Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Scooby Doo wrote:
DSK wrote in
:

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.

As I said, the caribou population has TRIPLED since the Alaska pipeline
went in. So please don't dust off moronic arguments that were
categorically refuted a generation ago.

That isn't true. And in fact all of the biologists who've studied
caribou around Prudhoe Bay say that developing ANWR will cause a
decline in the Porcupine Caribou Herd.


"In summary, 4 research-based ecological arguments indicate
that the Porcupine caribou herd may be particularly
sensitive to development within the 1002 portion of the
calving ground:

Low productivity of the Porcupine caribou herd - The
Porcupine caribou herd has had the lowest capacity for
growth among Alaska barren-ground herds ... the Porcupine
caribou herd has less capacity to accommodate ... stresses
than other Alaska ... herds. Any absolute effect of
development would be expected to have a larger relative
effect on the Porcupine caribou herd than on the other
herds. For example, an approximate 4.6% reduction in calf
survival, all else held equal, would be enough to prevent
Porcupine caribou herd growth under the best conditions
observed to date ... A similar reduction in calf survival,
all else held equal, for other Alaska barren-ground herds,
however, would not be sufficient to arrest their growth.

Demonstrated shift of concentrated calving areas of the
Central Arctic caribou herd away from petroleum development
infrastructures - ... the Porcupine caribou herd caribou
will avoid roads and pipelines during calving ... Avoidance
of petroleum development infrastructure by parturient
caribou ... is the most consistently observed behavioral
response of caribou to development.

Lack of high-quality alternate calving habitat - ... When
snow cover reduced access by females to the Arctic Refuge
coastal plain and 1002 Area for calving, calf survival
during June was 19% lower than when they could calve on the
Arctic Refuge coastal plain and 1002 Area.

Strong link between calf survival and free movement of
females - ... data predict that June calf survival for the
Porcupine caribou herd will decline if the calving grounds
are displaced ... is a function of displacement: 1) reducing
access to the highest quality habitats for foraging and 2)
increasing exposure to risk of mortality from predation
during calving (first 3 weeks of June).

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part5.htm

And here's what the head biologist for the Procupine Caribou
Herd studies said in testimony to Congress:

"Considering of the importance of the Porcupine Caribou Herd
to indigenous people in United States and Canada, and the
high likelihood that petroleum leasing and development would
cause long-term harm to those caribou, 21 arctic caribou
biologists from the US and Canada signed a letter to former
President Clinton urging permanent protection of the
Porcupine Herd calving grounds from development. Over 500
prominent North American scientists signed a letter to
President Bush urging protection of the Arctic Refuge
Coastal Plain to safeguard caribou and other natural
resource values. Protection of the Coastal Plain has also
been endorsed by the Alaska Chapter of The Wildlife Society,
the American Society of Mammalogists, and the Cooper
Ornithological Union. Copies of the letters and resolutions
are attached. I urge Congress to heed the advice of these
eminent wildlife biologists and ecologists and not allow
petroleum development on the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain."
Ken Whitten's statement to Congress
http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/ar...ws/whitten.pdf

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

In fact the purpose of protecting the Porcupine Caribou Herd is specifically
to protect the Gwich'in culture. It *is* a people issue.

And I'm sure you can scan and post a photograh of one such species from
the last trip you took to ANWR. Here, I'll provide room for you to post
that pictu

http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/anwr/

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

I can. And I'll drown you in facts that can't be disputed too. ;-)

The problem is actually that *you* don't have a clue what you are
talking about. And I'll be happy to set the record straight.

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


This can't possibly be true. Rush Limbaugh insists that the caribou are
thriving as a direct result of the AK pipeline. (Maybe he thinks they
bought stock in Exxon).

"Scooby Doo" wrote in message
...
wrote in
oups.com:


Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Seems you can't rationally debate either.

BWAAAHAAAAA!!!! Bill has been proven dead wrong AGAIN!!!! You're
bull**** about ANWR, and the caribou herds have been blown totally out
of the water by one single person!!!!!!!

You have to love a retard who doesn't know the difference between a
possessive and a contraction. Actually, you don't.

LMAO.........and kevin wonders why he retains the title of "King of the NG
idiots"

It appears that Mr. Kruase is here just to disrupt this forum. He doesn't
want to discuss boats or have a rational debate on any topic. He is nothing
more than a newsgroup troll.


"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Seems you can't rationally debate either.


Sure I can, but there's no point to doing so in this newsgroup, not with
the current population of right-wing robots.

Scooby Doo wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:


Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Seems you can't rationally debate either.

BWAAAHAAAAA!!!! Bill has been proven dead wrong AGAIN!!!! You're
bull**** about ANWR, and the caribou herds have been blown totally out
of the water by one single person!!!!!!!

You have to love a retard who doesn't know the difference between a
possessive and a contraction. Actually, you don't.

Hmm, do you want to get into a ****ing contest about grammar? I take it
that you know nothing about the subject, or are too narrow minded to
give a ****, right? Now, take a look at your circle jerk buddies'
grammar.

Scooby Doo wrote:
John H. wrote in
:

On 11 Aug 2005 07:10:43 -0700, wrote:


Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Seems you can't rationally debate either.

BWAAAHAAAAA!!!! Bill has been proven dead wrong AGAIN!!!! You're
bull**** about ANWR, and the caribou herds have been blown totally out
of the water by one single person!!!!!!!

Do you know for a fact he's single, or is that just another wild,
unfounded allegation?

Who would marry a dweeb who admits he knows about two dozen academic
papers written about one caribou species?

Childish name calling and petty insults certainly say alot about your
credibility.

Gene Kearns wrote:


Filled up at this station prior to boating last weekend.

This reflects fuel prices between Oak Island and Southport, NC. If
anybody thinks fuel prices haven't soared beyond any
adjusted-for-whatever periods in the past,see if you remember any fuel
signs vaguely similar....

By the way, this is a totally unretouched sign... it genuinely said
what is says....

--


What sign? I wanted to take a look but I don't see a link or anything
in your post...

richforman

_ ___c
\ _| \_
__\_| oooo \_____
~~~~|______________/ ~~~~~
~~~ ~~~~~~
~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC.

http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/ Homepage*
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide

You all know it doesnt matter how many pipelines we have, how many wells we
have, the problem is we dont have the refineries to produce the gas. We can
have a surplus of oil and we will still have this problem. We havent built a
new refinery in over 20 years.
wrote in message
ups.com...

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Scooby Doo wrote:
DSK wrote in
:

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.

As I said, the caribou population has TRIPLED since the Alaska pipeline
went in. So please don't dust off moronic arguments that were
categorically refuted a generation ago.

That isn't true. And in fact all of the biologists who've studied
caribou around Prudhoe Bay say that developing ANWR will cause a
decline in the Porcupine Caribou Herd.


"In summary, 4 research-based ecological arguments indicate
that the Porcupine caribou herd may be particularly
sensitive to development within the 1002 portion of the
calving ground:

Low productivity of the Porcupine caribou herd - The
Porcupine caribou herd has had the lowest capacity for
growth among Alaska barren-ground herds ... the Porcupine
caribou herd has less capacity to accommodate ... stresses
than other Alaska ... herds. Any absolute effect of
development would be expected to have a larger relative
effect on the Porcupine caribou herd than on the other
herds. For example, an approximate 4.6% reduction in calf
survival, all else held equal, would be enough to prevent
Porcupine caribou herd growth under the best conditions
observed to date ... A similar reduction in calf survival,
all else held equal, for other Alaska barren-ground herds,
however, would not be sufficient to arrest their growth.

Demonstrated shift of concentrated calving areas of the
Central Arctic caribou herd away from petroleum development
infrastructures - ... the Porcupine caribou herd caribou
will avoid roads and pipelines during calving ... Avoidance
of petroleum development infrastructure by parturient
caribou ... is the most consistently observed behavioral
response of caribou to development.

Lack of high-quality alternate calving habitat - ... When
snow cover reduced access by females to the Arctic Refuge
coastal plain and 1002 Area for calving, calf survival
during June was 19% lower than when they could calve on the
Arctic Refuge coastal plain and 1002 Area.

Strong link between calf survival and free movement of
females - ... data predict that June calf survival for the
Porcupine caribou herd will decline if the calving grounds
are displaced ... is a function of displacement: 1) reducing
access to the highest quality habitats for foraging and 2)
increasing exposure to risk of mortality from predation
during calving (first 3 weeks of June).

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part5.htm

And here's what the head biologist for the Procupine Caribou
Herd studies said in testimony to Congress:

"Considering of the importance of the Porcupine Caribou Herd
to indigenous people in United States and Canada, and the
high likelihood that petroleum leasing and development would
cause long-term harm to those caribou, 21 arctic caribou
biologists from the US and Canada signed a letter to former
President Clinton urging permanent protection of the
Porcupine Herd calving grounds from development. Over 500
prominent North American scientists signed a letter to
President Bush urging protection of the Arctic Refuge
Coastal Plain to safeguard caribou and other natural
resource values. Protection of the Coastal Plain has also
been endorsed by the Alaska Chapter of The Wildlife Society,
the American Society of Mammalogists, and the Cooper
Ornithological Union. Copies of the letters and resolutions
are attached. I urge Congress to heed the advice of these
eminent wildlife biologists and ecologists and not allow
petroleum development on the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain."
Ken Whitten's statement to Congress
http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/ar...ws/whitten.pdf

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

In fact the purpose of protecting the Porcupine Caribou Herd is
specifically
to protect the Gwich'in culture. It *is* a people issue.

And I'm sure you can scan and post a photograh of one such species from
the last trip you took to ANWR. Here, I'll provide room for you to post
that pictu

http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/anwr/

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

I can. And I'll drown you in facts that can't be disputed too. ;-)

The problem is actually that *you* don't have a clue what you are
talking about. And I'll be happy to set the record straight.

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


This can't possibly be true. Rush Limbaugh insists that the caribou are
thriving as a direct result of the AK pipeline. (Maybe he thinks they
bought stock in Exxon).

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Seems you can't rationally debate either.


Sure I can, but there's no point to doing so in this newsgroup, not with
the current population of right-wing robots.

Yeah, right.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Seems you can't rationally debate either.

BWAAAHAAAAA!!!! Bill has been proven dead wrong AGAIN!!!! You're
bull**** about ANWR, and the caribou herds have been blown totally out
of the water by one single person!!!!!!!


Where are the scientific studies? Not a posting by someone who has a vested
interest in no development.

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Seems you can't rationally debate either.

BWAAAHAAAAA!!!! Bill has been proven dead wrong AGAIN!!!! You're
bull**** about ANWR, and the caribou herds have been blown totally out
of the water by one single person!!!!!!!


Where are the scientific studies? Not a posting by someone who has a vested
interest in no development.

Are you really so stupid that you don't understand that IF someone "has
a vested interest in no development", that they could, and do come by
their conclusions by good, sound, scientific studies????? You've seen
many, many posts right here that show that the caribou are NOT thriving
because of the pipeline, and that ANWR isn't the waste hole that you
make it out to be. Now, let's make this easy on you. Where are the
scientific studies that you saw that said that the caribou along the
pipeline like it, are and are thriving because of it.

John H. wrote:
On 11 Aug 2005 07:10:43 -0700, wrote:


Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Seems you can't rationally debate either.

BWAAAHAAAAA!!!! Bill has been proven dead wrong AGAIN!!!! You're
bull**** about ANWR, and the caribou herds have been blown totally out
of the water by one single person!!!!!!!

Do you know for a fact he's single, or is that just another wild, unfounded
allegation?

Damn, you're stupid.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On 11 Aug 2005 10:50:42 -0700, wrote:


What sign? I wanted to take a look but I don't see a link or anything
in your post...


Let me try again. I wasn't sure it worked anyway....


Let's clarify this one and for all:

Attachments is supported by less than 10% of the worlds
news-servers.

This means that if you attach an image to something you post to
"rec.boats", 9 out of 10 news servers will remove it, and store
/forward onle the plain text of your post.

1 in 10 readers will be able to see your "Fuel_sign.jpg".

If you want all of us to see it, put it on your web-site,
and post a link to it. Then we can go see it for ourselves.

--
Dag.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:10:54 GMT, "Dag Sunde" wrote:

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .
On 11 Aug 2005 10:50:42 -0700, wrote:


What sign? I wanted to take a look but I don't see a link or anything
in your post...


Let me try again. I wasn't sure it worked anyway....


Let's clarify this one and for all:

Attachments is supported by less than 10% of the worlds
news-servers.

This means that if you attach an image to something you post to
"rec.boats", 9 out of 10 news servers will remove it, and store
/forward onle the plain text of your post.

1 in 10 readers will be able to see your "Fuel_sign.jpg".

If you want all of us to see it, put it on your web-site,
and post a link to it. Then we can go see it for ourselves.

Or post it in alt.binaries.pictures.fishing. It will be there only temporarily,
but it's an easy way to get a picture on the 'net.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

Bill McKee wrote:
Where are the scientific studies? Not a posting by someone who has a vested
interest in no development.


Who has a "vested interest" in no development?

My interest is in what's best for the country in the long run. An actual
ecology would be very nice, much better than huge short-term profits for
Bush/Cheney's chosen.

Do you have a "vested interest" in seeing the ANWR befouled? Do you get
a share of the oil money?

DSK

"ed" wrote:
You all know it doesnt matter how many pipelines we have, how many wells we
have, the problem is we dont have the refineries to produce the gas. We can
have a surplus of oil and we will still have this problem. We havent built a
new refinery in over 20 years.

That's a red hering.

We *have* expanded nearly every currently operating refinery,
and we *could* expand them even more. The oil companies don't
want to. In addition, they have been shutting off refineries by
the dozens...

As to the process for building new refineries or new capacity at
old refineries, it isn't all that difficult. For example, the
last new refinery in the US was built by Petro Star in Valdez
Alaska. They brag about how fast that went from a gleam in the
Board's eye to reality... The idea was conceived in 1991, and
the refinery was online in early 1993.

If we don't have enough refinery capacity, it is clearly a
fault of the industry. Now... why would they do that??? :-)

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

"Bill McKee" wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Seems you can't rationally debate either.


Sure I can, but there's no point to doing so in this newsgroup, not with
the current population of right-wing robots.

Yeah, right.

Clearly that does seem to be true. You've posted outlandish
claims, but when faced with facts... no response.

Hmmmm...

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

"Bill McKee" wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com...

BWAAAHAAAAA!!!! Bill has been proven dead wrong AGAIN!!!! You're
bull**** about ANWR, and the caribou herds have been blown totally out
of the water by one single person!!!!!!!


Where are the scientific studies? Not a posting by someone who has a vested
interest in no development.

I've posted cites for the scientific studies.

You again are making false claims that you fabricate, and clearly you
have *no* concept of what you are saying.

The studies cited are the product of ongoing studies of how to
get *more* oil production on the North Slope of Alaska. They
are funded entirely by oil taxes, and are accomplished by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (fully funded by oil taxes)
with support from the Department of the Interior's US Fish and
Wildlife Service, which is also very clearly pro-oil, and funded
by oil dollars too.

Now that only leaves the "posting by someone", who would be *me*!
And you claim there is "a vested interest in no development".

But the facts are that I have a huge vested interest in *more*
oil development on the North Slope. That oil development won't
do *you* any good, because 1) it won't reduce dependence on
foreign oil, 2) won't reduce the price of gasoline, 3) won't
reduce your taxes, and 3) won't provide jobs where you live.
But it *will* provide tax dollars (and a few jobs) for Alaskans
in specific, but more so for people who live on the North Slope.

Of course, I am a permanent resident of the North Slope and
stand to gain from any new oil discovered on the North Slope
more than even the average Alaskan.

So the question is, when are you going to find reality and stop
posting your fairy tales?

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

wrote:
Bill McKee wrote:

Where are the scientific studies? Not a posting by someone who has a vested
interest in no development.

I've posted cites previously, which McKee seems to ignore because it
blows his stance out of the water.

....
make it out to be. Now, let's make this easy on you. Where are the
scientific studies that you saw that said that the caribou along the
pipeline like it, are and are thriving because of it.

Just to repeat, there *are* studies. They do *not* show that
caribou like pipelines or are in any way benefiting from it,
much less thriving because of it. These are highlights of only
the most recent studies (the last 15 years of studies that have been
going on for 30 years now).

Cameron RD, KR Whitten, and WT Smith. 1981. Distribution and
movements of caribou in relation to the Kuparuk Development
Area. 3rd Interim Rep to ARCO. 25pp.

Smith WT and RD Cameron. 1983. Responses of caribou to
petroleum development on Alaska's Arctic Slope. Acta Zool
Fenn. 175:43-45.

Whitten KR and RD Cameron. 1983. Movements of collared
caribou in relation to petroleum development on the Arctic
Slope of Alaska. Can Field-Nat. 97:143-146.

Dau, J.R., and R.D. Cameron. 1986. Effects of a road
system on caribou distribution during calving.
Rangifer, Special Issue No. 1:95-101.

Dau JR and RD Cameron. 1986. Responses of barren-ground
caribou to petroleum development near Milne Point,
Alaska. Final Rep to Conoco, Inc and Continental Pipeline
Company. 25pp.

Smith WT and RD Cameron. 1986. Distribution and movements of
caribou in relation to the Kuparuk Development Area. Alaska
Dep Fish and Game. Fed Aid in Wildl Restor. Final Rep. Proj
W-21-2, W-22-1, W-22-2, W-22-3, W-22-4, W-22-5. Job
3.30R. 47pp.

Cameron, R.D., D.J. Reed, J.R. Dau, and W.T. Smith.
1992. Redistribution of calving caribou in response
to oil field development on the arctic slope of Alaska.
Arctic. 45:338-342.

Smith WT, RD Cameron, and DJ Reed. 1994. Distribution and
movements of caribou in relation to roads and pipelines,
Kuparuk Development Area, 1978-90. Alaska Dep Fish and Game,
Wildl Tech Bull 12. 54pp.

Cameron RD, EA Lenart, DJ Reed, KR Whitten, and WT
Smith. 1995. Abundance and movements of caribou in the
oilfield complex near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Rangifer. 15:3-7.

Cameron, R.D. 1995. Distribution and productivity of
the Central Arctic Herd in relation to petroleum
development: case history studies with a nutritional
perspective. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Resp. Final Rept.
AK. Dept. Fish and Game. Juneau. 35pp.

Nelleman, C., and R.D. Cameron. 1996. Terrain preferences
of calving caribou exposed to petroleum development.
Arctic 49:23-28.

Just to identify two of the names in the above cites...

Raymond Cameron is perhaps considered the dean of caribou
reseachers. He was, for 20+ years before retiring, head of the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game research projects at Prudhoe
Bay studying the Central Arctic Caribou Herd. Cameron has
opposed drilling in ANWR.

Ken Whitten stands next to Ray Cameron as the most notable
caribou researcher for the Porcupine Caribou Herd. He is also
retire after more than 20+ years heading up the ADF&G research
project on the Porcupine Caribou Herd (the herd which calves in
ANWR). Whitten has been perhaps the most vocal of all
biologists in opposing oil development in ANWR. He has
testified before Congress to that effect.

For specifics about what caribou research actually does show, it
*is* available online. Here is more than anyone really wants to
know:

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/index.htm

To just get the conclusions, go to this URL and read what
they decide it all means:

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part5.htm

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

Kevin,
I know you are missing the point, so let me spell it out for you. " John is
mocking your standard comment."

By the way, my wife and I (did I tell you we are both Dr. Dr.'s) both think
you are ****ing nuts.


wrote in message
oups.com...

John H. wrote:
On 11 Aug 2005 07:10:43 -0700, wrote:


Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Seems you can't rationally debate either.

BWAAAHAAAAA!!!! Bill has been proven dead wrong AGAIN!!!! You're
bull**** about ANWR, and the caribou herds have been blown totally out
of the water by one single person!!!!!!!

Do you know for a fact he's single, or is that just another wild,
unfounded
allegation?

Damn, you're stupid.

Harry,
Isn't this the point in the conversation where you turn to Bassy and Don and
high 5 each other.


"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
wrote:
It appears that Mr. Kruase is here just to disrupt this forum. He
doesn't want to discuss boats or have a rational debate on any topic. He
is nothing more than a newsgroup troll.


"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
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.
Seems you can't rationally debate either.

Sure I can, but there's no point to doing so in this newsgroup, not with
the current population of right-wing robots.




I don't like arguing with fools. But if I change my mind, I'll contact
you, ok?

Jack Redington wrote:
wrote:

Jack Redington wrote:

wrote:


Jack Redington wrote:


St wrote:



Whhat gas going for on the water throughout the US. $3.98 for premium,
downstate NY. No regular available at my marina





I was charged $2.49 about two weeks ago at Hartwell marina on Lake
Hartwell (Ga side) A marina that was closer wanted $2.79 (89o)

Capt Jack R..


Jack, is that the marina that's close to Tugaloo State Park?



The one nearest Tugaloo State Park is Lighthouse marina (near the I-85
bridge) They are at $2.79


That's the one I was thinking of!

. That is real close ot our place on Gumlog

creek. I fact I can see Tugaloo State park from my dock.


Have a friend that just sold a place in Fair Play, SC, and moved over
to the GA side quite close to there, he's having a new dock put in,
real nice house.

I hope I find myself wandering down by the dam when it comes fill-up
time again :-) Hartwell marina is by Hart State park in Hartwell Ga.


Do you ever go over to "The Island"? Met a lot of interesting folks
there the last time I was there.



This is our first year with a place on Hartwell. We had camped out at
some of the state parks before we got our little "weekender" So we know
we liked the lake and fled Lanier. We use to keep the boat on the
trailer at Starboard Marina.

Anyway I am not sure where "The Island" is. There are a bunch of them as
I am sure you already know. I have not noticed any specific gathering
places. But them again we are just beginning to really get the feel of
this area.

"The Island" is between Lighthouse Marina and I-85, you'll usually see
boats pulled up to it, it on the side of it. If you were leaving
Lighthouse, going toward I85 bridge, it would be on the left. The
people that hang there are very friendly, always cooking something,
etc. Nice natural sand beach to pull the boat up on, swim, relax.

We are finding lots of good food in the area. The T60 and Gumlog BBQ are
both excellent.

I'm a bbq fanatic, and will certainly check them out. Where abouts are
they? By the way, we go to Hendersonville, NC alot, and I often take
the Cherokee Scenic Highway, which is S.C. state route 11. You cross
Lake Keowee, absolutely beautiful. Oh, and the fireworks shop at the
Fair Play exit can't be beat!

DSK,
Why would oil companies invest the billions of dollars in infrastructure,
to extract 6 months usage of oil?


"DSK" wrote in message
...
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

"51 st" Smithers Inc wrote in message
...
Kevin,
I know you are missing the point, so let me spell it out for you. " John
is
mocking your standard comment."

By the way, my wife and I (did I tell you we are both Dr. Dr.'s) both
think
you are ****ing nuts.

Check with your Dr. Dr. wife......I think kevin is suffering from
BDS..........Bush Derangement Syndrome ;-)



wrote in message
oups.com...

John H. wrote:
On 11 Aug 2005 07:10:43 -0700, wrote:


Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Seems you can't rationally debate either.

BWAAAHAAAAA!!!! Bill has been proven dead wrong AGAIN!!!! You're
bull**** about ANWR, and the caribou herds have been blown totally out
of the water by one single person!!!!!!!

Do you know for a fact he's single, or is that just another wild,
unfounded
allegation?

Damn, you're stupid.

"52 nd Name" Smithers Inc wrote:
DSK,
Why would oil companies invest the billions of dollars in infrastructure,
to extract 6 months usage of oil?

That's a pretty simple minded question there lad, though I doubt
you exact figures, I can't see how you could miss making a rough
estimate. (3.64 billion barrels of oil sells on today's market
for about $218 billion, which is *clearly* the reason oil
companies would invest a few billions of dollars in
infrastructure to extract it.)

However, lets look at some actual specifics, to nail this down
in more detail. The numbers are from the Anchorage Daily News
of February 5, 2005, and they cite the source as "Global Oil and
Gas Risks and Rewards, 2004" public summary, Wood Mackenzie
consultants. That is commonly referred to as the "Wood
Mackenzie Report", and is widely credited as a reliable source
(which costs an arm and a leg if you want access to the detailed
specifics!).

The US uses 20M barrels of oil per day. A six month supply is
3.64 billion barrels. Take your pick what you think the price
will be, but it typically runs about $4 a barrel less than the
average price of oil on the world market. Which is to say that
with other oil hitting $64 a barrel, right now Alaska North Slope
(ANS) crude is running right at $60 a barrel.

The actual cost of production for ANS is $9.94, according to
the Wood Mackenzie Report.

Hence the investment in infrastructure and operating expenses
for that 3.64 billion barrels would be roughly $36 billion. And
the price received for that oil would be $218.4 billion.

Now, the figures did not specify what the taxes are for oil at
$60/bbl, but did state that at $16/bbl it was 71.7% and at $35/bbl
it was 58.4% (for ANS crude). We can probably assume that there
would be a lower percentage at $60/bbl, but I'm not going to even
try guessing how much lower. Lets error on the conservative side
and assume it is the same.

$218 billions, sale price
- 36 billions, cost of production
---------
$182 billions, before tax profit
- 106 billions, taxes at 58.4%
---------
$ 76 billions, pure profit


I'd like to know where else someone can invest 36 dollars and
get 76 back in profit, and do it billions at a time too!

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

52 nd Name wrote:
DSK,
Why would oil companies invest the billions of dollars in infrastructure,
to extract 6 months usage of oil?


Because they expect to profit very handsomely, especially after all
their investment in infrastructure is huge tax deduction? Oh wait, that
actually makes sense...

And if you do not know my name, it is because you don't read any boating
posts here. So why don't you go away, or have you been chased out of all
the political discussion groups?

DSK

DSK wrote:
52 nd Name wrote:
DSK,
Why would oil companies invest the billions of dollars in
infrastructure, to extract 6 months usage of oil?


Because they expect to profit very handsomely, especially after all
their investment in infrastructure is huge tax deduction? Oh wait, that
actually makes sense...

And if you do not know my name, it is because you don't read any boating
posts here. So why don't you go away, or have you been chased out of all
the political discussion groups?

DSK


You're being "smithered" here, fella. This is just his latest ID.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"52 nd Name" Smithers Inc wrote:
DSK,
Why would oil companies invest the billions of dollars in infrastructure,
to extract 6 months usage of oil?

That's a pretty simple minded question there lad


He's just playing you. It's "Smithers," with yet another ID.

Harry Krause wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"52 nd Name" Smithers Inc wrote:
DSK,
Why would oil companies invest the billions of dollars in infrastructure,
to extract 6 months usage of oil?
That's a pretty simple minded question there lad

He's just playing you. It's "Smithers," with yet another ID.

Smithers *is* a simple lad...

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

wrote:
Jack Redington wrote:

wrote:


Jack Redington wrote:


wrote:



Jack Redington wrote:



St wrote:




Whhat gas going for on the water throughout the US. $3.98 for premium,
downstate NY. No regular available at my marina





I was charged $2.49 about two weeks ago at Hartwell marina on Lake
Hartwell (Ga side) A marina that was closer wanted $2.79 (89o)

Capt Jack R..


Jack, is that the marina that's close to Tugaloo State Park?



The one nearest Tugaloo State Park is Lighthouse marina (near the I-85
bridge) They are at $2.79


That's the one I was thinking of!

. That is real close ot our place on Gumlog


creek. I fact I can see Tugaloo State park from my dock.


Have a friend that just sold a place in Fair Play, SC, and moved over
to the GA side quite close to there, he's having a new dock put in,
real nice house.


I hope I find myself wandering down by the dam when it comes fill-up
time again :-) Hartwell marina is by Hart State park in Hartwell Ga.


Do you ever go over to "The Island"? Met a lot of interesting folks
there the last time I was there.



This is our first year with a place on Hartwell. We had camped out at
some of the state parks before we got our little "weekender" So we know
we liked the lake and fled Lanier. We use to keep the boat on the
trailer at Starboard Marina.

Anyway I am not sure where "The Island" is. There are a bunch of them as
I am sure you already know. I have not noticed any specific gathering
places. But them again we are just beginning to really get the feel of
this area.


"The Island" is between Lighthouse Marina and I-85, you'll usually see
boats pulled up to it, it on the side of it. If you were leaving
Lighthouse, going toward I85 bridge, it would be on the left. The
people that hang there are very friendly, always cooking something,
etc. Nice natural sand beach to pull the boat up on, swim, relax.

Found it this weekend! Lighthouse is really HarborLight (my mistake)
They now have facilities on both sides of 85. We went toward the dam
(south of 85) and saw a large island with alot of boats and sandy
beaches. Figure that must be it :-)

We are finding lots of good food in the area. The T60 and Gumlog BBQ are
both excellent.


I'm a bbq fanatic, and will certainly check them out. Where abouts are
they? By the way, we go to Hendersonville, NC alot, and I often take
the Cherokee Scenic Highway, which is S.C. state route 11. You cross
Lake Keowee, absolutely beautiful. Oh, and the fireworks shop at the
Fair Play exit can't be beat!

I have never been to the T60 by land, but I think you take one of the
FairPlay exits to get there. I will get back to you on that.

Gumlog bbq is on ga 328 Basically you can follow the way to Tugaloo
state park to get to 328. I don't know the names of all the roads. But
here is the best I can do. From Atlanta take the hwy17 exit. Make a
left over the hwy 85 bridge Them the first right by the Hardees. You
will go over some RailRoad tracks and in less then a mile end up at a
four way stop. go righ and this road follows 85, it only goes for about
3-4 mile and it dead ends at 328. (you will see a whole bunch of signs
for local business and a bridge that goes over 85 to the right)
Go left here and after about 4 miles you will go over "Gumlog Creek"
bridge. There will be signs for Gumlog bbq on the left.

This place is only open on Thus threw Sunday. They sell pulled bbq by
the plate or by the pound. Ribs catfish and some very good pies.

We will be back there next weekend unless the weather looks bad

If you were heading toward NC after going there you can cross 85 and
328. Make the first left and that road will end at another hwy at a
slant. Make a left and you are following 85 going north. At the next
stop sign go righ and yoy will be at the exit were "Big Daddys" fuel
stop and restaurant is on 85.

Sorry those directions are not better, I guess i just know where I am
going and how to get there :-)

I will see if I can get you some address and phone numbers.

This web site mentions the place (sort of)

http://www.usacitiesonline.com/gacountygumlog.htm

The Gumlog area was once known for its beverages which is where the
motto, Land of Spirits, came from. It is now better known for bar-b-que
served Thursday - Sunday at a local restaurant called Gum Log Bar-B-Que

I like the "Land of Spirits" motto. It is in reference to the moonshine
that area was once known for..

Capt Jack R..