| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Price of fuel?
Whhat gas going for on the water throughout the US. $3.98 for premium,
downstate NY. No regular available at my marina |
St wrote:
Whhat gas going for on the water throughout the US. $3.98 for premium, downstate NY. No regular available at my marina 2.99 / gal regular in Raquette Lake 8/6/05. Rob |
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.. |
$2.669 on Forked River NJ (Mid grade) Sunday 8-7 2005
"St" wrote in message ... Whhat gas going for on the water throughout the US. $3.98 for premium, downstate NY. No regular available at my marina |
Sunday in Susanville, CA way out in the boonies, I paid $2.759 for diesel
for the truck. Get close to the SF Bay area and was $2.899 to $3.019. "John K Kudera" wrote in message ... $2.669 on Forked River NJ (Mid grade) Sunday 8-7 2005 "St" wrote in message ... Whhat gas going for on the water throughout the US. $3.98 for premium, downstate NY. No regular available at my marina |
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 paid 2.99 a gallon on Saturday in Montauk Harbor for a top-off on my pwc (on the way back from the far side of Block Island, where two buddies and I had ridden on the ocean from Flanders Bay, then made our way back along the Peconic) - actually I'm not sure now what octane it was. Technically you're not supposed to have a pwc inside that harbor but happily noone hassled me or anything (at that point I was riding alone, having parted ways with my two friends - if we'd all three gone in as a "pack," we probably would have been stopped), and the guy at the fuel dock was nice enough to assist me quickly, instead of ignoring me or making me sit there forever as sometimes happens. 145 miles riding that day, with just one top-off; thank goodness for my 4-stroke. richforman |
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 17:51:11 -0400, "St" wrote: Whhat gas going for on the water throughout the US. $3.98 for premium, downstate NY. No regular available at my marina 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.... 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. |
Harry,
You just love being an ass don't you. "Harry.Krause" wrote in message 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. |
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. |
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? |
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. |
Scooby Doo wrote:
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. Who "dusting off moronic arguments," did you completely miss the point that caribou are not the ONLY animal in the ANWR? There are lots and lots of deer living in the suburbs of pretty much every city in the U.S. does that mean houses & streets & cars etc etc are good for the environment? And if the deer don't convince you, maybe the higher rat population will. As I said, since you can't rationally debate ANWR, you're useless. Actually, you have yet to make a factual and logical answer to *any* of the points I've raised, yet you're convinced you're "winning." B-bye. DSK |
DSK wrote:
Scooby Doo wrote: 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. There might be more acres with trees but monoculture tree farms are not equivalent to healthy forests in providing diverse habitat. Download google earth at http://earth.google.com/ and have a look at the clear cuts. -rick- |
"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. |
Around 8/9/2005 1:51 PM, Gene Kearns wrote:
By the way, this is a totally unretouched sign... it genuinely said what is says.... Would you please stick it up on tinypic.com or somewhere else for those of us whose news servers strip binaries from text-only groups? -- ~/Garth - 1966 Glastron V-142 Skiflite: "Blue-Boat" "There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats." -Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows |
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. |
"Bill McKee" wrote:
ANWR is not all pristine wilderness. There were military bases, villages, Bull****. ANWR covers 19 million acres of ground. The "1002 Area" which refers to the coastal plain of ANWR is 1.5 million acres. At the very northern edge of that is Barter Island, in the Beaufort Sea (the Arctic Ocean). On Barter Island is the one and only village inside the confines of ANWR. There are fewer than 300 people living in Kaktovik, the village on Barter Island. There was once a DEWLINE radar and communications station on Barter Island, but is has been closed for many years now. It was owned by the US Air Force, but was never operated by a military crew. Hence, 1 small village, and 1 abandoned radar station. That is *not* "military bases, villages". And hardly makes ANWR "not at all pristine wilderness". 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. There are 55 gallon drums on Barter Island, but you'll be darned hard pressed to find half a dozen drums in the rest of ANWR. You are simply exaggerating. It is the *most* pristine wilderness in the entire United States. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
DSK wrote:
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? In fact that is demonstrably true too! The entire purpose of ANWR was and is to protect the subsistence resources of the Gwich'in people, who depend on the Porcupine Caribou Herd. We have a treaty with Canada to provide that protection, and both counties have set aside parks and refuges as required on respective sides of the border. It happens the range of the Porcupine Herd is rather large, but there is a very small area which is so super critical that environmental damage to it alone could have a major negative impact on the herd. That area is commonly called the "calving grounds", though that is not technically an accurate description. It is the relatively small area where the herd *nurtures* their calves every summer. It centers on their preferred calving areas, but also includes the adjacent areas they move to at different stages of calf nurturing. There are 30+ years of caribou biology studies on the North Slope, and dozens of field biologists who have contributed to that body of work. You cannot find more than one of them who says the drilling in ANWR is harmless. (There is indeed exactly one, a guy named Matthew Cronin who claims all of the others are either mistaken or liars. Cronin of course has zero credibility...) For background information, these two URLs are good: http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm http://arctic.fws.gov/content.htm For caribou research, 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 .. 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. Well stated. Greed is the basis for all of it. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
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? That simply is *not* true. In fact the Porcupine Caribou Herd has been in decline for several years now, and is at a minimum (120,000 animals). Note that every other herd, including the huge Western Arctic Caribou Herd at something like half a million animals, is indeed increasing in size in all areas where there is no oil development. And the *very small* (5000 to 30,000 animal) Central Arctic Herd has in fact increased in size *in* *areas* *with* *no* *oil* *development*. On the other hand, this very small herd is the only one that inhabits the areas where Prudhoe Bay oil infrastructure exists. While, as you claim, that herd has multiplied... the fact is that is a very small herd in a very large area and has simply moved away from the oil infrastructure, and no longer calves anywhere near Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk, or Milne Point infrastructure. It is the study of the Central Arctic Herd's reaction to oil infrastructure that has caused virtually *every* credible caribou biologist that has done field work on the North Slope to state that developing ANWR would have a negative impact on the Porcupine Herd. (Dozens of them have signed letters to Clinton and then Bush asking that it not be done.) .. 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. 15 billion barrels is "six months worth"? Arthur Andersen teach you math? 15 billion barrels is a pipe dream. The actual prediction is just under half that. It isn't enough to have any significant effect on a national scale. For Alaskans, and in particular those who live on the North Slope, it would be worth millions in tax dollars. But it won't reduce dependence of foreign oil (and will export dollars, because all of the oil companies that will benefit are either foreign based or multi-national) and won't reduce the price of gasoline more than about 4 cents a gallon. Speaking of Andersen math... -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
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. Try coming up with a scenario where destroying the Porcupine Herd leaves 92 percent of the Gwich'in Nation "untouched". Or leaves ANWR untouched for that matter. 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. Your "deal" leaves a few billion dollars in the pockets of a certain sector of the oil industry and helps fund the State of Alaska, but does virtually *nothing* else. Some compromise! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
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) |
"Bill McKee" wrote:
The wildlife loves the Alaska Pipeline. Get near it when it is cold. And seems as if the caribou have increased. Where to you hear fantasies like that? The Porcupine Caribou Herd has decreased. The Pipeline is insulated, no animals "Get near it when it is cold". The Pipeline slit the calving of the Central Arctic Caribou Herd in half with a detrimental effect for those on one side. Nelleman, C., and R.D. Cameron. 1996. Terrain preferences of calving caribou exposed to petroleum development. Arctic 49:23-28. Nellemann, C., and R.D. Cameron. 1998. Cumulative impacts of an evolving oilfield complex on calving caribou. Can. J. Zool. 76:1425-1430. This might well be "rocket science", but it isn't unknown. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Scooby Doo wrote:
The wildlife loves the Alaska Pipeline. Get near it when it is cold. And seems as if the caribou have increased. Don't confuse MoveOn.org sycophants with facts. Try citing something factual which supports that nonsense then! It isn't true, and there are 30+ years of caribou biology studies done on the North Slope since oil was discovered, none of which says that is true. In fact several studies say that is the opposite of the truth. 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. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote: The wildlife loves the Alaska Pipeline. Get near it when it is cold. And seems as if the caribou have increased. Where to you hear fantasies like that? The Porcupine Caribou Herd has decreased. The Pipeline is insulated, no animals "Get near it when it is cold". The Pipeline slit the calving of the Central Arctic Caribou Herd in half with a detrimental effect for those on one side. Nelleman, C., and R.D. Cameron. 1996. Terrain preferences of calving caribou exposed to petroleum development. Arctic 49:23-28. Nellemann, C., and R.D. Cameron. 1998. Cumulative impacts of an evolving oilfield complex on calving caribou. Can. J. Zool. 76:1425-1430. This might well be "rocket science", but it isn't unknown. You're wasting your time. This newsgroup is full of right-wing primitives who: * oppose any reports, news, or science that interferes with the ability of corporate America to make a killing, * typically support whatever the idiot now occupying the White House believes, * think the Exxon Valdez catastrophe was a minor spill, and * typically think "creationism" is as valid as Darwin's theories, and can be "proven" "scientifically." I'm not kidding. |
"Scooby Doo" wrote in message ... "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. Feeding the village idiot, and posting OT... *ploink* -- -Netsock "It's just about going fast...that's all..." http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/ |
"Harry.Krause" wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote: The wildlife loves the Alaska Pipeline. Get near it when it is cold. And seems as if the caribou have increased. Where to you hear fantasies like that? The Porcupine Caribou Herd has decreased. The Pipeline is insulated, no animals "Get near it when it is cold". The Pipeline slit the calving of the Central Arctic Caribou Herd in half with a detrimental effect for those on one side. Nelleman, C., and R.D. Cameron. 1996. Terrain preferences of calving caribou exposed to petroleum development. Arctic 49:23-28. Nellemann, C., and R.D. Cameron. 1998. Cumulative impacts of an evolving oilfield complex on calving caribou. Can. J. Zool. 76:1425-1430. This might well be "rocket science", but it isn't unknown. You're wasting your time. This newsgroup is full of right-wing primitives who: * oppose any reports, news, or science that interferes with the * ability of corporate America to make a killing, * typically support whatever the idiot now occupying the White * House believes, * think the Exxon Valdez catastrophe was a minor spill, and * typically think "creationism" is as valid as Darwin's * theories, and can be "proven" "scientifically." I'm not kidding. I think you are right. I was just sort of trolling for a sucker among them. It's fun to slap a few facts on 'em, just to see if the squirm in a new way. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
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!!!!!!! |
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. |
|
Scooby Doo wrote:
wrote in roups.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. So spelling flames are you're sorry replacement for rational debate? Your not going to win points with that silliness... ;-) -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com