$3.249 Gal. For #2 Home Heating Oil

Page 3 of 4  
On Dec 3, 12:10 am, snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

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.

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.

More alarmist nonsense.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

I hope drilling comes to a town near you soon!

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?

Don;t worry, it may take another 911 event, but drilling is coming to ANWR and you sooner or later.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

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.

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!

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...

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Don't bet on it in your lifetime.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 5, 10:24 am, snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Yeah, well drilling AROUND it and drilling inside it where the oil is believed to be are two very different things.

Yeah right. LOL

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.

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.

No, it makes you appear like a name calling extremist.

More extemist nonsense.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

1 day and 15 hours prior.
There seems no end of your ability to produce nonsense though.

So relate that to ANWR, or it's just more obfuscation.

You say a lot of abjectly silly things that you cannot support with facts.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

... [Extremist/Alarmist crap deleted] ...

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.
...

Stop being dishonest. She may have seen it frozen, but it is not barren, and there has never been "small footprint drilling proposed".

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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?

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 is the total area which will be affected by just the initial stages of exploration.

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.

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.

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 bullshit 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) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That sounds like somthing I'd have written. Very well spoken.
--

Christopher A. Young;
.
.

< snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have a question for you. Do oil rigs require a human presence to operate them?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 1, 3:09 pm, snipped-for-privacy@islandhousecalls.com wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:24:47 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote Re Re: $3.249 Gal. For #2 Home Heating Oil:

Good post!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And you really think you'd get any oil?
--

Christopher A. Young;
.
.

"JoeSpareBedroom" < snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Rules are rules. Why make exceptions for people who wear ties?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article <f09fce7b-fe54-4b5e-b8a6-e38faa865b44

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

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:36:25 -0800 (PST), Jerry

and how large is that check that alaska sends you every year from the proceeds of taxes alaska charges those bad oil companies? __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

But not really a fair comparison because they have significantly higher taxes on fuels than we do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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;
.
.

"Edwin Pawlowski" < snipped-for-privacy@snet.net> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

Or just higher prices, not taxes.

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

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.