Hmm-m...
I doubt if there are 5 people in the world beyond this board who would believe building roads, drilling for oil, building pipelines and maintaining all the above would be GOOD for them critters.

Well, the only way they’d actually be good for the critters is if the new roads, drilling, pipelines and maintenance were actually beneficial to the environment. This, however, is not the point. The point is whether the drilling for oil, building pipelines and maintenance were good for the American people, and they would be. Also, the drilling for oil, building pipelines and maintenance could be designed in such a way as to have a minimal impact (if you need this deciphered, by all means look it up) on the environment and its inhabitants.

We still need the oil.

And, Tom, your comment on the 5 "fictional" scenarios. Since there is no drilling going on, what kind of scenario wouldn't be fictional? But using the term "fictional" seems to lend an air of illegitimacy to the report. Good move, a little gimmick worthy of Goebbels, and you did slip it in there smoothly. Can't argue that they aren't "fictional". Those sneaky, duplicitous, untrustworthy scientists!!!

We apparently need to be PC with the late-blooming Sha-Na-Nawser -- “bow-bow-bow.”

Here’s hoping he already knows this (which would imply the paragraph he posted meant nothing):
Even if drilling were going on now, these would still be “fictional” scenario reports. Drilling is not a disaster -- unless you’re an earthworm or happen to live in an anthill. Contingency planning is what companies, as well as nations, do. “What-if” studies are made, as they help in planning constructions, defenses and disaster relief/recovery. The outcry should come if drilling commenced without any “fictitious” scenarios studied.

Dan