Do you know what ANWR is? (voters, Iran, weapons, solution)

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Palmer Eldritch

I'm afraid I have you by the balls Mr. Glitch. The US Dept. of Energy is currently staffed by 96% Republicans and 4% Democrats.

You have that backwards, and the 4% Republicans have been muzzled by the Democrats. One thing Bush never did was replace the anti-American Clinton lackies until after the damage to the nation was already done, and it has plagued him as a result.

[Palmer Eldritch]

Originally Posted by Glitch

You have that backwards, and the 4% Republicans have been muzzled by the Democrats. One thing Bush never did was replace the anti-American Clinton lackies until after the damage to the nation was already done, and it has plagued him as a result.

I don't think that Bush should be too remorseful. He got his war that has killed over 4000 of our troops.

(His getting our troops killed was pretty damn anti-American by the way)

And he was able to roll back environmental regulations allowing for companies to triple the amount of pollutants they are allowed release in the air and water.

He passed his totalitarian Patriot Act

He ruined our economy and put us in debt for the next 100 years

And he basically wrecked America in so many different ways that there are too
many to list.

Bush and his followers are the most anti-American segment of American society. Our forefathers roll in their graves.

[bbkaren]

Glitch, thank you for your insight! It's not often there's someone here who actually knows first hand about a subject, and you've been very helpful--

[easternerDC]

Originally Posted by bbkaren

Glitch, thank you for your insight! It's not often there's someone here who actually knows first hand about a subject, and you've been very helpful--

Unless Glitch is actually working there, doing studies on the environmental impact, testing soil samples, and measuring the actual progress, the fact that he lives in Alaska, and not even close to ANWR does not make him anymore knowledgeable about the subject than any other of us who are able to read and evaluate information from a variety of sources can provide good knowledge and insight into the issue.

[bbkaren]

Of course his/her insight from living in the state and working at the site, doesn't hold a candle to yours.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by bbkaren

Glitch, thank you for your insight! It's not often there's someone here who actually knows first hand about a subject, and you've been very helpful--

You may want to go to the Alaska forum here at city data and check out the gas prices thread there. Glitch is one side of the picture. And the wrong one at that. Floyd's posts on that thread are very informative, as he's living in what the city dwellers from the southern half of Alaska have called a "barren frozen wasteland" (a.k.a., the Northern half of Alaska, a much different place from Southern Alaska, but certainly not a wasteland). Floyd's in Barrow, in Northern Alaska. Glitch living in Southern Alaska, in the most developed part of the state, isn't anywhere near ANWR. Northern (Arctic and Interior portions as they're frequently called) and South-Central and Southeast Alaska are all very different places.

The facts on ANWR: it might reduce the price of a barrel of oil by 75 cents. Might. At current estimates, if we relied solely on ANWR for oil we'd run out in less than a year and a half. All total in the U.S. there's roughly 11 years' worth of crude oil at current consumption. Drilling and using our own oil will do nothing to help the problem. ANWR is a drop in the bucket of what we consume. We'll simply destroy pristine wilderness in the process delaying the inevitable: we need to get rid of our oil addiction. Drilling ANWR would be extremely short sighted. It's not a solution at all as it will run out shortly and then we're right back where we started from. We're facing peak oil in the not too distant future (U.S. production has peaked long ago), we'd better be coming up with long term solutions not short sighted ones that are based purely on emotion (it's pretty clear in the gas prices thread I referenced that certain posters are basing their opinions purely on emotions, they dislike high oil prices and how it might change their lifestyle, so they grasp at straws like ANWR. One of them admitted it will do nothing to help the prices, but still supports it).

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by easternerDC

Unless Glitch is actually working there, doing studies on the environmental impact, testing soil samples, and measuring the actual progress, the fact that he lives in Alaska, and not even close to ANWR does not make him anymore knowledgeable about the subject than any other of us who are able to read and evaluate information from a variety of sources can provide good knowledge and insight into the issue.

I have lived in Alaska and worked both on and off the north slope for the last 17 years. Like I have already posted in this thread, I have been to Prudhoe Bay more times than I can easily count and the 1002 Area in ANWR once.

The entire north slope is an Arctic desert, getting less than 3" of precipitation all year. The only time the temperatures get above freezing is between mid-July and mid-September. There is a three week summer during August where the tundra flowers bloom. The caribou migrate from all over to Alaska to the north slope during that brief Spring/Summer/Fall period to calve. That also attracts a lot of wolves and bears to the area during that time. During the rest of the 9 to 10 months of the year the north slope is a frozen windswept desert covered in a few inches of blowing snow and ice with little life. A few Arctic fox, some ground squirrels, and the ever present raven is about all you will find during most of the year. None of those species have been adversely impacted by the existence of the oil facilities at Prudhoe Bay, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game confirms that much.

For more than three decades we have been pumping more than 15 billion barrels of oil from Prudhoe Bay with extensive oversight by local, state, and federal government entities. Because of our improved technology we can do the same thing in ANWR that we did in Prudhoe Bay in 1977 except in only one-tenth the space.

Will it have an impact on the environment? Obviously it will. You can't pitch a tent without impacting the environment. Will it cause one less caribou from being born, or keep the bears and wolves from killing any fewer caribou than before? Clearly not.

Only those who want the US to increase our dependence on foreign oil, and thus our increased military involvement in the middle-east, are opposed to increasing domestic oil production. Or as other Alaskans have described it - "Those who oppose opening ANWR are just trying to be Sheik."

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Glitch

I have lived in Alaska and worked both on and off the north slope for the last 17 years. Like I have already posted in this thread, I have been to Prudhoe Bay more times than I can easily count and the 1002 Area in ANWR once.

The entire north slope is an Arctic desert, getting less than 3" of precipitation all year. The only time the temperatures get above freezing is between mid-July and mid-September. There is a three week summer during August where the tundra flowers bloom. The caribou migrate from all over to Alaska to the north slope during that brief Spring/Summer/Fall period to calve. That also attracts a lot of wolves and bears to the area during that time. During the rest of the 9 to 10 months of the year the north slope is a frozen windswept desert covered in a few inches of blowing snow and ice with little life. A few Arctic fox, some ground squirrels, and the ever present raven is about all you will find during most of the year. None of those species have been adversely impacted by the existence of the oil facilities at Prudhoe Bay, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game confirms that much.

For more than three decades we have been pumping more than 15 billion barrels of oil from Prudhoe Bay with extensive oversight by local, state, and federal government entities. Because of our improved technology we can do the same thing in ANWR that we did in Prudhoe Bay in 1977 except in only one-tenth the space.

Will it have an impact on the environment? Obviously it will. You can't pitch a tent without impacting the environment. Will it cause one less caribou from being born, or keep the bears and wolves from killing any fewer caribou than before? Clearly not.

Only those who want the US to increase our dependence on foreign oil, and thus our increased military involvement in the middle-east, are opposed to increasing domestic oil production. Or as other Alaskans have described it - "Those who oppose opening ANWR are just trying to be Sheik."

Your statements are not correct at all.

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries - Home

Arctic Refuge: Site Index

Arctic Refuge: Oil and Gas Issues

And as for your last statements regarding dependence on foreign oil...the facts are ANWR will make no difference. In fact, you admitted it will make no difference, cotnradicting yourself: "Sure, it would not significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil" http://www.city-data.com/forum/alask...ml#post4383137

Reality is U.S. oil production peaked years ago and will do nothing to help the problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

And I posted these calculations the other day (gold and such has changed a bit over the course of the past week but it's still valid) and it really puts gas prices in perspective:

"I found the price of 24 cents for gas in 1958. At that time we still used silver money (or at least paper was redeemable for silver dollars for those who used paper silver certificates) and every $35 was backed by an ounce of gold. Okay, so current price of gold according to kitco is about $933.60. Divide that by 35 (the price per ounce in 1958) and that gives you: 26.6742857

Multiply that by the 1958 gas price of 24 cents and you get: $6.40 a gallon.

Or, going by silver, a silver dollar is currently worth: $14.1232

That silver dollar bought 4.166 gallons of gas in 1958. Today, that silver dollar can buy 3.5308 gallons. Some increase but not too bad.

So gas has either gone up or down depending on whether you use gold or silver as a gauge, for the past 50 years. FRN's obviously are on the road to eventually being worthless (well they already are but most don't know it yet) but I suspect most of us knew that already..."

Income hasn't kept up with inflation. Gas prices are actually lower than they should be if they were to be equivalent to 1958 prices.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Your statements are not correct at all.

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries - Home

Arctic Refuge: Site Index

Arctic Refuge: Oil and Gas Issues

And as for your last statements regarding dependence on foreign oil...the facts are ANWR will make no difference. In fact, you admitted it will make no difference, cotnradicting yourself: "Sure, it would not significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil" http://www.city-data.com/forum/alask...ml#post4383137

Reality is U.S. oil production peaked years ago and will do nothing to help the problem: Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I posted these calculations the other day (gold and such has changed a bit over the course of the past week but it's still valid) and it really puts gas prices in perspective:

"I found the price of 24 cents for gas in 1958. At that time we still used silver money (or at least paper was redeemable for silver dollars for those who used paper silver certificates) and every $35 was backed by an ounce of gold. Okay, so current price of gold according to kitco is about $933.60. Divide that by 35 (the price per ounce in 1958) and that gives you: 26.6742857

Multiply that by the 1958 gas price of 24 cents and you get: $6.40 a gallon.

Or, going by silver, a silver dollar is currently worth: $14.1232

That silver dollar bought 4.166 gallons of gas in 1958. Today, that silver dollar can buy 3.5308 gallons. Some increase but not too bad.

So gas has either gone up or down depending on whether you use gold or silver as a gauge, for the past 50 years. FRN's obviously are on the road to eventually being worthless (well they already are but most don't know it yet) but I suspect most of us knew that already..."

Income hasn't kept up with inflation. Gas prices are actually lower than they should be if they were to be equivalent to 1958 prices.

Every one of my statements has been factual and verifiable. It is you who are deliberately lying. Even the quote you attribute to me I never made. The link you provide shows that you deliberately edited Classic Satch's post to suit your own agenda. The full quote is:

Originally Posted by Classic Satch

Sure, it would not significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil but it would definitely enhance national security by having our own supplies in case of emergency.

Typical leaf-licker mentality, when you can't win the argument on facts, make up lies. The rest of your lies don't even deserve a response.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Glitch

Every one of my statements has been factual and verifiable. It is you who are deliberately lying.

Nope. My links prove otherwise.

Even the quote you attribute to me I never made. The link you provide shows that you deliberately edited Classic Satch's post to suit your own agenda. The full quote is:

You're right, sorry, I mixed you and satch up (in that thread there's no noticeable difference though, you're both resorting to ad hominum attacks there on anyone you disagree with). Perhaps there's a conflict of interest, as you are employed by oil companies (or as a result of them if not, if you're working in the North Slope/etc.) and don't want to bite the hand that feeds you, you want more money/employment, and, as you live near Anchorage in the southern part of AK, you won't be directly affected by the destruction of the environment in Northern Alaska. None of the supporters of drilling in ANWR in that other thread ever answered my question of whether or not you'd support it if you lived there and it was in your backyard.