Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmaly who wrote (131832)	2/7/2001 12:04:10 PM
From: stribe30	Respond to of 1570913

Harry said: What is different between the hype about all of the damage the original Alaskan pipeline would cause and what the extensions up to Anwar would cause. Probably none; because Anwar lies just north of Prudoe Bay. And I would assume that all of the scare tactics being tossed about 30 yrs ago about the permafrost were false, because your report yesterday didn't even mention damage to permafrost. So why keep on repeating the old scare tactics when they weren't true then and are just as unlikely to be true now. Harry.. I didnt quote the part in that reprot about permafrost yesterday.. but its there. In the field station, working a computer program on a Sunday afternoon, was Tom McCabe. He graciously paused in his work to explain the field-station operation. McCabe said that he was in charge of a research staff of 70, which was an all-time Arctic Refuge high. He said the increased staff and the new bunkhouse were in anticipation of development in the 1002. "The oil companies are predicting this field will last for 35 to 50 years. Maybe in 50 years improved technology will allow them to get oil beyond the stuff that's economically justifiable right now. So let's say the field is in use for 100 years. In a century, recovery would start. Then you're talking millennia to recover the tundra because it's very slow-growing. time.com As far as Prudhoe Bay is concerned.. I';ve already shown a couple of instances of reports and editorials that say that area is close to being an environmental disdaster area.. it is not the shining pristine area the oil companies would have you think it is. I didnt say I supported planes flying over all the time either Harry.. so dont make assumptions.. near where I live.. there is a federal park called Point Pele National Park.. you may have heard of it.. there is also Long Point Provincial Park.. both on Lake Erie... there are places where the public are aloowed to camp and see wildlife.. and places that are completely off limits.. so as to not disturb some of the sensitive environment there.. I think that should be doubly enforced for the arctic reserve.