[at-l] A.N.W.R. VOTE - conservation issue - not trail

[yumitori@montana.com (Ron Martino)]

> First question - why do you believe that those photos WERE all taken in
> 1002?  In many cases, the only reason to believe that is because they appear
> where they do.  And that don't make it true. 

	Fair enough. Not all are clearly credited. I was using them to point
out that portions, at least, of the Area don't fit the 'wasteland'
description. It's not really material, though. One man's wasteland is
another's eden. Just look at the varied opinions about the deserts of
the Southwest. I should have just argued that from the beginning.

> Hmmm - really?  "Some" of their claims certainly have validity - possibly
> even "most" of them.  I have no argument with that - but ALL of them?
> Really?  Keep reading - cause the ALL thing isn't even close to true.
> 
> Second - expecting "other government agencies" to say anything about what
> they (F&W) put out?  That's not real, my friend.  There are damn few Federal
> agencies gonna complain about Fish & Wildlife unless they can snatch some
> budget money from them in the process.

	Um, I'm not suggesting that NASA was going to take them to task.
There's a number of congressmen who want the drilling. This is a
government summary (with sources cited) that says essentially oil
extraction in this area would do more harm than good. I suggest that
there's been quite a few staffers looking for flaws in the department's
conclusions since it was published.
 
> Next question - WHICH President was that report written for?   Why do you
> assume it was written for the present one?  Did you miss the line that says
> "Text and graphics by USFWS staff  Last modified 17 January 2001"?  Who was
> President at that time?

	The Bush administration has been seeking ways to mitigate any number of
actions taken by his lame-duck predecessor. Why would they allow this to
stand?

	To be fair, I have no proof one way or another, and I haven't had (nor
likely will have) the opportunity to track down all of the reports that
went into this synopsis. But is there any reason the elected officials
trying to open the 1002 Area to drilling would allow this report to
stand unchallenged if there were factual errors they could dispute?
 
> Probably true, but - not unique habitat - or unique species.  Certainly
> "different" from what you (or most anyone else here) is used to - but not
> "unique".  Nor would the drilling destroy either the species or any
> significant part of the habitat unless it's done in a hurry (fast and dirty)
> - and probably not even then.  Nature is more adaptable than most
> environmentalists - and ALL environmental organizations are willing to
> imagine.

	Nature, yes. Individual species, no. This land was set aside for the
express purpose of protecting wildlife. The rest of the North Slope is
already open to drilling. If even this small corner isn't protected,
what will be?
 
> It WOULD leave scars on the land.  I've walked parts of the Oregon Trail -
> and the scars are still there 150 years later.  But keep in mind that the
> trails you walk are also scars on the land - go walk the PCT and LOOK at the
> scar that it leaves across the land - you can see the scars for miles, even
> from the ground.  As a hiker, complaining about "land that won't heal in the
> foreseeable future" is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

	Oh come on, Jim. There's something of a difference between a footpath
and a drilling site or a road who's gravel was dredged from a nearby
river. I'm sure there's plenty of holes in my arguments - you can do
better than this.
 
> The "forseeable future" is also a term that's meaningless, because none of
> us can see ANY of the future.  We can "maybe" make some educated guesses
> about what'll happen in the future - but --- how far in the future?  Whose
> future?  How many years/centuries/millenia?  And how subjective is the
> "forseeing"?  Who's doing the "forseeing"?  There are those who can't see
> beyond their next cup of coffe - and there are a few (very few) who can see
> beyond the stars.  It makes a very large difference.

	How about this - based on the past resource extraction in my home
state, scars left by large scale operations can last centuries at a
minimum, even in a less delicate environment than the North Slope.
Certainly, modern techniques may be less intrusive, but so far I haven't
heard any of the proponents for drilling call for minimizing impacts,
and I do not believe that they will unless forced to.
 
> The "limited supply of oil" is another loaded term that has no basis in
> fact.  It's a catch-phrase that "sounds good" - nothing more.  ALL oil is
> "limited" - it's a non-renewable resource.  Reality is that "limited supply"
> is a phrase that favors neither side -- except for its emotional value.

	Would you prefer 'finite' supply? There's a limit to what's there. All
we have to go on are current estimates. Do you have better ones? 
 
> So - let's take another look at the numbers while we're here.  One thing I
> find interesting is that the F&W Web site claims a 50% probability of there
> being a "9 month" supply of oil (we'll come back to that one) - but someone
> here quoted a "6 month" supply.  First question - where'd those other 3
> months go to?  I've even had someone try to sell me that it's a "60-day"
> supply.  What a crock - all that stuff tells me is that there are people who
> are picking numbers out of the air - and then "adjusting" them up or down to
> make their particular political case look better.  That used to be called
> the "Finagle factor" - among other things.

	It depends greatly on what numbers are used. As you point out, various
folks choose different numbers. The '9 month' supply is based on the 50%
probability. If you want better odds, for example, 'there's an 80%
chance there's X amount', you end up with a correspondingly smaller
amount.

> Next question - how long does a "9-month" supply of oil last?  The
> implication, of course, is that it will last 9 months.  Really??  Anyone who
> believes that doesn't have a clue. There's no company (oil or otherwise) and
> no government that would put in the billions of dollars necessary to develop
> that oil if it was only gonna last for 9 months.  That would be truly
> stupid.

	Jim, that's not what is being said. It seems straight forward to me -
if we extract all of the commercially available oil in the 1002 Area,
current estimates are that there's an even chance that it will total 5.3
billion barrels. There may be a lot more, but there may be a lot less.
But even very optimistically, there's almost certainly no more than 9.4
billion barrels. At current U.S. use levels, that's the /equivalent/ of
a little over 9 months oil consumption at the 50-50 estimate, and 16
months at the most optimistic.

> How long that oil lasts is entirely dependent on what's actually there (and
> remember - we don't know that) and on how fast it's taken out.  And the "how
> fast it's taken out" is dependent on storage capacity, transmission
> capability and processing rate at the refinery - among other factors.  Keep
> in mind that there hasn't been a new refinery built in a lot of years - so
> adding a step function input (a whole lot of new oil) to the front end of
> the refining process doesn't solve anything.  In fact, it would just create
> more problems.

	Well, sure. So? All that means is that we won't be solving our
dependence on foreign oil by drilling in the ANWR. They would be pumping
for years, but the amount extracted would not be able to meet demand, so
we would still have to buy abroad.

	Which just screws up some of the pro-drilling arguments.
 
> Then there's the other side of the argument - "let's become less dependent
> on foreign oil".  Yeah, sure.  And when we cut back oil imports, what do you
> think the present oil producers are gonna do?  No - I don't know either, but
> you can bet the farm that they wouldn't be happy about it - and that they'd
> retaliate. And that we wouldn't like it.

	What do you think they are going to do? Certainly, there's a
possibility of future embargoes and price fixing, but they can do that
now. 
 
> >all in a
> >region that comprises a tiny percent of the area potentially valuable
> >for oil extraction.
> 
> Again - I don't think you know that.  I don't, the government obviously
> doesn't.  And the oil companies don't seem to - they pay big bucks to the
> guys who spend a lifetime looking for those places.  They don't find many of
> them.

	Nonsense. The entire North Slope is /potentially/ available under
current law, except for the Refuge. If our need is so great, let's tap
into the Alaskan National Petroleum Reserve and see what we can find
there. Why drill the 1002 Area now?
 
> Hmmm - another question - if oil was found somewhere else in ANWR (other
> than 1002), would you object to drilling there?  After all, 1002 is where
> F&W claims all the wildlife activity is.  Do you believe that?  I don't.
> But I still would object - for exactly the same reasons I object to drilling
> in 1002.

	Heh, you're trying to misconstrue what they said - the discussion was
over the 1002 Area. They addressed wildlife there, not in the rest of
the Refuge because those sections aren't under consideration. To do so
would be like my arguing that drilling in Central Park would harm
certain recreational activities for New Yorkers. I'd be correct, but so
what? The webpage simply addressed pertinent issues.
 
> OK - how about oil on tribal lands?  Would it make a difference that it's on
> "private" land?   Y'all might want to think about that.  I have - and I sure
> don't have all the answers to that one either.

	I don't have to like it, but they own the land. I'd hope they would
extract oil in a responsible manner, but there's no way to insure
that... 

> C'mon, Ron - the answer to that question is a no-brainer.  It's a question
> of availability and economics.  You don't hunt deer in a city cause they're
> not there.  If you want to hunt deer, you go where they are - if you want
> oil, you go where it's at.  If it's too expensive to get out, then it's not
> economically feasible - but that's another matter.  

	Jim, I'm not talking about downtown Anchorage. I'm referring to the
rest of the North Slope, of which the 1002 Area is only a small portion.

>  For those who
> don't know, Fish & Wildlife has their own agenda - and it's own biases - and
> it ain't the same as Bush & Co.  Sorry, Ron, but that part of your logic
> doesn't compute.

	Sure they do, but they also gave all of their sources, which allows us
to check their analysis. As you encourage us below, that way we /can/ do
our research.
 
> Get the facts, guys - if you haven't done your research, if you're too lazy
> to spend some time digging out BOTH sides of the issue, if you're not
> willing to spend some time, energy and meybe even money in getting the FACTS
> - then you're just expressing opinion, and generally ignorant opinion at
> that.  

> Jim

	I'm trying, I'm trying...

	Ron
-- 

yumitori(AT)montana(DOT)com