"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 12:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...

And here we have it folks. A classic case of the alarmist
extremist. Note there is no definition of what constitutes a "toxic
spill". Today, when there is a vehicle accident on the highway and
gas or diesel fuel is released, it's considered a toxic spill.
But is it a big deal and environmental disaster? Of course not.
Depending on the location, it might be an immediate threat to public
health.
I will not give you the obvious examples because your reason for being
in
this discussion is to disagree.

The point is that environmental fear mongering alarmists like to use
words likie "toxic spill" to scare people. A spill from a simple car
accident of fuel or antifreeze isn't what most people would think of
when they hear toxic spill, yet today it qualifies and clean up crews
are routinely dispatched and the incident logged.


Do you think they should NOT be dispatched?

For the most part, yes, I think that as well--it's massive overreaction.

Train car of benzene, sure -- car wreck w/ a hole punched in the
radiator...ummhhh, not so much...


Great! We have a chemist in the discussion. Why is it illegal to dump these
things into a hole in the ground?

Separate question: Tanker filled with diesel fuel - what do YOU think
should be done if there's an accident and the whole load spills onto a
highway?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 12:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...

And here we have it folks. A classic case of the alarmist
extremist. Note there is no definition of what constitutes a "toxic
spill". Today, when there is a vehicle accident on the highway and
gas or diesel fuel is released, it's considered a toxic spill.
But is it a big deal and environmental disaster? Of course not.
Depending on the location, it might be an immediate threat to public
health.
I will not give you the obvious examples because your reason for being
in
this discussion is to disagree.
The point is that environmental fear mongering alarmists like to use
words likie "toxic spill" to scare people. A spill from a simple car
accident of fuel or antifreeze isn't what most people would think of
when they hear toxic spill, yet today it qualifies and clean up crews
are routinely dispatched and the incident logged.

Do you think they should NOT be dispatched?
For the most part, yes, I think that as well--it's massive overreaction.

Train car of benzene, sure -- car wreck w/ a hole punched in the
radiator...ummhhh, not so much...


Great! We have a chemist in the discussion. Why is it illegal to dump these
things into a hole in the ground?

That's controlling a deliberate act rather than results of a minor accident.

Separate question: Tanker filled with diesel fuel - what do YOU think
should be done if there's an accident and the whole load spills onto a
highway?

Offload as much as possible, and pick up what can be, of course.
Full-body HAZMAT suits and the whole deal they've turned it into as a
welfare program for the emergency response lobby--leave it home or send
it back as soon as determine what it was. If it's in a rural area,
easiest solution of the residual would typically be to simply burn it
off, controlling the perimeter.

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 12:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...

And here we have it folks. A classic case of the alarmist
extremist. Note there is no definition of what constitutes a
"toxic
spill". Today, when there is a vehicle accident on the highway and
gas or diesel fuel is released, it's considered a toxic spill.
But is it a big deal and environmental disaster? Of course not.
Depending on the location, it might be an immediate threat to public
health.
I will not give you the obvious examples because your reason for
being in
this discussion is to disagree.
The point is that environmental fear mongering alarmists like to use
words likie "toxic spill" to scare people. A spill from a simple car
accident of fuel or antifreeze isn't what most people would think of
when they hear toxic spill, yet today it qualifies and clean up crews
are routinely dispatched and the incident logged.

Do you think they should NOT be dispatched?
For the most part, yes, I think that as well--it's massive overreaction.

Train car of benzene, sure -- car wreck w/ a hole punched in the
radiator...ummhhh, not so much...


Great! We have a chemist in the discussion. Why is it illegal to dump
these things into a hole in the ground?

That's controlling a deliberate act rather than results of a minor
accident.


Think "deeper". Why is it illegal?



Separate question: Tanker filled with diesel fuel - what do YOU think
should be done if there's an accident and the whole load spills onto a
highway?

Offload as much as possible, and pick up what can be, of course. Full-body
HAZMAT suits and the whole deal they've turned it into as a welfare
program for the emergency response lobby--leave it home or send it back as
soon as determine what it was. If it's in a rural area, easiest solution
of the residual would typically be to simply burn it off, controlling the
perimeter.


Pick it up of course? You said that. Why should it be picked up? The entire
load has spilled. There's a teaspoon left in the tanker.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 12:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...

And here we have it folks. A classic case of the alarmist
extremist. Note there is no definition of what constitutes a
"toxic
spill". Today, when there is a vehicle accident on the highway and
gas or diesel fuel is released, it's considered a toxic spill.
But is it a big deal and environmental disaster? Of course not.
Depending on the location, it might be an immediate threat to public
health.
I will not give you the obvious examples because your reason for
being in
this discussion is to disagree.
The point is that environmental fear mongering alarmists like to use
words likie "toxic spill" to scare people. A spill from a simple car
accident of fuel or antifreeze isn't what most people would think of
when they hear toxic spill, yet today it qualifies and clean up crews
are routinely dispatched and the incident logged.
Do you think they should NOT be dispatched?
For the most part, yes, I think that as well--it's massive overreaction.

Train car of benzene, sure -- car wreck w/ a hole punched in the
radiator...ummhhh, not so much...

Great! We have a chemist in the discussion. Why is it illegal to dump
these things into a hole in the ground?
That's controlling a deliberate act rather than results of a minor
accident.


Think "deeper". Why is it illegal?



Separate question: Tanker filled with diesel fuel - what do YOU think
should be done if there's an accident and the whole load spills onto a
highway?
Offload as much as possible, and pick up what can be, of course. Full-body
HAZMAT suits and the whole deal they've turned it into as a welfare
program for the emergency response lobby--leave it home or send it back as
soon as determine what it was. If it's in a rural area, easiest solution
of the residual would typically be to simply burn it off, controlling the
perimeter.


Pick it up of course? You said that.

No, what I wrote was "what can be"...

Why should it be picked up?

Well, it has some value if nothing else if it has pooled somewhere such
that it can be.

The entire load has spilled. There's a teaspoon left in the tanker.

Sh^htuff happens. Not often that _all_ is lost, however, before
somebody can get there to offload the remainder. Often, if it's an
actual traffic accident that caused it, the solution is already in place
as previously mentioned.

It's not reasonable action I question, it's the practice of carrying
those to extremes that spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars
for no useful effect on insignificant problems that I wonder about...

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 12:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

And here we have it folks. A classic case of the alarmist
extremist. Note there is no definition of what constitutes a
"toxic
spill". Today, when there is a vehicle accident on the highway
and
gas or diesel fuel is released, it's considered a toxic spill.
But is it a big deal and environmental disaster? Of course not.
Depending on the location, it might be an immediate threat to
public health.
I will not give you the obvious examples because your reason for
being in
this discussion is to disagree.
The point is that environmental fear mongering alarmists like to use
words likie "toxic spill" to scare people. A spill from a simple
car
accident of fuel or antifreeze isn't what most people would think of
when they hear toxic spill, yet today it qualifies and clean up
crews
are routinely dispatched and the incident logged.
Do you think they should NOT be dispatched?
For the most part, yes, I think that as well--it's massive
overreaction.

Train car of benzene, sure -- car wreck w/ a hole punched in the
radiator...ummhhh, not so much...

Great! We have a chemist in the discussion. Why is it illegal to dump
these things into a hole in the ground?
That's controlling a deliberate act rather than results of a minor
accident.


Think "deeper". Why is it illegal?



Separate question: Tanker filled with diesel fuel - what do YOU think
should be done if there's an accident and the whole load spills onto a
highway?
Offload as much as possible, and pick up what can be, of course.
Full-body HAZMAT suits and the whole deal they've turned it into as a
welfare program for the emergency response lobby--leave it home or send
it back as soon as determine what it was. If it's in a rural area,
easiest solution of the residual would typically be to simply burn it
off, controlling the perimeter.


Pick it up of course? You said that.

No, what I wrote was "what can be"...

Why should it be picked up?

Well, it has some value if nothing else if it has pooled somewhere such
that it can be.

The entire load has spilled. There's a teaspoon left in the tanker.

Sh^htuff happens. Not often that _all_ is lost, however, before somebody
can get there to offload the remainder. Often, if it's an actual traffic
accident that caused it, the solution is already in place as previously
mentioned.

It's not reasonable action I question, it's the practice of carrying those
to extremes that spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for no
useful effect on insignificant problems that I wonder about...

--


You're still missing something here. Think harder, if possible.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 12:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

And here we have it folks. A classic case of the alarmist
extremist. Note there is no definition of what constitutes a
"toxic
spill". Today, when there is a vehicle accident on the highway
and
gas or diesel fuel is released, it's considered a toxic spill.
But is it a big deal and environmental disaster? Of course not.
Depending on the location, it might be an immediate threat to
public health.
I will not give you the obvious examples because your reason for
being in
this discussion is to disagree.
The point is that environmental fear mongering alarmists like to use
words likie "toxic spill" to scare people. A spill from a simple
car
accident of fuel or antifreeze isn't what most people would think of
when they hear toxic spill, yet today it qualifies and clean up
crews
are routinely dispatched and the incident logged.
Do you think they should NOT be dispatched?
For the most part, yes, I think that as well--it's massive
overreaction.

Train car of benzene, sure -- car wreck w/ a hole punched in the
radiator...ummhhh, not so much...
Great! We have a chemist in the discussion. Why is it illegal to dump
these things into a hole in the ground?
That's controlling a deliberate act rather than results of a minor
accident.

Think "deeper". Why is it illegal?



Separate question: Tanker filled with diesel fuel - what do YOU think
should be done if there's an accident and the whole load spills onto a
highway?
Offload as much as possible, and pick up what can be, of course.
Full-body HAZMAT suits and the whole deal they've turned it into as a
welfare program for the emergency response lobby--leave it home or send
it back as soon as determine what it was. If it's in a rural area,
easiest solution of the residual would typically be to simply burn it
off, controlling the perimeter.

Pick it up of course? You said that.
No, what I wrote was "what can be"...

Why should it be picked up?
Well, it has some value if nothing else if it has pooled somewhere such
that it can be.

The entire load has spilled. There's a teaspoon left in the tanker.
Sh^htuff happens. Not often that _all_ is lost, however, before somebody
can get there to offload the remainder. Often, if it's an actual traffic
accident that caused it, the solution is already in place as previously
mentioned.

It's not reasonable action I question, it's the practice of carrying those
to extremes that spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for no
useful effect on insignificant problems that I wonder about...

--


You're still missing something here. Think harder, if possible.


You're after a different agenda; I'm not playing (of course, I knew that
from the git-go, I do recall the CCA/ACQ thread(s) and your general
paranoia)...

--


--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 12:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

And here we have it folks. A classic case of the alarmist
extremist. Note there is no definition of what constitutes a
"toxic
spill". Today, when there is a vehicle accident on the highway
and
gas or diesel fuel is released, it's considered a toxic spill.
But is it a big deal and environmental disaster? Of course
not.
Depending on the location, it might be an immediate threat to
public health.
I will not give you the obvious examples because your reason for
being in
this discussion is to disagree.
The point is that environmental fear mongering alarmists like to
use
words likie "toxic spill" to scare people. A spill from a simple
car
accident of fuel or antifreeze isn't what most people would think
of
when they hear toxic spill, yet today it qualifies and clean up
crews
are routinely dispatched and the incident logged.
Do you think they should NOT be dispatched?
For the most part, yes, I think that as well--it's massive
overreaction.

Train car of benzene, sure -- car wreck w/ a hole punched in the
radiator...ummhhh, not so much...
Great! We have a chemist in the discussion. Why is it illegal to
dump these things into a hole in the ground?
That's controlling a deliberate act rather than results of a minor
accident.

Think "deeper". Why is it illegal?



Separate question: Tanker filled with diesel fuel - what do YOU
think should be done if there's an accident and the whole load spills
onto a highway?
Offload as much as possible, and pick up what can be, of course.
Full-body HAZMAT suits and the whole deal they've turned it into as a
welfare program for the emergency response lobby--leave it home or
send it back as soon as determine what it was. If it's in a rural
area, easiest solution of the residual would typically be to simply
burn it off, controlling the perimeter.

Pick it up of course? You said that.
No, what I wrote was "what can be"...

Why should it be picked up?
Well, it has some value if nothing else if it has pooled somewhere such
that it can be.

The entire load has spilled. There's a teaspoon left in the tanker.
Sh^htuff happens. Not often that _all_ is lost, however, before
somebody can get there to offload the remainder. Often, if it's an
actual traffic accident that caused it, the solution is already in place
as previously mentioned.

It's not reasonable action I question, it's the practice of carrying
those to extremes that spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars
for no useful effect on insignificant problems that I wonder about...

--


You're still missing something here. Think harder, if possible.


You're after a different agenda; I'm not playing (of course, I knew that
from the git-go, I do recall the CCA/ACQ thread(s) and your general
paranoia)...


Paranoia? No.

Do you believe petroleum products belong in your drinking water? I'll bet
you do.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
I heard on the radio yesterday that the higher cost of living in Florida is
discouraging the snowbirds from bringing in their dollars. Nothing like
higher taxes to kill an economy.

And with the economy sluggish, they will notice the loss of revenue, and
increase taxes to make up for the lost revenue. Which was due to the
higher
taxes.

--

Christopher A. Young;
.

The main Florida problem is a two tiered property tax structure that has
primary resident property owners paying much lower property taxes than
second home owners. Just do a Google on the words "florida" "taxes"
"snowbird" to find a number of articles on the subject.

The second Florida problem is the high cost of home insurance.

On Dec 2, 3:25 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 12:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

And here we have it folks. A classic case of the alarmist
extremist. Note there is no definition of what constitutes a
"toxic
spill". Today, when there is a vehicle accident on the highway
and
gas or diesel fuel is released, it's considered a toxic spill.
But is it a big deal and environmental disaster? Of course
not.
Depending on the location, it might be an immediate threat to
public health.
I will not give you the obvious examples because your reason for
being in
this discussion is to disagree.
The point is that environmental fear mongering alarmists like to
use
words likie "toxic spill" to scare people. A spill from a simple
car
accident of fuel or antifreeze isn't what most people would think
of
when they hear toxic spill, yet today it qualifies and clean up
crews
are routinely dispatched and the incident logged.
Do you think they should NOT be dispatched?
For the most part, yes, I think that as well--it's massive
overreaction.

Train car of benzene, sure -- car wreck w/ a hole punched in the
radiator...ummhhh, not so much...
Great! We have a chemist in the discussion. Why is it illegal to
dump these things into a hole in the ground?
That's controlling a deliberate act rather than results of a minor
accident.

Think "deeper". Why is it illegal?

Separate question: Tanker filled with diesel fuel - what do YOU
think should be done if there's an accident and the whole load spills
onto a highway?
Offload as much as possible, and pick up what can be, of course.
Full-body HAZMAT suits and the whole deal they've turned it into as a
welfare program for the emergency response lobby--leave it home or
send it back as soon as determine what it was. If it's in a rural
area, easiest solution of the residual would typically be to simply
burn it off, controlling the perimeter.

Pick it up of course? You said that.
No, what I wrote was "what can be"...

Why should it be picked up?
Well, it has some value if nothing else if it has pooled somewhere such
that it can be.

The entire load has spilled. There's a teaspoon left in the tanker.
Sh^htuff happens. Not often that _all_ is lost, however, before
somebody can get there to offload the remainder. Often, if it's an
actual traffic accident that caused it, the solution is already in place
as previously mentioned.

It's not reasonable action I question, it's the practice of carrying
those to extremes that spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars
for no useful effect on insignificant problems that I wonder about...

--

You're still missing something here. Think harder, if possible.

You're after a different agenda; I'm not playing (of course, I knew that
from the git-go, I do recall the CCA/ACQ thread(s) and your general
paranoia)...

Paranoia? No.

Do you believe petroleum products belong in your drinking water? I'll bet
you do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Obviously DPB and I agree. You need some sense of balance. When
most people hear the words "toxic spill" they think of tens of
thousands of gallons of something really dangerous, like dixon or
nitric acid, or Love Canal, not a car accident with 15 gallons of
gasoline or some antifreeze. And please show us where that ever
constituted an imminent theat to public health.

The obvious point here is envrionmentalist extremists like to site
numbers like "400 toxic waste spills in Alaska as a reason to ban any
drilling for oil. Many of those 400 incidents could be as simple as
an auto accident releasing 15 gallons of gasoline or some antifreeze
on a highway, which are considered a toxic spill here today. Or it
could be spilling a mere 50 gallons of oil from a barrel. And no,
neither I nor anyone else here suggested those shouldn't be cleaned
up. Only that incidents like this get added to the list of "toxic
spills" and then distorted all out of porpotion compared to the real
environmental impact. If you compare those environmental risk to any
reasonable standard, like 50,000 Americans die in auto accidents every
year, you come to the conclusion that the risk/reward ratio favors
drilling.

I showed you 2 incidents that were part of reported superfund sites.
When people think of superfund sites, they think of Love Canal. One
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". And then they are used by extremists to justify
not drilling in millions of acres of ANWR that has significant, and
possibly huge oil deposits. In a time when we are overly dependent on
foreign oil and running a trade deficit, what logic is there in
that?

And to those that don't want to drill in ANWR, what exactly is your
solution? Are you in favor of more nukes? More coal? How may
miners die mining coal compared to those working on oil rigs?
Putting windmills offshore NJ or Cape Cod? Drilling off the eastern
coast or elsewhere in the US.

Or should the growing world population move into caves? Instead of
telling us what you don't like and tell us what is your solution for a
growing world population?

wrote in message
...

You're after a different agenda; I'm not playing (of course, I knew
that
from the git-go, I do recall the CCA/ACQ thread(s) and your general
paranoia)...

Paranoia? No.

Do you believe petroleum products belong in your drinking water? I'll bet
you do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Obviously DPB and I agree. You need some sense of balance. When
most people hear the words "toxic spill" they think of tens of
thousands of gallons of something really dangerous, like dixon or
nitric acid, or Love Canal, not a car accident with 15 gallons of
gasoline or some antifreeze. And please show us where that ever
constituted an imminent theat to public health.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that a tanker truck only
holds 15 gallons of whatever. See...I used a tanker truck as an example, so
we're gonna stay with that for the moment.

You also seem to be saying that a ****load of gasoline spilled on a highway
would:

- Stay neatly and conveniently on the highway waiting to be cleaned up

- Never find its way into groundwater

You shouldn't say these things, or even imply them. Gasoline may not be the
most toxic thing we have to contend with, as long as it stays where it
belongs. But, in the wrong places, it's trouble.

YOu know that.

wrote:
On Dec 2, 3:25 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Do you believe petroleum products belong in your drinking water? I'll bet
you do.


Obviously DPB and I agree. You need some sense of balance. When

Then again, maybe he was trying to provide it.

most people hear the words "toxic spill" they think of tens of
thousands of gallons of something really dangerous, like dixon or
nitric acid, or Love Canal, not a car accident with 15 gallons of
gasoline or some antifreeze. And please show us where that ever
constituted an imminent theat to public health.

You mean that *you* think of that sort of thing...
mostly because you are clueless.

Maybe most people have a more reasonable exposure to
history, and actually have sane perceptions that aren't
like yours at all.

The obvious point here is envrionmentalist extremists like to site
numbers like "400 toxic waste spills in Alaska as a reason to ban any
drilling for oil.

Nobody made any such statement. You are a liar.

Many of those 400 incidents could be as simple as
an auto accident releasing 15 gallons of gasoline or some antifreeze
on a highway, which are considered a toxic spill here today. Or it

And some of them *are* 100,000 gallons of oily sea
water, or 200,000 gallons of thick crude oil.

You seem to be a bit ill informed.

could be spilling a mere 50 gallons of oil from a barrel. And no,
neither I nor anyone else here suggested those shouldn't be cleaned
up. Only that incidents like this get added to the list of "toxic
spills" and then distorted all out of porpotion compared to the real
environmental impact. If you compare those environmental risk to any
reasonable standard, like 50,000 Americans die in auto accidents every
year, you come to the conclusion that the risk/reward ratio favors
drilling.

You are wrong. In just about every way possible.

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 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.)

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.

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?

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.

And that designation is well deserved.

And then they are used by extremists to justify
not drilling in millions of acres of ANWR that has significant, and
possibly huge oil deposits.

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

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...

And to those that don't want to drill in ANWR, what exactly is your
solution? Are you in favor of more nukes? More coal? How may
miners die mining coal compared to those working on oil rigs?
Putting windmills offshore NJ or Cape Cod? Drilling off the eastern
coast or elsewhere in the US.

Or should the growing world population move into caves? Instead of
telling us what you don't like and tell us what is your solution for a
growing world population?

You should move *out* of that cave!

Oh, here's a bit more... but first a little background
to provide perspective. I was raised on Puget Sound,
which we called "Putrid Sound" due to the pollution.
Even the barn cats wouldn't eat fish caught there. One
reason I live on the North Slope of Alaska is because I
*have* experienced the environmental disaster that you
want to create here.

From http://www.ecy.wa.gov/puget_sound/index.html,

"Puget Sound is sick. We know that:

Toxic chemicals ... entering the food chain. Low
oxygen levels ... are killing fish in Hood Canal ...

Critical habitat ... are damaged by poor development
practices and stormwater runoff.

Oxygen levels ... suffocating fish, crab, sea stars,
wolf eels, octopi and other marine creatures.

... environmental threats are causing populations of
marine birds, fish and marine mammals to plummet."

What causes this, and what are the pathways and mechanism?

Here is a report issued in October, title "Phase 1:
Initial Estimate of Toxic Chemical Loadings to Puget
Sound".

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0710079.pdf

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).

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.

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

On Dec 2, 10:24 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...





You're after a different agenda; I'm not playing (of course, I knew
that
from the git-go, I do recall the CCA/ACQ thread(s) and your general
paranoia)...

Paranoia? No.

Do you believe petroleum products belong in your drinking water? I'll bet
you do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obviously DPB and I agree. You need some sense of balance. When
most people hear the words "toxic spill" they think of tens of
thousands of gallons of something really dangerous, like dixon or
nitric acid, or Love Canal, not a car accident with 15 gallons of
gasoline or some antifreeze. And please show us where that ever
constituted an imminent theat to public health.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that a tanker truck only
holds 15 gallons of whatever. See...I used a tanker truck as an example, so
we're gonna stay with that for the moment.

No, I never said any such thing.



You also seem to be saying that a ****load of gasoline spilled on a highway
would:

- Stay neatly and conveniently on the highway waiting to be cleaned up

- Never find its way into groundwater


Never said that either.



You shouldn't say these things, or even imply them. Gasoline may not be the
most toxic thing we have to contend with, as long as it stays where it
belongs. But, in the wrong places, it's trouble.


Well duh! Did you figure that out all by yourself?




YOu know that.-


You don;t know what I or anyone else knows. I doubt you even know
what you don't know.



Now, one more time. The point that I was making was that when
someone crows about 400 "toxic spills" in Alaska, those spills could
include anything from a release of gasoline from an automobile
accident to a million gallons of benzene. Did you pay attention to
the incident report of a barrel of oil covering 375 sq ft reported to
the EPA as part of a super fund site? Does that sound like a big
environmental disaster to you? BTW, don't bother with your next post
falsely claiming that I said it shouldn't be cleaned up either.

wrote in message
...


Now, one more time. The point that I was making was that when
someone crows about 400 "toxic spills" in Alaska, those spills could
include anything from a release of gasoline from an automobile
accident to a million gallons of benzene. Did you pay attention to
the incident report of a barrel of oil covering 375 sq ft reported to
the EPA as part of a super fund site? Does that sound like a big
environmental disaster to you? BTW, don't bother with your next post
falsely claiming that I said it shouldn't be cleaned up either.


Without even checking, I am positive that the 375 sq ft superfund site was
an exception, unless you focus on one very small geographic area.

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
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.





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.




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.




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
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.



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.



And that designation is well deserved.

And then they are used by extremists to justify
not drilling in millions of acres of ANWR that has significant, and
possibly huge oil deposits.

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



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
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?




And to those that don't want to drill in ANWR, what exactly is your
solution? Are you in favor of more nukes? More coal? How may
miners die mining coal compared to those working on oil rigs?
Putting windmills offshore NJ or Cape Cod? Drilling off the eastern
coast or elsewhere in the US.

Or should the growing world population move into caves? Instead of
telling us what you don't like and tell us what is your solution for a
growing world population?

You should move *out* of that cave!


Typical extremist answer, exactly as expected. Which is that you
have no answer, you just know what's wrong with everything, but have
no answer as to where our energy should come from.




Oh, here's a bit more... but first a little background
to provide perspective. I was raised on Puget Sound,
which we called "Putrid Sound" due to the pollution.
Even the barn cats wouldn't eat fish caught there. One
reason I live on the North Slope of Alaska is because I
*have* experienced the environmental disaster that you
want to create here.


I hope drilling comes to a town near you soon!



From http://www.ecy.wa.gov/puget_sound/index.html,

"Puget Sound is sick. We know that:

Toxic chemicals ... entering the food chain. Low
oxygen levels ... are killing fish in Hood Canal ...

Critical habitat ... are damaged by poor development
practices and stormwater runoff.

Oxygen levels ... suffocating fish, crab, sea stars,
wolf eels, octopi and other marine creatures.

... environmental threats are causing populations of
marine birds, fish and marine mammals to plummet."

What causes this, and what are the pathways and mechanism?

Here is a report issued in October, title "Phase 1:
Initial Estimate of Toxic Chemical Loadings to Puget
Sound".

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0710079.pdf

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




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.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message
...


Now, one more time. The point that I was making was that when
someone crows about 400 "toxic spills" in Alaska, those spills could
include anything from a release of gasoline from an automobile
accident to a million gallons of benzene. Did you pay attention to
the incident report of a barrel of oil covering 375 sq ft reported to
the EPA as part of a super fund site? Does that sound like a big
environmental disaster to you? BTW, don't bother with your next post
falsely claiming that I said it shouldn't be cleaned up either.

Without even checking, I am positive that the 375 sq ft superfund site was
an exception, unless you focus on one very small geographic area.

He simply lied about the significance. That spill had
*no* connection to the area being designated a Superfund
site. The report merely indicated that the spill
happened at a site *already* designated as a Superfund
site.

One reason it has been so designed is the fact that
there have 400 such spills *every* year for 30 years in
the Prudhoe Bay complex. It is hardly insignificant,
and we do realize that when the oil industry leaves it
will take many decades to restore the areas they've
used.

But what is it that causes the vast majority of pollution
in places like Puget Sound (which has been suffering
greatly from pollution for decades)??? Small toxic
waste spills that are miniscule compared to anything
that spreads a barrel of oil over 375 square feet!

This stuff he claims is meaningless is *exactly* what we
want to prevent at critical areas on the North Slope.
We do *not* object to that at Kuparuk, at Prudhoe, or on
just about 95% of the North Slope! We don't want it
near the food supply. ANWR, Teshekpuk Lake, the
Colville River, and the Beaufort Sea Bowhead whale
migration routes are areas where it is simply not
acceptable.

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

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)

On Dec 5, 10:24 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
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.



Did you just wake up? I posted that days ago and thought this
nonsense was over.
Again, you resort to name calling instead of seeing the obvious
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.

And I say the reward of exploring for oil in ANWR outweighs the
risk. If we took your notion of
a mere barrel spill being something that must be avoided at all costs
and translated that into other
areas of human endeavor it looks silly. Especially considering the
amount of oil and natural gas
that has been recovered in places like the Gulf of Mexico in an
offshore environment an order of magnitude
more difficult. See pictures of most of the offshore platforms
toppled or sunk in Katrina? There
was no significant release of oil. But you'd probably find a couple
barrels that did escape somewhere
and try to turn that into a major environmental disaster too. Funny
how you ignore how well drilling in the Gulf, which is far more
difficult, has gone. And if we listened to alarmist like you,
that oil would never have been recovered either. We'd just be
importing more oil from unfriendly sources
and paying even higher prices.





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!

Yeah, as long as it's done in somebody else's back yard. I live 20
miles from a
nuclear power plant. Environmentalists are running around fear
mongering
right now to prevent it's license renewal. I'd be happy if they
built more of them
and added jobs, energy and tax revenue. That's because I have a
reasonable
assessment of the risk vs reward and am willing to share an extremely
low risk
for the benefit.





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..

Bread basket? Exactly how much bread is being produced in ANWR?





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
environment is fleeing and going
to what you consider a pristine environment? Doesn't your own
presence contaminate it?
Or don;t you take a crap, generate waste, drive around and consume
energy? Remember all
those horrifying little everday spill from the likes of a car accident
that you claim are worse for
the environment than a major spill? Well, the more people that do
what you did and move there
the more of that you are going to have.

If everybody left Puget Sound and ran off to the Noth Slope, what
would the environment
then become at the North Slope? How about we extend that to people
moving there
from every other area that they don't like for some environmental
reason. I can send
10,000 from NJ here that want to flee the nuke that has been running
here safely for
40 years. Follow your ideas of fleeing and soon the North Slope
will be a major urban
center.





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 was an excellent story on this on 60 Minutes a couple years ago.
And 60 Minutes is
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. 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.





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.




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





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 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.

If you want to insure only US based company's can bid, Congress can
make
that a restriction too.




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.

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.



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.




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.

More extemist nonsense.



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 ...



More nonsense and name calling. That's the total area where there
MIGHT be oil. The drill sites are a few acres
amounting to a nit in percentage of ANWR that would be affected. You
really should go find and watch that 60 Minutes story.

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)