DIYbanter - View Single Post

Kurt Ullman

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Several thousands of people need several millions of acres and
can't spare a little land.

They've owned that land for thousands of years. What
right do you have to take it, or their resources, and
destroy their culture?

Which is pretty much what the Feds did when they made it a reserve.
The feds own the land What gives them the right to decide to keep the
owners in poverty by not allowing them to develop their own land?. BTW:
did they actually own it.

All told, the ANWR consists of 19 million acres. Congress has put 8
million acres into formal wilderness status and designated 9.5 million
acres as wildlife refuge. Those 17.5 million acres form a protected
enclave almost as large as the state of South Carolina.

Do you have a point?
Yep. That no one is discussing messing with this section here.

As part of the original legislation, Congress set aside the remaining
1.5 million acres of the coastal plain for ***potential exploration***
and development because of its oil and gas. (emphasis mine). Before any
exploration could occur, additional legislation had to be passed by
Congress. That happened in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed the bill.

Hence, we have wisely refrained from destroying it.

Your take. So it MUST be true and the only way to go?

Note that Congress did *not* set it aside for
exploration, potential or otherwise. Congress said that
option should be studied because there was a potential.
It has been studied, and rather obviously it has been
consistently determined to *not* be a suitable option, which
is why exploration has not passed into law.

They certainly did. Congress passed the law that said it was hokey
dokey to go ahead, it was Clinton unilaterally who said otherwise as a
sop to his base.

It is a little hard to make the case that areas that were initially
set-aside specifically for exploration could really have that much
impact.

That is an absurdly erroneous statement. As noted, it
was *not* set aside for exploration. And logically
there is no correlation between that and whether there
would or would not be an impact.

It was set aside for exploration by Congress. they looked at
it and the impact was such that they approved it.

As we know positively from the horrendous impact of oil
production in the Prudhoe Bay industrial complex, there
is no question at all that there is in fact that impact.
yeah right.
But the caribou herd that migrates through Prudhoe Bay has increased
from 3,000 to 23,000 since drilling commenced there in 1977.
Opponents of drilling cannot point to a single species that has been
driven to extinction or even a population decline attributable to
Prudhoe Bay. Another wildlife refuge in Alaska, the Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge, has had drilling onsite for decades. The oil production
there rarely makes the news because it has not caused any problems, even
though Kenai has far more wildlife than ANWR.
Oh, the humanity!!!!
These figures BTW are from Alaska's government figures.

You should try it sometime.

You did not even want to question the facts as I stated
them, but went of with false statements and illogical
philosophy.

First of all the original post was fact free, just statements about
how it should not have been done. It studiously ignored the fact that
the area in question was put aside for drilling SUBJECT to CONGRESSIONAL
APPROVAL which was given, but then a single man, Mr. C, stopped the
Congressional approval. Also there is little indication of "horrendous
impact" on Prudhoe Bay, another fact free zone since you did not deem
fit to actually apply a fact or two.

Do you actually know *anything* about ANWR?
Seems more than you do.