Who cares about the Caribou?

[Kat]

For y'all who think that the oil drilling in Alaska should go on regardless of the potential damage to the environment, maybe you would like to know about what the people who actually live there think about the 'energy plan' proposal :

http://www.cariboucommons.com/
http://www.alaska.net/~gwichin/

Even CNN, which is usually shamelessly pro-US policy, doesn't sound too particularly pro-energy plan in its reports about the issue:

http://europe.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/08/28/caribou.enn/
http://europe.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/07/04/ourplanet.strieker/index.html
http://europe.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/02/17/alaska.enn/index.html

[signu459]

hey Kat, is this another sign of your affection and love towars the USA?

BTW- since the Alaskan Oil Pipe line was built the caribou population has DOUBLED. Just the oposite of what all the doom and gloom environmetalist whacos predicted.

Also From everything I have heard the locals in in Alaska want the oil drilling, it will be great for the their economy. CNN may be "pro-US" as you say, why shouldn't they. After all CNN is a US based company. However CNN, formerly called the Clinton News Network until November 2000, is VERY liberal. As a metter of fact IMO the are the most left leaning liberal of the major networks. Which is why I do not watch them and choose to get my news from other more reliable news sources. Since is appears that you get a good deal of your news from CNN that may explain all of your confusion:D

[Kat]

signu459: hey Kat, is this another sign of your affection and love towars the USA?

Disregarding your sarcastic tone, yes, you could see it that way. ;) After all, since when was concern for the environment an act against the USA?

Also From everything I have heard the locals in in Alaska want the oil drilling, it will be great for the their economy.

The locals are the Gwich'in people who actually live in the proposed drilling area, and whose livelihood - physical and cultural - depends greatly on the Caribou. The Gwich'in people are the ones you should be asking for an opinion, and the links I've provided so that you can find out for yourself what the real locals think have been provided. Did you even bother to take a look?

Remember, the locals aren't the folks from Juneau who would move into the area. The locals are the people who live there right now - and they don't want any drilling to happen. So I've provided the links, go check them out if you're actually interested in the truth.

BTW, where do you get your news from so it isn't 'tainted' by liberal sources? :confused:

[Staceon]

Hi,

I haven't read the articles above, just wanted to make some comments. What ever happend to "the good of the many outweight the few"? Yea ok some people might feel they are going to be affected. Have you ever NOT seen some group, in any place, or any reference that always feels change is good? Too many fear change, or simply gives them a reason for oppostion. Whats the real fear? Loss of money right? Well thats a pretty easy solution to mend.

This reminds of the argument from the textile lobbyist. You got this small group of individuals that are lossing their jobs because guess what the same product can be proudced cheaper elsewhere. It the law of compartitive advanatage, and the way the world should work. Lets stop thinking about the few hundered jobs that are saved and lets think of the millions that benefit from it.

Now I am not saying "hey lets go kill some Caribou". Some say this will kill all of them, some say it will double the populations. Well there is always three sides to a story thus the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. The simple fact is we need more energy. If someone else can come up with some great plans on cold fussion I would sure be glad to hear about. In the meatime we got to burn fossile fules, or turn off your air conditioners next month, stop driving your car and walk, and cook over wood.

[Kat]

Staceon, in this case, pursuing the interests of the many may in all likelihood wipe out an entire culture. The Gwich'in have lived in the area since who knows when, and have always heavily depended upon the Caribou for both physical and cultural survival. Is dropping the price of gas a few cents really worth potentially wiping out a unique culture and just as unique ecosystem? Personally, I don't think so...

peace!

[Staceon]

Come on Kat, that's the very defintion of extremism. To take a quote from one the article's above:

"...neighboring Inupiat Eskimos on the North Slope are more divided on the issue. Although most Inupiat leaders oppose offshore oil drilling because it could disturb the ocean resouces, many support drilling on the coastal plain for economic reasons."

There ya have it, the second side to the story. The third is the truth, which is somewhere in the middle. Also I did read 3 of those articles above and the ones I did it didn't actually say HOW the Caribou would be killed. Just stated they would.

[Kat]

Staceon, I don't think I'm being extreme at all. I'm just echoing what the people who live in the area, the Gwich'in, have been saying all along. The Inuit whom you quoted do not live in the area which would be directly affected and therefore their interests lie more in the potential economic benefits they could reap from exploiting the resources of a neighboring community. In fact, these two aboriginal groups (Inuit and Indian) have historically had strained if not hostile relations. The real second side to the story is that of the Gwich'in, not other people(s) who would directly benefit at the Gwich'in's expense.

As to how the Caribou would be affected, current studies of existing populations that live in nearby oil fields have concluded that the calving rate is virtually halved and the weight of the Caribou in the area is much less than normal. Obviously something is going on that adversely affects the health of the Caribou in the oil fields, whether it be pollution, or whatever. Deductive reasoning will tell you that if the birth rate is dramatically reduced, as well as the normal weight of the animals, you're probably going to see - and not so eventually - a reduction in the number and decrease in health, of the Caribou populations in the area.

Just IMHO

[hesaias]

Originally posted by Staceon

This reminds of the argument from the textile lobbyist. You got this small group of individuals that are lossing their jobs because guess what the same product can be proudced cheaper elsewhere. It the law of compartitive advanatage, and the way the world should work. Lets stop thinking about the few hundered jobs that are saved and lets think of the millions that benefit from it.


Not to steer this off topic, but, textiles do not employee a few hundred, more like several hundred thousand(at least until NAFTA) The textile jobs are being lost to countries like CHINA with thier child labor and mexico, with out thier EPA standards. Comparing a village in Alaska to the amount of Jobs lost in the textile industry is not a good comparrison. Dont get me wrong, I hate the caribou may(and I stress may) be thinned, but I doubt they will be wiped out. And look at it this way, they can get 1st dibs on Jobs in the oil fields:D j/k

[Staceon]

Hi Kat,

What studies? If we already have oil drilling "in nearby oil fields" than why are we even having this discussion? They are already there, why the fuss over more? There has been no evidence to come forward to support this. To take another quote from the article:

"There's special concern for the Porcupine caribou herd. During calving season the cows are extremely skittish, avoiding any possible threats. Biologists say oil development would create a "barrier effect," displacing caribou into areas with less forage and more harassment from insects and predators, causing higher calf mortality and an unavoidable drop in the population of the herd."

There guessing. Nothing more, nothing less...lets take your stance for just a second ok...the drillers come in and kill all the Caribou. Now the people there need food and essential items. Well lets come out our non-sedentary livestyles for a moment and get out of this hunting and gathering romantic way of being. Set up economies and come into the 21 century. Now I am not saying that is right, or even fair, but heck do the rest of live in world that is fair and right?

[signu459]

Nope didn't bother to read them for two reasons...

1st. The links weren't active and I didn't feel like pasting them to another browser.

2nd. three of the links were from CNN which as I stated previously is biased to the left. So what is the point of reading biased information.


I get my news from several sources among them are, Fox news, local newspapers, Magazines and talk radio.Pretty much never watch network news except Fox.

I am really curious if the people who did the studies on caribou birth rates were the same people who predicted the whole Caribou population would be wiped out by the pipe line.

[gregt]

Everybody stop beathing!!!! We are using up all the oxygen for the animals, soon there will be none left and they will all die. ;)

Kat, I can always count on you to crack me up! :D

Unfortunately, your over-zealous attitude manages to polarize people against you - people who would normally agree with your opinion. Why does there always have to be an evil villian involved with these issues? It makes me wonder if you're not actually trying to convince people of the opposite of your arguments.

IMO, We would all be better off if that "third option" Staceon is referring too was the focus rather than beating each other over the head with extremist positions.

[Staceon]

Hi Scott,

I agree its a bad analogy. But I firmly believe in the "if you can build a better mousetrap" philosophy. Companies only see the botton line: profit margins. If they can find a way to increase this I appluad them. They are serving there shareholders well.

[Kat]

Staceon: What studies?

You must think I have a lot of time on my hands to post links to every single thing out there. Don't let me hold you back from doing a search on the internet to find out for yourself whether or not there are any studies out there. Enable yourself and get out there and inform yourself, don't just complain that I didn't hand it all to you on a silver platter...

If we already have oil drilling "in nearby oil fields" than why are we even having this discussion?

I have no idea. After all, I don't dictate policy on such matters.

There guessing. Nothing more, nothing less...

No, they're not guessing. A 1995 report by the Department of the Interior noted that the current calving grounds (which we are talking about here) feature a perfect combination of soft, plentiful grass and protection from predators. "The culmative effects of reduced access to [this] habitat... would result in a major adverse impact on the herd," the report concluded. Again, please feel free to verify this information for yourself.

As for bringing the Gwich'in into the 21st century... do you really feel it is right to dictate to another people how they should and should not live? What gives anyone the right to do that? Just because you live in one way, how does it make your way of life any better than any other way of life? The Gwich'in have treaty rights which are being ignored in the voracious consumption of energy resources. I don't think it's right, and I think the US should respect its treaty obligations. Just IMHO.

------------------------------------------------------------

gregt: It makes me wonder if you're not actually trying to convince people of the opposite of your arguments.

Oh, I never would be that manipulative...:rolleyes:

------------------------------------------------------------

signu459: 1st. The links weren't active and I didn't feel like pasting them to another browser.

LOL Laziness isn't any excuse for ignorance.

I get my news from several sources among them are, Fox news, local newspapers, Magazines and talk radio.Pretty much never watch network news except Fox.

ROTFLMAO You get your news from the Fox network... and you actually have no qualms about saying this publicly?!?!? LMAO The Fox network isn't really known for the... let's diplomatically say, the complete veracity or unbiased nature of their 'news' programs. ...and how can you guarantee that your local newspapers, magazines, and talk radio haven't been 'inflitrated' by the 'evil liberals' ?? Oh, let me guess, the only thing you listen to must be Rush Limbaugh, so it must be the truth, right? You totally crack me up!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------

peace to the peaceful!

[hcs3]

just a thought, but if this "culture" is so dependant on the caribou, maybe they are the ones that are responsible for the reduced numbers. if we get rid of the "Gwich'in", i bet the numbers of caribou would esculate beyond our wildest dreams. :)

i bet we could even domesticate the caribou after that. use them to build the pipeline. good, cheap labor.

have a nice day :)

henry

[hartman]

Some great quotes from the CNN stuff

http://europe.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/08/28/caribou.enn/

According to the myths of the Gwich'in people of Alaska, every caribou has a bit of the human heart, and every human has a bit of the caribou heart.

That is so touching, they are really in tune with nature! Maybe we should charge them with murder every time they kill one since it is part human.

This belief comes from a culture that consumes caribou two or three times a day, 365 days a year

Maybe they should enlighten themselves and become vegetarians, and stop living off the backs of helpess lillte fuzzy animals who never did them any harm.

Hartman

[Drewman]

Originally posted by Kat
ROTFLMAO You get your news from the Fox network... and you actually have no qualms about saying this publicly?!?!? LMAO The Fox network isn't really known for the... let's diplomatically say, the complete veracity or unbiased nature of their 'news' programs. ...and how can you guarantee that your local newspapers, magazines, and talk radio haven't been 'inflitrated' by the 'evil liberals' ?? Oh, let me guess, the only thing you listen to must be Rush Limbaugh, so it must be the truth, right? You totally crack me up!!!!
[/B]

Where did you get this from? I watch the Fox News Channel all the time, I they are by far the most unbiased news channel. Have you ever even seen any of the shows? Hannity & Colmes, and O'Reilly are great. I would suggest watching the channel before passing judgment on it.

Drill in Alaska:bum: ,
Drew

[Staceon]

Hi Kat,

So I need to find the sources of the studies? Ok answer me this...I read 3 CNN articles above and the 3 pages from the Gwich'in website; wouldn't you think somewhere in there I would have found at least a reference to a study that con refute the rights' testimony? Its no where to be found in over 6 pages of reading on the material, not a word. So thats what you based a descision on? A scientfic guess? You could dump in 3 oil wells, 2 automakers, and plethoha of other nasty old producers into 1.5 million acreas and the enviorment would not flench(thats roughly the size of South Carolina who has more factories and most would concede they have abundent wildlife). The ecosystems that we try to protect so much well be here way beyond us. Have we really got that egotistical ?

Thats doesn't mean we give up. We make sensible choices based on the will of the whole, or the many. We made this world we live in, everybody is on the same ship or were just slowly sinking across a long ocean.

[hesaias]

Hey Staceon
I never thought about my home state that way:)
How much more eco friendly can we be? We got a water tower that looks like a Peach
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/images/sc/SCGAFpeach.jpg
Maybe, the Gwich'in could build a water tower that looks like a caribou, and sell T-Shirts for a living. Then they could eat at McDonalds instead of eating caribou.

[Kat]

hcs3, as always, your utter lack of humanitarianism and a as complete lack of a tasteful sense of humor fails to amaze me...

Staceon, if you can't find the report in those links I provided, I'm not surprised. I have quite a bit of information, only a portion of which I wrote down here in order not to overwhelm people. If you're interested enough, and are capable of using an internet search engine, I'm sure you are more than able enough to find the information you are asking about. After all, I managed to do it, so can you.

We make sensible choices based on the will of the whole, or the many. We made this world we live in, everybody is on the same ship or were just slowly sinking across a long ocean.

I don't think the Gwich'in, or many aboriginal groups for that matter, have had much control over their lives since western 'civilization' decided to step in and govern the 'savages' on their behalf. The history of the treatment of aboriginal peoples by western powers is not a pretty one. If you think the Gwich'in and other aboriginal peoples worldwide chose to be a part of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or other countries which contain aboriginal populations subjugated by invading colonial and imperialist powers, you're sorely mistaken. Not to mention ethnocentric. Don't be insulted, a lot of people either don't know or don't want to know about the plight of aboriginal peoples, who for the most part live in abject third-world poverty in some of the most prosperous nations in the world. Not due to their culture, but due to the subjugation of their culture to our (western) own voracious and seemingly insatiable appetite for resources.

Drewman, have you ever heard of Rupert Murdoch, the billionaire media mogul who owns Fox Network, along with many other media subsiduaries worldwide? Probably not, otherwise I think your opinion may be different. This chap Murdoch has been called the most hated man on the planet, for his draconian takeovers and dramatic lack of hesitation to manipulate news reports and programs for his own benefit. Not to mention a few other shenanigans on the side which have not earned him a, let's say, warm & fuzzy reputation as a pillar of human kindness and understanding. ;) FYI, I have, unfortunately, watched the Fox Network (where did you ever get the idea I made an uniformed decision?) and have been stunningly unimpressed with the 'kwality' of their news programs.

peace to your reefs!

[signu459]

Please Please Please Kat i would really love to hear your unbiased Opinion of Ted Turner and until recently Jane Fonda.


Henry,

Not often we see eye to eye, but what you said was brilliant, made me laugh quite a bit.

[hcs3]

only for you kat, only for you ;)

henry

[gregt]

Kat, I think the problem is that you are about 40 years too late for this fight. The Gwich'in people don't really exist any longer. 43 years ago they became americans. The fact that this happened may have been a mistake, but it happened.

If you'd only been around to save them 40 years ago, everything would have turned out fine....

[olgakurt]

from the American Chemical Society web site:

Will drilling for oil disrupt the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge?

As government and industry officials square off against environmental opposition, the fate of the refuge hangs in the balance.

The inauguration of President George W. Bush, who made drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge an election promise, has reinvigorated the battle over oil versus wilderness (Figure 1). U.S. gasoline prices at the pump are past the $2 per gallon mark in some regions, and proponents of opening up the refuge to drilling believe there has never been a better time to make their case. Despite industry assurances that new technologies will minimize oil field impacts, many conservationists say the refuge’s unique biological treasures will be destroyed by development and are not worth sacrificing for the relatively small amount of oil held within it.

Smaller than the state of South Carolina, the refuge contains the greatest biological diversity of any protected area in the Arctic. Home to polar bears, musk oxen, snow geese, wolves, and vast herds of caribou, it is often described as America’s Serengeti.

It straddles the Brooks Range in Alaska’s northeast corner and encompasses six different ecological zones . The refuge’s 1.5
million-acre coastal plain, which occupies 5% of Alaska’s oil-rich North Slope, is the only portion that so far remains off-limits to oil development.

Industry representatives contend that the high prices for gasoline and heating oil, combined with the country’s soaring demand for energy, justify exploiting the refuge’s oil resources. An act of Congress would be required to tap the 11–31 billion barrels of oil that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates is below the permafrost
(http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/ANWR/ANWR.html)

The 10.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil constitute less than half of the
entire North Slope’s oil resources, but only 5% of the total recoverable oil in the lower 48 states, says James McKenzie, a senior associate with the World Resources Institute. And whether or not technically recoverable, at a price of $20 per barrel, only 3.2 billion barrels of oil would be economically feasible to extract, according to the
USGS. At the current consumption rate of 19.5 million barrels of oil per day in the United States, 3.2 billion barrels of oil would run the country for about five months, according to Cutler Cleveland, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University. By 2020, the predicted year of peak production if drilling in the refuge began today, the refuge could only contribute about 1% of global supply.

Because the price of oil depends on global supply and demand, the fraction of oil from the refuge would be too small to influence the price of gasoline and heating oil, he says(1).

The ongoing debate over the refuge’s oil reserves has focused attention on the potential environmental impacts of oil exploration and drilling in fragile Arctic ecosystems.

Although industry representatives say that the new technology is specially adapted to the challenges of operating on 1000-ft.-thick permafrost in a climate where average temperatures range from –20 ºF to 5 ºF during the 9-month-long winter,
environmentalists contend that it is still a dirty industry with significant impacts on air and water quality and wildlife.

Describing those effects is a stumbling block, however, because of a lack of research on the cumulative impacts of the entire North Slope industrial complex, says Pam Miller, an environmental consultant with Arctic Connections, an Anchorage, AK, consulting firm. Moreover, federal and state budget cuts, combined with industry lobbying, have left few funds for the study of air and water pollution, she says

Minimizing the impact “Oil fields in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will not look like Prudhoe Bay and will not stress the caribou,� says Mike Joyce, a retired manager of biological sciences with ARCO Alaska (now Phillips Alaska, Inc.). Lessons learned over the past 30 years, combined with new technology, allow engineers to design oil fields with no negative impacts on wildlife, he claims (www.fe.doe.gov/oil_gas/environ_rpt).

The size of drill pads has been cut 70%, and waste pits and exploratory roads have been eliminated, says Stephen Taylor, a retired director of environmental policy for BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. “If the Prudhoe Bay oil fields were built today, we’d only need 4000 acres, instead of the 12,000 acres it occupies now,� he says (see photo).

According to Taylor, one of the keys to reducing
exploration impacts is linking powerful computers to seismic data to create a three-dimensional (3-D)image of oil reservoirs. Instead of detonating explosives, 10-ton vehicles with balloon tires roll out onto the tundra in winter and “thump� the frozen ground. Sound waves are picked up by seismic recorders and interpreted by computers, creating a picture of geological structures below the surface, “like an ultrasound image,� he explains. More accurate than the old two-dimensional (2-D) images, 3-D technology means only one-fifth as many exploratory wells need to be drilled before a successful strike is made, he says.

Instead of mining gravel to make roads and drill
pads, ice is the construction material of choice for the winter exploration season, Taylor says. Once the state of Alaska has determined there is enough frost and snow cover for travel without damaging the tundra, chipped ice from rivers and lakes is spread and then sprayed with freshwater to make temporary roads and pads that melt in the spring. Gravel laid down to a thickness of 5 ft to insulate the permafrost is still used for permanent roads and pads for producing wells.

The advent of directional drilling allows companies to drain oil up to 4 miles away from
the drilling pad, reducing the number of wells per pad and shrinking pad size, Taylor says. A microprocessor in the drill bit communicates via sound waves with a computer at the surface that directs the bit’s movement in three dimensions. Wells can now penetrate 8000–9000 ft down, then tunnel horizontally for 20,000 ft.

Waste pits brimming with drilling mud contaminated by oil and heavy metals are a thing of the past, now that waste is ground up and injected into dedicated disposal wells 5000–8000 ft below the surface, Taylor adds. The slurry in the old pits is on schedule to be reinjected in five years and the vegetation will be completely restored, he claims.

Phillips Alaska’s Alpine oil field in the Colville River delta west of Prudhoe Bay
demonstrates that oil fields can safely operate in the most sensitive environments
Figure 2), says Mark Myers, director of the
state of Alaska’s division of oil and gas.
The company mapped habitat important to the thousands of swans, eider ducks,and other wildlife that use the area before constructing a 97-acre site away from ecologically high value areas. Ice roads carry supplies in winter, and small planes service the facility in summer, as there are no
permanent gravel roads to the Alpine field. Yet, according to 77 anonymous operators and technicians at BP Exploration, the oil industry should not be allowed into the refuge until it fixes a chronic problem with leaky and inoperable safety shutoff valves. The valves sit on top of the oil wells and cannot be counted on to close during a spill or fire because of a lack of proper inspection and maintenance, say the anonymous oil
workers who put their criticisms on a Web site in April (www.anwrnews.com).

Water a limiting factor “No one has looked at whether North Slope rivers and lakes can support the vast amount of water used by oil fields,� Miller says. Ice roads require 1–1.5 million gallons of water per mile, and a one-well drilling operation requires 1.7 million gallons of water
for camp use and blending drilling muds over a four-month period. Thirsty North Slope oil operations are permitted to consume 27 billion gallons of water annually, more than 3 times the amount used by the city of Anchorage, she says.

Oil companies are withdrawing surface water faster than it can be replenished, says Steve Lyons, hydrologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). When an ice road melts, the water runs over the surface into streams, usually outside the original watershed from which it was withdrawn, he explains. Because the 1000-ft-thick
permafrost does not allow groundwater movement between water bodies, lakes are filled only by snowmelt and may take more than two years to refill after the permitted 15% of their liquid volume is withdrawn for ice road construction.

[olgakurt]

“Over the long term, oil development is mining the surface water and changing the hydrology of the coastal plain,� Lyons says. The Alpine field is already running out of water, and Phillips Alaska has asked to pipe in additional water from the west side of the Colville River, he notes.

The lack of water in the refuge, which only receives 6 in. of precipitation annually,
means that oil companies may have to revert to building gravel roads for exploration and production, Lyons says. Because the refuge has very few lakes, and most of these freeze solid in winter, there is only enough water for less than 50 miles of ice roads, Trawicki et al. estimate (2).

The oil companies will simply truck in water from the Prudhoe Bay area, which has lots of lakes, says Myers. This solution is impractical because 100 miles of road would need to be constructed to connect the refuge to water sources, and contractors have set a 10-mile limit for hauling water based on economics, Lyons says.

Although there have been no comprehensive studies of water pollution, state spill records indicate serious problems, Miller contends. There are an average of 409 problematic spills each year of waste oil, acid, ethylene glycol, and drilling fluid, according to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

Significant air pollution Emissions of nitrogen oxides, methane, and carbon dioxide (CO2) at Prudhoe Bay are substantial, says Steven Brooks, an atmospheric scientist with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration in Oak Ridge, TN. Brooks tried to measure CO2 emissions from the North Slope’s Arctic peat, known to be a significant global source of carbon, but was unable to because CO2 emissions from the oil fields swamped the emissions from the peat. The oil fields release 11 million metric tons of carbon annually, roughly equivalent to the CO2 emissions of 17–25 million acres of Arctic tundra, hesays (3).

The oil wells extract more than 8 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily along with the marketable oil, Brooks explains. Most of the gas is reinjected to maintain pressure in the field and to store for later extraction. A small portion of the gas drives four of the world’s largest gas turbine pumps, and the excess is burned off in flares that can reach 5–10 stories high, he says.

In addition, the Prudhoe Bay complex releases 48,000–72,000 metric tons of nitrogen oxides per year, Brooks says. This is more than 2–3 times the amount emitted by Washington, DC. Annual emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, range from 96,000 to 144,000 metric tons (4).

Cumulative impacts“The oil industry says that its footprint is growing smaller, but there is no getting around the fact that Arctic oil reservoirs, covering hundreds of thousands of acres, are connected with pipelines androads and have a dramatic effect on the landscape,� Miller says.

A vast network of seismic exploration trails, drill pads, facilities, 1400 acres of gravel
mines, 400 miles of gravel roads, and 1200 miles of pipelines now stretches across more than 1000 square miles of Alaska’s North Slope from the eastern border of the National Petroleum Reserve to the edge of the Arctic Nation al Wildlife Refuge, says Mike Frank, attorney with Trustees for Alaska, an environmental group (5). It is one of the largest industrial complexes in the world, and if superimposed on the East Coast, it would run from Washington, DC, down to Richmond, VA, and out to the shores of Chesapeake Bay, he claims.

The imprint of seismic exploration vehicles, rolling on extensive grids over the tundra in
winter, is supposed to disappear in spring without a trace. But a newly completed study shows that 16 years after 2-D seismic exploration on the refuge, ruts, bare ground, water-filled depressions, decreased shrub cover, and increased depth of thawed soil in summer are still observable, according to Janet Jorgenson, a botanist with the USFWS (6) (see photos above).Compression and removal of plants by vehicles alters the thermal balance of the permafrost, which takes tens of years to restabilize and allow recovery of vegetation, she says. The new 3-D seismic exploration trails, closely spaced 600–1100 ft apart, are going to have an even greater impact than the old 2-D trails, which were spaced 4–5 miles apart,says Miller. “With such a tight grid carrying heavy vehicle traffic (see photo at right), there’s a greater chance of disturbing a polar bear den, wintering musk oxen, or vegetation,� she says.

“The long-term impact of roads and exploration trails hasn’t gotten much attention, but is going to be a huge issue,� says D. A. “Skip� Walker, a geobotanist with the Institute ofArctic Biology at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. Careful engineering and adequate culverts could eliminate much of the flooding, dust, and erosion that have affected 60% of the Prudhoe Bay development, he says. But the greatest long-term effects are the incremental disturbance to vast areas of undisturbed tundra, the pressures placed on wildlife populations that require large areas to survive, and the tendency for development to focus within sites that also have high wildlife andvegetation diversity, such as river corridors and coastal areas, he says (7). Extreme examples of cumulative impacts on tundra ecosystems are the Russian Oil and gas fields in northwestern Siberia (see box, "Oil and gas development places Siberian
Arctic at risk").

“An oil field is an accumulation of many smaller disturbances,� Walker says. Their cumulative impact is greater than the sum of their individual impacts because these disturbances have large indirect effects, are crowded in time and space, so that systems cannot recover from them, and are synergistic. For instance, oil fields include direct and indirect impacts of water pollution, air pollution, hazardous and other wastes, wildlife impacts, restoration problems, regulatory problems, and a lack of aggressive enforcement of existing environmental regulations, he says (8).

Wildlife at risk At special risk are the polar bears, who are increasingly using dens on land because they are safer than dens on ice floes thinned by global warming, says Fran Mauer,
wildlife biologist with the USFWS. About half of the dens on land are located in the refuge and are vulnerable to abandonment if disturbed by exploration or oil production, he says.

But it is the caribou that have emerged as an indicator species of the impacts of oil fields because they are abundant, easy to count, and sensitive to development. Herds of barren ground caribou rely on the Arctic coastal plain in June and July to shieldnewborn calves from predators and provide relief from mosquito hordes, says Mauer. Pregnant females migrate as much as 700 miles from wintering grounds in the south, arriving in early June to take advantage of early snowmelt that uncovers rapidly growing plants. The wide-open vistas of the plain give mothers and new calves plenty of time to spot and evade hungry wolves, grizzly bears, and golden eagles. In addition,“Early green vegetation is critical for mothers to provide rich milk so that their calves
can grow fast and be strong enough to run from mosquitoes and predators,� Mauer says.

The inherent antipredator response of new mothers during the first three weeks of calving makes them wary of roads, pipelines, vehicles, and human activity, says Joyce. But careful design and operation of facilities can eliminate stress on the animals, he says. Elevating pipes at least 5 ft off the ground gives caribou a view of what’s on the other side. Reducing traffic during the first three weeks of calving and confining it to
slow-moving convoys also reduces stress. The Central Arctic herd, which calves in the Prudhoe Bay oil fields, has increased from 3000 animals in 1973 to 29,000 today, proof that appropriate designs have no impact, Joyce says. The population boom in the Central Arctic herd occurred during a period of generally favorable climatic conditions when other Arctic caribou herds across North America also grew significantly, says Don Russell, a manager with the Canadian Wildlife Service in the Yukon Territory. The Western Arctic Herd grew from 70,000 to 430,000 animals over the past 30 years. According to Russell, Mauer, and 500 scientists, who delivered a letter in March to President Bush asking for protection of the refuge, a closer look at the caribou in Prudhoe Bay reveals some troubling trends.

Mothers with calves try to stay at least 4 km from roads, and researchers have documented displacement of calving grounds away from oil field structures (9–10). Satellite photos that distinguish between high- and low-quality vegetation show that the vegetation in the new calving grounds is deficient in nutrients compared with the old grounds, Mauer says. This may explain the lower fertility of caribou in the new
grounds, where 65% of the cows calved, as opposed to 83% in the old grounds. “When harsh weather and displacement of calving grounds combine, we could start to see declines in the herd,� he predicts.

If the refuge is developed, displacement of calving grounds is likely to have a much harsher impact on the 130,000-strong Porcupine caribou herd, which migrates to the refuge from winter ranges to the south and east in Canada, Russell says. The Porcupine herd has been declining since 1989 from 178,000 animals, for unknown reasons, and has little capacity to accommodate stress, he asserts. Models suggest that displacement of the calving grounds will lead to an 18–20% increase in calf mortality, causing dramatic herd declines, he says.

[olgakurt]

The loss of the caribou would be equivalent to cultural genocide, say the Gwich’in people of Alaska and Canada (www.alaska.net/~gwichin). The Gwich’in depend on the Porcupine caribou herd for food, clothing, shoes, shelter, medicines, blankets, sleds, tools, and more. The United States and Canada signed an agreement in 1987 to
manage and protect the Porcupine caribou herd, and Canada has maintained its opposition to drilling in the refuge because of the hazards it poses to the Gwich’in

Importance of oil resources One of the reasons cited by the Bush administration for opening the refuge to oil extraction is to ease U.S. reliance on foreign oil. Imported oil accounts for just over half of the U.S. supply and will climb to 70% of supply by 2020, according to the U.S.
Department of Energy (www.eia.doe.gov). Decreasing the contribution from foreign sources would presumably boost energy security and check soaring prices.

“The oil from the refuge won’t single-handedly reverse our dependence on imported oil, but is an important component of diversifying our supply globally,� says Ed Porter, a research manager with the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association.Imported oil is not the problem, it is the concentration of oil supplies from any single
source that makes the United States vulnerable to price increases and supply stoppages, he explains. “The only way to limit influence by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is to open diverse new supplies, and the refuge is one of the largest in the world,� he says. McKenzie disagrees. “Tapping the ANWR does not change the long-term outlook,� he contends.

This January, the National Research Council launched a two-year study, requested by Alaskan oil proponents. It promises to lay out the cumulative impacts of Arctic oil and gas development
(www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/ProjectScopeDisplay/BEST-U-99-04-A?OpenDocument).

Advocates on both sides of the debate are hopeful that the report will provide a definitive environmental assessment of the complete scope of oil field activities.

By the time the report comes out, however, its conclusions may be moot. Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK), who is spearheading the effort to drill on the refuge’s coastal plain, and Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), who opposes drilling, have each
introduced bills seeking to advance their agendas.

References

1.Kaufmann, R. K.; Cleveland, C. J. Energy J. 2001, 22 (1), 27–49.
2.Trawicki, J. M.; Lyons, S. M.; Elliott, G. V. Distribution and quantification of water
within lakes of the 1002 area, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska; Alaska Fisheries Technical Report No. 10; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1991.
3.Brooks, S. B.; Crawford, T. L.; Oechel, W. C. J. Atmos. Chem. 1997, 27 (2), 197–207.
4.Jaffe, D. A.; Honrath, R. E.; Furness, D.; Conway, T. J.; Dlugokencky, E.; Steele,
L. P. J. Atmos. Chem. 1995, 20 (3), 213–227.
5.Trustees for Alaska. Under the Influence; Trustees for Alaska: Anchorage, AK,1998. 6.Jorgenson, J. C. Arctic Res. U. S. 2000, 14 (Spring/Summer), 32–33.
7.Walker, D. A. Arctic Alaskan vegetation disturbance and recovery. In Disturbance and Recovery in Arctic Lands; Crawford, R. M. M., Ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell, MA, 1997; pp. 457–479.
8.Walker, D. A. Disturbance and recovery of Arctic Alaskan vegetation. In Ecological Studies 1996; Vol. 120, pp 35–71. Reynolds, J. F., Tenhunen, J. D., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: New York, 1996; pp 35–71.
9.Nelleman, C.; Cameron, R. D. Can. J. Zool. 1998, 76 (8), 1425–1430.
10.Griffith, B.; Cameron, R. D. Rangifer 2000, (Special Issue No. 12), 103.

Janet Pelley is a contributing editor of ES&T.
excerpted in whole from the American Chemical Society website, Journal of ES&T

[hesaias]

Okay,
So if not in the area of the Gwich'in, then where?
Dont just say "I dont know wher, but not there!" Offer a solution. If these folks are not to be disturbed(ecologicaly) Give forth from the well informed minds you have a better soiution.
Also, id you guys are so opposed to oil drilling, why don't you just boycott use of all petrolium(sp) products? That would be a statement folks might take notice of. "Oil is evil, and should be shunned, at all cost"
However, you may find, without oil, life wouldnt be so easy these days, and there aint enough caribou to feed us all.

[Staceon]

Good morning all,

Olgakurt thanks for posting that...Lets see, we have an area that has had drilling for years and the native carbiou populations have "increased from 3000 animals in 1973 to 29,000 today". But in this new area that is yet to be drilled has caribou populations that have been "declining since 1989 from 178,000 animals, for unknown reasons". Ah, maybe because the Gwich’in people kill them? Just a thought.

Also all these worries over building roads to get to the sites. Please, come on, how sensistive do we have to be to every single little tiny microorganism that can grow in an area? Your reading this message because of the resources that is available to you, than you question the very manner in which it is provided?

[olgakurt]

"you question the very manner in which it is provided?"

Exactly, I believe the *manner* could be done much more efficiently and consumption occur much more wisely without sacrificing our environmental resources for a quick buck.

[Staceon]

How much more efficient do you want? The article talked about spraying down water for ice roads in the winter months so the grass doesn't get matted down to get into the site, than airlife everything from there own out. I understand that a smoke stack might not look pretty in the middle of hallmark vally, but what other suggustions do you have? Nuclear? Good luck with that one, with the amount of opposition to a place that 99% of the America people dont live in what do you think the enviro wacks will scream when we try to put reactor in their backyards? Wind power? Talk about problems with scale. Sun power? Same problem. How about some more damns? Cant do that might decrease the populations of a native bluegill. What's that leave?

Do we keep relying on importing our energy sources? A quick glance thru histoy demonstrates any country that puts reliability of its production in the arms of another in the long run losses out. Will you not admit we need more energy? And if you do, how would you suggust we solve that dilemna? Decrease supply? Yea right good luck trying to get Ameicans to turn off their TV's, sit in a hot room, and not blow dry their hair. I for one do not long for the socitial norms of years ago. I have spoke with my grandparents about not having indoor plumbing.

[Kat]

signu459, I neither know much about nor do I care about the persons you mentioned. Perhaps you would like to share your point of view?

hcs3, yeah, Ok. Very witty! :rolleyes:

gregt, I'm trying to raise a decidely small amount of public awareness, not go on a crusade. I have three jobs, go to school, volunteer, and I don't have the time nor the energy to save anyone or anything. So you may take your tounge-in-cheek nastiness and venomously spit it at someone else; I'm not interested in playing the mind games you so evidently enjoy.

olgakurt, thank you for the wonderful amount of information. Personally I believe directional drilling (despite the damage to the environment) may be the only reasonable compromise in this situation. The Bush administration doesn't seem to want to modify its plans, the Gwich'in don't want to be wiped out, and have a lot of people supporting their cause.

As a side observation, it's amazing that nobody called you anti-American. Yet.

Staceon, there's a lot of concern over how the roads are built because w/o taking the proper precautions, the environmental damage is difficult to comprehend. There are tire tracks in the Arctic from the 1960's that look like they were made yesterday. It takes centuries for the slow-growing organisms in the Arctic to 'bounce back.'

what do you think the enviro wacks will scream when we try to put reactor in their backyards?

Well, why don't you tell me what you would say to a proposal to place a nuclear reactor in your backyard? You're not an 'enviro wack,' are you? Would you welcome a nuclear reactor next door with open arms? Besides which, nuclear reactors also emit greenhouse gases and contribue to global warming, not to mention being dangerously nasty things in totality.

Personally I think the US should focus more on energy conservation techniques. After all, the city of Las Vegas alone uses more energy in one day than the entire United Kingdom uses in one week. If that doesn't say anything about wasteful and reckless consumption of scarce energy resources...

[Staceon]

Hi Kat,

Yes the industrial nations consume about 2/3's of all the energy spent, thats roughly 15% of the world population. To say we need to focus on energy conservation is to ingnore the rest of the world. Large countries such as a China and India, along side regions such as central America are just now starting to come into there own industrial revolution. If the current users decrease there consumption by half you still have to double the amount needed in the future to take into account the emerging nations.

As far as Nuclear, I live next door to a state(IL) that has about a dozen reactors. You dont think if something goes wrong I am not going to be affected? Everything from ground water to nice brisk wind will do the trick, not to mention family and friends that live even closer. Furthermore I have yet to see any expert that wil go on record to state Nuclear plants emit ANY greenhouse gases.

[hcs3]

having a nuclear reactor in my backyard, i can honestly say it doesn't bother me. it's not exactly in my "backyard", but a 20 minute drive to the closest one i think gets me close enough. infact, i've fished, swam, and been boating on the lake used to cool the reactor. even cosumed fish caught from there.

in the end it gets us reliable, cheap energy.

"the witty one"

[olgakurt]

Efficiency-More oil can be produced using the modern methods (e.g. sideways drilling) where existing oil structures (footprints)exist than by drilling all the oil in the ANWR.

Surely much more can be accomplished through conservation before the need for drilling in such a sensitive area (e.g. vehicle mileage has actually decreased in recent years with SUVs).

Among other issues, did you catch the deal with water useage to make the ice roads in the ANWR-there is not a sufficient supply without permanently altering the hydrodynamics of the region.

Supply in itself is not the end all for all energy sector concerns. I work on fuels policy/gas regs. The gas price situation is currently caused by a refinery bottleneck rather than supply issues. The big oil companies have no incentive to build more capacity when they can keep the same production costs and drive up prices and profits by squezing supply.

BTW, no I do not support nuclear power, nor have I driven my car to work in a year.

[Kat]

Staceon, there are other sources of energy still awaiting exploitation. New Zealand and Iceland have a surprising amount of their energy demand met by geothermal energy. Wind and solar energy sources have been under-exploited and could be used much better IMHO.

Furthermore I have yet to see any expert that wil go on record to state Nuclear plants emit ANY greenhouse gases.

A lot of the information out there you'll find is shamelessly pro-nuclear. However, even the most vocal supporters of nuclear power admit this energy source releases some greenhouse gases, admittedly much less than coal and other traditional means of generating electricity. For instance:

"Studies of CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle under different circumstances prevailing in two different countries show that they are in the region of 0.5-4% of those from the equivalent coal-fired generating capacity. - Uranium Institue"

You may also wish to check this link out :

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/19990328edhughes7.asp

So whereas nuclear power plants don't emit too many greenhouse gases, they indisputably DO emit these gases. As well as producing a virtual cornucopia of much more toxic material which is far scarier (and a lot more difficult to manage) than just the greenhouse gases.

hcs3, so you swim in a lake fed by a nuclear reactor and eat fish from that lake? That explains a lot. :p

olgakurt: The big oil companies have no incentive to build more capacity when they can keep the same production costs and drive up prices and profits by squezing supply.

Thanks for clarifying this. It isn't so much a shortage of energy resources per say, but rather the energy-refining industry creating an artificial shortage to drive up prices and thus earn greater profits. We don't really need more oil, we need better access to the supply. Unfortunately, since our access is tightly regulated by a very few power- and money-hungry mega-corporations, we are at their mercy...

[hcs3]

please share exactly what my swimming in and eating of fish from clinton lake explains?

wit master

[Aquaman]

hcs3 wrote:please share exactly what my swimming in and eating of fish from clinton lake explains? Must be talking about the nice green glow you excude :D, and here I thought you were an angel with a halo :D

[Kat]

hcs3, I'm sure you can figure out what I mean. If you can't figure me out, then may I suggest that the next time you head out to the lake, pass a geiger counter over those fish you catch. ;)

[hartman]

Ok All lets talks facts now.

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)

Location: NE coast right next to Canada
Size: 19 million acres
The North Slope(where the oils is): 1.5 million acres.
Map: http://www.wilderness.org/arctic/refuge/map.htm
Alaska: 378 million acres.
The North Slope(where the oils is): Currently 6 in production oils fields today using about 10,000 acres, the largest is 5,000 and the 6th largest is 55 acres.
Barrels of oil in then new area: 5 billion to possible over 15 billion, the current oil fields 4 Billion and this provides 20% of all US oil use.

Drilling facts:

Foot print of oil wells needed to access all of the area 3,637 acres or .002% of total North Slope area. This is based on Oil Companies stating that they need only 97 acres for every 40,000.

No noise from drilling after install of wells Once the wells are in they use natural pressure to remove oil and not pumps.

Waste Due to new tech all waste is pumped back into the cavity the oil came from.

Pipe Line will NOT affect caribou Pipelines are high enough to allow caribou to pass freely under them

Prudhoe Bay oil area, the largest at 5,000 acres before it was built there were 3,000 caribou, 5,500 at the end of development and today over 20,000.

What the oil companies do today to protect the environment in the North Slope

* Even the buildings on Endicott were assembled in Louisiana and then transported whole on a barge all the way to Alaska.

*The Audubon Society demanded slant drilling with pads placed outside sensitive areas. The oil companies agreed.

*The Society demanded expensive, quiet mufflers. The oil companies agreed.

*The Society required that the oil companies move out during certain times of the year. The oil companies again agreed

Hope this helps people understand the facts of fiction.

Hartman

Ref:
http://www.nps.gov/akso/gis/parkmap.htm
http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2001/02/02162001/krt_akoil_42061.asp
http://www.wilderness.org/arctic/refuge/map.htm
http://www.libertyhaven.com/countriesandregions/alaska/oil.shtml

[hcs3]

thanks, kat, you really cleared yourself right up. after your detailed explanation, we all are aware of what you meant when you said...

hcs3, so you swim in a lake fed by a nuclear reactor and eat fish from that lake? That explains a lot.

[Kat]

A very deliberately selective and narrow choice of links IMHO. There is much more information out there that does not support drilling in the Arctic refuge. I did some looking around at the links provided by hartman and found some information that hartman selectively chose not to include. FYI, I only used the links that hartman himself used to find this additional information. Here are the missing links, if people are interested in reading all the facts:

http://www.wilderness.org/arctic/threat/
http://www.wilderness.org/newsroom/arctic_poll.htm
http://www.wilderness.org/newsroom/arctic_oil_100300.htm
http://www.wilderness.org/newsroom/arctic_oil_092800.htm

http://www.enn.com/enn-subsciber-news-archive/2001/04/04172001/krt_anwr_43101.asp?P=1
http://www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/2001/03/03072001/opinion_42344.asp
http://www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/1999/04/041699/polar_2700.asp

My personal opinion is that the "Liberty Haven" site that hartman listed is truthfully no such thing, and is rather the creation of extreme right-wing persons who do not speak about liberty, or even truth, but rather are a mouthpiece for shamelessly right-wing propaganda. My thanks for pointing out this site to me, hartman, now I know definitely where I will not look for truthful or unbiased information. A truly revolting collection of Limbaughian thought.

There are many more sites and articles which I would encourage people who are really interested to search out for themselves.

[hartman]

Kat,

Wow, you really have some issues you need to work out with a professional.

Not one word of what I wrote attacked anyone just covered the facts. But this does not seem to stop you from attacking ma as a "right-wing persons who do not speak about liberty',"mouthpiece for shamelessly right-wing propaganda", "A truly revolting collection of Limbaughian thought.".

It great to see the "Great open minded, everyone is welcome*, liberal" inaction

*unless you believe something other that what we decide is right "


http://www.wilderness.org/newsroom/arctic_poll.htm
* Since when are polls facts?


1) I used www.wilderness.org only cause they have a good close map of ANWR. They are far from "truthful or unbiased information�, as you like to think.

2) What about www.enn.com? Environmental News Network, I'm sure they also are "truthful or unbiased information"

All these site state fact, which I quoted.

3) Can you prove that any of my listed facts are wrong? If so please do I would love to see them.

Hartman

This is all I can respond to now :(

[Joez]

Why are you so bitter KAT?

Where does it hurt?

[hesaias]

Im really starting to wonder what caribou taste like:D

[jimhobbs]

LOL! :D

I'm sorry,
but I was thinking the same thing!;)

[hesaias]

Ooooooo! Someone send me and Jim a steak!
Ha!!

[Kat]

hartman, your personal attacks are petty, childish and uncalled for. You yourself used both www.wilderness.org and ww.enn.com as your sources, so I looked at the sites where you got your information from and found a lot of information that contradicted the selective information you chose to post here.

Since you yourself chose these sites, I can only assume you chose them because you trusted the unbiased and truthful nature of the information. If you don't trust the content of these sites, then it doesn't make sense why you use them yourself. Perhaps you would like to explain why you use these sites to "prove" (ha ha) yourself and then in the next breath dismiss these sites as biased. There's no consistency to you at all, except unless you count hostility!

Can you prove that any of my listed facts are wrong? If so please do I would love to see them.

If you take the time to look at the links I've provided to the sites you yourself choose, then you'll find plenty of information that contradicts your so-called "facts." You're not a child; I don't need to babysit you; so go and look for yourself.

Joez, really, get over yourself.

hesias, in case you're really wondering... it doesn't taste so bad. ;)

peace to the peaceful!

[Joez]

I'm concerned about you Kat, as I would be for any member of this community!

You accuse people in almost all of your posts of being hateful and mean, etc. But usually, they are just disagreeing with you and not attacking you.

Reminds me of one of my dogs (not that I am or ever would compare you to a dog; you are an intelligent, unique, special person!), a German Shorthair Pointer *****. This dog came from an animal shelter, and I think it was treated badly somewhere along the line. With some strangers it is very frightened. The way it manifests these feelings is to approach them cautiously. When they reach out or touch her, she might whimper or yipe as if in pain! Then she backs off quickly, but tries to bite on exit. Almost all of the time wagging her tail (even wetting) as if to say she doesn't mean any harm. So, she lashes out but tries to appease and make friends at the same time.

You lash out, and I try re-reading to see the offending comment from the poster, but I don't usually see a problem.

After you lash out, you end up saying "Peace to you and your reef" as if you're wagging your tail and wetting on the way out.

Well, as I said, you are a complex human being and not an animal. But I hope you can find some words here that are helpful.

Peace to you, your lovely country, and your reef!

[Kat]

Joez, why don't you go defend hate speech somewhere? As to the rest of your wonderfully written story about your *****, you give yourself ten times the credit you deserve for cunning. Which you definitely are not. Say what you will: the worse you behave, the worse you only make yourself look. ...and who benefits? Ultimately nobody. So is it really worth it to carry around such hostility? Especially since, may I sincerely assure it, it affects me not negatively, but instead furnishes a wonderful (and seemingly endless) supply of amusement...

peace to the peaceful,
and to those not-so-peaceful,
peace to your reefs! :cool:

[Kahuna Tuna]

kat-as much as I try to avoid responding to your flame baiting, anti US, ridiculous posts I'm afraid I ill just have to weigh in on this one. As long as I have seen your posts both here and on aqualink I have come to the conclusion that you are a joke. Now before you accuse me of hate speech, white supremacy, devil worship, or "overwhelming hostility" let me explain. I am not hostile towards you, hate you, or want you to suffer in any way but I think you are a fool and I have this personality defect in that I do not suffer fools well. You back up your arguments with the usual environmentalist propaganda but castigate others when they present links that back up their arguments, do you honestly think YOUR provided links aren't one sided. If you think I am picking on you unfairly just take a look at the replys your posts generate, I am obviously not the only one who feels this way. I cannot think of a single other person in the two years I have been involved in these reef sites that stirs up the type of conflict that you do on a sustained basis. Well I for one am getting a little more than tired of the BS you so profusly generate and am not afraid to say so. I too find it a little ironic that most of your posts offer some sort of "peace" to the board while the content of your posts seems calculated to generate animosity. I really do think you get off on all the anger, plain and simple. In closing I would simply suggest that you get some professional help, I honestly think you really do need it, but after all this is just a bulletin board and you can take me and my advise as you like. Peace.

[Joez]

BTW, I just used the correct term for my female dog; I in no way meant to use profanity, or to direct a derrogatory term toward any human being. The software just editted out the term based on its stop list. Fair enough.

And I do not congratulate myself for cunning; I am the least clever member of the company I keep.

I do sleep pretty east though, so there's some consolation in that.

[gregt]

Joez,

Well said.

Kahuna,

Obviously a joke, whether she does so intentionally or not. She used to get me going, now she just makes me laugh. Only thing is, what Joez says makes sense and takes the humour out of the situation.