Time for the Special Prosecutor to investigate G.W. Bush!
Gerald Newton
posting anti-Clinton propaganda - what comes around goes around.)
Yes, it is time to hire the special prosecutor and find out about all the
charges against Bush.
Did he really pay off a 15 yr. old and help her get an abortion?
Did he really go AWOL for about a year from the National Air Guard?
Did he really hire an attorney to avoid jury duty so he wouldn't have to
confess to a DUI?
Did he really not pay his DUI fine?
Did he really not take an Air Guard physical soon after they started the
drug testing program because he was using drugs?
Are the Rainwater investments with Bush legal and above board or did Bush
use his position as governor of Texas to make some pay backs?
Just how extensive was Bush's use of cocaine?
And this guy is planning to open ANWR when the Gwichin Indians want to
protect their lifestyle by not opening ANWR!
Prez. G- W- BUSH
an FBI sting operation , that was quoted as saying " my brother ( Bill
Clinton ) has a nose like a Hoover ". This was right before Gov Bill
Clinton pardoned the Biggest Cocaine Smuggler in Arkansas , Dan Lassiter.
You see Dan was Bill's biggest campaign contributor and Bill returned the
favor by getting Dan off the hook for dealing drugs to our Children , which
Bill Clinton always says he is trying to protect. We have many people on
record saying they saw Bill snort the nose candy , but funny how not one
person has come foreward to say they ever saw GW use it . Now Bill pardoned
his brother Roger for drug arrests in the past as well. Next thig we will
find out is that Bill Clinton is running a DCocaine operation out of his NY
home !
=-==========================================================================
================
"Gerald Newton" <elect...@electrician.com> wrote in message
news:3a71...@news-out.newsnerds.com...
Jim
elect...@electrician.com says...
>
>(Normally this wouldn't be posted here, but since the Republicans are
>posting anti-Clinton propaganda - what comes around goes around.)
>
>
>protect their lifestyle by not opening ANWR!
>
Come on now! You have been reading just toooooo much of Floyd's half
truths!
No one has advocated openning all of ANWR to oil drilling. In fact, Don
Young (Alaska's House of Representative) introduced at bill that would
open 1% or less of ANWR!
Now read that again.....it is NOT a miss print, that is 1% or less if
ANWR would be open to drilling. Right, over 99% of ANWR would NOT be
open for oil exploration!
Forcasted to increase 750,000 jobs! Income for education, native village
improvements, better and safer transportation, better care for our
elderly, less warefare needed, more state monies available to help our
fishing industry!
So many possitives coming from 1% or less of ANWR!
JIM
Prez. G- W- BUSH
admit they are wrong. They really dont care about the new jobs & economic
boom it would bring because they probably dont work and are on welfare
anyway. They are leeches living of others and want the State to be one big
nature preserve .
================================
"Jim" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote in message
news:t73gb2p...@corp.supernews.com...
Jim
Slick_Wi...@last.com says...
>
>Jim , dont try to argue facts with these clowns , it never gets them to
>admit they are wrong. They really dont care about the new jobs &
economic
>boom it would bring because they probably dont work and are on welfare
>anyway. They are leeches living of others and want the State to be one
big
>nature preserve .
>
>
>================================
No, I don't think the way you do. I think that they are carring people
that have a different opion then I and the majority of Alaskans have!
They are NOT mean or, as you say, clowns. Just have a different "view"
than I have.
ANWR is a "national" issue. Just because the majority of the State of
Alaska desires exploration of that 1% of ANWR holds little if the nation
as a whole is against it.
Difference in opion leads to "healthy" dialog...and can be educational.
Just read what is posted, if you have some "constructive" additions,
make them....we all do!!
JIM
Shooty Canseco
wrote:
> No one has advocated openning all of ANWR to oil drilling. In fact, Don
> Young (Alaska's House of Representative) introduced at bill that would
> open 1% or less of ANWR!
>
> Now read that again.....it is NOT a miss print, that is 1% or less if
> ANWR would be open to drilling. Right, over 99% of ANWR would NOT be
> open for oil exploration!
>
> Forcasted to increase 750,000 jobs! Income for education, native village
> improvements, better and safer transportation, better care for our
> elderly, less warefare needed, more state monies available to help our
> fishing industry!
Oh brother. What a bunch of nonsense. Let's see...
First off, either ANWR is open to drilling or it isn't. It can't be 1%
open for drilling any more than a woman can be 1% pregnant. I hope you
didn't trot this argument out first with the Child Support Enforcement
Division.
No one disputes that opening ANWR would produce jobs and services. But
750,000 jobs? Be serious. There aren't that many man, women, and
children in Alaska. Even if you meant a world-wide increase of that
many jobs, you're still dreaming. Where did you get that figure?
www.your-ass.com?
As long as you're hyperventilating, how could you forget to mention
that opening ANWR would also
(1) cure Muhammad Ali of Parkinson's;
(2) turn snow into delicous Hostess Snowballs;
(3) transform everybody's favorite 21st century folkie
Jewel into an 80 foot crime-fighting bunny rabbit with laser beam
knees.
Shooty
Jim
sho...@gosfgiants.com says...
>
>In article <t73gb2p...@corp.supernews.com>, Jim <bo...@alaska.net>
>wrote:
>
>> No one has advocated openning all of ANWR to oil drilling. In fact,
Don
>> Young (Alaska's House of Representative) introduced at bill that
would
>> open 1% or less of ANWR!
>>
>> Now read that again.....it is NOT a miss print, that is 1% or less if
>> ANWR would be open to drilling. Right, over 99% of ANWR would NOT be
>> open for oil exploration!
>>
>> Forcasted to increase 750,000 jobs! Income for education, native
village
>> improvements, better and safer transportation, better care for our
>> elderly, less warefare needed, more state monies available to help
our
>> fishing industry!
>
>Oh brother. What a bunch of nonsense. Let's see...
>
>First off, either ANWR is open to drilling or it isn't. It can't be 1%
>open for drilling any more than a woman can be 1% pregnant. I hope you
>didn't trot this argument out first with the Child Support Enforcement
>Division.
I guess you don't know how this works, or you would NOT have written
such a, well, rather silly statement! Bristol Bay is open for commercial
fishing....but not all of it. It is broken down into areas that CAN be
fished! Yup, it is done all over the state. Forrest areas are open to
firewood cutting, but only is certain areas, not the complete forrest!
It is done all the time....rather naive of you not to know of it.
>
>No one disputes that opening ANWR would produce jobs and services. But
>750,000 jobs? Be serious. There aren't that many man, women, and
>children in Alaska. Even if you meant a world-wide increase of that
>many jobs, you're still dreaming. Where did you get that figure?
>www.your-ass.com?
It is well published. Don Young's Bill also states this. Yes, it would
be nationwide and it is serious....how could you doubt it? Think of the
thousands it will help directly and indirectly in Alaska!
>As long as you're hyperventilating, how could you forget to mention
>that opening ANWR would also
>(1) cure Muhammad Ali of Parkinson's;
>(2) turn snow into delicous Hostess Snowballs;
>(3) transform everybody's favorite 21st century folkie
> Jewel into an 80 foot crime-fighting bunny rabbit with laser beam
> knees.
>
>Shooty
You forgot one:
Educate people like Shooty that have their heads burried in the sand!
That just might be the most difficult on your list!
JIM
Prez. G- W- BUSH
trying to convince most Black people that OJ Simpson is gulty of murder. No
matter what you post , Shooty , Jan , Denniis & clan will tell you that
you are the idiot. Save your breath , its a lost cause.
============================================================================
=========================
"Jim" <bo...@alaska.net> wrote in message
news:t73v2ee...@corp.supernews.com...
BD (Dave) Thompson
"Prez. G- W- BUSH" <Slick_Wi...@last.com> wrote in message
news:Cmnc6.8025$49.10...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> I told you before JIM , trying to argue facts with these lame brains is
like
> trying to convince most Black people that OJ Simpson is gulty of murder.
No
> matter what you post , Shooty , Jan , Denniis & clan will tell you that
> you are the idiot. Save your breath , its a lost cause.
Well bucko, I am a registered Republican who intensely disliked Bill Clinton
and I STILL DO NOT WANT ANWR opened for drilling. You people are still
dreaming of another '70s style oil boom and it just ain't gonna happen.
I know it's difficult for you to imagine, but there can be higher use of
wilderness other than resource extraction. Even if the caribou were not at
risk, there is a strong case to leave it alone just because it is there.
I've walked it. I've camped it. Have you?
Dave
mccamon
BD (Dave) Thompson <bdthomps...@REMOVElvcablemodem.com> wrote in
message news:t7434ct...@corp.supernews.com...
start drilling!!!!My theory is suck the oil out, put water in,freeze it to
fight global warming .......
>
>
>
Shooty Canseco
wrote:
> In article <260120011249045573%sho...@gosfgiants.com>,
> sho...@gosfgiants.com says...
> >
> >In article <t73gb2p...@corp.supernews.com>, Jim <bo...@alaska.net>
> >wrote:
> >> Forcasted to increase 750,000 jobs! Income for education, native
> >>village
> >> improvements, better and safer transportation, better care for our
> >> elderly, less warefare needed, more state monies available to help
> >>our
> >> fishing industry!
> >
> >No one disputes that opening ANWR would produce jobs and services. But
> >750,000 jobs? Be serious. There aren't that many man, women, and
> >children in Alaska. Even if you meant a world-wide increase of that
> >many jobs, you're still dreaming. Where did you get that figure?
> >www.your-ass.com?
>
> It is well published. Don Young's Bill also states this. Yes, it would
> be nationwide and it is serious....how could you doubt it? Think of the
> thousands it will help directly and indirectly in Alaska!
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 284,000 filled
jobs in the Alaska during December 2000.
http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/surveymost?sa+02
You claim that opening ANWR would produce 750,000 jobs nationwide.
That's nearly three times the number of jobs currently in Alaska.
That, good sir, is ludicrous.
I challenge you to cite one substantiated analysis indicating that
opening ANWR would create 75,000 jobs, let alone 750,000. Do it,
windbag.
One of the best reasons to oppose opening ANWR is the obvious lies told
by its proponents.
Shooty
Kev
"Shooty Canseco" <sho...@gosfgiants.com> wrote in message
news:260120011249045573%sho...@gosfgiants.com...
> Oh brother. What a bunch of nonsense. Let's see...
>
> First off, either ANWR is open to drilling or it isn't. It can't be 1%
> open for drilling any more than a woman can be 1% pregnant. I hope you
> didn't trot this argument out first with the Child Support Enforcement
> Division.
Ever hear of Section 1002 of ANWR? That is the small portion of ANWR that
was set aside for possible oil development when ANWR was established. It is
1% of the total area. That is the only place in ANWR that is even being
considered.
Trblsm
that would actually be developed. Miles of pipeline and road to and from,
and the disturbance of the caribou on which the Gwichin Indians depend for
their survival, also need to be considered in this neat little equation the
oil companies have put together and are working very diligently to keep us
from thinking of.
Kev <stal...@removethis.corecom.net> wrote in message
news:9501o...@enews3.newsguy.com...
XLT Powder
cited an increase of the Arctic Slope herd in the neighborhood of 30%?
Isn't this the same herd that summers around Prudheau Bay and the Dalton
Highway? The caribou issue is not an issue at all. It is a pawn, just as
the Gwich'n are, used by the environmental groups to fool average Joe
citizen. ANWR may not make 750,000 jobs, but it will certainly keep
Alaska's economy on an even keel.
In article <w2Nc6.1609$r%.144592@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
--
Snowmobilers for Bush/Cheney
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Trblsm
their way of life is not important. The problem with the Porcupine herd
which is the one in danger by developing that "1%" are in danger because the
females won't calve in an area they feel disturbed. They will go elsewhere,
hence taking away an important source of food for the Gwichin.
You should be thankful for the environmental groups rather than suggesting
that we are making things up to get what we want. If it weren't for these
groups, this country which has gone full tilt in developing every spare inch
it country, has less pollution, less environmental damage, more environment
and nature to pass on to our children, etc.
Also, Alaska does not belong to Alaskans alone. It belongs to all of
America, not just a relative few who want to put some extra money in their
pockets.
XLT Powder <doug...@pobox.mtaonline.net> wrote in message
news:950cu1$4bh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
XLT Powder
from the environental groups. I have spent several summers working in
Fort Yukon, Venetie,and Arctic Village.(none of which were a very
pleasant experience). If you ask an average villager that lives there
year round (unlike their activist ex-residents) they could care less
about oil exploration on the coast of ANWR.
I have also spent several weeks working in Prudhoe Bay (mis-spelled it
in my last post- my bad) where I witnessed thousands of caribou,
including many with several day old calves, lounging about the gravel
pads that make up the "town" of Deadhorse (just south of the oil
production facilities). Believe me, the caribou could not care one whit
about the human intrusion, but rather seem to enjoy the ability to get
up a little higher off the tundra in the wind so the bugs aren't so bad.
I get seriously bent when someone spouts off about how the rest of the
United States gets to share Alaska. You and I obviously have a serious
polarity of views regarding State's Rights and I doubt we will get
anywhere discussing the merits of a little freedom to do what we need in
our state to maintain a solid economy.
BTW, where do you live.???..so I can be active in sticking my nose in
land use in your state.(or country)
In article <VhYc6.2218$r%.186417@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
XLT Powder
kind of industry do you work for??
Trblsm
> I see that you have fallen (hook, line and sinker) for the lies spread
> from the environental groups. I have spent several summers working in
> Fort Yukon, Venetie,and Arctic Village.(none of which were a very
> pleasant experience). If you ask an average villager that lives there
> year round (unlike their activist ex-residents) they could care less
> about oil exploration on the coast of ANWR.
>
Sarah James is a Gwichin activist (translate this to "native Gwichin") who
has traveled to Washington D.C. many times to plead the case for the
protection of ANWR. She has spoken to our delegates, who spend most of
their time OUTSIDE of Alaska, while she spends most of her life INSIDE the
village. She does receive grant money to travel, but I'd like to see you
tell her she is getting paid by the environmentalists. Your claim about
the villagers not caring about the development of ANWR flies in the face of
all published newspaper articles and radio statements made by the various
Gwichin people AND their leaders over the years, not to mention their sworn
testimony which has been sent to Washington countless times in support of
preserving that area.
> I have also spent several weeks working in Prudhoe Bay (mis-spelled it
> in my last post- my bad) where I witnessed thousands of caribou,
> including many with several day old calves, lounging about the gravel
> pads that make up the "town" of Deadhorse (just south of the oil
> production facilities). Believe me, the caribou could not care one whit
> about the human intrusion, but rather seem to enjoy the ability to get
> up a little higher off the tundra in the wind so the bugs aren't so bad.
Thank-you very much for your astute wildlife observation made after, I am
sure, countless hours and meticulous observation. However, Dr Ray Cameron
at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks has studied the herd (Central Arctic
Herd) for over 15 years to considerable detail. He documented an alarming
decrease in calf survival in the mid-90's and still feels very concerned
even with the increase in numbers. He realizes full well how easily caribou
populations crash and can crash drastically in just one year. He also
realizes that before you pronounce a herd's destiny one way or the other,
you have better been watching and studying them more than just a couple of
summers while you were working on something completely different. If you
plunk an oil field down in the middle of an area used for forage, unless the
caribou can adapt to eating gravel and pavement, they are probably going to
notice the intrusion come calving.
Where you are leading this discussion astray is in equating Prudhoe which
does not sit on the Central Arctic Herd's primary calving nutrition ground,
with ANWR where the oil development would take place precisely in the
Porcupine Herd's primary calving nutrition ground. In other words if
somebody put a nuclear plant where the apartment building is three blocks
down from you, you may not care but, if they plunk it down on the only
grocery store within 50 miles of where you live, you might just notice that.
You are comparing apples to oranges in your above statement.
> I get seriously bent when someone spouts off about how the rest of the
> United States gets to share Alaska. You and I obviously have a serious
> polarity of views regarding State's Rights and I doubt we will get
> anywhere discussing the merits of a little freedom to do what we need in
> our state to maintain a solid economy.
This bends you out of shape? Do you know what the "N" in ANWR stands for?
National. That's right darlin', N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L, I said it really slow so
that you could understand. All the national parks in our country are
owned by all Americans, and were created for all Americans to enjoy. Look
around you and notice how much development has happened in our country over
the last century and think for a moment that if it were not for the national
parks, there would almost nothing to pass on to our children. As the saying
goes, "We don't own the land, we are only borrowing it from our children".
Once we lay waste to our wilderness, we cannot recreate it.
One more little item while we are on the topic of "it's not fair for
outsiders to tell us how to run this state". The upkeep in administering a
refuge such as ANWR is paid as much with the tax dollars of the little guy
in North Dakota, the old lady in Utah, the young married couple in
Louisiana, as it is by you or me or any other American who pays taxes.
> BTW, where do you live.???..so I can be active in sticking my nose in
> land use in your state.(or country)
I live in Alaska....approximately 400 miles SW of ANWR in a little place
called Fairbanks. So, you are most welcome to stick your nose into land use
in my state.
Trblsm
anything to do with ANWR. Not that it matters, because whatever I do for a
living has no bearing on the Gwichin lifestyle, or lack of it if ANWR is
developed.
XLT Powder <doug...@pobox.mtaonline.net> wrote in message
news:9534ge$5o3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Trblsm
environmental groups to bear out your accusation? Are you telling us that
the Gwichin are being bribed to say their lifestyle is threatened? Because
the only money I know exchanging hands is money going to Sarah James, as
travel grants so that she can be the spokesperson to Washington for the
Gwichin.
Kev <stal...@removethis.corecom.net> wrote in message
news:9501o...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Maybe if the Gwichin were not receiving funds from the environmental groups
their position might hold a little more water but they are paid to say what
they do.
"Trblsm" <tru...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<VhYc6.2218$r%.186417@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
Shooty Canseco
<doug...@pobox.mtaonline.net> wrote:
> I get seriously bent when someone spouts off about how the rest of the
> United States gets to share Alaska.
Statehood. Ain't it a bitch.
Get over it.
Shooty
Kev
$60,000 to Gwichin by various environmental groups.
"Trblsm" <tru...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:bm9d6.13011$cN.8...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Jim
Well Shooty, this "old Windbag" was terribly wrong! Yep, I had my number
wrong. Instead of 750,000 jobs created by the openning of 1% of ANWR it
is ONLY 735,000 jobs!!!!! How could I have made such a terrible mistake
of something like 2%!!!
Anyway, you asked this "wingbag" to even produce a number as high as
75,000....here goes"
go to: http://www.house.gov/donyoung/press/p20010124_1.htm
You will find that "Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates" did a
study that shows some 735,000 national jobs will be created by the
openning of that 1% of ANWR! There is your "one" source...looks like a
slam dunk to me.
An apology is called for, but I doubt if I see one from you!
JIM
Shooty Canseco
wrote:
> In article <260120011823541942%sho...@gosfgiants.com>,
> sho...@gosfgiants.com says...
> >
> >You claim that opening ANWR would produce 750,000 jobs nationwide.
> >That's nearly three times the number of jobs currently in Alaska.
> >
> >That, good sir, is ludicrous.
> >
> >I challenge you to cite one substantiated analysis indicating that
> >opening ANWR would create 75,000 jobs, let alone 750,000. Do it,
> >windbag.
> >
> >One of the best reasons to oppose opening ANWR is the obvious lies told
> >by its proponents.
> >
> >Shooty
> ========================================================================
>
> Well Shooty, this "old Windbag" was terribly wrong! Yep, I had my number
> wrong. Instead of 750,000 jobs created by the openning of 1% of ANWR it
> is ONLY 735,000 jobs!!!!! How could I have made such a terrible mistake
> of something like 2%!!!
>
> Anyway, you asked this "wingbag" to even produce a number as high as
> 75,000....here goes"
>
> go to: http://www.house.gov/donyoung/press/p20010124_1.htm
>
> You will find that "Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates" did a
> study that shows some 735,000 national jobs will be created by the
> openning of that 1% of ANWR! There is your "one" source...looks like a
> slam dunk to me.
>
> An apology is called for, but I doubt if I see one from you!
>
> JIM
A press release from Don Young (R-Exxon)?
The Wharton study? You're going to trot out that old joke? Did you
know..
(1) The Wharton study was paid for by the American Petroleum Institute.
Are you one of the doctors that Big Tobacco kept on retainer to pump
out "reports" saying smoking isn't linked to lung cancer?
(2) The Wharton study was done in 1990 and projected the number of jobs
that "could develop by 2005".
(3) Most of the findings of the Wharton study have been widely refuted
by the Congressional Research Service and other economists.
(4) The Congressional Research Service said, "only a magnitude of oil
production that would be associated with a very large discovery could
produce conditions that could lead to readily apparent benefits to the
economyŠ Oil and gas producers that do not participate in ANWR
development, their suppliers, and their local economies in the
contiguous 48 states would be harmed by a price drop" (CRS, 1992, ANWR
Development: Analyzing its economic impact).
(5) The Wharton study assumed 2000 oil prices at $48 per barrel. Seen
any $48 barrels of oil lately? I haven't. Even in these days of high
oil prices, Friday's close on the west coast was $25.22. It's highly
debateable whether ANWR could make money at anything less than $35 a
barrel, and we're $10 below that today.
(6) Re-analysis of the economic estimate based on more realistic
assumptions showed that industry's estimate was exaggerated 10-fold
(Tellus Institute 1993).
(7) The Tellus report found that ten times more jobs nation-wide would
result from energy efficiency than from drilling in the refuge. Where
can I find your posts advocating increased efficiency?
I'll take back my assertion that you are a windbag, Jim. You found a
thin reed to point to that suggested over 700,000 new jobs would be
created by opening ANWR.
But you are passing along the wind of others. Don Young is a career
windbag, and the 1990 Wharton study paid for by the American Petroleum
Institute is a bunch of hot air.
Don't be so lazy in passing along the obvious lies of others.
Shooty
Jim
sho...@gosfgiants.com says...
What does "tobacco" have to do with ANWR. Trying a "smoke screen"?
>
>(2) The Wharton study was done in 1990 and projected the number of jobs
>that "could develop by 2005".
So, are you saying that today it could be more? Maybe that 750,000 was
correct!
>
>(3) Most of the findings of the Wharton study have been widely refuted
>by the Congressional Research Service and other economists.
How much? say, 40% inaccurate....hmmmm, that would make only 441,000
jobs. Hell, lets say it is 75% wrong...now it is *only* 183,750 new
jobs. Still nearly 2 and 1/2 times the number you said couldn't be
produced!
>
>(4) The Congressional Research Service said, "only a magnitude of oil
>production that would be associated with a very large discovery could
>produce conditions that could lead to readily apparent benefits to the
>economyŠ Oil and gas producers that do not participate in ANWR
>development, their suppliers, and their local economies in the
>contiguous 48 states would be harmed by a price drop" (CRS, 1992, ANWR
>Development: Analyzing its economic impact).
1992!!!!! Come on now, talk about L*A*Z*Y fact finding!!! You live in a
shell, try and say that an national oil increase would "hurt" the lower
48 stated! Shooty, you are making me laugh!!! An increase in oil will
only HELP the problems in ALL 50 states!!!
>
>(5) The Wharton study assumed 2000 oil prices at $48 per barrel. Seen
>any $48 barrels of oil lately? I haven't. Even in these days of high
>oil prices, Friday's close on the west coast was $25.22. It's highly
>debateable whether ANWR could make money at anything less than $35 a
>barrel, and we're $10 below that today.
If that is the case, you (and others like you) will not have to worry
about oil drilling in ANWR as NO oil company will produce a looser!
Incase you didn't know it....stockholders want PROFITS!!!! In fact,
stockholders DEMAND profits!! So, I guess the debate is over, ANWR will
not be open for drilling because shooty said oil HAS to be at $48 per
barrel before it will be profitable!
Come on shooty, I came up with facts....now your turn!
>
>(6) Re-analysis of the economic estimate based on more realistic
>assumptions showed that industry's estimate was exaggerated 10-fold
>(Tellus Institute 1993).
Another 1993 so called estimate? I don't really trust a car from 1993
that hasn't been worked on (updated) let alone some sort of estimate
that is 8 years old! You have gotta get better than that!
>
>(7) The Tellus report found that ten times more jobs nation-wide would
>result from energy efficiency than from drilling in the refuge. Where
>can I find your posts advocating increased efficiency?
Now it is your turn....10 times more jobs nation-wide. Let's see,
735,000 times ten....WOW....7,350,000 nore jobs created!!! That's SEVEN
MILLION, THREEHUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND jobs! Oh boy? You doubted my
figures.....I REALLY laughing over yours!!!
>
>I'll take back my assertion that you are a windbag, Jim. You found a
>thin reed to point to that suggested over 700,000 new jobs would be
>created by opening ANWR.
>
>But you are passing along the wind of others. Don Young is a career
>windbag, and the 1990 Wharton study paid for by the American Petroleum
>Institute is a bunch of hot air.
How much hot air? 50% (means only 367,500 jobs created)...hell, let's
say it is 75% hot air (that means only 183,750 jobs created...way above
the 75,000 you said I COULDN'T produce!!)
>
>Don't be so lazy in passing along the obvious lies of others.
Not so L*A*Z*Y am I!
>
>Shooty
JIM
Dennis P. Harris
Canseco <sho...@gosfgiants.com> wrote:
> But you are passing along the wind of others. Don Young is a career
> windbag, and the 1990 Wharton study paid for by the American Petroleum
> Institute is a bunch of hot air.
>
> Don't be so lazy in passing along the obvious lies of others.
>
welcome to Boothian Logic, shooty. jim is one of those who
refuses to be confused by the facts. he'll parrot any kind of
dittohead/dumb young line that right wing talk radio and the
independence-party-for-hire asserts as the truth, even if it's
just another bunch of right wing/big oil lies. unfortunately,
it's people like him who elect bozos like scott ogan and vic
kohring.
as you have seen, even if you refute his specious "arguments" and
lies with facts, he ignores what you say and tries to twist what
you wrote by misquotation or selective quotation. and don't get
me started on the vicious bogotry he's posted in this group in
the past...
thank god he's no longer teaching his great white hunter view of
alaska to school students. the retirement money paid to keep him
out of the classroom so that he can't poison the minds of another
generation of future mat-su right wingers is well spent. ;^)
=============================================================
"The only things in the middle of the road are yellow stripes
and dead armadillos" --- Jim Hightower
Dennis P. Harris NO_SPAM_T...@gci.net
http://www.ejuneau.net
Jim
NO_SPAM_T...@gci.net says...
>
>On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:05:30 -0900 in alt.culture.alaska, Shooty
>Canseco <sho...@gosfgiants.com> wrote:
>
>> But you are passing along the wind of others. Don Young is a career
>> windbag, and the 1990 Wharton study paid for by the American
Petroleum
>> Institute is a bunch of hot air.
>>
>> Don't be so lazy in passing along the obvious lies of others.
>>
>welcome to Boothian Logic, shooty. jim is one of those who
>refuses to be confused by the facts. he'll parrot any kind of
>dittohead/dumb young line that right wing talk radio and the
>independence-party-for-hire asserts as the truth, even if it's
>just another bunch of right wing/big oil lies. unfortunately,
>it's people like him who elect bozos like scott ogan and vic
>kohring.
Very typical of you Dennis! You haven't even looked up the URL and
checked have you! Same old stuff, when you can't come up with any fact,
attack the person and forget the argument! Sorry you don't like
Republicans.....once again ALASKA has a Republican house, senate, House
of Representative, and two Senators! I don't happen to be a
Republican....really an Independent that votes for what I believe
in....not like you, try it sometime!
>
>as you have seen, even if you refute his specious "arguments" and
>lies with facts, he ignores what you say and tries to twist what
>you wrote by misquotation or selective quotation. and don't get
>me started on the vicious bogotry he's posted in this group in
>the past...
I can't think of a lie in my post.....I also think you, more or less,
have the corner on bigotry in this newsgroup! You even show it right
here with this post!!!
>
>thank god he's no longer teaching his great white hunter view of
>alaska to school students. the retirement money paid to keep him
>out of the classroom so that he can't poison the minds of another
>generation of future mat-su right wingers is well spent. ;^)
See, you can't even keep the facts straight! I'm a fishing guide
in the summer months....not hunter! Haven't hunted for a couple of years
or more. Now that my family is grown I really don't have alot of use for
moose or caribou! I'm not against hunting.....you should try it some
time. Yes, I did preach to my students to be "drugfree" not for the
legalization of marijuana like you fought so hard for on this newgroup.
If you find fault with that....so be it.
JIM
Shooty Canseco
wrote:
> Another 1993 so called estimate? I don't really trust a car from 1993
> that hasn't been worked on (updated) let alone some sort of estimate
> that is 8 years old! You have gotta get better than that!
If that's true, then why are you basing your entire case on the 1990
ANWR job estimate by the American Petroleum Institute? Isn't eleven
older than eight?
> >(7) The Tellus report found that ten times more jobs nation-wide would
> >result from energy efficiency than from drilling in the refuge. Where
> >can I find your posts advocating increased efficiency?
>
> Now it is your turn....10 times more jobs nation-wide. Let's see,
> 735,000 times ten....WOW....7,350,000 nore jobs created!!! That's SEVEN
> MILLION, THREEHUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND jobs! Oh boy? You doubted my
> figures.....I REALLY laughing over yours!!!
Jim, you're not reading. The 1993 Tellus analysis of the 1990
Wharton/API report said that Wharton/API was overestimating the outlook
for ANWR jobs by 10 fold. Meaning that Tellus felt that the
Wharton/API figure of 735,000 (assuming $48/barrel oil) was really
73,500 at most.
Therefore, Tellus said we'd get 73,500 jobs from ANWR and 735,000 jobs
from making energy efficiency a national priority. Not 7,350,000.
> Not so L*A*Z*Y am I!
>
> JIM
I've said my piece. I leave it to others to contemplate why you make
the mistakes you do.
Shooty
Dennis P. Harris
bo...@alaska.net (Jim) wrote:
> I'm not against hunting.....you should try it some
> time.
Once again, Jim, you're twisting and distorting things. Have I
EVER said anything against hunting in this group? No.
Absolutely not. I've been hunting in SE Alaska since I was 8
years old, that is, for 46 years. I've never hunted or fished
for trophies, or engaged in catch-&-release fishing, since I hunt
& fish to put food on the table.
I don't oppose hunting at all. I do oppose urban or suburban
residents who are not dependent on game who declare themselves
subsistence hunters or fishermen simply because they are meat
harvesters rather than trophy hunters or fishers. I don't
support trophy hunting or fishing.
I support a subsistence preference for rural residents, and if
ANILCA had been written properly with a subsistence preference
for Alaska Natives I would have supported that, too. I support
the efforts of village and regional corporations to restrict
hunting and fishing on their lands to shareholders.
But reiterate, Jim, I'm not opposed to hunting, and I'm not going
to let you twist things to give the impression that I am.
=============================================================
Gravity. It's The Law.
Floyd Davidson
>I see that you have fallen (hook, line and sinker) for the lies
>spread from the environental groups. I have spent several
>summers working in Fort Yukon, Venetie,and Arctic Village.(none
>of which were a very pleasant experience). If you ask an
>average villager that lives there year round (unlike their
>activist ex-residents) they could care less about oil
>exploration on the coast of ANWR.
That is bullshit. Are you saying that Tanana Chief's Conference
and others have mis-heard what the Gwitch'n are saying? We all
know what Will Mayo had to say about it when he was head of TCC,
and somehow I suspect he can judge what the Gwitch'n feel a lot
better than you can. (It happens I know a few others who are
from Venetie and Arctic Village, and my own assessment of what
they think is also different than yours.)
>I have also spent several weeks working in Prudhoe Bay
>(mis-spelled it in my last post- my bad) where I witnessed
>thousands of caribou, including many with several day old
>calves, lounging about the gravel pads that make up the "town"
>of Deadhorse (just south of the oil production
>facilities). Believe me, the caribou could not care one whit
>about the human intrusion, but rather seem to enjoy the ability
>to get up a little higher off the tundra in the wind so the
>bugs aren't so bad.
As Trblsm mentioned in another post, Dr. Ray Cameron has
published many papers for the ADFG and the University of Alaska
over the past 20 years, as have others. It is not an unknown,
and what you are claiming to be obvious is exactly *opposite* of
what every scientist that has studied the Central Arctic caribou
herd has reported. Clearly you are wrong.
The Central Arctic herd does not calve near the oil development
areas at Prudhoe. It didn't calve there prior to oil development
either.
The fact is that at Prudhoe Bay there is a great deal of room
for caribou to move away from the oil development areas, and
they do. The narrowest point from Prudhoe Bay Brooks range is
over 100 miles, while widest part of the coastal plain in ANWR
is less than 50 miles from the coast to the mountains. Hence
the relatively small Central Arctic herd has a huge range in
which to avoid the oil development at Prudhoe Bay, while the
many times larger Procupine herd has a very limited range and
the proposed oil development area is exactly that range. And
the significant difference is that for the Porcupine herd it
is their prime calving area, which is not the case with the
Central Arctic herd.
>I get seriously bent when someone spouts off about how the rest
>of the United States gets to share Alaska.
That makes 3 out of 3 times now, in that particular article,
that you have demonstrated lack of ability to observe.
> You and I obviously
>have a serious polarity of views regarding State's Rights and I
>doubt we will get anywhere discussing the merits of a little
>freedom to do what we need in our state to maintain a solid
>economy.
What has State's Rights got to do with a NATIONAL Wildlife Refuge?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@barrow.com
Jim
NO_SPAM_T...@gci.net says...
The impression you gave by calling me "the great white hunter" would
leave one to believe you were....my apologies on that.
I too would vote for a rural preference for fish and game change in the
Alaska Constitution....as long as it was ONLY at a time of shortage. You
have no arguement with me
Just was taken back by the "great white hunter" comment you made.
JIM
Trblsm
about" tells me absolutely nothing. You shouldn't be making accusations of
bribery without the proof to back up your words.
You still have shown me no proof.
Kev <stal...@removethis.corecom.net> wrote in message
news:9549c...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Dennis P. Harris
bo...@alaska.net (Jim) wrote:
> when you can't come up with any fact,
> attack the person and forget the argument!
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Floyd Davidson
>NO_SPAM_T...@gci.net says...
>>bo...@alaska.net (Jim) wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not against hunting.....you should try it some
>>> time.
>>
>>Once again, Jim, you're twisting and distorting things. Have I
>>EVER said anything against hunting in this group? No.
>>But reiterate, Jim, I'm not opposed to hunting, and I'm not going
>>to let you twist things to give the impression that I am.
>
>
>leave one to believe you were....my apologies on that.
>
>I too would vote for a rural preference for fish and game change in the
>Alaska Constitution....as long as it was ONLY at a time of shortage. You
>have no arguement with me
>
>Just was taken back by the "great white hunter" comment you made.
The rest of us are also taken back somewhat the Great White
Hunter syndrome characteristics too Jim. It is a bit repulsive.
Floyd Davidson
>Telling me that "there was an article several years ago that was talking
>about" tells me absolutely nothing. You shouldn't be making accusations of
>bribery without the proof to back up your words.
>
>You still have shown me no proof.
>
>Kev <stal...@removethis.corecom.net> wrote in message
>news:9549c...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> There was an article several years ago that was talking about a payment of
>> $60,000 to Gwichin by various environmental groups.
$60,000? Really! Wow, what a womping stomping huge bribe that would
be. Can you just imagine, all of $60,000????
Was that a joke or a typo?
Floyd
--
Kev
lobbyist.
And sorry, I have better things to do with my time and money than to search
for an article I read several years ago. Just cause I can't quote you when
the article appeared doesn't mean it isn't true.
"Trblsm" <tru...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3urd6.4289$mA1.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Kev
paid spokesman of the environmentalist. They are working as a form of
lobbyist.
"Floyd Davidson" <fl...@ptialaska.net> wrote in message
news:877l3dp...@barrow.com...
Dennis P. Harris
<stal...@removethis.corecom.net> wrote:
> Like I said to Trblsm, who said anything about a bribe? They are just the
> paid spokesman of the environmentalist. They are working as a form of
> lobbyist.
>
a few thousand bucks in travel expenses against the combined
weight of the governor, legislature, the new gw bush white house,
and the entire oil industry with its billions and billions. as
if most of the repugnicans in the legislature and congress
weren't paid enough in bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions?
gimme a break.
==============================================================
Stumps don't lie...
Dennis P. Harris NO_SPAM_T...@gci.net
Virtual Juneau http://www.alaska.net/~dpharris
spambots can reply to em...@murkowski.senate.gov
Floyd Davidson
>Like I said to Trblsm, who said anything about a bribe? They are just the
>paid spokesman of the environmentalist. They are working as a form of
>lobbyist.
But you still haven't answered whether it was intended to be a
joke or not. At $60,000 it makes no difference if you want to
say it is a bride or payment for a lobbyist, it is still a joke
to consider that some kind of a serious "problem".
Floyd
Trblsm
something that you can't back up? One can say lots of things; just because
you say it is so, does not make it so. Have the cajones to back up what
you say, or don't say it.
So, back to square one. You make an accusation without backing up your
words. You are asked to provide proof. You than use the excuse that you
have better things to do with your time.
Kev <stal...@removethis.corecom.net> wrote in message
news:956ub...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Kev
just shows that the Gwichin have a lack of credibility. If they want to be
against the opening of ANWR , fine. Even after the allowed the search for
oil on their own land but came up empty handed. But to accept money to
object to another native group exploiting their own land the same way the
Gwichin tried to exploit their own land is shameful.
"Floyd Davidson" <fl...@ptialaska.net> wrote in message
news:87k87co...@barrow.com...
Floyd Davidson
>It should be obvious that it wasn't a joke. It isn't a serious problem it
>just shows that the Gwichin have a lack of credibility. If they want to be
>against the opening of ANWR , fine. Even after the allowed the search for
>oil on their own land but came up empty handed. But to accept money to
>object to another native group exploiting their own land the same way the
>Gwichin tried to exploit their own land is shameful.
The Gwich'in have objected to oil exploration and development in
an area that is 1) an extremely sensitive environment, and 2)
extremely important to Gwich'in subsistence. Such an objection
makes sense. They would have to be idiots to not object. It is
also arguable that anyone who does not object equally is less
than smart for suggesting that the Gwich'in people should be
sacrificed for a six month supply of oil. *Clearly* such a
trade is not appropriate, but some people have to think in the
presense of very thick fog...
The Gwich'in do not object to exploration and development in
areas which are not sensitive. That is good common sense, based
on a good logical analysis. The fact that one area, out of the
many in Alaska that have been explored without their objections,
happened to belong to them is not significant. Perhaps if oil
had been found on village land they would not be as dependant on
the caribou that calve on the coastal plain of ANWR. But it
wasn't, so they are.
They have not accepted "money to object to another native group
exploiting their own land". That is absurd. What native group
owns ANWR??? The Gwich'in have objected (as has *every* group
that depends on the Porcupine caribou herd, including those in
Canada) to what is clearly going to put their very ability to
survive at risk. That is the only sensible thing they could
possibly do!
Your analysis demonstrates that you either have absolutely no
concept of what this is all about, or you are totally
disregarding the obvious to grind your own axe and grease your
palms. It does appear that you do have access to the facts, so
one has to question why you are willing to sacrifice Gwich'in
villages for a very questionable potential for oil development.
That certainly is White of you Kevin. I think we have noted
here previously your inability to empathize with anything more
than 45 miles from Anchorage other than as a means of lining
your pockets.
The idea that a whole tribe has been "bought" with all of $60,000
is just as silly too. If it were $60 million that charge might be
something to look into! $60 thousand isn't even chump change and
won't even buy a good lobbyist for one session of the Legislature.
How is to have bought a whole tribe for the several years you claim
it has???
Charging that accepting such a donation means they were bought is
somewhat ingenious though. But once again it just makes you look
mighty White, again.
Floyd
>"Floyd Davidson" <fl...@ptialaska.net> wrote:
>> "Kev" <stal...@removethis.corecom.net> wrote:
>> >Like I said to Trblsm, who said anything about a bribe?
>> >They are just the paid spokesman of the environmentalist.
>> >They are working as a form of lobbyist.
>>
>> But you still haven't answered whether it was intended to be
>> a joke or not. At $60,000 it makes no difference if you want
>> to say it is a bride or payment for a lobbyist, it is still a
>> joke to consider that some kind of a serious "problem".
>>
>> Floyd
>>
--
Kev
sure. And even if it did effect the calving, in all probability they would
just move on to one of their other calving grounds ( there are 5 total
including ANWR section 1002) and life for them would continue.
And I get so tired of the use of the 6 month oil supply banded about, that's
6 months as the only oil source for the entire country. The entire oil find
found back in the 70's in the North Slope is only about 9 months supply.
Oil will be pumping out of ANWR long after you and I are dead.
I can't recall the name of the Native Corp that will benefit from the
drilling, but it is connected with the village that is close by.
There is very little doubt that ANWR is will provide oil. The only question
is how much.
You just love to play the race card don't you. You and many others are so
prejudice against those of us who live in Anchorage.
Do you buy lobbyist often? So the environmentalist got a good deal paying
them $60,000. It was more than they were getting isn't it? And who knows
how much more has been paid. And the nice thing is the money doesn't have to
go to the tribe just the upper echelon to pay for "expenses".
Charging that accepting such a "donation" does not mean that they were
bought, just rented. If believing that makes me look white, well what does
that make them look? Definitely not native now does it? Or are they just
giving up some of their culture to preserve other parts.
"Floyd Davidson" <fl...@ptialaska.net> wrote in message
news:87vgqv3...@barrow.com...
Floyd Davidson
>ANWR will probably have no effect on the caribou herds. No one
>knows for sure. And even if it did effect the calving, in all
>probability they would just move on to one of their other
>calving grounds ( there are 5 total including ANWR section
>1002) and life for them would continue.
That does raise a few questions, eh?
1) Why does the Porcupine herd *always* prefer the coastal
plain of ANWR if there are other calving areas? (As I
have had to point out to you before Kevin, there have
only been three years in the past 20 when any significant
number of calves were born outside of ANWR. And only 1
when a majority were.)
2) Why do biologist who study caribou all think that oil
exploration and development on the coastal plain will
affect caribou? Why do biologists predict as much as
a 40% reduction in the herd size?
3) Why do you have to have these fact repeated to you every
four months. We just had this discussion in October.
>And I get so tired of the use of the 6 month oil supply banded
>about, that's 6 months as the only oil source for the entire
>country. The entire oil find found back in the 70's in the
>North Slope is only about 9 months supply. Oil will be pumping
>out of ANWR long after you and I are dead.
Only if they pump damned slowly, or we don't make it to an
average age. Plus, your arithmetic is sadly lacking. ANWR
is in no way expected to be near anything like 2/3rds the size
of the original Prudhoe Bay discovery.
>I can't recall the name of the Native Corp that will benefit
>from the drilling, but it is connected with the village that is
>close by.
The village of Kaktovik would no doubt benefit in some ways from
oil work in ANWR. And for that matter, to some extent everyone
who lives on the North Slope, including myself, would benefit
more than the average Alaskan. However, what was stated was
that the Gwich'in people were objecting to oil drilling on other
Native's land after they had allowed exploration on their land.
That is an untrue statement. The fact is that ANWR is *not*
Native land.
>There is very little doubt that ANWR is will provide oil. The
>only question is how much.
Less than production quantities equates to zero. Less than enough
to provide some significant benefit to the nation compared to the
cost to the nation also equates to zero. The question is what
necessity is there to risking an environmental disaster?
>You just love to play the race card don't you. You and many
>others are so prejudice against those of us who live in
>Anchorage.
After you come up with these "screw the villages and on with
whatever is good more the Anchorage economy" statements, just
what do you expect anyone to say? You have *repeatedly* done
that. Just recently it was building railroads and highways to
the Bering Straits, even though none of the bush people want
any such thing. Before that it was drilling in ANWR, again.
The list goes on and on. You have pointedly stated so many
times here that you won't stop for a minute and consider any
Alaskan's needs significant compared to what benefits Anchorage.
>Do you buy lobbyist often? So the environmentalist got a good
>deal paying them $60,000. It was more than they were getting
>isn't it? And who knows how much more has been paid. And the
>nice thing is the money doesn't have to go to the tribe just
>the upper echelon to pay for "expenses".
Boy, that sure will make 'em rich! Isn't that terrifying? A
person from a village who has money? Oh, the horror of it all.
>Charging that accepting such a "donation" does not mean that
>they were bought, just rented. If believing that makes me look
>white, well what does that make them look? Definitely not
>native now does it? Or are they just giving up some of their
>culture to preserve other parts.
The logic of that entire paragraph just escapes me totally.
They are supported by people who agree with them... so that
means they are being "rented", eh? Somehow that doesn't
sound quite right. Especially when it is some article you
claim to have read years ago and amounted to all of 60K bucks.
And how that equates to giving up any part of their culture
is also beyond my understanding. Are you saying anything they
do which isn't the same as they were doing things when Columbus
came to America makes them non-traditional???
Excuse me, white guy, while I barf over here in a bag.
Floyd
--
Shooty Canseco
<stal...@removethis.corecom.net> wrote:
> And I get so tired of the use of the 6 month oil supply banded about, that's
> 6 months as the only oil source for the entire country. The entire oil find
> found back in the 70's in the North Slope is only about 9 months supply.
> Oil will be pumping out of ANWR long after you and I are dead.
Kev's math is real bad.
"American consumption is approximately 18 million barrels of oil a day."
Roger Herrera, lobbyist, Arctic Power
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/environment_11-27.html
The most recent study done by U.S. Geological Survey in 1998 predicted
that 3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil might be found
in the Arctic Refuge coastal plain.
http://www.alaskawild.org/energy/myths_and_facts.htm
Divide 3.2 billion barrels by 18 million barrels per day, and ANWR
might produce 177 days worth of oil, roughly a six month supply.
That's tiny compared to Prudhoe.
"Prudhoe Bay has been compared to a 600-day supply."
Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/environment_11-27.html
Bottom line: If there's oil in ANWR, it's a lot less significant than
the oil found in the area in and around Prudhoe Bay, perhaps a quarter
the size of Prudhoe.
Shooty
XLT Powder
I'm sorry. It just disgusts me that the Feds "owns" nearly 67% of our
state. http://www.nwi.org/Maps/LandChart.html
As for the people in any of the villages. I spent time with many of them
in the course of my job as a land surveyor, the concern for oil
developement can be very over rated by the media (that Trblsm notes) and
by their leaders.
I just happen to firmly believe that responsible oil production, a
strong economy, caribou and Native peoples can co-exist in a very
healthy way.
It's tough to argue that the North Slope Borough and the Fairbanks area
would be better off without the oil exploration and production that has
already occurred.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Floyd Davidson
>I'm sorry. It just disgusts me that the Feds "owns" nearly 67%
>of our state. http://www.nwi.org/Maps/LandChart.html
What is so disgusting about that? Would you prefer that Alaska
be locked up tighter than a drum so that nobody could enjoy any
of it? That describes the east coast of the US, where the
"Feds" don't own much land at all.
>As for the people in any of the villages. I spent time with
>many of them in the course of my job as a land surveyor, the
>concern for oil developement can be very over rated by the
>media (that Trblsm notes) and by their leaders.
But of course that immediately brings into question your ability
to understand and relate to cultures very different than your
own and to understand the statements and points of view of the
people who live in those villages. In just one phrase, "can be
very over rated by ... their leaders", you put to rest any
doubt: you *didn't* understand at all.
Let me be both blunt and brief: Their leaders did not
misunderstand, you did. To suggest otherwise is more
egotistical than I can tolerate, so if you would actually like
to discuss that point be prepared to feel insulted.
>I just happen to firmly believe that responsible oil
>production, a strong economy, caribou and Native peoples can
>co-exist in a very healthy way.
Most people agree. But since that statement has no meaning at
all, because it it is totally lacking in specifics, so what?
You haven't defined what you mean by "responsible oil
production", and very likely someone will not agree with your
definition! Likewise what is a "strong economy" (and also what
are we to do when it isn't strong, wipe out the caribou?) Also,
what is "a very healthy way"? Usually when I see non-Natives
say that, what they mean is a very non-Native way. That, it
seems, is not really very healthy at all for Native people.
Hence I agree with your statement! But that probably means we
do not agree on much of anything about how to implement it.
>It's tough to argue that the North Slope Borough and the
>Fairbanks area would be better off without the oil exploration
>and production that has already occurred.
Tough does not do justice to that. That would be impossible to
argue. I didn't live on the North Slope and had not visited it
prior to oil, but I certainly heard about it. It was not
necessarily the nicest place in Alaska in many ways. That had a
profound effect on the people here (particularly here in
Barrow). I'm not going to go into details, but I was slightly
hesitant to move here three years ago because of some of the
things I knew from 25-30 years ago. But actually living here
came as a *huge* shock, because none of those factors is still
significant on the North Slope. And frankly, oil is the reason
why, either directly (it provides the street lights, for
example) or indirectly (it forced legal settlement of everything
from land claims to just who decides how government works here).
Before Oil Barrow and the North Slope were tolerable. After oil,
this is, in one word: paradise.
Now, lets not fuck it up by being stupid and greedy. Responsible
oil production does not destroy the Porcupine caribou herd, OK?
It does not harm village subsistence activities. It does not
risk the environment unnecessarily.
Shooty Canseco
<doug...@pobox.mtaonline.net> wrote:
> I'm sorry. It just disgusts me that the Feds "owns" nearly 67% of our
> state. http://www.nwi.org/Maps/LandChart.html
Get over it. In 1867, the United States Government owned 100% of
Alaska. Would you prefer it to have remained in Russian hands? I'd
call the drop from 100% to 67% pretty impressive.
Besides, we're not the king of federal dominion. The federal
government owns 83% of Nevada.
And besides, I like the fact that, as a United States citizen, it is I
that owns those lands! We're a very rich people!
http://www.cnie.org/nle/rsk-50.html
Shooty
Kev
recoverable could be over 13 billion barrels. Which works out to more than
a 600 day supply (if you want to use the ridicules measurement of saying how
long it would last if it was the only source of oil for the US). Even if
you take the middle estimate of 8 billion barrels you are talking 2/3 the
amount of Prudhoe Bay.
And as we have found with the Prudhoe fields, we are constantly learning to
recover more and more each year.
"Shooty Canseco" <sho...@gosfgiants.com> wrote in message
news:010220011321013021%sho...@gosfgiants.com...
Trblsm
last bit of oil that may or may not be in the ground, is concentrate more of
that time on alternatives to oil. One day it WILL run out, and then what?
We worry about it then? That isn't, in my not so humble opinion, a very
intelligent way to run things. Living for the moment may seen all nice
and wonderful, but it is stupid. There are generations still to live on
this planet and we should be trying to do something for the future. The
"me, me, me" mentality is disgusting.
Kev <stal...@removethis.corecom.net> wrote in message
news:95j89...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Kev
Unless you want to see windmills all over the landscape.
Yes, oil will run out eventually. And the nice thing is necessity is the
mother of invention. When we need a new energy source, one will be
developed and it won't be a inferior source, like solar or wind. Not using
the oil will not aid in getting alternatives sooner because everyone knows
the oil is there so why go to the unnecessary expense.
I wouldn't be surprised to see us still using fossil fuels in 50 years.
Despite all the talk about oil disappearing, they seem to find new fields
all the time.
"Trblsm" <tru...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:dVlf6.11236$vh.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Floyd Davidson
>Alternatives energy forces are fine but most seem to be smoke
>and mirrors. Unless you want to see windmills all over the
>landscape.
>
>Yes, oil will run out eventually. And the nice thing is
>necessity is the mother of invention. When we need a new
>energy source, one will be developed and it won't be a inferior
>source, like solar or wind. Not using the oil will not aid in
>getting alternatives sooner because everyone knows the oil is
>there so why go to the unnecessary expense.
>
>I wouldn't be surprised to see us still using fossil fuels in
>50 years. Despite all the talk about oil disappearing, they
>seem to find new fields all the time.
I think that is pretty much hitting the nail on the head.
What's the latest estimate for Saudi oil reserves?? 50 years
sounds about right? Plus I do expect they will still be pumping
oil out of Alaska in 50 years too, though it may not be at the
rate it is today.
And, it happens that besides oil, there are two other
immediately available sources of fossil fuel energy which no
doubt will take over from crude oil. Coal and natural gas are
both abundant. The problem right now is that it just is not
worth the investment to do the research necessary to make them
useable. Oil is cheaper. But when the day comes that oil is in
short enough supply there will be incentive to develop at least
gas as a replacement.
Trblsm
then look for something"?
Not to bright upstairs, hmn?
Michelle
Kev <stal...@removethis.corecom.net> wrote in message
news:95l42...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Kev
either. There is no economic reason for us to want an alternative sources.
When you look at prices adjusted for inflation, we are playing less for oil
now than we did in the 50's or the 70's. (If you want to play with some
numbers to see what the value is adjusted for inflation try
http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/economy/calc/cpihome.html )
And besides there is hundreds of millions being spent on R & D on new
sources of energy. What we need right now is improved battery technology.
"Trblsm" <tru...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:P%qf6.11550$vh.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Shooty Canseco
wrote:
> I wouldn't say let's wait and do nothing, but it's not time to panic yet
> either. There is no economic reason for us to want an alternative sources.
> When you look at prices adjusted for inflation, we are playing less for oil
> now than we did in the 50's or the 70's. (If you want to play with some
> numbers to see what the value is adjusted for inflation try
> http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/economy/calc/cpihome.html )
Kev is right. By historical standards, oil is relatively cheap today,
even after the increases of the past year.
Which makes the burning desire of all the pro-ANWR types who want to
sell whatever oil there may be there so bizarre. Why sell the oil now,
when it's sure to be more valuable in the future?
Let's keep whatever oil is there in the ground, like a piggy bank, and
not break into the bank until we can (1) do so with better
environmental technology, and (2) the price is through the roof.
Shooty