|
|
"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) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com