advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: samintx
Date: July 08, 2012 08:36AM
The green people are at it again...want to take out 80 yr old bridges that are structually fine and let people get from Point A to Point B just to let the river flow where it wants to. Agree or disagree there comes a point that green becomes ridiculous.

[www.google.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: CW2V
Date: July 08, 2012 08:52AM
If beavers constructed a dam that changed the course of the river, would we remove it? Are beavers part of nature? Are we not part of nature?

CW2V
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: mattkime
Date: July 08, 2012 08:53AM




Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: samintx
Date: July 08, 2012 09:15AM
Quote
CW2V
If beavers constructed a dam that changed the course of the river, would we remove it? Are beavers part of nature? Are we not part of nature?

CW2V

I think they answer is: we are an impediment not part of nature ala green.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Pam
Date: July 08, 2012 09:20AM
The National Park Service has been under tremendous pressure from the courts and environmental groups for a very long time to come up with a balance between preservation and public access. Interestingly the environmental groups have been soundly winning as these areas have largely been left undeveloped. This means no big business which means none of the typical anti-conservation money, outrage, or consideration. The outcomes are decisions weighted heavily toward conservation with a big nose up toward local economies and public access. Just look at Cape Hatteras Island.

Balance is the key. Whenever you go too far in either direction you've blown it. Areas that chose not to build up are getting kicked in the teeth. But not enough people care or understand the issues or the matter of balance. You also have to properly fund the Park Service! Lack of funding has meant park plans sent to Washington decades ago were lost or not acted on creating the opening for the current onslaught of challenges.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: mattkime
Date: July 08, 2012 09:33AM
i find it awfully difficult to get worked up on either side of this one - i doubt the bridge is really impeding the river that much and i doubt that the bridge is really that historic.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: billb
Date: July 08, 2012 10:07AM
This public awareness message brought to you courtesy Th e National Trust Register of Historic Places via the usual outlets of the lamestream media.

Bridge removal /modifications are just one of dozens of proposal for preserving the Park and it's resources for future generations.
Rafting and some lodging may go too.
Or may not.
They are just proposals for a Master Plan they have been tasked with producing.
Like many/most of out National and local parks they are all stressed from use.
We can't do nothing and sit idly by watching them turn to dust or at best shadows of their former grandeur.
Somewhere is a balance and Plans should address them.

This isn't necessarily happening in the darkness of night.
Usually when plans are officially presented there are public awareness periods.
Be there or be square.



The Phorum Wall keeps us safe from illegal characters and words
The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is the knowledge of one's own ignorance. -Benjamin Franklin
BOYCOTT YOPLAIT [www.noyoplait.com]
[soundcloud.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: davester
Date: July 08, 2012 10:14AM
This isn't even close to being a done deal. It's just part of the set of options that the park is looking at. Yosemite has been way overdeveloped and they've already rectified some of that by taking out some of the roads, and converting others to hiking and bicycle routes, which has improved the east end of the valley immeasurably. I very much doubt that they'll take out Stoneman bridge, but I see no reason not to investigate taking out some of the bridges that cause a lot of downstream erosion issues, which is what they're doing.



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Chakravartin
Date: July 08, 2012 10:31AM
'Seems like they're just doing their job. The park service has legal obligations to restore the rivers (and they're a couple of decades late in following through).

And they're still finalizing plans. Not knocking down bridges. Inviting public comments.

It should also be noted that Congress passed the law requiring this action because restoring the rivers and meadows is necessary to permit the forests and wildlife to rebound after many decades of abuses that threaten to exterminate them.

There are some interesting PDFs available at the link, below.

...

[www.nps.gov]

In 1987 the U.S. Congress designated the Merced a Wild and Scenic River to preserve its free-flowing condition and to protect and enhance the unique values that made it worthy of special protection under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Both the Merced River above, through, and below Yosemite Valley, and the South Fork of the Merced above, through, and below Wawona have this special status.

In accordance with the law, the National Park Service (NPS) is preparing the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Merced River Plan/EIS) for the 81 miles of the river within Yosemite National Park. When completed, the plan will guide future management of activities in the river corridor, including site-specific actions needed to protect the river in Yosemite Valley, El Portal, and Wawona.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: iaJim
Date: July 08, 2012 11:38AM
If the bridges are dams, then they are impeding the ancient patterns set up by aquatic species. Many species are in jeopardy of extinction because of these contractions. There are other ways for us to cross a river, there are few viable ways for salmon to go upstream.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Ca Bob
Date: July 08, 2012 12:32PM
Yosemite is such a special place that there are organizations specifically dedicated to its protection and preservation. The Yosemite Association is one, and the Sierra Club has a serious connection. There has been an ongoing debate and discussion about how best to preserve visitor access while simultaneously preserving the natural state. One result of this debate was the ending of the firefall several decades ago. An older population of longtime park visitors remembers gathering at the base of Glacier Point and, at a certain time, burning embers from a large fire built on top of the cliff were pushed over, resulting in the burning cinder version of a waterfall. This was not a natural event, and it did damage to the flora along the wall and to the area at the bottom. Eventually the practice was halted. You can still see it in pictures.

[4.bp.blogspot.com]

I do find it a bit irritating that the OP remarks "the green people are at it again." This is ad hominem, even if it's targeted at a large group of people. There may be a legitimate question as to whether or not some bridges should be replaced or even just removed, but to tar the large group of people who are dedicated to preserving Yosemite with an epithet is offensive. Three hundred and thirty miles to the south, here in Los Angeles, I am very interested in "green growth" as a partial fix to a tanked economy. We see it as a big plus. For example, replacing coal fired power plant electric service with widespread solar power is good for the national trade deficit, for the solar panel producers (including an increasingly wide group of onshore and Asian manufacturers) and for the consumer. But like so many things, the questions are complicated, both in regard to green power and to Yosemite's protection.

About 15 years ago, the Merced River (that runs through Yosemite Valley) overflowed its banks due to unprecedented buildup of ice and snow above the valley. It wiped out campgrounds, numerous hotel buildings, and ultimately crested something like 10 feet above the valley floor. I remember going up there shortly after the park reopened and finding picnic tables wedged in trees and other remarkable flood damage. Obviously there is a human effect on the natural state of the valley, but sometimes nature overcomes our efforts. More recently, there have been rockslides. People should remember that Yosemite Valley has walls that are about 3000 feet of nearly vertical rise, cut into hard granite by glaciers. It is nearly unique in the world, attracts us locals and foreign tourists alike, and is worthy of preservation. I would be equally outspoken about the need to preserve the battlefield at Shiloh or Gettysburg, but Yosemite Valley predates them by thousands of years, and is multiples higher in grandeur. By the way, the valley is just one part of the park, and if you go a few feet past the paved road, you will be greeted by some amazing sights.

My main objection to what has been happening in Yosemite over the past couple of decades is the fact that park services including hotels and food are run by one major vendor for the most part, and prices have accordingly gone up quite a bit. It's one dramatic example of how the cooperation between the government and a single corporation works to the detriment of us consumers.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: billb
Date: July 08, 2012 12:45PM
Quote
Ca Bob


I do find it a bit irritating that the OP remarks "the green people are at it again." .


The future of the roughly 80-year-old Stoneman and two other spandrel arch bridges has pitted environmentalists, who want the river to flow freely, against historic preservationists who say these early examples of the rustic park architectural style are too culturally important to destroy.

those damned history freaks are at it again, too.



The Phorum Wall keeps us safe from illegal characters and words
The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is the knowledge of one's own ignorance. -Benjamin Franklin
BOYCOTT YOPLAIT [www.noyoplait.com]
[soundcloud.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Pam
Date: July 08, 2012 01:03PM
Good comments Ca Bob. I simply ignored Sam's "green people" bait comment. With all of the traveling she has been doing no doubt she has appreciated examples of conservation. I don't know enough details about Yosemite to comment on it's issues but I find kindred spirit with the battle being fought over Hatteras Island. Go too far on either side and it's disastrous.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 08, 2012 01:34PM
I say let the river run. I've seen that bridge and it's nothing special, sorry. It was built at a time in our history when knowledge of the ecological importance of wild rivers was little understood and even less respected, not sure why we need to honor that ignorance know.

The specialness of Yosemite lies in what nature made, not in what man has made around it.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Black
Date: July 08, 2012 01:46PM
Quote
billb
Quote
Ca Bob


I do find it a bit irritating that the OP remarks "the green people are at it again." .


The future of the roughly 80-year-old Stoneman and two other spandrel arch bridges has pitted environmentalists, who want the river to flow freely, against historic preservationists who say these early examples of the rustic park architectural style are too culturally important to destroy.

those damned history freaks are at it again, too.

Bad links.




New forum user map 8/2015: [www.zeemaps.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Manlove
Date: July 08, 2012 02:06PM
Quote
mattkime

"Damn those 'green people'. I bet they are friends with the 'poors'!"
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Manlove
Date: July 08, 2012 02:23PM
Tough call.
"In 1987 the U.S. Congress designated the Merced a Wild and Scenic River to preserve its free-flowing condition and to protect and enhance the unique values that made it worthy of special protection under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. "
[www.nps.gov]

Not very wild if it has roads and bridges.


And what a silly OP.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: billb
Date: July 08, 2012 03:08PM
Quote
Black
Quote
billb
Quote
Ca Bob


I do find it a bit irritating that the OP remarks "the green people are at it again." .


The future of the roughly 80-year-old Stoneman and two other spandrel arch bridges has pitted environmentalists, who want the river to flow freely, against historic preservationists who say these early examples of the rustic park architectural style are too culturally important to destroy.

those damned history freaks are at it again, too.[/quote



Bad links.

[www.youtube.com]






The Phorum Wall keeps us safe from illegal characters and words
The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is the knowledge of one's own ignorance. -Benjamin Franklin
BOYCOTT YOPLAIT [www.noyoplait.com]
[soundcloud.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Manlove
Date: July 08, 2012 03:30PM
"...against historic preservationists who say these early examples of the rustic park architectural style are too culturally important to destroy."

Ha! 80 year old artifacts. Pull 'em down. Let the waters wash down.
[www.youtube.com]

(just an excuse to post this song- one of my first real exposures to Americana)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: July 08, 2012 04:46PM
WWJMD?
What Would John Muir Do ?
He would ask that it be removed.
Love his work.
I always hated seeing asphalt "trails" in the wild. If you can't walk over the rocks, stay on the sidewalks .

And yes... I'm getting to the point where I like the sidewalks .

Then again I was also always a fan of Ed Albee...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2012 04:47PM by cbelt3.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 08, 2012 04:53PM
Quote
Manlove


Not very wild if it has roads and bridges.


And what a silly OP.


[www.rivers.gov]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Ca Bob
Date: July 08, 2012 09:13PM
The Merced has a very few bridges within the valley itself and then outside of the valley downriver. The origins of the river above the valley are wild and they are at high elevation. John Muir did fight to preserve the Hetch Hetchy valley that is adjacent to Yosemite. The city of San Francisco wanted to build a dam across the bottom of Hetch Hetchy so that they would have a reservoir for their water supply. John Muir lost, the dam was built, and the Hetch Hetchy valley was inundated. There has been a quiet movement to try and reverse this damage by removing the dam. This would probably require building smaller dams downriver towards San Francisco, or else developing a different water supply from another source. Feasibility studies suggest that the project could be accomplished and San Francisco wouldn't go dry, but it would be expensive and would take a long time.

As to the difference of opinion between historic preservationists and wilderness supporters over this particular bridge, I agree that they both have a point, but I think that the overall balance ought to go to keeping Yosemite and its valley as natural as we can, while still allowing human access. One possible alternative is to build a bridge that is wide enough that it doesn't impede the natural flow of the river, at least most of the time. They did replace a bridge across the Merced a few years ago because the old one was damaged. And as to my original statement about the ad hominem nature of the remarks about greens being at it again, I stand by my statement. It's the part about being "at it again" that leaves a nasty taste, because it implies that there is something untoward about having this debate. Anybody who knows anything about Yosemite National Park understands that there is a continual tension between preserving the natural wonder and providing for visitor services. This is not being "at it again," it is being careful and thoughtful.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Avenger
Date: July 08, 2012 09:15PM
The reverence for nature is entirely political. You can blanket thousands of square miles of land with solar panels and you won't hear a peep about where the coyotes are going to go. Screw them.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Chakravartin
Date: July 08, 2012 09:35PM
Quote
Avenger
The reverence for nature is entirely political. You can blanket thousands of square miles of land with solar panels and you won't hear a peep about where the coyotes are going to go.

A thousand square miles of solar facilities would be pretty awesome.

The big Arizona solar tower project takes up about 3 square miles and will supposedly be able to power 150,000 homes when it goes online.

Hmm... if each solar tower can power around 150,000 homes with about 3 square miles per facility then 1,000 square miles of desert should be able to power 50 million homes.

Sweet!! That's the whole West coast with some left over!!

We should totally do that!!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: decay
Date: July 08, 2012 10:05PM
wildlife would probably welcome the shade that solar panels would afford.

;)



---
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Avenger
Date: July 08, 2012 11:11PM
Here is one more reverence for the environment. The same people who brought you the Leave no Trace movement, can't make enough of these.



"The principles of "Leave No Trace" were developed in response to concerns that the increasing number of human visitors to previously uninhabited (or lightly inhabited) wilderness areas would destroy the very characteristics that make them attractive, and irreparably harm native species"
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Chakravartin
Date: July 08, 2012 11:16PM
Quote
Avenger
Here is one more reverence for the environment. The same people who brought you the Leave no Trace movement, can't make enough of these.

Who are those people?

Feel free to name names.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Manlove
Date: July 09, 2012 12:51AM
Avenger, I think that what it comes down to is that we as humans in the kind of society we have adopted, use vast amounts of energy and all of that energy has to come from somewhere. Environmentalists ask two things of us- use less and what you must have, source wisely. Wisely in this case meaning in a way that does the least damage possible to the environment.
It's all always swings and roundabouts.
It is impossible to argue that, even without considering the effects of global warming, the oil industry has not blackened vast areas of the planet and fouled the Gulf of Mexico, potentially for generations.
It is not a clean industry.
What some environmental power companies are trying to do is source energy that at least pays lip service to the future. I take it you studied the link I posted to the photovoltaic paint. Wave power is promising for coastal areas and windpower is perfect in the plains.
Are windmills beautiful?
Not beautiful as such, no. But when you consider that they leave no lasting damage and once set up, produce power from the wind!
That seems like a leap back 800 years, but it's not.
It's the combination of all the possibilities that will stem our dependence on oil.
I get it, nothing is as easy and immediate as oil. But the costs are spread so far into the world and its future that most of them are invisible. Microscopic pieces of oil derived plastics are strewn throughout the oceans, quietly entering the food chain.
Do you know how much plastic is good to eat? I don't.
We have alternatives and would be foolish not to explore them. I still think that eventually we will have to become nuclear powered. Too many people with too much desire for it to be otherwise. But even then, there's no need for it to be 'dirty' (in contradistinction to 'green').
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Ca Bob
Date: July 09, 2012 01:24AM
Dak is not entirely wrong that there are tensions and even some hypocrisies in the environmental movement. It's populated by lots of different people, and some of them are smarter, some of them not so much, and all of them have their own priorities. I notice that some groups that worry about global warming don't see the logic in supporting replacement of fossil fuel power with nuclear fission based power. They nitpick about spent fuel rods when it is obviously a political problem at worst (fuel rods are easy enough to transport, and we could store them at Yucca Mountain or simply reprocess them).

All that having been said, I still feel we shouldn't feed trolls. The problem with Dak's little digs isn't that they are so wrong in this case, but that they are of the same level as the enviros who oppose nuclear power: They fail to view tensions and priority setting from the proper perspective. I think it's an excellent idea to leave some parts of this world alone, to make sure that there are places where birds and wolves don't change their behavior because they constantly meet up with humans, and that every different kind of habitat on earth be allowed to exist without hindrance in some place.

Our current notion is that solar panels go nicely on the flat roofs of giant warehouses and other commercial structures, and on the roofs of peoples' homes. We are doing that in southern California to a certain extent, and this includes some solar panel installations that go on for thousands and thousands of square feet. This is a lot different than destroying the desert. On the other hand, the area of the eastern Mojave that was covered by the California Desert Protection Act is on the order of 2200 square miles, or just about twice the size of our nation's smallest state. We also got a much enlarged Death Valley National Park as part of the package. It is a true statement that building solar facilities that cover otherwise pristine desert landscapes is to do damage to the immediate area, to do damage along the roads that have to be built for required maintenance, and to do damage along the powerline corridors that carry the electricity. I can say though, as a one-time desert rat myself (ie: a traveler in the Mojave, Death Valley, and other scenic areas) that there is an awful lot of space -- actually an almost unimaginable area to European visitors and to eastern seaboard residents -- and building 50 or a hundred square miles of either solar cells or reflective mirrors (to superheat water) barely scratches the surface of the Mojave. I think the same could be said for West Texas, for a lot of New Mexico, and perhaps even some of the great plains and midwestern states.

As for windmill farms, I have mixed feelings, particularly when it comes to the ones just east of San Francisco.

Again, it's a matter of perspective and complexity. We are running out of petroleum, in the sense of cheaply available surface deposits, and we either replace that energy or we fight over what's left in a global war. What we are seeing on the left coast is a large buildup of solar panel production in east Asian regions, the importation of those panels, and rapidly decreasing prices. We would like to see our side of the Pacific get a piece of this action, and we're working on it.

I remember when a young Newt Gingrich gave a talk to the L5 society in about 1982 or so. He talked enthusiastically about building solar power collectors in far earth orbit, out in the zone where the telecommunications satellites roam, and beaming the energy to earth by microwave, where it would be collected by antenna farms in the southwest. If we had a big booster capability, a moon colony, and a deep space launching capacity, we could build those collectors and supply the earth with energy for the next thousand years. Not to get political here, but the cost of the Iraq war would have covered a substantial fraction of the cost of that project.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: billb
Date: July 09, 2012 07:44AM
Quote
Ca Bob
They nitpick about spent fuel rods when it is obviously a political problem at worst (fuel rods are easy enough to transport, and we could store them at Yucca Mountain or simply reprocess them).


.

Yucca Mountain terminated by Senator Reid and current administration in 2010 / 2011.
Sorry.

Dry cask storage on-site will just have to do.



The Phorum Wall keeps us safe from illegal characters and words
The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is the knowledge of one's own ignorance. -Benjamin Franklin
BOYCOTT YOPLAIT [www.noyoplait.com]
[soundcloud.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Avenger
Date: July 09, 2012 08:50AM
Ca Bob, you write your best pieces trying not to feed the trolls!

Now let me bring up a few contradictions in your piece.

You say that "there is an awful lot of space -- actually an almost unimaginable area..". I agree. Looking down when flying I see vast expanses of empty land that I wonder if it could be put to good sue. But this is the same argument made for ANWAR. It is a tundra that virtually nobody will ever see in their lifetime and explorations will be pin pricks relative to the size of the land. The record of the industry after 30 some years in Alaska is exemplary. Why deny American companies credit they are due.?Then you say with certainty that "We are running out of petroleum". How can you say that without knowing the global reserves? who else is saying that? Every time somebody comes out with a prediction like that they find another 500 billion barrels somewhere. Who predicted shale oil and gas 15 years ago? Was that accounted for in the we are running out of petroleum declaration? I often joke that the surest way to find new oil is for National Geographic to come out with another cover story on End of Cheap Oil.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: mattkime
Date: July 09, 2012 09:06AM
>>I often joke that the surest way to find new oil is for National Geographic to come out with another cover story on End of Cheap Oil.

It helps that you keep changing your definition of cheap.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: $tevie
Date: July 09, 2012 09:21AM
Quote
Avenger
they find another 500 billion barrels somewhere

No, they don't. [www.snopes.com]



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Avenger
Date: July 09, 2012 09:59AM
Oh, yeah? What is then then?

[www.businessweek.com]

and this

[www.chevron.com]

and this

[www.nola.com]

Exxon Mobil Corp.'s announcement that it has made the biggest oil find in the Gulf of Mexico in more than a decade is a momentous discovery for our region and the rest of the nation, and it underscores the importance of bringing Gulf drilling back up to speed.

Exxon Mobil Corp. announced on Wednesday that it had found the biggest oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico in more than a decade, the equivalent of more than 700 million barrels of oil. Shown is the rig, Maersk Developer, in the Gulf of Mexico, 250 miles off the coast of Louisiana, in about 7,000 feet of water.
The company on Wednesday said it's found the equivalent of 700 million barrels of oil at the Hadrian prospect, located 250 miles off Louisiana's coast and in 7,000 feet of water.
----
In 2009, Chevron announced an oil discovery at the Buckskin prospect in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico about 190 miles southeast of Houston. The well is located in approximately 6,920feet of water and was drilled to a depth of 29,404 feet. In 2011, the company announced an oil discovery at the Moccasin prospect in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico.[43] The well is located approximately 216 miles off the Louisiana coast in 6,759 feet of water and was drilled to a depth of 31,545 feet.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: billb
Date: July 09, 2012 10:04AM
Quote
$tevie
Quote
Avenger
they find another 500 billion barrels somewhere

No, they don't. [www.snopes.com]

Um, actually they have been finding new oil reserves.



Norway. Norway had been seeing oil production declines since 2000 when its oil production peaked due to maturing oil wells. But that trend may be reversed due to two new finds in the North Sea. Statoil ASA has made two offshore finds totaling between 500 million and 1.2 billion barrels, which is among Norway’s top ten discoveries. The new well is less than ten feet from a dry well drilled in 1971.[xvi]

“This shows Norway still has the capacity to deliver world-class discoveries,” Tim Dodson, Statoil’s exploration chief, said. “It’s probably the largest offshore oil discovery anywhere in the world this year. It has given the entire oil industry renewed optimism.”[xvii]


[www.instituteforenergyresearch.org]


Note the leading paragraph explaining how deficits are fueling the search for new holes such to stick a oil sucking straw.






New oil reserves or not is hardly a reason not to forego wind and solar power and wind and solar power advancements.



The Phorum Wall keeps us safe from illegal characters and words
The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is the knowledge of one's own ignorance. -Benjamin Franklin
BOYCOTT YOPLAIT [www.noyoplait.com]
[soundcloud.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: $tevie
Date: July 09, 2012 10:06AM
Quote
billb
Quote
$tevie
Quote
Avenger
they find another 500 billion barrels somewhere

No, they don't. [www.snopes.com]

Um, actually they have been finding new oil reserves.

Still don't see "another 500 billion barrels somewhere".



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Black
Date: July 09, 2012 10:42AM
Quote
$tevie
Quote
billb
Quote
$tevie
Quote
Avenger
they find another 500 billion barrels somewhere

No, they don't. [www.snopes.com]

Um, actually they have been finding new oil reserves.

Still don't see "another 500 billion barrels somewhere".

Dakota is quoting statistics from bogus e-mail forwards? No way!




New forum user map 8/2015: [www.zeemaps.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Pam
Date: July 09, 2012 10:43AM
You have to also look at how reserves are classified. If it's deemed unreachable or too expensive to access it's not counted. Or probably taxed. So "new finds" aren't necessarily new finds as oil companies will spend less sitting on leases that aren't counted. Don't have time to locate that article. I think it was in The Economist.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: $tevie
Date: July 09, 2012 10:46AM
Dakota already has a @#$%& thread on alternative energy going. We should probably stick to the original topic of environmental concerns vs historical preservation instead of letting him start @#$%& all over this thread.

Just a realization that I came to, too late.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2012 10:50AM by $tevie.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Black
Date: July 09, 2012 11:37AM
I did not meed a mental image of Dakota @#$%& . . .




New forum user map 8/2015: [www.zeemaps.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: $tevie
Date: July 09, 2012 11:47AM
I really gave this a lot of thought and I'm afraid the bridges don't seem unique enough to get into a big sweat about. I hate to seem cold to historic preservation, but living right smack dab in the middle of a "historic neighborhood" I do get weary sometimes of having everything dubbed "historic" just because it's been around for a while.

Historic Preservation was born because of the horribly tragic demolition of the original Penn Station, and for the most part I think its a wonderful thing, but life does move on or we'd all still be living in mud huts. There needs to be a sensible approach to determining what is an important historical landmark and too often "It's old and I like it" seems to be the rationale.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Avenger
Date: July 09, 2012 12:06PM
Quote
$tevie


Still don't see "another 500 billion barrels somewhere".

So your problem is with the number. Had I said 500 million I am sure you'd be all with me.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Black
Date: July 09, 2012 02:05PM
Had I said 500 million I am sure you'd be all with me.

Do you know how many days it would take the US to burn through 500 million barrels of oil?
I'll make it easy-- all you have to do is write "A, B, or C." But you can only pick one.

A. Less than 25 days
B. About 25 days
C. More than 25 days.




New forum user map 8/2015: [www.zeemaps.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Avenger
Date: July 09, 2012 02:18PM
Ah, not it is too little. Anything to run away from the meat of the topic. Listen BlackLandlord, there is plenty of oil left to keep your tenants warm for a long time.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Black
Date: July 09, 2012 02:28PM
Couldn't pick one letter out of three? Have you tried ritalin?




New forum user map 8/2015: [www.zeemaps.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Manlove
Date: July 09, 2012 02:40PM
Avenger, meet mirror.
[i.usatoday.net]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: mattkime
Date: July 09, 2012 02:40PM
there you have it.

.1% accurate is good enough!

Quote
Avenger
Quote
$tevie


Still don't see "another 500 billion barrels somewhere".

So your problem is with the number. Had I said 500 million I am sure you'd be all with me.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: $tevie
Date: July 09, 2012 02:43PM
Quote
mattkime
there you have it.

.1% accurate is good enough!

jest smiley



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Avenger
Date: July 09, 2012 03:21PM
What a fracking good time.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should be we concerned? Proactive?
Posted by: Chakravartin
Date: July 09, 2012 05:35PM
Quote
Avenger
Quote
$tevie


Still don't see "another 500 billion barrels somewhere".

So your problem is with the number. Had I said 500 million I am sure you'd be all with me.

500 million barrels is almost inconsequential.

Take another look at the info at the snopes link.

Certainly 3.65 billion barrels of recoverable oil is nothing to sneeze at, but a little perspective is in order. The U.S. currently imports an average of about 10 million barrels of oil per day (for a total of about 3.65 billion barrels of oil per year), so even if all the estimated undiscovered oil in the Bakken formation were extracted today, it would only be enough to wean the U.S. off of crude oil imports for one year.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 148
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 2330 on October 25, 2018