DSK wrote:
Scooby Doo wrote:
A "fool" is someone who won't accept a compromise where he
gets more than 92% of what he wants. ANWR is 19 million
acres. The area identified as the largest untapped petroleum
supply in North America is 1.5 million acres, or 7.9% of the
19 million.

Uh huh. And if "opening" that 7.9% negates the value of the
rest, then it's not enough, is it?

In fact that is demonstrably true too!

The entire purpose of ANWR was and is to protect the subsistence
resources of the Gwich'in people, who depend on the Porcupine
Caribou Herd. We have a treaty with Canada to provide that
protection, and both counties have set aside parks and refuges
as required on respective sides of the border.

It happens the range of the Porcupine Herd is rather large, but
there is a very small area which is so super critical that
environmental damage to it alone could have a major negative
impact on the herd. That area is commonly called the "calving
grounds", though that is not technically an accurate
description. It is the relatively small area where the herd
*nurtures* their calves every summer.

It centers on their preferred calving areas, but also includes
the adjacent areas they move to at different stages of calf
nurturing.

There are 30+ years of caribou biology studies on the North
Slope, and dozens of field biologists who have contributed to
that body of work. You cannot find more than one of them who
says the drilling in ANWR is harmless. (There is indeed exactly
one, a guy named Matthew Cronin who claims all of the others are
either mistaken or liars. Cronin of course has zero
credibility...)

For background information, these two URLs are good:

http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm
http://arctic.fws.gov/content.htm

For caribou research, here is more than anyone really wants
to know:

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/index.htm

To just get the conclusions, go to this URL and read what
they decide it all means:

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part5.htm

.. The proposal to open that 1.5 million acres would create
about 700,000 jobs, decrease our dependence on Middle Eastern
and other unstable foreign sources of energy, and allow 92.1%
of the wildlife refuge to remain untouched.

No, it will provide approx six months worth of oil at current
consumption, probably less by the time all is said and done, and
cut across the entire wildlife refuge disrupting migration &
seasonal habitat.

In other words, for a couple days supply of oil (and huge
profits to those allowed "in"), you want to destroy the
refuge. Good idea.

Well stated. Greed is the basis for all of it.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)