NJCubScouter Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 No posts in this forum can be based on distortions of the facts? Is that a new rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 Leastwise not in the same thread, hey give me a break this is the first 6 pagers in months that I have been able to follow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzy Bear Posted August 18, 2004 Share Posted August 18, 2004 What do you mean by distortion of truth? You have to remember who we are dealing with, WMD=war now! and was it distortion when it was said, "we are not going to be nation builders". I don't think that our system of beliefs and truths are compatible. The brush strokes are larger and cover more canvas than there is picture to paint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted August 18, 2004 Share Posted August 18, 2004 this is from Tall Buffalo Guard's post "...what does the president's energy plan call for in the next four years? besides drilling for gas in philmont and oil in alaska?" I do not know where the concept came from that Bush wants to drill for gas in Philmont when the story that leads this thread is about exploring for natural gas next to Philmont, exploring for gas next to Philmont is a far jump to drilling for gas in Philmont. Both political sides distort the truth, but we dont have to - (This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tall buffalo guard Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 excuse my mistake, sir. let me correct myself and say that each time i wrote the word "in" i should have wrote "next to". that being said, what difference does it make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 It makes a huge difference. The story concerns exploring for natural gas in a national forest, the federal government is the custodian of the National Forest system and it's within its rights to explore/exploit natural gas reserves. Philmont is private property held by a private organization. The federal government has no right to come unto private property and do much of anything. Its like your local community saying next year's 4th of July fireworks will be held in Tall Buffalo Guard's back yard versus next year's 4th of July fireworks will be held in Washington Community Park(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backpacker Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 OGE, your support for Bush I think is based on a false premise. If you look at his positions in drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve, Yellowstone etc. you will see that he and Cheney go full bore for drilling if any resources are found, even when its not economically cost effective. Bush has stated numerous times that the US economy takes priority over its wilderness areas. This was also stated by Christine ToddWhitman, Sec of the Interior. We do not have the right to develop wildlands for little more than a quick temporary fix to a much larger problem and rob future generations of the few wildlands still left out there. If we want to preserve wilderness areas then we must send Bush back to Crawford, look how poorly Texas has treated their wilderness areas. I agree with Tall Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Wait, hold on, don't jump the gun, get your knickers in a twist, et al. I am not sure how insisting that a story not be distorted constitutes support for the person mention in the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Backpacker says: Bush has stated numerous times that the US economy takes priority over its wilderness areas. This was also stated by Christine ToddWhitman, Sec of the Interior. For whatever it's worth, Christine Todd Whitman (usually just called Christie Whitman by those of us in New Jersey, where she was governor before joining the Bush administration) was the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, not Secretary of the Interior. She may very well have made statements about wilderness areas, I am not sure where the boundary is between EPA and Interior on that subject. Her main problem as EPA administrator was that she did not agree with the president on environmental policy (which would tend to be a problem.) Early on she made several statements that were contradicted by the president or vice president, eventually she learned to just say what she was told, and after about 2 years of this, she not surprisingly decided to return to her lovely estate in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, where the environment is very nice and nobody's drilling for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tall buffalo guard Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 the 'oil and gas journal' estimated there to be about 5,500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas left in the entire world. the valle vidal is estimated to have from 28 billion to 57 billion cubic feet of natural gas reserves. sounds like a whole bunch, right? but in 2001 it was estimated, using that years consumption levels, that there was only 64.9 years of natural gas production left for the planet. of course there may be hidden reserves awaiting discovery, so round it off to a nice 70 years left. what is the point in destroying the environment in the valle vidal, not to mention the entire world, when so little gas is left?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovetoCamp Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Couldn't do it(This message has been edited by Trail Pounder) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted August 24, 2004 Author Share Posted August 24, 2004 For what it is worth, I talked to locals in the Cimarron area and most are against the removal of the natural gas in the area. I don't pretend to understand the geoplogy/physics involved but the area has vast, vast coal reserves that have not been mined to date due to cost. Removal of the natural gas, they told me, would tend to devalue the "quality" and thus the price of the existing coal in the area. Any geologists care to explain that better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takehikes Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 I'm a Scouter and live in New Mexico, I also happen to work for a natural gas company and have trekked and visited Philmont many times (sorry all you other guys but we have had Camporees there, it's in our council). So I guess my qualifications make me fairly well suited to comment on this. Most people in the industry know that there are a lot of capped producing wells (last count in NM is about 3500). They are capped as they in the past were not worth running due to the price of natural gas. With the rise in gas prices and consumption there is a real clamour to drill now while its a hot button issue. That is the excuse, believe me it isnt because we dont have any. Then the wells they choose to run will run. The gas companies see an opportunity with oil men in the White House and all over the administration to take advantage of the situation and timing. Fair enough, everyone does. The remarkable part is the party doing this is the supposed defender of states and personal rights and yet they are steamrollering them all over the West. So far as the drilling and prodcution being unobtrusive that is just so wrong. Yes, there are wells that produce with little or no impact. The problem is the damage left behind. It's like the idiot bill our congresswoman wrote about ANWR. It would only have 2,000 acres of impact. Guess why? The figured out how many wells and pads and how many square feet of road and came up with 2000 acres. Reality is miles and miles of roads all over the damn place. Same thing will happen here. You know a great Republican, Teddy Rosevelt knew some places are special and so he saved them. Go to the Valle Vidal and then come back and tell me we should drill. As a side note this president has put less in to wilderness than any president since the act was put in to place and that includes those noted conservationists Ronald Reagan and Bush I. On this issue he is Houstons friend not Scoutings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 NIMBY Is there anyplace that the US can explore for oil that isn't in, or next-to, someplace somebody doesn't want them? You cannot have independence from foreign oil production AND not look for ways to increase domestic oil production. It really is just that simple. Bob White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eamonn Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 With petrol costing $199.9 a gallon, I am not driving the SUV as much it gets 15 miles to the gallon and the cars get over 26 miles to the gallon. With heating oil costing $1.67 a gallon we may cut the heat back a bit this year. I'm pleased to report that my BP stock is doing really well. I'm all for alternative fuels. When I can run the SUV on tap water I'll buy a bigger one and will hopefully have dumped the stock I own in BP. I really do like that oil and gas companies are doing what they can to avoid impacting the environment, but sad as it may be some damage will happen. I bet the deserts in the middle east would look a lot nicer without all them nasty looking oil rigs and pipelines.But it seems it's OK if they are over there. Eamonn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now