On Dec 3, 12:10 am, firstname.lastname@example.org (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
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
Don;t worry, it may take another 911 event, but drilling is coming to
ANWR and you sooner or later.
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
So what's the big deal? It has been happening 400 times a
year! Are we trying to shutdown oil production in Prudhoe
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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) email@example.com
On Dec 5, 10:24 am, firstname.lastname@example.org (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
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
assessment of the risk vs reward and am willing to share an extremely
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
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
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
to be are two very different things.
Yeah right. LOL
The royalties from Pruhoe don't seem to bother you do they? Keeps
taxes nice and low. As far as setting royalties and dividing up who
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
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
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.
1 day and 15 hours prior.
There seems no end of your ability to produce nonsense
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
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
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
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,
and these will provide you with an overview,
[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
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
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
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
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) email@example.com
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
On Dec 1, 3:09 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org 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
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.
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.
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.
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
Christopher A. Young;
"Edwin Pawlowski" < email@example.com> wrote in message
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.
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.