Comment from karl monetti, private individual

I attended a hearing this evening in Fairbanks, Ak. regarding the DSEIS for 193. I am not against oil explioration and/or development, but wish only to see that it is done in the most environmentally save manner. My concerns are as follows; 1; weather; extreme cold, high winds, making any clean-uo efforts more difficult. 2; shifting ice; very powerful, unstoppable forces that could damage or destroy drill rigs/platforms 3; fragile ecosystem, very sensitive to contamination by petroleum products 4; lack of any experience any where in the world with oil recovery from spills in extreme cold regions, in broken ice, or even under-ice spills, which could go undetected 5; a fragile, local food chain for the Inuit who have lived along this cost for thousands of years and whose livelihood and culture depend on maintaining a healthy ocean environment 6; regarding the DSEIS itself, I see mention of cleanup, response, etc., but no mention of PREVENTION. If industry can develop foolproof methodology, perhaps spill response would be a moot point; we did, after all, land men on the moon! 7; the DSEIS actually seems to admit a 27-54% possibility for a large oil spill from drilling activities in this area; is that really a risk we should be taking for our ocean? 8; with the lax permitting for, lack of strict governmental agency scrutiny of, and in some cases actual covering up of abuses, oversights, and mistakes by the oil companies by agencies charged with protecting the environment, I find it hard to look at the process under discussion with a level eye. The district court has asked for clarification of many point that had been left out of the original EIS, and I still do not see them addressed in the current draft. Issues concerning baseline environmental information, wildlife populations, etc., needs to be fully studied, reported and addressed. I feel some of these concerns can be addressed adequately, but, if not, then the leases should not go ahead in area 193. Thanks