Tosk wrote:
In article d58153e7-3f18-43a1-a9dc-
,
says...
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?

What the **** are you talking about. Nobody said anything about "kill
them all". You keep planting red herrings in your arguments and putting
words in folks mouths, it's just crazy. The point is you all cry when a
caribou has to walk under or around a pipe or pumping station, but if a
republican tries to hunt a bigger predator, you go nuts, just because
it's a republican. It's Harry all over again, and again...


You're not making any sense pertaining to this conversation. Natural
selection has nothing to do with the fact that man is decimating the
environment lock stock and barrel.,

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

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.

Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of
sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that
plentiful in the desert.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html

or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8

Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push
something else. They really don't want to solve the problem.

They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich.

Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction?

Probably much less than Haliburton shoved to Bush and Cheney.

John H. wrote:
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?

There you go with the words again, Loogy.

Go read his post. He said nothing of the sort.

Saying, "You think that we should do anything and everything to make
sure we kill them all" is a f'ing lie. You're doing a lot of that
lately. Guess who it's reminiscent of?

Uh, John, it wasn't a lie, it was a friggin QUESTION. I don't suppose
you'll apologize for calling me a liar either. Guess who that's
reminiscent of?

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

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.

Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of
sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that
plentiful in the desert.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html

or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8

Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push
something else. They really don't want to solve the problem.

They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich.

Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction?

Well, he has had 5 secret meetings at the White house so far.. Something
the left railed Bush for.. But it's ok for Obama, harryism...


Secret meetings? If they are secret, how do you know about them?

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
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 dise ase 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.

Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the
honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the
subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington
told them to...


Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me
that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating
and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil
fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be
using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States
until we got the pollution under control.

In article ,
says...

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
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 dise ase 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.

Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the
honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the
subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington
told them to...


Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me
that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating
and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil
fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be
using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States
until we got the pollution under control.

I would ask the same thing of you? Why are you so against new technology
in the areas we have already developed?

--
Wafa free again.

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
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 dise ase 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.
Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the
honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the
subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington
told them to...

Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me
that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating
and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil
fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be
using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States
until we got the pollution under control.

I would ask the same thing of you? Why are you so against new technology
in the areas we have already developed?


Such as?

"H the K" wrote in message
...
On 11/3/09 11:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Tom Francis - wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural
beauty.
We sure don't need it.

That is completely stupid and so typical.

Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions.

Leave the adults alone.


You're the one who claimed things shouldn't be preserved because of
natural
beauty.

Like I've said before, you're here with me; I'm not here with you. Get
used
to it.



Now you've gone and done it...you've upset rec.boat's prima donna.


Apparently, the bad Jim is foaming at the mouth also. I haven't plonked him
yet (just not responding to his posts), but he's getting more and more
shrill.

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
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 dise ase 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.
Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the
honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the
subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington
told them to...

Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me
that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating
and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil
fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be
using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States
until we got the pollution under control.

I would ask the same thing of you? Why are you so against new technology
in the areas we have already developed?


Such as?

Coal, nuclear, natural gas, OIL!!!

--
Wafa free again.

On 11/4/09 11:02 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"H the wrote in message
...
On 11/3/09 11:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Tom Francis - wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural
beauty.
We sure don't need it.

That is completely stupid and so typical.

Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions.

Leave the adults alone.


You're the one who claimed things shouldn't be preserved because of
natural
beauty.

Like I've said before, you're here with me; I'm not here with you. Get
used
to it.



Now you've gone and done it...you've upset rec.boat's prima donna.


Apparently, the bad Jim is foaming at the mouth also. I haven't plonked him
yet (just not responding to his posts), but he's getting more and more
shrill.



"The Bad Jim"

Love it!

SW Tom, btw, reminds me of the wookie from star wars...remember that
scene in the first movie where it is advised to "Let the wookie win."
If SW Tom doesn't think he is winning, he goes bat****.