POLL - Should Bush drill for oil? - Page 3 - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > Land Use and Trails > Land Use Issues
Notices

Reply
 
Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-23-2001, 10:32 AM   #51 (permalink)
boulder buddha
 
gnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Member # 3886
Location: southern oregon
Posts: 3,153
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Yellowsub1962:
<STRONG>
<font color="yellow">I am assuming you're referring to the Discovery Channel in this statement. Even if you are not, this is just an FYI for everyone. The Discovery Channel is one of the biggest green channels on TV, along with their subsidiaries(?), Animal Planet, TLC. So take what they say at Face Value and do the research, as they have a way of distorting things to make the uninformed viewer think whatever they want... Just FYI...

Oh, and lets get back to topic at hand and save all the name calling crybaby crap for <IMG SRC="smilies/roxy.gif" border="0">'s section <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0"></font c></STRONG>
yeah thats the reference, i figured they had to be green considering the topics of the programs.
and is there anything on tv we can take at face value...i dont think so tim. i was just arguing the point, not really supporting them or any greenies. but they do have some good stuff on there once in a while.
and i mean we do need to watch the envorinment, otherwise this topic would not have even started, i care about it as should you and the greens have the right too, even if none of them have been there. i see far too much litter and shit left from lazy ass necks and everyone in the woods or even along side the roads. i think we should get some of those collars like in that movie "death lock" i think it was where if the two cons got too far apart their heads blew off, and get them out there picking up the trash and things, at least that way out tax $ would be goping somewhere useful.
__________________
hold this...
gnob is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-23-2001, 10:51 AM   #52 (permalink)
Moose
Guest
 
Member #
Posts: n/a
Post

Call me what you want, but what about other "alternative fuels" What about solar? What if the money we devoted to developing oil drilling went to developing more effective solar collectors. We need to realize that this is more then a Dem/Rep or hippie/whatever-is-anti-hippie thing. We will all be out of power soon, conservative and liberal alike. I do not think any of you can honestly say that you belive that drilling Alaska will have no negative effects on the environment, and I don't think that anyone can honestly say that drilling will destroy the world. The truth is that there is less intrusive ways to get power. Maybe we should look at those. I do also believe that the power of our contry is no longer in the hands of the people but the rich. Oil Companies are rich and deep into this Presidency. We will drill, and i guess we will see what happens. I just wish that they could find somewhere else to do it, but who the hell am I?
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Old 05-23-2001, 11:17 AM   #53 (permalink)
Moose
Guest
 
Member #
Posts: n/a
Post

Birfield

You guys can talk about it all you want, but about wanting proof of environemtal "damage" here you go. I agree that there is a difference between damage and ugly, this is what I found for you:
http://www.turtletrack.org/ManyVoice...3/Drilling.htm

Records of environmental abuses include the 11 million gallon Exxon-Valdez oil spill that fouled over 1,500 miles worth of shoreline, roughly the length of Massachusetts to North Carolina.

Over 12,000 acres of wildlife habitat and 508 acres of marine and estuarine habitat have been destroyed by gravel pits, excavations and waste disposal.


Other major oil spills on the North Slope since 1990, according to state records and news reports:
 August 1993, as much as 30,000 gallons of oil spilled at an oil processing facility in Prudhoe Bay.
 December 1993, about 15,000 gallons spilled when a Prudhoe Bay flowline cracked in the winds.
 May 1994, about 5,000 gallons spilled when workers tried to connect a pipeline from Point McIntyre into a pipeline at Prudhoe Bay.
 April 1996, about 6,300 gallons spilled at Prudhoe Bay's Gathering Center 2 because of pipeline corrosion.
 March 1997, about 4,900 gallons spilled at a Prudhoe Bay drill site due to a pipeline rupture.
 March 1999, about 6,400 gallons spilled at a Prudhoe Bay drill site in a pipeline leak.
 August 2000, 30,300 gallons of oil and water spilled inside a gathering center.


http://www.american.edu/ted/projects...s/xoilpr15.htm

The oil companies that drilled in the rain forest were responsible for "felling thousands of acres of trees, dynamiting the earth, spilling vast amounts of oil, destroying habitats, and fouling rivers." Fish have died from water pollution and the game the tribes once hunted have retreated deeper into the jungle as a result of the deforestation.

don't know how it will come out, but what the hell.

Even you have to agree that destroying rivers, killing fish, blowing up land goes a little beyond ugly to "damage" which is defined by webster as "a loss due to injury or harm." All of this "damage" has been done by oil drilling, you can go check the websites. let it go, oil drilling does do "damage" however you define it. I guess the problem comes from balancing that "damage" with the need for power.
Birfield
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-23-2001, 11:30 AM   #54 (permalink)
DRM
Super Moderator
 
DRM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 8
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Posts: 60,484
Blog Entries: 1
Post

Thanks for the info Moose.

I think some of you misunderstand my position, and are stuck thinking an "all or none" mentality. There IS middle ground here between wanton destruction of all of earth's resources and the "save the trees - kill yourself" way of thinking. As a matter of fact, I would be willing to bet most of us do fall somewhere in that middle ground - we realize we must balance the earth's needs with man's needs...

Take the cutting of trees mentioned. First off, anyone who uses the term "rainforest" I can see where their slant is right off (not you, the author). That is one of those terms created simply to make people feel all gushy, gushy about what anywhere welse would be called a forest, or here in the south "woods" <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

If you want to talk about REAL destruction, what we do every day to build shopping malls and parking lots is FAR worse than using a couple of acres of a million acre wildlife preserve to drill for oil.

Talk about selling out - most of us have already written off the land we have here - forgetting that "preservation" starts at home. So we let them bulldoze acre after acre across the street, but get all in a huff about millions of acres half a continent away that we will never see.

But hey, some of you would label me as not caring, so I guess I better stop mentioning these things <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">
__________________
>David
> 4x4Spot.com
>It only hurts the first time you agree with me...
>"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
DRM is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-23-2001, 12:52 PM   #55 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 35
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 167
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Butthole Queen:
<STRONG>Berzerker, your immaturity here is prety obvious to everyone else as well as me. Grow up, and try to be useful here, ok?

How many more personal attacks will you toss out and still not present anything to do with the topic? Typical... </STRONG>
I'm pretty sure that what was obvious was that I wasn't really trying to add to the conversation yet, I was just trying to piss you off, let you know again what a moron you are, and let off some steam at the same time.

Quote:
Originally posted by Butthole Queen:
<STRONG> It is funny though, I have only asked ONE question here, Lance asked the same one too -now you are backpedaling like crazy saying somehom my question was different? What a little wuss you are scared of Lance </STRONG>
<IMG SRC="smilies/crybaby2.gif" border="0"> Quit personally attacking me! <IMG SRC="smilies/crybaby2.gif" border="0"> Wait, who does that sounds like? <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> I was pretty sure I made this clear last time. Lance presents himself in a intellegent manner, you on the other had consistantly present your self in a selfrightious and idiotic manner. Therefore, you are stupid, Lance isn't. Maybe thats why you can't quite grasp that simple concept. Lance doesn't make off the wall ignorant comments like "oil is a renewable resource". The question you two asked was the same and a decient question, you just made yourself look a whole lot stupider doing so. Got it now? Probably not, but oh well what can I expect from you....
__________________
The best things in life aren't things!
-Adam
Berzerker is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-23-2001, 01:05 PM   #56 (permalink)
DRM
Super Moderator
 
DRM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 8
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Posts: 60,484
Blog Entries: 1
Post

Originally posted by Berzerker:
<IMG SRC="smilies/crybaby2.gif" border="0"> Quit personally attacking me! <IMG SRC="smilies/crybaby2.gif" border="0"> Wait, who does that sounds like? <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

This is getting old. If you don't have any valid info to add, stop looking for a fight.


Lance doesn't make off the wall ignorant comments like "oil is a renewable resource".

Maybe you should educate yourself on the definition of "renewable". Are you claiming no new oil is being formed within the earth right now? This is a pretty simple concept, try to follow along.
Oil IS a renewable resource - we are just presently using it faster than it is being formed.
If we were to stop today, and switch over to alternate power sources, then guess what would happen? Oil supplies in the earch would INCREASE. Yes, that's right - they would RENEW. Do you understand yet, or do you want to continue to babble on with your sadly uninteligent use of the definition of renewable?

The question you two asked was the same and a decient question, you just made yourself look a whole lot stupider doing so.

This is too funny. Simple question, you can;t answer, so you ridicule the person asking it. Shows your intelligence, as well as your lack of informaiton and educationon the matter.

What other brilliantly childish ravings do you want to add? You are the one looking the fool here, just keep it up for all to see <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Or, you could back up your claims with info, and stop with the whining like YellowSub suggested... Your call, but I don';t expect much from you...

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: Birfield King ]
__________________
>David
> 4x4Spot.com
>It only hurts the first time you agree with me...
>"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
DRM is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-23-2001, 01:08 PM   #57 (permalink)
DRM
Super Moderator
 
DRM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 8
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Posts: 60,484
Blog Entries: 1
Post

Hey Berzerker - how about you stop being a boy and be a man - feel free to email me directly on this matter if you feel you have a beef. Otherwise respect the forum and shut your trap unless you have something valid to add...

Think you can handle that? I doubt it...
__________________
>David
> 4x4Spot.com
>It only hurts the first time you agree with me...
>"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
DRM is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-23-2001, 01:58 PM   #58 (permalink)
Registered User
 
GENA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Member # 3450
Location: San Frantastic, CA!
Posts: 362
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally posted by Birfield King:
Maybe you should educate yourself on the definition of "renewable". Are you claiming no new oil is being formed within the earth right now? This is a pretty simple concept, try to follow along.
Oil IS a renewable resource - we are just presently using it faster than it is being formed.
If we were to stop today, and switch over to alternate power sources, then guess what would happen? Oil supplies in the earch would INCREASE. Yes, that's right - they would RENEW. Do you understand yet, or do you want to continue to babble on with your sadly uninteligent use of the definition of renewable?

[
This is too funny. Simple question, you can;t answer, so you ridicule the person asking it. Shows your intelligence, as well as your lack of informaiton and educationon the matter.

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: Birfield King ][/QB]
No, maybe YOU need to educate yourself and stop telling somebody who is an Environmental Science major that he needs to get "educated" on the subject.
Here is the definition:

re·new·a·ble [ri nb'l ] adjective

1. able to be renewed: capable of being renewed

2. not likely to run out: able to be sustained or renewed indefinitely, either because of inexhaustible supplies or because of new growth

So, I ask you, have you seen a live dinosaur lately...I'm not talking Barney here either. <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> Oil is not a renewable resource...stop fighting that issue at least.
Why are we fighting the issue, because oil is likely to run out. There is only so much of it to extract and use. By the way, I hope you are not using oil in terms of non-fuel or fossil fuel oils. If you are trying to be smart and group oil from the human body in there...I'm not going to even bother arguing that.

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: BALLCRUSHER ]
__________________
You + are = You're, you dumbfawks!
I am a pussy. - MattS
GENA is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-23-2001, 02:25 PM   #59 (permalink)
DRM
Super Moderator
 
DRM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 8
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Posts: 60,484
Blog Entries: 1
Post

Originally posted by BALLCRUSHER:
No, maybe YOU need to educate yourself and stop telling somebody who is an Environmental Science major that he needs to get "educated" on the subject.

Just who is the Envorinmental Science major, and what does that have to do with definitions of words?


Here is the definition:

re·new·a·ble [ri nb'l ] adjective

1. able to be renewed: capable of being renewed


What part of the fact that oil is still being "created" today in the earth do you not understand? This only serves to prove what I was saying - thanks for showing it.

2. not likely to run out: able to be sustained or renewed indefinitely, either because of inexhaustible supplies or because of new growth

What a stretch you are applying here! General concensus (this was an arguement used earlier) agrees that trees are a "renewable resource". However, that is based only on current use levels. If we all of a sudden set out to do so, we COULD start consuming our forests faster than they can "renew" themselves... According to you - that means trees would then somehow - under no actions of their own - become a "non-renewable resource"? Does that make any sense? NO.

You are basing your definition not on the resource itself, but on it's use level - this is a poor arguement that lacks any sense of logic.

Theoretically we could increase the level of consumption of any resource, but that in no way changes whether or not a resourse is RENEWABLE.

Some of you need to go back & get a refund on the supposed "higher learning" schooling you are touting... <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

So, I ask you, have you seen a live dinosaur lately...I'm not talking Barney here either. <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> Oil is not a renewable resource...stop fighting that issue at least.

That has to be the most absurd thing I have seen so far. What is this supposed to mean? <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">

Why are we fighting the issue, because oil is likely to run out. There is only so much of it to extract and use.

See now - make up your mind. If it is non-renewable - that means it WILL run out. So "will" itr run out, or is it "likely to" run out?

But yes, in part you are correct. We WILL run out at our current levels of use (and I am all for reducing that level BTW). Sheesh - the way we are burning the stuff up is amazing! What makes me even more sick is that the REAL problems - big companies - are allowed to "buy" their way out of cleaning up their factories to be more efficient by buying & selling environmental impact credits, and other underhanded (IMHO) ways of skeaking around cleaning up their act <IMG SRC="smilies/pissed.gif" border="0">

But I digress - yes, it is sad we are arguing back & forth. I would have preferred to have this be a DISCUSSION about ideas, but some have seen fit to carry on otherwise...

Thanks for your input though <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">
__________________
>David
> 4x4Spot.com
>It only hurts the first time you agree with me...
>"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
DRM is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-23-2001, 04:20 PM   #60 (permalink)
boulder buddha
 
gnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Member # 3886
Location: southern oregon
Posts: 3,153
Post

i always thought the refernce to renewable resourse was one that we had control of i.e. trees.
like as in we can plant more trees if need be.
we cannot just produce more oil if need be, or do you know something i dont.

as far as the dino goes, to the best of my knowledge they call in fossil fuels because it is produced from the break down of these elements over years and years. we have nothing going on today that can compare to that.

the reality is we need to get away from the oil, and move on to something less damaging. its not just that fact that it can damage the earth from getting the oil, but oils are damaging to earth in no matter what form, whether it be crude, or vehicle exhaust.
just cuz your are buddies with bushy doesnt mean we have to agree there B.S. King <IMG SRC="smilies/flipoff.gif" border="0">
__________________
hold this...
gnob is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-23-2001, 05:13 PM   #61 (permalink)
DRM
Super Moderator
 
DRM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 8
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Posts: 60,484
Blog Entries: 1
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by gnob:
<STRONG>just cuz your are buddies with bushy doesnt mean we have to agree there B.S. King <IMG SRC="smilies/flipoff.gif" border="0"></STRONG>
Who said a word about Bush? Get over your petty partisan politics here and work on the issues...
__________________
>David
> 4x4Spot.com
>It only hurts the first time you agree with me...
>"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
DRM is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-23-2001, 05:45 PM   #62 (permalink)
boulder buddha
 
gnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Member # 3886
Location: southern oregon
Posts: 3,153
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Birfield King:
<STRONG>Who said a word about Bush? Get over your petty partisan politics here and work on the issues...</STRONG>
i am,
its funny the only thing you've ripped me on is the politics
or so i make too much sence for your mind
__________________
hold this...
gnob is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-23-2001, 07:03 PM   #63 (permalink)
DRM
Super Moderator
 
DRM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 8
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Posts: 60,484
Blog Entries: 1
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by gnob:
<STRONG>i am, its funny the only thing you've ripped me on is the politics or so i make too much sence for your mind</STRONG>
Come back & try again when you can form a coherent sentence... I don't have a clue what you are trying to say here <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">
__________________
>David
> 4x4Spot.com
>It only hurts the first time you agree with me...
>"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
DRM is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-23-2001, 07:16 PM   #64 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3976
Location: College Station, Tx
Posts: 816
Send a message via ICQ to CJ5-Man Send a message via AIM to CJ5-Man
Post

I say drill. George W said we have the technology to do it right, and I believe him. As far as lining the oil companies pockets, I don't think thats what this is about. I think its pretty bad that the most powerful country in the world relies on the middle east as much as we do. Will oil companies make money off it, yes, because it is a domestic drilling process. It would also give our dwindling economy a kick in the ass and help pick things up a bit. I don't see any reason to keep the land completely closed to drilling. Yes, it is an untainted wildlife reserve, but it can be kept that way. I live in Texas, and drive up and down I45 regularly, and there is drilling all over the place that you wouldn't notice if you weren't paying attention (my dad's in the biz, so I have a learned habit of noticing this stuff.) Now as far as looking for alternative feuls, thats something that needs to be investigated ASAP. American Engineers have a terrible problem with efficiency. Im not trying to criticize them, since I studied engineering or a year and realize engineers work their asses off, but with everything from cars to programming computers, all the problems are tackled by adding more power. Not by thinking of a better way to deliver the answers. In overseas countries, a big powerstroke diesel is unheard of and unnecessary. v8's in a famliy car, and even sports cars, are overkill. And with programming, how many new programs come out that don't require bigger and better computing power? very few. But this is a whole nother can of worms that I probably shouldn't have opened. Anyway, thats my opinion, peace <IMG SRC="smilies/beer.gif" border="0">
__________________
a bunch of mid 90's discoveries
CJ5-Man is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-23-2001, 07:21 PM   #65 (permalink)
DRM
Super Moderator
 
DRM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 8
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Posts: 60,484
Blog Entries: 1
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by The Flem:
<STRONG>I say drill. </STRONG>
To be honest, if they followed *my* ideas for how to handle this, there would be any drilling for YEARS, possibly 10 years or more. Like I said - I don't expect or want them to go crashing in there tomorrow - I want them to research EVERYTHING... and that includes domestic oil sources, solar, hydro, etc... Reasearch ALL options...
__________________
>David
> 4x4Spot.com
>It only hurts the first time you agree with me...
>"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
DRM is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-23-2001, 10:55 PM   #66 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 35
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 167
Post

Ahh, well that was a fun little pissing match, eh davey? I hadn't done that with you in a while and felt it was time <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

Now that that is out of my system...

Through common sense and all the links that Paul took the time to post its very easy to see that drilling for oil there in the reserve, weather or not it destorys the environment(which it will), isn't a good idea. Asuming the BEST there will be barely enough recoverable oil up there to last us at our current rate of overcomsumption not even a year and more like six months. Its not going to lower ANY prices or even be seen on the market for a good 10 years. Its not any sort of a solution to our current energy needs. The Reserve is our last intact example of unspoiled arctic and subarctic ecosystem, why would you want to ruin it for nearly nothing?

Remember the Exxon Valdez spill? Wildlife still hasn't recovered ten years later. In 1999 alone, spills released 45,000 gallons of crude oil, diesel fuel, propane and ethylene glycol, among other toxic substances. Oil also is released into the arctic environment through leaks in the Trans-Alaska pipeline system.

North Slope oil and gas operations generate enormous amounts of waste – all of it exempt from hazardous-waste regulations because of a loophole in the law. As a result, millions of gallons of oily liquids and sludge, toxic brine and other wastes are dumped into open pits, frozen into the permafrost or simply discharged into the environment.

The existing oil operations also annually spew more than 56,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, a source of acid rain. That’s more than the amount released into the air from cars and smokestacks in many of the nation’s biggest cities. North Slope oil facilities release 24,000 tons of the greenhouse gas methane every year, too. Think this new site will be any different? No.

What about the sprawl?

"You have to connect all those points with pipelines, roads. You still have to have airports; you have to have places to live," said Charles Clusen, an oil expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Even using the best technology, you're still talking about a very major industrial facility on the coastal plain of the arctic refuge."

Along with landfills, water reservoirs, docks and gravel causeways, production plants, gas processing facilities, seawater treatment plants, power plants and gravel mines.

As it now stands, she said, 95 percent of the arctic coastline of Alaska is open to oil development, with only the refuge protected. No matter how well done, oil development would wound the land forever. It would degrade the habitat with pollution, road and pipeline construction, noise from helicopters, trucks and ships, and seismic surveys and drilling. It would deface the wilderness with all the ugly machinery that now mars the once-pristine landscape at Prudhoe Bay.

So DRM do you want your kids to only be able to read about the real wilderness in books or do you want them to be able to see it?

Then on top of all this there is the fact that once the oil is raped from the land what is going to be done with it? Its going to be burned to further pollute the air and speed up global warming that much more. <IMG SRC="smilies/idea.gif" border="0"> Hey, I guess your kid could still enjoy the ANWR after its drilled after all, through breathing the toxic fumes that will be emmitted through burning the oil. What we should be doing instead of wasting our time and money on such crap as this is researching and improving other sources of energy that don't destroy the environment at every turn.

Oh yeah, and I'm the environmental science major that BallCrusher was talking about <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0"> Hope you learned something today!
__________________
The best things in life aren't things!
-Adam
Berzerker is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-24-2001, 10:03 AM   #67 (permalink)
Moose
Guest
 
Member #
Posts: n/a
Post

Correct me if I am wrong, which I am sure you will do. Oil does not need to come from dinosaurs just large amounts of Carbon (similar to Coal), and the dinosaurs where a pretty large supply of carbon, the problem is that it takes a really really long time to create it, and we are using it really really fast.

About Bush saying that we can do it saefly now is political crap in my opinion. He has to say that, but the truth is, like in life or 4wheeling, if it can go wrong it will.

I do agree with Birfield, it is not a party thing, we are all going to be screwed pretty soon.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-24-2001, 10:27 AM   #68 (permalink)
DRM
Super Moderator
 
DRM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 8
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Posts: 60,484
Blog Entries: 1
Post

Originally posted by Berzerker:
Ahh, well that was a fun little pissing match, eh davey? I hadn't done that with you in a while and felt it was time <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

No, it was actually pretty childish on your part, but think whatever you like...

Through common sense and all the links that Paul took the time to post its very easy to see that drilling for oil there in the reserve, weather or not it destorys the environment(which it will), isn't a good idea.

You keep claiming damage, but cannot explain what damage IS.

Asuming the BEST there will be barely enough recoverable oil up there to last us at our current rate of overcomsumption not even a year and more like six months.

Your point? I think it is pretty clear everyone here thinks we should LOWER the current consumption levels...

Its not going to lower ANY prices or even be seen on the market for a good 10 years.

The fault here is that you seem to lack the foresight to plan ahead. The whole reason I suggested drilling is not for immediate results - only a fool thinks we would see benefits NOW.

Its not any sort of a solution to our current energy needs. The Reserve is our last intact example of unspoiled arctic and subarctic ecosystem, why would you want to ruin it for nearly nothing?

Again - false information. It will not be "ruined" - but there will be a "visual impact" and there will be "change".
Also, I would like to know where you are qualified to discount that amount of oil as "nearly nothing".

Remember the Exxon Valdez spill? Wildlife still hasn't recovered ten years later. In 1999 alone, spills released 45,000 gallons of crude oil, diesel fuel, propane and ethylene glycol, among other toxic substances.

So you pick the worst "what might happen" and now assume that is a GIVEN if they drill there? Poor logic again.

Oil also is released into the arctic environment through leaks in the Trans-Alaska pipeline system.

Are you assuming this, or do you happen to have info to back this up? And if it is "leaking" out, do you have info that shows this has killed animals, changed their habitats, etc?

North Slope oil and gas operations generate enormous amounts of waste – all of it exempt from hazardous-waste regulations because of a loophole in the law. As a result, millions of gallons of oily liquids and sludge, toxic brine and other wastes are dumped into open pits, frozen into the permafrost or simply discharged into the environment.

What does a legal loophole have to do with the topic? I don't like it either - so are you fighting to have these laws changed?

What about the sprawl?

"You have to connect all those points with pipelines, roads. You still have to have airports; you have to have places to live," said Charles Clusen, an oil expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Even using the best technology, you're still talking about a very major industrial facility on the coastal plain of the arctic refuge."


But is this "damage", or just "change"? Answer this, and we have the core of my original question...

No matter how well done, oil development would wound the land forever. It would degrade the habitat with pollution, road and pipeline construction, noise from helicopters, trucks and ships, and seismic surveys and drilling. It would deface the wilderness with all the ugly machinery that now mars the once-pristine landscape at Prudhoe Bay.

BINGO! So is it actual "damage", or just "visually unpleasant"? See what I mean when I asked my original question?

So DRM do you want your kids to only be able to read about the real wilderness in books or do you want them to be able to see it?

Do I want them to read about winderness - where the government made it off limits to EVERYONE? NO - I do not want that.

Then on top of all this there is the fact that once the oil is raped from the land what is going to be done with it? Its going to be burned to further pollute the air and speed up global warming that much more.

Ahhhh... "raped", "global warming"... Global Warming is BUNK - wake up & see it.

What we should be doing instead of wasting our time and money on such crap as this is researching and improving other sources of energy that don't destroy the environment at every turn.

You think ahead much, do you? Only a fool fails to research ALL aspects for the best route to take.

Oh yeah, and I'm the environmental science major that BallCrusher was talking about <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0"> Hope you learned something today!

Some, but not much... I have been in college long enough to know that just because you are majoring in something, doesn't mean you know all that much about it...

But I do see you are eating up some of the green propoganda hook, line, and sinker...

[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: Birfield King ]
__________________
>David
> 4x4Spot.com
>It only hurts the first time you agree with me...
>"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
DRM is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-24-2001, 12:50 PM   #69 (permalink)
Moose
Guest
 
Member #
Posts: n/a
Post

You guys need to give up, If Birfiled can't understnad what "damage" will be done by drilling for oil by now he will never see. Just let it go. Luckily my vote will cancel his I guess...
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-24-2001, 01:36 PM   #70 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 35
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 167
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Moose:
<STRONG>You guys need to give up, If Birfiled can't understnad what "damage" will be done by drilling for oil by now he will never see. Just let it go. Luckily my vote will cancel his I guess...</STRONG>

I know... One last try though <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">
__________________
The best things in life aren't things!
-Adam
Berzerker is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-24-2001, 02:18 PM   #71 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 35
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 167
Thumbs down

Allright davey what the hell are you looking for? I just gave you numbers, examples, and facts, how much simpler can it get? <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">


Your point? I think it is pretty clear everyone here thinks we should LOWER the current consumption levels...

My point is that its not worth it to destroy the reserve for such a small amount of oil that wont even help anyone out in the long run.


The fault here is that you seem to lack the foresight to plan ahead. The whole reason I suggested drilling is not for immediate results - only a fool thinks we would see benefits NOW.

I lack foresight?!? Your the one who wants to contine to use oil as an energy resource! Its NOT going to work anymore! WE have to pioneer NEW environmently sounds ways of generating energy and stop burning fossil fuels.

It will not be "ruined" - but there will be a "visual impact" and there will be "change".

Yes, and the "change" you speak of is going to ruin it forever. Animals will die and the area will become barren unhospitable to anything. The ecosyystem is gonig to be destroied, not just inconvienced like you seem to think so. Here are some more FACTS for you to read:

RISKS TO POLAR BEARS FROM OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Disturbance of females while denning could cause them to abandon cubs.

Death, injury or harassment resulting from encounters with humans.

Damage or destruction of essential habitat (e.g., feeding, breeding and especially denning areas) by dumping, dredging, drilling and construction of platforms, pipelines, roads and support facilities.

Contact with and ingestion of oil and other contaminants (e.g., ethylene glycol antifreeze, heavy metals, organochlorines, etc.) used in oil production.

Attraction to industrial areas with subsequent habituation to humans and increased control actions.

Harassment (disturbance) by aircraft, ships and other vehicles (stress/overheating when fleeing, interruption of feeding).

Detrimental effects on the polar bear's main source of food, ringed seals, due to impacts of oil, noise and other contaminants.

SOURCES for above: Workshop on Measures to Assess and Mitigate the Adverse Effects of Arctic Oil and Gas Activities on Polar Bears, Marine Mammal Commission (1989) and other sources.

And thats JUST the Polar bears.

The majority of the Bowhead Whale popluation resides in the Western Artic sea and they're just recovering form the brink of extinction. First, it travels in leads where oil concentrates. Further, the whole population migrates together, so a spill in their path would be disastrous. Oil damages their eyes, clogs their sensory hairs and impairs their breathing. Finally, noise from drilling and ice breakers disorients whales, interferes with motion, nursing and cow/calf bonds, and masks whale calls.

Musk oxen are shaggy ice age relics that inhabit the range year round. Extirpated at the turn of the century, they were reintroduced into the area 25 years ago and currently number around 600. In the summer and early winter, muskoxen depend on lowland riparian willows, which would most likely be dug up during excavation of gravel to be used during construction. Highly specific in their choice of habitat, they are unable to adapt readily to habitat destruction.

Pipelines and related activity affect the migration routes of wolves’ primary food source: caribou. Wolf populations are low in the Arctic Refuge and extremely sensitive to prey population fluctuations and shootings.

Millions of birds migrate to the Arctic coastal plain each spring to nest in its wetlands. The birds travel from locations on 6 continents. In North America, birds from the Arctic Refuge visit all of the lower 48 states. Over 185 species of waterfowl, shorebirds, and seabirds have been observed in the Arctic Refuge, including, tundra swans, common eiders, arctic terns, and breeding brants. Oil drilling would disturb these species' nesting and foraging habitats as well as potentially have toxic effects felt here and wherever the birds travel. Of course, any declines of these migratory birds in Alaska would affect populations in the lower 48 states. External oil effects: inability to fly, loss of buoyancy potentially resulting in drowning, and hypothermia. Internal effects: toxicity, embryotoxicity, a decrease in the growth rate of young birds, and reproductive damage.

There are plenty more examples, need I go on?


So you pick the worst "what might happen" and now assume that is a GIVEN if they drill there? Poor logic again.

No, you don't seem to be able to read right. "In 1999 alone, spills released 45,000 gallons of crude oil, diesel fuel, propane and ethylene glycol, among other toxic substances." Thats an average year, business as usual for big oil, <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> That is a given. And how do you know a big spill can't happen? That like not putting on your seat belt when you get into your car cause car crashes rarely happen <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">


What does a legal loophole have to do with the topic?

That wasn't the point. The oil company is still going to produce millions of gallons of oily liquids and sludge, toxic brine and other wastes and no matter where you put it its bad for everyone.

But is this "damage", or just "change"? Answer this, and we have the core of my original question...

Y-E-S!!! can't you read??? I'm starting to doubt that you even went to high school here. Habitat will be ruined aka damaged perminatly!!! I really don't understand what is so hard to see about that I've stated numerious facts in my previous post and again in this one. You on the other hand havn't proven shit as to how the oil companies are going to minimize their impact.

Do I want them to read about winderness - where the government made it off limits to EVERYONE? NO - I do not want that.

Its not offlimits to everyone, people go there all the time. I just want to keep development out of it, whats hard to understand about that? When did I ever say i wanted to keep everyone out? Get out of your paraniod right wing mindset and quit reading in to what you want to.


"global warming"... Global Warming is BUNK - wake up & see it.

After reading this I should definatly know that there is no point in contining to argue with you. Are you really that stupid? There isn't anything to argue. Its fact, there is hard evdience. Really, what the fuck are you talking about? Too bad its going to be your children and their children that have to suffer because of YOUR ignorance and stupidity.

..I have been in college long enough..

Well its pretty obvious that this is a blantent lie by now so cut it out.
__________________
The best things in life aren't things!
-Adam
Berzerker is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-24-2001, 02:36 PM   #72 (permalink)
DRM
Super Moderator
 
DRM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 8
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Posts: 60,484
Blog Entries: 1
Post

Originally posted by Berzerker:
Allright davey what the hell are you looking for? I just gave you numbers, examples, and facts, how much simpler can it get? <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">

Yes, you gave some numbers, some facts, some opinions, and some incorrect statements <IMG SRC="smilies/tongue.gif" border="0">

My point is that its not worth it to destroy the reserve for such a small amount of oil that wont even help anyone out in the long run.

There you go with your generalizations again. The pand will not be "destroyed", so stop saying it. Yes, some of the land may be "changed", and and yes, some of it may be "damaged" if there is a spill, etc. But stol generalizing - it serves to reduce the credibility of the other things you say (some of which does make sense BTW).

I lack foresight?!? Your the one who wants to contine to use oil as an energy resource! Its NOT going to work anymore! WE have to pioneer NEW environmently sounds ways of generating energy and stop burning fossil fuels.

Calm down & pay attention to what I said. Yes, in the rather distant future it would be wonderful to think we could all but eliminate fossil fuel usage... but that doesn' happen overnight, and last time I checked there is still not even the slightest clue when a viable replacement can be found... unless you know something I don't...

Yes, and the "change" you speak of is going to ruin it forever. Animals will die and the area will become barren unhospitable to anything.

Oh please, spare us all your overdramatized comments. Drilling for oil will not turn it into a barren wasteland - stop acting like it <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

The ecosyystem is gonig to be destroied, not just inconvienced like you seem to think so. Here are some more FACTS for you to read:

RISKS TO POLAR BEARS FROM OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Disturbance of females while denning could cause them to abandon cubs.


"Could"? Looks like that is not a FACT of damage, but a POSSIBILITY. Get your FACTS straight.

Death, injury or harassment resulting from encounters with humans.

So are you saying we should not drill, or should we not allow ANY human into the area? This "fact" has nothing to do with drilling, but it does have to do with humans in the area. But since you used this, I guess you are all for locking humans out of there forever - good plan <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Damage or destruction of essential habitat (e.g., feeding, breeding and especially denning areas) by dumping, dredging, drilling and construction of platforms, pipelines, roads and support facilities.

Are you saying you have proof that they could not accomodate some intrusion into their feeding, breeding, etc grounds? Do you have informaiton to say that they could not adapt?

Contact with and ingestion of oil and other contaminants (e.g., ethylene glycol antifreeze, heavy metals, organochlorines, etc.) used in oil production.

Yeah - people putting bowls of antifreeze out for them to eat... whatever <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Harassment (disturbance) by aircraft, ships and other vehicles (stress/overheating when fleeing, interruption of feeding).

Again - you seem unable to separate two issues - oil drilling, and human presense in general. Make up your mind which one you are talking about.

[/b]Detrimental effects on the polar bear's main source of food, ringed seals, due to impacts of oil, noise and other contaminants.[/b]

How will inland drilling affect seal population?
And for that matter, how will offshore drilling somehow kill all of these seals?

The majority of the Bowhead Whale popluation resides in the Western Artic sea and they're just recovering form the brink of extinction. First, it travels in leads where oil concentrates. Further, the whole population migrates together, so a spill in their path would be disastrous. Oil damages their eyes, clogs their sensory hairs and impairs their breathing. Finally, noise from drilling and ice breakers disorients whales, interferes with motion, nursing and cow/calf bonds, and masks whale calls.

Again, are we talking about land or offshore drilling? I thought we were talking about land drilling...

Musk oxen are shaggy ice age relics that inhabit the range year round. Extirpated at the turn of the century, they were reintroduced into the area 25 years ago and currently number around 600. In the summer and early winter, muskoxen depend on lowland riparian willows, which would most likely be dug up during excavation of gravel to be used during construction. Highly specific in their choice of habitat, they are unable to adapt readily to habitat destruction.

Pipelines and related activity affect the migration routes of wolves’ primary food source: caribou. Wolf populations are low in the Arctic Refuge and extremely sensitive to prey population fluctuations and shootings.

Millions of birds migrate to the Arctic coastal plain each spring to nest in its wetlands. The birds travel from locations on 6 continents. In North America, birds from the Arctic Refuge visit all of the lower 48 states. Over 185 species of waterfowl, shorebirds, and seabirds have been observed in the Arctic Refuge, including, tundra swans, common eiders, arctic terns, and breeding brants. Oil drilling would disturb these species' nesting and foraging habitats as well as potentially have toxic effects felt here and wherever the birds travel. Of course, any declines of these migratory birds in Alaska would affect populations in the lower 48 states. External oil effects: inability to fly, loss of buoyancy potentially resulting in drowning, and hypothermia. Internal effects: toxicity, embryotoxicity, a decrease in the growth rate of young birds, and reproductive damage.

There are plenty more examples, need I go on?


So you pick the worst "what might happen" and now assume that is a GIVEN if they drill there? Poor logic again.

No, you don't seem to be able to read right. "In 1999 alone, spills released 45,000 gallons of crude oil, diesel fuel, propane and ethylene glycol, among other toxic substances." Thats an average year, business as usual for big oil, <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> That is a given. And how do you know a big spill can't happen? That like not putting on your seat belt when you get into your car cause car crashes rarely happen <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">


What does a legal loophole have to do with the topic?

That wasn't the point. The oil company is still going to produce millions of gallons of oily liquids and sludge, toxic brine and other wastes and no matter where you put it its bad for everyone.

But is this "damage", or just "change"? Answer this, and we have the core of my original question...

Y-E-S!!! can't you read??? I'm starting to doubt that you even went to high school here. Habitat will be ruined aka damaged perminatly!!! I really don't understand what is so hard to see about that I've stated numerious facts in my previous post and again in this one. You on the other hand havn't proven shit as to how the oil companies are going to minimize their impact.

Its not offlimits to everyone, people go there all the time. I just want to keep development out of it, whats hard to understand about that? When did I ever say i wanted to keep everyone out? Get out of your paraniod right wing mindset and quit reading in to what you want to.

No, from your comments above (even thought quoted) you are forkeeping humans out completely. Not reading into it - YOU wrote it here above when you stated all of the "damage" mere human contact would cause...

After reading this I should definatly know that there is no point in contining to argue with you. Are you really that stupid?

Great line...

There isn't anything to argue. Its fact, there is hard evdience. Really, what the fuck are you talking about? Too bad its going to be your children and their children that have to suffer because of YOUR ignorance and stupidity.

Ouch.. more personal attacks - that is the best approach for you when you can't back your info up...


Well its pretty obvious that this is a blantent lie by now so cut it out

What is funny is you think your comments to this thread in some way make you look intelligent. All you have done is cut/paste more of the greenie mantra, and when forced to address specific points, you resort to personal attacks... Keep it up big boy, you are digging your own hole <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

Maybe you should take some debate classes, or are you too busy with your "green" classes to take real courses?
__________________
>David
> 4x4Spot.com
>It only hurts the first time you agree with me...
>"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
DRM is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-24-2001, 03:17 PM   #73 (permalink)
Moose
Guest
 
Member #
Posts: n/a
Post

Shezz man, slicker then our well-oiled George W.

[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: Moose ]
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-24-2001, 03:53 PM   #74 (permalink)
DRM
Super Moderator
 
DRM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 8
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Posts: 60,484
Blog Entries: 1
Post

Berzerker, I am tired of going round & round with you on this. You still cannot grasp the intent, or scope of my original questions, and have instead wandered off on tangents and personal attacks...

You are willing to make false statements and generalizations, I can't stand them. Perhaps we should leave it at that.
__________________
>David
> 4x4Spot.com
>It only hurts the first time you agree with me...
>"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
DRM is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-24-2001, 04:07 PM   #75 (permalink)
Rock God
 
Whitewater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 89
Location: ElDoCo
Posts: 1,277
Send a message via MSN to Whitewater Send a message via Yahoo to Whitewater
Post

I'm really not taking sides or saying who is right and who is wrong but from what I've seen Berzerker had presented a pretty well argument, so has DRM but the FACTS do appear to lie in Berzerkers court.
Perhaps I'm biased because I do consider myself an environmentalist, I am also reasonable and rational or at least try to be. I do agree that we need oil and we should try to provide it without other countries assistance but I truly am against the way the current policy's are heading, no I can't recommend anything better at the moment.
I also strongly agree that more, a lot more resources need to be devoted to alternative feuls, no we don't have anything ready and waiting to replace fossil feuls that's why more resources need to be devoted to it. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that these resources will be depleted to a level that will not even come close to maintaing our current usage, let alone our increasing usage. just my $.02
__________________

"Having too many 'things', American's spend their hours and money on the couch searching for a soul. A strange species we are... If I wanted to destroy a nation, I would give it too much and I would have it on it's knees, miserable, greedy and sick." -John Steinbeck
Whitewater is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

** A VERIFICATION EMAIL IS SENT TO THIS ADDRESS TO COMPLETE REGISTRATION!! **

Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.