Farmington city council strikes down proposed Albuquerque flight...

May 11, 2013 Read more: Farmington Daily Times 212

Farmington city council did not approve a proposed subsidized flight route from Four Corners Regional Airport to Albuquerque during a special work session Friday morning.

Read more
see

Santa Fe, NM

#82 May 19, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>

the Democrats crashed the economy 2008.
you lie about everything. You make the rest of your post irrelevant by destroying your credibility in the first sentence.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#83 May 19, 2013
Lobo Viejo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are either profoundly ignorant, or a liar. Which is it?
Unemployment rate in Farmington is currently 6.7% which is exactly the state rate. Farmington unemployment rate has been steadily DECREASING since 2010 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LAUMT35221403... Decreasing unemployment is a sign of economic recovery. Look at the numbers and you are about half way back to where we were before Bush crashed the economy in 2008.
The NM rig count has climbed EXACTLY back to where it was in 2008 http://www.nmoga.org/rig-count If you think that the Democrats in Santa Fe have somehow targeted the petroleum industry in San Juan County, while allowing Lea County to recover, you would appear to be delusional.
Shall we look at production numbers?
Do your homework next time so you don't come off as a brooding cry baby who is awash in his own world of negativity.
You apparently either didn't know, of "forgot", that Merrion and Berrett of Denver ended their 1 year partnership to drill for shale oil in the San Juan Basin....without drilling a single well.

Until steel hits rock, it's all smoke and mirrors.
uuh

Santa Fe, NM

#84 May 19, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect.
I don't know a single municipality that pumps groundwater directly into people's home. They filter and treat it first.

much of new mexico is on wells. You sure you are from around here?

Much smarter to avoid pollution in the first place - especially ground water
holy

Santa Fe, NM

#85 May 19, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>

If, by slim chance, mankind does something that gets something into the water, we simply filter it out. No groundwater is "lost forever".
crap! Could you be more stupid? It certainly is lost if it is not potable without extensive and incredibly expensive treatment.
thank

Santa Fe, NM

#86 May 19, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
Government is the enemy.
.
you, Tim McVeigh.

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

#87 May 19, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently either didn't know, of "forgot", that Merrion and Berrett of Denver ended their 1 year partnership to drill for shale oil in the San Juan Basin....without drilling a single well.
Until steel hits rock, it's all smoke and mirrors.
OK, but we were talking about your erroneous statements on unemployment and the rig count. I am not surprised that you changed the subject without admitting you were wrong.

Now do you really expect any of us to believe that shale oil is going to make or break the economy of San Juan County? What is the county going to do when all the coal and petroleum up there have been extracted? Maybe Farmington could evolve into a new gay-friendly vacation destination. All the packer companies could even keep their same name but, instead of packing oil wells, they would pack ... well you get the idea.
yeah

Santa Fe, NM

#88 May 19, 2013
Lobo Viejo wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, but we were talking about your erroneous statements on unemployment and the rig count. I am not surprised that you changed the subject without admitting you were wrong.
Now do you really expect any of us to believe that shale oil is going to make or break the economy of San Juan County? What is the county going to do when all the coal and petroleum up there have been extracted? Maybe Farmington could evolve into a new gay-friendly vacation destination. All the packer companies could even keep their same name but, instead of packing oil wells, they would pack ... well you get the idea.
considering nickel's regressive attitudes and denial of science, it is no wonder that the only future he sees is whoring out whatever is left of the old extraction industries and sacrificing basic protections as part of the sick bargain. While extraction will probably always be part of the mix, it is really time to be smarter. However, I'm not sure if the ugliest city in the state will ever attract the gay traveler, unless it really goes belly-up and gets reinvented as a post-industrial artist colony.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#89 May 19, 2013
holy wrote:
<quoted text>
crap! Could you be more stupid? It certainly is lost if it is not potable without extensive and incredibly expensive treatment.
Could YOU be more stupid? Filtration and treatment is available to anyone who can afford to drill a well. It is NOT "incredibly expensive". You are the true purveyor of doom and gloom. You need to study up on modern tech.

Ever hear of sand filtration? Membrane filtration? Carbon block? Ceramic block? Chlorination? UV? Dechlorination? Desalination? I have a filter the size of a gatorade bottle that can pump water from the proverbial "muddy hoofprint" and turn it into clean, safe, crystal clear drinking water. Last time I used it, we filtered water from a cattle guard along a dirt road.

All of that tech is available in home sized units as well. It's being used, today, to treat well water, or in systems that collect rainwater from roofs. And it's all priced well within reach of the average homeowner.

Ever test the water from your local municipality? There's likely some pretty unsavory stuff getting through to your morning coffee..and it's all government approved.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#90 May 19, 2013
Lobo Viejo wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, but we were talking about your erroneous statements on unemployment and the rig count. I am not surprised that you changed the subject without admitting you were wrong.
Now do you really expect any of us to believe that shale oil is going to make or break the economy of San Juan County? What is the county going to do when all the coal and petroleum up there have been extracted? Maybe Farmington could evolve into a new gay-friendly vacation destination. All the packer companies could even keep their same name but, instead of packing oil wells, they would pack ... well you get the idea.
No, we were talking about YOUR erroneous statements on unemployment and the rig count. Unemployment remains high in the Farmington area, and the rig count remains low. When oil and natural gas companies are drilling from Texas, Colorado, and Utah, using horizontal drilling technology, in order to access product underneath New Mexico, you know Texas, Colorado, and Utah are doing something right, while New Mexico is doing something wrong.

San Juan County running out of coal, petroleum, and natural gas? Not much chance of that happening anytime in the foreseeable future, what with government regulation shutting down coal mines, and driving oil and gas producers away. Even at full production, there's enough stuff in the ground up here to last many lifetimes.

No, the problem isn't running out of oil, gas, and coal. The problem is government making it too expensive for anyone to get to it. President Obama promised to do just that to coal. It seems to be the goal of the Democrat party to do that with all domestic energy.

The answer? Don't vote Democrat. Ever.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#91 May 19, 2013
Why, looky here: More of what I've predicted is coming true.

http://www.daily-times.com/four_corners-news/...

It looks like the Democrat's chickens are coming home to roost!
What

Santa Fe, NM

#92 May 20, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
a ffin liar. Cleaning up the byproducts of oil and gas or mine wastes in groundwater at a single location costs millions. Your little backpacking water purifier won't do sht.
Right

Santa Fe, NM

#93 May 20, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
these idiots hate society, hate the government and want all services cut and then blame the results on others.
Another

Santa Fe, NM

#94 May 20, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
goal of the Democrat party to do that with all domestic energy.
.
lie

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#95 May 20, 2013
What wrote:
<quoted text>
a ffin liar. Cleaning up the byproducts of oil and gas or mine wastes in groundwater at a single location costs millions. Your little backpacking water purifier won't do sht.
Of course my "little backpacking water purifier" does. That's the beauty of it. And when I can use a little $75 consumer-grade device to totally blow away your lame argument against economic development, it makes the beauty of owning such a device all the more sweet! Hell, I'd pay double for it just for that reason alone.

Now, let's move on destroying the rest of your argument: You stated just a few posts ago that once groundwater was tainted by man, it was "lost forever". Your words, not mine.

Now, you say that cleaning up groundwater costs millions.

Did you realize that you unwittingly admitted that your earlier statement, that once groundwater was "lost" it was "lost forever", was a lie?

Well, your current statement is a lie as well. Homeowners, today, are using filtration tech that was cost prohibitive just ten or twenty years ago. When someone can collect rainwater from their roof on a massive scale..thousands of gallons from a single downpour, and then drink it with no worries of all the crap that gets washed off the roof..including bird feces, which are known to carry more disease than almost any other feces, and do it because of modern, affordable filtration methods, then I think it's wonderful.

Of course, such things don't fit into your belief system, or your agenda. But no matter, such things exist nonetheless out here in the real world....apparently outside of Santa Fe!
you are

Santa Fe, NM

#96 May 20, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
so full of it.

Across the United States, thousands of hazardous waste sites are contaminated with chemicals that prevent the underlying groundwater from meeting drinking water standards. These include Superfund sites and other facilities that handle and dispose of hazardous waste, active and inactive dry cleaners, and leaking underground storage tanks; many are at federal facilities such as military installations. While many sites have been closed over the past 30 years through cleanup programs run by the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. EPA, and other state and federal agencies, the remaining caseload is much more difficult to address because the nature of the contamination and subsurface conditions make it difficult to achieve drinking water standards in the affected groundwater. This report estimates that at least 126,000 sites across the U.S. still have contaminated groundwater, and their closure is expected to cost at least $110 billion to $127 billion. About 10 percent of these sites are considered "complex," meaning restoration is unlikely to be achieved in the next 50 to 100 years due to technological limitations. At sites where contaminant concentrations have plateaued at levels above cleanup goals despite active efforts, the report recommends evaluating whether the sites should transition to long-term management, where risks would be monitored and harmful exposures prevented, but at reduced costs.

http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Alternatives-Manag...
Misunderestimate Me

United States

#97 May 20, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
Why, looky here: More of what I've predicted is coming true.
http://www.daily-times.com/four_corners-news/...
It looks like the Democrat's chickens are coming home to roost!
From your link,

"Faced with pending cuts to state and federal funding, the agencies — the ones that shelter the homeless, care for abused children and provide addiction treatment — are increasingly looking to local government for assistance."

Meanwhile, Gov Sucia is handing out corporate subsidies like candy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#98 May 20, 2013
you are wrote:
<quoted text>
so full of it.
Across the United States, thousands of hazardous waste sites are contaminated with chemicals that prevent the underlying groundwater from meeting drinking water standards. These include Superfund sites and other facilities that handle and dispose of hazardous waste, active and inactive dry cleaners, and leaking underground storage tanks; many are at federal facilities such as military installations. While many sites have been closed over the past 30 years through cleanup programs run by the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. EPA, and other state and federal agencies, the remaining caseload is much more difficult to address because the nature of the contamination and subsurface conditions make it difficult to achieve drinking water standards in the affected groundwater. This report estimates that at least 126,000 sites across the U.S. still have contaminated groundwater, and their closure is expected to cost at least $110 billion to $127 billion. About 10 percent of these sites are considered "complex," meaning restoration is unlikely to be achieved in the next 50 to 100 years due to technological limitations. At sites where contaminant concentrations have plateaued at levels above cleanup goals despite active efforts, the report recommends evaluating whether the sites should transition to long-term management, where risks would be monitored and harmful exposures prevented, but at reduced costs.
http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Alternatives-Manag...
A website citing government statistics, using more government statistics, stating that many of the supposed contaminated sites were created by government, and stating that water quality doesn't meet government standards, doesn't really fly with me. It's merely another bunch of nonsense that gives government the excuse to perpetuate itself by "cleaning up" problems either it itself caused, or due to ever stringent, unattainable mandates that government itself places upon water quality. Most of the people of the world drink water than doesn't meet U.S. water quality standards, yet they live healthy, happy lives, with no ill effects.

Interestingly, I don't see the oil and gas industry mentioned anywhere in there...so what were you talking about again?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#99 May 20, 2013
Misunderestimate Me wrote:
<quoted text>
From your link,
"Faced with pending cuts to state and federal funding, the agencies — the ones that shelter the homeless, care for abused children and provide addiction treatment — are increasingly looking to local government for assistance."
Meanwhile, Gov Sucia is handing out corporate subsidies like candy.
And there you go lying again. Governor Martinez has not handed out a single corporate subsidy.

Now if you want to look at subsidies, check out your buddy Barack Obama:

"Obama spends 11 million to create each "green" job"

http://www.naturalnews.com/040396_green_energ...
more

Santa Fe, NM

#100 May 20, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>

denial of reality.

Just one article:

Nature, frequency, and cost of environmental remediation at onshore oil and gas exploration and production sites


This article quantifies the nature, frequency, and cost of environmental remediation activities for onshore oil and gas operations, as determined from over 4,100 environmental remediation cases in Texas, Kansas, New Mexico, and Colorado. For the purpose of this article,“remediation'' refers to cleanup efforts that entail longer-term site characterization, monitoring, and remedial action beyond the initial spill cleanup or emergency response stage. In addition, data are also presented regarding short-term spill cleanup activities in two of the four states

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/re...

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#101 May 20, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
And there you go lying again. Governor Martinez has not handed out a single corporate subsidy.
Now if you want to look at subsidies, check out your buddy Barack Obama:
"Obama spends 11 million to create each "green" job"
http://www.naturalnews.com/040396_green_energ...
And a year later the company is bankrupt and taxpayers once again got hosed by another Obamanation they can't collect upon.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Los Alamos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) 3 hr Mr T 6,325
News ICE Arrests Evangelical Youth Minister Indicted... (Jun '10) 18 hr swedenforever 28
Car accident? Mar 24 LaVel 1
News Small town takes on Corporate America Mar '15 Shopper 2
News Will the Puerto Rico Powerball winner pay Feder... Feb '15 El Cacique 11
espanola nm corruption ;) , i am everywhere a m... Feb '15 thomas 2
espanola,nm open investigation with help of ex ... Feb '15 gallegos tita 1
More from around the web

Los Alamos People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]