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: tejek who wrote (131921)	2/7/2001 6:49:56 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570734

RE:"As Scott pointed out in an article, ANWAR is considered environmentally fragile....as bad as a fire or an explosion or a spill would be in the lower 48, it would be just that much worse in the ANWAR." That article gave little evidence of that. Besides that... An oil spill on land shouldn't be anywhere near the disaster it would be near a coastline. Drilling the ANWAR could be done with little damage to the environment. Whether it will be is another story. Certain guarantees and monitoring would have to be in place before proceeding, IMHO. Workers would have to be restricted from where they can go. No shooting the wildlife for sport... Corridors would have to be used for transport... Some areas would have to be totally off limits to drilling activity. Jim

To: tejek who wrote (131921)	2/7/2001 9:08:15 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1570734

Ted. Re..There is a danger whenever and however you transport a chemical or gas that has the potential to be explosive and toxic. Those are not scare tactics as you suggest but reality. And as bad as tankers are, pipelines have resulted in toxic spills, fires and explosions.<<<<<< While all of those are true, a tanker can hold millions of gallons and the sea disperses the oil. A leak in a pipeline on land would be picked up in short order because of the pressure sensors and flow meters; so instead of millions we might be talking hundreds into thousand of gallons. Additionally the oil doesn't disperse so it can be cleaned up easier and more completely. I am not trying to sit here and say absolutely no damage will occur. What I am saying is that the damage should be minimal and over time should repair itself easily if not quickly. Is it worth it. I believe the US uses app. 20 million barrels of oil a day which translates into 6 billion barrels a yr. so Anwar just represents 2 yrs of energy supplies. But that 11 billion barrels at $25/ bar. represents $250 billions dollars less we have to pay the arabs. Or put another way, that $250 billion dollars represents 1 yrs worth of trading deficits. And I feel that trading deficits are far more dangerous than government deficits. Why? Because trading deficits are owed to foreigners. Most of the government debt is held by Americans so the money is kept in the country and in circulation.