|
This is interesting....
"John H." wrote in message
... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:16:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... ;) -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that plentiful in the desert. Actually, solar arrays do their best where there's lots of sunshine and cool temperatures. Then, you don't need any cooling. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8 Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push something else. They really don't want to solve the problem. Nuclear is a good idea. The French and the Brits use lots of it. They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich. Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction? Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn! You keep showing yourself for what you are. I'm sure those pesky, noble, Nobel people are getting their cut also. Right. They're getting rich off the prize money they give out. I get it. Really. I thought you plonked me a couple of times. Are you having filter trouble? -- Nom=de=Plume |
This is interesting....
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... ;) -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that plentiful in the desert. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8 Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push something else. They really don't want to solve the problem. They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich. Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction? Well, he has had 5 secret meetings at the White house so far.. Something the left railed Bush for.. But it's ok for Obama, harryism... -- Wafa free again. You forgot to mention Bill Ayers' recent visits... or Rev. Wright's. -- Nom=de=Plume |
This is interesting....
"H the K" wrote in message
... On 11/3/09 10:08 PM, Tosk wrote: Well, he has had 5 secret meetings at the White house so far. If they were secret meetings, how would a jobless moron like you know about them? Maybe he's really in the CIA or NSA. Or, Occam's Razor would say.... -- Nom=de=Plume |
This is interesting....
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural beauty. We sure don't need it. That is completely stupid and so typical. Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions. Leave the adults alone. You're the one who claimed things shouldn't be preserved because of natural beauty. Like I've said before, you're here with me; I'm not here with you. Get used to it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
This is interesting....
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "H the K" wrote in message ... On 11/3/09 8:37 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural beauty. We sure don't need it. That is completely stupid and so typical. Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions. Leave the adults alone. Awwww...the newsgroup wookie is upset...again. Was stupid. San Francisco already flooded Little Yosemite Valley. Nope. It was Hetch Hetchy. Not part of Yosemite Valley. It's part of the National Park, however. -- Nom=de=Plume |
This is interesting....
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "H the K" wrote in message ... On 11/3/09 8:37 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural beauty. We sure don't need it. That is completely stupid and so typical. Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions. Leave the adults alone. Awwww...the newsgroup wookie is upset...again. Was stupid. San Francisco already flooded Little Yosemite Valley. Nope. It was Hetch Hetchy. Not part of Yosemite Valley. It's part of the National Park, however. -- Nom=de=Plume Hetch Hetchy dam, but the valley was known as Little Yosemite Valley. One of our favorite lakes is Cherry Lake which is not very far away as the crow flys, but a long way by road. One of the Hetch Hetchy system lakes. |
This is interesting....
|
This is interesting....
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19 million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any way at all? We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of people. ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages. Therefore, we should just trash it? I vote no. Actually, I did that last year, so I don't have to do it again until the next election. -- Nom=de=Plume |
This is interesting....
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19 million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any way at all? We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of people. ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages. Here you go... but feel free not to believe it. http://www.alaskatrekker.com/anwr.htm -- Nom=de=Plume |
This is interesting....
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "H the K" wrote in message ... On 11/3/09 8:37 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural beauty. We sure don't need it. That is completely stupid and so typical. Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions. Leave the adults alone. Awwww...the newsgroup wookie is upset...again. Was stupid. San Francisco already flooded Little Yosemite Valley. Nope. It was Hetch Hetchy. Not part of Yosemite Valley. It's part of the National Park, however. -- Nom=de=Plume Hetch Hetchy dam, but the valley was known as Little Yosemite Valley. One of our favorite lakes is Cherry Lake which is not very far away as the crow flys, but a long way by road. One of the Hetch Hetchy system lakes. So, do you think we should do the same to Yosemite? After all, it's just got natural beauty going for it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
This is interesting....
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:11:04 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have our beaches and salt marshes. Don't be so sure Have you heard about "Cape Wind"? Another example of envimoronmentalist hyprocrisy. http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer Globe editorials in support. http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...wind_turbines/ http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...nst_cape_wind/ Fortunately, it looks like it's going to get done. http://www.capewind.org/news1018.htm If Ted Kennedy were alive, it wouldn't be happening. :) |
This is interesting....
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... ;) -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that plentiful in the desert. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8 Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push something else. They really don't want to solve the problem. They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich. Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction? Well, he has had 5 secret meetings at the White house so far.. Something the left railed Bush for.. But it's ok for Obama, harryism... -- Wafa free again. You forgot to mention Bill Ayers' recent visits... or Rev. Wright's. Have they been to a pajama party at the white house? Wouldn't surprise me a bit. |
This is interesting....
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural beauty. We sure don't need it. That is completely stupid and so typical. Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions. Leave the adults alone. You're the one who claimed things shouldn't be preserved because of natural beauty. Like I've said before, you're here with me; I'm not here with you. Get used to it. I think your fat head is about to explode. |
This is interesting....
On 11/3/09 11:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Tom Francis - wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural beauty. We sure don't need it. That is completely stupid and so typical. Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions. Leave the adults alone. You're the one who claimed things shouldn't be preserved because of natural beauty. Like I've said before, you're here with me; I'm not here with you. Get used to it. Now you've gone and done it...you've upset rec.boat's prima donna. |
This is interesting....
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:11:04 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have our beaches and salt marshes. Don't be so sure Have you heard about "Cape Wind"? Another example of envimoronmentalist hyprocrisy. http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer Globe editorials in support. http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...wind_turbines/ http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...nst_cape_wind/ Fortunately, it looks like it's going to get done. http://www.capewind.org/news1018.htm If Ted Kennedy were alive, it wouldn't be happening. :) Wouldn't it be swell if each of those windmills was dedicated and named after a gasbag politician. The windmill "SS Teddy Kennedy" and other Kennedy windmills would be front and center in the Kennedy compound field of view. |
This is interesting....
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:57:28 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote: I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. There are at least 500 windmills visible from I-35 and I-90 between Des Moines and Rochester, Minn. No roads whatever. Not even one. As for oil wells, there are visible moving parts roughly the size of a car that will attract the eye from two miles up. Casady |
This is interesting....
|
This is interesting....
Bill McKee wrote:
"Loogypicker" wrote in message ... On Nov 3, 2:23 pm, Tosk wrote: In article 376ab62b-c969-4f58-9ac0-80139e5831d7 @p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says... On Nov 3, 1:27 pm, NotNow wrote: Tosk wrote: In article fef40ffb-ca78-4a34-97fe-1f5ba4ada116 @v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says... On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... ;) -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Really, these are "off the ground" enough to not effect migration? Bull... This is not far enough off the ground for migration, acres and acres... http://www.treehugger.com/solar-farm-array-bavaria.jpg http://teeic.anl.gov/images/photos/Nrel_flatPV15539.jpg http://green-gossip.com/wp-content/u...bhagats_solar- array.jpg http://images.publicradio.org/conten...6_solar-farm2_ 33.jpg Compared to this... http://www.making-ripples.com/images...image013_2.jpg http://www.questdrilling.com/images/index1.jpg http://www.airphotona.com/stockimg/images/00198.jpg http://www.valleyserver.com/images/R...web%20copy.jpg You tell me which is more invasive.. Besides, do you know how toxic the areas in china where they make these panels is? Manufacturing in the U.S. and thus gaining jobs will fix that. What could be more "invasive" than a fence built on a migration route? Next you'll be trying to tell everyone that mining oil sands is good for the environment. Lovely site, isn't it? http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...son.com/images... I've spent more time on hundreds of drilling rigs in remote places in the western USA than I care to remember. The wildlife paid very little attention to them. In fact, one of the greatest dangers was not from the drilling operations but from the hazard of hitting an elk, deer or antelope while trying to get to the rig. I've been on rig sites that were abandoned and a month later in WY you could not tell where it had been they were so good at replacing the terrain and vegetation. In AK, where the AK pipeline was a major controversy in the early 70s with people worrying about its effect on wildlife, the wildlife ignores it because it is built so they can walk under it. Rig sites are similar, animals ignore them and once the drill rig is gone with the final pumps in place occupying only a few square feet ther eis no effect at all on the animals. I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. Large arrays of solar receivers are likely to be extremely destructive to the local environment by blocking sunlight to the ground and blocking air flow and generally being a permanent impediment to wildlife movement. By contrast, drilling operations are short lived and a producing well is very inobtrusive. Thanks for clarifying that even though I am sure several here will poo, poo, it. Those arrays must destroy the landscape, they allow nothing to "be" around them. Grass, animals, etc. can't survive with them. That is why I have so much cynicism about the proponents, with so many of their arguments being so ridiculous and blatantly false... -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You're against solar power why? I live near one of the largest wind farm areas in the world. The complaints are they kill lots of raptors. And they do. They are high enough that the cows and 4 legged critters do not get hit, but the birds going after the huge rodent populatin are decimated. Go to the Oil Patch of Calif. Taft. Oil pipes and pumps everywhere. Seems to be ok for the rodents, birds and coyotes. Not a lot of deer in the desert. Ummmm, I was talking about solar arrays...... |
This is interesting....
Frogwatch wrote:
On Nov 3, 6:44 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:44:30 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What we need to do is just do it - no pussy footing around. The real problem is that there are too many lawyers wanting to make a buck or two by obstructing permits. And you have a group of environmentalists who hate everything other than technology that doesn't even exist yet. Or even technology that does exist for that matter. I recently read an article (somewhere - maybe CaliBill posted it or knows of it) where a company wanted to build a pilot sun/wind farm in some desolate area of California - nothing around for miles, minimally invasive, no protected plant species or animals to speak of and the project was killed because of the Serria Club's (and others) objection to spoiling the "natural beauty" of the area. That's what has to stop. I have no problem with solar as long as people stop believing it is somehow without environmental problems. BTW, an average oil well or gas well requires far less maintenance than a wind turbine so the roads are used far less. As far as the view is concerned, I'd rather have oil or gas wells than wind turbines. Of course, given the choice between tourism in Florida and oil/gas wells in the Gulf, I'd easily choose oil/gas as being far cleaner than tourism. My home (Florida) has been completely ruined by tourism whereas if our economy had been built on energy we'd still have our beaches and salt marshes. Everything we do leaves a mark on the Earth. It's how big of a mark you want to leave. |
This is interesting....
Tosk wrote:
In article d58153e7-3f18-43a1-a9dc- , says... On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? What the **** are you talking about. Nobody said anything about "kill them all". You keep planting red herrings in your arguments and putting words in folks mouths, it's just crazy. The point is you all cry when a caribou has to walk under or around a pipe or pumping station, but if a republican tries to hunt a bigger predator, you go nuts, just because it's a republican. It's Harry all over again, and again... You're not making any sense pertaining to this conversation. Natural selection has nothing to do with the fact that man is decimating the environment lock stock and barrel., |
This is interesting....
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... ;) -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that plentiful in the desert. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8 Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push something else. They really don't want to solve the problem. They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich. Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction? Probably much less than Haliburton shoved to Bush and Cheney. |
This is interesting....
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? There you go with the words again, Loogy. Go read his post. He said nothing of the sort. Saying, "You think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all" is a f'ing lie. You're doing a lot of that lately. Guess who it's reminiscent of? Uh, John, it wasn't a lie, it was a friggin QUESTION. I don't suppose you'll apologize for calling me a liar either. Guess who that's reminiscent of? |
This is interesting....
Tosk wrote:
In article , says... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... ;) -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that plentiful in the desert. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8 Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push something else. They really don't want to solve the problem. They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich. Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction? Well, he has had 5 secret meetings at the White house so far.. Something the left railed Bush for.. But it's ok for Obama, harryism... Secret meetings? If they are secret, how do you know about them? |
This is interesting....
Tosk wrote:
In article , says... wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately dise ase kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19 million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any way at all? We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of people. ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages. Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington told them to... Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States until we got the pollution under control. |
This is interesting....
In article ,
says... Tosk wrote: In article , says... wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately dise ase kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19 million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any way at all? We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of people. ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages. Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington told them to... Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States until we got the pollution under control. I would ask the same thing of you? Why are you so against new technology in the areas we have already developed? -- Wafa free again. |
This is interesting....
Tosk wrote:
In article , says... Tosk wrote: In article , says... wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately dise ase kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19 million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any way at all? We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of people. ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages. Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington told them to... Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States until we got the pollution under control. I would ask the same thing of you? Why are you so against new technology in the areas we have already developed? Such as? |
This is interesting....
"H the K" wrote in message
... On 11/3/09 11:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Tom Francis - wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural beauty. We sure don't need it. That is completely stupid and so typical. Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions. Leave the adults alone. You're the one who claimed things shouldn't be preserved because of natural beauty. Like I've said before, you're here with me; I'm not here with you. Get used to it. Now you've gone and done it...you've upset rec.boat's prima donna. Apparently, the bad Jim is foaming at the mouth also. I haven't plonked him yet (just not responding to his posts), but he's getting more and more shrill. -- Nom=de=Plume |
This is interesting....
In article ,
says... Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tosk wrote: In article , says... wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately dise ase kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19 million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any way at all? We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of people. ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages. Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington told them to... Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States until we got the pollution under control. I would ask the same thing of you? Why are you so against new technology in the areas we have already developed? Such as? Coal, nuclear, natural gas, OIL!!! -- Wafa free again. |
This is interesting....
On 11/4/09 11:02 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"H the wrote in message ... On 11/3/09 11:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Tom Francis - wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural beauty. We sure don't need it. That is completely stupid and so typical. Go away and play with Harry and jps - they share your delusions. Leave the adults alone. You're the one who claimed things shouldn't be preserved because of natural beauty. Like I've said before, you're here with me; I'm not here with you. Get used to it. Now you've gone and done it...you've upset rec.boat's prima donna. Apparently, the bad Jim is foaming at the mouth also. I haven't plonked him yet (just not responding to his posts), but he's getting more and more shrill. "The Bad Jim" Love it! SW Tom, btw, reminds me of the wookie from star wars...remember that scene in the first movie where it is advised to "Let the wookie win." If SW Tom doesn't think he is winning, he goes bat****. |
This is interesting....
Tosk wrote:
In article , says... Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tosk wrote: In article , says... wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately dise ase kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19 million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any way at all? We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of people. ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages. Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington told them to... Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States until we got the pollution under control. I would ask the same thing of you? Why are you so against new technology in the areas we have already developed? Such as? Coal, nuclear, natural gas, OIL!!! Where did I ever say anything that would leave you to believe that I am against those OLD technologies? Now, show me some of the "new technology" that you are talking about. |
This is interesting....
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:10:23 -0500, Tosk
wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:16:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... ;) -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that plentiful in the desert. Actually, solar arrays do their best where there's lots of sunshine and cool temperatures. Then, you don't need any cooling. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8 Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push something else. They really don't want to solve the problem. Nuclear is a good idea. The French and the Brits use lots of it. They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich. Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction? Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn! You keep showing yourself for what you are. I'm sure those pesky, noble, Nobel people are getting their cut also. The Nobel is just a popularity contest, really has nothing significant to do or prove.. It's a joke, has been for decades... More and more I think it's a money making proposition for the AGW crowd. We know the Canadians are an honest bunch: http://www.canadafreepress.com/printpage.php I believe the scam is much, much bigger than shown there. Mo But not much has been heard about any scam investigation since 'Bama took office. I wonder why? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17814838 http://www.nextgenpe.com/news/boliva...n-offset-scam/ Just type carbon offset scam and get your 24 million hits. Don't you think Gore, 'Bama, et al, have their fingers in that big pot they keep passing around? |
This is interesting....
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:10:23 -0500, Tosk wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:16:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... ;) -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that plentiful in the desert. Actually, solar arrays do their best where there's lots of sunshine and cool temperatures. Then, you don't need any cooling. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8 Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push something else. They really don't want to solve the problem. Nuclear is a good idea. The French and the Brits use lots of it. They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich. Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction? Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn! You keep showing yourself for what you are. I'm sure those pesky, noble, Nobel people are getting their cut also. The Nobel is just a popularity contest, really has nothing significant to do or prove.. It's a joke, has been for decades... More and more I think it's a money making proposition for the AGW crowd. We know the Canadians are an honest bunch: http://www.canadafreepress.com/printpage.php I believe the scam is much, much bigger than shown there. Mo But not much has been heard about any scam investigation since 'Bama took office. I wonder why? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17814838 http://www.nextgenpe.com/news/boliva...n-offset-scam/ Just type carbon offset scam and get your 24 million hits. Don't you think Gore, 'Bama, et al, have their fingers in that big pot they keep passing around? Not as big of a pot as the pig trough Bush and Cheney are feeding from. Remember Halliburton? |
This is interesting....
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:20:11 -0500, NotNow wrote:
Tosk wrote: In article , says... wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately dise ase kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? The real point is why do you think a couple hundred acres in a 19 million square mile refuge is going to seriously affect caribou in any way at all? We cut roads through the middle of national parks all over the country and the deer, antelope and bison are as likely to be around the roads as anywhere else. Grazing animals are not particularly afraid of people. ANWAR is not a pristine land. Former military compounds on it, villages. Seems almost every argument is being nailed here today. Wonder where the honest dems are, seems they can only act like harry and change the subject, or deny the facts all together cause Maddow, and Huffington told them to... Okay, I just don't understand, so please help me. Why does it seem to me that you and other conservatives don't want anything to do with creating and building new technologies and instead just want to keep using fossil fuels? It appears to me that if you all had your way, we'd still be using technology that damned near ruined areas of the United States until we got the pollution under control. Is nuclear energy based on fossil fuels? Loogy, you are sounding more and more flaky. You put words in the mouths of others, you flat out lie about what people say, and then you come up with the ridiculous **** above. |
This is interesting....
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:26:09 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:43:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Perhaps you'd like to flood Yosemite valley? Terrible thing natural beauty. We sure don't need it. I just got back from there. They don't have enough water to flood much of anything. It has all been stolen by San Francisco and the Central Valley. The big waterfalls you always hear about look like a kid ****ing off a bridge. We hiked 5 miles and 1000 vertical feet for this spectacular waterfall http://gfretwell.com/ftp/california/...0waterfall.jpg This one was on the horseshoe road, Also supposed to be spectacular http://gfretwell.com/ftp/california/...terfalling.jpg You did the same amount of hiking, with maybe a tad more vertical, as I did today, and you didn't even get to putt. Heartbreaker! |
This is interesting....
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:03:40 -0500, NotNow wrote:
John H. wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... ;) -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that plentiful in the desert. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8 Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push something else. They really don't want to solve the problem. They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich. Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction? Probably much less than Haliburton shoved to Bush and Cheney. Well, gosh, if Bush did it then a little on the side is OK for Obama, right? (That's called the 'Bush Rationale', which you did quite well.) Is Haliburton not employed by Obama also? Perhaps there is more there than meets the eye. Could 'Bama be getting as much from Halliburton (aka 'KBR') as Cheney ever dreamed of (in your mind? http://www.crocodyl.org/wiki/kbr |
This is interesting....
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:05:31 -0500, NotNow wrote:
John H. wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches on the ridges. By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? There you go with the words again, Loogy. Go read his post. He said nothing of the sort. Saying, "You think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all" is a f'ing lie. You're doing a lot of that lately. Guess who it's reminiscent of? Uh, John, it wasn't a lie, it was a friggin QUESTION. I don't suppose you'll apologize for calling me a liar either. Guess who that's reminiscent of? Your throwing a question mark in there does not change the statement. You need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths, whether you throw a question mark at the end or not. You know damn good and well what he said, and it sure as **** wasn't what you said he said. Apologize - my ass. |
This is interesting....
On Nov 4, 3:38*pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:05:31 -0500, NotNow wrote: John H. wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. *Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches *on the *ridges. *By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? There you go with the words again, Loogy. Go read his post. He said nothing of the sort. Saying, "You think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all" is a f'ing lie. You're doing a lot of that lately. Guess who it's reminiscent of? Uh, John, it wasn't a lie, it was a friggin QUESTION. I don't suppose you'll apologize for calling me a liar either. Guess who that's reminiscent of? Your throwing a question mark in there does not change the statement. You need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths, whether you throw a question mark at the end or not. You know damn good and well what he said, and it sure as **** wasn't what you said he said. Apologize - my ass.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I asked a ****ing question. If you aren't man enough to admit your mistake and apologize for it, so be it. |
This is interesting....
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:19:05 -0500, NotNow wrote:
John H. wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:10:23 -0500, Tosk wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:16:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:11:54 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 7:10 am, Tosk wrote: In article , says... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:41:32 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c....View&FileStor... So as a man who studies this type of thing in much more depth than I, what do you think of our "significant" number of BOEs as compared to all other countries with the exception of Russia? Noted that the vast majority of our reserves are in coal. Two things come immediately to mind. One - we need to make more use of the proven coal reserves up to and including gasification, liquification and burning. We need to work on clean coal technology and CO2 sequestration by allowing more pilot plants and research into various techniques. That's where we seem to be failing miserably. A recent example is what's happened in Lindon, NJ. I forget the company, but they wanted to build a 750 megawatt coal fired station, sequester the CO2 by pumping it offshore into a salt dome where it woud stay permanently locked up. The technology is available now and it seems like a good concept. Unfortunetly, the Enviromentalists are creating havoc with the plan to the point where it probably will be abandoned thus losing the facility and needed power generation. Two - we need to start exploring and drilling off on our own to see what may, or may not, be easily accessible onshore, inshore and offshore. There are some areas off New Jersey and California that appear to have the correct geological formations (domes, salt domes and such) to contain easily recoverable oil - some think the equal of all that Arabian Peninsula has ever contained, but we aren't allowed to drill for various reasons - mostly political. And it's not like new discoveries are impossible - consider Brazil's Guari and Tupi fields which are recent discoveries - it's out there, we just have to find it. Here's a list for you to consider - the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1,000,000 BTUs. Natural Gas: 1,000 cubic feet Coal: 83.34 pounds @ 12,000 Btu/pound Propane: 10.917 gallons @ 91,000 Btu/gallon Gasoline: 8.0 gallons @125,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #2: 7.194 gallons @ 139,000 Btu/gallon Fuel Oil #6: 6.67 gallons @ 150,000 Btu/gallon You'd need a lot of wind farms and solar panels to produce similar results to fossil fuels. Nice summary....we have some work to do, particularly on the political front. What cracks me up is the idea that a 100 by 100 foot fenced off area for drilling might hurt migrating animals, but 40 acres of solar panels is just fine... ;) -- Wafa free again.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If a fence is put across a migration route, that's totally different from a solar array that is off of the ground. Solar arrays do their best in the desert, where there's lots of sunshine. They also need water for cooling, which is not all that plentiful in the desert. Actually, solar arrays do their best where there's lots of sunshine and cool temperatures. Then, you don't need any cooling. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/bu...t/30water.html or: http://tinyurl.com/yftpjv8 Now nuclear would be a good idea, but most liberals try to push something else. They really don't want to solve the problem. Nuclear is a good idea. The French and the Brits use lots of it. They'd rather make Al Gore, et al, very, very, rich. Wonder how much money Gore shoves in 'Bama's direction? Those pesky Nobel people. They'll never learn! You keep showing yourself for what you are. I'm sure those pesky, noble, Nobel people are getting their cut also. The Nobel is just a popularity contest, really has nothing significant to do or prove.. It's a joke, has been for decades... More and more I think it's a money making proposition for the AGW crowd. We know the Canadians are an honest bunch: http://www.canadafreepress.com/printpage.php I believe the scam is much, much bigger than shown there. Mo But not much has been heard about any scam investigation since 'Bama took office. I wonder why? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17814838 http://www.nextgenpe.com/news/boliva...n-offset-scam/ Just type carbon offset scam and get your 24 million hits. Don't you think Gore, 'Bama, et al, have their fingers in that big pot they keep passing around? Not as big of a pot as the pig trough Bush and Cheney are feeding from. Remember Halliburton? Yeah, now 'Bama's feeding from the Halliburton pot also. You really should get your head out of the sand. Oh, and learn what the 'Bush Rationale' is. You keep using it to justify your boy, 'Bama. But he's still a loser. I like your attitude though. "Bush was a loser, therefore it's OK for 'Bama to be a loser also." Typical liberal ****. -- Loogy says: Conservative = Good Liberal = Bad I agree. John H |
This is interesting....
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:56:12 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote: On Nov 4, 3:38*pm, John H. wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:05:31 -0500, NotNow wrote: John H. wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Yes, they ignore the pipeline because it was built so that they COULD walk under them. Many types of tundra animals use the EXACT same route and have for thousands of years. I've been to many many drilling rigs also. They are nasty, stinky, they use a lot of chemicals in the process, and you can't tell me that wildlife would thrive in that environment. Wildlife do fine around people. They have a huge deer problem in downtown Washington DC. I damned near hit two of them on the Whitehurst freeway. (Georgetown) I have also flown at low altitude over arrays of wind turbines and was appalled at how destructive they were to the environment. *Each required a road to service the turbine regularly and the turbines were like ugly blotches *on the *ridges. *By contrast, the average producing oil well can barely be noticed even from low altitude and gas wells are even more invisible. So, gas and oilwells don't need servicing? Funny, every one I've ever seen has a road going to it...... The biggest danger to caribou in that situation is getting hit by a truck. Normally the biggest danger to caribou is they get killed by wolves but you folks got mad when the people in Alaska tried to thin out the wolves so I am confused. Do you really give a **** about caribou or is this just another way to demonize oil companies? WHOOOOOSH....... So, let me get this straight. Because nature is what it is, and yes, wolves eat caribou, you think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all........just because in the wild there is natural selection? Did you get that directly from Rush, because that's just a dumb position. Unfortunately disease kills children. Does that mean that we should stop keeping poison out of their reach? There you go with the words again, Loogy. Go read his post. He said nothing of the sort. Saying, "You think that we should do anything and everything to make sure we kill them all" is a f'ing lie. You're doing a lot of that lately. Guess who it's reminiscent of? Uh, John, it wasn't a lie, it was a friggin QUESTION. I don't suppose you'll apologize for calling me a liar either. Guess who that's reminiscent of? Your throwing a question mark in there does not change the statement. You need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths, whether you throw a question mark at the end or not. You know damn good and well what he said, and it sure as **** wasn't what you said he said. Apologize - my ass.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I asked a ****ing question. If you aren't man enough to admit your mistake and apologize for it, so be it. So be it. Well, gosh, if Bush did it then a little on the side is OK for Obama, right? (That's called the 'Bush Rationale', which you did quite well.) Is Haliburton not employed by Obama also? Perhaps there is more there than meets the eye. Could 'Bama be getting as much from Halliburton (aka 'KBR') as Cheney ever dreamed of (in your mind? http://www.crocodyl.org/wiki/kbr -- Loogy says: Conservative = Good Liberal = Bad I agree. John H |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com