Topic o' the day 1-29-2005Follow

Alright, how about this one.

The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR). Back sometime in history, we set a piece of land up in alaska aside as a wildlife preserve. Yay! happy elk and caribou, the area stayed nice and clean, life was good.

Then a few years ago, someone did a resource survey of the happy little wildlife refuge. Turns out they found a few things they weren't expecting.

First and foremost, they discovered an extensive Cadmium (sp?) deposit. Cadmium is a metal which is used extensivly in military equipment manufacturing. The U.S. has no other naturally occuring cadmium deposits, and imports the material almost exclusivly from several rather unstable African nations which are prone to military coups.

Second, they found oil. Not a huge amount of oil mind you, but enough to be worth extracting. It's fairly close to the surface, and could be extracted using fairly low invasivity methods.

Now here's the question. The proceeds from the material in this specific patch of refuge, could easily pay for the creation of a refuge twice or three times as large somewhere else in the same area. Once the mineing and oil extraction was finished (10, 15 years or so) the origional area would be restored, equipment removed, and eventually it would return to being a nice wilderness area.

On the other hand, this refuge has been there for years. the locals in the area are strongly opposed to it being mined in any form. and they have a point. Even a low impact mineing operation is going to change things in the area. It won't be the same when it is done. The added population of construction and oil workers imported from outside will change the demographic of their communities, and several native american peoples in the area believe that drilling in that area will seriously **** off some revered ancestor or somesuch.

So what are your thoughts?

Edited, Mon Jan 31 13:13:44 2005 by Kaolian

I hate this topic, mainly because I can really see good arguments to both sides. But I guess the main thing I would concern myself with is...



if that is possible or not. Add to that the idea that the proceeds could go to creating an even bigger and better wildlife refuge and its truly a moral dellimna.

I don't want to go and rape the land, but longterm it could feasibly not do much damage at all if the mining teams were following low invasive procedures.

The best answer I could ever give though, is to stop freaking using oil as a fuel source, but then agian we all know how much people hate to change.

I didn't grow up in the city like most of the people in the country. I lived on a dirt road and worked on a dairy farm until I was 18 years old.

Driving down the road there was always a risk of hitting all sorts of animals, be it deer, raccoons, bears, or even cattle.

That being said, I think of most animals as A) a nuisance, or B) food. Therefore I think animal refuges are pointless, and if they are going to be able to create a bigger refuge from the proceeds of the oil and cadmium, and they will have it restored in 10-15 years back to its current state, why on earth would the locals see any need to throw a hissy over it.

Treehuggers like that **** me off.

Lets get oil from cannabis.

The way these operations go, the oil drilling would have little to no impact even while it is ongoing. The mining would have a greater impact, depending on how they go about it. If they don't make an open pit mine, then there's no real harm in either operation other than making a little bit of wildlife move out of the way. Given the vast open area that is Alaska, thee's no harm in that.



I find it hard to believe the locals are opposed. Every native Alaskan I ever met was damned happy over oil drilling and mining considering it lines their pockets considerably.

Even your typical Anchorage resident is at worst ambivalent, considering they draw yearly checks from the permanent fund the state has set up. Any locals that are opposed are probably some of the few kooks that move up to enjoy the unspoiled beauty of Alaska every year, and drive their SUVs out with their camping supplies and set up a camp that goes further towards ruining the environment than most industrial operations.

My opinion? Drill and mine away. Any elk, caribou, snowbunnies or bear that are too stupid to walk a few feet to the side to avoid the operation are better off dead anyway. It's not like the operations will remove their source of food or water. Most likely the operations will only be conducted in winter anyway, when the permafrost is solid and the critters are less active.

Hard to say, I think that eventually we will have to face the fact that our energy policy has to change!

The number of The Sock!





If they do mine, then strict guild lines should be put in place to minimise the effects on the surrounding land and the wild life and a portion of profits put back into the maintance of the area during and after, the mining.

No strict guild lines and funding, no mining.

Edited, Sat Jan 29 23:11:13 2005 by lagduff