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: TimF who wrote (146017)	4/23/2002 4:09:26 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574265

I am not absolutely certain what your point is but the oil was spilled in that bay because of the drilling at Prudhoe Bay. The bay is off the normal routes and would not have been affected otherwise. My point is the spill was a tanker spill. If we didn't get the oil from Alaska, the same tankers would be going elsewhere to get it and probably traveling a greater distance. So we wouldn't have spills around Alaska but we might get a greater number of spills in another location. If you transport oil by tanker you are occationaly going to get tanker spills. This fact has little to do with Prudhoe Bay or ANWR, the spills will happen even if we never develop ANWR and shut down Prudhoe Bay. Tim, that's right; spills will happen no matter where we extract the oil. And typically, they do serious damage to the environment when they occur? So why aren't you more pro conservation? I know then but not now......no one really cares now. I still don't get it. Should it be a top news story for decades?? No, of course not, but after all the media is done milking the story, its the people who live in the damaged area who continue to pay the price of the spill. Its an observation......its not something you need to respond to. ted