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: Alighieri who wrote (138749)	8/12/2001 11:53:56 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1571204

Simple preservation of a refuge set aside for the benefit of the fauna and flora that lives there. While I can understand that some people take this view, I find it to be extreme. The affected area is immaterial in relation to the entire ANWR area. It is nothing short of absurd to suggest that this small, cold, muddy tundra is so critical to the fauna and flora. I have no objection to the declaration of selected areas as off-limits. But the notion that this huge area, containing significant quantities of oil and gas, should be off limits in its entirity is ridiculous. If you wanted to declare 50% of it off limits the argument could be justifiable on some grounds. Restricting access to this otherwise useless corner of the world is just extremism at its worst. I am not oblivious to the realities of modern life. It's just some lousy oil in the context of the total world oil supply. I think you underestimate the importance of this oil to our national security. Do you think the national reserve is "just some lousy oil" in the context of total world oil supply? Or does the fact that it as well as the to-be-developed ANWR supply could be critical in time of national crisis have any meaning for you? There is no limit to the demands of the environmental extremists. As a result, more rational people have to take difficult positions to move against these groups.

To: Alighieri who wrote (138749)	8/12/2001 12:49:33 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571204

Al RE..... Preservation means just that. This ain't an amusement park. If we turn into one, it's not preservation anymore.. There we have it. No more stupid lies about calving caribou being hurt or sensitive grass. Your main concrn is preservation of all 20 million acres of ANWR. Not 19.9999 million acres, as if those 2000 acres actually make that much difference. You will note that ANWR is approx. 20 million acres. What if ANWR is 20.001 million acres, can we then use that .001 percent for oil, while you finicky dems. are happy with your exact 20 million acres; as if losing that .001 percent would keep the fauna from gorwing or the caribou from calving. What if we put 2000 or 20,000 acres just outside of ANWR into ANWR region and took that 2000 acres out? You would still have your 20 million acres and I would still have my SUV. Wouldn't that make mr. finicky happy? Its not like 20 million acres is a magical number, but if you insist, what the hell, I am game. . By the way, the geophysicist quoted doesn't sound exactly unbiased. < And you aren't? Boyd has one big advantage over you and I. He has seen and lived on the land where he knows the oil is likely to be. We haven't. I have no objection to leaving ANWR alone if you could actually tell the truth, and come up with actual good reasons not to drill. Simple preservation of a refuge set aside for the benefit of the fauna and flora that lives there. <<<< That is a good reason, but it is no reason to lie about the fauna and flora that lives by the drilling sites. And if flora is your main concern, there are other acreage that could be preserved in the place of the minute area that would be drilled; which look better and actually have sensitive flora and is actually liveable during the summer. The place is far from clean. In the footage someone was moving shore rocks to show thick oil residue under and between them. An underwater camera was used to show the film of oil covering the sea bed in the area where they were shooting.<<<<<< Are you trying to say there is more danger in shipping oil from Alaska than there is from the middle east. An accident can happen with either. What is your point? Surely you aren't trying to suggest we stop shipping oil altogether. . It's just some lousy oil in the context of the total world oil supply. < It may just represent a small part of the world supply, but it is a large part of the US known recoverable oil supply. Between 20 to 30 percent. Are you trying to say the Us should be 70% or better dependent upon others.. Is that wise or safe? Don't you dems care about the safty of US citizens?