DIYbanter - View Single Post

Floyd L. Davidson

wrote:
On Dec 3, 12:10 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

First, 50,000 deaths in auto accidents will not change
due to anything we have been discussing regarding oil
in Alaska.

Second, auto accident deaths are not an environmental
risk in any way, therefore it is ridiculous to compare
it to the environmental risks of drilling for oil in
Alaska.

But worst of all, is that you are dead wrong about what
constitutes a serious environmental hazard. It is
*not* those big 200,000 gallon spills that will endanger
anyone's health, but rather those little (even smaller
than the ones you are citing) spills where someone dumps
10 *ounces* of gasoline or antifreeze on the ground in a
parking lot. (See below, where I've provided more info.)

I'll just let everyone here read this and come to their own
conclusions about your crediblity and sense of balance. And how you
think 50,000 deaths don't matter, but spilling a single barrel of oil

You are dishonest. I did not saying 50,000 deaths do
not matter. I said there is no comparison between them,
as there is no direct or even indirect link of any
significant. Changing one has no effect on the other.

*You* are the fool who seems to think there is a link.

that covers 375 sq ft is a big deal. The point is that there are
risks with most everyday developments that relate to modern living.
There is risk to driving, risk to flying, risk to living in a
building. Yet, according to guys like you the standard when it comes
to oil exploration is that spilling a single barrel is beyond the
acceptable risk. Most folks would say otherwise.

Why are you so dishonest? As I've noted, about 95%
percent of the North Slope is available for oil
exploration. We do *not* object to the 400 toxic spills a
day in the Prudhoe Bay Industrial Complex.

You are the idiot who thinks that because *we* don't
want our bread basket soiled that we object to
everything and anything. You are confused, greatly.

The fact is, most people (including myself) who live on
the North Slope are *very* supportive of oil exploration
and production!

I showed you 2 incidents that were part of reported superfund sites.

But you claimed those were the reasons the sites were
superfund sites, and that was a lie. And in fact the
levels that were involved in those two incidents *are*
significant. (See below.)

Yeah to an extremists like you. The rest of us see a leak of a
barrel of oil that covered a whopping 375 sq ft. It was quickly
contained and cleaned up. Big deal. But it does show how radical
guys like you are.

So what's the big deal? It has been happening 400 times a
year! Are we trying to shutdown oil production in Prudhoe
Bay????

No. You act like we were. That makes *you* an
extremist, not me.

Want we don't want is some nitwit allowing the same
spills to happen in our bread basket. We don't want
that because we aren't stupid...

We either prevent exactly that sort of thing here on
the North Slope, or we will end up with an environmental
disaster that will poison our food and our children.

More alarmist nonsense.

The State of Washington is alarmist? Or is it just
that you have no sense of perspective?

I was raised on Puget Sound. Don't tell me that is
alarmist nonsense. Why do you think I live here instead
of there!

When people think of superfund sites, they think of Love Canal. One

I think of the North Slope Borough Landfill. Or
Kuparuk, or Prudhoe Bay... or for reasons you'll never
understand, I think of the school children in the
village of Aniak 30 years ago, who were exposed to a PCB
spill that should never have happened, but is now the
reason for that location to be a Superfund site.

That was probably less than 100 gallons of Askeral oil
that was spilled. Would you want *your* children
exposed to it?

Given your ability to make a mountain out of a mole hill, you're

The only one making mountains out of mole hills is
*you*, with all this dishonest shifting of what I
actually do target to something that is different.

credibility in assesing this incident is zippo. If you think a
barrel of oil spilled on 375 sq feet of land and quickly cleaned up is
a big deal, there is no reasoning with you. Clearly if we listened
to you, we'd all be living in caves.

You are living in a cave. We don't want to here.

Prudhoe Bay incident involved a spill of crude covering a whopping 375
sq ft. The other was I think maybe 50 barrels of a light oil
emission that covered 50 acres. Big Fning deal. Both are easily
handled, yet they get included as toxic spills and included as part of
a "super fund site".

What you mean to say is that they happened *at* an
already declared Superfund site. The fact that that
sort of thing happens on a regular basis (400 time a
year) is the reason it is a Superfund site.

Here we go again with the 400 spills number. Above you claimed I
lied when I attributed it to your fear mongering to block oil
exploration.

Stop denying the truth. There are more than 400 per
year in the Prudhoe Bay Industrial Complex. That is why
both of the major oil fields there are superfund sites.
That is exactly what we do *not* want to happen in
specific places where it would damage our way of life.

But we do encourage oil exploration and development on
roughly 95% of the North Slope. And I personally support
that too.

It is only idiots like you that think we should destroy
everything just for oil, money, and greed.

Are you sure? Nobody has found any oil within ANWR, or
for that matter within several miles of it.

Well Duh! Sure, because guys like you won't let anyone go look for it

Not true. Why don't you learn something about this
instead of creating your own "fact" from fantasy?

There are holes all around the perimeter of ANWR. None
are producers. There was one hole drilled inside ANWR.
We don't know what they hit, but they have never shown
any further interest in ANWR. The State put up 26
tracts within the 3 mile limit just off shore of ANWR
and not one bid was received, while offshore areas in
other parts of the Beaufort Sea attacted more than twice
as much interest as all previous Beaufort Sea lease
sales.

One thing has been very obvious for several years now,
and that is just how little interest the oil companies
actually have in ANWR.

In a time when we are overly dependent on
foreign oil and running a trade deficit, what logic is there in
that?

ANWR would do what for the trade deficit? Given that a
foreign based multi-national oil giant would be the ones
to pump it out...

It's American oil nitwit. The US govt would be paid for it. The

How much do you think the Federal Government would get?
Fool...

In fact the State of Alaska is by law supposed to get
90% of the royalties, not the Feds. It is true that
virtually every effort in Congress to authorize it has
tried also to change that, but even if they did, the
royalties are relatively small potatoes compared to oil
industry profits. The big money goes to the producers.
If it were American companies *that* would affect the
balance of payments. But it is relatively unlikely that
even 25% of whatever is done there would be by American
companies.

The big deal though, since you don't seem to catch these
things, is the financial boost to the State of Alaska!
That is why they fund Arctic Power Inc., the lobbying
group that spreads more distortions than everyone else
put together. Even if *no* oil were discovered, the
State of Alaska would benefit greatly from money spent
on exploration.

And I might note that right behind Alaska comes the
North Slope Borough, which levies a property tax on
things like drill pads. The NSB would benefit.

Just so that that sinks in... a typical American
citizen would gain virtually *nothing* from opening
ANWR. But *I* personally would gain significantly,
first as an Alaska resident and second as a North Slope
resident.

Now reconsider the priorities on this. Jerks like you
who would get nothing from it are all fired up to do it.
People like me, who actually would see benefits are the
ones who say it isn't worth doing.

Makes you appear a bit foolish...

drilling rights, the money spent on drilling for it, the jobs created,
would be here in the USA instead of in some Arab oil field. How much
of your state revenue in AL comes from oil and how low are your
property taxes as a result?

AL is Alabama.

But my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will still
be living here 50+ years later, after the oil is gone.
We need to think about that too, not just how to
greedily grab it all for ourselves.

You should move *out* of that cave!

Typical extremist answer, exactly as expected. Which is that you

Yes, that is what you continue to give. Caveman
responses...

I hope drilling comes to a town near you soon!

They had three drill rigs within a few miles of Barrow
last winter, and at least one of them found oil. Since
they were drilling in locations where local residents
okayed the exploration, that was great news that we were
happy to hear.

Only idiots like you cannot understand the perspective,
and think we should destroy our entire way of life to
get another dollar.

It says, for example, that every year about 22,580
metric tons of oil and petroleum products enter Puget
sound from *surface* *runoff*, which is mostly roads,
parking lots, and private vehicles. Less that 4% of the
total comes from direct oil spills (the type you claim
are the only thing worth worrying about, and only then
if they are huge).

And this has zero to do with drilling in a tiny footprint in ANWR.

The tiny footprint in ANWR???? You really are dumb.
The proposed drilling would affect about 1.5 million of
the 1.7 million acres in the 1002 Area. "Footprint" is
what we levie property tax on. It has no relationship
to what is or is not affected.

We're not proposing developing ANWR, building houses, building
shopping malls, and infrastructure.

You have no idea what you are proposing. The *first*
thing that would be done is siesmic work on a quarter
mile grid. The damage from that alone would last for at
least 30 years, even if they quite and never did another
thing.

Those runoff conditons are a
product development in an urban environment and can be found wherever
there is development. How much runoff do we have from an oil rig in
the Gulf of Mexico? Hmmm? Nada. Compare that to the runoff from
NYC or any heavily developed area. And as far as runoff, how about
the environmentalist that want us to grow corn and other crops. How
much runoff is that going to add, vs drilling in a tiny footprint in
ANWR?

Who cares what it is in NY, or the Gulf. What we do
care about is the effect on *our* land. You don't have
a clue, as your repeated references to "a tiny
footprint" indicate. Footprint does not include gravel
pits, most roads, half or so of most airports, garbage
dumps, or any part of a pipeline that is not touch the
surface of the ground.

Take a coffee table in your living room. Measure the
area of the floor that is in direct contact with the
four legs of the table. That is footprint. Now measure
the area of the floor that you cannot use for dancing,
that is the area with an environmental impact.

Air pollution contributes near 40 metric tons per year
of lead, arsenic and carcinogenic hydrocarbons.

*You* might be ignorant enough to do that to ANWR, but
I've already been there, got an education at the school
of hard knocks, and I'm here to keep idiots from
repeating history.

Don;t worry, it may take another 911 event, but drilling is coming to
ANWR and you sooner or later.

Don't bet on it in your lifetime.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)