| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#91
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
This is interesting....
"NotNow" wrote in message ... 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...... Commercial Solar Arrays are huge and they are near the ground. Costs lots of money to raise them in to the air. Other than the ones like at Cal Expo, and my local Junior College, that are on platforms over the parking lot, they are on the ground. I do not know ff the big solar heated power plant at Barstow is still operating, but all the mirrors were near the ground and the tower was a couple hundred feet tall. There were no animals running around them, except maybe a mouse or rat. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/28751.pdf has pictures of the plant. |
|
#92
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
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... |
|
#94
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other couple million acres alone. Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure. Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it would take years before it could be gotten. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#95
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 ANWR is 20 million acres, in that area you can find some pristine views. Hell you can find pristine views in the San Francisco Bay area, over near Wildcat Canyon, etc. But the whole area is not pristine. And they are looking at drilling on 2000 acres. I'm sure there's no place on earth that would be off limits to some people. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#96
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 SF should never have been allowed to put up the Hetch Hetchy dam. There were proposals to dam Yosemite Valley also. But there is a heck of a difference in a small area in a populated area being preserved as opposed to 20 million acres. That is larger than several of the states. ANWR is about the size of South Carolina. Actually, not that much difference as you'd imagine. What's the justification for damaging wildlife refuge? It's certainly not vast quantities of oil. It's certainly not about getting it to the lower 48 in the next several years. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#97
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other couple million acres alone. Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure. Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it would take years before it could be gotten. -- Nom=de=Plume NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control? |
|
#98
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other couple million acres alone. Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure. Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it would take years before it could be gotten. -- Nom=de=Plume NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control? How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear. Definitely NIMBY. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#99
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 No, we drill on the couple square miles needed and leave the other couple million acres alone. Right. We can helicopter it out. Sure. Besides, the oil won't have much of an effect on the supply and it would take years before it could be gotten. -- Nom=de=Plume NIMBY. So then we drill off California. No? Better to drill in the desert of the Middle East? Send them the money and control? How about stop thinking that drilling for oil is going to solve our problems. How about alternative energy, including nuclear. Definitely NIMBY. -- Nom=de=Plume I have supported nuclear for as long as there has been nuclear power plants. But you still need oil. Plastic for boats (at least on topic), chemicals, fertilizer and fuel for vehicles until they can come up with a long range, fuel cell boat hauler. |
|
#100
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is interesting....
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Well that was interesting... | General | |||
| Well, that was interesting... | General | |||
| A visit with an interesting guy who builds an interesting boat.... | General | |||
| Interesting way to help the Bay... | General | |||
Linear Mode
