"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"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.

Yes, you still need oil, but not on the scale that we have now. We have
plenty if we use it wisely, and if we do have to import it, we won't have to
import anywhere near as much.

There's always the problem of what to do with the spent fuel, but that's a
technological problem that can, in my opinion, be solved.

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Loogypicker" wrote in message
...
On Nov 3, 2:23 pm, Tosk wrote:
In article 376ab62b-c969-4f58-9ac0-80139e5831d7
@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...







On Nov 3, 1:27 pm, NotNow wrote:
Tosk wrote:
In article fef40ffb-ca78-4a34-97fe-1f5ba4ada116
@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says...
On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote:
In article ,

says...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor...
So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth
than I,
what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as
compared to all
other countries with the exception of Russia?
Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal.
Two things come immediately to mind.
One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to
and
including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to
work on
clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more
pilot
plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem
to
be failing miserably.
A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the
company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired
station,
sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where
it
woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now
and
it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists
are
creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will
be
abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation.
Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to
see
what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and
offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that
appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt
domes
and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the
equal of
all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't
allowed
to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not
like new
discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi
fields
which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to
find
it.
Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel
needed
to produce 1,000,000 BTUs.
Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet
Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound
Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon
Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon
Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon
You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce
similar
results to fossil fuels.
Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the
political
front.
What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off
area for
drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels
is
just fine...
--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different
from a solar array that is off of the ground.
Really, these are "off the ground" enough to not effect migration?
Bull...
This is not far enough off the ground for migration, acres and
acres...
http://www.treehugger.com/solar-farm-array-bavaria.jpg
http://teeic.anl.gov/images/photos/Nrel_flatPV15539.jpg
http://green-gossip.com/wp-content/u...bhagats_solar-
array.jpg
http://images.publicradio.org/conten...6_solar-farm2_
33.jpg
Compared to this...
http://www.making-ripples.com/images...image013_2.jpg
http://www.questdrilling.com/images/index1.jpg
http://www.airphotona.com/stockimg/images/00198.jpg
http://www.valleyserver.com/images/R...web%20copy.jpg
You tell me which is more invasive.. Besides, do you know how toxic
the
areas in china where they make these panels is?
Manufacturing in the U.S. and thus gaining jobs will fix that. What
could be more "invasive" than a fence built on a migration route? Next
you'll be trying to tell everyone that mining oil sands is good for
the
environment.
Lovely site, isn't it?
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...son.com/images...
I've spent more time on hundreds of drilling rigs in remote places in
the western USA than I care to remember. The wildlife paid very
little attention to them. In fact, one of the greatest dangers was
not from the drilling operations but from the hazard of hitting an
elk, deer or antelope while trying to get to the rig. I've been on
rig sites that were abandoned and a month later in WY you could not
tell where it had been they were so good at replacing the terrain and
vegetation.
In AK, where the AK pipeline was a major controversy in the early 70s
with people worrying about its effect on wildlife, the wildlife
ignores it because it is built so they can walk under it. Rig sites
are similar, animals ignore them and once the drill rig is gone with
the final pumps in place occupying only a few square feet ther eis no
effect at all on the animals.
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.
Large arrays of solar receivers are likely to be extremely destructive
to the local environment by blocking sunlight to the ground and
blocking air flow and generally being a permanent impediment to
wildlife movement. By contrast, drilling operations are short lived
and a producing well is very inobtrusive.
Thanks for clarifying that even though I am sure several here will poo,
poo, it. Those arrays must destroy the landscape, they allow nothing to
"be" around them. Grass, animals, etc. can't survive with them. That is
why I have so much cynicism about the proponents, with so many of their
arguments being so ridiculous and blatantly false...

--
Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're against solar power why?

I live near one of the largest wind farm areas in the world. The
complaints are they kill lots of raptors. And they do. They are high
enough that the cows and 4 legged critters do not get hit, but the birds
going after the huge rodent populatin are decimated. Go to the Oil Patch
of Calif. Taft. Oil pipes and pumps everywhere. Seems to be ok for the
rodents, birds and coyotes. Not a lot of deer in the desert.
Ummmm, I was talking about solar arrays......

Commercial Solar Arrays are huge and they are near the ground. Costs lots
of money to raise them in to the air. Other than the ones like at Cal Expo,
and my local Junior College, that are on platforms over the parking lot,
they are on the ground. I do not know ff the big solar heated power plant
at Barstow is still operating, but all the mirrors were near the ground and
the tower was a couple hundred feet tall. There were no animals running
around them, except maybe a mouse or rat.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/28751.pdf has pictures of the plant.

My doctors office has about a half acre of panels, gravel under them,
about 4-5 feet off the ground.. The "talking point" that they are not a
burden to local wildlife was just bull****...

--
Wafa free again.

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"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.

Such a bunch of bull****.

Really? Care to show your work?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:56:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.


We already have a pipeline and building it was a great "stimulus'
project. If we had to fix it up or extend it we would generate a lot
of new high tech jobs.
In spite of all the hand wringing, the environmental impact of that
project was minimal.
Saying it would take years to come online is not important. It will
take years to get any other energy source online too..
We don't have the power lines to use lots of the solar, wind or wave
schemes either and they come with a huge environmental impact.
It is virtually impossible to get permitting for new power lines these
days. Nobody talks about that. Do you want one in your back yard?

The difference is oil is a mature technology that we are already
prepared to use.



And it's a terrible pollution engine. If there's not much oil there (and
there isn't), and we have to build get more pipeline (yet more environ.
damage) to get it, what's the point of doing it? There's a new power grid
getting built (slowly), and we can certainly handle the electricity. It's
not all about huge panel farms. Panels should be on every new house, every
new office building, etc..

Power lines can be buried. Not everywhere, but if it's important enough it
usually can be done.


--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

"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.

Well, the admin just shut down Yukka (sp?) today, there's billions down
the tubes and of course could be the end of Nuke power.. Now we will
have to buy even more dirty panels, and exploding windmills from
China... Who'd a thunk, huh?

--
Wafa free again.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:45:49 -0500, wrote:

It is virtually impossible to get permitting for new power lines these
days. Nobody talks about that. Do you want one in your back yard?

Heh, funny you should mention that. :-)

On Nov 4, 10:24*pm, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...







On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:16:32 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:h1o2f55iekdj4hjoouf9bk3vm2b3ncqh17@4a x.com...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:11:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism
whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have our
beaches and salt marshes.

Don't be so sure
Have you heard about "Cape Wind"?

Another example of envimoronmentalist hyprocrisy.

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer

Globe editorials in support.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...26/2_tribes_ob....

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...torials/articl....

Fortunately, it looks like it's going to get done.

http://www.capewind.org/news1018.htm

If Ted Kennedy were alive, it wouldn't be happening. *:)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. *The local indians going to object to that
also?

Dunno...

Neighbor, golf and poker buddy, in the energy business, says that the
wind turbines are better at self destructing than they are at generating
power. The asian and american manufacturers all have the same problems.
The can't stop the blades from spinning out of control and ripping the
whole unit apart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Funny, there's places right here in the U.S. that have thousands upon
thousands of operational wind turbines.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:31:18 -0500, Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:57:28 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

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.

There are at least 500 windmills visible from I-35 and I-90 between
Des Moines and Rochester, Minn. No roads whatever. Not even one. As
for oil wells, there are visible moving parts roughly the size of a
car that will attract the eye from two miles up.

Casady

So, how do they service them? Or is it just so flat and clear they don't
need roads, which of course would make your "point" moot...??

It is pretty much open land. They don't put them in tree filled
gullys. They build them where it is unnecessary to do any grading to
get to the site with ordinary trucks. If you can grow corn on it, you
can drive vehicles on it if planted to grass. These things don't need
much service. It isn't an IC engine with water and sulfuric acid in
the oil. You can change the gear oil once a year or even less if the
oil tank is that size.

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:00:24 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Nov 4, 10:24*pm, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...







On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:16:32 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:h1o2f55iekdj4hjoouf9bk3vm2b3ncqh17@4a x.com...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:11:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism
whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have our
beaches and salt marshes.

Don't be so sure
Have you heard about "Cape Wind"?

Another example of envimoronmentalist hyprocrisy.

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer

Globe editorials in support.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...26/2_tribes_ob...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...torials/articl...

Fortunately, it looks like it's going to get done.

http://www.capewind.org/news1018.htm

If Ted Kennedy were alive, it wouldn't be happening. *:)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. *The local indians going to object to that
also?

Dunno...

Neighbor, golf and poker buddy, in the energy business, says that the
wind turbines are better at self destructing than they are at generating
power. The asian and american manufacturers all have the same problems.
The can't stop the blades from spinning out of control and ripping the
whole unit apart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Funny, there's places right here in the U.S. that have thousands upon
thousands of operational wind turbines.

Iowa gets more than 5% of its juice from wind. Third in number
installed, after California and Texas. Leader by far on a per capita
basis.

Casady

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"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.

Well, the admin just shut down Yukka (sp?) today, there's billions down
the tubes and of course could be the end of Nuke power.. Now we will
have to buy even more dirty panels, and exploding windmills from
China... Who'd a thunk, huh?

--
Wafa free again.


The Yucca Mountain installation could not, apparently, guarantee proper
storage, not to mention the transportation issues.

--
Nom=de=Plume