's Home Page   View IP for bbent

cycles have and will continue,however global warming is happening at a much more accellerated pace than nature itself has ever done because of mans polution induced greenhouse gasses.i'm not opposed to mans use of the earths resources in a resonable manner but our abuse of them can also have a devastating effect on this planet and it's inhabitants.i really got to dissagree with your statement that i'm placing too much importance on mans contribution.not so much for my benifit but for my childrens and theirs.honestly i don't know that ecologically sound drilling here will do that much irrepairable damage but the increasing demand and use of oil by all the world is. i also got to stand behind my feelings that money talks,reason walks. man's not a resonable creature,a few minutes of the evening news should prove that.
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


21 posted 11-15-2004 01:26 AM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

So, I see you didn't quote the whole sentence. "I'm not the least bit impressed with the testimony of people who support this drilling who also stand to make a profit"

Shouldn't you be questionning the ones who are making all the money, or doesn't that matter? There are many many issues connected with this, the environment, your personal pocketbook, the oil conglomerates...it's not as simple as asking will the wild animals survive or not?  That was the STARTING point of the thread, but obviously, only a starting point. I hope others will continue with this and other themes. But realistically, I never expect to change anyone's mindset, though it would be nice to be able to discuss the pros and cons of drilling in the Arctic. I think the cons far outweigh the pros.  
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


22 posted 11-15-2004 04:09 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Destruction of forests, wildlife habitats, etc. are happening
in large parts of the world and being done by those within
the six billion, (and will be nine billion by 2050), over whom
the United States has little or no control.  I have to think
the increasing industrialization of an increasing China and India,
for example,  will have far greater impact.


“we need to be less dependent upon nonrenewable sources
for heating and manufacturing”


Some countries, not having the luxury of their own ample sources
for oil, etc. have turned to the nuclear option, (including
earthquake ridden Japan which once went to war for oil).
Our reluctance assures our dependence and vulnerability.

ice
Member Elite
since 05-17-2003
Posts 3059
Pennsylvania


23 posted 11-15-2004 07:12 AM       View Profile for ice   Email ice   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for ice

Balladeer quote:

"There was minimal wildlife in these barren areas and, even then, the managers of the oil exploration went into great detail of all the steps being taken to preserve all of the wildlife in the area...and there were many."

"minimal wildlife in these barren areas" is not true, their are minimal numbers of species, yes, as is such in all boreal climates...species number per square mile is very low when compared to temperate or tropical climates...All the more reason to protect them from the vulnerability of intruders, because minimal species means it is easy to wipe them out by disease, habitat destruction or stress...

What has not been spoken of is that noise from drilling activities alters marine mammal navigation, social interactions, prey capture and predator avoidance. The land is not the only thing in jeopardy here..

Despite claims by the big oil companies that they can drill and have drilled responsibly on Alaska’s North Slope, spills are commonplace. At the Prudhoe Bay oilfield, reportable spills of oil products and hazardous substances happen every day and are compounded by the noise and air pollution industrialization brings. Shortly after drilling started in this area, the central arctic caribou herd shifted its calving grounds away from development, resulting in the use of lower quality habitats.

That herd is one of the species that is hugely abundant, but have very intricate and has unique patterns of reproduction...making their survival precarious at best.

The "managers of oil exploration" follow only government regulations , almost entirely, and in many cases do not. With the weakening of regulations proposed by Bush they will now have a much easier go of it..millions of dollars in fines have been levied against the "managers " for violations in the arctic regions, particularly in the Prudhoe Bay area...just west of ANWR-1002..

One regulation that is followed, is the legality of dumping byproducts into lagoons at the drill sites, it is absorbed directly into the permafrost, and being dark in color, absorbs the suns rays ..thus melting the permafrost...bad news for the soil and general health of the area...

Kacy quote:
..realistically, I never expect to change anyone's mindset, though it would be nice to be able to discuss the pros and cons of drilling in the Arctic. I think the cons far outweigh the pros...

Ok, to keep on topic is crucial, everything that is connected to the issue is a pro or a con...opinions based on facts are most important..
********************************************
Opinions based on facts gathered by different sources that have to do with the topic....

*A leading expert on natural resources at the conservative Cato Institute said that Mr. Bush’s claim that we can effectively combat international oil forces by increasing our domestic production "is beyond nonsense.... It’s nonsense on stilts.... ‘Energy independence’ thus makes for good political rhetoric but inane economic policy.... they’re going to dominate the world market whether we allow drilling in environmentally sensitive areas or not."
(I think he was speaking directly at the ANWR issue)

*Vice President Dick Cheney says drilling for oil and gas would disturb just 2,000 acres of the 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. "The notion that, somehow, developing the resources in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Reserve requires some sort of vast despoiling of the environment up there is just garbage," (NBC- "Meet the Press")

He took these figures from a 2001 proposal to legislate hr-4 which included this erroneous statement>
"Under the bill as passed, oil and gas exploration in the refuge is limited to 2000 acres."

This is the drilling base area only and does not include pipelines and roadways, landing strips and other construction/destruction.
  
* 1987 LEIS report:
Information gathered from the biological, seismic and geological studies was used to complete a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) that described the potential impacts of oil and gas development. This LEIS included the Secretary's final report and recommendation, as it was submitted to Congress.

The report concluded that oil development and production in the 1002 Area would have major effects on the Porcupine Caribou herd and muskoxen. Major effects were defined as "widespread, long-term change in habitat availability or quality which would likely modify natural abundance or distribution of species." Moderate effects were expected for wolves, wolverine, polar bears, snow geese, seabirds and shorebirds, arctic grayling and coastal fish. Major restrictions on subsistence activities by Kaktovik residents would also be expected.

*Congress and Clinton:
In 1995, Congress passed budget legislation that included a provision to allow drilling in the Refuge. Citing a desire to protect biological and wilderness values, President Clinton vetoed the bill, stating "I want to protect this biologically rich wilderness permanently."

This is getting long, I better quit now...Peace all....

----------ice
  ><>


­­
­
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


24 posted 11-15-2004 10:47 AM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

ICE
quote:
What has not been spoken of is that noise from drilling activities alters marine mammal navigation, social interactions, prey capture and predator avoidance. The land is not the only thing in jeopardy here

The biologist I referred to in an earlier post is a marine biologist. His specialty area is studying whale migrations, feeding, calving, and the unexplained beachings that have occured internationally. I'm hoping to get in touch with him next week, to learn of his findings of the past three years since the last time I spoke with him (Barrow, AK)
I remember vividly some incidents in California, where a research vessel assisted the Navy with sonar studies, depth soundings in the Channel Islands. I was invited aboard by friends working on the project, when it was anchored in the harbor. The biologists and other scientists were concerned about the negative impact on marine mammals, and rightly so. One of my friends was told not to fuss over a few whales or dolphins or other 'fish.' Anyone wanting more info can research through groups like Concerned Scientists, Earth Island Institute, Cousteau Society, even Sierra Club and Audobon members. The number of sources for hands-on actual data is overwhelming.

Over 20 years ago, I had the great pleasure of meeting Cousteau and crew, and his comments about the degradation of the oceans by humans left an impact on me, as did my chance meeting with some of the crew of a Greenpeace flagship.
Those are the people I listen to when it comes to the environment, not the politicians and highly paid oil lobbyists, or the people who are so desperate they sell their souls and their children's futures just to put fuel in their cars today.
Thank you, very much, Ford, for the input you've added to this thread.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> goodbye to Arctic wildlife   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors