Scooby Doo wrote:
A "fool" is someone who won't accept a compromise where he gets more than
92% of what he wants. ANWR is 19 million acres. The area identified as
the largest untapped petroleum supply in North America is 1.5 million
acres, or 7.9% of the 19 million.

Uh huh. And if "opening" that 7.9% negates the value of the rest, then
it's not enough, is it?

.. The proposal to open that 1.5 million
acres would create about 700,000 jobs, decrease our dependence on Middle
Eastern and other unstable foreign sources of energy, and allow 92.1% of
the wildlife refuge to remain untouched.

No, it will provide approx six months worth of oil at current
consumption, probably less by the time all is said and done, and cut
across the entire wildlife refuge disrupting migration & seasonal habitat.

In other words, for a couple days supply of oil (and huge profits to
those allowed "in"), you want to destroy the refuge. Good idea.

DSK

Scooby Doo wrote:
DSK wrote in
:

Scooby Doo wrote:
A "fool" is someone who won't accept a compromise where he gets more
than 92% of what he wants. ANWR is 19 million acres. The area
identified as the largest untapped petroleum supply in North America
is 1.5 million acres, or 7.9% of the 19 million.
Uh huh. And if "opening" that 7.9% negates the value of the rest, then
it's not enough, is it?

What "value" is being negated? Before you answer, ponder the fact that
the caribou population has TRIPLED since the opening of the Alaska
Pipeline. No doubt you were one of the Chicken Littles warning about
'negating value" before that project, n'est-ce pas?


There is nothing more pathetically funny than a BushBoy trying to
justify the idiocy of his fearful leader, Dubya

15 billion barrels is "six months worth"? Arthur Andersen teach you math?


Nobody except Rush Limbaugh and George Bush actually believes there are
15 BBO recoverable from ANWR.

USGS predicts with a 95% certainty that there are at least 1.9 BBO.
USGS predicts with a 50% certainty that we could recover as many as 5.3
BBO.
The liklihood of recovering 15 BBO is probably a fraction of one
percent, and those are pretty long odds upon which to challenge another
person's math.

*If* we got the 5.3 BBO, that would be closer to nine months' supply
than six, but the odds or getting that much oil or more are only 50%.
If we factor in the number of years it would take before any oil flowed
from ANWR and consider the annual increase in fuel consumption, 5.3BBO
might actually be closer to a six month supply.

Even if we used the propaganda claim of 15 BBO as a basis- that would
only
satisfy the current US crude oil appetite for 24 months. ANWR doesn't
"fix" the oil crisis, but it might postpone the day of reckoning long
enough for some extremely old folks to die off before we all pay the
piper.

In the good old days, this problem would have been solved at the
congressional level by a compromise between the liberals and the
conservatives. The conservatives would have agreed to some legislation
that encouraged fuel economy and conservation and in return the
moderates and liberals would have agreed to let them dig up ANWR and
extract the oil. That is unlikely to happen again any time soon, as
experience has now shown that an incoming right wing president has no
difficulty at all in setting aside the "pesky" environmental laws
passed by the people during previous
years. If our elected representatives said, "It's OK to dig up ANWR,
but we are going to ask the American people to use the oil more wisely
by encouraging less wasteful and more efficient consumption" just about
the time the first drop of oil appeared on the market the POTUS could
get out his pen and wipe out the environmental portion of the agreement.

Uh huh. And if "opening" that 7.9% negates the value of the rest, then
it's not enough, is it?

Scooby Doo wrote:
What "value" is being negated?

The value as wildlife refuge & habitat.

... Before you answer, ponder the fact that
the caribou population has TRIPLED since the opening of the Alaska
Pipeline.

Meaning what? There are more buffalo now, too... does that mean the open
prairie is better than ever?



... No doubt you were one of the Chicken Littles warning about
'negating value" before that project, n'est-ce pas?

No doubt I'm one of the people what understand what "wildlife refuge"
means, and a have a slight grasp of ecology, nyet tovarisch?



No, it will provide approx six months worth of oil at current
consumption, probably less by the time all is said and done, and cut
across the entire wildlife refuge disrupting migration & seasonal
habitat.


15 billion barrels is "six months worth"?

Isn't that a very optimistic... unrealistically optimistic... estimate?
And what do you think is the annual US oil consumption? Way more than
that, so even by your figure, it's not one year's worth.

Some "independence from Middle East Sources" huh?

DSK

ANWR is not all pristine wilderness. There were military bases, villages,
etc. in the region. Friends that have been there say you see old 50 gallon
drums and other signs of habitation in the far north.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Scooby Doo wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in
ink.net:

I'm sure one of the Bush-hogs will tell us that when adjusted for
inflation, we're actually paying less for gasoline now than at any
time in recent memory.

And the fools probably believe it, too.

A "fool" is someone who won't accept a compromise where he gets more than
92% of what he wants. ANWR is 19 million acres. The area identified as
the largest untapped petroleum supply in North America is 1.5 million
acres, or 7.9% of the 19 million. The proposal to open that 1.5 million
acres would create about 700,000 jobs, decrease our dependence on Middle
Eastern and other unstable foreign sources of energy, and allow 92.1% of
the wildlife refuge to remain untouched.

But supporters of alcoholic murderers like Ted Kennedy won't make that
compromise, because the thought of Schlumberger's CEO getting a bigger
Christmas (oh, excuse me, "Holiday") bonus keeps them awake at night.

Here's another definition of a fool: A guy who permanently disfigures
his face so he can look like an adventurous rogue for a hot blind date.

In 2000, US oil consumption was 7 billion barrels of oil per year.
Imported oil amounted to 3.8 billion of that total, and domestic
production was 3.2 billion.

There isn't some unlimited supply of oil at ANWR. USGS estimates with
95% certainty that we could recover at least 1.9 billion barrels of oil
(total) by drilling at ANWR. USGS estimates with 50% certainty that we
could recover
5.3 billion barrels, and there is only a 5% chance that we would
recover as many as 9.4 billion barrels.

Using the year 2000 figures, the 95% certain scenario says that by
carving up one of the few large and unspoiled natural areas in the US,
we would get enough oil to "reduce our dependence on imported oil by
50%"..FOR ONE YEAR!
The 50% certain scenario would provide enough oil to meet the total
crude oil needs of the US for about nine months, and the 5% certain
scenario would
produce enough oil to feed the US oil appetite for just over a year.

Here's an interesting thought: Cars and light trucks account for 40% of
our total oil consumption each year, or (by the year 2000 figures)
about 2.8 billion barrels. If we could improve fuel economy by only
10%, in 5 years we would have saved as much oil as the 95% certain USGS
estimate for recoverable oil from ANWR...without ripping up the
environment. And don't forget, if Bush talked Congress into letting BIG
OIL start drilling ANWR next week, it would take 4-5 years for oil to
start flowing. By improving fuel economy by just 10%, we would save all
the oil we can be 95% certain is in ANWR before we pumped a drop of it.

We are addicted to oil. Maybe we should try figuring out how to get
well, rather than continue to live like some crack addict worried about
what we can pawn tomorrow to pay for another hit.

As far as we know, ANWR is it. It's the last bottle of oxygen on the
space ship. Should we open it now to provide slightly more available
and affordable fuel our Hummers (and twin 454 gasoline boats), or maybe
hang onto it for a purpose we can't even imagine yet? What if we
discover that by
extracting some oddball element from 100 barrels of oil we come up with
the cure for cancer? It would be a shame if we had already burned it
all because we insisted on the free market right to "choose" deliberate
inefficiency in our commuting and recreational fuel uses.

Scooby Doo wrote:
DSK wrote in
:

Uh huh. And if "opening" that 7.9% negates the value of the rest, then
it's not enough, is it?
Scooby Doo wrote:
What "value" is being negated?
The value as wildlife refuge & habitat.

The other NINETY-TWO PERCENT REMAINS UNTOUCHED.

And even if it doesn't, it appears the loonylefty mantra has changed from
"People, not profits" to "Caribou, not people".



Do you have one idea in your head not planted by the irresponsible right?

What "value" is being negated?

The value as wildlife refuge & habitat.


Scooby Doo wrote:
The other NINETY-TWO PERCENT REMAINS UNTOUCHED.

And if the construction cuts migration routes, then the whole rest of it
might as well not be there.



And even if it doesn't, it appears the loonylefty mantra has changed from
"People, not profits" to "Caribou, not people".


That's right, if you can't make logic and facts work for you, call the
other guy names.

Frankly, I don't care much about caribou. As you said, there are a lot
of them and they're all over the place. There are much more rare &
valuable species up there ("valuable" in the sense of filling critical
ecological niches, not something that contributes to Halliburton's EPS).


... Before you answer, ponder the fact that
the caribou population has TRIPLED since the opening of the Alaska
Pipeline.

Meaning what? There are more buffalo now, too... does that mean the open
prairie is better than ever?


According to the buffalo, whose wellbeing you apparently value more than
humans', it appears to be so.

So, you really think that the population penned buffalo on feed lots is
a measure of environmental success?




There's also more forestland in the US than there was in 1900.

Malarkey. I guess back in 1900 they were paving thousands of acres per
day for shopping mall parking lots & roads.



... No doubt you were one of the Chicken Littles warning about
'negating value" before that project, n'est-ce pas?

No doubt I'm one of the people what understand what "wildlife refuge"
means, and a have a slight grasp of ecology, nyet tovarisch?


"Wildlife refuge" means that a Democrat at the Department of the Interior
designated the land as such.

Really? Was Teddy Roosevelt a Democrat?



Some "independence from Middle East Sources" huh?


Better than without it.

Yes, a little bit. But is the benefit to the whole nation worth the
loss? I think not. Those who are reaping tremendous profits have a
different way of balancing it... and they've persuaded amny people
they're "right."


But since your definition of "compromise" is rejecting a deal that
gives you over 92% of what you want, it's obvious you don't have a
rational cell in your brain.

More name calling. I've tried to patiently explain why this is
absolutely in no way "92% of what the opposition wants" but you can't
seem to grasp it. Let me try one more time... if somebody chopped thru
the walls of your house, and put a wall thru the middle of it, cutting
off access to at least several rooms, and that wall had exposed high
voltage wires along with very noisy machinery & piped that emitted
stinky poisons, would you be getting 92% of what *you* want because the
wall only takes up 8% of your floor space?

Think.
It's painful but the results are worth it.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
What "value" is being negated?

The value as wildlife refuge & habitat.


Scooby Doo wrote:
The other NINETY-TWO PERCENT REMAINS UNTOUCHED.

And if the construction cuts migration routes, then the whole rest of it
might as well not be there.



And even if it doesn't, it appears the loonylefty mantra has changed from
"People, not profits" to "Caribou, not people".


That's right, if you can't make logic and facts work for you, call the
other guy names.

Frankly, I don't care much about caribou. As you said, there are a lot of
them and they're all over the place. There are much more rare & valuable
species up there ("valuable" in the sense of filling critical ecological
niches, not something that contributes to Halliburton's EPS).


... Before you answer, ponder the fact that the caribou population has
TRIPLED since the opening of the Alaska Pipeline.

Meaning what? There are more buffalo now, too... does that mean the open
prairie is better than ever?


According to the buffalo, whose wellbeing you apparently value more than
humans', it appears to be so.

So, you really think that the population penned buffalo on feed lots is a
measure of environmental success?




There's also more forestland in the US than there was in 1900.

Malarkey. I guess back in 1900 they were paving thousands of acres per day
for shopping mall parking lots & roads.



... No doubt you were one of the Chicken Littles warning about
'negating value" before that project, n'est-ce pas?

No doubt I'm one of the people what understand what "wildlife refuge"
means, and a have a slight grasp of ecology, nyet tovarisch?


"Wildlife refuge" means that a Democrat at the Department of the Interior
designated the land as such.

Really? Was Teddy Roosevelt a Democrat?



Some "independence from Middle East Sources" huh?


Better than without it.

Yes, a little bit. But is the benefit to the whole nation worth the loss?
I think not. Those who are reaping tremendous profits have a different way
of balancing it... and they've persuaded amny people they're "right."


But since your definition of "compromise" is rejecting a deal that gives
you over 92% of what you want, it's obvious you don't have a rational
cell in your brain.

More name calling. I've tried to patiently explain why this is absolutely
in no way "92% of what the opposition wants" but you can't seem to grasp
it. Let me try one more time... if somebody chopped thru the walls of your
house, and put a wall thru the middle of it, cutting off access to at
least several rooms, and that wall had exposed high voltage wires along
with very noisy machinery & piped that emitted stinky poisons, would you
be getting 92% of what *you* want because the wall only takes up 8% of
your floor space?

Think.
It's painful but the results are worth it.

DSK


The wildlife loves the Alaska Pipeline. Get near it when it is cold. And
seems as if the caribou have increased.

Scooby Doo wrote:

As I said, since you can't rationally debate ANWR, you're useless.


Yet another brain-dead reich-winger for rec.boats.