HaloScan.com - Comments

AFAIK at least one of the routes used by NP/GN to serve the Twin ports is still in use by BNSF. Lease some track usage from them, run 2 to 4 trains a day each way and save millions, IF YOU HAVE TO, which we don't.
Loren | 11.24.07 - 11:16 am | #

Oil is $98/barrel. When W took office it was $28. We need to develop transportation that is not oil dependent.
some made up name | 11.24.07 - 11:36 am | #

Here's a clue, SMUN: The Choo-Choo is electric. It burns coal or nuclear power, albeit indirectly.
It's not a solution, it's a toy.
Kermit | Homepage | 11.24.07 - 12:03 pm | #

SMUN - Would you mind explaining why you stated the price of oil per barrel in regards to GWB?

You do know that year after year the price of oil has gone up due to futures trading and expanding usage markets such as India and China, dont you? Traders are playing on supply and demand. There is a very high demand coupled with a preceived low supply. Want to blame someone? Blame those who trade oil for a living.

The POTUS has ZERO to do with the price of gas.
Jeremy A | 11.24.07 - 12:05 pm | #

"The Choo-Choo is electric. It burns coal or nuclear power, albeit indirectly." But its not oil. And based on what people in the know are saying, we are looking at reduced production worldwide and increased demand from the third world. Its going to cost us a lot to drive -- we need to look at alternatives.
Libertas | 11.24.07 - 12:07 pm | #

"The POTUS has ZERO to do with the price of gas." It is hard to believe that his foreign policy, especially when it comes to the middle east, has not had some effect. As I posted earlier, reduced production and increased demand play the biggest role.

And the decreasing supply is more than perceived based on what most experts say.
Libertas | 11.24.07 - 12:09 pm | #

The decreased supply is artificial. We have plenty of oil. It's the political will we're short on.
Kermit | Homepage | 11.24.07 - 12:41 pm | #

According to the latest estimates there are now 1.2 trillion barrels of oil in reserve, up from an estimated 980 billion barrels in 1995.

Since 1995 the world has consumed more then half a billon barrels of oil (remember 980 billion left in 1995) and now we have more then a trillion barrels. By my math, not only did we use about half of what was left, we have added 700 billion barrles.

Infact, over the last 20 years, the reserves in the Middle-East have doubled.

http://www.opec.org/library/FAQs...Industry/ q1.htm

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/ar...04/ msg00143.htm
Jeremy A | 11.24.07 - 12:43 pm | #

I dont have time to find the links now but there are plenty of petroleum experts who believe the opposite. In fact, by most measures, no one knows how much oil is in the Middle east since that data is very closely guarded.

Demand is going to continue to grow dramatically, with demand coming from the third world primarily.
Libertas | 11.24.07 - 2:44 pm | #

"...no one knows how much oil is in the Middle east since that data is very closely guarded."

The first link I posted was from OPEC (ya know, of the Middle-East). They published the oil reserve info this year (if thats what you mean by closely guarded).
Jeremy A | 11.24.07 - 2:49 pm | #

based on what people in the know are saying, we are looking at reduced production worldwide
the decreasing supply is more than perceived based on what most experts say
no one knows how much oil is in the Middle east

See how easy that is?
Kermit | Homepage | 11.24.07 - 3:14 pm | #

Shhhh, I have a Middle-East secret.

Ohh, back to the post - what a waste of money. All of the trains added up, will serve 1-2% of our population.

Wow.
Jeremy A | 11.24.07 - 3:28 pm | #

"The first link I posted was from OPEC (ya know, of the Middle-East). They published the oil reserve info this year (if thats what you mean by closely guarded)." Wow, that must be one hell of a dipstick. They have no friggin idea how much they have left -- any estimate is a guess.
Al Gore | 11.24.07 - 7:05 pm | #

Damn. Al makes an honest observation.
Kermit | Homepage | 11.24.07 - 7:09 pm | #

"any estimate is a guess."
No shit?
maxx | 11.24.07 - 7:23 pm | #

Jeremy A-

Valid points, you are commended, for what that's worth. I did drill in to your deeplinks, info seems valid.

LRT is a boondoggle for sure.

If people want to beef about oil prices, what about drilling in Alaska or off the coast? How come we haven't built a refinery in the state of Minnesota in thirty years? What about nuclear energy?

The libs have made their bed and now want everyone else to sleep in it. And blame others.

Pathetic? Sure. In truth, the argument holds no water.

We as conservatives are well aware that change must happen. Oil is finite. What we (speaking for myself) can't stand is the need for immediate change and jamming LRT and ethanol down our throats. Science needs to catch up with efficient energy usage and we're not there yet.

Jimmy
Fighting Amish | Homepage | 11.24.07 - 9:47 pm | #

Okay, I'll ceed that an estimate is just a guess. However, if I had a product that was in high demand and I knew that supply was not limitless, I would under estimate what supply I did have left to create a greater profit.

That's just me.

And Jimmy, I agree with you point for point.
Jeremy | Homepage | 11.24.07 - 10:36 pm | #

Somewhere and I can't find it right now I have seen an interview with Bill Richardson when he was Clinton's Energy Sec. He stated that the US goverment has ABSOLUTELY no control over the price of gas. I am sure he meant except for all the taxes I am sure. Have things changed now or do the same dems believe that W does wield this power?
OFFICER | 11.24.07 - 10:37 pm | #

"Have things changed now or do the same dems believe that W does wield this power?"

Silly Officer. Don't you know that the if the "moron in chief" could:

blow up the WTC and the Pentagon, cause Katina to destroy New Orleans
and start the Earth on a downward path to becoming a charred cinder
through Bush-made global warming,

then increasing the price of a barrel of oil is mere child's play? He probably left that to Cheney in his spare time- when Dick isn't plotting the next illegal war or finding new ways to usurp our civil rights.
jokin | 11.25.07 - 3:16 am | #

It's hard to understand where Kermit gets the idea that I don't realize trains require electricity and therefore coal. Oil is the issue. Simple fact: the price of oil has tripled in the last 7 years, blame it on Bush or not, I don't care, but simple supply and demand tells you that the supply of oil is not enough and at the rate we are consuming you can't credibly bury your head in the sand.
some made up name | 11.25.07 - 10:34 am | #

"the supply of oil is not enough and at the rate we are consuming you can't credibly bury your head in the sand."

Agreed! Now, why won't our friends on the left get their heads out of the sand and let us develop our own oil reserves and increase our refining capacity? A grand compromise should be made by both parties, to commit to an energy-independent America by 2015, developing ALL energy sources,
including nuclear.
jokin | 11.25.07 - 11:20 am | #

Sorry, I was dusting the sand off my keyboard. We don't know how much oil is in the ground. It's bubbling up out of the ocean floor. Some geologists speculate that it's not really a fossil fuel, but a regenerating commodity.
One thing is absolute: at $100 a barrel we will produce much more than we do now. That cost also makes shale oil much more attractive and we have mountains of it.
Kermit | Homepage | 11.25.07 - 12:42 pm | #

The truth is we can only guess how much is left. Most people agree that the low hanging fruit has been plucked -- the oil that is left is not only much more expensive to get but getting it does permanent damage to the environment.

I would guess that ANWR will come up. Based on what I have read, the amount of oil there would supply something like 3 years of US demand. Hardly worth decimating the area for it. I have been there -- the beauty of it takes your breath away.
Al Gore | 11.25.07 - 3:27 pm | #

the amount of oil there would supply something like 3 years of US demand
Yes, if it was the exclusive supply. You guys always play that game. It's disingenuous.
Kermit | Homepage | 11.25.07 - 3:36 pm | #

Al, are you sure you have been to the place in ANWR where they would drill? The latest pictures I saw of the one proposed site showed virtually nothing there. You may be thinking of another part of ANWR, which wouldn't be decimated either.

Oil is the issue.

Wait a minute SMUN, I thought carbon was the issue? Won't these trains that burn coal also contribute to more global warming? Is it oil or coal we need to stop burning? Or both?
Larry | 11.25.07 - 5:43 pm | #

We really need to add another lane to I-94 in Rogers, MN. before spending another cent on rail. On Thanksgiving, it was like a parking lot for many miles. It's also bad everyday after work if you don't time it right. Imagine the increased pollution because of this.
dare2sayit.com | Homepage | 11.25.07 - 6:01 pm | #

"We really need to add another lane to I-94 in Rogers, MN." Or utilize the Northstar line, when it is available.
Al Gore | 11.25.07 - 9:26 pm | #

"The latest pictures I saw of the one proposed site showed virtually nothing there. " It depends on your definition of "nothing there". I obviously did not visit all of it but talked to the rangers there and it is all teeming with wildlife. It hardly seems worth permanently affecting a pristine wildlife area for 3 years worth of oil.
Al Gore | 11.25.07 - 9:29 pm | #

It hardly seems worth permanently affecting a pristine wildlife area for 3 years worth of oil.
There you go with the LIES again. 3 years if it was the ONLY SOURCE available. Don't you ever get tiered of being a dupe?
Kermit | Homepage | 11.25.07 - 10:26 pm | #

Al, I HAVE been there (ANWR), flown over it in both directions, and seen the technology that is now being used. The "wildlife" has increased by 300% since Prudhoe Bay oil was tapped using OLD technology, and "decimated" several hundred acres of the 23 MILLION acres of the National Petroleum Reserve (North Slope). ANWR, next to it, is another 19 million acres, of which some 2000 acres, or .0001 of the total! Drill Away! If the caribou can't survive on 99.99% of their range, they'll just have to adapt. So far, they seem to have done so markedly well.

The only solution we do NOT need to our energy problems is more government "help." With the price of oil at $100/barrel, the free market will quickly step in and find a way to make electricity in other ways and to fuel automobiles other ways. It's already happening. NOT spending Billions on 1900s rail technology would help a lot.
J. Ewing | 11.25.07 - 10:31 pm | #

"NOT spending Billions on 1900s rail technology would help a lot." Agree -- we need to be updating the rails to accommodate the high speed train technology that exists in Europe and Japan.

"There you go with the LIES again. 3 years if it was the ONLY SOURCE available." I am not sure what difference it makes -- combined or on its own. There is not enough oil there to justify potentially screwing up a pristine wildlife area.

"decimated" several hundred acres of the 23 MILLION acres of the National Petroleum Reserve (North Slope)." I am guessing you forgot the pipeline. They will need to get the oil out of ANWR and unless they can beam it out, they will have to build a pipeline.
Al Gore | 11.26.07 - 8:27 am | #

Al the pipeline would go over barren slopes to the artic.

ANWR isn't the only place we can drill and oil isn't the only source of energy we can use. The Germans in WWII used coal to produce fuel. We have lots of coal. Of course you don't want us to use that either.

Every form of energy has problems. Mining and drilling is a messy business. Nuclear has the waste problem (greatly overstated IMHO). Hydro kills fish. Windmills kill birds. Solar takes up to much space and costs to much. Ethanol starves children.

Each form has its place and eventually the cost of oil will probably make another form much more attractive. However, for now, oil is what fuels our economy and we can do things that will reduce its cost.
jay | 11.26.07 - 8:49 am | #

But jay, those are only mexican children that are starving and we just won't worry about them for now, we have politics to push. Truely sad, I wish that part of ethanol received more coverage.

To those on here who support the ethanol movement, I pose a question. How much ethanol do you now use in a given month?
Larry | 11.26.07 - 9:24 am | #

ANWAR, Ethanol, Nuclear, etc, etc, etc...

Has anyone noticed that the problems we have all seem to be caused, not by the free market, but by politicians and government?

Again...Al and his ilk cannot compete in a free world and a free market. They need the force of government to make people bend to what their beliefs are as well as force the people who don't support it, to pay for it.
Brent | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 9:30 am | #

Right now, all of our regular gas is 15% ethanol by government regs in Minnesota. Most states are lower, but will be increasing that number. That's the biggest push on ethanol demand.
As Larry mentioned, the food is a worldwide commodity. The US is partially responsible for rising commodity prices, and ethanol proponents have to understand that. Even when they fill up the Subaru, they got to know they are starving a few South American children.
john wayne of mn | 11.26.07 - 9:48 am | #

You know...rather than try to travel back in time to bygone era of trains...I think we just skip that and go right back to horse drawn buggies.

Hell...France is thinking about it!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/ en...665984020071121
Brent | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 11:54 am | #

Trains may be 19th century technology, but they still seem popular in the 21st.
http://www.charlotte.com/171/sto...ory/ 377198.html
some made up name | 11.26.07 - 12:05 pm | #

Al, I think J. Ewing made some valid points that need to be addressed by you:

"The "wildlife" has increased by 300% since Prudhoe Bay oil was tapped using OLD technology... True or false Al?

And this from jay: "Al the pipeline would go over barren slopes to the artic." True or flase Al? bar*ren: Bare of vegetation - having no trees or other growing plants.

Al, rather then playing the, "It will kill the wildlife" card, why not research what you say. The wildlife is thriving in the Prudhoe Bay area. Also, the pipelines will run through an area that is no different then a frozen desert. Harldy a prestine wildlife area.

http://www.anwr.org/features/pdf...ribou- facts.pdf

http://www.heartland.org/Article....cfm? artId=1123
Jeremy A | 11.26.07 - 12:16 pm | #

SMUN:

Charlotte's coming-out party for light rail Saturday drew unexpectedly large crowds of curiosity seekers who flooded trains for a glimpse of the city's new era of mass transit.

We had that too...

Too bad that is only temporary and that it will more than likely be a boondoggle like ours, requiring people who don't use it, and receive no benefit for it, to pay for it year after year.

I just love how people insist that regression is progress.
Brent | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 12:44 pm | #

"We had that too..."

And you know perfectly well our daily ridership has been way beyond predictions. If curiosity is that high in Charlotte, I bet it will be a success down there. Taxes will always pay for things I don't necessarily use, but if they make my community better off overall, they do benefit me. It's called enlightened self-interest. Brent, you live in a community, whether you acknowledge it or not.
some made up name | 11.26.07 - 12:56 pm | #

SMUN...and you know perfectly well that our projected rider ship, prior to the LRT opening, was artificially low so that any increase would be seen as a positive.

The Hiawatha line has done NOTHING that the Ventura administration said that it would.

The only benefit that the Hiawatha line has provided is some economic redevelopment of the Hiawatha Corridor. Just like former Gov. Carlson pitched it to us and we rejected it.
Brent | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 1:22 pm | #

The oil from ANWR will come out via the existing pipeline. One of the reasons the caribou have increased in numbers is because it's warmer under the pipeline than out on the tundra. And the "haul road" alongside it is a favorite lounging spot for the caribou, since there are fewer mosquitoes up on the road. We sometimes wait for an hour for them to move off. The caribou wonder right through the hotel in Prudhoe Bay if the doors are left open. Arctic fox hunt in the parking lot. Birds flock to the area's ponds because they're a bit protected behind the (few) buildings. The Arctic Ocean there is the cleanest water I've ever seen. And again, that's with the OLD technology. The new technology can extract oil from 10,000 square miles from a pump station the size of a residential garage. I can imagine the caribou and all the other wildlife easily walking around it, or even through it. Can you?

As for trains, it's still 19th century technology, and you can't run HST downtown. People are getting killed with the speeds they run now. Yes, ridership is twice expectations. All that means is that, instead of it being cheaper to provide every rider with a chauffeured limousine, they'll have to double up in the limousine. Really, do the math! Of course, we need light rail to reduce congestion on the roads. In fact, if I do the math, considering we have removed bus service from the Light Rail route, we have improved congestion by .... um, carry the 2... oh, yeah, NOTHING!

The point in all of this is the same. Energy markets should be free to meet demand with minimum government interference and all REASONABLE care for the environment. There is currently an excess of government interference and environmental alarmism at work. We may disagree on the exact "breakpoint" of what is reasonable, but the current state is far beyond that and being pushed further.
J. Ewing | 11.26.07 - 1:25 pm | #

"our projected rider ship, prior to the LRT opening, was artificially low..."

I don't think that's proven at all. It's a simple fact that the trains bring thousands of people to work downtown quickly. It's also a big attraction for tourists and conventioneers. They bring in tax dollars. Roads don't exactly make money, but they are infrastructure that facilitates commerce. LRT is the same thing.
some made up name | 11.26.07 - 2:16 pm | #

I don't think that's proven at all.

When I get home I'll see if I can't dig up my research on the subject.

I did a rather large research project on this before it was built and part of my findings were used in congressional debates...trust me when I say that the ridership numbers were in debate from the VERY beginning as being too low.
Brent | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 2:19 pm | #

Were they actually counting heads, or were they just estimating actual ridership?
Kermit | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 2:21 pm | #

Don't quote me on this until I can find the facts...but I think that the Hiawatha ridership numbers assumed that there wasn't going to be a decrease in bus service...but since there was a decrease in bus service, the alternative was LRT...and thus the ridership numbers looked better than they actually were.
Brent | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 2:26 pm | #

This isn't what I was looking for, but it does clearly show what I am trying to get across.

Initial ridership was guesstimated at 425,000 a year.

http://www.metro-magazine.com/t_...cfm? id=90509628

That works out to just over 8000 riders a week or about 1150 a day.

Now...I'll have to look up the census data, but I think that there is about 250,000 people that commute to MPLS a day to work, per day...so you can see how a number like 1150 riders HAS to be a low ball...otherwise, how would you justify building it?
Brent | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 2:37 pm | #

Were they actually counting heads, or were they just estimating actual ridership?

Kermit...what are you babbling about?
Brent | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 2:38 pm | #

Something else from the Metro Magazine link from above:

Among factors most responsible for the inflated ridership (compared with expectations) is the fact that the average number of riders on weekends has been about four times the projection. Another unexpected bounce was that on weekdays, office workers in the downtown are taking the train to restaurants “down the line” for lunch. Events at the Metrodome — home of the Minnesota Vikings, Minnesota Twins and University of Minnesota Golden Gophers — are well served by the Hiawatha line.

If you're telling me that the people who do the ridership estimating didn't take into consideration at least some of these factors, the I submit to you that they should be fired and we shouldn't even attempt any new projects until we can get some competent people in there!
Brent | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 2:41 pm | #

Babbling? You keep talking about estimates. Where are the hard numbers? Are there any? Go to the Met Council website and try to find a breakdown by month. There's nobody taking tickets.
Kermit | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 2:56 pm | #

Kermit...did you go to a public school by any chance?

It is a little difficult to get "hard" numbers before a train opens.

The MPLS Mafia, who railroaded us into this LRT boondoggle, estimated 425,000 riders in the first year. The actual number was 770,000.

They get this number not by the tickets taken but by tickets purchased.

Party too much this past weekend?
Brent | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 3:24 pm | #

Kermit, maybe you should go back to trying to argue that the civil war wasn't really a civil war.
some made up name | 11.26.07 - 3:46 pm | #

SMUN, to quote that great statesman Foghorn P. Leghorn, "Woah between the States, son, twahn't nuthin' civil about it!"

Want "hard" numbers? Here's some:

770,000 riders per year = a little over 2000 riders per day. Total cost to build roughly 770 MILLION initial cost. Cost per rider to build = $350,000! Average rider fare =$1.50. Actual operating cost per rider ~= $4.50, so public subsidy of every ride = $3.00. Please, people, quit riding! You're costing us a fortune!
J. Ewing | 11.26.07 - 4:00 pm | #

I didn't say anything about hard numbers before it opened, smartass.

SMUN, maybe you should go back to pretending you can argue points.
Kermit | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 4:19 pm | #

Hey Jock, your numbers seem soft, and ahem, not true, honest mistake I'm sure.
http://www.metrocouncil.org/tran...ion/lrt/ lrt.htm
Hiawatha LRT is at 9.5 million rides per year. If you want to analyze the costs, please take in to account redevelopment, conventions, and compare similarly to the cost of roads.
some made up name | 11.26.07 - 4:27 pm | #

"If you want to analyze the costs, please take in to account redevelopment, conventions, and compare similarly to the cost of roads."

Redevlopment along Hiawatha amounts to some new condo units that remain mostly unsold. Meanwhile, local streets around the station have become a log jam of parked cars. Most of which I would bet come from inner ring suburbs.

As for the cost of roads, you really cant place a value on 'em. Roads are directly linked to TRILLIONS of dollars of commerce, development and transportation. If you want to look at the cost/advantage of roads per mile compared to LRT cost per mile, to roads in terms of value and cost will outclip LRT by hundreds of thousands to one.

Apply some logic to your argument.
Jeremy A | 11.26.07 - 5:02 pm | #

"will outclip LRT by hundreds of thousands to one."

You're going to need to prove that. As I already said, roads facilitate commerce. But so does LRT. If you want to compare the two, be sure to include all costs of car culture including military presence in the mideast to protect oil.

Roads cost in other ways too, enabling longer commutes costs time and money from the economy that could be used other productive ways.

"Apply some logic to your argument."

Usually said by people not applying logic to their own.
some made up name | 11.26.07 - 5:14 pm | #

How does driving or busing to a terminal enable shorter commutes? The only financial advantage to the commuter is not paying for parking.
Kermit | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 5:36 pm | #

How does LRT in it's present form "facilitate commerce"?
Kermit | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 5:38 pm | #

"You're going to need to prove that." Roads are the foundation for nearly every avenue of commerce. Infact, name one industry that has zero to do with roads and the use of roads.

"But so does LRT" -- Uhh, how? By bringing people to and from work? The same people that would either take a bus, bike, walk or drive? Or do you mean by transporting goods from the manufacturer to the retailer? Pleeease!

"If you want to compare the two, be sure to include all costs of car culture including military presence in the mideast to protect oil." Thats a joke right? The majority of our foreign oil comes from the Americas. 75% of all our oil consumed comes from the Americas. We, the United States, account for 40% of all of oil consumed, while Canada and Mexico make up the other 35%. The remaining 25% come mostly from Venezula and Saudi Arabia. Infact, we get as much oil from Africa as we do from the Middle East.

Here in Minnesota we get more then 80% of our oil supply from Canada. If we had more domestic drilling in ANWR were opened to drilling.

"Roads cost in other ways too, enabling longer commutes costs time and money from the economy that could be used other productive ways." Would you mind going further into how a shorter commute time could be used more in more productive ways?

Just for fun though I calculated my route from east Saint Paul (by 3M) to Richfield (494 & Lyndale). Total commute time is 101 mins. by bus, while my drive time is just 22 mins. Hmmm, what could I do with an extra hour and 20 mins?
Jeremy A | 11.26.07 - 6:00 pm | #

Oil source: http://wcco.com/seenon/ Good.Ques...l.2.367558.html
Jeremy A | 11.26.07 - 6:01 pm | #

Here in Minnesota we get more then 80% of our oil supply from Canada. If we had more domestic drilling in ANWR were opened to drilling.

What I ment to say is, if we allowed oil drilling in ANWAR, our 80% of oil consumption from Canada would be greatly reduced.

SMUN, I dont expect you to respond to these LOGICAL facts.
Jeremy A | 11.26.07 - 6:04 pm | #

Jeremy, you've succeeded in proving roads are important, which I've never disagreed with, but if you don't understand how LRT facilitates economic activity that has to be considered when looking at the costs of LRT I can't help you.

http://www.dart.org/about/ econom...nomicimpact.asp

Economists from the University of North Texas describe the transit agency's impact simply: "Clearly, DART is helping to stimulate the local economy and to bring new vitality both to the City of Dallas and to the core areas of DART's suburban member cities.

In a study released in September 2005, researchers Bernard L. Weinstein and Terry L. Clower estimate at least $3.3 billion in private funds has been invested by developers at stations along DART's 45-mile light rail system serving Dallas, Garland, Richardson and Plano.

http://www.metrocouncil.org/ tran...ransitpaper.pdf

"the economic return to both the regions and to the states was many times greater than the initial investment. The
analyses also showed that the long-term negative economic impacts of underinvesting were severe."
some made up name | 11.26.07 - 6:52 pm | #

The Met Council painting a rosy picture of it's own fiefdom. What a shock.
So please, detail all that economic development on Hiawatha Ave.
Kermit | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 7:14 pm | #

smun, does our LRT even run by our convention center? I don't think it does. I realize you can have conventions at other places but since it, LRT, is several blocks from the main convention place does it really attract that much business?
Larry | 11.26.07 - 7:35 pm | #

smun, does our LRT even run by our convention center?
Nope. It'll get you downtown from the aeroporto. For another billion it'll get you to downtown St. Paul. Whoopee.
Kermit | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 7:57 pm | #

""The "wildlife" has increased by 300% since Prudhoe Bay oil was tapped using OLD technology... True or false Al?" How would I know? J. Ewing made the claim and I did not see a source.

"Al the pipeline would go over barren slopes to the artic." True or flase Al? bar*ren: Bare of vegetation - having no trees or other growing plants." I can only surmise that you dont travel much and certainly not to wilderness areas. Some people consider the desert barren but it teems with life.

I am guessing if they found oil under lake Superior, you would support drilling for it and dam the permanent damage it does to the environment. You have kids Kermit -- do you give a dam about the world you will leave them?
Al Gore | 11.26.07 - 8:14 pm | #

"LRT, is several blocks from the main convention place"

You must live in the burbs.
some made up name | 11.26.07 - 8:24 pm | #

Seven blocks, actually. That counts as several. And they are some of the most diverse and culturally informative blocks in Minnesota.
Of course you can do it in 10 or so thru the skyways, if you don't get lost.
Kermit | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 8:30 pm | #

You have kids Kermit -- do you give a dam about the world you will leave them?
Of course. I don't want them to live in the Eastern European style Hell-hole you Lefties seem to get all aroused about.

I am guessing if they found oil under lake Superior...
Ooh, what a pathetic straw man that is. Let's see, 10% of the Earth's fresh water as opposed to a barren wasteland by the North Pole. The are soo congruous.
Kermit | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 8:34 pm | #

Same for the Boundary Waters/Quetico? Yellowstone, Yosemite? Would you drill there? Have you ever been there?
Al Gore | 11.26.07 - 9:21 pm | #

I live in the burbs and work in Mpls, as does my wife. She is next to the Target Center and I am next to the U. I asked specific questions and you try and zing me, nice.

Let me try again, and I am asking this seriously. Has convention business gone up since light rail was put in?

And by the way, 7 blocks is a haul in winter for a bunch of folks from warm parts of the country here visiting.
Larry | 11.26.07 - 9:23 pm | #

Al, stuffing more straw in your man doesn't create validity.
Kermit | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 9:36 pm | #

How far away are the hotels Larry? Maybe they get a rest in between. Are you being serious? How far is it in Dallas? The point is we need to keep up with other metros or there are consequences. You can prove otherwise?
some made up name | 11.26.07 - 9:37 pm | #

Jeremy A - It doesn't matter that the US gets its oil primarily from the Americas - prices are set in a world market i.e. the Middle East supply is vital to accomodating the global demand.
Shabadoo | 11.26.07 - 11:00 pm | #

There is no light rail in Vegas smun, and they just happen to be the number 1 convention destination. Are you suggesting we build more casinos?

Has convention business gone up in Mpls since LRT?

I would argue the airport we have pushes away most convention business regardless of what taxpayer subsidized transit we have in place. Should the MN state government start an airline to bring more people here to help business? See where your logic is taking us, where do you draw the line to help business. Cut corporate taxes, lower property taxes, that will bring business.
Larry | 11.26.07 - 11:15 pm | #

Kermit, if someone is planning a large convention and they look at Dallas with a 43 mile system and if they were to look at the Twin Cities without LRT, wouldn't that be a big factor in their decision?

SMUN...try making a fair comparison

MPLS 58.4 SQ Miles
POP 387,970
Metro POP 3,502,891

Dallas 385 SQ Miles
POP 1,232,940
Metro 6,003,967

Same for the Boundary Waters/Quetico? Yellowstone, Yosemite? Would you drill there? Have you ever been there?

I have been to every where that you have listed...many MANY times in fact into the Quetico and BWCA...and if you don't know this, you might want to look it up, but the mineral rights to the BWCA still belong to a family, and they CAN drill/mine in there if they want to. In fact last year when I went in off of the Sawbill Trail, we talked to a guy about it.

Only 222,000 acres of the 1,075,500 acres are protected from mining...according to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act of 1978.

http://www.bwca.cc/historical/ wi...nessactof78.htm

OH...and I found an old prospecting mine in between Jack and Kelly Lakes. Quite interesting if you want cords to go see it, let me know.
Brent | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 7:39 am | #

One thing that I should mention about the mining of the BWCA...it hasn't been done because they can't get the equipment into the area without a special permit, which they aren't being issued (which is good, IMHO) but the geology up there suggests that there are large deposits of silver and, I think, gold.
Brent | Homepage | 11.27.07 - 7:41 am | #

The problem we have here is that the environmental movement has become the permanent home of socialists, misanthropes and gaia-worshippers. It doesn't matter how little the environment is disturbed if it's to make humankind, especially Western Capitalist humankind, better off in some way.

You can tell by the questions asked, like "...if they found oil under lake Superior..." The question simply ASSUMES that drilling for the oil would be a crime, regardless of how it was done, regardless of the impact on the environment. You can talk all about the realities, that this oil could be extracted with zero impact, using technology with a 20-year record of success, and it wouldn't matter. It's a "desecration" to these absolutits. It's the same way with nuclear power. Dr. Teller used to ask people, "Which is more dangerous, sleeping against a nuclear reactor, or sleeping with your wife?" The answer, from a radiation hazard perspective, of course, is that the human body emits far more radiation. But those who oppose nuclear power don't want facts, they want to be frightened, and they want YOU to be frightened or, better still, to die cold and in the dark and leave the planet to the furry critters.
J. Ewing | 11.27.07 - 8:15 am | #

The problem we have here is that the environmental movement has become the permanent home of socialists, misanthropes and gaia-worshippers. "

"It doesn't matter how little the environment is disturbed if it's to make humankind, especially Western Capitalist humankind, better off in some way.The question simply ASSUMES that drilling for the oil would be a crime, regardless of how it was done, regardless of the impact on the environment."

Where do you come up with this shit? I can only assume that the author has not spent any time in wilderness areas. Once you have, you would see the need to protect them now and for future generations.

"make humankind, especially Western Capitalist humankind, better off in some way." How is drilling for oil in wilderness areas, building more roads and generally ignoring the impact we have on the environment making us better off?
Al Gore | 11.27.07 - 8:25 am | #

"There is no light rail in Vegas smun, and they just happen to be the number 1 convention destination. Are you suggesting we build more casinos?"

Play dumb if you wish. I look forward to your cries of "Socialism, socialism!" in the future.
some made up name | 11.27.07 - 9:02 am | #

How is drilling for oil in wilderness areas, building more roads and generally ignoring the impact we have on the environment making us better off?

Well to start with, building more roads into these areas would facilitate better forest management and fire control. The idiotic Executive Order Bill Clinton signed prohibiting the building of roads in National Forests has only made the fire seasons out west worse.
Kermit | 11.27.07 - 9:10 am | #

Al, humankind is better off if it has the energy resources to keep warm, to provide food, clothing and shelter, as well as medical care and travel to those marvelous wilderness areas. FYI, I have been in every one of the National Parks, and spent 3 monnths hiking the High Sierras. I've crossed the North Slope, the Atacama Desert, and the Okeefenokee. Even were that not true, I don't need to be a raging eco-tourist to understand that there is a balance to be struck, and that the current strain of environmental absolutism makes no sense.

Modern environmentalists simply will not and cannot admit that it is possible to take reasonable care of the environment and still extract the natural resources. They also are unwilling to concede the existence of such things as simple cost-benefit analysis, even if the environmental factors are weighed in. Thus they defend things like light rail, which costs ten times what any other solution costs per passenger mile. It's not reasonable, it's emotional.
J. Ewing | 11.27.07 - 11:38 pm | #

"they defend things like light rail, which costs ten times what any other solution costs per passenger mile." The only other option is more roads and given where the future of gas prices will be, LRT will look like a good investment in 10 years.

"there is a balance to be struck, and that the current strain of environmental absolutism makes no sense. " Completely agree. But, from a cost benefit analysis, drilling, for example in ANWR to get the equivalent of about 3 years supply is ridiculous. Even some oil company executives I have spoken to agree they need a much bigger potential hit before they are interested in spending the money it would take to get in there.

There are extremists on both sides of the environmental spectrum. Hell, this administration would gladly open up more National lands to mining and have openly supported privatizing the National Parks and Forest services. Sometimes it takes wackos on both sides for people to take a middle ground.
Al Gore | 11.28.07 - 7:33 am | #

"There are extremists on both sides of the environmental spectrum. Hell, this administration would gladly open up more National lands to mining and have openly supported privatizing the National Parks and Forest services. Sometimes it takes wackos on both sides for people to take a middle ground."

That certainly sounds reasonable, until you get into specifics. Opening National Parks to mining or drilling isn't necessarily a bad thing, depending on where and how it's done. There's lots of gold in Death Valley National Park, for example, but it isn't worth the time and trouble to get it out, and gold mining is a messy business inconsistent with a National Park. Drilling for oil in ANWR can be done with essentially zero impact, and only a few tourists a year will even SEE it. Whether it's worthwhile or not should be left to the oil companies to decide, but with $100/bbl oil, it should be looking better. They "know how to get in there" if the environmental extremists (like Norm Coleman) would get out of the way.

Privatizing the /operation/ of the National Parks sounds strange, like privatizing the public schools, but that doesn't make it a bad idea, especially with that analogy. The NPS takes its "preservation" role to the extreme, sometimes at the expense of its other responsibilities, or even of common sense.

LRT will never be a good investment. In 20 years (while we're still paying ror it), we will have smart cars and smart highways that make LRT even more obsolete than it already is. In 40 years those will be on their way to obsolescence as flying cars fill the skies. Even today, PRT makes far more sense, from any economic, environmental and congestion relief standpoints, than LRT does (but don't tell Ken Avidor).
J. Ewing | 11.28.07 - 8:51 am | #

...drilling, for example in ANWR to get the equivalent of about 3 years supply is ridiculous.

While this might be true (no one really know for certain) you keep stating this as if this would be our only source of oil when it wouldn't be. If we were allowed to drill, I'm willing to bet that it would run for a lot longer than 3 years.
Brent | Homepage | 11.28.07 - 8:54 am | #

Besides that, having three additional years of oil sounds like a lot. It's three years more supply than we have now. Now all we have to do is find a few more-- the coasts of Florida would be good, and at $100/ bbl we should be able to extract oil from the huge shale oil deposits in Wyoming.
J. Ewing | 11.28.07 - 9:53 pm | #

Aaaarrghh! It's three years if it was the SOLE FRIGGIN SUPPLY!!! Can't anyone get this shit straight?
Kermit | Homepage | 11.28.07 - 9:58 pm | #

"The NPS takes its "preservation" role to the extreme, sometimes at the expense of its other responsibilities, or even of common sense."

Such as in WWII, when they wouldn't let
the Army place a radar station in the
most strategic location on Oahu, which
greatly hampered chances for the
detection of the Japanese air-attack on
Pearl Harbor.
jokin | 11.29.07 - 12:45 am | #

Kermit, sometimes you have to accept the opponent's false premise in order to point out that, even IF that statement were true, the arguments made from it do not hold water (or oil).

Face it, the people saying these things are not reasonable; they're environmental absolutists trying to pose as reasonable people. If they really believed what they were
saying-- that the oil companies "didn't know how" or "weren't interested" or that it "wasn't worth doing"-- they would quit saying those things and focus their energies elsewhere, secure in the knowledge that ANWR would "protect itself" by being as "worthless" as they say it is for oil purposes. But anybody that believes $1 Trillion worth of oil is not worth sacrificing 5/100,000 of a wildlife refuge for is obviously not running on a full tank.
J. Ewing | 11.29.07 - 9:36 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan