Posted 7 months, 15 days ago in 
Loading ...
I disagree with a number of points in the editorial about drilling ANWR and offshore in the May 23 editorial.
First of all, it says that “anyone who has taken Econ 101 knows the reason.” At this point in time, economics has no way of taking the cost of environmental degradation into account. Since we humans are a part of the environment and completely dependent on the environment, surely there is a great cost that does not enter into economic calculations. We absolutely must find ways to consider this great cost before we proceed with jobs like drilling ANWR and offshore.
Another important point is that we have never developed a coherent energy policy. Many people say that Jimmy Carter was not a good president. Perhaps this is true in many ways, but one of his strong points was that he had a good, future-oriented energy policy. This policy was demolished by the following administration. That is unfortunate because the problems we face now could be very different if we had continued the path Carter laid out for us.
It is much more important that we get back to a conservation and development of alternate resources before we blindly heed “Econ 101″ and begin drilling and sucking out every last drop of oil, destroying the environment as we do so.
DUANE T. CARR
Grand Junction
46 Responses to “U.S. needs a future-oriented energy policy”
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 10:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, carters ‘path’ was destructive to the US economy.
That was why it was dismantled.
True, it was never replaced with a coherent plan, but nearly all efforts were obstructed by ‘environmental’ whackos who were leading powerful democrats in congress around by their noses.
And a messtream media that always did have a knack for not reporting the news, but merely presenting what fit their agenda.
drilling in ANWAR is NOT environmentally destructive as the letter writer asserts, but it is politically correct to lie through their teeth about it.
Nuclear energy is an effective, as well as efficient means of power generation, but also not politically correct.
Solar and wind are possible means in the future, but not cost effective currently.
To make my home totally solar reliant would cost in the neighborhood of $45,000.
And that includes making massive changes in my lifestyle.
Yeah, what I always wanted to do my entire life, live in a third world country that used to be a first world country.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 10:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “drilling in ANWAR is NOT environmentally destructive as the letter writer asserts, but it is politically correct to lie through their teeth about it.”
Choke, snort! Thanks Johnson for giving me another big belly laugh today. Drilling in an animal refuge is not environmentally destructive? Are you employed by Exxon? Tell us about how the Valdez oil spill did not harm the environment.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 10:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey, I’m just glad you guys aren’t talking about God anymore.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 10:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Careful gene, take a few sips of water and cool down a little.
The area that would be drilled is a very small percentage of the total acreage of ANWAR.
The portion under consideration is NOT, pure, pristine, scenic wilderness normally associated with Alaska.
But those are details that do not fit your politically correct version of the issue under discussion.
We can play this either way Gene, political hyperbole(scare mongering and falsehoods), or actual facts.
Your choice little buddy.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 11:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The area that would be drilled is a very small percentage of the total acreage of ANWAR.
The portion under consideration is NOT, pure, pristine, scenic wilderness normally associated with Alaska”
Prove it.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 11:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here’s an idea. Instead of all the, does not, does too, theoretical arm chair conclusions, why not find out for yourselves. Within an easy one hour drive from Grand Junction is a major wintering ground for deer and elk. This area is under extensive current drilling, and is dotted with established gas and oil wells. There is over 40 years of energy production represented in this area. It is located North of the Interstate (70), East of the Cisco exit, all the way to the Colorado/Utah state line. The northern boundary would be the Bookcliffs. Four-wheel drive is recommended. This is the winter feeding grounds of countless deer, and used extensively by a herd of between 150 and 175 Elk. Beginning in late October through mid February, dependent upon weather, you will find these herds present, as well as antelope, coyote, bobcat and an assortment of other wildlife. Be sure to take your camera. There will be lots of opportunities to photograph deer and elk browsing on and around existing wells and drilling operations. Binoculars are recommended. They will allow you to stop about a quarter mile away from the wells, and view the animals. Here’s a hot tip for those of you who don’t believe that energy production and wildlife can co-exist. Limit you vision to within one hundred yards of your vehicle, crank up your car stereo. put a rap CD in, slam your car doors, and drive at high speed. Following these instructions will allow you to report you didn’t see a single animal. But if it is the truth you are after, why not do it right. You may be as amazed as I was to find elk lying within fifty yards of the interstate and a working drill rig, near the rest stop just before the Westwater exit. Just watching the traffic go by, chewing their cud. This particular group numbered seventeen, and included a four point bull, a spike bull and fifteen cows and calves. I took photos.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes WLJ. You made the statement. Now let’s see if you can back it up with facts. The refuge is in fact pristine although it may not be the forested, scenic mountains of other parts of Alaska.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 11:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well of course one can find wild animals in areas despoiled by oil drilling. They have nowhere else to go. Even though I live in the city limits, I have a pair of red foxes in the woods adjacent to my home (who cross my driveway nearly every day and who raised babies last year. I had a great horned owls nest with two chicks in my back yard last year. I have covies of quail in my back yard. These are the hangers on and the remnants of wildlife which we will soon exterminate with our continued environmental exploitation just so that we can satisfy our own immediate wants and greed-never mind future generations. Indeed the pheasants in my adjacent fields so abundant in years past have already disappeared. None of these anecdotal stories about wildlife around drilling rigs carry any weight because there is not a control to demnonstrate what it would be like in that same area with no drilling.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 11:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“demonstrate”
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 11:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
In the interest of full disclosure, Duane Carr, is listed on the Sierra Club, Uncompahgre Group’s web site as the Secretary for that “group”.
Is this the same Duane Carr?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 11:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow, so many misleading statements in so few words.
WLJ, that you can make the comment that President Carter’s path was “destructive to the US economy” shows that you completely missed the point of the letter. The criteria used to “measure” the “economy” completely leaves out all benefits and costs that can not be easily converted to dollars. For instance the price paid to clean up the Exxon Valdez spill is counted as a positive contribution to the economy! Whereas, the benefit from not having such a spill is completely ignored. Thus, in the twisted logic of Econ 101, oil spills are good for the economy and preventing spills is bad!
As for your post #4, WLJ, the fact that drilling in ANWR would directly impact a small percentage of the area, although true, is not relevant. A fired bullet only comes in direct contact with a very small percentage of the flesh of a deer, but the impacts to the life of the deer can be extremely large.
But then there is a_p, posting the identical claptrap in two separate threads. The fact that wildlife uses the areas where the existing vegetation has been cleared for a well is not in dispute. Most of the deer I have seen are when I am near a road. Does this mean roads are where most of the deer are or that I am more frequently near a road than I am greater than 2 miles from a road? (Given that less than 5% of Colorado is greater than 2 miles from a road means of course deer are going to be found near roads because if they want to be away from a road they will need to be on or near tundra!)
The original editorial in the Sentinel was fearfully misguided. Drilling ANWR will reduce our oil imports by less than 10%, and only in about 10 years in the future, and then only for a few years. And then we will be 100% dependent on Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, and other such nations.
We need a forward looking energy policy. Oil is backward looking.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 12:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class of 52,
Over 40 years of observation and watching these herds increase in number is not admissible evidence? Please enlighten me as to exactly what part of the assertion that wildlife are harmed by energy development, the lack of a control group supports? Or is that just an unsupported theory?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 12:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86,
Perhaps you should get off the road once in a while, and you would have a baseline for your observations.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 12:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
.
a_p,
There is a difference between ‘andecdotes’ and ‘data.’
Bald eagles have flown over my house. Kestrels have hunted in the neighbor’s pasture. I have seen deer and antelope in the middle of gas fields.
None of these observations is paired with an observation in similar, but not yet disturbed, areas. Thus, it is not possible to tell if the wildlife are using the areas were I observe them because they are desperate or because they are choosing disturbed areas instead of undisturbed areas.
The research has been done in Wyoming where researchers studied wildlife near and far from gas development. Every measure indicated that the wildlife near the development areas were fairing worse than their counterparts that were not impacted by gas development. These are the facts: gas development has negative impacts on wildlife.
Your observations are interesting, but they are not science and only can tell us a limited amount. You have not reported how many times you did NOT observe wildlife in these same areas. You have presented a heavily biased sample. You may need a refresher course in Science 101.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 12:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
a_p,
Did you miss the fact that less than 5% of Colorado is greater than 2 miles from a road?
So, even though I spend more time on foot and off the road than most, I still can seldom get more than 2 miles from a road in Colorado unless I am hiking in the tundra.
Thus, wildlife is found near roads in Colorado because 95% of the land in Colorado is near a road!!!
(Again, this can be found in both Science 101 and Logic 101.)
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 12:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
i’m no scientist, but i work the drilling feilds and have the last several years…for the most part, the exploration companies do a fair (they can always do better) job of reclamation….the animals return to the area from habit, and once they get used to the smell and noise of equipment, seem unharmed from the experience…i honestly feel that roads do more damage to the herds than drilling does….as for the research in wyoming, it’s a completely different type of habitat, and i’m fairly certain that doing the same research here will quantify differing results
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, it’s good to see bruce86 back online.
Clouds go away so you could cool down a little?
Here’s a little anecdote for you to chew on.
I have been all over the back country of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and big swaths of Montana.
Wildlife does not care how, or why there is a cleared area for them to graze near.
When you can take pictures of deer and elk grazing at the edge of a location, with the rig onsite and drilling, it gets to be pretty obvious that any data to the contrary may be a little suspect.
Class, why don’t you and your little tag-a-long knuckle dragger prove me wrong?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 12:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis or ameri-pat, can you credibly speak about the ecosystems and potential impacts at ANWR (wrongly called the Alaska Nat’l Wildlife Refuge in the sappy Daily Sentinel editorial – it’s ARCTIC)? Have you spent some time there? Four seasons of the year? Observing the patterns of migratory birds, fish and mammals? Digesting the intricacies of life in the arctic? Pondering the brown/yellow cloud & pall that hangs brightly over the oil facilities and industrial zone around Deadhorse?
Spent some time, have you, with the good native folks in Kaktovik or Arctic Village, and solicited their thoughts on why caribou populations in neighboring Northwest Territories & Yukon have dropped by between 40 and 86 percent over the last 10 years?
Is ANWR a real word, an abstraction, or just a sound for you? Or is it just symbolic, part of the “drill it all, drill it now” mentality? Or is it only a symptom of a hugely addicted and very desperate country with no forward-thinking energy policy?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You guys are still presenting nothing but anecdotes.
I also frequently work around the gas fields. I talk with truck drivers. I talk with scientists. I talk with the people who live in the area.
There are going to be similarities and differences between Wyoming gas fields and Colorado gas fields. The research is underway in Colorado. Early results show that sage grouse are negatively impacted. It’s too early for results from deer and elk research.
Wildlife do care what plants are available for forage. Weeds such as knapweed, halogeton, cheatgrass, annual wheatgrass, pepperweed, and others are not the preferred species. Wildlife does care about the quality of their food. Poor quality is generally eaten only when there is not sufficient high quality food available. Poor quality food impacts birth weights, weight gain, over winter survival, etc. Animals that don’t care (that is, choose poor forage) die young.
I can take pictures of people who do meth sitting with their children. It doesn’t change the fact that meth does not make you a better parent.
So, WLJ, enroll in Science 101. Then maybe you will also know the difference between anecdotes and data.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” So, WLJ, enroll in Science 101. Then maybe you will also know the difference between anecdotes and data. ”
Been there, done that.
got a piece of paper that says so too.
Perhaps you should learn what the data represents instead of popping off abut subjects in which you are totally unaware of, other than what you read in some newspaper account written by a reporterette that has never ventured outside the city limits?
naw, too much trouble.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 1:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86
For the sake of argument, let’s say I accept your rules of evidence. Any control group you site, I can pick apart because there are no two environments that are identical and no two groups of animals that are alike, weather conditions etc. It all comes down to which side you are on and what you do or don’t believe. It’s my unsupported theory verses your unsupported theory, but then I’m not the one trying to prohibit something, you are. So let’s just say, for the sake of argument, if you cannot present clear, convincing and absolute proof in your next post to me that energy production is harmful to the specified species in the specified location, that your opposition to gas and oil production in that location is based on sound scientific and biological information, nor even anecdotal observation and therefore by a preponderance of the evidence presented, gas and oil production in that location should continue unencumbered until such time as you can prove actual harm. By your rules, an allegation or a belief, in the absence of proof, should be given no weight. It is really too bad that you don’t include common sense and anecdotal observations over a 40 year period of time in your scientific calculations. If you were to do so, it would allow you access to wisdom as well as education. Two factors that are conspicuous by their absence in your decision making process are wisdom and common sense.
If you were to include these two factors, you just might be able to make a case that if we don’t know, we should find out. Without them, you have no case. But if you did that, you just might have to accept my anecdotal observations, and that, no doubt, is unacceptable to you.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
MikeHunt,
That sounded a lot like an anecdotal observation to me. Are those now being allowed?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 1:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The highly deleterious effect on wildlife of well drilling and oil activities is well documented in the record of drilling in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. See for example http://corrosion-doctors.org/Pollution/oil-pipes-example-2.htm. (although this is not the original data but a summary).
The Wyoming experiments come to the same conclusion. Indeed in any of these studies of which I am aware, there has never been a positive effect on wildlife or even a neutral one. It is always a negative outcome. Wildlife is always harmed. Data defeat anecdotes every time.
Incidentally it is only ethical behavior to disclose any financial or other relationships one might have which would influence one’s ability to be unbiased. I have no direct financial interests in the outcome. I do belong to one environmentally active group: Trout Unlimited.
Now let us hear from those who are on the other side of this argument. Which of you is employed by the oil industry or has a business which supplies or otherwise interacts with the oil industry?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 1:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
a_p,
BS. These are not “my” rules. They are the rules of science.
Also, it is not about “which side you are on.” There are facts. You are welcome to ignore them if your ideology requires it, but it does not change the facts. That you need to try to make this into “choosing sides” just shows how weak your case is.
Gas development negatively impacts wildlife. That is a fact.
What we do with the facts and what compromises we make must be based on the same set of facts. I am not opposed to gas development. I am not advocating stopping it. I’ve never claimed this and you are wrong to assume it. But to pretend there are no negatives (along with a lot of positives) with gas development is just plain ignorance and ideology.
I agree that your theory is unsupported. However, you are trying to prohibit something. Think about it.
I also agree that your anecdotal observations are interesting and should be part of the equation. However, they carry little weight if you have not documented them with dates along with your observations and locations and dates when you did NOT observe wildlife. Without this documentation, all you’ve got is a nice story. Good for boring your grandkids, but lousy science.
Of course you can pick apart any study and any control group. Any first year graduate student can do this trick. The hard part involves trying to determine which parts of studies are transferable to new areas. Until this work has been done, the prudent practice is to allow that the important findings apply to the new area. Only after a new study has been done can you show that the original research doesn’t apply to the new area. (Kind of turns your assumption on its head, doesn’t it!)
Your argument is really dangerous. By your “rules,” just because it has been shown that meth has negative impacts on families in California it can not be concluded that meth has negative impacts on families in Colorado until you can prove actual harm here. Bad logic. Bad science. Bad policy. So much for your style of “common sense.”
a_p, the published scientific research is out there. It’s not too difficult to find if you really want to know the facts.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 2:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class of 52,
The evidence presented is not specific to the area under discussion and is therefore moot. Yes, I have a vested interest. Being a lifelong hunter, not employed by or invested in any energy related company and being presently retired, my interest is for the welfare and well being of the herds of game animals, (and others), in question. I hunt coyotes for that very reason. The greatest negative impact on the animals in question is a direct result of the imposition of extremely restrictive trapping regulations. I’ll bet five bucks you can figure out whose idea those regulations were. If it were not for the recent popularity in varmint hunting, that little fiasco would probably have laid waste to most of the deer and elk populations in the subject area. That is what is wrong with “touchy-feely” laws proposed by individuals who have never put boots on the ground. The balance that environmentalists refer to, in nature, usually results in the near complete annihilation of a given species, in a given area. Anecdotal observation of the boom and bust cycles of rabbits, and their relationship to coyote populations are an example. What is not considered is what coyotes prey upon when they are in a boom cycle and the rabbits are in a bust cycle. I am sick and tired of people who profess to care about wild-life, whose actions do untold damage to wildlife through unintended or unconsidered consequences. They are responsible for a far greater part of the damage than those who just don’t give a damn. Vested interest? Yeah, I’ve got a vested interest. I do give a damn.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 2:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86
Nice try, but no cigar.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 2:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
class, i freely admit that my work is in the drilling fields of western colorado…hell, i’ve never hidden that fact…my point to you is that through modern drilling technology, the effect to wildlife is lessened….btw, the link you gave is dead, and i also belong to the nahc, elk unlimited, nra, and several other wildlife foundations…i happen to be an avid hunter and outdoorsman, and i really am concerned about the impacts drilling has on wildlife….by the same token, i put it to you, sir, that development of communities into formerly wild area’s is more detrimental to the denizens of that area than drilling ever will be….but you never hear anything against that.
bruce, a question for you, sir…isn’t it true that, tho an unbiased study would be in the interest of all, it’s clearly not probable to aquire?….you can design a study to meet most any answers required…it would be nice, however, because it would drive us further towards better tech to care for our resources.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 2:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It would seem that ONE.VOICE has a penchant for “full disclosure” as well as “lists” of people who engage in activities not to his liking. In that spirit, I feel it necessary to fully disclose that, in my opinion, it is very likely ONE.VOICE is, or has been at some point in his life, in some way been affiliated with, or in sympathy with, one or more of the following groups:
Mesa County Republican Party
Craig Meis for Reelection Campaign
Colorado Oil and Gas Association
Club 20
Kathy Hall for Sainthood Coalition
American Nazi Party
Janet Rowland for Reelection Committee
United Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
Ruby Ridge Memorial Assoc.
John Birch Society (Fruita Chapter)
Fascist League of America
And the “list,” in my opinion, just goes on and on.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 2:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
hitekredneck,
First, I really appreciate the fact that you seem to look at issues from many perspectives and seem to have a level-headed approach. Your posts seldom, if ever, devolve into ideology or name calling. I will try harder to follow your example.
As you are aware, any study can be poorly designed. It’s even easier to poorly interpret a good study! A good study will point out it’s shortcomings (which, means it is even easier to abuse by the unscrupulous). A biased study tends to leave out its shortcomings - which to the careful reader should be a warning that it is biased.
Research proposals that receive ‘buy-in’ by stakeholders will produce results that are more likely to be accepted by all, even if they are not the “desired” results. DOW currently is circulating such research proposals and they have been getting support from many of the various stakeholders. It will probably be five or more years until we have results. We will need to make decisions about development in the meantime and we’ll have to make use of the best available science for them, which right now means the Wyoming research (it would be irresponsible to ignore this work just because there are some differences between here and there).
Research, regulations, economics, and public opinion are pushing industry to adopt better and better technology. In 10 years there will probably be some amazing, low impact techniques for extracting gas and oil. Let’s not rest now!
Complaining, even correctly, that some other type of development is worse than the development you or I have a direct financial stake in risks slipping into moral relativism and is certainly a recipe for inaction. (After all, it could be argued that it is immoral to worry about the impacts of housing subdivisions on wildlife when there are people suffering in Myanmar.)
The facts are, there are undeniable negative impacts from gas development. Does this mean we should stop all gas development. No, of course not. We should work to continue to reduce these negative impacts while not unduly inhibiting the positive aspects. It does not have to be all or nothing.
(Partial disclosure: I do a lot of work for the gas industry. I am a member of several professional scientific societies. I live in a house. I drive a car. I heat with gas. My electricity is solar. I really like apple pie. I have been a water drinker and air breather all my life.)
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’ll play.
I do not, nor have I derived any of my annual income from energy related industries.
I do, however, USE petroleum products in the production of my income.
I enjoy having food in the stores, that, without trucks burning hydrocarbon based fuels, would not be there.
The vehicles I drive were hauled in by trucks.
The materials that were used in the construction of my home were manufactured, grown, harvested, and or processed through the copious use of those fuels.
The electricity I use to access the internet and power my computer is generated by those fuels.
The wildlife in the affected areas still graze in the vicinity of drilling rigs, completion rigs, pipeline crews, compressor stations, etc.
There are still rabbits, squirrels, mice, worms, slimy little things that live under rocks in, on, under and around old well sites.
But, my dentist told me to not mention it because his professions enjoys the business from all the teeth gnashing.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That’s quite a list you’ve got there sugarfoot. Could you be just a little more specific about the contact numbers. What exactly was it that I said that set you off? Don’t you think it is important for people to know who it is that is writing the letter? You seem to appreciate the concept of ulterior motive. Why shouldn’t it apply? If I write a letter, feel free to put up your own disclosure post. However, it really should not be based on speculation or innuendo. Was there any part of my post that you couldn’t check out for yourself? I guess that is the difference between us.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 2:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
One.Voice,
I think he made some of those organizations up.
But, to be fair, to him, they are real.
It’s been a problem with nearly all his posts.
He makes stuff up, then convinces himself that his fantasies are real, and he operates from that position.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
No doubt the organizations are real. The problem with his post is that I don’t belong to any of those organizations, and I believe that was the insinuation. Shall I hold my breath for an apology? No, probably not. That could be fatal. So I will just continue to do what I do. Do you remember when proteus called to question my info on Bill Grant, aka Bill Crowell?
I never did ask him if that crow was tasty, but then I am not one to belabor a point.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have noticed that the, seemingly, only response to a request for actual factual data has been ‘because I said so’.
Or, on occasion a ’study’ done in a far away place.
It reminds me of the survey commissioned by Emperor Nero to discover the effects of Violin Playing by firelight on the populace of Rome.
The results were somewhat sketchy, it seems that some people were positively burned up by the very idea.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
One.voice-The organizations aren’t the issue. The mindset and world view they represent is.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What, pray tell, mindset are you referring to?
” Mesa County Republican Party
Craig Meis for Reelection Campaign
Colorado Oil and Gas Association
Club 20
Kathy Hall for Sainthood Coalition
American Nazi Party
Janet Rowland for Reelection Committee
United Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
Ruby Ridge Memorial Assoc.
John Birch Society (Fruita Chapter)
Fascist League of America ”
Are you stating that all these organizations, both real and imagined, have the same ideology?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bruce,
i thank you for the compliment, if that was how it was intended…personally, i detest verbal insults to ones’ intelligence or general name calling as it hampers the valid exchange of ideas and ideals…i wasn’t complaining about community development, i was making a comparison as to how we react towards each differing action….i don’t disregard the wyoming studies, only note that differing environs will produce different results from the studies….as to the sage grouse, they really were having problems prior to the mad rush to drill the roan plateu…i won’t deny that drilling has a negative impact on wildlife, but doubt that it’s as sever as the environmentalists claim…with your experience in the field, i’m sure you know the advances that have been made for drilling…
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
One.voice- You should inform your running buddy (WLJ) that if he doesn’t know what mindset and world view the referenced organizations represent (in one form or another), he’s even more intellectually challenged that many of us have suspected since the beginning of the “Willis Show.”
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot,
And pray tell, what does that have to do with me?
Do you have contact info for that Ruby Ridge Memorial association, just for the files, of course?
At least what I post is verifiable aka the truth.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
one.voice and sugarfoot, what in the world does what you 2 have been spouting at each other have to do with the subject at hand?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot,
If you have something to tell Willis, tell Willis. You insult my intelligence and then want me to run errands for you. Maybe you should hold your breath.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Would somebody please the small minded little child that refuses to speak to me that his list has quite different ‘mindsets and world views’.
So, once again (why must I keep repeating myself as though I’m speaking to a slow learner?)
” Willis_Leon_Johnson
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:15 pm PM This User Report this comment
What, pray tell, mindset are you referring to?
” Mesa County Republican Party
Craig Meis for Reelection Campaign
Colorado Oil and Gas Association
Club 20
Kathy Hall for Sainthood Coalition
American Nazi Party
Janet Rowland for Reelection Committee
United Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
Ruby Ridge Memorial Assoc.
John Birch Society (Fruita Chapter)
Fascist League of America ”
Are you stating that all these organizations, both real and imagined, have the same ideology? ”
The Klan has more democrat members than republican.
Ditto on the fascist league and the nazi party.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot
Running buddy? My God, you are dense. I take back everything I said about you being a man amongst men. You should your mind right.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hitek, I just don’t understand it.
A couple of days ago he kept telling everybody that he loves me and agrees with everything I say, and no he won’t even talk to me.
Wuz I supposed to give him a sucker as a reward for something?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
American Patriot
Running buddies? What on earth was that about? Why don’t you PM me about that?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 4:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
hitekredneck,
The compliment was sincere.
True, the sage grouse was having problems. Many groups have come together to address those problems. O&G drilling in key grouse habitat may completely dismantle the hard work over several years of many people who have worked very hard. In general, O&G is trying to be constructive. The folks on the ground that I know in O&G are sincere, noble, and hard-working. The O&G lawyers, on the other hand, are doing their best to pretend compromise is a dirty word.
In some cases the situations are not nearly so dire as what “the environmentalists” claim. In some cases, “the environmentalists” are underestimating the impacts. We may not know for 5-10 years. In which case, it may be too late to undo some of the impacts.
It ain’t going to be easy to find “balance.”
Signing off. I’m off to work.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.