Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Keep up the ad hominum attacks...and I hope for your sake that picture isn't copyrighted, but I somehow suspect it is.
Pathetic. Truly, truly pathetic.
Quote:
Peak oil isn't a "gigantic crock" but rather is accepted by scientists. Several nations' oil fields have in fact peaked
Oh, you mean like "global warming"? The biggest fraud every foisted upon a gullible public?
You can believe whatever you want, however devoid of facts. At least have a modicum of knowledge about what you're talking about before
posting, please?
We're done here. Just be prepared to enter a zone of something called "reality" when you move to Alaska.
Red herring. Global warming (or "climate change") has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
As for the rest...the facts are out there. I'd encourage anyone who wants to, to ignore the opinion pieces on both sides and study the facts. They won't be found in newspapers or on TV. And also research ANWR and see that it's not a barren wasteland as Satch claims.
A change of location won't change how much oil is in the earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic Satch
Pathetic. Truly, truly pathetic.
Oh, you mean like "global warming"? The biggest fraud every foisted upon a gullible public?
You can believe whatever you want, however devoid of facts. At least have a modicum of knowledge about what you're talking about before
posting, please?
We're done here. Just be prepared to enter a zone of something called "reality" when you move to Alaska.
Red herring. Global warming (or "climate change") has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
As for the rest...the facts are out there. I'd encourage anyone who wants to, to ignore the opinion pieces on both sides and study the facts. They won't be found in newspapers or on TV. And also research ANWR and see that it's not a barren wasteland as Satch claims.
A change of location won't change how much oil is in the earth.
I still don't see how you are going to get around if you don't want to use oil products, can you explain to me how you are going to get around when you move up here? We know how you feel against oil, enlighten us please.
Red herring. Global warming (or "climate change") has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
As for the rest...the facts are out there. I'd encourage anyone who wants to, to ignore the opinion pieces on both sides and study the facts. They won't be found in newspapers or on TV. And also research ANWR and see that it's not a barren wasteland as Satch claims.
A change of location won't change how much oil is in the earth.
The global warming reference was meant to highlight just how unreliable the assertions of "scientists" have truly become. They've become just as money-motivated as any other occupation. They get massive research grants from governmental organizations to examine "global warming." And if the politicians can bamboozle enough people into thinking that a threat truly exists, that gives them an excuse to raise taxes and spend money.
You're dead wrong and to paraphrase the X-Files, the "truth is out there."
And it's utterly laughable that you are suggesting, in an Alaska thread, that the coastal plains drilling area isn't a barren wasteland a minimum of 9 months out of the year.
Sorry, try as hard as you may, but people here aren't gullible enough to fall for what you're shoveling.
I still don't see how you are going to get around if you don't want to use oil products, can you explain to me how you are going to get around when you move up here? We know how you feel against oil, enlighten us please.
I don't plan to travel much once my homestead is all completed. The distance to the nearest village (14-15 miles) is shorter than many hikes I've gone on. Not a big problem to do without a car. People did fine without motor vehicles up there not all that long ago.
Last edited by arctichomesteader; 07-08-2008 at 08:51 PM..
You're dead wrong and to paraphrase the X-Files, the "truth is out there."
And it's utterly laughable that you are suggesting, in an Alaska thread, that the coastal plains drilling area isn't a barren wasteland a minimum of 9 months out of the year.
Sorry, try as hard as you may, but people here aren't gullible enough to fall for what you're shoveling.
Better tell everyone up in the arctic areas of the state they're living in a barren, worthless wasteland and it's perfectly okay to trash their backyard to lower oil prices per barrel by 75 cents. But you are a city slicker at heart aren't you? So why would anyone care about wilderness.
The global warming reference was meant to highlight just how unreliable the assertions of "scientists" have truly become. They've become just as money-motivated as any other occupation. They get massive research grants from governmental organizations to examine "global warming." And if the politicians can bamboozle enough people into thinking that a threat truly exists, that gives them an excuse to raise taxes and spend money.
Then maybe you should have read what real scientists were saying in journals and such rather than Al Gore and whoever he paid to parade around on climate change. What Gore presented wasn't good science, but climate change is real and is happening. It's more complex than many think.
So you're saying all the scientists who say peak oil exists are wrong but the people the oil companies hire to convince people to keep using oil are telling the gospel truth? Amazing. Sorry to say it but peak oil has happened and even many oil companies' executives and such admit it's true, but they try to play it down to keep people using it.
I don't plan to travel much once my homestead is all completed. The distance to the nearest village (14-15 miles) is shorter than many hikes I've gone on. Not a big problem to do without a car. People did fine without motor vehicles up there not all that long ago.
The last time I checked, oh, that's right, you don't live here. It's hard to "destroy" frozen ground. You simply don't get it, at all.
Where someone lives seems to have nothing to do with ignorance. Your statement is abjectly false. It is easy to damage frozen ground, and the hard part is recovery. That is a well documented FACT, why is it that you are unaware of it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic Satch
You're dead wrong on ANWR and your posts have intimated that you are a typical "progressive" meddler. The fact that you know nothing about the ANWR drill site and the fact that the oil can be extracted with little to no environmental impact proves that unequivocally.
That is another absurdly ignorant statement from you. You quote someone who is precisely correct, call them names, and then post a distortion or totally false statement. Incredible!
And what sort of sources do you provide??? Totally useless! Is there any reason we should believe people who are willing to lie and distort the facts? Is there some reason that lobbiest and people with political agendas should be taken serious? And what reason is there to take someone who quotes them (you for example) any more serious than these things you quote that have not credibility and are obviously wrong?
Quote:
ANWR – the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – is 19 million acres. If you think of ANWR as a football field, the drilling area is smaller than a postcard.
Non Sequitur. The area that will be impacted by oil exploration is the entire 1.5 million acres of the 1002 Area on the coastal plain.
Quote:
The experts at the U.S. Geological Survey say there could be 16 billion barrels of oil there – about the same as 30 years of imports from Saudi Arabia.
That is false. The USGS estimates there might be 7.8 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Quote:
House and Senate negotiators met last Wednesday to discuss legislation that supporters of oil drilling in ANWR say holds the most promise for reducing foreign oil dependency.
Non Sequitur. They say a lot of things that are not true.
Quote:
"Environmaniacs" claim ANWR is a "crown jewel," referring to the beautiful Brooks Range mountains seen in all the anti-drilling photos, yet they're actually 50-100 miles from the coastal plain.
A total lie. They actually refer commonly to the fact that the coastal plain of ANWR has the most diverse Arctic ecosystem known, and that it presents in a very compact area. Those mountains, BTW, are not 50 mile away in any part of the 1002 Area. They are 15 miles from the ocean in the narrowest place, and 45 miles in the widest. And the 1002 Area just happens to be defined on its southern boundary by the 1000 foot contour line of the northern foothills of the Brooks Range.
Real facts are important. (And easily available too!)
Quote:
The potentially oil-rich area is just flat, treeless tundra.
Non Sequitur,but false too. It is an area, that as pointed out above, includes the 1000 foot contour line of the foothills, and
in fact the oil is suspected to exist closer to the foothills than to the ocean. The fact that tunda is treeless is just babble. It is one of the most fascinating areas of the world for a botanist because of the lush plant life there.
Quote:
Winters on the ANWR coastal plain last for nine months – there is total darkness for 58 consecutive days and temperatures drop to 70 degrees below zero.
False, on all counts.
Winters last for about 6 months, there are zero days of total darkness, and the record low temperature ever recorded there is not even -60F, much less -70. And incidentally, even if it were -70F,
so what?
Quote:
Spit, and your saliva freezes before it hits the ground.
That can be the case, but it is far more often true in
Fairbanks, an urban area, than in the wildest part the 1002 Area.
Quote:
But the nasty conditions mean drilling can be done with ice airstrips, roads and ice pad platforms.
False. There isn't even enough fresh water in the 1002 Area to build more than a few miles of ice road.
Quote:
When spring finally arrives, the ice pads would all melt, leaving no sign of the drill crews. The caribou would return, along with arctic fox, geese, shore birds and swarms of vicious mosquitoes ("large enough to slow dance with a turkey"). Incidentally, in the arctic, mosquitoes hatch in such multitudes they can actually turn the sky gray.
Nice emotions, but since that describes most of Alaska it is just one more Non Sequitur.
A total lie. They actually refer commonly to the fact that the coastal plain of ANWR has the most diverse Arctic ecosystem known, and that it presents in a very compact area. Those mountains, BTW, are not 50 mile away in any part of the 1002 Area. They are 15 miles from the ocean in the narrowest place, and 45 miles in the widest. And the 1002 Area just happens to be defined on its southern boundary by the 1000 foot contour line of the northern foothills of the Brooks Range.
Real facts are important. (And easily available too!)
Non Sequitur,but false too. It is an area, that as pointed out above, includes the 1000 foot contour line of the foothills, and
in fact the oil is suspected to exist closer to the foothills than to the ocean. The fact that tunda is treeless is just babble. It is one of the most fascinating areas of the world for a botanist because of the lush plant life there.
False, on all counts.
Winters last for about 6 months, there are zero days of total darkness, and the record low temperature ever recorded there is not even -60F, much less -70. And incidentally, even if it were -70F,
so what?
That can be the case, but it is far more often true in
Fairbanks, an urban area, than in the wildest part the 1002 Area.
False. There isn't even enough fresh water in the 1002 Area to build more than a few miles of ice road.
Nice emotions, but since that describes most of Alaska it is just one more Non Sequitur.
With such excellent liars available on the Internet, why do you bother to make up your own so often?
You're entitled to your opinion Floyd, as are we all. However, there are many, many people far more knowledgeable of this issue than you would heartily disagree with your assertions.
We won't know how much oil is truly there until it is properly assessed.
The bottom line:
1) There are billions of barrels of oil just waiting to be tapped.
2) It can be extracted with almost no environmental impact.
3) It would irresponsible of the nation's leaders to NOT make use of our natural resources, especially in such a barren and almost totally unpopulated area.
4) You are in a very distinct minority when it comes to the opinions of Alaskans on this issue and you know it
5) It will be drilled, it's just a matter of time.
Quite frankly Floyd, I think you're full of it and I'm tired of digging up sources of information which prove it. Believe what you will, I say drill!!!! (I just couldn't resist)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
