![]() |
€uromeinke, FEJ. and Ghoulish Delight RULE!!! NA abides. |
|
![]() |
#1 |
.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,354
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I guess I don't understand how you're using the word "risk." Risk of impact, yes obviously. But that doesn't much bother me.
Risk of harm (where harm is defined as something more than just impact) then I'm not seeing that as significant enough that it impacts my decision making. |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
I Floop the Pig
|
All I'm saying is that we don't have an impressive track record when it comes to getting our industrial infrastructure to coexist with natural environments. I don't have anything to back it up, I'll admit to this being conjecture, but I'd say more often that not that over the long run, presence of human-constructed and run operations in an environment does not have a positive affect on the flora and fauna. Not necessarily disastrous, and not even necessarily an impact that isn't recoverable in the even longer run. But if it's a question of "which is more likely" I fall on the side of it's more likely that a large scale drilling operation will have a net negative impact than a net neutral impact. So that, combined with the rather minuscule projected benefit to oil supply, is enough for me to prefer we just stay out of there.
__________________
'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |