$3.25 gal. is higher than a gal. of premium gasoline ($3.17) today.

In 4/07, #2 oil was $2.55.

In 12/06, it was $2.44.

People will be dialing back this winter, and not because Green Al Gore
toed them to.

"Jack" Windswept@Home wrote in message
...
$3.25 gal. is higher than a gal. of premium gasoline ($3.17) today.

In 4/07, #2 oil was $2.55.

In 12/06, it was $2.44.

People will be dialing back this winter, and not because Green Al Gore
toed them to.


It's fun sending money to people who want to kill us.

http://www.fas.org/asmp/resources/go...h/HR2037ih.htm

Jack wrote:
$3.25 gal. is higher than a gal. of premium gasoline ($3.17) today.

In 4/07, #2 oil was $2.55.

In 12/06, it was $2.44.

People will be dialing back this winter, and not because Green Al Gore
toed them to.

Certainly an ad for ground source heat pump, it would seem--or, the
waste heat off a spent fuel pool would be another possible source if
happened to be close by...

--

Jack Windswept@Home wrote:
$3.25 gal. is higher than a gal. of premium gasoline ($3.17) today.

In 4/07, #2 oil was $2.55.

In 12/06, it was $2.44.

People will be dialing back this winter, and not because Green Al Gore
toed them to.

If that fool is toeing people, he should be toed himself, right up the arse.

People used to burn home heating oil in their Diesel cars and trucks.
Now it is the same or even more than Diesel at the pump- that has 40+
cents/gal tax on it. I switched to heat pumps from propane in 2000 and
haven't regretted it. How much is your propane? I haven't checked here--
imagine it is over $2.00/gal. I still have the propane for the cooktop,
and the furnaces which only fire up when the HP's go into defrost.
Larry

"Jack" Windswept@Home wrote in message
...
$3.25 gal. is higher than a gal. of premium gasoline ($3.17) today.

In 4/07, #2 oil was $2.55.

In 12/06, it was $2.44.

People will be dialing back this winter, and not because Green Al Gore
toed them to.

Today's wholesale spread is 32 cents, the NYMEX shows heating oil at $2.58
and gasoline at $2.26.

PECO natural gas rate as of Dec 1, 2007 is $1.28 CCF compared to $1.24 CCF
Dec 1, 2006.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jack" Windswept@Home wrote in message
...
$3.25 gal. is higher than a gal. of premium gasoline ($3.17) today.

In 4/07, #2 oil was $2.55.

In 12/06, it was $2.44.

People will be dialing back this winter, and not because Green Al Gore
toed them to.


It's fun sending money to people who want to kill us.

http://www.fas.org/asmp/resources/go...h/HR2037ih.htm


My state, Delaware, is fighting New Jersey to prevent them from putting
a LNG depot on the Delaware river. It would provide enough gas for 14
million homes. They are also going to crucify us by putting in offshore
windmills for green electricity.

On Nov 29, 12:16 pm, Windswept@Home (Jack) wrote:
$3.25 gal. is higher than a gal. of premium gasoline ($3.17) today.

In 4/07, #2 oil was $2.55.

In 12/06, it was $2.44.

People will be dialing back this winter, and not because Green Al Gore
toed them to.

I live three miles from the North Pole Flint Hills Refinery in
Alaska. I am paying $3.27 a gallon for No.1 fuel oil.
The crude is shipped another 350 mile via the trans-Alaska pipeline
then by tanker to the West Coast of the USA where they pay less.
Figure that one out.
In some of the 200 Alaskan remote villages like along the Yukon river
they are paying about $6.00 a gallon.
A lot of people are switching to wood.

In article f09fce7b-fe54-4b5e-b8a6-e38faa865b44
@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com, says...
On Nov 29, 12:16 pm, Windswept@Home (Jack) wrote:
$3.25 gal. is higher than a gal. of premium gasoline ($3.17) today.

In 4/07, #2 oil was $2.55.

In 12/06, it was $2.44.

People will be dialing back this winter, and not because Green Al Gore
toed them to.

I live three miles from the North Pole Flint Hills Refinery in
Alaska. I am paying $3.27 a gallon for No.1 fuel oil.
The crude is shipped another 350 mile via the trans-Alaska pipeline
then by tanker to the West Coast of the USA where they pay less.
Figure that one out.

What do you pay for housing (I.e. cost of living)?

In some of the 200 Alaskan remote villages like along the Yukon river
they are paying about $6.00 a gallon.
A lot of people are switching to wood

Hpw much wood is available? What's the cost? Does it make any
sense?


--
Keith

"Jack" Windswept@Home wrote in message
...
$3.25 gal. is higher than a gal. of premium gasoline ($3.17) today.

In 4/07, #2 oil was $2.55.

In 12/06, it was $2.44.

People will be dialing back this winter, and not because Green Al Gore
toed them to.

When I was in Italy earlier this year paid 1.10 Euro per liter for heating
oil where I stayed. I paid 1.28 E per liter for gas, so with the exchange
rate it worked out to $6.40 a gallon. A week ago in Amsterdam it was 1.70
and the Euro is now in the 1.49 range so it is closer to $10 a gallon.

lp13-30 wrote:
People used to burn home heating oil in their Diesel cars and trucks.
Now it is the same or even more than Diesel at the pump- that has 40+
cents/gal tax on it. I switched to heat pumps from propane in 2000 and
haven't regretted it. How much is your propane? (snipped)

Our propane (800 gallons) is contracted this year at $1.54/gal. Don't
know what it currently is straight off the truck.

Don (SE Iowa)

If I were made dictator, I'd force anyone in the us (outside of
Alaska) to convert the oil heat to something else, like a geothermal
heat pump.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Jack" Windswept@Home wrote in message
...
$3.25 gal. is higher than a gal. of premium gasoline ($3.17) today.

In 4/07, #2 oil was $2.55.

In 12/06, it was $2.44.

People will be dialing back this winter, and not because Green Al Gore
toed them to.

When I was in Italy earlier this year paid 1.10 Euro per liter for heating
oil where I stayed. I paid 1.28 E per liter for gas, so with the exchange
rate it worked out to $6.40 a gallon. A week ago in Amsterdam it was 1.70
and the Euro is now in the 1.49 range so it is closer to $10 a gallon.



But not really a fair comparison because they have significantly higher
taxes on fuels than we do.

on 11/30/2007 3:03 PM said the following:
If I were made dictator, I'd force anyone in the us (outside of
Alaska) to convert the oil heat to something else, like a geothermal
heat pump.

If I could afford the initial cost, I would have solar panels on my roof.
Funny, how all the proponents of renewable energy, and who make millions
of dollars per year, don't want to cheapen their mansions with solar
panels, with the exception of Julia Roberts, who has all the panels and
solar heaters.
Does Al Gore walk the walk?

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"George" wrote in message
When I was in Italy earlier this year paid 1.10 Euro per liter for
heating oil where I stayed. I paid 1.28 E per liter for gas, so with the
exchange rate it worked out to $6.40 a gallon. A week ago in Amsterdam
it was 1.70 and the Euro is now in the 1.49 range so it is closer to $10
a gallon.

But not really a fair comparison because they have significantly higher
taxes on fuels than we do.

True, but that is what they pay regardless of where the money goes. The
cost of #2 heating oil is the same as diesel fuel so it in not uncommon to
buy 5 gallons at a time from the local station rather than the 200 gallons
we'd get delivered here.

Given the cost of fuel, the drop in value of the dollar, I'm abandoning my
plans to go again in the spring. Airfare alone has increased by $500 per
ticket. The same trip we did this year to next is about $2500 more for the
two of us.

Jerry wrote:
On Nov 29, 12:16 pm, Windswept@Home (Jack) wrote:
$3.25 gal. is higher than a gal. of premium gasoline ($3.17) today.

In 4/07, #2 oil was $2.55.

In 12/06, it was $2.44.

People will be dialing back this winter, and not because Green Al Gore
toed them to.

I live three miles from the North Pole Flint Hills Refinery in
Alaska. I am paying $3.27 a gallon for No.1 fuel oil.
The crude is shipped another 350 mile via the trans-Alaska pipeline
then by tanker to the West Coast of the USA where they pay less.
Figure that one out.
In some of the 200 Alaskan remote villages like along the Yukon river
they are paying about $6.00 a gallon.
A lot of people are switching to wood.

Deja-vu all over again. (Yogi Berra) (Like, back in the 18th century.)

Funny how waste/trash can be seen as a resource. Sure works for me.

John

George wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Jack" Windswept@Home wrote in message
...
$3.25 gal. is higher than a gal. of premium gasoline ($3.17) today.

In 4/07, #2 oil was $2.55.

In 12/06, it was $2.44.

People will be dialing back this winter, and not because Green Al Gore
toed them to.

When I was in Italy earlier this year paid 1.10 Euro per liter for
heating oil where I stayed. I paid 1.28 E per liter for gas, so with
the exchange rate it worked out to $6.40 a gallon. A week ago in
Amsterdam it was 1.70 and the Euro is now in the 1.49 range so it is
closer to $10 a gallon.


But not really a fair comparison because they have significantly higher
taxes on fuels than we do.

Methinks you miss the point. European countries without petroleum
reserves long back decided to discourage consumption, and still do. Sure
cuts down on the # of Escalades and Hummers, as opposed to back here in
Detroit.

John

In ,
Jerry wrote in part:

I live three miles from the North Pole Flint Hills Refinery in
Alaska. I am paying $3.27 a gallon for No.1 fuel oil.
The crude is shipped another 350 mile via the trans-Alaska pipeline
then by tanker to the West Coast of the USA where they pay less.
Figure that one out.

I know a bit of a "scandal" in the Philadelphia area. Generally, the
closer one is gasoline-shoping to the Sunoco refinery in SW Philadelphia,
the higher gasoline prices are.

The reason I suspect: The farther one is from Sunoco's nearest
competitor, the higher the price charged by Sunoco.

I also suspect that Sunoco is far from the only one who does this.

- Don Klipstein )

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
If I was dictator, I'd repeal a lot of useless regulations that stifle
capitalism. Such as the restrictions on drilling in Alaska.

--

Christopher A. Young;


I'm OK with that, as long as one thing changes: If a company slobs up the
place by breaking laws surrounding drilling, the CEO of the company is taken
away in handcuffs immediately, just as if he'd shot a cop and it was
recorded on videotape. No white collar treatment.

On Dec 1, 10:22 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message

...

If I was dictator, I'd repeal a lot of useless regulations that stifle
capitalism. Such as the restrictions on drilling in Alaska.

--

Christopher A. Young;

I'm OK with that, as long as one thing changes: If a company slobs up the
place by breaking laws surrounding drilling, the CEO of the company is taken
away in handcuffs immediately, just as if he'd shot a cop and it was
recorded on videotape. No white collar treatment.

You make it sound like drilling for oil is a major source of
environmental damage. In fact, the record of drilling without
signifiicant harm to the environment over the last several decades is
pretty damn good. Just take a look at the Gulf of Mexico, which
presents a far greater challenge than drilling in a tiny footprint on
land in ANWR. See any oil spills in the Gulf?? What happened during
Katrina? Many of the oil platforms were completely destroyed,
toppled over, sunk to the ocean floor. Did you see or hear any
reports of oil spills or leakage? No, because with current technology
it can be done with minimal risk.

Where has there been significant oil spills? From tankers
transporting oil, which is only more likely the more we import.

This big danger of drilling is just an environmental extremist myth,
perpetuated by radicals who are against every form of energy and
prefer to believe in fairy tails, like an electric car with no
emissions fueled by electricity just coming out of the wall in
unlimited amounts.

wrote in message
...
On Dec 1, 10:22 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message

...

If I was dictator, I'd repeal a lot of useless regulations that stifle
capitalism. Such as the restrictions on drilling in Alaska.

--

Christopher A. Young;

I'm OK with that, as long as one thing changes: If a company slobs up
the
place by breaking laws surrounding drilling, the CEO of the company is
taken
away in handcuffs immediately, just as if he'd shot a cop and it was
recorded on videotape. No white collar treatment.

You make it sound like drilling for oil is a major source of
environmental damage. In fact, the record of drilling without
signifiicant harm to the environment over the last several decades is
pretty damn good. Just take a look at the Gulf of Mexico, which
presents a far greater challenge than drilling in a tiny footprint on
land in ANWR. See any oil spills in the Gulf?? What happened during
Katrina? Many of the oil platforms were completely destroyed,
toppled over, sunk to the ocean floor. Did you see or hear any
reports of oil spills or leakage? No, because with current technology
it can be done with minimal risk.

Where has there been significant oil spills? From tankers
transporting oil, which is only more likely the more we import.


Let me try this on you: A relatively tiny number of people commit murder.
Should that statistic be used to determine the penalties for murder?

On Dec 1, 10:54 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Dec 1, 10:22 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message

.. .

If I was dictator, I'd repeal a lot of useless regulations that stifle
capitalism. Such as the restrictions on drilling in Alaska.

--

Christopher A. Young;

I'm OK with that, as long as one thing changes: If a company slobs up
the
place by breaking laws surrounding drilling, the CEO of the company is
taken
away in handcuffs immediately, just as if he'd shot a cop and it was
recorded on videotape. No white collar treatment.

You make it sound like drilling for oil is a major source of
environmental damage. In fact, the record of drilling without
signifiicant harm to the environment over the last several decades is
pretty damn good. Just take a look at the Gulf of Mexico, which
presents a far greater challenge than drilling in a tiny footprint on
land in ANWR. See any oil spills in the Gulf?? What happened during
Katrina? Many of the oil platforms were completely destroyed,
toppled over, sunk to the ocean floor. Did you see or hear any
reports of oil spills or leakage? No, because with current technology
it can be done with minimal risk.

Where has there been significant oil spills? From tankers
transporting oil, which is only more likely the more we import.

Let me try this on you: A relatively tiny number of people commit murder.
Should that statistic be used to determine the penalties for murder?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since you can't refute the claim that drilling for oil has been done
repsonsibly for decades here without damage to the environment, you
now want to talk about comparing it to murder? The specific comment
was the ban on drilling in ANWR, Alaska which is based on the false
premise that it can't be done without destroying the environment.
You're proposing draconian penalties for a problem that doesn't
exist. And those draconian penalties would just be another roadblock
to energy development and economic progress.

wrote in message
...
On Dec 1, 10:54 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Dec 1, 10:22 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message

.. .

If I was dictator, I'd repeal a lot of useless regulations that
stifle
capitalism. Such as the restrictions on drilling in Alaska.

--

Christopher A. Young;

I'm OK with that, as long as one thing changes: If a company slobs up
the
place by breaking laws surrounding drilling, the CEO of the company is
taken
away in handcuffs immediately, just as if he'd shot a cop and it was
recorded on videotape. No white collar treatment.

You make it sound like drilling for oil is a major source of
environmental damage. In fact, the record of drilling without
signifiicant harm to the environment over the last several decades is
pretty damn good. Just take a look at the Gulf of Mexico, which
presents a far greater challenge than drilling in a tiny footprint on
land in ANWR. See any oil spills in the Gulf?? What happened during
Katrina? Many of the oil platforms were completely destroyed,
toppled over, sunk to the ocean floor. Did you see or hear any
reports of oil spills or leakage? No, because with current technology
it can be done with minimal risk.

Where has there been significant oil spills? From tankers
transporting oil, which is only more likely the more we import.

Let me try this on you: A relatively tiny number of people commit
murder.
Should that statistic be used to determine the penalties for murder?-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since you can't refute the claim that drilling for oil has been done
repsonsibly for decades here without damage to the environment, you
now want to talk about comparing it to murder? The specific comment
was the ban on drilling in ANWR, Alaska which is based on the false
premise that it can't be done without destroying the environment.
You're proposing draconian penalties for a problem that doesn't
exist. And those draconian penalties would just be another roadblock
to energy development and economic progress.


I agree that problems are rare. Read that again, and don't respond to it
again.

**IF** problems are clear violations of the law, then there is no reason to
treat violators with kid gloves. It happens, though, because violators of
environmental laws tend to have friends in high places. You are fully aware
of that.

On Dec 1, 11:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Dec 1, 10:54 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Dec 1, 10:22 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message

.. .

If I was dictator, I'd repeal a lot of useless regulations that
stifle
capitalism. Such as the restrictions on drilling in Alaska.

--

Christopher A. Young;

I'm OK with that, as long as one thing changes: If a company slobs up
the
place by breaking laws surrounding drilling, the CEO of the company is
taken
away in handcuffs immediately, just as if he'd shot a cop and it was
recorded on videotape. No white collar treatment.

You make it sound like drilling for oil is a major source of
environmental damage. In fact, the record of drilling without
signifiicant harm to the environment over the last several decades is
pretty damn good. Just take a look at the Gulf of Mexico, which
presents a far greater challenge than drilling in a tiny footprint on
land in ANWR. See any oil spills in the Gulf?? What happened during
Katrina? Many of the oil platforms were completely destroyed,
toppled over, sunk to the ocean floor. Did you see or hear any
reports of oil spills or leakage? No, because with current technology
it can be done with minimal risk.

Where has there been significant oil spills? From tankers
transporting oil, which is only more likely the more we import.

Let me try this on you: A relatively tiny number of people commit
murder.
Should that statistic be used to determine the penalties for murder?-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since you can't refute the claim that drilling for oil has been done
repsonsibly for decades here without damage to the environment, you
now want to talk about comparing it to murder? The specific comment
was the ban on drilling in ANWR, Alaska which is based on the false
premise that it can't be done without destroying the environment.
You're proposing draconian penalties for a problem that doesn't
exist. And those draconian penalties would just be another roadblock
to energy development and economic progress.

I agree that problems are rare. Read that again, and don't respond to it
again.

Then don't start fixing problems that don't exist. You sound like
the idiot politicians here in NJ. Instead of fixxing the real
problems of high taxes, huge waste and corruption they instead focus
on stupid nits. The latest is a bill to require auto insurance
companies to make the insurance ID cards smaller so they will fit
better in a wallet.




**IF** problems are clear violations of the law, then there is no reason to
treat violators with kid gloves. It happens, though, because violators of
environmental laws tend to have friends in high places. You are fully aware
of that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Kid gloves? LOL, you've obviously never dealt with the EPA. Bye the
way, you want the CEO taken away in handcuffs like a murderer if the
company "breaks laws and slobs up the place." How about if the CEO
had no involvement in the incident. Suppose someone on the site
did it without the CEO's knowledge? I guess that doesn't concern a
lib like you, cause it's a CEO, not a murderer. Following this logic,
if someone drives an HVAC truck and runs a red light and hits another
car, the owner of the company should go to jail.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...

**IF** problems are clear violations of the law, then there is no reason
to
treat violators with kid gloves. It happens, though, because violators of
environmental laws tend to have friends in high places. You are fully
aware
of that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Kid gloves? LOL, you've obviously never dealt with the EPA.


For decades, the EPA has not been able to get General Electric to clean up
its sins in the Hudson River. Delays after delays after delays, and it's all
due to friends in high places. You know that.



Bye the
way, you want the CEO taken away in handcuffs like a murderer if the
company "breaks laws and slobs up the place." How about if the CEO
had no involvement in the incident. Suppose someone on the site
did it without the CEO's knowledge?


The buck stops at the top. The fastest way to get answers is to haul the CEO
off his golf cart, like any other common criminal. We have what - 48 hours
to press charges or release a prisoner? That's more than enough time for
things to work themselves out.


I guess that doesn't concern a
lib like you, cause it's a CEO, not a murderer. Following this logic,
if someone drives an HVAC truck and runs a red light and hits another
car, the owner of the company should go to jail.


You have no evidence that I'm a liberal.

Only your words here, that's true...

--

wrote in message
...

**IF** problems are clear violations of the law, then there is no reason
to
treat violators with kid gloves. It happens, though, because violators of
environmental laws tend to have friends in high places. You are fully
aware
of that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Kid gloves? LOL, you've obviously never dealt with the EPA.


For decades, the EPA has not been able to get General Electric to clean up
its sins in the Hudson River. Delays after delays after delays, and it's all
due to friends in high places. You know that.



Bye the
way, you want the CEO taken away in handcuffs like a murderer if the
company "breaks laws and slobs up the place." How about if the CEO
had no involvement in the incident. Suppose someone on the site
did it without the CEO's knowledge?


The buck stops at the top. The fastest way to get answers is to haul the CEO
off his golf cart, like any other common criminal. We have what - 48 hours
to press charges or release a prisoner? That's more than enough time for
things to work themselves out.


I guess that doesn't concern a
lib like you, cause it's a CEO, not a murderer. Following this logic,
if someone drives an HVAC truck and runs a red light and hits another
car, the owner of the company should go to jail.


You have no evidence that I'm a liberal.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...

**IF** problems are clear violations of the law, then there is no
reason to
treat violators with kid gloves. It happens, though, because violators
of
environmental laws tend to have friends in high places. You are fully
aware
of that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Kid gloves? LOL, you've obviously never dealt with the EPA.


For decades, the EPA has not been able to get General Electric to clean
up its sins in the Hudson River. Delays after delays after delays, and
it's all due to friends in high places. You know that.



Bye the
way, you want the CEO taken away in handcuffs like a murderer if the
company "breaks laws and slobs up the place." How about if the CEO
had no involvement in the incident. Suppose someone on the site
did it without the CEO's knowledge?


The buck stops at the top. The fastest way to get answers is to haul the
CEO off his golf cart, like any other common criminal. We have what - 48
hours to press charges or release a prisoner? That's more than enough
time for things to work themselves out.


I guess that doesn't concern a
lib like you, cause it's a CEO, not a murderer. Following this logic,
if someone drives an HVAC truck and runs a red light and hits another
car, the owner of the company should go to jail.


You have no evidence that I'm a liberal.

Only your words here, that's true...


Be specific, if you can. Words, concepts, etc. Which ones? Quote them
clearly in your next message.

Stormin Mormon wrote:

I heard on the radio yesterday that the higher cost of living in
Florida is discouraging the snowbirds from bringing in their dollars.

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Nothing like higher taxes to kill an economy.

Or just higher prices, not taxes.

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

Yeah, yeah, end of civilisation as we know it any day now.

Which was due to the higher taxes.

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
If I was dictator, I'd repeal a lot of useless regulations that stifle
capitalism. Such as the restrictions on drilling in Alaska.

--

Christopher A. Young;


I'm OK with that, as long as one thing changes: If a company slobs up the
place by breaking laws surrounding drilling, the CEO of the company is
taken
away in handcuffs immediately, just as if he'd shot a cop and it was
recorded on videotape. No white collar treatment.


And you really think you'd get any oil?



Rules are rules. Why make exceptions for people who wear ties?

wrote in message
...

This big danger of drilling is just an environmental extremist myth,
perpetuated by radicals who are against every form of energy and
prefer to believe in fairy tails, like an electric car with no
emissions fueled by electricity just coming out of the wall in
unlimited amounts.



I have a question for you. Do oil rigs require a human presence to operate
them?

On Dec 1, 11:29 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...

This big danger of drilling is just an environmental extremist myth,
perpetuated by radicals who are against every form of energy and
prefer to believe in fairy tails, like an electric car with no
emissions fueled by electricity just coming out of the wall in
unlimited amounts.


OK so the gist of your statement is name calling extremist myth
radials fairy tails.
this whole statement is just simply broad brush it is akin to saying
that someone who breaks the law through speeding is part of "that
group of outlaws and murders who are responsible for all the violence
in society"

On Dec 1, 3:09 pm, wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:29 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...

This big danger of drilling is just an environmental extremist myth,
perpetuated by radicals who are against every form of energy and
prefer to believe in fairy tails, like an electric car with no
emissions fueled by electricity just coming out of the wall in
unlimited amounts.

OK so the gist of your statement is name calling extremist myth
radials fairy tails.
this whole statement is just simply broad brush it is akin to saying
that someone who breaks the law through speeding is part of "that
group of outlaws and murders who are responsible for all the violence
in society"

Sorry if you think it's name calling. But I see environmental
extremists all the time who stand in the way of any energy progress
and are totally unrealistic.

Here;s some prime examples:

The global warming proponents say we risk a total environmental
disaster that will jeopardize life on the planet in a few decades
unless something is done immediately. Well, if the threat is so
grave, why are the same folks dead set against building more nuclear
power plants? Sure, nukes aren't perfect, but if the danger is so
great, why not start using something readily available that could go
online in a few years with zero CO2 emissions and also reduce our
dependence on foreign energy?

Other environmentalists tell us to use wind. Here in NJ, there has
been much talk about putting up windmills offshore to generate
electricity. So, who's against that? Same environmentalists who
now say it will harm fish and birds. Want to build a new power
line? Their against that too.

What do they like? Pie in the ski crap like the electric car that
you just plug in the wall. They have no concept that the energy
that's on the other end of the wire has to come from somewhere. Or
the hydrogen car. Great idea, but they completely ignore that the
hydrogen has to come from somewhere. Their idiot answer to that
problem: water. I learned in high school chemistry that it takes as
much energy to break the hydrogen/oxygen bonds as you later get when
you recombine them by burning it. In other words, yes you can get
hydrogen from water to run your car, but the energy to do that still
has to come from somewhere.

The environmental obstructionists (there's a new name for you), ignore
all of that and just go on whistling past the grave yard. They're
like the kid Mikey from the old TV commercial. They just don't like
anything.

wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
You make it sound like drilling for oil is a major source of
environmental damage. In fact, the record of drilling without
signifiicant harm to the environment over the last several decades is
pretty damn good.

You've been drinking again?

Just take a look at the Gulf of Mexico, which
presents a far greater challenge than drilling in a tiny footprint on
land in ANWR.

Hilarious concept. But false.

See any oil spills in the Gulf?? What happened during
Katrina? Many of the oil platforms were completely destroyed,
toppled over, sunk to the ocean floor. Did you see or hear any
reports of oil spills or leakage? No, because with current technology
it can be done with minimal risk.

Where has there been significant oil spills? From tankers
transporting oil, which is only more likely the more we import.

There are more than 400 toxic spills on the North Slope
*every* year. There have been several large oil spills,
some of which have been caused by willful negligence on
the part of operating companies.

The Prudhoe Bay Industrial Complex is a superfund site!
The whole complex! (Actually, Kuparuk is listed as one
and Prudhoe Bay is listed as one, so the whole complex
is listed as two superfund sites.)

Let me try this on you: A relatively tiny number of people commit murder.
Should that statistic be used to determine the penalties for murder?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since you can't refute the claim that drilling for oil has been done
repsonsibly for decades here without damage to the environment, you

The idea that we can drill "responsibly" just anywhere
on the North Slope is patently ridiculous. That has
gone to court, and the courts have ruled that it has not
been shown to be true either for onshore or offshore
locations. ANWR is hardly the only sensitive area of
the North Slope.

now want to talk about comparing it to murder? The specific comment
was the ban on drilling in ANWR, Alaska which is based on the false
premise that it can't be done without destroying the environment.

That is a fact. It is not based on false premises, and
has been rather well demonstrated. The exact same
premises have been tried in court, in regard to the area
around Teshekpuk Lake, and proposed drilling was
stopped.

Your argument is baseless. So far you have not cited
any specifics, and I challenge you to do so! I would be
happy to go into extreme details, and to provide
credible cites and references, to demonstrate what
actually is true!

You're proposing draconian penalties for a problem that doesn't
exist. And those draconian penalties would just be another roadblock
to energy development and economic progress.

Poppycock. That's a bunch of political jive meant to
hype voters. ANWR presents *no* significant
opportunities for significant "energy development" or
"economic progress" on a national basis. Try to cite
figures that demonstrate it! I'll be happy to provide
the context that shows why your figures are
insignificant.

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

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:24:47 -0800 (PST), wrote
Re $3.249 Gal. For #2 Home Heating Oil:

Sorry if you think it's name calling. But I see environmental
extremists all the time who stand in the way of any energy progress
and are totally unrealistic.

Here;s some prime examples:

The global warming proponents say we risk a total environmental
disaster that will jeopardize life on the planet in a few decades
unless something is done immediately. Well, if the threat is so
grave, why are the same folks dead set against building more nuclear
power plants? Sure, nukes aren't perfect, but if the danger is so
great, why not start using something readily available that could go
online in a few years with zero CO2 emissions and also reduce our
dependence on foreign energy?

Other environmentalists tell us to use wind. Here in NJ, there has
been much talk about putting up windmills offshore to generate
electricity. So, who's against that? Same environmentalists who
now say it will harm fish and birds. Want to build a new power
line? Their against that too.

What do they like? Pie in the ski crap like the electric car that
you just plug in the wall. They have no concept that the energy
that's on the other end of the wire has to come from somewhere. Or
the hydrogen car. Great idea, but they completely ignore that the
hydrogen has to come from somewhere. Their idiot answer to that
problem: water. I learned in high school chemistry that it takes as
much energy to break the hydrogen/oxygen bonds as you later get when
you recombine them by burning it. In other words, yes you can get
hydrogen from water to run your car, but the energy to do that still
has to come from somewhere.

The environmental obstructionists (there's a new name for you), ignore
all of that and just go on whistling past the grave yard. They're
like the kid Mikey from the old TV commercial. They just don't like
anything.


Good post!

On Dec 2, 1:35 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
You make it sound like drilling for oil is a major source of
environmental damage. In fact, the record of drilling without
signifiicant harm to the environment over the last several decades is
pretty damn good.

You've been drinking again?

Just take a look at the Gulf of Mexico, which
presents a far greater challenge than drilling in a tiny footprint on
land in ANWR.

Hilarious concept. But false.

See any oil spills in the Gulf?? What happened during
Katrina? Many of the oil platforms were completely destroyed,
toppled over, sunk to the ocean floor. Did you see or hear any
reports of oil spills or leakage? No, because with current technology
it can be done with minimal risk.

Where has there been significant oil spills? From tankers
transporting oil, which is only more likely the more we import.

There are more than 400 toxic spills on the North Slope
*every* year. There have been several large oil spills,
some of which have been caused by willful negligence on
the part of operating companies.

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.



The Prudhoe Bay Industrial Complex is a superfund site!
The whole complex! (Actually, Kuparuk is listed as one
and Prudhoe Bay is listed as one, so the whole complex
is listed as two superfund sites.)

Now let's look at the facts behind this alarmist report intended to
scare. Sure sounds bad. But let's see what it takes to get on the
list of Superfund sites today. From the EPA description of Superfund
sites here are the two sites referenced above:

Prudhoe Bay-

On April 12th, 2005 BP discovered and reported a release of natural
gas and an undetermined amount of condensate from a damaged flowline
at drill site 14 in their Greater Prudhoe Bay crude oil production
field on the North Slope of Alaska. An updated volume of 1.4 million
standard cubic feet of gas and a range of 10-20 barrels of liquids
was provided by BP. The source of the release is a gas line that
transports pressurized natural gas to the drill site for injection
into the reservoir to aid in crude oil recovery. Initial reports
indicate a weld failure caused the release. The release resulted in
gas condensate / crude oil being misted onto the well pad, the
manifold building, various piping associated with the production pad
and onto the surrounding frozen, snow covered tundra. The material
lightly misted the surface of a large area around the pad; the impact
area size is estimated to be app 4,600 feet long by 500 feet wide, app
50 acres. Winter conditions currently exist on the North Slope with
frozen tundra covered by snow. Daytime temperatures are -2F with 9 mph
winds from the east. The light mist appears to be on the surface of
the snow only. Clean-up activates will involve removal of contaminated
snow surface that is misted with condensate droplets and cleaning of
well pad surfaces and structures. BP is mobilizing additional spill
responders through Alaska Clean Seas, (ACS) the North Slope clean-up
co-operative , app. 40 personnel are involved in the site clean-up.
ADEC has a responder on site for state oversight of response
operations. EPA will coordinate oversight through ADEC and RP and keep
stakeholder informed of response progress.

Kuparuk-

On March 9th at 16:15 local time Conoc Philips operator of the Kuparuk
Crude Oil Production Field on the North Slope of Alaska reported a
produce water spill from a 24 inch flowline running from thiere Drill
Site 2M to the Central Crude Oil Processing Center # 2. A fast tank
was place under the line within 30 minutes of discharge discovery
however intial reports from responders indicate that approximated 375
square feet of snow covered tundra was impacted. The pipeline has been
shutdown and is being depressurized to allow workers to strip off
insulation and locate the source of the discharge. Efforts are ongoing
to fully delineate the spill size including the impact area. EPA
acessed the OSLTF and tasked our START contractor to utilize a BOA
with a Historic Properties Specialist to perform a cultural resources
check.


So, in the case of Prudhoe Bay, this big superfund site consists of a
discharge of natural gas and some light condensate mist on the surface
which was quickly caught by Arco and self-reporte to the EPA and
cleanup begun. It covered 53 acres, but considering it was light
airborne mist and easily cleaned up, it sure doesn't sound like a mega
disaster or what most people would think it would take to even be on a
superfund site list.

In the case of Kaparuk, a pipeline leak was discovered within 30 mins
of occurence and a whopping 375 sq ft of surface area was
contaminated. Again, the incident was promptly reported to the EPA.

Any reasonable assessment of this would conclude that:

1 - These 2 incidents are very small and had very minimal impact on
the Alaska environment.

2 - They were quickly detected and further damage avoided. The
spills were promptly self-reported to the EPA and cleanup begun, which
show responsible and competent action by ARCO.

3 - Today, it doesn't take very much at all to qualify to be on the
Superfund list, but it is easy to then try to spin it into something
it isn't.

So, far from being some big negative, these incidents are in fact a
demonstration of how responsibly ARCO has acted and how oil can be
extracted with minimal impact. If you compare these incidents to
the benefits of recovering oil from these areas, most reasonable
people would conclude the benefits far outweigh the risks.

But, not the extremist environmentalists. Just imagine the same
scare tactics applied to other modern technology. Suppose the
airplane had just been invented. Can you imagine the scare
tactics? Why, they could fall from the sky and kill everyone on
board. On the ground too. What about the impact to birds? They
will pollute and destroy the ozone layer. Yet, they fly every day.
Everyone including the kook environmentalists rides on them. Why?
Because the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Bottom line, get ANWR open!







Let me try this on you: A relatively tiny number of people commit murder.
Should that statistic be used to determine the penalties for murder?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since you can't refute the claim that drilling for oil has been done
repsonsibly for decades here without damage to the environment, you

The idea that we can drill "responsibly" just anywhere
on the North Slope is patently ridiculous. That has
gone to court, and the courts have ruled that it has not
been shown to be true either for onshore or offshore
locations. ANWR is hardly the only sensitive area of
the North Slope.

Courts don't make policy. At least they are not supposed to, but
more and more today some try to. Opening up ANWR is not up to a
court, it's up to Congress.





now want to talk about comparing it to murder? The specific comment
was the ban on drilling in ANWR, Alaska which is based on the false
premise that it can't be done without destroying the environment.

That is a fact. It is not based on false premises, and
has been rather well demonstrated. The exact same
premises have been tried in court, in regard to the area
around Teshekpuk Lake, and proposed drilling was
stopped.

Everyone can take a good look at your alarmist reaction to the 2
superfund sites that you brought up and draw their own conclusions
about false premises.





Your argument is baseless. So far you have not cited
any specifics, and I challenge you to do so! I would be
happy to go into extreme details, and to provide
credible cites and references, to demonstrate what
actually is true!

I just did and smashed your whole house of cards. We're supposed to
take you seriously after claiming an oil spill covering 375 sq ft of
ground is a prime reason NOT to drill in ANWR? LOL



You're proposing draconian penalties for a problem that doesn't
exist. And those draconian penalties would just be another roadblock
to energy development and economic progress.

Poppycock. That's a bunch of political jive meant to
hype voters.

You should know about hype.


ANWR presents *no* significant
opportunities for significant "energy development" or
"economic progress" on a national basis.

Yeah, environmental extremists like you have been saying that for
years. The truth is, we don't even know how much oil is in ANWR?
Why? Because the EE's won't allow even limited test drilling to find
out. Based on what we do know, there's enough there that we should
be drilling right now. And the ultimate amounts could be huge.

Another argument every time there is an energy shortage and price
spike from the EE's has been "If we start today, we won't have oil for
6 years" Well, if people stopped listening to extremists and started
6 years ago, we'd have it now. Is it an answer to all our energy
problems? No. Is it part of the solution? And is it enough supply
to bring the price down from $95/brl? Yes.


Try to cite
figures that demonstrate it! I'll be happy to provide
the context that shows why your figures are
insignificant.


It's your argument that is insignificant.





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

wrote:
On Dec 2, 1:35 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
There are more than 400 toxic spills on the North Slope
*every* year. There have been several large oil spills,
some of which have been caused by willful negligence on
the part of operating companies.

And here we have it folks. A classic case of the alarmist
extremist.

You meant to say that you are in trouble because
somebody who actually knows something about this decided
to take you to task for the absurd statements you make.

Note there is no definition of what constitutes a "toxic
spill".

Actually, there is. There have been, since the late
1970's, more than 400 reported toxic spills *every*
year. The EPA of course defines exactly what must be
reported.

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.

Correct. What's your point? As I said, there have been
more than 400 toxic spills reported at the Prudhoe Bay
Industrial Complex every year. That is true.

The Prudhoe Bay Industrial Complex is a superfund site!
The whole complex! (Actually, Kuparuk is listed as one
and Prudhoe Bay is listed as one, so the whole complex
is listed as two superfund sites.)

Now let's look at the facts behind this alarmist report intended to
scare. Sure sounds bad. But let's see what it takes to get on the
list of Superfund sites today. From the EPA description of Superfund
sites here are the two sites referenced above:

Except this does not describe the reasons for Kuparuk
and Prudhoe Bay being designated as Superfund sites, and
insinuating that it does is dishonesty on your part.

Prudhoe Bay-

On April 12th, 2005 BP discovered and reported a release of natural
....

Kuparuk-

On March 9th at 16:15 local time Conoc Philips operator of the Kuparuk
....

So, in the case of Prudhoe Bay, this big superfund site consists of a
discharge of natural gas and some light condensate mist on the surface
which was quickly caught by Arco and self-reporte to the EPA and

Arco didn't catch anything. Your above two statements
refer to BP and Conoco Phillips.

cleanup begun. It covered 53 acres, but considering it was light
airborne mist and easily cleaned up, it sure doesn't sound like a mega
disaster or what most people would think it would take to even be on a
superfund site list.

In the case of Kaparuk, a pipeline leak was discovered within 30 mins
of occurence and a whopping 375 sq ft of surface area was
contaminated. Again, the incident was promptly reported to the EPA.

Any reasonable assessment of this would conclude that:

That you are dishonest.

Those two particular incidents are but two of *many*
that have happened. Those incidents are not the reason
the two oil fields are rated as Superfund sites. The
designation existed prior to 2005.

1 - These 2 incidents are very small and had very minimal impact on
the Alaska environment.

Why did you bring them up? Why not talk about the
incidents that had maximal impact?

2 - They were quickly detected and further damage avoided. The
spills were promptly self-reported to the EPA and cleanup begun, which
show responsible and competent action by ARCO.

ARCO of course had nothing to do with it.

3 - Today, it doesn't take very much at all to qualify to be on the
Superfund list, but it is easy to then try to spin it into something
it isn't.

Then again, since you don't even know that ARCO
operations on the North Slope were sold to BP 7 years
ago, and *none* of your discussion involves ARCO, it
kind of opens up the question of just how grossly ill
informed are you?

Regardless of that BP in 2005, the same year you listed
that one incident, also was charged with failure to
report two spills. And Conoco-Phillips suffered a major
spill at Kuparuk where over 100,000 gallons were dumped.

In 2006 BP's pipelines suffered two major spills,
including the largest spill ever on the North Slope.
They were at one point also forced to shutdown 57 well
due to leaks reported by whistleblowers.

BP has in the past been fined millions and put on
probation for re-injecting toxic wastes into drill
holes, for safety violations, for improper maintenance,
and just about ever manner of risky behavior possible.

Indeed, once again just last week BP plead guilty and
was fined $20 million in criminal penalties for
negligence in last year's oil spills. They will be on
probation for 3 years.

Keep trying to tell us how safely the oil industry
works! When the Exxon Valdez hit a reef, the response
facility that was supposed to be in place was found to
be non-existent. No boats. When some nutcase shot a
hole in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, it took days to plug
it because the required by law device to stop the leak
did not exist. And the above negligence that went to
court included having discovered significant corrosion
in a feeder pipe in the 1990's, yet making no further
checks to determine the integrity of the pipe until they
burst.

So, far from being some big negative, these incidents are in fact a
demonstration of how responsibly ARCO has acted and how oil can be
extracted with minimal impact. If you compare these incidents to
the benefits of recovering oil from these areas, most reasonable
people would conclude the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Since you are both too ignorant to know that ARCO has
nothing to do with it, and dishonest in presenting
facts, why would anyone believe that your conclusions
are valid?

But, not the extremist environmentalists. Just imagine the same
scare tactics applied to other modern technology. Suppose the
airplane had just been invented. Can you imagine the scare
tactics?

Can you just imagine if we ran airlines the way we allow
oil companies to be operated?

Do you have any idea what is involved in just so much as
changing one rivet that holds down the skin on a
commercial airliner?

If we applied the same "scare tactics" to oil production
that we do to the air transportation industry, imagine
what that would be like!

Why, they could fall from the sky and kill everyone on
board. On the ground too. What about the impact to birds? They
will pollute and destroy the ozone layer. Yet, they fly every day.
Everyone including the kook environmentalists rides on them. Why?
Because the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Bottom line, get ANWR open!

Why? There are almost no benefits!

The idea that we can drill "responsibly" just anywhere
on the North Slope is patently ridiculous. That has
gone to court, and the courts have ruled that it has not
been shown to be true either for onshore or offshore
locations. ANWR is hardly the only sensitive area of
the North Slope.

Courts don't make policy.

They do arbitrate *facts* though. And the facts are not
what you claim.

At least they are not supposed to, but
more and more today some try to. Opening up ANWR is not up to a
court, it's up to Congress.

And Congress keeps voting against it...

That is a fact. It is not based on false premises, and
has been rather well demonstrated. The exact same
premises have been tried in court, in regard to the area
around Teshekpuk Lake, and proposed drilling was
stopped.

Everyone can take a good look at your alarmist reaction to the 2
superfund sites that you brought up and draw their own conclusions
about false premises.

Everyone can look at your discussion and easily
determine that you are both ignorant and dishonest.
Calling me an alarmist isn't helping your position
either.

Your argument is baseless. So far you have not cited
any specifics, and I challenge you to do so! I would be
happy to go into extreme details, and to provide
credible cites and references, to demonstrate what
actually is true!

I just did and smashed your whole house of cards. We're supposed to
take you seriously after claiming an oil spill covering 375 sq ft of
ground is a prime reason NOT to drill in ANWR? LOL

Except of course that is just a fabrication that you
made up. 200,000+ gallons of oil spilled due to
negligence is not exactly an insignificant event.

And in fact spills covering only 375 sq ft, when there
are more than 400 of them a year, are not insignificant
either.

ANWR presents *no* significant
opportunities for significant "energy development" or
"economic progress" on a national basis.

Yeah, environmental extremists like you have been saying that for
years. The truth is, we don't even know how much oil is in ANWR?

So you do admit that we don't actually have any reason
to expect any significant benefits.

Why? Because the EE's won't allow even limited test drilling to find
out. Based on what we do know, there's enough there that we should
be drilling right now. And the ultimate amounts could be huge.

We don't know that at all. For example, the State of
Alaska put up for bid 26 tracts of state owned and just
offshore of ANWR (within 3 miles, as farther out than
that it is Federal). Not one bid was placed. Yet in
other offshore bids in that offering there were more
bids, by a factor of two, than all previous Beaufort Sea
bids had ever received. You could get the idea that the
oil companies don't think there's any oil there at all!

Another way to judge this is that while ANWR is on the
east side of Prudhoe Bay, the National Petroleum Reserve
-- Alaska is on the west side. The USGS has done
similar resource studies on each, and says they have
about the same amount of oil.

We have been drilling holes in the NPR-A since the late
1940's. There are several known reservoirs. Yet there
is not one production well in the NPR-A.

Apply that to ANWR, and what it means is that we could
be searching there for the next 50 years and not find a
hole that produces enough oil to make it worth building
a pipeline to it. In fact, that is the *most* likely
scenario!

Another argument every time there is an energy shortage and price
spike from the EE's has been "If we start today, we won't have oil for
6 years"

Try 50 years, you'll be less annoyingly inaccurate in
your fantasies.

Well, if people stopped listening to extremists and started
6 years ago, we'd have it now. Is it an answer to all our energy
problems? No. Is it part of the solution? And is it enough supply
to bring the price down from $95/brl? Yes.

It is? Since when? If we found twice as much as the
highest claim, and found it all within 6 years... it
might add about 2% to the crude supply, and that could
even drop the price of a barrel by 1 dollar. That means
you might pay 8 cents less for a gallon of gasoline.

Of course that is the wildest pie in the sky estimate we
can come up with... and it still has insignificant
results!

It's your argument that is insignificant.

Sure sonny. Tell us more about how ARCO operates safely
on the North Slope?

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

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.

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. And then it gets
added to a list of "toxic spills" And it rarely, if ever results
in an immediate threat to public health. You have to have some
reference grounded in reality.

And similar fear mongering is exactly what the alarmists try to do by
conjuring up superfund sites, with the image of Love Canal, when the
EPA reporting standard I showed you for the Prudhoe Bay site is a few
barrels of oil that cover 375 feet of ground surface.

If you look at this objectively, oil has been and continues to be
extracted with minimal impact to the environment. Nothing is
perfect, except in the extremist environmentalist world, where they
are against just about all energy sources, except perhaps the mythical
ones.

Here in NJ the fear mongerers even bitch about proposed drilling off
VA, on the theory that it's gonna destroy the beaches in NJ. They
conveniently ignore all the drilling in the Gulf of MExico that has
been done safely. Most of the oil platforms there were heavily
damaged, toppled, sunk etc during Katrina. Yet I didn't hear
anything about any oil spills or environmental disaster attributable
to the irresponsible oil industry? Another testimonial to the fact
that it can be done today with minimal impact to the environment,
unless you believe the extremists who would have us go back to caves.

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?

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...

--