"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they
COULD
walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same
route
and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling
rigs
also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the
process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that
environment.

Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in
downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the
Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown)

I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines
and was
appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each
required a road to service the turbine regularly and the
turbines were
like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average
producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude
and
gas wells are even more invisible.

So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've
ever
seen has a road going to it......

The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by
a
truck.
Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by
wolves
but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out
the
wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou
or is
this just another way to demonize oil companies?

WHOOOOOSH.......

So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes,
wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and
everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the
wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from
Rush,
because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills
children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of
their reach?


The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19
million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in
any
way at all?
We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the
country
and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the
roads
as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of
people.

ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it,
villages.

Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that
last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election.

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other
couple million acres alone.

Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure.

Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it would
take years before it could be gotten.

--
Nom=de=Plume


NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the
desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control?

How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our
problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear.

Definitely NIMBY.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power plants.
But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic), chemicals,
fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a long range,
fuel cell boat hauler.