wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:24 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
wrote:
Did you just wake up? I posted that days ago and thought this
nonsense was over.
1 day and 15 hours prior.
There seems no end of your ability to produce nonsense
though.
point. And that point is the
comparison was that there are obvious risks to most modern human
activity, including driving
cars which results in 50,000 deaths. It shows that society has a
rational acceptance of the
concept of risk/reward ratios.
So relate that to ANWR, or it's just more obfuscation.
And I say the reward of exploring for oil in ANWR outweighs the
risk.
You say a lot of abjectly silly things that you cannot
support with facts.
If we took your notion of
That is *your* notion, and is nothing I've ever said.
It's the fact that there are 400 toxic spills per year
at Prudhoe that I've talked about. You can't get past
the first one you found out about. What about the
100,000 gallon and 200,000 gallon spills?
You would tolerate *that* in ANWR!
How about the fact that BP just paid a $20,000,000 fine,
and the State of Alaska is about to file a civil suit
against them for damaging land owned by the State of
Alaska by their lack of concern for the environment.
a mere barrel spill being something that must be avoided at all costs
But doing that, or 100,000 gallon spills, once a day is
something to be avoided. If you don't, what you get is
what the State of Washington is now dealing with in
Puget Sound. A dying environment.
more difficult. See pictures of most of the offshore platforms
toppled or sunk in Katrina? There
What has Katrina got to do with the Arctic? Tell us
just how *you* would clean up a 100,000 gallon spill
offshore on the ice??? (Just in case you don't know, it
has been demonstrated that if there is more than about
5% ice present, we have *no* technology to do any kind
of a cleanup. That would be more than 75% of the time
in the Beaufort Sea.)
difficult, has gone. And if we listened to alarmist like you,
If we listen to idiots we could have a North Slope where
nobody can live. If our environment was like that of
Putrid Sound, the whole population here would have to
leave.
People here *depend* on a clean environment.
The fact is, most people (including myself) who live on
the North Slope are *very* supportive of oil exploration
and production!
Yeah, as long as it's done in somebody else's back yard. I live 20
As I mentioned, last winter there were oil drilling rigs
operating close to Barrow. The NPR-A, where we all
support exploration, and have for 60 years, is literally
my backyard. And there are gas wells, which have
supplied Barrow with natural gas for 40 years in
abundance.
You are a NIMBY by comparison to the residents of Barrow
and the rest of the North Slope. The difference is that
we aren't dumb.
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..
Bread basket? Exactly how much bread is being produced in ANWR?
The entire Gwitch'n Nation depends on it. And while
Kaktovik is primarily a marine mammal hunting
environment, they do utilize a great deal of caribou
from ANWR.
Of course all over the Lower-48 there are hunters who
eat the migratory birds that nest in ANWR.
If you want to know more about ANWR, why not do some
research! Here's a great place to start:
An index to links with significant information,
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/index.htm
and these will provide you with an overview,
http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm
http://arctic.fws.gov/content.htm
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!
Because you over react. And how logical and helpful to the
....
[Extremist/Alarmist crap deleted]
....
40 years. Follow your ideas of fleeing and soon the North Slope
will be a major urban
center.
You lack anything like sane perspective. The point of
course is the *keep* the North Slope clean, not to
destroy it the way you want to.
....
no friend of big oil or proponents of drilling. Leslie Stahl went to
the frozen, barren section of ANWR where small footprint drilling was
proposed.
Stop being dishonest. She may have seen it frozen, but
it is not barren, and there has never been "small
footprint drilling proposed".
She specifically
talked about the fact that today we don't know how much oil there is
in ANWR because even
drilling a few test wells using the best current technology to find
out and answer the question
has been prohibitted.
Neither she nor you have a clue. "Drilling a few test
wells" would not answer anything. As I've mentioned,
we've been drilling test wells in the NPR-A since the
late 1940's. The USGS predicts that it holds just about
the same type and volume of oil as ANWR. Yet after
decades of drilling, there is not one single production
well in NPR-A.
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.
Yeah, well drilling AROUND it and drilling inside it where the oil is
believed
to be are two very different things.
Not really. The closest producing oil well to ANWR is
more than 30 miles distant, and is nearly worthless
(look up the history of the Badami Field). If ANWR were
full of oil, why is there no oil to the north, the east,
the south or the west of it?
Or, maybe the fact is that you just don't know a thing
about oil! Or the North Slope.
One thing has been very obvious for several years now,
and that is just how little interest the oil companies
actually have in ANWR.
Yeah right. LOL
So just show us where it is! They don't support Arctic
Power's lobbying effort anymore. They don't bid on lease
sales close to ANWR. They hardly say a peep about it.
I know of *no* oil company that is working today at
opening ANWR. Of course, if you know of such, you could
provide more than just your opinion on it... be my
guest!
I've shown were they won't even bid on the ANWR offshore
tracts offered by the State of Alaska. Lets see you show
where they have any interest at all!
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 royalties from Pruhoe don't seem to bother you do they? Keeps
your
taxes nice and low. As far as setting royalties and dividing up who
gets what
that can be determined between the feds and Alaska. Then you have
an auction to award the drilling rights to the highest bidder.
Exactly. I support drilling at Prudhoe, drilling at
Kuparuk, and drilling in reasonable areas of NPR-A
(including on land surrounding Barrow). You might note
that Prudhoe is on State land, not Federal, and your
point that the Feds would benefit from ANWR while a bit
silly, doesn't translate even in the slightest to
Prudhoe.
You just don't seem to know enough about oil on the
North Slope to even talk about this.
If you want to insure only US based company's can bid, Congress can
make
that a restriction too.
But they won't. Therefore it would not have much effect
on balance of payments. You simply need to get your
head around the fact that all that Republican propaganda
you've heard is aimed at fools. It isn't true, it has
no significance, but it gets fools excited. You need to
calm down, fool.
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.
We'd all gain in having another source of oil. If that source were
available today the price of oil could very well be $70 instead of
$90.
There isn't enough oil there, even according to the
wildest exaggerations, to qualify as a significant
alternative source.
Besides, what value is there in burning up all of *our*
oil now, when the major effect would only be to put us
into a terrible pinch in the future when we would have
exactly *no* oil of our own!
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...
No, it makes you appear like a name calling extremist.
See what I mean by foolish. Hiding your head in the sand
with fool ideas, and then calling *me* names isn't going
to get you anything.
Is the State of Alaska an extremist organization for
going after oil companies with criminal charges? Or for
filing civil suits to recover damages?
The tiny footprint in ANWR???? You really are dumb.
The proposed drilling would affect about 1.5 million of
the 1.7 ...
More nonsense
How dumb can you get? You continue to make statements
about a small footprint, but you don't yet understand
what "footprint" is. That's awful dumb, given that it
*has* been explained to you. But again, most of what
you have to say on this subject involves being virtually
ignorant of every detail about oil and the North Slope.
That's the total area where there
MIGHT be oil.
That is the total area which will be affected by just the
initial stages of exploration.
The drill sites are a few acres
Each actual drill pad would be about 100 acres. But
that is not anything near the area that would be
affected. Roads, pipelines, garbage dumps, airports,
gravel pits... none of which are part of that
"footprint", have far more impact on the environment
that the 100 acres drill pad.
But you are abjectly ignorant of any significant
information about how such things function.
amounting to a nit in percentage of ANWR that would be affected. You
The drill sites would indeed be just a nit in the total
percentage that would be affected. Supposedly (but it
isn't something you'd want to believe) they would keep
the drill pads down to only a total of 2000 acres, but
that is out of the 1.5 million that would be affected.
I'll let you do the arithmetic.
really should go find and watch that 60 Minutes story.
I'm going to learn something about the North Slope from
a short 60 Minutes story? You really are naive. If you
provide accurate (as in, cut your own stupid bull****
out of it) details as to what they said, I'll be quite
happy to critique if for you, and explain when they were
correct and when they weren't.
Keep in mind, they were short time visitors. I live
here.
--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)