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.

On Nov 3, 5:58*pm, 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.


Frog, if you were in my area you'd find out why I am disagreeing with
you. Oil wells in my part of the state (and yes, there's hundreds of
them) require a lot of maintenance. Pumpers check the wells daily
which means traveling in and out of oil lease roads one or two times a
day. Crude oil is pumped into a "210" (210 bbl. tank) and when full,
they are siphoned into a tanker semi0truck to be hauled to the
refinerie[s]. Not only so, but occasionally, you have to have the
pump jack (Oh man! I forgot... ANOTHER JACK!) to have lower check pump
maintenance, fracking, acidizing and what not. Oh, yeah, not counting
hauling away the accumulation of salt water that gets pumped up with
the crude oil to an injection well to put it back underground where it
came from.

Most of the wells in my area are powered by electric motors so there
goes strain on the coal burning electric companies, how ever a few
still run off of their own natural gas via a Fairbanks-Morse or Arrow
(243) hit and miss engine. with flares burning up the access gas.

There's a lot more to a S. Illinois oil well than what you would think.

In article 7e3c6525-7172-4f0b-a6b2-eba4150304c6
@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Nov 3, 5:58*pm, 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.


Frog, if you were in my area you'd find out why I am disagreeing with
you. Oil wells in my part of the state (and yes, there's hundreds of
them) require a lot of maintenance. Pumpers check the wells daily
which means traveling in and out of oil lease roads one or two times a
day. Crude oil is pumped into a "210" (210 bbl. tank) and when full,
they are siphoned into a tanker semi0truck to be hauled to the
refinerie[s]. Not only so, but occasionally, you have to have the
pump jack (Oh man! I forgot... ANOTHER JACK!) to have lower check pump
maintenance, fracking, acidizing and what not. Oh, yeah, not counting
hauling away the accumulation of salt water that gets pumped up with
the crude oil to an injection well to put it back underground where it
came from.

Most of the wells in my area are powered by electric motors so there
goes strain on the coal burning electric companies, how ever a few
still run off of their own natural gas via a Fairbanks-Morse or Arrow
(243) hit and miss engine. with flares burning up the access gas.

There's a lot more to a S. Illinois oil well than what you would think.

My original point was about the footprint and the caribou. We have
destroyed most of the points the "other side" has made, but I am yet to
see any of them admit it. Harryism, all the way...

--
Wafa free again.

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.

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. :)

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.

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
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. :)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. The local indians going to object to that
also?

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:16:32 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
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. :)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. The local indians going to object to that
also?

Dunno...

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:16:32 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
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. :)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. The local indians going to object to that
also?

Dunno...

Neighbor, golf and poker buddy, in the energy business, says that the
wind turbines are better at self destructing than they are at generating
power. The asian and american manufacturers all have the same problems.
The can't stop the blades from spinning out of control and ripping the
whole unit apart.

On Nov 4, 10:24*pm, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...







On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:16:32 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:h1o2f55iekdj4hjoouf9bk3vm2b3ncqh17@4a x.com...
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...26/2_tribes_ob....

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...torials/articl....

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. *:)

There are proposals to turn old near shore drilling platforms in the Gulf of
MX in to Wind Turbine supports. *The local indians going to object to that
also?

Dunno...

Neighbor, golf and poker buddy, in the energy business, says that the
wind turbines are better at self destructing than they are at generating
power. The asian and american manufacturers all have the same problems.
The can't stop the blades from spinning out of control and ripping the
whole unit apart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Funny, there's places right here in the U.S. that have thousands upon
thousands of operational wind turbines.