It has made the national news now, a giant 500' x 600' x 150' deep sink hole
has formed inside a small Texas town. It is sucking up vehicles, buildings
and trees. Arial camera views from a helicopter are perfect for viewing how
ever, "business as usual" a member of congress has decided that he needs to
spend more of the tax payers money to fly down and see for him self.
Perhaps he plans to use all his hot air to reinflate the salt dome that is
collapsing.
http://www.click2houston.com/video/16211395/index.html
On May 9, 11:13=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> It has made the national news now, a giant 500' x 600' x 150' deep sink ho=
le
> has formed inside a small Texas town. =A0It is sucking up vehicles, buildi=
ngs
> and trees. =A0Arial camera views from a helicopter are perfect for viewing=
how
> ever, "business as usual" a member of congress has decided that he needs t=
o
> spend more of the tax payers money to fly down and see for him self.
>
> Perhaps he plans to use all his hot air to reinflate the salt dome that is=
> collapsing.
>
> http://www.click2houston.com/video/16211395/index.html
Man-o-man. One of the loveliest towns in all of Ontario, Goderich,
sits on many, many years of salt excavation. I'm not sure how much of
the town is sitting on top of excavated salt, but...I think about it
every time I spend some leisure time there.
http://www.goderich.ca/
I think Lew has visited there. Isn't it nice?
On May 9, 8:55=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This is not an issue of "drilling". =A0Find out what it costs to extract
> oil from oil shale and you'll find that it's not economically feasible
> at this time.
Cite, please.
On May 11, 5:12 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ..
>
> > French environmentalist Bruno Comby started the group
> > Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy, and says, "If well-managed,
> > nuclear energy is very clean, does not create polluting gases in the
> > atmosphere, produces very little waste and does not contribute to
> > the
> > greenhouse effect"."
>
> Three cheers for the French. What does this have to do with
> "legislatures"?
>
The French Legislature considered that they had no oil and
no coal, and therefore concluded that they had no choice.
--
FF
"Lee K" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Drill where?
>
>There's ANWR, an area the size of SC where they would create an oil field
>the size of NYC's Central Park and contains billions of barrels of oil.
So, let us analyze this a bit:
ANWR is estimated to have between 5 and 15 BBBL of oil. The US
uses 9MBBL of oil per day. So, if we drill ANWAR, we'll have covered
3 years of US consumption assuming 10BBBL recoverable.
Is it worth the time, expense and effort to develop ANWR for that?
(yes, I understand that they'll only be pumping maybe 100KBBL/day, so
it lasts longer, but it makes little dent in the 9MBBL/day US consumption).
>There's the Gulf Coastline, not drilling there is not going to prevent
There is plenty of drilling off the Gulf coastline, or haven't you
been there recently?
>Offshore west coast.
Very difficult to develop. There are estimates of up to 11BBBL of
undiscovered oil in the federal offshore areas of CA, OR, WA. This
is another three years worth at full bore, so here again, drilling
the coast is only a stop-gap measure.
> Develop the oil shale/sands in CO, WY, Dakotas.
Being done as we speak. Viability only because of high bbl price.
Sure, all these areas will be economically viable for the oil companies
to develop. They'll have little effect on either the price of oil, or
the US consumption thereof.
Note also that the Oil companies, for the most part, don't pay the spot
market price for their crude; particularly on wholly owned fields. The
production costs are a fraction of the spot market price, and the rest
is pure profit, particularly for the companies who manage the entire chain
from exploration, production, and refining to retail sales.
scott
(Last estimate I saw for production costs on a mature field were in the
USD10-20 BBL range).
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lee K wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lee K wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> evodawg wrote:
>>>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has made the national news now, a giant 500' x 600' x 150'
>>>>>>> deep
>>>>>>> sink hole
>>>>>>> has formed inside a small Texas town. It is sucking up
>>>>>>> vehicles,
>>>>>>> buildings
>>>>>>> and trees. Arial camera views from a helicopter are perfect
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> viewing how ever, "business as usual" a member of congress has
>>>>>>> decided that he needs to spend more of the tax payers money to
>>>>>>> fly
>>>>>>> down and see for him self.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps he plans to use all his hot air to reinflate the salt
>>>>>>> dome
>>>>>>> that is collapsing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.click2houston.com/video/16211395/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Congress answer to everything, throw money at it and it will go
>>>>>> away.
>>>>>> Or instead of determining the problem, (Gas and Oil industry)
>>>>>> tax
>>>>>> their profits... How about allowing them to freakin DRILL!!!!
>>>>>> God,
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> hate our government! Vote all the asses out!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Drill where?
>>>>
>>>> There's ANWR, an area the size of SC where they would create an
>>>> oil
>>>> field the size of NYC's Central Park and contains billions of
>>>> barrels
>>>> of oil.
>>>
>>> Uh huh, they're going to solve the world's energy problems with an
>>> area the size of a rich guy's back yard. How long will "billions
>>> of
>>> barrels" last?
>>
>> You said "Drill where" and there's an area. How long will billions
>> of
>> barrels last? Longer than not having our own billions of barrels.
>> Drill there.
>
> Will it last long enough to make any kind of real difference?
Until we drill there, we won't know, will we? How long have we been getting
oil out of the North Slope fields? What were their projected reserves vs
what the yield has been, and continues to be? What, if any, environmental
damage has been caused? Why should the experience with ANWR be worse?
>
>>>> There's the Gulf Coastline, not drilling there is not going
>>>> to prevent environmental risks, since Cuba is beginning drilling
>>>> on
>>>> their side.
>>>
>>> In what "gulf" do you believe Cuba to be located? If you mean the
>>> Gulf of Mexico, when did they _stop_ drilling there?
>>
>> We're talking a huge expansion in drilling. Cubans are looking to
>> develop these feilds with Chinese help. So, you're saying we
>> shouldn't drill in the Gulf because Cuba is already doing it?
>
> Where in what gulf is Cuba drilling?
>
> And when did the United States stop drilling in the Gulf of Mexico?
> What do you think all those big structures on stilts off the coast
> are? Vacation homes?
Off the shores of Florida, specifically. How many wells do you see there?
None, nada, zip. All the wells you cite are off Texas and Louisiana.
>
>>>> Offshore west coast.
>>>
>>> How much oil is there that has not already been tapped?
>>
>> Who knows, since all exploration is outlawed. Again, this is in
>> response to your "Drill where?" query. After all these options are
>> proposed, and you reject them all, you'll then say "Why don't these
>> oil companies do something?".
>
> No, I don't expect oil companies to be able to make oil. It's running
> out. Deal with it.
Deal with it by finding more. This country is not going to stop using oil
overnight, or over decades. We need more domestic sources and we have to
stop tying our own hands in the search. YOU deal with it.
>
>>>> Develop the oil shale/sands in CO,
>>>> WY, Dakotas.
>>>
>>> This is not an issue of "drilling". Find out what it costs to
>>> extract oil from oil shale and you'll find that it's not
>>> economically feasible at this time.
>>
>> ??!! "Not economically feasible at this time"? OK, you said find
>> out what it costs to extract oil from oil shale (and sands), so here
>> it is: "The cost of a barrel of oil extracted from the shale ranges
>> from as high as US$95 per barrel to as low US$12 per barrel. However
>> it would be prudent to think that costs would be inline with those
>> of
>> the Tar sands and so an oil price in the US$30-40 per barrel range
>> would be considered realistic for them to be profitable."
>
> According to who? And what does mining rock have to do with
> "drilling"?
It's oil that's the issue, you're anal retentive to focus only on 'drilling'
as a means of obtaining it.
>
>> It seems to me we need to develop these huge areas if only in our
>> self
>> interest to eliminate our dependence and vulnerability to
>> mid-eastern
>> politics and Venezuelan nut-jobs. Even if these areas prove to be
>> more expensive, albeit marginally, they are OUR areas, and profits
>> and jobs are HERE, taxes paid are into U.S. and state coffers, not
>> some Sheik's.
>
> And what does King Abdulla do with his European and Russian and
> Chinese and Japanese money? He buys a shitload of _American_ stuff.
Really? What stuff are we making that they're buying a shitload of?
>
>>>> Additional fields in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico
>>>> that were not economically viable at $30 a barrel oil but now seem
>>>> cheap at $125 oil.
>>>
>>> What's preventing them from being used?
>>
>> The run-up to $125 has been so quick these areas are only now being
>> developed.
>
> So you're saying that they're being developed but it's illegal to
> develop them?
Where did I say that? I referred to the economics of the situation, not the
legality.
>
>>>> Here's a quote from a decade old report: "During the 1970's and
>>>> 80's, exploration effort focused on finding billion-barrel
>>>> fields --
>>>> fields of less than several hundred million barrels were
>>>> considered
>>>> uneconomic at anything less than the inflated prices of the early
>>>> 1980's. Only a few fields were discovered that fulfilled the
>>>> apparent
>>>> size requirements. However, today, accumulations as small as 50
>>>> million barrels are considered to be of economic interest."
>>>
>>> Yeah, but how long is 50 million barrels going to last? The
>>> message
>>> here is that we're scraping the bottom of the barrel, not that
>>> we're
>>> going to solve the problem with more diligent scraping.
>>
>> Again, you say "Drill where" and when areas of potential are pointed
>> out you immediately naysay. 50,000,000 barrels of oil at $125 a
>> barrel is $6,250,000,000. Get a few areas, or a hundred areas of
>> that size and you begin to talk about real money. Dollars that stay
>> here.
>
> Oh, I see, as long as somebody makes money it doesn't matter if any
> problems get solved. 50 million barrels of oil is 2 days supply for
> the US. You really think that that's going to solve any long-term
> problems?
>
> The solution to the problem is not scraping for the last drops of oil,
> the solution is to just plain stop using the stuff. But it's too late
> for that because of the actions of a bunch of nuts who fought every
> possible alternative.
So your solution is to stop using the stuff because we're scraping for the
last drops, but then say it's too late to stop using the stuff that's about
to run out. I guess, according to you, we then run on virtual oil, since we
won't stop using the stuff when it's no longer there. Number yourself
amongst those who fight every alternative. Reminds me of my daughter when
she was about 3 years old and wanted three cookies. My wife offered her
two, but she was so stubborn that, if she couldn't get three cookies, she
didn't want the two being offered either.
J. Clarke wrote:
> Lee K wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> evodawg wrote:
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It has made the national news now, a giant 500' x 600' x 150'
>>>>> deep
>>>>> sink hole
>>>>> has formed inside a small Texas town. It is sucking up vehicles,
>>>>> buildings
>>>>> and trees. Arial camera views from a helicopter are perfect for
>>>>> viewing how ever, "business as usual" a member of congress has
>>>>> decided that he needs to spend more of the tax payers money to
>>>>> fly
>>>>> down and see for him self.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps he plans to use all his hot air to reinflate the salt
>>>>> dome
>>>>> that is collapsing.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.click2houston.com/video/16211395/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Congress answer to everything, throw money at it and it will go
>>>> away.
>>>> Or instead of determining the problem, (Gas and Oil industry) tax
>>>> their profits... How about allowing them to freakin DRILL!!!!
>>>> God,
>>>> I
>>>> hate our government! Vote all the asses out!!!!
>>>
>>> Drill where?
>>
>> There's ANWR, an area the size of SC where they would create an oil
>> field the size of NYC's Central Park and contains billions of
>> barrels
>> of oil.
>
> Uh huh, they're going to solve the world's energy problems with an
> area the size of a rich guy's back yard. How long will "billions of
> barrels" last?
>
Well, as an outside guess (since I didn't ask, I'm not going to google oil
consumption statistics), I'd say a darn sight longer than 0 barrels of oil
which is what we are getting from there now. Kind of like the original
argument against drilling in ANWR about 10 years ago when the liberal
senator made the comment that it would be 10 years before anything would
come from drilling there. Guess what? It's 10 years later and we've now got
NOTHING because of doofus arguments like that.
>> There's the Gulf Coastline, not drilling there is not going
>> to prevent environmental risks, since Cuba is beginning drilling on
>> their side.
To be more precise, China is drilling off the coast of Cuba.
.. snip
>> Here's a quote from a decade old report: "During the 1970's and
>> 80's, exploration effort focused on finding billion-barrel fields --
>> fields of less than several hundred million barrels were considered
>> uneconomic at anything less than the inflated prices of the early
>> 1980's. Only a few fields were discovered that fulfilled the
>> apparent
>> size requirements. However, today, accumulations as small as 50
>> million barrels are considered to be of economic interest."
>
> Yeah, but how long is 50 million barrels going to last? The message
> here is that we're scraping the bottom of the barrel, not that we're
> going to solve the problem with more diligent scraping.
>
No, the argument here is that small pockets of oil are economically
feasible to develop now.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On May 10, 5:25 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>
> The solution to the problem is not scraping for the last drops of oil,
> the solution is to just plain stop using the stuff. But it's too late
> for that because of the actions of a bunch of nuts who fought every
> possible alternative.
>
> ...
They're not nuts. They just expect to be dead by the time
the oil runs out, or at least wealthy enough that they can
take advantage of the economic collapse.
OTOH, they do manage to get a fair number of nuts to
support them, as does every other person who has
or seeks money or power. Petroleum may run out
but there will always be nuts enough for everyone.
--
FF
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote
> On the news last night they said "officials don't know what is behind the
> sink hole" There's NOTHING behind it. If there was something behind it,
> the hole would not keep sinking.
Could it be that Leon has secretly completed his one-of-each Festool
collection and the suckage is so hard that ... hmmmm?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lee K wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lowell Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>>> The whole world is using atomic power plants, but
>>>> our legislatures know better and we can't do it.
>>>
>>> The US has something like 65 commercial power reactors in
>>> operation,
>>> that's in addition to numerous research reactors, military
>>> reactors,
>>> etc. That's about as many as in the entire EU. The only other
>>> single nation which has anything approaching that number of working
>>> reactors is Japan.
>>
>>
>> I suggest you look at France as an example of nuclear power
>> generation and usage, especially the French company Areva
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva). As of 2002 there were 59
>> nuclear power plants in France, generating about 79% of the
>> country's
>> usage, plus significant exports. As of 2005, there were 104
>> licensed
>> nuclear power plants in the U.S. 103 of which were in operation,
>> generating about 20% of electrical power used. "In the USA, AREVA is
>> present in 40 locations across 20 states and employs 5,000 people.
>> AREVA supplies network products to two-thirds of all US utilities.
>> Moreover, AREVA was ranked the #1 US supplier in nuclear energy
>> products and services, in Energy Management Systems and in Energy
>> Market Systems. Its US headquarters are located in Bethesda, MD.
>>
>> You might find the following of interest:
>> "At the time of the 1973 oil crisis, most of France's electricity
>> came from foreign oil. France was strong in heavy engineering
>> capabilities, but had few indigenous energy resources,[2] so the
>> French government decided to invest heavily in nuclear power, and
>> France installed 56 reactors over the next 15 years.[7] President of
>> Electricite de France Laurent Striker said, "France chose nuclear
>> because we have no oil, gas or coal resources, and recent events
>> have
>> only reinforced the wisdom of our choice".[9]
>>
>> Areva NC claims that, due to their reliance on nuclear power,
>> France's
>> carbon emissions per kWh are less than 1/10 that of Germany and the
>> UK, and 1/13 that of Denmark, which has no nuclear plants. Its
>> emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide have been reduced by
>> 70% over 20 years, even though the total power output has tripled in
>> that time.
>>
>> French environmentalist Bruno Comby started the group
>> Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy, and says, "If well-managed,
>> nuclear energy is very clean, does not create polluting gases in the
>> atmosphere, produces very little waste and does not contribute to
>> the
>> greenhouse effect"."
>
> Three cheers for the French. What does this have to do with
> "legislatures"?
>
You should ask that of yourself. I was responding to your commentary on
nuclear power, which itself was a non-response to the prior poster's
comments on "legislatures".
Look to the top of this post to refresh your memory.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lowell Holmes wrote:
>
>> The whole world is using atomic power plants, but
>> our legislatures know better and we can't do it.
>
> The US has something like 65 commercial power reactors in operation,
> that's in addition to numerous research reactors, military reactors,
> etc. That's about as many as in the entire EU. The only other single
> nation which has anything approaching that number of working reactors
> is Japan.
I suggest you look at France as an example of nuclear power generation and
usage, especially the French company Areva
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva). As of 2002 there were 59 nuclear
power plants in France, generating about 79% of the country's usage, plus
significant exports. As of 2005, there were 104 licensed nuclear power
plants in the U.S. 103 of which were in operation, generating about 20% of
electrical power used. "In the USA, AREVA is present in 40 locations across
20 states and employs 5,000 people. AREVA supplies network products to
two-thirds of all US utilities. Moreover, AREVA was ranked the #1 US
supplier in nuclear energy products and services, in Energy Management
Systems and in Energy Market Systems. Its US headquarters are located in
Bethesda, MD.
You might find the following of interest:
"At the time of the 1973 oil crisis, most of France's electricity came from
foreign oil. France was strong in heavy engineering capabilities, but had
few indigenous energy resources,[2] so the French government decided to
invest heavily in nuclear power, and France installed 56 reactors over the
next 15 years.[7] President of Electricite de France Laurent Striker said,
"France chose nuclear because we have no oil, gas or coal resources, and
recent events have only reinforced the wisdom of our choice".[9]
Areva NC claims that, due to their reliance on nuclear power, France's
carbon emissions per kWh are less than 1/10 that of Germany and the UK, and
1/13 that of Denmark, which has no nuclear plants. Its emissions of nitrogen
oxide and sulfur dioxide have been reduced by 70% over 20 years, even though
the total power output has tripled in that time.
French environmentalist Bruno Comby started the group Environmentalists For
Nuclear Energy, and says, "If well-managed, nuclear energy is very clean,
does not create polluting gases in the atmosphere, produces very little
waste and does not contribute to the greenhouse effect"."
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> evodawg wrote:
>
> Drill where?
For starters, Colorado, The Gulf of Mexico the California coast line.
The only undrilled place in the US with proven reserve is
> the Strategic Oil Reserve, which is there in case of a
> survival-of-the-nation need such as WWII. Drilling there in the
> absence of such need (and keeping oil prices down for another few
> years is not such a need) is not a solution to any problem.
Oil can still be had from where we have drilled. The problem is that it is
now unlawful to continue drilling/exploring there. The only reason we use
OPEC is because their oil is easier to obtain.
"Lee K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
I've resisted getting into this, but the thing that is scary to me is that
the U.S. has no inventory of hard manufactured goods, no inventory of
petroleum, and our money is all paper. Part of the rising cost is caused by
the devalued dollar. We are broke! The world is hungry and we are paying our
farmers to let their land lay idle. We make fuel out of corn and the cost of
food is going up all over the world.
The only inventory we have is bull shit and political wrangling. The liberal
/ conservative warfare going on in our country is paralyzing us. We will not
drill in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and we know Cuba is going to take that
oil. If we nationalize our medicine, where will the Canadian hospitals send
their overflow (people they can't or will not treat.) The whole world is
using atomic power plants, but our legislatures know better and we can't do
it. If we erect wind generators, the bird nuts have a fit.
....................................... . . . .
Well, I have to go take my grandson for a walk. I hope I can do it without
crying. :-)
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It has made the national news now, a giant 500' x 600' x 150' deep sink
> hole has formed inside a small Texas town. It is sucking up vehicles,
> buildings and trees. Arial camera views from a helicopter are perfect for
> viewing how ever, "business as usual" a member of congress has decided
> that he needs to spend more of the tax payers money to fly down and see
> for him self.
>
> Perhaps he plans to use all his hot air to reinflate the salt dome that is
> collapsing.
>
> http://www.click2houston.com/video/16211395/index.html
>
On the news last night they said "officials don't know what is behind the
sink hole" There's NOTHING behind it. If there was something behind it,
the hole would not keep sinking.
"Upscale" wrote
>
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> > Could it be that Leon has secretly completed his one-of-each Festool
> > collection and the suckage is so hard that ... hmmmm?
>
> Or else it's just a bottomless pit that's mirroring the bottomless pit of
> tool money that Leon seems to have.
Leon's an exceptionally talented woodworker and obviously a financially
prudent fellow, both of which, without doubt, have much to do with his tool
buying acumen.
> If I ever meet the guy, I'm gonna make
> sure he buys the food and beer.
IME, not a problem ... you will most likely have had to fight him for the
privilege of paying
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On May 9, 8:04 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 9, 8:55 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > This is not an issue of "drilling". Find out what it costs to extract
> > oil from oil shale and you'll find that it's not economically feasible
> > at this time.
>
> Cite, please.
A contra-cite, not the one you are looking for, but here is the topic
form another view. This is about 7 months old, but it claims
profitability at $30 a barrel, using shale available in almost
unlimited quantities here in the USA.
http://tinyurl.com/ywczhp
A one off, the good folks of CA are now processing their "oil sand" as
fast as they can to sell. Technologies improve, methodologies
improve, and with the upswing in oil prices the impetus to find the
substitutes we need for foreign crude has been set in motion.
Finally.
Robert
"evodawg" wrote
> Congress answer to everything, throw money at it and it will go away. Or
> instead of determining the problem, (Gas and Oil industry) tax their
> profits... How about allowing them to freakin DRILL!!!! God, I hate our
> government! Vote all the asses out!!!!
We should start with the "asses" in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which has effectively shut down exploration based on lawsuits filed by
hysterical, psuedo-environmentalist.
You can't get more "environmentally conscious" than most European countries
on the North Sea, and they somehow manage to both drill, and appease their
"environmentalist" in a manner that suits everyone.
There are far too many close minded in this country.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Could it be that Leon has secretly completed his one-of-each Festool
> collection and the suckage is so hard that ... hmmmm?
Or else it's just a bottomless pit that's mirroring the bottomless pit of
tool money that Leon seems to have. If I ever meet the guy, I'm gonna make
sure he buys the food and beer.
evodawg wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>> It has made the national news now, a giant 500' x 600' x 150' deep
>> sink hole
>> has formed inside a small Texas town. It is sucking up vehicles,
>> buildings
>> and trees. Arial camera views from a helicopter are perfect for
>> viewing how ever, "business as usual" a member of congress has
>> decided that he needs to spend more of the tax payers money to fly
>> down and see for him self.
>>
>> Perhaps he plans to use all his hot air to reinflate the salt dome
>> that is collapsing.
>>
>> http://www.click2houston.com/video/16211395/index.html
>
> Congress answer to everything, throw money at it and it will go
> away.
> Or instead of determining the problem, (Gas and Oil industry) tax
> their profits... How about allowing them to freakin DRILL!!!! God,
> I
> hate our government! Vote all the asses out!!!!
Drill where? The only undrilled place in the US with proven reserve is
the Strategic Oil Reserve, which is there in case of a
survival-of-the-nation need such as WWII. Drilling there in the
absence of such need (and keeping oil prices down for another few
years is not such a need) is not a solution to any problem.
The solution, which will take decades to implement, is to QUIT USING
OIL. The utility industry had a _good_ start on it in the '60s, then
the environmental whackos shut that down. The Navy the same but
Congress was more interested in cutting purchase costs than life-cycle
costs so that ended.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lee K wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> evodawg wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> It has made the national news now, a giant 500' x 600' x 150'
>>>> deep
>>>> sink hole
>>>> has formed inside a small Texas town. It is sucking up vehicles,
>>>> buildings
>>>> and trees. Arial camera views from a helicopter are perfect for
>>>> viewing how ever, "business as usual" a member of congress has
>>>> decided that he needs to spend more of the tax payers money to
>>>> fly
>>>> down and see for him self.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps he plans to use all his hot air to reinflate the salt
>>>> dome
>>>> that is collapsing.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.click2houston.com/video/16211395/index.html
>>>
>>> Congress answer to everything, throw money at it and it will go
>>> away.
>>> Or instead of determining the problem, (Gas and Oil industry) tax
>>> their profits... How about allowing them to freakin DRILL!!!!
>>> God,
>>> I
>>> hate our government! Vote all the asses out!!!!
>>
>> Drill where?
>
> There's ANWR, an area the size of SC where they would create an oil
> field the size of NYC's Central Park and contains billions of
> barrels
> of oil.
Uh huh, they're going to solve the world's energy problems with an
area the size of a rich guy's back yard. How long will "billions of
barrels" last?
> There's the Gulf Coastline, not drilling there is not going
> to prevent environmental risks, since Cuba is beginning drilling on
> their side.
In what "gulf" do you believe Cuba to be located? If you mean the
Gulf of Mexico, when did they _stop_ drilling there?
> Offshore west coast.
How much oil is there that has not already been tapped?
> Develop the oil shale/sands in CO,
> WY, Dakotas.
This is not an issue of "drilling". Find out what it costs to extract
oil from oil shale and you'll find that it's not economically feasible
at this time.
> Additional fields in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico
> that were not economically viable at $30 a barrel oil but now seem
> cheap at $125 oil.
What's preventing them from being used?
> Here's a quote from a decade old report: "During the 1970's and
> 80's, exploration effort focused on finding billion-barrel fields --
> fields of less than several hundred million barrels were considered
> uneconomic at anything less than the inflated prices of the early
> 1980's. Only a few fields were discovered that fulfilled the
> apparent
> size requirements. However, today, accumulations as small as 50
> million barrels are considered to be of economic interest."
Yeah, but how long is 50 million barrels going to last? The message
here is that we're scraping the bottom of the barrel, not that we're
going to solve the problem with more diligent scraping.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> It has made the national news now, a giant 500' x 600' x 150' deep
>> sink hole has formed inside a small Texas town. It is sucking up
>> vehicles, buildings and trees. Arial camera views from a
>> helicopter
>> are perfect for viewing how ever, "business as usual" a member of
>> congress has decided that he needs to spend more of the tax payers
>> money to fly down and see for him self.
>>
>> Perhaps he plans to use all his hot air to reinflate the salt dome
>> that is collapsing.
>>
>> http://www.click2houston.com/video/16211395/index.html
>>
>
> On the news last night they said "officials don't know what is
> behind
> the sink hole" There's NOTHING behind it. If there was something
> behind it, the hole would not keep sinking.
<rimshot>
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lee K wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lee K wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> evodawg wrote:
>>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It has made the national news now, a giant 500' x 600' x 150'
>>>>>> deep
>>>>>> sink hole
>>>>>> has formed inside a small Texas town. It is sucking up
>>>>>> vehicles,
>>>>>> buildings
>>>>>> and trees. Arial camera views from a helicopter are perfect
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> viewing how ever, "business as usual" a member of congress has
>>>>>> decided that he needs to spend more of the tax payers money to
>>>>>> fly
>>>>>> down and see for him self.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps he plans to use all his hot air to reinflate the salt
>>>>>> dome
>>>>>> that is collapsing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.click2houston.com/video/16211395/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Congress answer to everything, throw money at it and it will go
>>>>> away.
>>>>> Or instead of determining the problem, (Gas and Oil industry)
>>>>> tax
>>>>> their profits... How about allowing them to freakin DRILL!!!!
>>>>> God,
>>>>> I
>>>>> hate our government! Vote all the asses out!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Drill where?
>>>
>>> There's ANWR, an area the size of SC where they would create an
>>> oil
>>> field the size of NYC's Central Park and contains billions of
>>> barrels
>>> of oil.
>>
>> Uh huh, they're going to solve the world's energy problems with an
>> area the size of a rich guy's back yard. How long will "billions
>> of
>> barrels" last?
>
> You said "Drill where" and there's an area. How long will billions
> of
> barrels last? Longer than not having our own billions of barrels.
> Drill there.
Will it last long enough to make any kind of real difference?
>>> There's the Gulf Coastline, not drilling there is not going
>>> to prevent environmental risks, since Cuba is beginning drilling
>>> on
>>> their side.
>>
>> In what "gulf" do you believe Cuba to be located? If you mean the
>> Gulf of Mexico, when did they _stop_ drilling there?
>
> We're talking a huge expansion in drilling. Cubans are looking to
> develop these feilds with Chinese help. So, you're saying we
> shouldn't drill in the Gulf because Cuba is already doing it?
Where in what gulf is Cuba drilling?
And when did the United States stop drilling in the Gulf of Mexico?
What do you think all those big structures on stilts off the coast
are? Vacation homes?
>>> Offshore west coast.
>>
>> How much oil is there that has not already been tapped?
>
> Who knows, since all exploration is outlawed. Again, this is in
> response to your "Drill where?" query. After all these options are
> proposed, and you reject them all, you'll then say "Why don't these
> oil companies do something?".
No, I don't expect oil companies to be able to make oil. It's running
out. Deal with it.
>>> Develop the oil shale/sands in CO,
>>> WY, Dakotas.
>>
>> This is not an issue of "drilling". Find out what it costs to
>> extract oil from oil shale and you'll find that it's not
>> economically feasible at this time.
>
> ??!! "Not economically feasible at this time"? OK, you said find
> out what it costs to extract oil from oil shale (and sands), so here
> it is: "The cost of a barrel of oil extracted from the shale ranges
> from as high as US$95 per barrel to as low US$12 per barrel. However
> it would be prudent to think that costs would be inline with those
> of
> the Tar sands and so an oil price in the US$30-40 per barrel range
> would be considered realistic for them to be profitable."
According to who? And what does mining rock have to do with
"drilling"?
> It seems to me we need to develop these huge areas if only in our
> self
> interest to eliminate our dependence and vulnerability to
> mid-eastern
> politics and Venezuelan nut-jobs. Even if these areas prove to be
> more expensive, albeit marginally, they are OUR areas, and profits
> and jobs are HERE, taxes paid are into U.S. and state coffers, not
> some Sheik's.
And what does King Abdulla do with his European and Russian and
Chinese and Japanese money? He buys a shitload of _American_ stuff.
>>> Additional fields in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico
>>> that were not economically viable at $30 a barrel oil but now seem
>>> cheap at $125 oil.
>>
>> What's preventing them from being used?
>
> The run-up to $125 has been so quick these areas are only now being
> developed.
So you're saying that they're being developed but it's illegal to
develop them?
>>> Here's a quote from a decade old report: "During the 1970's and
>>> 80's, exploration effort focused on finding billion-barrel
>>> fields --
>>> fields of less than several hundred million barrels were
>>> considered
>>> uneconomic at anything less than the inflated prices of the early
>>> 1980's. Only a few fields were discovered that fulfilled the
>>> apparent
>>> size requirements. However, today, accumulations as small as 50
>>> million barrels are considered to be of economic interest."
>>
>> Yeah, but how long is 50 million barrels going to last? The
>> message
>> here is that we're scraping the bottom of the barrel, not that
>> we're
>> going to solve the problem with more diligent scraping.
>
> Again, you say "Drill where" and when areas of potential are pointed
> out you immediately naysay. 50,000,000 barrels of oil at $125 a
> barrel is $6,250,000,000. Get a few areas, or a hundred areas of
> that size and you begin to talk about real money. Dollars that stay
> here.
Oh, I see, as long as somebody makes money it doesn't matter if any
problems get solved. 50 million barrels of oil is 2 days supply for
the US. You really think that that's going to solve any long-term
problems?
The solution to the problem is not scraping for the last drops of oil,
the solution is to just plain stop using the stuff. But it's too late
for that because of the actions of a bunch of nuts who fought every
possible alternative.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lowell Holmes wrote:
> The whole world is using atomic power plants, but
> our legislatures know better and we can't do it.
The US has something like 65 commercial power reactors in operation,
that's in addition to numerous research reactors, military reactors,
etc. That's about as many as in the entire EU. The only other single
nation which has anything approaching that number of working reactors
is Japan.
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lee K wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lowell Holmes wrote:
>>
>>> The whole world is using atomic power plants, but
>>> our legislatures know better and we can't do it.
>>
>> The US has something like 65 commercial power reactors in
>> operation,
>> that's in addition to numerous research reactors, military
>> reactors,
>> etc. That's about as many as in the entire EU. The only other
>> single nation which has anything approaching that number of working
>> reactors is Japan.
>
>
> I suggest you look at France as an example of nuclear power
> generation and usage, especially the French company Areva
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva). As of 2002 there were 59
> nuclear power plants in France, generating about 79% of the
> country's
> usage, plus significant exports. As of 2005, there were 104
> licensed
> nuclear power plants in the U.S. 103 of which were in operation,
> generating about 20% of electrical power used. "In the USA, AREVA is
> present in 40 locations across 20 states and employs 5,000 people.
> AREVA supplies network products to two-thirds of all US utilities.
> Moreover, AREVA was ranked the #1 US supplier in nuclear energy
> products and services, in Energy Management Systems and in Energy
> Market Systems. Its US headquarters are located in Bethesda, MD.
>
> You might find the following of interest:
> "At the time of the 1973 oil crisis, most of France's electricity
> came from foreign oil. France was strong in heavy engineering
> capabilities, but had few indigenous energy resources,[2] so the
> French government decided to invest heavily in nuclear power, and
> France installed 56 reactors over the next 15 years.[7] President of
> Electricite de France Laurent Striker said, "France chose nuclear
> because we have no oil, gas or coal resources, and recent events
> have
> only reinforced the wisdom of our choice".[9]
>
> Areva NC claims that, due to their reliance on nuclear power,
> France's
> carbon emissions per kWh are less than 1/10 that of Germany and the
> UK, and 1/13 that of Denmark, which has no nuclear plants. Its
> emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide have been reduced by
> 70% over 20 years, even though the total power output has tripled in
> that time.
>
> French environmentalist Bruno Comby started the group
> Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy, and says, "If well-managed,
> nuclear energy is very clean, does not create polluting gases in the
> atmosphere, produces very little waste and does not contribute to
> the
> greenhouse effect"."
Three cheers for the French. What does this have to do with
"legislatures"?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
The Strategic Oil Reserve is oil that has already been pumped and is stored
in places along the Gulf of Mexico.
--
Mike
Watch for the bounce.
If ya didn't see it, ya didn't feel it.
If ya see it, it didn't go off.
Old Air Force Munitions Saying
IYAAYAS
"evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:mZ%Uj.1879$Uz2.1731@trnddc06...
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> "evodawg" wrote
>>
>>> Congress answer to everything, throw money at it and it will go away. Or
>>> instead of determining the problem, (Gas and Oil industry) tax their
>>> profits... How about allowing them to freakin DRILL!!!! God, I hate our
>>> government! Vote all the asses out!!!!
>>
>> We should start with the "asses" in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
>> which has effectively shut down exploration based on lawsuits filed by
>> hysterical, psuedo-environmentalist.
>
> Oh do I agree with that.
>
>>
>> You can't get more "environmentally conscious" than most European
>> countries on the North Sea, and they somehow manage to both drill, and
>> appease their "environmentalist" in a manner that suits everyone.
>
> You saw that report to. Trying to remember where I heard this. Could it
> been
> Fox News?
>
>>
>> There are far too many close minded in this country.
>
> Understatement of the year!
>
> --
> "You can lead them to LINUX
> but you can't make them THINK"
> Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> On the news last night they said "officials don't know what is behind the
> sink hole" There's NOTHING behind it. If there was something behind it,
> the hole would not keep sinking.
>
I have it on good authority that there have been black helicopters hovering
near by before all this started.
Leon wrote:
> It has made the national news now, a giant 500' x 600' x 150' deep sink
> hole
> has formed inside a small Texas town. It is sucking up vehicles,
> buildings
> and trees. Arial camera views from a helicopter are perfect for viewing
> how ever, "business as usual" a member of congress has decided that he
> needs to spend more of the tax payers money to fly down and see for him
> self.
>
> Perhaps he plans to use all his hot air to reinflate the salt dome that is
> collapsing.
>
> http://www.click2houston.com/video/16211395/index.html
Congress answer to everything, throw money at it and it will go away. Or
instead of determining the problem, (Gas and Oil industry) tax their
profits... How about allowing them to freakin DRILL!!!! God, I hate our
government! Vote all the asses out!!!!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Swingman wrote:
> "evodawg" wrote
>
>> Congress answer to everything, throw money at it and it will go away. Or
>> instead of determining the problem, (Gas and Oil industry) tax their
>> profits... How about allowing them to freakin DRILL!!!! God, I hate our
>> government! Vote all the asses out!!!!
>
> We should start with the "asses" in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
> which has effectively shut down exploration based on lawsuits filed by
> hysterical, psuedo-environmentalist.
Oh do I agree with that.
>
> You can't get more "environmentally conscious" than most European
> countries on the North Sea, and they somehow manage to both drill, and
> appease their "environmentalist" in a manner that suits everyone.
You saw that report to. Trying to remember where I heard this. Could it been
Fox News?
>
> There are far too many close minded in this country.
Understatement of the year!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:26b17ff4-a85a-4af4-8cb1-2b66fe5cd85e@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 9, 8:55 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This is not an issue of "drilling". Find out what it costs to extract
> oil from oil shale and you'll find that it's not economically feasible
> at this time.
Cite, please.
ROTFLMAO
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lee K wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> evodawg wrote:
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It has made the national news now, a giant 500' x 600' x 150'
>>>>> deep
>>>>> sink hole
>>>>> has formed inside a small Texas town. It is sucking up vehicles,
>>>>> buildings
>>>>> and trees. Arial camera views from a helicopter are perfect for
>>>>> viewing how ever, "business as usual" a member of congress has
>>>>> decided that he needs to spend more of the tax payers money to
>>>>> fly
>>>>> down and see for him self.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps he plans to use all his hot air to reinflate the salt
>>>>> dome
>>>>> that is collapsing.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.click2houston.com/video/16211395/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Congress answer to everything, throw money at it and it will go
>>>> away.
>>>> Or instead of determining the problem, (Gas and Oil industry) tax
>>>> their profits... How about allowing them to freakin DRILL!!!!
>>>> God,
>>>> I
>>>> hate our government! Vote all the asses out!!!!
>>>
>>> Drill where?
>>
>> There's ANWR, an area the size of SC where they would create an oil
>> field the size of NYC's Central Park and contains billions of
>> barrels
>> of oil.
>
> Uh huh, they're going to solve the world's energy problems with an
> area the size of a rich guy's back yard. How long will "billions of
> barrels" last?
You said "Drill where" and there's an area. How long will billions of
barrels last? Longer than not having our own billions of barrels. Drill
there.
>
>> There's the Gulf Coastline, not drilling there is not going
>> to prevent environmental risks, since Cuba is beginning drilling on
>> their side.
>
> In what "gulf" do you believe Cuba to be located? If you mean the
> Gulf of Mexico, when did they _stop_ drilling there?
We're talking a huge expansion in drilling. Cubans are looking to develop
these feilds with Chinese help. So, you're saying we shouldn't drill in the
Gulf because Cuba is already doing it?
>
>> Offshore west coast.
>
> How much oil is there that has not already been tapped?
Who knows, since all exploration is outlawed. Again, this is in response to
your "Drill where?" query. After all these options are proposed, and you
reject them all, you'll then say "Why don't these oil companies do
something?".
>
>> Develop the oil shale/sands in CO,
>> WY, Dakotas.
>
> This is not an issue of "drilling". Find out what it costs to extract
> oil from oil shale and you'll find that it's not economically feasible
> at this time.
??!! "Not economically feasible at this time"? OK, you said find out what
it costs to extract oil from oil shale (and sands), so here it is: "The
cost of a barrel of oil extracted from the shale ranges from as high as
US$95 per barrel to as low US$12 per barrel. However it would be prudent to
think that costs would be inline with those of the Tar sands and so an oil
price in the US$30-40 per barrel range would be considered realistic for
them to be profitable."
It seems to me we need to develop these huge areas if only in our self
interest to eliminate our dependence and vulnerability to mid-eastern
politics and Venezuelan nut-jobs. Even if these areas prove to be more
expensive, albeit marginally, they are OUR areas, and profits and jobs are
HERE, taxes paid are into U.S. and state coffers, not some Sheik's.
>
>> Additional fields in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico
>> that were not economically viable at $30 a barrel oil but now seem
>> cheap at $125 oil.
>
> What's preventing them from being used?
The run-up to $125 has been so quick these areas are only now being
developed.
>
>> Here's a quote from a decade old report: "During the 1970's and
>> 80's, exploration effort focused on finding billion-barrel fields --
>> fields of less than several hundred million barrels were considered
>> uneconomic at anything less than the inflated prices of the early
>> 1980's. Only a few fields were discovered that fulfilled the
>> apparent
>> size requirements. However, today, accumulations as small as 50
>> million barrels are considered to be of economic interest."
>
> Yeah, but how long is 50 million barrels going to last? The message
> here is that we're scraping the bottom of the barrel, not that we're
> going to solve the problem with more diligent scraping.
Again, you say "Drill where" and when areas of potential are pointed out you
immediately naysay. 50,000,000 barrels of oil at $125 a barrel is
$6,250,000,000. Get a few areas, or a hundred areas of that size and you
begin to talk about real money. Dollars that stay here.
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> Drill where? The only undrilled place in the US with proven reserve
> is
> the Strategic Oil Reserve, which is there in case of a
> survival-of-the-nation need such as WWII. Drilling there in the
> absence of such need (and keeping oil prices down for another few
> years is not such a need) is not a solution to any problem.
>
> The solution, which will take decades to implement, is to QUIT USING
> OIL. The utility industry had a _good_ start on it in the '60s,
> then
> the environmental whackos shut that down. The Navy the same but
> Congress was more interested in cutting purchase costs than
> life-cycle
> costs so that ended.
If a way can be found to clean up coal, we will have gone a long way
toward solving the energy problem.
Lew
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> evodawg wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>> It has made the national news now, a giant 500' x 600' x 150' deep
>>> sink hole
>>> has formed inside a small Texas town. It is sucking up vehicles,
>>> buildings
>>> and trees. Arial camera views from a helicopter are perfect for
>>> viewing how ever, "business as usual" a member of congress has
>>> decided that he needs to spend more of the tax payers money to fly
>>> down and see for him self.
>>>
>>> Perhaps he plans to use all his hot air to reinflate the salt dome
>>> that is collapsing.
>>>
>>> http://www.click2houston.com/video/16211395/index.html
>>
>> Congress answer to everything, throw money at it and it will go
>> away.
>> Or instead of determining the problem, (Gas and Oil industry) tax
>> their profits... How about allowing them to freakin DRILL!!!! God,
>> I
>> hate our government! Vote all the asses out!!!!
>
> Drill where?
There's ANWR, an area the size of SC where they would create an oil field
the size of NYC's Central Park and contains billions of barrels of oil.
There's the Gulf Coastline, not drilling there is not going to prevent
environmental risks, since Cuba is beginning drilling on their side.
Offshore west coast. Develop the oil shale/sands in CO, WY, Dakotas.
Additional fields in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico that were not
economically viable at $30 a barrel oil but now seem cheap at $125 oil.
Here's a quote from a decade old report: "During the 1970's and 80's,
exploration effort focused on finding billion-barrel fields -- fields of
less than several hundred million barrels were considered uneconomic at
anything less than the inflated prices of the early 1980's. Only a few
fields were discovered that fulfilled the apparent size requirements.
However, today, accumulations as small as 50 million barrels are considered
to be of economic interest."