# Biden Suspends Leases in the ANWR



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

It's happening slower than I'd like, but Biden is putting an end to the Republican war on our environment and public lands. I've long wondered why they take pride in despoiling the unspoiled. Marking their territory? Taking scalps? Weird mind set.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Such a constructive post made by a guy who shipped is oil produced firearm across the country multiple times because the trigger pull on the averaged priced gun he purchased was not up to his custom-gun-hopes. His use of oil for such a trivial reason is completely fine- as long as the oil came from the destruction of mule deer winter range or at the cost of middle-east peace. 

One side is all bad and the other is all good- the mentality that ruins everything. In before the lock......


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

So, I'm confused. Do you mean you favor drilling in the ANWR? Anybody?


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Packout said:


> Such a constructive post made by a guy who shipped is oil produced firearm across the country multiple times because the trigger pull on the averaged priced gun he purchased was not up to his custom-gun-hopes. His use of oil for such a trivial reason is completely fine- as long as the oil came from the destruction of mule deer winter range or at the cost of middle-east peace.
> 
> One side is all bad and the other is all good- the mentality that ruins everything. In before the lock......


I’d like to nominate this post for “Post of the Year!”


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

paddler said:


> So, I'm confused.


It’s ok, we all get confused at times ...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

CPAjeff said:


> It’s ok, we all get confused at times ...


Some more than others, though...


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Like, I generally oppose drilling in the ANWR. I also generally oppose overt partisanship that lacks the necessary nuance to actually nurture a true discussion on an issue. The lack of self-awareness of this fact in the OP should be shocking, but is par for the course.

I disagree with republicans on most conservation issues right now, but can disagree without abandoning all nuance and spewing only partisan talking points, or without acknowledging a need for fossil fuels in the world we live in today. I don't think ANWR is the place for drilling, but I also don't think most politicians are specifically looking to pillage and destroy landscapes for nothing.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> Do you mean you favor drilling in the ANWR? Anybody?


Yep, as long as it's done the right way.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Legitimate question here - the drilling operations I have encountered seem to be relatively low impact (no dynamiting, digging pits, settling ponds, etc) and I imagine that ANWR would be relatively similar wouldn't it?

What is the perceived damage that is being objected to?

Im not saying drilling is right or wrong but I am trying to understand that the concern is from the naysayer side?

I have been pretty vocal about mining operations in the state and dont like the massive mess left behind by these operations. But I dont know enough about drilling for oil to say this is a good or bad idea.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Most drilling operations have to post reclamation bonds to put the land back to what it was before they moved in. If they are leaving trash behind then they can be fined and loose the bond that they had to post. A good example of this is out in the Book Cliffs. Take a look at the platforms that they didn't find gas or oil on. The trash that is around these area is left by people camping on them. It also may take a while but 90% of any and all roads out in the Book Cliffs will be shut down once the supply of fossil fuels are gone. 

People can also look at the Book Cliffs and see what the fossil fuel exploration opened up for the sportsmen. If it wasn't for the drilling there would be very little access to the whole area.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Drilling in the ANWR is controversial because it's largely untrammeled. Opening up acres to roads, drilling, facilities and pipeline would inherently change the character of the land. So in this case increased access, via any roads, is viewed as bad by many. 

It's one of the few ecosystems in which it's believed the flora and fauna are largely intact. We can't say that about many places in the US. We've extirpated or introduced species into the vast majority of our systems. Roads, ie vehicles, are one of the biggest reasons for that as far as fauna. But any development in such a relatively virgin landscape has the potential to alter the system noticeably. The one species that gets the most attention is obviously the caribou herds and particular attention to their summer calving use of "Area 1002", which Trump opened up to leases before leaving office. It's critical habitat for them and highly controversial for legitimate reasons, that can be debated thoughtfully. Their journey through the region is pretty amazing and any drilling in that region is likely to have meaningful impact. 

The question is can it be mitigated? Another would be is the development worth the risk?

That's were it gets contentious. 

To be honest, the current ANWR debate is more about preservation than classic conservation. Preserving the unique character of that large scale ecosystem means a lot to many people. It's symbolic of something we've lost elsewhere. But that preservation also protects a pretty rare and unique set of hunting experiences. 

I think it's worth the current sacrifice to keep it protected. I'll never likely hunt there but the idea of such an opportunity matters to me. No amount of reclamation can return a previously untrammeled land to such pristine condition. My first trip to Alaska involved a fly in backpacking trip to Wrangell St. Elias and I sincerely hope we preserve such phenomenal landscapes for future generations. There is nothing else like being swallowed up in such large regions for week(s) at a time.

Others will land in a different place than me.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

As long as the NEPA process is followed to the letter, regulators do their jobs and put in place the appropriate COA's (conditions of approval) and the E&P companies invest heavily in tech for drilling, completion, and production, there would be very minimal impact with ten fold worth of benefits.

To say it will be detrimental and a rape of an ecosystem would be incorrect.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

It is completely correct to conclude oil extraction could/would be detrimental. Some just happen to believe the negative impact is outweighed by the benefits. I don't know if Paddler said "raped" but it's not a term I used or would use flippantly.

Per detrimental impact:

1) Loss of predominantly untrammeled lands in a region that has always inspired awe in Americans since being discovered and written about. Our public lands carry immense value for their ability to inspire.

2) Likely displacement of calving carribou from prime and historic grounds. Studies have shown caribou will move upwards of 4-6 miles (if my conversion is correct)away from active drilling sites and even pipeline (seems limited to calving season). This will be an additional stressor on herds experiencing the early but noticeable climate changes in the Arctic.

3)A potential loss of 30%+ of calving territory in the 1002. Not a small impact.

4) This type of displacement is modeled to decrease calf survival by as much as 8%. That's considered a high enough number to have serious detrimental affects on the herds.

5) The musk ox herd in the 1002 was originally extirpated and only recently reintroduced in the latter portion of the 20th century. It's been tenuous since and musk ox have shown aversion to oil exploration techniques. 

6) Polar bears would likely be impacted as well. Winter use has shown to lead to extreme behavior like abandoning cubs to leave areas of extractive seismic activity. That region is critical habitat for polar bear denning.

I understand that some either believe the negative impact is worth it or trust the oil industry to mitigate impact fully. That said, there is reliable science to backup the claims about development being detrimental. And the oil industry has earned appropriate skepticism regarding their claims about preventing impact and/or thorough remediation. Even in Desolation Canyon and Canyonlands I can point to failures and unkept promises in this regard just in the last decade.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I remember all the things that they said would happen when they built the Trans Alaskan Pipeline. 

None of which happened. Wildlife was disturbed while the construction was going on but once the workers moved onto the next section things got back to normal. 

One thing that I would like to ask to those who oppose drilling on and off shore and elsewhere. Do you drive a vehicle that depends on that oil to run? Do you heat your home with natural gas? Are you willing to give up your gas powered vehicle and your nice warm home to prove that you are against fossil fuels? And don't say that you will go to electric vehicles and solar panels since those solar panels are made with products that come from fossil fuels and that electricity that charges that electric vehicle is more than likely generated by fossil fuels. 

I'm not saying that this will go on forever but until the technology is really here then we need to run our vehicles and generate our power using it.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

It's not a good faith argument to:

1) Equate criticism against one development as "being against fossil fuels" in general. 

2) Assume because we are technologically beholden to fossil fuels that we can't criticize a project

Those are assumptions that don't allow for nuance and prevent any criticism of the status quo. 

And I fully recognize Paddler often uses similar techniques. It's why he's the only person on my ignore list.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

As I’m reading the responses, I can’t help but wonder “why now”?

In other words, why are we worried about this now? We admittedly have a dependency on oil producing countries BUT that hasn’t stopped us from all sorts of shenanigans in the middle-east. So why not continue and leave ANWR alone?

I know the answer is $$$ but it would have to have a very considerable amount of money in my mind to make a push like this.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

> 2) Likely displacement of calving carribou from prime and historic grounds. Studies have shown caribou will move upwards of 4-6 miles (if my conversion is correct)away from active drilling sites and even pipeline (seems limited to calving season). This will be an additional stressor on herds experiencing the early but noticeable climate changes in the Arctic.
> 
> 3)A potential loss of 30%+ of calving territory in the 1002. Not a small impact.
> 
> 4) This type of displacement is modeled to decrease calf survival by as much as 8%. That's considered a high enough number to have serious detrimental affects on the herds.


Not to wade in too deeply here but, given that caribou migrate on average ~1900 miles per year with little consistency year to year as to where the precise "calving grounds" are, this 4-6 mile displacement having a major impact as a stressor in modeling, is just laughable.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

It's just the latest salvo, this time from the "left", in thirties years of politics. The ANWR drilling debate is unique as it's a land management decision that requires Washington politics by law, the 1002 was an awkward compromise from the get go. But it's been a tit for tat since the ANWR was designated. 

Per money, there is an estimated 5-10 billion barrels in the contested region. At $60+ a barrel that's a big incentive for a contractor. Some of that would undoubtedly help American energy security, not a shabby goal, but it's a fungible resource so much of it will also go to the highest bidder and make a few executives a lot of money. 

I fear it's become a political identity war, wedge issue, or whatever we want to call it. The "left" gets to hold an environmental line without ever having to recognize the unique history of the ANWR compromise or the tangible benefits of extraction. The "right" gets to hold an economic line without ever having to admit the tangible impacts to the land. The "left" can write off the last legislative decision under the Trump years as the outcome of greed and special interests. The "right" can now point fingers at Biden being beholden to environmental extremist and reactionary policy. 

I'm guessing my daughter's generation will still be debating ANWR drilling as the cyborgs takeover during the rise of SkyNet. 😬😁


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

johnnycake said:


> Not to wade in too deeply here but, given that caribou migrate on average ~1900 miles per year with little consistency year to year as to where the precise "calving grounds" are, this 4-6 mile displacement having a major impact as a stressor in modeling, is just laughable.


Maybe for other herds, but the Porcupine are uniquely consistent with this calving region. It's just prime habitat.

This animation of satellite collars (backed up by overhead flight data) shows just how the herd swarms the 1002 for calving. Yes, the disperse over amazingly wide areas the rest of the year but there is little to contest in their calving grounds.









Habitat & Protection - Porcupine Caribou Management Board (PCMB)







www.pcmb.ca





Put it this way...

If this was a herd we all were invested in harvesting from, how would hunter groups respond to a proposal that would noticeably impact 30%+ of those critical calving grounds? This is one of North America's most phenomenal herds and migrations. We truly don't have many such phenomena like this left for us to protect. We are talking 100-200,000 animals all congregating in "one place".

*PS....I didn't include it because I haven't fact checked it but the modeling may show a rather small 8% reduction in calving from extraction on these grounds BUT modeling also shows a decrease of only 4% puts the herd in jeopardy in the foreseeable future. Small losses like that add up over time.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Caribou Maps - Arctic - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service







www.fws.gov


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Here is a better year to year calving map. It shows some of the changes JohnnyCake mentioned yet you'll see the concentration of years over the 1002. 



https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/porcupine_caribou_news/porcupine_caribou_news_summer_2017.pdf



And a point of clarification....the 4-6 mile shift is from a study of individual females in relation to extraction sites. Plans for extraction often include upwards of 30-40% of the 1002. The scale of females in a herd roughly 200k in size, shifting 4-6 miles away from active wells in 30-40% of their historic calving grounds year in, year out isn't laughable. (To note, hard to model because exact sites aren't consistent. Hence generalizations).

For numbers, that means the herd displaced from an area approximately half million acres in size.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> Yep, as long as it's done the right way.


You assume there is a "right way" to drill in the ANWR. I disagree. There are reasons why it was designated as a National Wildlife Refuge, those same reasons are why it should be protected in perpetuity.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

backcountry said:


> I don't know if Paddler said "raped" but it's not a term I used or would use flippantly.
> 
> I understand that some either believe the negative impact is worth it or trust the oil industry to mitigate impact fully. That said, there is reliable science to backup the claims about development being detrimental. And the oil industry has earned appropriate skepticism regarding their claims about preventing impact and/or thorough remediation. Even in Desolation Canyon and Canyonlands I can point to failures and unkept promises in this regard just in the last decade.


I said "raped" because that is the underlying connotation for those opposed.

As far as the bullet points you listed, that is why I said:

"As long as the *NEPA process is followed to the letter*, regulators do their jobs and *put in place the appropriate COA's* (conditions of approval) and the* E&P companies invest heavily in tech for drilling, completion, and production,* there would be very minimal impact with ten fold worth of benefits"

When these three conditions are met, you either extract the resources with minimal impact, or, you don't extract at all. Having worked in the industry for several years, I fully understand and am aware of how it all works. As long as it is done responsibly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with drilling and producing in ANWR. You cannot use inductive reasoning that because a behavior was done in the past, it is likely to be repeated in the future when regulatory controls can be put into place...


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> You assume there is a "right way" to drill in the ANWR. I disagree. There are reasons why it was designated as a National Wildlife Refuge, those same reasons are why it should be protected in perpetuity.


You can disagree all you want and there no assuming anything. I have drilled horizontal wells with a 2:1 step out ratio in big game wintering areas in order to have minimal impact. One wellpad slightly larger than a standard conventional wellpad can support 10 laterals realizing the full production opportunity for its spacing acreage.

I have ran a production field with COA's in place to protect local ecosystems to have minimal impact as well as staked and permitted dozens of wells and designed the drilling profiles to meet NEPA stipulations to have that minimal impact.

Please, don't presume you can instruct me on the nuances of the oil and gas industry. I've been there and have the T-shirt for it all the while you've enjoyed the benefits from it...


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> I said "raped" because that is the underlying connotation for those opposed.
> 
> As far as the bullet points you listed, that is why I said:
> 
> ...


I'll go with don't extract at all. Somebody above guessed I'd used inflammatory rhetoric. I didn't say "raped", I said "despoil". In an unspoiled area like the ANWR, any development would be despoiling, IMO. We have lots of other areas where drilling is perfectly acceptable if done in the "right" way, there is no reason to drill in the ANWR. Doing so has become increasingly controversial over time. A hot button issue, if you will. Republicans have been pushing for drilling there for decades, and as I alluded in my original post, it seems to be a point of pride. 

I do not trust the fossil fuel industry to be compulsively responsible, they do not have a perfect track record. The ANWR is one of our last untrammeled areas, I say let's keep in that way. Thankfully Biden agrees.


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

The actual area that drilling in ANWR is desired is minimal compared to how vast the reserve is in general. It is a very small section.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

To be fair HDE, when you presume to put words like "rape" in people's mouths you don't get much room to complain about presumption. Let's be consistent with your standards. 

And yes, the oil industry earns rightful skepticism based upon past conduct. To reverse your own logic, you can't presume the impact will be minimal simply because you've succeeded in the past. Either past conduct is indicative of future outcomes or not; once again be consistent in your own logic. And the oil industry lost trust amongst many Americans for just reasons when it comes to being thoughtful about minimal impact and for accountable remediation. That can coexist alongside your personal successes. They aren't mutually exclusive.

At the end of the day some of us are unwilling to trust their claims in such a unique landscape. It's an industry with far too many broken promises.

But we both know it will likely be opened up under the next "friendly" administration and closed again during the next "restrictive" one. This thing is so polluted with politics that neither side trusts decisions by the other. In my case I don't trust a NEPA like this one that comes from the top down. I've written EIAs and they can be thoughtful and swing in either direction when completed without interference. But political motivations from the top can change the outcomes and this one by law is directed from the top down. In 4-8 years the right can say the same thing about any "restrictive" ruling.

The 1002 was set up to fail.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Igottabigone said:


> The actual area that drilling in ANWR is desired is minimal compared to how vast the reserve is in general. It is a very small section.


True, but the 1002 in which the drilling is proposed is critical calving habitat that is actively used.

And the acreage often cited for drilling wouldn't be contiguous but scattered across the entire 1002 and therefore have the footprint of something much larger. 

And that's only taking into account the carribou.


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

Currently, the known oil deposits are right on the coast. The inland area of the coastal plain of 1002 has gone largely untouched and unknown in terms of petroleum deposits. That said, the presently known petroleum deposits in ANWR make it one of the largest known petroleum deposits in the world. There ought to be a happy medium to the situation. The technology now allows horizontal drilling for miles. It's likely they would never need to go inland to tap the resource.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I to wish there was a happy medium but the "oil industry" at large has burned significant social capital and trust. There may be individuals like yourself and HDE who have success with not only better technologies but also investment in truly preventing negative impact. My view even takes into account that could be the majority of companies in the extractive industry. It's why I don't speak out against development most of the time. 

But this herd and ecosystem is a unique heritage for Americans. There are plenty of examples, including recently, that we can point to outcomes from simple mistakes to intentional shortcuts that lead to detrimental harm to wildlife and the landscape. And in this case we aren't willing to support development in this one location. We've made a thoughtful, reasonable conclusion based on real evidence that just happens to believe the risk outweighs the reward this time. And there is a very real justification as a hunter and conservationist to end with that conclusion.

And we can differ in that way without resorting to Paddler's lazy tropes or HDE's hideous assumptions about those on the other side. Luckily you and several others provide example of that fact. Thank you for that approach.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry, you’ve asked for consistency here in this thread, and while acknowledging that the oil and gas industry has burned significant social capital and trust, wouldn’t it be consistent to also acknowledge that the “environmentalists” on the other side fighting against it have done the same?It’s not like their track record is unblemished either.

This is like so many issues that have become politicized where because of that, there is no good answer in sight. Paddler is happy Biden agrees with him, but his opinion would change tomorrow if Biden re-opened these leases and he’d spend days arguing here why drilling is so safe and okay there, because that’s what coach told him to say. The next original thought he has will be his first.

I candidly don’t know enough about ANWR or oil and gas extraction to have a strong opinion either way. But I’m certain my opinion is neither all or nothing. Seems like reasonable people could sit down and hammer out a pretty solid solution to this if we could take the politics out of it.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

backcountry said:


> Maybe for other herds, but the Porcupine are uniquely consistent with this calving region. It's just prime habitat.
> 
> This animation of satellite collars (backed up by overhead flight data) shows just how the herd swarms the 1002 for calving. Yes, the disperse over amazingly wide areas the rest of the year but there is little to contest in their calving grounds.
> 
> ...



Your own resources do not support your contentions. The Porcupine herd is the source data herd for the ~1900 mile annual migration. The 1002 area was used heavily for calving in the 1980s and 1990s but then largely has not been used since, with a few exceptions. The most recent "use" of the 1002 area for calving was in 2017 (when a tiny sliver of the herd's northern distribution entered a few miles into the southern edge of 1002, or the even smaller use in 2015) but that year the whole "calving grounds" were massively distributed across the eastern portion of the North Slope in Alaska and Canada in a swath that was roughly 200 miles x 40 miles. But I guess technically, sure, we could consider a tract of ~8,000 square miles "one place". A 4-6 mile displacement isn't even a fly's fart in a hurricane here, and I highly doubt it is statistically significant. Especially given how a cow will give birth in one spot one year, and will give birth hundreds of miles away the following year. Caribou are extremely erratic and there is no predicting with any consistency where the herd will be year to year which makes using a 4-6 mile displacement laughable to depend on for claiming real impact to calving survival rates. 

And 30-40% of 1002 would not be the surface impacts (ie well sites, pads, etc.), that is drainage of the fields. And the roads are only seasonal ice roads in the winter. 

I've got no problem if somebody wants to oppose drilling in ANWR due to philosophical, moralistic values of pristine wilderness. Not my cup of tea, but fine. But to try to rationalize the opposition based on impacts to caribou? That doesn't seem well founded in logic, facts, or anecdotal experience based on all the other drilling activity over the past 50 yrs on the North Slope. I've got plenty of buddies working on the slope that send pics of cows dropping calves right in the middle of the man camp, drilling site, etc. But interestingly, none of them send me pictures of wolves in those same places. Having spent a fair amount of time talking with the ADFG bios running the caribou show over the past several years the one consistent thing they say they know is that they cannot predict anything about caribou.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla,

I admit the left's rancor and problems multiple times in my many posts. I'm not inconsistent in my argument in that fashion nor is it my job to pick apart a stance I'm not defending. It should be clear already, but I'll repeat, I'm against drilling in ANWR/
1002 but not universally against extraction. I've legitimately lost professional references and even friendships for standing up against the vagaries of "environmentalist". I've worked for a few organizations in my early twenties and have plenty of anecdotes to share in that regard. There is a reason I don't financially support a single special interest group. 

That said putting a word like "rape" into the argument of those against extraction in the 1002 where no one (doesn't sound like even Paddler did) made that argument is ridiculous. It's lazy reasoning that prevents any chance of escaping the partisan fox holes. And it's fundamentally hypocritical to do so and then critique posts that never made presumptions about HDEs competency. HDE made a claim about detrimental impact and I provided fundamental flaws to that conclusion (PS, even the Trump era ruling didn't create mitigation for all of those species). It's not an argument against HDEs competency, it's about the flaws in his argument and the hypocritical standards, like relying on his past successes as indicative of future outcomes whole denying that standard in using past oil industry failures in concluding the risk outweighs the reward. 
You cannot take politics out of the 1002 as it's required to be political by law. And sitting in the middle, as I do on extraction, doesn't mean individual conclusions will land in a compromise cleanly in the middle. Sometimes it means fighting against policy whose risk includes noticeable impact to such a unique herd. You and others can disagree on where that line is but it's perfectly reasonable to choose to voice dissent against this project for both wildlife and preservation reasons and still be centrist. 

I understand and respect how people can see this situation and believe extraction can happen within acceptable parameters. That can be centrist as well. However it's unreasonable to argue against tropes about "rape" in a forum in which that argument isn't being made. In my conclusion about the issue I fully admit there are elements within the "oil industry" that meet or exceed expectations and are working towards thoughtful and successful remediation. I just lack HDE's faith in that being the likely outcome here and I'm not willing to risk this ecosystem in this particular experiment. HDE doesn't provide similar steelmanning or paradoxes in his own argument.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

johnnycake said:


> Your own resources do not support your contentions. The Porcupine herd is the source data herd for the ~1900 mile annual migration. The 1002 area was used heavily for calving in the 1980s and 1990s but then largely has not been used since, with a few exceptions. The most recent "use" of the 1002 area for calving was in 2017 (when a tiny sliver of the herd's northern distribution entered a few miles into the southern edge of 1002, or the even smaller use in 2015) but that year the whole "calving grounds" were massively distributed across the eastern portion of the North Slope in Alaska and Canada in a swath that was roughly 200 miles x 40 miles. But I guess technically, sure, we could consider a tract of ~8,000 square miles "one place". A 4-6 mile displacement isn't even a fly's fart in a hurricane here, and I highly doubt it is statistically significant. Especially given how a cow will give birth in one spot one year, and will give birth hundreds of miles away the following year. Caribou are extremely erratic and there is no predicting with any consistency where the herd will be year to year which makes using a 4-6 mile displacement laughable to depend on for claiming real impact to calving survival rates.
> 
> And 30-40% of 1002 would not be the surface impacts (ie well sites, pads, etc.), that is drainage of the fields. And the roads are only seasonal ice roads in the winter.
> 
> ...


From the maps I'm interpreting that is incorrect. 2014-2017 all show use of the 1002. Given you know the area better I'm willing to follow better overlaps but the data I've seen disagrees with your conclusion. The hotspot in the broader overlap for decades is the southern edge of the 1002. It's not shocking that we've seen a noticeable spike in the herd sizes over those years, even when you consider the herds cyclical nature (likely to see a decrease soon because of carrying capacity). Could they acclimatize and move to other regions? Quite possibly. Will the herd suffer losses and harm because of that displacement? You conclude no. I believe the risk of that isn't worth it even if we can't know until the experiment is run. Science and logic can be thoughtfully used to justify either stance.

And once again, you are misunderstanding the application of the 4-6 mile data/study. That's how much individual females move away from individual well sites and infrastructure. And that data correlates with studies that show serious impact to the Porcupine herd. (And studies like capture anecdotes like you mention) You may disagree with that conclusion but it's perfectly rational and reasonable to look at that modeling and conclude it's not worth the risk.

Ironically such diversity of opinion as you mention almost always exist within management itself. But wildlife management in this case requires making predictions if we want to consider potential impacts. We diverge on where we go from there. That's fine but it's not "laughable" to diverge from your conclusion. It's fair and a reflection of the different values that underlie any cost benefit analysis.

*Can we just not admit already that counterfactuals exist for both sides? This started because HDE made an unsupportable claim that detriment was an "incorrect" conclusion under presumptive policy. I've yet to see a land management policy that didn't accept some form of cost for the sought after reward. We can try to minimize risk and detriment but you won't get me to swallow the claim that we can eliminate it fully. We aren't that skilled or advanced yet. Probability of error always plays a role in human enterprise.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

It absolutely is fair to call it laughable to claim data supports how one reaches the conclusion that the proposed development in 1002 authorized by the act would have measurably negative impact on caribou. I'd love to see the data you are referring to that supports a credible threat to the porcupine herd's viability from the development in Area 1002. 

The basic facts are: (1) Area 1002 is about 1.5M acres within ANWR that from the beginning was set aside with the intent to allow limited oil development; (2) The second title of the Act authorizes the surface development of up to 2,000 federal acres of the non-wilderness Coastal Plain (roughly *one ten-thousandth of all of ANWR, and 1/10 of 1% of Area 1002; *which is way less than the 30-40% you claimed earlier) located primarily in the northern portion of 1002; (3) the caribou infrequently and intermittently use parts of 1002 in their calving for the past +20 years (primarily in the southern portion o at the foothills of the Brooks Range); (4) there is no documentation to show caribou herd collapse following or caused by hydrocarbon development in Alaska (in fact, the CAH, WAH, and Porcupine herds all increased to unprecedented levels in the 20-30 years following the development of the North Slope and the pipeline). 

It just doesn't pass the smell test to claim that disruption to ⅒ of 1% of the habitat in a sliver of the calving grounds used by the Porcupine Herd poses a credible threat to the stability of the herd. Not quite as laughable as the attempted arguments that were lobbied in the 2000s that developing Area 1002 posed a horrendous threat to sensitive boreal taiga forests, but close.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

backcountry said:


> To be fair HDE, when you presume to put words like "rape" in people's mouths you don't get much room to complain about presumption. Let's be consistent with your standards.
> 
> And yes, the oil industry earns rightful skepticism based upon past conduct. To reverse your own logic, you can't presume the impact will be minimal simply because you've succeeded in the past. Either past conduct is indicative of future outcomes or not; once again be consistent in your own logic. And the oil industry lost trust amongst many Americans for just reasons when it comes to being thoughtful about minimal impact and for accountable remediation. That can coexist alongside your personal successes. They aren't mutually exclusive.
> 
> ...


Saying an entire industry is irresponsible based on the conduct of a few is a misnomer. It's like me saying all Biden supporters are racist because he misspoke and said something dumb. It's not my fault some regulators failed in their own system. It's not a difficult thing to do something the right way.

I say "rape" because that is full well the sentiment being portrayed by some. I just had the gall to say it is all...


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

backcountry said:


> I to wish there was a happy medium but the "oil industry" at large has burned significant social capital and trust. There may be individuals like yourself and HDE who have success with not only better technologies but also investment in truly preventing negative impact. My view even takes into account that could be the majority of companies in the extractive industry. It's why I don't speak out against development most of the time.
> 
> But this herd and ecosystem is a unique heritage for Americans. There are plenty of examples, including recently, that we can point to outcomes from simple mistakes to intentional shortcuts that lead to detrimental harm to wildlife and the landscape. And in this case we aren't willing to support development in this one location. We've made a thoughtful, reasonable conclusion based on real evidence that just happens to believe the risk outweighs the reward this time. And there is a very real justification as a hunter and conservationist to end with that conclusion.
> 
> And we can differ in that way without resorting to Paddler's lazy tropes or HDE's hideous assumptions about those on the other side. Luckily you and several others provide example of that fact. Thank you for that approach.


Not sure you dropped my username enough times...


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

backcountry said:


> This started because HDE made an unsupportable claim that detriment was an "incorrect" conclusion under presumptive policy.


Not sure if everyone knows where the blame lies, maybe drop my username a few more times to make sure. The process in place works if people have the innards to use it. Do I really need to go find the evidence for your that people who play by the rules demonstrate minimal impact? It's at your fingertips too and I have better things to do. Geez...

A failure of a system does not mean that system is broke. Lack of desire does not constitute an established reality. Does every condition you listed have evidentiary support, or are they just speculative notions based on NOVA, National Geographic, or whatever? To conclude something will happen without anything to back that claim is inarguably incorrect. The NEPA process in the spirit and practice of minimal impact backs my claim.

Replying at this point is for your gratification, not mine as I won't see it. I left this forum for a period because of you, looks like I'll leave again for longer this time.

Later dude...


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Once again HDE you fail to not create a strawman to defend your position. Which is a shame as it's not needed. I didn't say the Oil Industry was "irresponsible". I said the oil industry at large earned mine and many others skepticism. After multiple disasters, multiple abject failures of restraint and multiple places I genuinely care about being polluted by accidents I personally apply immense skepticism to projects that involve critical habitat. That is a rational approach that honors my values. I respect you ending with different conclusions but you absolutely fail to provide that same space for others. And you fail to remotely apply the same standards to yourself that you do others. That's a problem logically and politically in this case.

I never said the system was broke. Another strawman. I do think this particular area is doomed because of a legislative compromise that has shown a multiple decade record of failure. NEPA isn't broken but I do not trust expedited rulings from a "friendly" administration pushing agendas. Nor do I trust the opposite. In this particular case the entire thing is sadly polluted by politics. It's unavoidable at the moment until they legislate a change to this piece of land that puts it squarely in mangers hands not politicians. 

You have every ability to leave because of me. It's not my goal but I'm also not going to sit quiet while you completely make inaccurate summations of my view and/or untenable claims that are reliant solely on your faith in a system to prevent any possibility of harm to a critical habitat and herd. We both know the probability is there. You think the risk is worth it, I don't. 

Best of luck. But know it's up to the "oil industry" at large to justify development as the status quo has been leaving the area unused. Misrepresenting ideas and walking away from threads with divergent views isn't going to change the cultural and political environment in the favor of your goal.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

JohnnyCake,

I pulled from multiple sites. I'm sorry you choose to dismiss conclusions based upon science that don't align with your particular understanding and approach here. I'm a bit shocked as you often interact differently than wholesale dismissal of others. But I suppose ANWR is a hot button issue and we can expect people to resort to that. I won't do the same. Everything in my training in this field has exposed how people can look at the same biological data and conclude different things. Science only provides information but policy and judgements always require values and preferences. We can accept diverging in that way without resorting to such summary dismissals. 

I'll see if I can find the sites I pulled from. The ones I cited were from universities that cited the research and fundings but they buried in searches in my web history.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> backcountry, you’ve asked for consistency here in this thread....
> Paddler is happy Biden agrees with him, but his opinion would change tomorrow if Biden re-opened these leases and he’d spend days arguing here why drilling is so safe and okay there, because that’s what coach told him to say.


I'm pretty consistent about our public lands and environmental issues. Nothing anybody could say would persuade me to favor drilling in the ANWR. Your assertion above demonstrates you're consistently FOS.


johnnycake said:


> I've got no problem if somebody wants to oppose drilling in ANWR due to philosophical, moralistic values of pristine wilderness.


That's my rationale. Leave the ANWR as one of our last, best areas of pristine land. Drill somewhere else.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I've spent quite a bit of time the past 20 years reading and studying the ANWR issues. Like I said earlier, I can accept a philosophical, moralistic opposition to the drilling. But I have not seen anything that appears remotely statistically significant to support that the development in Area 1002 poses a credible threat to the Porcupine Herd. That argument is often raised by environmentalist groups, but lacks sound backing. These arguments ring ludicrous, especially when they are levied side by side with patently and objectively false statements such as "Plans for extraction often include upwards of 30-40% of the 1002" or hypothetical comparisons implying "a proposal that would noticeably impact 30%+ of those critical calving grounds". 

I don't typically categorically dismiss a position, but I do make certain exceptions: flat earthers, anti vaxxers, and claims that have such a remote likelihood of statistical value. 

Even if we assume that the 2,000 acres allowed to be developed were a complete loss for use as calving grounds, AND that Area 1002 is the SOLE calving grounds for the herd, that would still require us to rely on a ⅒ of 1% reduction in the habitat to create a dangerous threat to sustainability. If we take your contention that a 4% herd reduction is a sustainability tipping point, at a roughly 1:1 cow:bull ratio and an 81% calving rate with a herd size of ~175k, and a 1 month calf survival rate of 72%, you'd need to drop that 1 month survival rate average to sub 70% (which it has fallen below and been well above year to year) to achieve. So with ~87,500 cows and 70,875 of them carrying calves with 51,030 of those calves surviving a month, that would require that at a minimum ~2,000 of those calves (4% of 1 month survival) would have to die if not born in the 2,000 acres impacted by development in Area 1002. That means that those portions of 1002 have to have a per acre dependency that is 1 calf per acre versus the overall area comparison of 1 calf per ~30 acres. And remember, that assumes that ONLY Area 1002 can be used for calving by the herd. And 1002 is only about 10% of ANWR and the herd ranges an area larger than ANWR for it's recorded calving grounds in just the past decade. 

So even assuming all the facts in the light most favorable to your position backcountry it appears preposterous to believe the cause and effect you are raising is a credible result. The fact that the herd doesn't collapse when it chooses to calve in areas outside of Area 1002 (and outside of ANWR entirely) doesn't help lend credibility your contentions either. I would love to see the statistics used to support those claims, as I had a chance to talk to Beth Lenart this afternoon and she was surprised to hear that somebody was claiming such things as you have. and to be clear, she would prefer not to have it developed, but not for any empirically based reasons claiming disaster for wildlife. Which I can respect, even if I disagree.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

paddler said:


> I'm pretty consistent about our public lands and environmental issues. Nothing anybody could say would persuade me to favor drilling in the ANWR. Your assertion above demonstrates you're consistently FOS.


You’re the only person I know personally that’s tried to close PUBLIC hunting lands off to the public. So I’m not sure what your definition of “consistent” means, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

To clarify, the 30-40% range is the potential limit of the 1002 impacted by the possible drilling that has been historically used for calving. We both know the 2000 acres won't be contagious. It will be a myriad of not only drilling sites dispersed across the area but all the infrastructure and exploratory equipment that goes with it. The number is fair with that context especially when used in concert with how Caribou have been shown to be empirically impacted by drilling sites during calving. Sorry for any poor wording or confusion in presenting that idea.

Emphasis on calving, as the rest of their lifecycle they show much greater plasticity in behavior around extractive industry. That's why caribou can be fine 6-8 months out of the year feeding and migrating through historic or active fields yet show a meaningful displacement away from those human activities while calving. For a gross comparison, I'm fine eating next to road noise for an occasional meal or even dealing with petrochemical fumes while gassing up my vehicle but I'm not likely to choose to have my child born in either of those places.

Thanks for the numbers, it gives me some information to chew on and re-review the sites I used with different clarity. The data isn't coming from environmentalist sites but a university that provided a long summary of the issue. I need to dive into my history to find it. (Anybody know why some webpages register in history when you hit the hyperlink and others don't? I have the Google searches in my history but nothing from there on).

I'll sincerely try to find it but it may take a while. I will point I'm trying to be patient but comparing potentially ineffective summations (ie me trying to consolidate a post about something so complex against responses like HDEs) of real research to anti-vaxxers is beyond a stretch. I think you know that. I think you also know I'm not taking a hardline like those organizations as I'm going way out of my way to recognize the range of opinions and conclusions on the subject. Hardline environmentalist don't tend to play in that grey area when making their certain moral claims. My only stake is being consistent with my own values in this case while defending posts against hyperbolic strawmen like I've mentioned.

*It might take a while, making dinner for a few extra people.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

backcountry said:


> *To clarify, the 30-40% range is the potential limit of the 1002 impacted by the possible drilling that has been historically used for calving. We both know the 2000 acres won't be contagious.* It will be a myriad of not only drilling sites dispersed across the area but all the infrastructure and exploratory equipment that goes with it. The number is fair with that context especially when used in concert with how Caribou have been shown to be empirically impacted by drilling sites during calving. Sorry for any poor wording or confusion in presenting that idea.


No it isn't. The 2000 acres is a hard ceiling for all impacts cumulatively, contiguous or not. Which is why the drilling focus is primarily along the coast line. Fewer acres impacted if you can use the water. The roads across the tundra to access exploratory and drilling sites are only done in the winter and are made of ice. 

You are conflating the 30-40% recoverability of the oil basin with 30-40% of the land area in Area 1002. Massively different.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

The data I saw wasn't a reflection of recoverable oil. It was a statement of % of historic 1002 calving habitat impacted. If the data input was wrong on the studies part I'll discard it.

Stupid autocorrect, I know the 200k acres is a hard ceiling but projections of where that will be have been all over the map (figuratively). 

A question for you....do you think the hasty ruling done under Trump effectively answered all the questions about the caribou that matter and is relevant? Do you think it can be fully trusted to actually inventory the potential impacts regarding wildlife in a fashion that can lead to confident outcomes? 

I understand this is long term debate. But from what I synthesized we still don't know why the calving grounds have shifted in the last decade. There are a lot of meaningful and important questions about that herd that haven't been answered that directly relate to this conflicted landscape.

I'm not likely to immediately change my stance as it's based on multiple preferences and concerns but if it turns out I've been fed bad information along the way I'll definitely be vulnerable to the implications. I'm more likely to change my stance from your approach then the malicious or reflexive ones of others of seen. To say I'm not a fan of "but your car and house use fossil fuels" argument is an understatement.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

backcountry said:


> The data I saw wasn't a reflection of recoverable oil. It was a statement of % of historic 1002 calving habitat impacted. If the data input was wrong on the studies part I'll discard it.
> 
> Stupid autocorrect, I know the 200k acres is a hard ceiling but projections of where that will be have been all over the map (figuratively).
> 
> ...


2,000 acres not 200,000 acres. Two thousand. ⅒ of 1% of Area 1002. One ten thousandth of ANWR which contains about ½-⅓ of the historic calving grounds used by the Porcupine Herd. And for clarity's sake, they use "herd" extremely loosely. The herds aren't ever really an actual herd. More like saying the Wasatch elk herd or the La Sal herd.


And given the decades of studies on the impacts of development in Area 1002 it is disingenuous to call the Trump administration's approval hasty. When it comes to caribou, we just don't know why they do or don't do most anything. Herds collapse when predators are at low levels, next to no human encroachment or hunting, range conditions are healthy and the population is nowhere near carrying capacity, and there's no clear reason why they suddenly are dropping dead from hoof rot left and right. Or why ½ of the 60k strong Nelchina herd just up and left after the winter and joined with the 40 mile herd in 2018-2019. Or why ½ of them returned to the Nelchina range in 2020. Or why the Alaska Range herd stopped crossing the ridge into Cache Creek area in the 80s despite +100 years of traditionally migrating through there, and now they migrate 60 miles north. Caribou do what caribou will do. And what they do best is frustrate biologists.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

My mistyping was done in haste. I think I've typed 2000 acres most of the time.

I also recognize the scale of the 1002 compared to the rest of ANWR. I didn't accidentally mention it by name and spend most of the back and forth referencing that area versus ANWR at large (compared to most of the media and Paddler.). The 1002 was isolated in legislation from the rest of ANWR on purpose. 

It's completely fair to call the Trump ruling hasty though. It was expedited under a friendly administration. We'll definitely diverge there. That claim doesn't undermine the years of data collection "both sides" have conducted (and to reiterate, there are valid justifications on both sides) but I'm unwilling to ignore the obvious politicking here. It was required to take no more than 1 year and be no more than 150 pages because of an earlier Trump order setting up arbitrary deadlines and document limits. 

And to be equally fair, saying we don't know the answers to the questions isn't a vote of confidence to approve the project. I've been honest about my interest in preserving this herd because of their unique place in American heritage and your response to my question actually leads me to continue to support overt restrictions. It may be frustrating but I'm unwilling to risk this colloquial herd under such honest uncertainty. It's tough to say we are using sound science to submit critical habitat to leasing when the blunt answer is "we don't know" the impacts. You can justly critique any claims I make but ultimately the status quo has been no drilling and extraction is inherently on the offense. 

I'll still try to find my references. And do better at editing my posts in the future as I've done a poor job at presenting them in this series. I'll sincerely remain vulnerable to the implications of what it means of those sources are not sound. But it ultimately sounds like our paths just aren't want to intersect here. And that it is just fine. Things like ANWR were low on the list for why I voted for Biden last year and they won't be on the list when I likely vote against him in 2024. And neither of our disagreements is likely to matter even when it comes to the future of the 1002 anyways. 









Not so fast: Trump’s Alaska drilling study slammed by U.S. wildlife regulator


(This April 26 story corrects spelling of name in paragraph 6))




www.reuters.com


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

There is another way to look at this, of course. Trump pushed it, which just about guarantees it's a terrible idea. Just as Trump University was a bad idea, the Trump Foundation was a scam, Trump Steaks, Trump Shuttle, his multiple bankruptcies, now the Big Lie. If he supports something, the default assumption should be that it is designed only to benefit him and/or his donors.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

To be clear, I never intended to change your stance on ANWR. I just like people to be able to admit the motivations behind their position. There are certainly valid reasons for being against drilling in ANWR, and I think valid reasons for being in support of it. But threats to caribou? From my understanding, that is either based in misperception or straight up deception.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

JohnnyCake,

The 30-40% figure (my memory, model states 37%) comes directly from the Department of Interior report from 1987 on a model discussed starting on page 120:



https://pubs.usgs.gov/fedgov/70039559/report.pdf



They clearly state development in the 1002 would have major impacts on the Porcupine herd even with mitigation. But that phrase is nuanced according to federal policy.

I'm still tracking down the other figures I used.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

backcountry said:


> JohnnyCake,
> 
> The 30-40% figure (my memory, model states 37%) comes directly from the Department of Interior report from 1987 on a model discussed starting on page 120:
> 
> ...


That model is based on the Alternative A discussed up on page 95, which would require a new Congressional action to allow for full leasing and development.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Thank you for the context and correction. The summary I pulled the # and citation from didn't provide that critical context. I verified the citation but not it's complete context.

That gives me something to chew on to relook at the caribou issue.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

backcountry said:


> Thank you for the context and correction. The summary I pulled the # and citation from didn't provide that critical context. I verified the citation but not it's complete context.
> 
> That gives me something to chew on to relook at the caribou issue.


There's also good info in that report on the negative impacts to population growth (or lack thereof) on calving displacement for the central Arctic herd due to petroleum development.


----------



## Migolito (Feb 3, 2016)

How fortunate we are to warm ourselves with the blanket made of another's sacrifice. Like it of not, energy independence for the USA means less American's dying in some forgotten worthless hole. Drill, where we need to, as much as we need to.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Migolito said:


> How fortunate we are to warm ourselves with the blanket made of another's sacrifice. Like it of not, energy independence for the USA means less American's dying in some forgotten worthless hole. Drill, where we need to, as much as we need to.


Once again quoting W on Trump's inaugural speech, "That was some weird sh*t."


----------



## Migolito (Feb 3, 2016)

Actually I was paraphrasing an ancient Centurion commander from long before we became too literate to read....


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Migolito said:


> How fortunate we are to warm ourselves with the blanket made of another's sacrifice. Like it of not, energy independence for the USA means less American's dying in some forgotten worthless hole. Drill, where we need to, as much as we need to.


If you are talking about the labor of oil industry workers than that's not sacrifice, that labor that's paid for ultimately by consumers. I owe nothing more for that than I do any other labor our country uses in the capitalist market.

But I'm guessing you are talking about American blood as the sacrifice. I'm grateful for their sacrifice for our freedoms but I'll disagree on the accrued cost. I'm not a fan of leveraging our fossil fuel addiction off the life of soldiers. And if the implications is we've been overseas to secure oil than I'd like to talk to management because we've been assured that wasn't the case. But I'm more than happy for our government to come clean and pay those soldiers accordingly.

We both want to prevent loss of American life but disagree on the means. Our concept of energy independence is clearly divergent.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Migolito said:


> Actually I was paraphrasing an ancient Centurion commander from long before we became too literate to read....


Actually, you were inferring that our troops are dying to secure foreign oil. There were many rationalizations for our overseas misadventures, none of them very bright, some outright lies, but foreign oil wasn't one of them.


----------



## Migolito (Feb 3, 2016)

Our Troops have, are, and will always be the pointy end of the spear for protecting and securing American trade/goods. Oil is one of the 'Goods', and to think otherwise is utterly naive. All one has to do is actually listen to the Marine Hyme...any idea what the First Barbary War or the Battle of Chapultepec were about? If you haven't a clue up until now, maybe a little reading of history is in order. Both these Battles (and most not all) are about protecting/securing goods for America. Let's remember that Oil is a 'Good' like any other. The 'Goods" that USA obtains/protects are what allows the USA to exist, which clearly allows our people and this Democracy to exist. Our Democracy which has secured more Freedom for more people than any 'government' in history. So yes, I'm unapologetically Pro Soldier, Pro USA and Pro oil. So, either 'you' believe in this great experiment in Democracy or you don't. I'm a little sketchy when this notion of 'our Armed Forces don't 'fight for oil' began, and when it became a bad thing to do. Do this; Step outside your front door. Look down. That ground where you live, where you raise your kids, where you work, where you go to church, ...People were killed for that land. Whole society's were annihilated so you could stand in that front yard, raise your family, work, and worship and so we can pretend that no one died so we could live on that spot. The lands where we hunt and the lands in Alaska that are currently being Drilled for Oil, our ancestors killed the people who used to live there so we could take what was there's. So, protecting and securing oil, IMO, is a Noble goal because it allows this nation to exist. I'd rather be drilling the oil where we don't need to kill folks to do it, but, if thats not available, we will get it were we can. But, to pretend that we don't kill for oil because some idiot politico uses the slogan in election time AND WE BELIEVE IT....

BTW, you "talk to management" every time you vote.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

So, it looks like you registered here in early 2016, and have posted 17 times. I don't know about your previous posts, but judging by your posts on this thread you've posted 17 times too many.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Paddler.. 
That is YOUR opinion. 
You do realize that other people do have differing opinions and have the right to state such. 
This is why I ignore what you post. I'll read it but it is rarely worth a reply. 
This was one that I will reply to.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Migolito said:


> Our Troops have, are, and will always be the pointy end of the spear for protecting and securing American trade/goods. Oil is one of the 'Goods', and to think otherwise is utterly naive. All one has to do is actually listen to the Marine Hyme...any idea what the First Barbary War or the Battle of Chapultepec were about? If you haven't a clue up until now, maybe a little reading of history is in order. Both these Battles (and most not all) are about protecting/securing goods for America. Let's remember that Oil is a 'Good' like any other. The 'Goods" that USA obtains/protects are what allows the USA to exist, which clearly allows our people and this Democracy to exist. Our Democracy which has secured more Freedom for more people than any 'government' in history. So yes, I'm unapologetically Pro Soldier, Pro USA and Pro oil. So, either 'you' believe in this great experiment in Democracy or you don't. I'm a little sketchy when this notion of 'our Armed Forces don't 'fight for oil' began, and when it became a bad thing to do. Do this; Step outside your front door. Look down. That ground where you live, where you raise your kids, where you work, where you go to church, ...People were killed for that land. Whole society's were annihilated so you could stand in that front yard, raise your family, work, and worship and so we can pretend that no one died so we could live on that spot. The lands where we hunt and the lands in Alaska that are currently being Drilled for Oil, our ancestors killed the people who used to live there so we could take what was there's. So, protecting and securing oil, IMO, is a Noble goal because it allows this nation to exist. I'd rather be drilling the oil where we don't need to kill folks to do it, but, if thats not available, we will get it were we can. But, to pretend that we don't kill for oil because some idiot politico uses the slogan in election time AND WE BELIEVE IT....
> 
> BTW, you "talk to management" every time you vote.


I appreciate the honesty. Its clear our values aren't remotely similar as I can't think of many things less noble or less honorable than going to war to steal other people's oil (or other resources). I've protested that more than once in my life, so no I'm not naive. But I do have family members who were lied to about intent if that is truly the case, hence the management line. None of them talked about there service in the terms you use.

I'll be forever grateful for those fighting for our freedoms but I won't glorify our military for the plundering you describe.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

2full said:


> Paddler..
> That is YOUR opinion.
> You do realize that other people do have differing opinions and have the right to state such.
> This is why I ignore what you post. I'll read it but it is rarely worth a reply.
> This was one that I will reply to.


Well, can you name one war or military action carried out by our military with the intent of stealing oil from another country? The Revolutionary War? Nope, supposedly taxation without representation. War of 1812? Nope, Britain attacked us, sore losers. Civil War? Nope, slavery. Spanish American War? Nope, "Remember the Maine". WW I? Nope, in support of our allies. WWII? Nope, Pearl Harbor. Korean? Nope, Truman doctrine, domino theory. Vietnam? Same as Korean. Iraq? Nope, WMD, a lie. Afghanistan? Who knows? The poster above stated our troops have fought and died for foreign oil. That is rubbish, and since his post suggests that our military will be spared if we Drill, Baby, Drill, he's sorely mistaken. He's entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I am not talking about any wars, battles or anything along those lines. 
I'm talking about your ignorant, rude, and self centered response to the post. 
I'm not defending his response. I'm slamming YOUR response. 
Which is typical from you.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

2full said:


> I am not talking about any wars, battles or anything along those lines.
> I'm talking about your ignorant, rude, and self centered response to the post.
> I'm not defending his response. I'm slamming YOUR response.
> Which is typical from you.


I think it's important to call out BS, and have difficulty tolerating fools. Sorry, my bad.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

paddler said:


> I think it's important to call out BS, and have difficulty tolerating fools. Sorry, my bad.


Easily the most ironic post in the history of the internet!


----------



## Migolito (Feb 3, 2016)

paddler said:


> So, it looks like you registered here in early 2016, and have posted 17 times. I don't know about your previous posts, but judging by your posts on this thread you've posted 17 times too many.


Have I made it personal with you? No, then why make it personal with me. This usually happens when logic fails an argument.
This is simple: Tell us where you currently hunt that someone(on your behalf) didn't kill the indigenous population so that you can hunt on that land.
Tell us where you source your petroleum products that US soldiers haven't died, killed and don't currently defend. Simple..lets see IF you are honest in your response.

Post 18


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Paddler's post unfortunately contain personal attacks or attacks stereotypes of partisans all too often. His post you quoted is a great example.

I don't think most Americans would deny we stole land from indigenous peoples. I think there is a massive divergence on how we judge that historical choice. I can't say I know a single person who declares that history noble or honorable. I live on old Paiute land and in no way do I feel compelled to show gratitude for those who robbed it from tribes. Neither do I feel guilty. There is massive grey area to reside in that recognizes historical fact without glamorizing the atrocities committed in America's name.

And that doesn't remotely account for intentionally going to war to steal and pillage oil. I've only heard one president speak of that so bluntly and his administration was rightfully called out for advocating that war crime. That's been the international standard for 65 years and explicitly illegal under US law for 25 years.

I was raised to stand above such criminal activity. And I believe in naming it honestly for what it is.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Migolito said:


> Have I made it personal with you? No, then why make it personal with me. This usually happens when logic fails an argument.
> This is simple: Tell us where you currently hunt that someone(on your behalf) didn't kill the indigenous population so that you can hunt on that land.
> Tell us where you source your petroleum products that US soldiers haven't died, killed and don't currently defend. Simple..lets see IF you are honest in your response.
> 
> Post 18


You have repeatedly asserted that our military has fought and died to secure foreign oil, which is patently false. In this age of disinformation, when many people believe conspiracy theories, when things like Qanon and vaccines magnetize your blood are actually things, when 53% of Republicans actually believe the 2020 election was stolen, I believe falsehoods like those you have made should be nipped in the bud. If you think that makes it personal, so be it. I have become increasingly intolerant of lies as I see them as a threat to our democracy. Voter suppression laws are now rampant in most of the states, based on the Big Lie that voter fraud threw the election to Biden. Now, there is no evidence of any systemic or significant voter fraud, but that hasn't stopped Arizona Republicans from hiring the "Cyber Ninjas" to recount the votes in Maricopa County. WTF is going on here? So, nothing personal, but if you don't want to be called out, stop posting crap.



backcountry said:


> Paddler's post unfortunately contain personal attacks or attacks stereotypes of partisans all too often. His post you quoted is a great example.
> 
> I don't think most Americans would deny we stole land from indigenous peoples. I think there is a massive divergence on how we judge that historical choice. I can't say I know a single person who declares that history noble or honorable. I live on old Paiute land and in no way do I feel compelled to show gratitude for those who robbed it from tribes. Neither do I feel guilty. There is massive grey area to reside in that recognizes historical fact without glamorizing the atrocities committed in America's name.
> 
> ...


Yep, we are in agreement regarding Migolito's posts. Except that I'm pissed at all the lies and am beyond the point of being polite to liars.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I do not support Paddler's conclusion and our approach is asymmetric. 

I can disagree with posts without resorting to bigoted stereotypes. I can disagree with Migolito on 99% of his comments but recognize an educated person can form different conclusions about history just as I can recognize their values are vastly different than my own. 

It appears Migolito and I don't share much in common at all but I won't resort to the approach Paddler has.


----------



## Migolito (Feb 3, 2016)

It's OK Paddler. It's difficult to acknowledge simple truths when they go against what we want to believe...clearly. You hunt, because someone (else) fought and killed the peoples who's land you hunt on. You live in a Petroleum world because someone (else) fights and kills other people so you can drive a car, turn on the lights, use a computer. I didn't expect you to even acknowledge that simple plain fact. I wanted to see if you could be honest in your response. Obviously the answer is no.

And because I know you're keeping tabs...this is post #19.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

paddler said:


> I have become increasingly intolerant of lies as I see them as a threat to our democracy.





paddler said:


> Voter suppression laws are now rampant in most of the states, based on the Big Lie that voter fraud threw the election to Biden.





paddler said:


> Except that I'm pissed at all the lies and am beyond the point of being polite to liars.


These three quotes, in a paddler logic sandwich, are just FANTASTIC! In before the lock.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> These three quotes, in a paddler logic sandwich, are just FANTASTIC! In before the lock.


And it's getting close

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Anybody know of a recent assessment of the market cost per barrel it would take to justify that extraction cost out of the 1002? Most estimates seem 15-20 years old and it sounds like techniques have advanced in that timeframe (better effeciency?).

Inquiring minds.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Lets keep in on subject about ANWR, the responses have gone so far off of track and just about everything has been said that can be said about it. 

If we can't keep it on subject I'll lock it down.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Just in case that was about my last post....

The 1002 is the subsection of ANWR that is the subject of the oil leases. It's a direct question to the subject matter of the thread. 

If it wasn't related, carry on.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

backcountry said:


> Just in case that was about my last post....
> 
> The 1002 is the subsection of ANWR that is the subject of the oil leases. It's a direct question to the subject matter of the thread.
> 
> If it wasn't related, carry on.


No, you are fine with that post but there are quite a few before it that are way off track.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------

