This is interesting....
 

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:20:11 -0500, NotNow wrote:

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.
Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and
was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines
were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and
gas wells are even more invisible.
So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever
seen has a road going to it......
The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?
WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately dise ase kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?
The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.
ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages.
Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the
honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the
subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington
told them to...

Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me
that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating
and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil
fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be
using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States
until we got the pollution under control.

Is nuclear energy based on fossil fuels?

Loogy, you are sounding more and more flaky. You put words in the
mouths of others, you flat out lie about what people say, and then you
come up with the ridiculous **** above.

Plonk.

This is interesting....
 

In article ,
says...

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:10:23 -0500, Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:16:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...







Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor...
So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than
I,
what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared
to all
other countries with the exception of Russia?
Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal.
Two things come immediately to mind.
One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and
including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work
on
clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot
plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to
be failing miserably.
A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the
company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station,
sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it
woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and
it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are
creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be
abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation.
Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see
what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and
offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that
appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes
and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal
of
all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed
to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like
new
discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields
which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find
it.
Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed
to produce 1,000,000 BTUs.
Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet
Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound
Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon
Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon
You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar
results to fossil fuels.
Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political
front.
What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for
drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is
just fine... ;)

--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different
from a solar array that is off of the ground.

Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of
sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that
plentiful in the desert.
Actually, solar arrays do their best where there's lots of sunshine and cool
temperatures. Then, you don't need any cooling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html

or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8

Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push
something else. They really don't want to solve the problem.
Nuclear is a good idea. The French and the Brits use lots of it.

They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich.

Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction?
Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn!
You keep showing yourself for what you are.

I'm sure those pesky, noble, Nobel people are getting their cut also.
The Nobel is just a popularity contest, really has nothing significant
to do or prove.. It's a joke, has been for decades...

More and more I think it's a money making proposition for the AGW
crowd. We know the Canadians are an honest bunch:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/printpage.php

I believe the scam is much, much bigger than shown there.

Mo But not much has been heard about any scam investigation since
'Bama took office. I wonder why?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17814838

http://www.nextgenpe.com/news/boliva...n-offset-scam/

Just type carbon offset scam and get your 24 million hits. Don't you
think Gore, 'Bama, et al, have their fingers in that big pot they keep
passing around?

Not as big of a pot as the pig trough Bush and Cheney are feeding from.
Remember Halliburton?

Bush justification syndrome.. I though we voted for change?? What has
changed, the owner of the pockets??

--
Wafa free again.

This is interesting....
 

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:50:55 -0500, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:20:11 -0500, NotNow wrote:

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.
Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and
was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines
were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and
gas wells are even more invisible.
So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever
seen has a road going to it......
The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?
WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately dise ase kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?
The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.
ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages.
Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the
honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the
subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington
told them to...

Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me
that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating
and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil
fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be
using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States
until we got the pollution under control.

Is nuclear energy based on fossil fuels?

Loogy, you are sounding more and more flaky. You put words in the
mouths of others, you flat out lie about what people say, and then you
come up with the ridiculous **** above.

Plonk.

Thank goodness for small favors!

Now if only the Plum would do likewise.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

This is interesting....
 

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:22:27 -0500, Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:10:23 -0500, Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:16:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...







Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor...
So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than
I,
what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared
to all
other countries with the exception of Russia?
Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal.
Two things come immediately to mind.
One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and
including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work
on
clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot
plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to
be failing miserably.
A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the
company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station,
sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it
woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and
it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are
creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be
abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation.
Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see
what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and
offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that
appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes
and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal
of
all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed
to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like
new
discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields
which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find
it.
Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed
to produce 1,000,000 BTUs.
Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet
Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound
Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon
Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon
You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar
results to fossil fuels.
Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political
front.
What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for
drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is
just fine... ;)

--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different
from a solar array that is off of the ground.

Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of
sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that
plentiful in the desert.
Actually, solar arrays do their best where there's lots of sunshine and cool
temperatures. Then, you don't need any cooling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html

or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8

Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push
something else. They really don't want to solve the problem.
Nuclear is a good idea. The French and the Brits use lots of it.

They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich.

Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction?
Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn!
You keep showing yourself for what you are.

I'm sure those pesky, noble, Nobel people are getting their cut also.
The Nobel is just a popularity contest, really has nothing significant
to do or prove.. It's a joke, has been for decades...

More and more I think it's a money making proposition for the AGW
crowd. We know the Canadians are an honest bunch:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/printpage.php

I believe the scam is much, much bigger than shown there.

Mo But not much has been heard about any scam investigation since
'Bama took office. I wonder why?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17814838

http://www.nextgenpe.com/news/boliva...n-offset-scam/

Just type carbon offset scam and get your 24 million hits. Don't you
think Gore, 'Bama, et al, have their fingers in that big pot they keep
passing around?

Not as big of a pot as the pig trough Bush and Cheney are feeding from.
Remember Halliburton?

Bush justification syndrome.. I though we voted for change?? What has
changed, the owner of the pockets??

You better watch your mouth. You're gonna get 'plonked'.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

This is interesting....
 

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.
Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and
was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines
were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and
gas wells are even more invisible.
So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......
The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or
is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?
WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately dise ase kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?

The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.
ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the
honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the
subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington told
them to...


Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me
that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating
and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil
fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be using
technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States until we got
the pollution under control.

Hell, most of us have been urging nukes for years and years.

This is interesting....
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:11:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism
whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have our
beaches and salt marshes.

Don't be so sure
Have you heard about "Cape Wind"?

Another example of envimoronmentalist hyprocrisy.

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer

Globe editorials in support.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...wind_turbines/

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...nst_cape_wind/

Fortunately, it looks like it's going to get done.

http://www.capewind.org/news1018.htm

If Ted Kennedy were alive, it wouldn't be happening. :)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. The local indians going to object to that
also?

This is interesting....
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural
beauty.
We sure don't need it.

I just got back from there. They don't have enough water to flood much
of anything. It has all been stolen by San Francisco and the Central
Valley. The big waterfalls you always hear about look like a kid
****ing off a bridge.

We hiked 5 miles and 1000 vertical feet for this spectacular waterfall

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/california/...0waterfall.jpg

This one was on the horseshoe road, Also supposed to be spectacular

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/california/...terfalling.jpg


SF steals the water after the valley or north of the valley. This time of
year the falls are always small. Unlike Florida, we get very little rain
during the summer. Some thunder storms in the mountains, but little
precipitation. Come in May for a spectacular view.

This is interesting....
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and
was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines
were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that last
year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other couple
million acres alone.

This is interesting....
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and
was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines
were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages.

Here you go... but feel free not to believe it.

http://www.alaskatrekker.com/anwr.htm

--
Nom=de=Plume


ANWR is 20 million acres, in that area you can find some pristine views.
Hell you can find pristine views in the San Francisco Bay area, over near
Wildcat Canyon, etc. But the whole area is not pristine. And they are
looking at drilling on 2000 acres.

This is interesting....
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"H the K" wrote in message
...
On 11/3/09 8:37 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural
beauty.
We sure don't need it.

That is completely stupid and so typical.

Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions.

Leave the adults alone.


Awwww...the newsgroup wookie is upset...again.

Was stupid. San Francisco already flooded Little Yosemite Valley.

Nope. It was Hetch Hetchy. Not part of Yosemite Valley. It's part of the
National Park, however.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Hetch Hetchy dam, but the valley was known as Little Yosemite Valley.
One of our favorite lakes is Cherry Lake which is not very far away as
the crow flys, but a long way by road. One of the Hetch Hetchy system
lakes.

So, do you think we should do the same to Yosemite? After all, it's just
got natural beauty going for it.

--
Nom=de=Plume


SF should never have been allowed to put up the Hetch Hetchy dam. There
were proposals to dam Yosemite Valley also. But there is a heck of a
difference in a small area in a populated area being preserved as opposed to
20 million acres. That is larger than several of the states. ANWR is about
the size of South Carolina.

This is interesting....
 

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Loogypicker" wrote in message
...
On Nov 3, 2:23 pm, Tosk wrote:
In article 376ab62b-c969-4f58-9ac0-80139e5831d7
@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...







On Nov 3, 1:27 pm, NotNow wrote:
Tosk wrote:
In article fef40ffb-ca78-4a34-97fe-1f5ba4ada116
@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says...
On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,

says...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor...
So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth
than I,
what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as
compared to all
other countries with the exception of Russia?
Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal.
Two things come immediately to mind.
One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to
and
including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to
work on
clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more
pilot
plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem
to
be failing miserably.
A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the
company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired
station,
sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where
it
woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now
and
it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists
are
creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will
be
abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation.
Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to
see
what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and
offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that
appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt
domes
and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the
equal of
all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't
allowed
to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not
like new
discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi
fields
which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to
find
it.
Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel
needed
to produce 1,000,000 BTUs.
Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet
Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound
Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon
Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon
You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce
similar
results to fossil fuels.
Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the
political
front.
What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off
area for
drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels
is
just fine... ;)
--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different
from a solar array that is off of the ground.
Really, these are "off the ground" enough to not effect migration?
Bull...
This is not far enough off the ground for migration, acres and
acres...
http://www.treehugger.com/solar-farm-array-bavaria.jpg
http://teeic.anl.gov/images/photos/Nrel_flatPV15539.jpg
http://green-gossip.com/wp-content/u...bhagats_solar-
array.jpg
http://images.publicradio.org/conten...6_solar-farm2_
33.jpg
Compared to this...
http://www.making-ripples.com/images...image013_2.jpg
http://www.questdrilling.com/images/index1.jpg
http://www.airphotona.com/stockimg/images/00198.jpg
http://www.valleyserver.com/images/R...web%20copy.jpg
You tell me which is more invasive.. Besides, do you know how toxic
the
areas in china where they make these panels is?
Manufacturing in the U.S. and thus gaining jobs will fix that. What
could be more "invasive" than a fence built on a migration route? Next
you'll be trying to tell everyone that mining oil sands is good for
the
environment.
Lovely site, isn't it?
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...son.com/images...
I've spent more time on hundreds of drilling rigs in remote places in
the western USA than I care to remember. The wildlife paid very
little attention to them. In fact, one of the greatest dangers was
not from the drilling operations but from the hazard of hitting an
elk, deer or antelope while trying to get to the rig. I've been on
rig sites that were abandoned and a month later in WY you could not
tell where it had been they were so good at replacing the terrain and
vegetation.
In AK, where the AK pipeline was a major controversy in the early 70s
with people worrying about its effect on wildlife, the wildlife
ignores it because it is built so they can walk under it. Rig sites
are similar, animals ignore them and once the drill rig is gone with
the final pumps in place occupying only a few square feet ther eis no
effect at all on the animals.
I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and
gas wells are even more invisible.
Large arrays of solar receivers are likely to be extremely destructive
to the local environment by blocking sunlight to the ground and
blocking air flow and generally being a permanent impediment to
wildlife movement. By contrast, drilling operations are short lived
and a producing well is very inobtrusive.
Thanks for clarifying that even though I am sure several here will poo,
poo, it. Those arrays must destroy the landscape, they allow nothing to
"be" around them. Grass, animals, etc. can't survive with them. That is
why I have so much cynicism about the proponents, with so many of their
arguments being so ridiculous and blatantly false...

--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're against solar power why?

I live near one of the largest wind farm areas in the world. The
complaints are they kill lots of raptors. And they do. They are high
enough that the cows and 4 legged critters do not get hit, but the birds
going after the huge rodent populatin are decimated. Go to the Oil Patch
of Calif. Taft. Oil pipes and pumps everywhere. Seems to be ok for the
rodents, birds and coyotes. Not a lot of deer in the desert.
Ummmm, I was talking about solar arrays......

Commercial Solar Arrays are huge and they are near the ground. Costs lots
of money to raise them in to the air. Other than the ones like at Cal Expo,
and my local Junior College, that are on platforms over the parking lot,
they are on the ground. I do not know ff the big solar heated power plant
at Barstow is still operating, but all the mirrors were near the ground and
the tower was a couple hundred feet tall. There were no animals running
around them, except maybe a mouse or rat.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/28751.pdf has pictures of the plant.

This is interesting....
 

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:16:32 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:11:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism
whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have our
beaches and salt marshes.

Don't be so sure
Have you heard about "Cape Wind"?

Another example of envimoronmentalist hyprocrisy.

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer

Globe editorials in support.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...wind_turbines/

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...nst_cape_wind/

Fortunately, it looks like it's going to get done.

http://www.capewind.org/news1018.htm

If Ted Kennedy were alive, it wouldn't be happening. :)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. The local indians going to object to that
also?

Dunno...

This is interesting....
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:16:32 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:11:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism
whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have our
beaches and salt marshes.

Don't be so sure
Have you heard about "Cape Wind"?

Another example of envimoronmentalist hyprocrisy.

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer

Globe editorials in support.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...wind_turbines/

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...nst_cape_wind/

Fortunately, it looks like it's going to get done.

http://www.capewind.org/news1018.htm

If Ted Kennedy were alive, it wouldn't be happening. :)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. The local indians going to object to that
also?

Dunno...

Neighbor, golf and poker buddy, in the energy business, says that the
wind turbines are better at self destructing than they are at generating
power. The asian and american manufacturers all have the same problems.
The can't stop the blades from spinning out of control and ripping the
whole unit apart.

This is interesting....
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and
was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines
were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or
is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that last
year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other couple
million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is interesting....
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and
was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines
were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or
is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Here you go... but feel free not to believe it.

http://www.alaskatrekker.com/anwr.htm

--
Nom=de=Plume


ANWR is 20 million acres, in that area you can find some pristine views.
Hell you can find pristine views in the San Francisco Bay area, over near
Wildcat Canyon, etc. But the whole area is not pristine. And they are
looking at drilling on 2000 acres.

I'm sure there's no place on earth that would be off limits to some people.

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is interesting....
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"H the K" wrote in message
...
On 11/3/09 8:37 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural
beauty.
We sure don't need it.

That is completely stupid and so typical.

Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions.

Leave the adults alone.


Awwww...the newsgroup wookie is upset...again.

Was stupid. San Francisco already flooded Little Yosemite Valley.

Nope. It was Hetch Hetchy. Not part of Yosemite Valley. It's part of
the National Park, however.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Hetch Hetchy dam, but the valley was known as Little Yosemite Valley.
One of our favorite lakes is Cherry Lake which is not very far away as
the crow flys, but a long way by road. One of the Hetch Hetchy system
lakes.

So, do you think we should do the same to Yosemite? After all, it's just
got natural beauty going for it.

--
Nom=de=Plume


SF should never have been allowed to put up the Hetch Hetchy dam. There
were proposals to dam Yosemite Valley also. But there is a heck of a
difference in a small area in a populated area being preserved as opposed
to 20 million acres. That is larger than several of the states. ANWR is
about the size of South Carolina.

Actually, not that much difference as you'd imagine. What's the
justification for damaging wildlife refuge? It's certainly not vast
quantities of oil. It's certainly not about getting it to the lower 48 in
the next several years.
--
Nom=de=Plume

This is interesting....
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines
were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or
is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that last
year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other couple
million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the desert
of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

This is interesting....
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or
is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is interesting....
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou
or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power plants.
But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic), chemicals,
fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a long range,
fuel cell boat hauler.

This is interesting....
 

In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines
were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or
is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that last
year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other couple
million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it would
take years before it could be gotten.

Such a bunch of bull****.


--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the desert
of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?



--
Wafa free again.

This is interesting....
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in
that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low
altitude and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou
or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and
yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it
would take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power
plants. But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic),
chemicals, fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a
long range, fuel cell boat hauler.

Yes, you still need oil, but not on the scale that we have now. We have
plenty if we use it wisely, and if we do have to import it, we won't have to
import anywhere near as much.

There's always the problem of what to do with the spent fuel, but that's a
technological problem that can, in my opinion, be solved.

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is interesting....
 

In article ,
says...

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Loogypicker" wrote in message
...
On Nov 3, 2:23 pm, Tosk wrote:
In article 376ab62b-c969-4f58-9ac0-80139e5831d7
@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...







On Nov 3, 1:27 pm, NotNow wrote:
Tosk wrote:
In article fef40ffb-ca78-4a34-97fe-1f5ba4ada116
@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says...
On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,

says...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor...
So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth
than I,
what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as
compared to all
other countries with the exception of Russia?
Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal.
Two things come immediately to mind.
One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to
and
including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to
work on
clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more
pilot
plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem
to
be failing miserably.
A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the
company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired
station,
sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where
it
woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now
and
it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists
are
creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will
be
abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation.
Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to
see
what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and
offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that
appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt
domes
and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the
equal of
all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't
allowed
to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not
like new
discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi
fields
which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to
find
it.
Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel
needed
to produce 1,000,000 BTUs.
Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet
Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound
Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon
Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon
You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce
similar
results to fossil fuels.
Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the
political
front.
What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off
area for
drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels
is
just fine... ;)
--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different
from a solar array that is off of the ground.
Really, these are "off the ground" enough to not effect migration?
Bull...
This is not far enough off the ground for migration, acres and
acres...
http://www.treehugger.com/solar-farm-array-bavaria.jpg
http://teeic.anl.gov/images/photos/Nrel_flatPV15539.jpg
http://green-gossip.com/wp-content/u...bhagats_solar-
array.jpg
http://images.publicradio.org/conten...6_solar-farm2_
33.jpg
Compared to this...
http://www.making-ripples.com/images...image013_2.jpg
http://www.questdrilling.com/images/index1.jpg
http://www.airphotona.com/stockimg/images/00198.jpg
http://www.valleyserver.com/images/R...web%20copy.jpg
You tell me which is more invasive.. Besides, do you know how toxic
the
areas in china where they make these panels is?
Manufacturing in the U.S. and thus gaining jobs will fix that. What
could be more "invasive" than a fence built on a migration route? Next
you'll be trying to tell everyone that mining oil sands is good for
the
environment.
Lovely site, isn't it?
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...son.com/images...
I've spent more time on hundreds of drilling rigs in remote places in
the western USA than I care to remember. The wildlife paid very
little attention to them. In fact, one of the greatest dangers was
not from the drilling operations but from the hazard of hitting an
elk, deer or antelope while trying to get to the rig. I've been on
rig sites that were abandoned and a month later in WY you could not
tell where it had been they were so good at replacing the terrain and
vegetation.
In AK, where the AK pipeline was a major controversy in the early 70s
with people worrying about its effect on wildlife, the wildlife
ignores it because it is built so they can walk under it. Rig sites
are similar, animals ignore them and once the drill rig is gone with
the final pumps in place occupying only a few square feet ther eis no
effect at all on the animals.
I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and
gas wells are even more invisible.
Large arrays of solar receivers are likely to be extremely destructive
to the local environment by blocking sunlight to the ground and
blocking air flow and generally being a permanent impediment to
wildlife movement. By contrast, drilling operations are short lived
and a producing well is very inobtrusive.
Thanks for clarifying that even though I am sure several here will poo,
poo, it. Those arrays must destroy the landscape, they allow nothing to
"be" around them. Grass, animals, etc. can't survive with them. That is
why I have so much cynicism about the proponents, with so many of their
arguments being so ridiculous and blatantly false...

--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're against solar power why?

I live near one of the largest wind farm areas in the world. The
complaints are they kill lots of raptors. And they do. They are high
enough that the cows and 4 legged critters do not get hit, but the birds
going after the huge rodent populatin are decimated. Go to the Oil Patch
of Calif. Taft. Oil pipes and pumps everywhere. Seems to be ok for the
rodents, birds and coyotes. Not a lot of deer in the desert.
Ummmm, I was talking about solar arrays......

Commercial Solar Arrays are huge and they are near the ground. Costs lots
of money to raise them in to the air. Other than the ones like at Cal Expo,
and my local Junior College, that are on platforms over the parking lot,
they are on the ground. I do not know ff the big solar heated power plant
at Barstow is still operating, but all the mirrors were near the ground and
the tower was a couple hundred feet tall. There were no animals running
around them, except maybe a mouse or rat.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/28751.pdf has pictures of the plant.

My doctors office has about a half acre of panels, gravel under them,
about 4-5 feet off the ground.. The "talking point" that they are not a
burden to local wildlife was just bull****...

--
Wafa free again.

This is interesting....
 

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in
that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines
were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low
altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou
or
is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and
yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that
last
year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple
million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it
would
take years before it could be gotten.

Such a bunch of bull****.

Really? Care to show your work?

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is interesting....
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:56:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple
million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it would
take years before it could be gotten.


We already have a pipeline and building it was a great "stimulus'
project. If we had to fix it up or extend it we would generate a lot
of new high tech jobs.
In spite of all the hand wringing, the environmental impact of that
project was minimal.
Saying it would take years to come online is not important. It will
take years to get any other energy source online too..
We don't have the power lines to use lots of the solar, wind or wave
schemes either and they come with a huge environmental impact.
It is virtually impossible to get permitting for new power lines these
days. Nobody talks about that. Do you want one in your back yard?

The difference is oil is a mature technology that we are already
prepared to use.



And it's a terrible pollution engine. If there's not much oil there (and
there isn't), and we have to build get more pipeline (yet more environ.
damage) to get it, what's the point of doing it? There's a new power grid
getting built (slowly), and we can certainly handle the electricity. It's
not all about huge panel farms. Panels should be on every new house, every
new office building, etc..

Power lines can be buried. Not everywhere, but if it's important enough it
usually can be done.


--
Nom=de=Plume

This is interesting....
 

In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou
or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power plants.
But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic), chemicals,
fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a long range,
fuel cell boat hauler.

Well, the admin just shut down Yukka (sp?) today, there's billions down
the tubes and of course could be the end of Nuke power.. Now we will
have to buy even more dirty panels, and exploding windmills from
China... Who'd a thunk, huh?

--
Wafa free again.

This is interesting....
 

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:45:49 -0500, wrote:

It is virtually impossible to get permitting for new power lines these
days. Nobody talks about that. Do you want one in your back yard?

Heh, funny you should mention that. :-)

This is interesting....
 

On Nov 4, 10:24*pm, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...







On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:16:32 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:h1o2f55iekdj4hjoouf9bk3vm2b3ncqh17@4a x.com...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:11:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism
whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have our
beaches and salt marshes.

Don't be so sure
Have you heard about "Cape Wind"?

Another example of envimoronmentalist hyprocrisy.

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer

Globe editorials in support.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...26/2_tribes_ob....

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...torials/articl....

Fortunately, it looks like it's going to get done.

http://www.capewind.org/news1018.htm

If Ted Kennedy were alive, it wouldn't be happening. *:)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. *The local indians going to object to that
also?

Dunno...

Neighbor, golf and poker buddy, in the energy business, says that the
wind turbines are better at self destructing than they are at generating
power. The asian and american manufacturers all have the same problems.
The can't stop the blades from spinning out of control and ripping the
whole unit apart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Funny, there's places right here in the U.S. that have thousands upon
thousands of operational wind turbines.

This is interesting....
 

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:31:18 -0500, Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:57:28 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and
gas wells are even more invisible.

There are at least 500 windmills visible from I-35 and I-90 between
Des Moines and Rochester, Minn. No roads whatever. Not even one. As
for oil wells, there are visible moving parts roughly the size of a
car that will attract the eye from two miles up.

Casady

So, how do they service them? Or is it just so flat and clear they don't
need roads, which of course would make your "point" moot...??

It is pretty much open land. They don't put them in tree filled
gullys. They build them where it is unnecessary to do any grading to
get to the site with ordinary trucks. If you can grow corn on it, you
can drive vehicles on it if planted to grass. These things don't need
much service. It isn't an IC engine with water and sulfuric acid in
the oil. You can change the gear oil once a year or even less if the
oil tank is that size.

This is interesting....
 

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:00:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 4, 10:24*pm, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...







On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:16:32 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:h1o2f55iekdj4hjoouf9bk3vm2b3ncqh17@4a x.com...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:11:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism
whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have our
beaches and salt marshes.

Don't be so sure
Have you heard about "Cape Wind"?

Another example of envimoronmentalist hyprocrisy.

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer

Globe editorials in support.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...26/2_tribes_ob...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...torials/articl...

Fortunately, it looks like it's going to get done.

http://www.capewind.org/news1018.htm

If Ted Kennedy were alive, it wouldn't be happening. *:)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. *The local indians going to object to that
also?

Dunno...

Neighbor, golf and poker buddy, in the energy business, says that the
wind turbines are better at self destructing than they are at generating
power. The asian and american manufacturers all have the same problems.
The can't stop the blades from spinning out of control and ripping the
whole unit apart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Funny, there's places right here in the U.S. that have thousands upon
thousands of operational wind turbines.

Iowa gets more than 5% of its juice from wind. Third in number
installed, after California and Texas. Leader by far on a per capita
basis.

Casady

This is interesting....
 

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that
they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT
same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many
drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in
the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in
that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem
in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind
turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment.
Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low
altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one
I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit
by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin
out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about
caribou
or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and
yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in
the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out
of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a
19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou
in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it
would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power
plants.
But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic),
chemicals,
fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a long
range,
fuel cell boat hauler.

Well, the admin just shut down Yukka (sp?) today, there's billions down
the tubes and of course could be the end of Nuke power.. Now we will
have to buy even more dirty panels, and exploding windmills from
China... Who'd a thunk, huh?

--
Wafa free again.


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is interesting....
 

On 11/5/09 12:58 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
In ,
says...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that
they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT
same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many
drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in
the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in
that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem
in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind
turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment.
Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low
altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one
I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit
by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin
out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about
caribou
or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and
yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in
the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out
of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a
19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou
in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it
would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power
plants.
But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic),
chemicals,
fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a long
range,
fuel cell boat hauler.

Well, the admin just shut down Yukka (sp?) today, there's billions down
the tubes and of course could be the end of Nuke power.. Now we will
have to buy even more dirty panels, and exploding windmills from
China... Who'd a thunk, huh?

--
Wafa free again.


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.



I vote for burying the nuke crap in JustHateaTosk's back yard, where it
won't do any genetic damage.

This is interesting....
 

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:00:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 4, 10:24*pm, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...







On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:16:32 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:h1o2f55iekdj4hjoouf9bk3vm2b3ncqh17@4a x.com...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:11:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism
whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have our
beaches and salt marshes.

Don't be so sure
Have you heard about "Cape Wind"?

Another example of envimoronmentalist hyprocrisy.

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer

Globe editorials in support.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...26/2_tribes_ob...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...torials/articl...

Fortunately, it looks like it's going to get done.

http://www.capewind.org/news1018.htm

If Ted Kennedy were alive, it wouldn't be happening. *:)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. *The local indians going to object to that
also?

Dunno...

Neighbor, golf and poker buddy, in the energy business, says that the
wind turbines are better at self destructing than they are at generating
power. The asian and american manufacturers all have the same problems.
The can't stop the blades from spinning out of control and ripping the
whole unit apart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Funny, there's places right here in the U.S. that have thousands upon
thousands of operational wind turbines.

Gosh, with your vast knowledge, it shouldn't be hard for you to show
such a place.

I'd be very interested.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

This is interesting....
 

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:58:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that
they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT
same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many
drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in
the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in
that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem
in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind
turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment.
Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low
altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one
I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit
by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin
out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about
caribou
or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and
yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in
the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out
of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a
19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou
in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it
would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power
plants.
But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic),
chemicals,
fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a long
range,
fuel cell boat hauler.

Well, the admin just shut down Yukka (sp?) today, there's billions down
the tubes and of course could be the end of Nuke power.. Now we will
have to buy even more dirty panels, and exploding windmills from
China... Who'd a thunk, huh?

--
Wafa free again.


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.

It's much better that the east and west coasts are under twenty meters
of water.

You folks take the cake.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

This is interesting....
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:58:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that
they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT
same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many
drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in
the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in
that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem
in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind
turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment.
Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low
altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one
I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting
hit
by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin
out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about
caribou
or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and
yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in
the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease
kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out
of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a
19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou
in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid
of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did
that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next
election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it
would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in
the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power
plants.
But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic),
chemicals,
fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a long
range,
fuel cell boat hauler.

Well, the admin just shut down Yukka (sp?) today, there's billions down
the tubes and of course could be the end of Nuke power.. Now we will
have to buy even more dirty panels, and exploding windmills from
China... Who'd a thunk, huh?

--
Wafa free again.


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.

It's much better that the east and west coasts are under twenty meters
of water.


?? Are you saying we shouldn't try to ensure proper long-term storage for
nuclear waste? And, are you now claiming that adverse, human caused, climate
change is happening?

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is interesting....
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:00:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 4, 10:24 pm, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...







On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:16:32 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:h1o2f55iekdj4hjoouf9bk3vm2b3ncqh17@4a x.com...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:11:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism
whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have
our
beaches and salt marshes.

Don't be so sure
Have you heard about "Cape Wind"?

Another example of envimoronmentalist hyprocrisy.

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer

Globe editorials in support.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...26/2_tribes_ob...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...torials/articl...

Fortunately, it looks like it's going to get done.

http://www.capewind.org/news1018.htm

If Ted Kennedy were alive, it wouldn't be happening. :)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the
Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. The local indians going to object to
that
also?

Dunno...

Neighbor, golf and poker buddy, in the energy business, says that the
wind turbines are better at self destructing than they are at generating
power. The asian and american manufacturers all have the same problems.
The can't stop the blades from spinning out of control and ripping the
whole unit apart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Funny, there's places right here in the U.S. that have thousands upon
thousands of operational wind turbines.

Gosh, with your vast knowledge, it shouldn't be hard for you to show
such a place.

I'd be very interested.


There are something like 4000 near Palm Springs.

There are nearly 5000 at Altamont Pass.

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is interesting....
 

In article
77l6f5l26tavkfmujjnpsf996v
,

om says...

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:58:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that
they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT
same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many
drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in
the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in
that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem
in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind
turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment.
Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low
altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one
I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit
by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin
out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about
caribou
or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and
yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in
the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out
of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a
19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou
in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it
would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power
plants.
But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic),
chemicals,
fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a long
range,
fuel cell boat hauler.

Well, the admin just shut down Yukka (sp?) today, there's billions down
the tubes and of course could be the end of Nuke power.. Now we will
have to buy even more dirty panels, and exploding windmills from
China... Who'd a thunk, huh?

--
Wafa free again.


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.

Bunch of bull****.. As of
now, thousands of
facilities move hot stuff,
how many accidents have you
heard of. Oh, I know, only
spent stuff will cause
crashes.. But think of all
the jobs saves as these
thousands of facilities now
have to store and guard it
separately... snerk The
security of these thousands
of plants is in the
billions...


It's much better that the east and west coasts are under twenty meters
of water.

You folks take the cake.



--
Wafa free again.

This is interesting....
 

On 11/5/09 6:13 PM, Tosk wrote:


On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:58:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.

Bunch of bull****.. As of
now, thousands of
facilities move hot stuff,
how many accidents have you
heard of. Oh, I know, only
spent stuff will cause
crashes.. But think of all
the jobs saves as these
thousands of facilities now
have to store and guard it
separately...snerk The
security of these thousands
of plants is in the
billions...





Oh, look...Tuskie is now an expert on the transportion and storage of
nuclear waste! Why, I'll bet he majored in nuclear physics until he was
kicked out of high school.

This is interesting....
 

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:50:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:58:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that
they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT
same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many
drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in
the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in
that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem
in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind
turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment.
Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low
altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one
I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting
hit
by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin
out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about
caribou
or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and
yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in
the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease
kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out
of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a
19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou
in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid
of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did
that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next
election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it
would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in
the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power
plants.
But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic),
chemicals,
fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a long
range,
fuel cell boat hauler.

Well, the admin just shut down Yukka (sp?) today, there's billions down
the tubes and of course could be the end of Nuke power.. Now we will
have to buy even more dirty panels, and exploding windmills from
China... Who'd a thunk, huh?

--
Wafa free again.


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.

It's much better that the east and west coasts are under twenty meters
of water.


?? Are you saying we shouldn't try to ensure proper long-term storage for
nuclear waste? And, are you now claiming that adverse, human caused, climate
change is happening?

Please learn to read.

Sheeesh!
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

This is interesting....
 

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 11/5/09 6:13 PM, Tosk wrote:


On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:58:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.

Bunch of bull****.. As of
now, thousands of
facilities move hot stuff,
how many accidents have you
heard of. Oh, I know, only
spent stuff will cause
crashes.. But think of all
the jobs saves as these
thousands of facilities now
have to store and guard it
separately...snerk The
security of these thousands
of plants is in the
billions...





Oh, look...Tuskie is now an expert on the transportion and storage of
nuclear waste! Why, I'll bet he majored in nuclear physics until he was
kicked out of high school.



I guess using the word "apparently" was too complicated.

--
Nom=de=Plume

This is interesting....
 

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:52:46 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:00:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 4, 10:24 pm, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...







On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:16:32 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:h1o2f55iekdj4hjoouf9bk3vm2b3ncqh17@4a x.com...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:11:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism
whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have
our
beaches and salt marshes.

Don't be so sure
Have you heard about "Cape Wind"?

Another example of envimoronmentalist hyprocrisy.

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer

Globe editorials in support.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...26/2_tribes_ob...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...torials/articl...

Fortunately, it looks like it's going to get done.

http://www.capewind.org/news1018.htm

If Ted Kennedy were alive, it wouldn't be happening. :)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the
Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. The local indians going to object to
that
also?

Dunno...

Neighbor, golf and poker buddy, in the energy business, says that the
wind turbines are better at self destructing than they are at generating
power. The asian and american manufacturers all have the same problems.
The can't stop the blades from spinning out of control and ripping the
whole unit apart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Funny, there's places right here in the U.S. that have thousands upon
thousands of operational wind turbines.

Gosh, with your vast knowledge, it shouldn't be hard for you to show
such a place.

I'd be very interested.


There are something like 4000 near Palm Springs.

There are nearly 5000 at Altamont Pass.

Did they add a few thousand since July?

http://www.awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=California

lol
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H