All of Area 1002 is may be what's up for grabs? Monte what you say?

{{!gwi}}

As I've said in the past I think the final decision to harvest these resources should be up to our fellow citizens who actually live in Alaska.

Thanks vgkg. Those are good maps. The only one I found is on the link below from Union of Concerned Scientists. While it is a good topographical map, it lacks detail provided in those you posted.

According to the UCS site, the majority of Alaskans are in favor of drilling because the profits are distributed to Alaskans. Those whose lives depend on caribou are opposed.

In light of the recent news that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as anywhere else, I think further consideration of drilling should take this fact into account.

Here is a link that might be useful: ucs

I suspect that regional warming will have a greater impact on the region than the current drilling scenario. OTOH, I still argue against petroleum development in ANWR.

The link below follows the adage:

"Follow the Money"

Here is a link that might be useful: Link

Those numbers are incredible -- oil & gas spending nearly $180 million since '89 vs. environmental groups spending of estimated less than $10 million, and still majority popular opinion opposes opening ANWR for drilling.

One of the effects of global warming on oil production is a more limited amount of time available for exploration & drilling. Since it isn't possible to work profitably during the @120 day season, there is a movement to loosen this restriction.

Here is a link that might be useful: change the rules

Those numbers are incredible -- oil & gas spending nearly $180 million since '89 vs. environmental groups spending of estimated less than $10 million, and still majority popular opinion opposes opening ANWR for drilling.

Propoganda composed of lies and exaggeration generally is cheaper than legitimate efforts to get out the truth. The amount of surface to be affected lies exclusively in the coastal plain of area 1002 and amounts to 0.01% of the total area of ANWR. None of it is even remotely close to the scenic and emotionally charged photographs of the Brooks Range, etc., that environmentalist are so keen on showing because they rouse the generally ignorant, naive, and easily brainwashed public more effectively than pictures of monotonously barren white or brown, wind blown, insect infested, and nearly perfectly flat coastal plain. Likewise, they show outdated pictures of old, sometimes almost ancient, petroleum operations that don't even remotely reflect the environmental record of today's oil and gas industry. The article by President Reagan's daughter, Ms. Davis, is a perfect example of the inaccuracies they promote. She shows pictures of the Brook's Range behind wildlife resting on grassy plains, not even remotely like the coastal plain. She goes on further to talk about the demise of polar bears. News flash, polar bears don't live on land. The live on the pack ice offshore.

Furthermore, the amount of money spend by the oil and gas industry to convince the general public and Congress to allow a very limited amount of exploration in ANWR is dwarfed by the amount of money spent each year by those same companies in equipment, materials, processes, training, etc., to protect the environment.

Go to the link below and type in ANWR in the search window at the API site to get more accurate information about the actual legal status of ANWR, in terms of oil and gas exploration and wildlife preservation, as it was originally established by Congress and signed by then President Jimmy Carter. I think many of you will be surprised by what you have not been told by environmental groups and activist. The search will pull up several relavent articles.

Here is a link that might be useful: American Petroleum Institute

Sorry, Monte, but those articles are not particularly informative; more like blurbs of talking-points found with some extending searching. I was surprised the lack of highlighted ANWR materials. So for the rest of us see hyperlink below.

Here is a link that might be useful: API webpage

I looked at the Arctic Power website (anwr.org), the ones who wouldn't talk to Capital Eye. Their material is very much like API, but API is less political. Maybe you could help me out by pointing out the relevance of any one of the articles, apart from generalities.

What article by Ms. Davis?

Here is a link to one of the more recent online galleries of the plain, to disprove the assertion that the only images we find are those of the scenes from elswhere. Unlike the API & Arctic Power pics, no oil production equipment is visable. It isn't part of the landscape.

Here is a link that might be useful: 20 photos

The Indianapolis Star's Editor had an interesting piece yesterday concerning drilling for oil and ANWR. Last Thursday the Star had run an article announcing Senate approval for oil drilling. They had included a picture of the area. Well, the picture was an idyillic picture of musk ox in the six week summer season. Some people felt that that portrayed the area biasedly in favor of anti-drilling........"unspoiled landscape" read the caption.

The Editor noted that The Project for Excellence in Journalism had noted that "the era for trust-me jounalism" had passed and the "era of show-me jouralism" had begun.

So the Editor acknowledged that the paper had unwittingly perhaps biased things. They acknowleged their under sight and included a picture of what the tundra looks like the other 40 weeks....snow covered "barrens". Now that is balanced reporting!! ......without judging the merits of the case.

Hay. I am willing to pay $10.00 a gallon for our own oil....Wait....... all oil is our(US) oil anyway, just we haven't knocked off the thug in charge.....what would happen if (just thinking out load) we(USA) were non dependant on forun earl... it(the oil we would not buy) would be sold to some other developing counrty....who would use it how?

Interesting Wayne. Our perceptions of the value of ANWR and journalistic fairness both are embodied in our subjective reaction to two pictures of ANWR - one of which caters to our biased view of the idylic lush wilderness and the other to our biased view that it is a featureless snow barren. Sad, that there seems to be little appreciation beyond the superficial "picture bite" for understanding what makes this frontier wilderness so special or much debate beyond the "sound bite" about the complex problem of how to effectively address our oil dependency.

This new book, "Sound Truth and Corporate Myth$", is somewhat related to this thread. After years of studying the effects of the the Exxon Valdez spill, Dr. Riki Ott wrote a book about her research, finding that crude is far more dangerous than previously thought. IMO, one more good reason to not allow drilling in sensitive environments such as ANWR.

You can read some excerpts of the book online.

Here is a link that might be useful: sound truth

The link below has an interesting summary of public opinion regarding the ANWR Senate vote.

Here is a link that might be useful: What do you think? from The Onion

Spewey, I hope you realize The Onion is a satirical e-zine? Some pretty funny comments.

I've always enjoyed the Onion, too. But, I could see how someone might get confused - it's getting harder and harder to lampoon Americans anymore. There's nothing outrageously ludricrous that isn't already true and soon to become mainstream.

Ooooh, KT, don't say that out loud! There is no shame capable of overcoming current waves of hubris and hypocrisy. You will just sound (and read) cantankerous.

That's why I like watching the Daily Show (news) with John Stewart. He has the gutz to show some news clips that the supposed real news wouldn't dare put on the air. Such as certain Presidential, Congressional, & Senatorial contradictory statements, double speak nonsense, etc. A very funny and often very enlightening presentation.

Vgkg, I'm not much for TV so what cable outfit offers Stewart? I did see a clip of him trashing Cross Fire face-to-face with the hosts. He is said to have brought to an end that CNN program. He gets my vote for whatever he might care to run for...

Marshall, "The Daily Show" (in my area on cable) is on The Comedy Channel (also known as Comedy Central I believe). The Right Wing probably refers to it as the Commie Channel, ha. It can be lude at times but not so much. VgQn, who can be rather straight-laced, won't miss one single episode. It's not 100% funny so if your first impression is lack luster do give it another chance. Like most shows there are bombs and home runs.